HomeMy WebLinkAboutWAFFLE HOUSE - FDP - 17-02A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONSPrevious plans indicated existing water service was just south of the existing building. This
plan shows the existing water service in the driveway. If this is correct, this is a problem —
the meter pit and curb stop can not be located in the driveway, which would create the need
for a different (new) tap location.
New curb stop and meter pit (see drawings for location). Abandon existing water service
see note 14 on Site Plan.
Topic: Overall Utility Plan
86
Plans call for up -sizing the existing water service. Provide flow rate demands for our review
to make sure that flows don't exceed meter capacity.
87
Related to other comments, show and label location of meter pit and curb stop. Meter pit
and curb stop may not be place in traveled way. Provide the standard meter pit and water
service details on the detail sheet.
88
Utility plans indicate 2 water services. Our records only indicate one water service. Field
locate and correctly show all existing water/sewer services.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: General
1
Please REMOVE signage from building elevations - separate review and permit is required.
We don't want it included in the approved PDP as it may cause confusion in later years.
Signage is not specific to those locations you have shown, only specific to allotment and
location at the time a sign permit is applied for and issued. FYI we have a Neighborhood
Sign District in which we require that signs be shown and approved as part of the PDP, but
this is not in that District. Please contact zoning at 221-6760 if you need clarification.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6225.
Sincerely,
Clark Mapes
City Planner
Page 7
PFA has no new comments. Comments dated 5/1/02 still pertain.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
47
Repeat Comment - 8/20/02 The report is sufficient and all data is present, but flows need to
be calculated for the 100-year storm and the minor(10-year) storm, not just the minor storm.
Also, the minimum time of concentration the City uses is 5 minutes. With a 5 minute T.O.C.
and using 100-year storm, i= 9.95 inches/hour. Please revise calculations. Please include a
drainage report with existing and proposed flows with supporting calculations, (C-factors,
T.O.C., etc.). Discuss how flow is either reduced or the same as existing conditions. Also,
discuss how water quality will be improved with the green space at the south of the lot. The
green space provides a break in imperviousness as discussed in Volume 3 of the UDCM.
94
The drainage to the south edge of the site looks like it is creating a number of questions and
problems. First, the alley drains north. Second, the big elm tree is in a raised area that
blocks the swale. Third, the swale is virtually up against the north side of the adjacent
building, where winter shadow will tend to create freezing and accumulation of
snow/slush/ice. Fourth, the swale is shown as a shrub planting with thick, thorny shrubs
which would tend to obstruct drainage. Should the whole site simply drain south and east?
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
56
1. There is neither a report nor calculations
2. Plan needs to have standard erosion control notes.
Topic: Grading Plan
55
Repeat Comment - 8/20/02. The site plan shows a curb along the south side of the parking
lot and the grading plan shows no curb. It is assumed that a concrete strip curb is proposed
that will be flush with the asphalt to allow drainage to flow into the swale. Please clarify.
84
The flow in the alley heads north, not south as shown with the flow arrows on the grading
plan. The corner lot elevations on the grading plan also show the grading sloping to the
north. Is the intent still for the site grading to slope to the south when the surrounding area
slopes to the north? This would create two vertical "lips" where the two sloping planes
meet. Please clarify.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Landscape Plans
89
Correctly show all existing water and sewer services.
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Call Jeff Hill at 221-6700 with any
questions.
Done.
Topic: Site Plan
85
Page 6
82
Most of these comments are repeat comments and need to be addressed. If you have any
questions regarding the engineering comments, please contact Katie Moore at (970) 221-
6605.
83
Please remember to include all redlines with resubmittals. I did not receive my site plan
redlines with this resubmittal. (8.12.02)
92
A CDOT access permit will be required of this project since College Ave is a State Highway.
Please contact Tess Jones of the Region 4 Traffic office for further information.
93
Please show any street cuts needed. If street cuts are needed in College Avenue, a CDOT
Utility Access Permit will be required. Also, please add the following note to the plans if a
cut is needed: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the
field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs are to be in accordance with City street
repair standards.
Topic: Grading Plan
37
Please provide off -site contours and spot grades to show how the site fits into the
surrounding context. Generally, contours should be extended a minimum of 50' offsite to
show drainage patterns.
80
Please more clearly label existing contours.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Topic: General
43
Address Numerals: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property,
and posted with a minimum of 6-inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze
numerals on brown brick are not acceptable) 97 UFC 901.4.4
44
Water Supply: No commercial building can be greater then 300 feet from a fire hydrant.
Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual
pressure of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2
45
A Hood and Duct Fire Suppression system shall be required. The system plans shall be
submitted to Joe Jaramillo (PFA) for review and approval prior to installation.
Topic: Utility Plans
48
Page 5
Topic: Demolition Plan
24
Is note #9 needed? It seems that all existing asphalt is planned to be demolished.
Topic: General
13
Clearly dimension and label all ROW/easements/property lines on all plans.
Labeled and Dimensioned.
18
Please see redlined plans for additional comments.
Redlines updated.
42
Existing features should be shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits on utility
plans.
Refer to Contextual Site Plan.
66
Please match site, landscape and utility plans (i.e. - driveway radius).
Done.
76
Please bind the sheets for the utility plan set. Stapling the sheets would be acceptable, but
loose sheets are not.
77
Alley improvements will not be required at this time, but the Waffle House will be responsible
for their portion of alley improvements at such time as the City deems the improvements
should be made.
78
As stated in the attached letter, the variance request for parking setbacks was only partially
improved. Parking space #1 needs to be removed.
Setback is now at 46'-10". Space #1 has become handicap stripping and Space #2 is now a
handicap parking space. This has been approved by Katie Moore per our phone
conversation on January 31, 2003 at 11:15 am.
79
With the wheel stops added in the parking lot, the parking spaces are reduced by 2 feet, not
meeting the minimum 17' length. Related to this, is a concrete edge needed to contain the
asphalt so it doesn't crumble over time? The whole design of this strip needs to be clarified.
Curb and gutter around parking lot. 17' setback has been met.
81
FYI- City will not maintain special paving patterns in the ROW.
The City has requested for an enhanced crosswalk.
Also, building footing/eaves/etc. must not extend into the ROW.
Noted on drawings.
Page 4
Department: Engineering
Topic: Utility Plans
19
Please re -title the cover sheet as:
Utility Plans for
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave.
Lot 9, Block 126, City of Fort Collins
Month, 2002
(Repeat 8.12.02)
Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Larimer County, Colorado
20
Benchmarks should be referenced in note #40. A separate heading is not needed. Please
be sure to reference two benchmarks, as required. (repeat 8.12.02) The descriptions of the
benchmarks are still missing.
21
Please label the topographic survey as (for information only) on the index, and rename
sheet c-1 as the Overall Utility Plan.
22
Please locate the city's signature block on the lower right hand corner of each sheet except
for the topographic survey (typ).
25
Please provide a legend for each sheet.
26
Please show existing features with a ghosted line weight
Topic: Overall Utility Plan (C-1)
28
Please show and label driveway as concrete to the ROW line.
29
Please show existing buildings adjacent to the site as well as the east edge of the alley
ROW.
30
Where does the gas line go (north side of the building)? Is this a new gas line in a utility
easement on adjacent property? Does it go under the wall? Is there room for a meter
between the wall and the building? Previous comments from Xcel noted that existing
service is'/4" and questioned whether that would need to be reinforced.
31
Please show the existing driveway to the north of the site.
34
Please remove unnecessary items as redlined.
Page 3
latitude, the proposed commercial building should be in more in character with the historic
context, without direct imitation of the historic style.
2. 3.5.3(D)(1) - The building design does not contribute to the uniqueness of the CC district
with urban design characteristics that the standards require. Materials and elements are
not adequately tailored specifically to the site and its CC District context.
3. 4.14(E)(2)d - The 20-foot minimum height standard is to define the street as a space - as
a wall defines a room as a space - and to add architectural interest consistent with the zone
district. As discussed, it is not to add small peak elements onto otherwise low buildings.
The CC District originally had a standard requiring at least a second story on buildings,
consistent with the description of this district in City Plan. A later compromise was made to
require the minimum height but not necessarily an actual second story. The compromise is
to prompt consideration of a second story, and achieve some of the urban design effects if
an actual second story is not feasible. The addition of the small peaked protrusion does not
meet this intent.
The building technically meets the minimum 20-foot height standard due to a loophole
created by the wording. As discussed in the meetings, the wording allows for a low -slung
building to meet the minimum height if a narrow point is added anywhere on the building.
Therefore, staff is not requesting revisions based on the height standard. However,
additional height along the street may be needed to provide room for the design revisions
noted below.
Suggested Revisions.
1. An overhanging, 3-dimensional cornice where a flat roof is used. Overhanging eaves with
trim, fascia, brackets, etc. would be appropriate where a sloped roof is used.
2. Prominent, 3-dimensional sills under windows. Precast concrete products exist which
would work well for sills and cornices while remaining compatible with the block masonry.
Also, identify window trim materials and colors on elevations.
3. Some kind of frieze panel, where signage could go, defined by detailing in the masonry.
Is architectural lighting the appropriate way to light the panel?
4. Why not end the awning at the north edge of the building, to emphasize the major
difference and transition between the north and south sides of the building? This minor
element would reinforce the fit of the building to its location. Plus, is there room for it to
extend north?
5. The Hardiplank siding on the back of the peak is not needed for historic compatibility, so
do not feel obligated to include it as a response to staff on that point.
6. Plans and elevations do not show any rooftop mechanical equipment. Is it all contained
within the structure? It needs to be, so that it is not seen from above (upper floors of
existing or future buildings in the area) or from the ground. Any vents, conduit, meters, etc.
that protrudes from the architecture must be painted to match.
Sit- ARCH. E C.E✓AvolvS.
Topic: Site Plan
95
Please call Clark Mapes to discuss the colored and scored concrete panels. Will the acute
angles be durable? Does the gray border visually reduce the width of the sidewalks? How
will this be done?
The concrete panel score mark patterns have changed to eliminate acute angles. The pads
are specified to be all the same color (buff).
Page 2
6a
Citvof Fort Collins
Responses to Comments
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
LAND IMAGES
MICHAEL CHALONA
215 W. MAGNOLIA ST. #202
FT. COLLINS, CO 80521
Date: 2/14/03
Staff has reviewed your submittal for WAFFLE HOUSE, 616 S. COLLEGE AVE. PDP -
TYPE 1 (LUC), and we offer the following comments. Comments are listed by department.
The comment numbers are part of our internal system only and are not in any particular
order.
ISSUES:
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: Building Compatibility
68
These comments essentially reiterate what was discussed in two meetings with the
applicants, first in March and then in late April to discuss previous comments.
The standards cited previously in meetings and comments (Sections 3.4.7, 3.5.3, and 4.14)
are not adequately met by the addition of the raised peak at the entrance and the masonry
stripes at the top and bottom of the building.
General Comments. The architecture should be more tailored to this Fort Collins
Community Commercial district, with more prominent detail characteristics to complement
the historic character of the adjacent Darrah House, which would then serve to meet
standards for Mixed Use and Commercial Buildings as well. These different considerations
would work well together to shape a building design consistent with the CC zone district.
The CC zone district is for mixed -use town centers, as distinctly opposed to suburban
shopping center -type development. Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan language on CC
districts includes: "The physical environment will provide a high quality urban life ... with
vertical mixed use encouraged... uniquely distinct, identifiable places... architectural character
of individual buildings will be coordinated and contribute to a coherent identity and sense of
place... building massing... should relate to nearby buildings and the urban context..."
Specific Comments.
1. 3.4.7(A)(2) - The building design does not adequately respect the historic character of
the adjacent building, and adversely affects the integrity of the resource, with an overall: "
approach more in keeping with a suburban shopping center. 3.4.7(B) - The building design
does not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic
property, and is not compatible with the historic character. 3.4.7(E)(2) - The building is not
in character with the existing historic structure.
As discussed, there is plenty of latitude to accommodate the large difference between the
proposed commercial building and the existing residential structure. However, within this
Page 1