HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSComment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Child Care Center regulations require 40 sguare feet of indoor
space be reseserved for school purposes, per child. Please show these calculations.
Response: 40 square feet of indoor space per child has been included in the building design and
additions to the building provide the needed area to provide 2 classrooms of 14 children in the
first phase and a future 31d classroom also of 14 children. See figures shown on revised site
plan.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Any such play area on the site of the child care center within
or abutting any residential district shall be enclosed by a decorative solid wood fence,
masonry wall or chain link fence with vegetation screening, densely planted. The
height of such fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with Section
3.8.11.
Response: Planning staff mentioned that further discussions were required for this item. We will
discuss fence heights with planning and update site plan accordingly.
Page 27 of 27
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcqov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please provide elevations for the child care center trash and recycling
enclosure.
Response: The site plan currently illustrates a trash and recycling enclosure. However, based
on recent discussions between Seth Lorson and Greg Fisher, the trash & recycle bins for the
child care center will be concealed within the fencing of the play area and thus a separate
designated enclosure will not be provided. If this is acceptable the site plan will be revised for
the next submittal showing the previous enclosure area converted to parking.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Due to the change in grade on the 8 north lots the basement level may be
considered a story. We defer to the the building code (2012 IRC) which states:
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its
finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which
the finished surface of the floor next above is: 1. More than
6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or 2. More than 12
feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
We will need the elevations to show the finished floor heights and the grade planes.
Response: Grade planes and relative finish floor heights have been added to the elevations.
The grade plane and relative dimensions to finish floor heights have also been depicted on
the half -story analysis sheets for each unit type.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Any retaining walls over 48" require a permit and would need to meet the
setbacks.
Response: No retaining walls are presently proposed.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Child Care Center regulations require 1,200 SF of outdoor
play area for 15 children or less. For 15 or more the requirement is 75 SF per child for
33% of the child capacity of the center. Please show these calculations.
Response: Figures are shown on site plan based on 28 kids short term, 42 kids long term.
Page 26 of 27
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
03/11/2015: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City
of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If you
have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Response: Landscape list has been updated.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
03/11/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit.
The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the
Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at
221-6704 or eolson@fcqov.com
Response: Understood
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The waterline is required to be looped into another connection point of
our system. The City prefers this to be the water line in the multi -family development
to the east. Please revise accordingly.
Response: The water is now looped to Stuart.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The water service configuration needs to be per the redlines on sheet 3 of
the Utility Plan set. This includes an additional curb stop off of the main water service
line and additional easement.
Response: Tap configuration has been updated — the project will use internal meters.
Page 25 of 27
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot
corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at icounty@fcoov.com
Response: Monument Records have been emailed to Jeff County.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please change ""See Note 7" to a 1. See redlines.
Response: The note was revised
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Response: Legal description has been updated on site plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or
reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been updated accordingly.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: We'll need figure out if a variance is needed for the outbound drive or not,
and whether any parking needs to be restricted for sight distance.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: TIS has been reviewed and the conclusions accepted
Response: Understood.
Page 24 of 27
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum:
2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM)
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed.
NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
+ X.XX'
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or
reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response. Plans have been updated accordingly.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: There is a typo in the legal description. See redlines.
Response: Corrected
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please change "Engineering Department" to "Clerk" in the Notice Of
Other Documents. See redlines.
Response: Revised as requested
Page 23 of 27
out and included in the Drainage Report. Please contact Utilities for a copy of the
form.
Response: Report has been revised and compliance form has been completed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please provide an updated hydraulic model confirming that releasing the
site's drainage without detention will not not increase the peak flows in Spring Creek.
Response: This model was provided and still is in the appendix of the report. It is a re -run of the
SWMM model with discussion.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: An opportunity for additional porous pavers can be achieved with the
eastern most drive aisle east of the day care. This would bring the total closer to the
standard.
Response: We have rerouted the waterline and sewer mains to increase the pavers on the site.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The water quality pond needs to meet our Detention Pond Landscape
Standards and the requirements of the Environmental Planner.
Response: Landscape plans have been updated accordingly.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Any plan sheets filed in color will be rejected.
Response: Understood.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the
following information in the EXACT format shown below.
Response: Cover has been revised.
If your project is started on NAVD88 datum:
1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
Page 22 of 27
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, please label all elevations
shown on the XS lines as being in NAVD88 datum. e.g. XS#10535 5954.88 FT
(NAVD88). In addition, all of the elevations shown in the Spring Creek floodplain
model were calculated in NGVD29, and 3.0 feet was added to convert to NAVD88.
Since the City now is using the NAVD88 datum, the correct conversion should be
used. Please adjust the XS's to the correct NAVD88 elevations. In this instance, the
conversion is 3.17 feet. Because the conversion is not 3.0 feet anymore, the BFE
lines are all incorrect. They can be omitted from the Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan.
Response: The cross section BFE elevations have been raised and the BFE lines have been
adjusted for the new cross section elevations (up 0.1 T).
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, at the bottom of page 1, and again at the bottom
of page 5, the FEMA FIRM Panel number is cited. There are two panels for this
property, so in addition to citing 08069C0938H, please add 08069C0979H. Also, the
effective date is May 2, 2012 not 2013.
Response: Report has been updated.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, include a copy of the FEMA FIRM Panels, with
the development highlighted.
Response: Maps have been added.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In Section 3.6 of the Drainage Report, when discussing the no -rise
conditions and returning ground to existing grades after installation of the bike trail
and outlet pipe, refer to the floodway, not the floodplain. Any work in the flood fringe,
(water quality pond, etc.) does not have to be returned to existing grade. All work in
the floodplain has to have a floodplain use permit, but only work in the floodway has to
have a no -rise certification.
Response: The report has been revised. We understand we will need a permit and no rise
certification during final design.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, add discussion of the location of the buildings in
relation to the floodplain. Discuss the separation between the four nearest buildings
and note that there will be survey required prior to construction proving that the
buildings are indeed located outside of the flood plain (See the first floodplain
comment above).
Response: The buildings have been moved out of the floodplan and the report has been revised
discussing the changes.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please explain how the site is meeting or exceeding the LID
requirements in the drainage report. An alternative compliance form needs to be filled
Page 21 of 27
03/25/2015: On the Site Plan, the four northernmost structures are shown a few feet
outside of the floodplain boundary. We strongly encourage you to move these
buildings further back from the floodplain. It is highly likely that a lender/insurance
agent will call these structures in the floodplain and future owners will then be
subject to flood insurance purchase requirements.
Response: Proposed buildings and lot lines have been moved out of the floodplain.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please show the distance between the floodplain boundary and the
nearest foundation walls (to 0.1' accuracy) of all four buildings. We will require separate
documentation at the time of construction, from a registered land surveyor, proving that
the buildings are not in the floodplain.
Response: A floodplain sheet has been added to the set and the dimensions are shown. A
graphic demonstrating the location of the building in relationship to the floodplain will be provided
with the final plan submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Grading Plan, it appears that the finished floor elevations of the
basements of the four buildings along the floodplain boundary match existing grade.
Due to the strong likelihood of flooding, as well as our experience with the 1997 Spring
Creek Flood, we strongly recommend that the lowest floor of these four buildings be
elevated a minimum of 18-inches above the corresponding Base Flood Elevation.
This will also reduce flood insurance costs if a lender requires flood insurance.
Response: The walkout condition has been removed and the north walls of these buildings will
be filled in the flood fringe substantially above the BFE.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Portions of
this property are located in the FEMA-regulatory Spring Creek 100-year floodplain and
all development must the satisfy requirements of Chapter 10 of City Code."6
Response: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Prior to
beginning any work in the flood fringe (detention pond, bike trail, landscaping, etc.) an
approved floodplain use permit is required."4
Response: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Prior to
beginning any work in the flood way (stormwater outlet pipe, rip -rap, bike trail, etc.) an
approved no -rise certificate is required."Z
Response: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, include the finished floor
elevations of the four buildings along the floodplain boundary, as was done on the
Grading Plan.
Response: Elevations have been added — a separate floodplain sheet has been added to the
set.
Page 20 of 27
situation, the turning radius needs to be increased to compensate for the drive land
width restrictions.
Response: The returns were left in the same location and the Autoturn confirms adequate
easement and pavement is provided.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: RETAINING WALLS
Depending upon location and height, retaining walls may prohibit fire access which
has otherwise been provided for with the site plan. Please add the location and height
of the retaining walls to the site plan.
Response: Retaining walls have been eliminated between buildings, with the exception of the low
retaining walls between abutting driveways at Units 5-14 & 23-30. The change in grade between
these walls is approximately 32"
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015:
While it is difficult to clearly ascertain from the elevations provided with the project
submittal, the height of the building standards, described as ARCHITECTURAL
UNITS B1 & 132, may exceed the 30' building height limitation in certain areas of the
articulated roof lines. If so, the building heights need to be adjusted or aerial
apparatus fire lane standards shall apply. Further details will be required. Refer to IFC
Appendix D105.1 for further details.
Response: Building heights have been measured from the point of fire department access to the
midpoint of the highest roof plane (per IBC & IFC definition). When measured to this standard
some roofs were in fact found to exceed 30' and have been modified to be in compliance with the
standards of IFC Appendix D 105.1. Refer to the resubmitted architectural elevations.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam@fcclov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area,
therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The
erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control
Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan,
Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need
clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse
Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam@fcgov.com
Response: A report will be prepared during final design.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcciov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 19 of 27
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, siorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Comcast -
Facility needs to be in a 6' utility easement. Comcast would like to joint trench with Fort
Collins Light and Power. See exhibit.
Don Kapperman 970-567-0245
Response: Comcast has adequate area to joint trench with the power layout shown.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: MINIMUM FIRE ACCESS
The City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority have adopted the 2012
International Fire Code. Each new project, triggering a development code review is
required to meet minimum standards for fire access and water supply as specified in
the IFC or local amendments.
The River Modern site plan has been reviewed against the fire code and a few
details remain outstanding before the site plan is considered compliant with
minimum standards. A dedicated fire lane has been proposed and, once modified as
further outlined below, it will ensure all portions of every building perimeter will be
within 150' from the fire access road. The proposed hydrant plan meets minimum
standards and is acceptable in it's present state.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT
A conflict is shown on the site plan where the EAE limits overlap with designated
parking along the central drive aisle. As long as the drive aisle meets minimum city
standards, the fire marshal has approved the EAE reduction to 16' in this limited portion
of the site.
Response: The easement has been revised. An Autoturn has been submitted separately to
Jim.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: TURNING RADII
The site plan has provided for 25' inside turning radii. This code requirement is
intended to apply to 20' wide fire lanes. When the fire lane is reduced, as in this
Page 18 of 27
1. Addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final
approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City.
Response: Understood.
2. Two street names are requested to aid in the proper addressing for emergency
response. The first is for the private drive running north/south and accessing from
Stuart St. The second is the private drive running east/west accessing lots 15-22.
Street names can be requested through the City of Fort Collins GIS Office and
should be noted on the subdivision plat. The current street name reservation list and
guidelines for street names can be found at http://Iarimer.org/streets/.
Response: Street Names have been added to the plans (Cherokee Drive and
Watercourse Way)
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Light and Power has electric facilities on the Southside of Stuart St. that
could be utilized to provide power.
Response: We will coordinate with light & power with final design
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Will the Child Care Facility need three phase power? If so please provide
a C-1 form and a one -line —diagram. The C-1 form can be found at: :
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Response: At this point in time it is not anticipated that the child care facility will need three
phase power in the first phase of improvements. Should that change. a C-1 form will be
provided prior to building permit submittal.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and
electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Response: Interwest met with Luke on 4-14-15. The power routing and easements shown on
the submittal are adequate for his needs.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Please contact Luke at Light and Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 416-2724. Please reference our policies, development charge processes,
and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-
developers
Response: Understood. Thank you.
Page 17 of 27
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Response: Acknowledged
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC.
2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial
chapter.
Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these
requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone
number.
River Modern — project specific concerns:
1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required in all duplexes and property line townhomes.
2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler.
3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24"
4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units.
The proposed project consists of single family attached dwellings on separately sold lots and
as such is exempted by C.R.S. 9-5-105(1).
5. New Green Code requires:
a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
b. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
e. Low VOC interior finishes.
Response: Acknowledged.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/20/2015: GIS
Comment Originated: 03/20/2015
Page 16 of 27
Response: Landscape notes have been updated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Existing tree numbered TR 17 is labeled to retain. It is a 6 inch diameter Siberian Elm
rated in poor condition. Review the value of retaining this tree considering its
species, size and condition.
Response: The tree mitigation plan and landscape plan have been updated to indicate removal
of this TR 17.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Provide a final landscape plan that labels all the plant material and lists the quantities
use, and in the case of trees the percentage used.
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Provide upsized trees to meet the final mitigation count. Mitigation trees should be
sized as follows.
Canopy Shade Trees: 3 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Trees 8 feet height
Response: The tree mitigation plan and landscape plan have been updated
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcqov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 2
03/25/2015:
Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on
in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to
complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The
proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be
effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review
meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call
416-2341 to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to
present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of
occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
Page 15 of 27
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that
show the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
Response:Added.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets that show
the Natural Habitat Buffer: Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for
allowable uses within the buffer zone.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Comment Number: 13
03/25/2015: Please add the following note to the site, landscape, utility, grading, and
storm sewer plans that: the natural habitat area is meant to be maintained in a native
landscape.
Response: Plans have been updated.
This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features
into the future.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tuchanan@fcqov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
The plan does not appear to fully incorporate information and recommendations
provided in the report from the arborist (Jordan's Tree Moving and Maintenance 3-11-
15) that evaluates some of the existing trees located at the site for suitability for
retention.
Response: The tree mitigation plan and landscape plan have been updated based on the
recommendations provided from the arborist.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Please place plant notes numbered 12-16 under a separate heading labeled City
Street Tree Notes. Also add the following note in with larger print place in a box with a
border on the landscape plan.
A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are
planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and
numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape
contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street
trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is
a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Page 14 of 27
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Regarding the Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat, the project site
ECS mentioned that: "Suitable habitat conditions were judged to be marginal for
Preble's meadow jumping mouse because of the general lack of shrub and tree
cover and the adjacent presence of upland, nonnative grassland instead of moist
native meadow." Staff contacted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and received a letter from the USFWS stating they had no concerns
regarding this site and Preble's meadow jumping mouse. I will provide a copy of the
letter to you at the meeting on March 25th.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The Land Use Code requires that whenever a project abuts a Natural
Area, then compatibility with and reasonable public access to that Natural Area is
required. Please ensure your ECS addresses this code requirement; see Section
3.4.1(L)(M) for more information. The submitted ECS and conceptual review plan has
provided a trail connection to the Spring Creek trail, meeting this requirement. This
proposed connection must be approved with the City Parks Planning Department to
ensure they agree with this location.
You mentioned an email response from Kurt Friesen in the City Park Planning
Department dated 2/24/15 approving the trail connection. Please provide a copy of this
email message to Planning Staff.
Response: Roger Sherman forwarded the email from Kurt Friesen to Seth Lorson and Stephanie
Blochowiak on April 7, 2014.
In addition to approving the location, please work with Parks staff to identify the
location of the trail easement on the plat.
Response: Refer to the plat. The entire buffer area is being platted as an access, utility and
drainage easement.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The 'top of bank" line needs to be delineated and labeled on site, grading,
utility and landscape plans. As required in Section 3.4.1(E): buffer zone standards for
stream corridors will be measured from the top of bank toward the boundary of such
lot, tract, or parcel of land. Top of bank refers to the topographical break in slope
between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found,
the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank.
Response: The top of bank line has been illustrated on the updated plans.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to delineated and labeled on the
site, grading, utility, and landscape plans along with the Top of Bank.
Response: Plans have been updated to include the requested labels.
Page 13 of 27
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)
(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer
zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone.
From a quantity perspective, additional material should be provided to meet this
standard and the standard highlighted in Comment 2 above. Please update the plans
accordingly.
From a quality perspective, more detail in the buffer zone is needed to evaluate
compliance with this standard. The ECS discusses several measures meant to
enhance the buffer zone, including enhancements through native plantings such as
chokecherry and other appropriate species. Buffer planting enhancements should
include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical structure.
Thus, on the landscape plans please provide the following:
A. Provide additional plant material in accordance with this standard and the standard
referenced in comment 2.
B. Label each individual species that will be planted within the natural habitat buffer
zone so staff can fully evaluate the plan for appropriateness.
C. A table listing each specific plant species and quantity.
Response: A site visit with city staff was conducted on Thursday, April 911, in which buffer
landscaping was discussed. Landscape plans have been updated based on direction received
during this meeting.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses
in your landscaping or re -landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as
possible. I see turf sod, dryland seed, and wetland seed listed in the landscape plan
legend. Similar to comment #4, please provide more detailed species and/or species
mix composition information for the buffer zone area specifically.
Response: The Spring Creek buffer area is envisioned as a non -irrigated drought tolerant
landscape, thus this area does not include bluegrass.
Comment Number: 6
03/25/2015: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP submittal.
Current plans illustrate light spillage into the delineated 100'� natural habitat buffer
zone. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article
3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from
light spillage from off -site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site
amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please update the lighting fixtures
and photometric plan to remove this light spillage.
Response: Light location has been adjusted and photometric plan has been updated
Page 12 of 27
This is consistent with what has been required of other projects, e.g., New
Prospect, and with Section 3.5.1(H) of the Land Use Code regarding Land Use
Transitions.
Response: The lots facing Spring Creek have been shifted north by verifying amounts
to break up the wall effect.
Of the 5 building types being proposed, the ones placed along the north side of the
development are the shortest. Furthermore, the basements have been set as low as
permitted by ground water levels and additional soil will be placed around the building
to reduce the building height. The result is an average eave height of 16' along the
north edge of the development.
E. Native landscaping: See comment 4 below.
'At the March 25, 2015, meeting, we discussed this standard in detail and ways to
meet this standard in detail. Toward the end of the meeting it was agreed that a
coordinated site visit should occur to further explore best ways to ensure compliance
with the 3.4.1(1) standard and other standards relevant to this project development
proposal.
Response: A site visit with city staff was conducted on Thursday, April 9m, in which site
conditions and surrounding context were discussed. Landscape plans have been updated
based on direction received during this meeting.
Comment Number: 3
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must also comply with Section
3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code, stating:
Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the
degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to
minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the
site.
To evaluate this standard, a perspective rendering from the Spring Creek trail or the
north side of Spring Creek should be provided to illustrate how the proposed
development minimizes the obstruction and/or degradation of the scenic view from
Spring Creek.
For the scenic views to Spring Creek please address how this project meets this
standard within the project objectives statement and other documentation as you see
fit.
Response: The proposed River Modern development is setback further from the Spring Creek
corridor than either of the adjacent developments. The creek and trail also meander to the
north at this particular site which helps to naturally enhance the effect of this project's larger
setback. The requested perspective images have been included with this resubmittal.
Page 11 of 27
Comment Number: 2
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must comply with 'Section
3.4.1(1)(1) of the Land Use Code, stating:
Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors,
including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor,
shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat.
Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping,
and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that
scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are
screened from off -site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the
area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any
aboveground utility installations.
To meet this standard, the following should be addressed in the site, landscape, utility
plans and project objectives:
A. Architectural design and manmade facilities blending with the visual character of
the area: The section of Spring Creek that is adjacent to this site contains
significant meanders. Current plans show the northern most lots arranged squarely
to the creek, and encroaching approximately 15' into the natural habitat buffer
zone. While the 100' buffer zone standard offers flexibility in a specific distance, to
meet 3.4.1(1) (1), the northernmost lots should be arranged to follow the curve of
the meander in Spring Creek and blend with the natural visual character of this
area. Addressing this standard should also remove the proposed encroachment
into the buffer zone.
Response: The plans have been updated so that the northern most buildings meander with
the curve of the creek and so that no building or lot remains in the 100' buffer zone.
B. Architectural design: Significant attention needs to be paid to the building materials,
colors, etc. Staff recommends reviewing the site plans for New Prospect (now
called Streamside) for examples of the types of colors, setbacks, etc. that are
appropriate in this site's context. Notes shall be added to the site plans at a similar
level as to what is provided by the New Prospect project.
Response: The relevant notes from the referenced New Prospect project were written
as design guidelines for future designers, builders and/or developers. Since this
proposal includes designed buildings, including these notes on the drawings does not
seem applicable. However, these guidelines were taken into consideration during the
design of the proposed buildings. Because specific material colors have not been
identified as a part of this proposal, notes addressing appropriate color pallets have
been incorporated into the drawings.
C. Scenic views: See comment 3 below
D. Site design and scenic views: Currently, the northernmost lots are acting as a wall
between Spring Creek and the rest of the site. In addition to meandering the lots,
as suggested above, the lots should step down to 2 stories adjacent to the buffer
zone in order to keep building height in scale with the surrounding natural features.
Page 10 of 27
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Variance Request #3 to allow the driveways to be within 30' of each
other looks like it will be acceptable. Please show the driveway details to the east
showing the distances between the three driveways.
Response: Added to the utility plan.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Variance Request #1 to allow a 4' attached sidewalk is not
acceptable. Since more than 50% of the sidwalk will need to be rebuilt due to the
construction of the driveways and installation of utilities, cross sections for a
minor collector street with an 8' parkway and 5' minimum walk will be required.
Response: The plans have been updated to show a detached sidewalk along Stuart
Street.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/25/2015: Thank you for providing an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS),
required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1), as the site is within five hundred feet (500') of known
natural features (Spring Creek and isolated riparian forest). If you recall, the buffer
zone standard for Spring Creek is 100' (one hundred feet). Current plans illustrate an
approximate fifteen foot (15') encroachment into the 100' buffer zone.
Please provide the following in a table on the site plan:
A. The total acreage required by the standard 100' buffer zone for Spring Creek.
B. The total acreage proposed within the submitted site plan.
This may be best illustrated through a vignette/detail on the site plan for clarity. We can
discuss this further at the 'March 25th Staff Review meeting and view redlines
together.
'At the March 25, 2015, meeting, you mentioned an Alternative Compliance Letter
regarding this topic of the 100' buffer zone. I have not seen said document. Please
provide an electronic copy or hard copy directly to me of this letter.
sblochowiak@fcqov.com
Response: The site plan has been updated to include a table and vignette as requested.
Page 9 of 27
03/24/2015: Show the street cut locations for the utilities that will be installed
on East Stuart Street. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been revised to address the comment.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Since sidewalks will be detached along the East Stuart Drive, show the
transition from detached to attached. More detail may be needed near the east of the
property where the 12' driveway is proposed.
Response: Detail added and the walk is detached.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: More details are needed for the property to the east of the proposed
project. Show existing conditions, driveway locations, grading and easements. See
redlines.
Response: Information has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 7
03/24/2015: The water taps for buildings 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26,
27, and 30 cross over the adjacent lots. These sections need to be in a utility
easement. See redlines.
Response: The tap configuration has been revised - all water services are on their own
lots.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please show drainage arrows on the Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan.
Response: Arrows have been added.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Add a "One Way" and "Do Not Enter" sign on the property for the 12'
access to the east.
Response: Signs are now shown on the utility plan - we can coordinate this further at final.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please refer to all alleys as private drives.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Variance Request #2 to offset Cherokee Drive looks like it will be
acceptable. Please show this offset through a separate detail or clearly show it
on the Utility Plan.
Response: Added to the Utility Plan.
Page 8 of 27
the primary private drive provides sufficient pedestrian access to Stuart Street, and that an
additional sidewalk is not necessary.
Variance: Seth Lorson said that a variance is required if this configuration is proposed, but we
searched the code and could not find the section that we're varying from. Please direct us to
the code section.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.18(A). Calculating the gross residential density
shall be all land within the boundaries of the development (190,081 s.f.;
Larimer County Assessor: 193, 140 s.f. [please reconcile]) minus the land
dedicated to the child care center (18,789 s.f.) for a total of 171,292 s.f. or 3.93
acres which equals 7.6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed site plan shows
6.88 dwelling units per acre. The maximum permitted density in the LMN
District is 9 dwelling units per gross acre (4.5(D)(1)(b)).
Response: The density figures have been updated.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The "site coverage" section of the site plan allots "drives" to both "lot
coverage" and "drives and parking". Please clarify.
Response: The site coverage data has been updated. Driveways have been deleted. "Drives &
Parking" remains the same and refers to the paved areas within the property boundary outside of
the residential lots.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.2(D). The parking spaces in the driveways may not
be counted toward the minimum requirement of 3 spaces per 4-bedroom unit
because they preclude access to the garage spaces. However, Sec.
3.2.2(K)(2)(b) permits on -street spaces to count toward the minimum
requirement. These additional on -street spaces per 4 bedroom unit should be
adjacent to the unit it is serving.
Response: Acknowledged. Parking tabulations have been updated.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.11(C)(3). The fence along the property line cannot be
taller than 6 feet in height. A condition of approval could be that the applicant
work with adjacent property owners for the desired fence height.
Response: Understood. Site plan has been updated to indicate 6' maximum fence heights.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Page 7 of 27
Response: All public walkways are located within access easements. The owner will
coordinate the final trail connection location with the Spring Meadows HOA prior to
approval of final plans.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
03/24/2015: Detached sidewalk and street trees are required on Stuart Street.
Ornamentals can be planted if a street light constrains use of canopy trees.
Response: The plans have been updated to include a detached sidewalk along Stuart Street. The
plans have been updated to show canopy trees along Stuart Street.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(E)(2). Units 1 - 4 require a minimum building
setback of 15 feet from the public right of way (ROW). Units 5 - 14 & 23 - 30
require a minimum building unit of 15 feet from lot the front lot line or back of
sidewalk. Sec. 3.6.2(N)(c & d) note that street -like private drives shall not "be
permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of
this Code."
Response: See variance request included with PDP resubmittal.
Units 1-4:
A 15' minimum setback is provided from the Stuart Street public right of way.
Units 5-14 & 23-30:
A 9' minimum front setback is proposed for these units. In order to address the
neighbor's privacy and parking concerns, units 5-14 & 23-30 were positioned farther
from the edges of the property. This shift provide enough room to park 2 cars in each
driveway, and improves privacy by increasing the distance between the proposed units
and the existing residence on either side of the River Modern property.
Units 15-22:
The fronts of these units face Sprig Creek, and a 5' minimum setback is required.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.6.2(N). The proposed street -like private drive is required
to have detached sidewalks along both sides, including along the child care center
lot. Also, crosswalks are required at intersections.
Response:
Crosswalks: The plans have been updated showing crosswalks at intersections.
Sidewalks on both sides of the street like private drive. The revised site pan attempts to
balance access with the neighbor's privacy concerns. The width of the primary private drive
accessing Stuart Street was narrowed to 22' and Units 1-4 were shifted east away from the
existing residence resulting in a 14' setback from Unit 1 to the western property line. The
primary entrance to the Child Care facility will be located on the NE corner of the building
near the proposed drop-off area. Sidewalk access to the Child Care Center is located on the
east side of the building connecting from Stuart Street: to the building entrances; to the
proposed on -site parking area. The applicant believes that proposed walk on the west side of
Page 6 of 27
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C). This plan is required to provide at least 65%
(or 20 units) of lots as "solar -oriented lots." Sec. 3.5.3(F) provides alternative
compliance for this standard.
Response: 14 solar oriented units are illustrated on site plan. See variance request
included with the PDP resubmittal.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/27/2015
03/27/2015: We recommend a site visit with City Staff and the applicant for all to
have a consistent understanding of the project context. City Staff attending
should include - but not limited to - Planning, Environmental Planning,
Stormwater, and Floodplain.
Response: A site visit with city staff was conducted on Thursday, April 9m, in which site
conditions and surrounding context were discussed.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.4(D)(3). Please explain how the proposed fixtures have
"sharp cut-off capability". The cut sheets do not show this.
Response: Cut sheets from the manufacturer are included in the revised plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The photometric projections should be done with a Light Loss Factor
of 1.0.
Response: Plans have been revised accordingly with note indicating method utilized. It was
shown for type 'BB' as .5 because it used 50% of lumens of tested fixture type.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Fixture CC reads that it is wall -mounted at T6" but seem to be
placed on 6' fences. Please explain.
Response: Fixtures will now be pole mounted at 8'-0" high. Fixture to be provided with a
house side external shield to reduce light spillage from backside of fixture. If fence is provided
this will also block lighting from backside of fixtures.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The 20' fire access easement overlaps the proposed on -street parallel
parking.
Response: The plans have been updated so that the fire access easement fits in the 16' NS-
drive-lane without overlapping the proposed on -site parallel parking. The fire lane easement
remains the proposed 20' dimension along the EW oriented private street.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Please provide public access easements across all pedestrian
walkways. Also, the trail connection to the east, into Spring Meadows, should be
coordinated with their HOA.
Page 5 of 27
to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of
buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between
uses.
Response: Land use transitions have been enhanced by providing: buffer yard
landscaping: increased setbacks to neighboring properties; and/or by reducing
architectural massing at the edges of the property.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(C)(1)(a). At least 3 housing models are required
for this development and vary according to sub -section (b). No two like models
may be sited next to one another (3.8.15). Please provide information as to
where each model is located. This also informs comment #7.
Response: Unit types are shown on the revised site plan.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.1(H). The most significant asset of this project is the
relationship to the natural feature — Spring Creek and its watershed. This area is
characterized by a City -owned natural area — Mallards Rest and the Spring Creek
Trail. These are major public investments that are enjoyed by the entire
community.
In addition, recent projects in the Spring Creek basin, between Stover Street
and Lemay Avenue (Pinnacle Townhomes and Stream Side) have been
designed in such a manner as to provide an open character with a strong visual
connection between the natural features and the developments. River Modern,
however, lacks this open characteristic and appears to be out of step with the
larger context of the surrounding area. The current arrangement of units 15 —
22 creates a wall and obstructs the open relationship that is found in the
watershed. Section 3.5.1(H) requires that the transition between uses, such as
residential and a natural feature, be given thoughtful consideration. The overall
site plan design lacks a positive and open relationship with the Spring Creek
and would be improved and comply with Section 3.5.1(H) by creating greater
visual and sensitive treatment at the north end of the project.
Response: Units 17-20 have been shifted south following the curve of the 100' natural
area buffer providing a softened, less wall-like, appearance from Spring Creek trail. The
landscape plan has been updated reflecting the context and character of the adjacent
natural area.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.3(E). Please provide a shadow study as outlined in this
section of the Code.
Response: A shadow study has been included with this re -submittal.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Page 4 of 27
Response: The architectural character in this area represents multiple decades and is
not definitively established. The development to the east consists of 21/2 story, 3 & 4 unit
buildings with monochromatic board and batten siding and large un-articulated roofs.
The development to the west consists of 2 story buildings ranging from 2 to 6 units each
with monochromatic horizontal wood siding and moderately pitched and articulated roof
lines. There are also a few 1'/2 to 2 story single family residences along Stuart Street that
date from the early to mid-20th century.
The proposed development strives to set an enhanced standard that is more consistent
with the land Use Code. It is comprised of 21/2 story two -unit buildings with highly
articulated roof and wall planes with stone, stucco, wood and metal siding.
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.. Buildings shall either be
similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on
the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing
block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures
7a and 7b.)
Response: The development to the east is predominantly 3-units structures without any
design features to visually divide the units and they merge into one large unified mass.
Similarly, the 6-unit buildings that form the majority of the residence to the west have
little to visually divide individual units and they also appear as large unified masses.
The proposed development consists of only smaller 2-unit structures which have been
designed so that each unit has a clear and discernable identity which reduces the overall
scale of the buildings. Furthermore, the building facades and roof planes have been
divided and articulated with material variation to reduce the scale of the buildings even
more. While this subdivision of massing may correlate directly with the larger scale of the
developments to the east and west it is more compatible with the few smaller residences
in the area and with the intent of the LUC.
3.5.1(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be
arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project
and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally,
the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among
neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 8.)
Response: The site plan includes a perimeter fence between the adjacent lots and the
proposed development and varied landscaping designed to soften the fence. Proposed
buildings setbacks from adjacent uses exceed code requirements providing privacy. The
site plan also includes a path connection from the Spring Creek trail to the River Modern
proposed development as well as to a gated entry into the adjacent Spring Meadows
Condos. The majority of the decks incorporated into the building designs have been
oriented away from the adjacent neighborhoods.
3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual
character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not
possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall,
Page 3 of 27
2.5 stories (Sec. 4.5(E)(3)). Thus the maximum height of buildings for this
development are 31' 8" (12'8" x 2.5). The height of many of the buildings will
have to be lowered.
Response: According to this interpretation of the maximum building height, the half story
portion of the residencies would be 64" to the top of the roof. When the thickness of the
roof structure and required insulation is subtracted from this, the "usable" space has a
clear headspace of only 5-0" and even that is assuming the roof is flat.
The definition of a Half Story in Section 5.1.2 of the LUC says: Story, half shall mean a
space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not
more than three (3) feet above the floor level, and in which space the possible floor area
with head room of five (5) feet or less occupies at least forty (40) percent of the total floor
area of the story directly beneath.
We have included a Half -Story analysis sheet for each building type which compares the
space on the upper level with a head room of at least 5' and the area of the floor below
as a ratio. The formula used compares useable area to the floor plate below as opposed
to un-useable area per the definition above. Because of this the threshold for compliance
is a maximum of 60%.
These Half -Story analysis sheets also have building sections which show the height of
the wall where it intersects the roof, a 5' headroom line, the grade plane, building height
relative to the grade plane (per LUC 3.8.17(A)(1)), building height relative to fire
department access, and building height per IBC.
Comment Number: 3
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.1. Please provide section and perspective drawings
between the proposed development and the existing abutting developments as
shown in the attached exhibit. This information will help us evaluate compliance
with the following sections:
Response: The requested site sections and perspective drawings have been included
with this submittal.
3.5.1(B) General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing
developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural
character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas
where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not
consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques
such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building
mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and
door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and
textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill
development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with
wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without
limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context.
Page 2 of 27
City of
F6rt Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 — fax
kgov.com/developmentreview
Applicant responses are provided in red text following each comment.
March 27, 2015
BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: River Modern, PDP150005, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for
your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you
may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth
Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcqov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(F)(1). Units 15 - 22 do not meet this standard that
require "street -facing garage doors must be recessed behind either the front
facade of the ground floor living area portion of the dwelling or a covered
porch..." Subsection 4 permits an exemption if the dwellings face onto a major
"walkway spine and shall include windows, doorways, and a structured
transition from public to private areas using built elements such as porch
features, pediments, arbors, low walls, fences, trellis work and or similar
elements integrated with plantings." See also, Sec. 3.5.2(D), Relationship of
Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
Response: The entry door for units 15-22 have been repositioned. They are now located on the
north side (front) facing the Spring Creek. The entries have been further embellished to help them
be easily identified as the front of the building.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.17(A)(2)(c). The maximum vertical height permitted
for each residential story is 12' 8". The maximum height in the LMN District is
Page 1 of 27