The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF NORTHERN COLORADO - BDR - BDR140003 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/25/2014 06/25/2014: The property is in the NCB zone. The location of the proposed addition complies with the current setback standards for the NCB zone. The legal front lot line of the property is along Westward Drive, which is the side on which the primary entrance is located. The current code requires that new construction be a minimum 60' setback from the front lot line (Westward) and the addition complies. This comment is consistent with information given to the applicant at the time of his subdivion plat submittal in 2009/2010. A code amendment to the NCB setback standards is scheduled for second reading on July 1, 2014, and will go into effect on July 11, 2014. However, since the development application was submitted prior to the effective date of the code change, the standards in effect on June 24, 2013 will apply. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/25/2014 05/22/2015: Please indicate how far south the 6 foot fence extends and indicate it is part of phase 1. 06/25/2014: A 6' tall solid fence is required along the west lot line adjacent to the parking area. Please show this on the plan. Page 9 of 9 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: The existing water service to the site is a 3/4" service. If a larger domestic service is needed, development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: The existing water service may be encountered during excavation for the building addition and may need to be re -located in that area. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: If a fire line to the property is needed, there are 6" water mains in both Shields and Westward. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(o)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: Please add a Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services signature block. Also a sheet index. This can be on a cover sheet. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: In the lands use Statistics, please show current land use and proposed. The way it is looks as though it is already a place of worship. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: In the site plan notes, note 1, please rephrase the words "to be 20 feet from the flowline" to "to extend ? feet from the building in phase 1 and ? feet from the building with completion of phase 4". Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: Please include an elevation for the trash enclosure. Where is the walk-in access? Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: In the landscaping plan the phasing is not clear. What will the landscaping be in each phase? What the labels that are triangles with number represent? A tree should be added on the west side of the phase 2 parking area. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: Delete the word future on the site plan in the phase 3 area Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: In the phasing matrix, under phase 1 description, include the wording " building footprints for all additional phases and parking location of phase 2" Then include the phase 3 and 4, under review process what items are needed during the Minor Amendment such as Architectural Elevations, Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes(a)fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Page 8 of 9 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/20/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 07/08/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/20/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 07/0812014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/2012015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Please correct the dimension for the 9' Utility Easement along the south side of the property. This Easement was platted as a 9' Utility Easement on the Chabad-Lubavitch Subdivision. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Please add a legal description of the project property. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/01/2014 05/20/2015: Was there anything that was ever submitted that we can put into our files? I'm looking for a general narrative of how the space will be used, the number of people, number of events, how they get to and from the events etc.? 07/01/2014: There's limited information in the submittal. Without specifics on the proposed use, number of staff and attendees, number of events etc. its difficult to determine whether a review of traffic is appropriate. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/01/2014 05/20/2015: Please verify that you're working with the engineering department on any required improvements to the street frontage. 07/01/2014: Is this the type of review that would trigger adjacent street improvements, such as ROW dedication, detached walks, and directional curb ramps? Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Page 7 of 9 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: . If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 5,000 square feet a drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four -step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer. If there is less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious area on an existing development, a drainage letter along with a grading plan should be sufficient to document the existing and proposed drainage patterns. If there is less than 5,000 but more than 350 square feet of new impervious area; a site grading and erosion control plan is required instead of a complete construction plan set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: When improvements are being added to an existing developed site onsite detention is only required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. (http://www.fcgov. com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-form s-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are now required when the impervious area is increased or a site is required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. There is also more information on the EPA web site at: hftp://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm? g o back=. gde_4605732_mem ber_219392996. LID design information can be found on the City's web site at: http://www.fcgov. com/utilities/business/bu i lders-and-developers/development-forms -guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, ]county(&fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Page 6 of 9 Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/24/2014 06/24/2014: The site plan shows overhead electric (OHE) generally from the N.W. corner of the site. This is not an electric line. Most likely it is telephone or CATV. All existing electric utility lines are underground. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/24/2014 06/2412014: The existing electric service to the house provides for up to a 150 amp capacity. Any changes to the existing electric capacity and/or location will initiate electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light & Power Engineering at 970-221-6700. Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh(cbfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 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 hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 The site is currently being feed with single phase power. Is three phase power anticipated? Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler(a�poudre-fire.orq Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/14/2015 05/14/2015: The construction of the proposed structure in Phase 2 is 2,683 Sq. Ft. and does not require fire separation or a fire sprinkler system. However it should be noted that future phases of the site plan show the structure at nearly 8,000 Sq. Ft. Future build -out will be required fire separation or sprinklering. Regardless of total area, an automatic sprinkler system shall be required at such time the occupant load exceeds 299 persons. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam(a�fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2015 05/18/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, 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 @ jschlam@fcgov.com Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargueng.fcgov.com Topic: General Page 5 of 9 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2015 05/14/2015: No comments from Environmental Planning. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan()fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/10/2014: Set up an on -site meeting with the City Forester to conduct a tree inventory and to obtain information to prepare an inventory and mitigation plan. This plan should identify all existing significant trees as to species, size, condition and if needed mitigation. It should also provide mitigation trees determined in the evaluation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/10/2014: Evaluate the perimeter parking lot requirements in LUC 3.2.1 to see if additional trees need to be added on the west boundary of the parking lot. Existing off site spruce trees may limit some tree planting in this area. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07110/2014: Edit the tree protection notes to include all of the notes found in LUC 3.2.1 G 1-7. Be sure to include the table found in tree protection note number 7. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/10/2014: Are the proposed street trees to be planted on City right of way property? Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/10/2014: Using Skyline Honeylocust along Shields would be a better choice than Linden due to the impact from heat and Road Salts. Forestry recommends this species change. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/1012014: The north existing tree along Shields is a dead Bur Oak. Replacing this tree in the general area will allow for a third street tree along Shields. Please add this street tree. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 Evaluate the selection of plants at the corner of Shields and westward so the low plants are used to avoid a site distance problem at this corner. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: This property has previously been reviewed for its potential to qualify for recognition as a Fort Collins Landmark, and was found to not be individually eligible. The building may be altered or demolished with no further historic preservation review. Department: Light And Power Page 4 of 9 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/22/2015: The plans differ between depiction of Phase 3 as either "Proposed" or "Future". Proposed implies to me that the work is to be done with this Basic Development Review while future implies to me that a subsequent basic development review process will be required. The intent need to be flushed out as Transportation Development Review Fees cann't be finalized without determination. 07/08/2014: The plans are not consistent in terms of the presenting building coverage (existing, proposed, to be demolished, future, etc.) and should be coordinated. If the site plan intends to show the "future 1,600 square foot addition" as being not subject to any additional review in the future, then the applicant would need to provide additional TDRF monies for the square footage of that future building at this time. Otherwise the indication of the future building would need to have added "subject to a new basic development review application and review at that time" to that future note. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/22/2015: It should be verified whether a development agreement is required for the Stormwater related improvements and SOP/stormwater language is formulated if applicable. 07/08/2014: Information provided by stormwater in their requirements may require that civil drawings be prepared for the project by a licensed civil engineer in the state. Further verification should be made on the information they need to process. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/22/2015: For the added LCUASS detail 2501, the 4 foot minimum widening width can be changed to show 2.5 feet. The sidewalk addition should however reflect a 6 inch minumum concrete thickness. 07/08/2014: Additional notes and design details would need to be provided. Upon verification in coordination with Stornwater on whether a civil drawing is ultimately required or not, the type and placement of the notes and design details can then be finalized. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: The proposed bio-swale is shown partially overlapping into Westward Drive right-of-way. This needs to be moved fully out of right-of-way on private property. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: The plans should be referencing a legal description for the development, which is Lot 1 of the Chabad-Lubavitch Subdivision. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: Any required easement dedications (such as the 20 foot emergency access easement) has a Transportation Development Review Fee of $250 per easement dedication along with Larimer County Recorder fees. Legal descriptions should be provided and a copy of our standard easement dedication form can be provided. All necessary easement dedications and associated fees are required to be completed before sign off on the plans and basic development review. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/22/2015 05/22/2015: Add a note under the Notes section of the civil plan indicating that Appendix E-1-FC of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Notes 1-42 shall apply to the project. Please ensure 2 project benchmarks per #40 are provided on the plans. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple(d,)fcgov.com Topic: General Page 3 of 9 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: The proposal does not meet the parking requirements for Places of Worship in section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h). Please show how the parking requirements would be met, including any shared parking agreements. Options for alternative compliance for meeting the required parking minimums can be found in section 3.2.2(K)(3)(c). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: Please show where trash and recycling enclosures will be located on the site plan. See section 3.2.5 for the requirements. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/22/2015: The plans show adding additional attached sidewalk (instead of the detached option) but the plans are inconsistent between site and civil sets on the design between the width being added (2.5 feet), the extent of the widening to the west (which should extend to the property boundary then taper to existing past the site), and the extent of the widening to the east (which should not taper short of the existing light pole but instead continue straight past the existing light pole [that would need to be moved back] to tie into existing. 07/08/2014: The existing sidewalk width along Westward Drive is not City and ADA compliant for width of the sidewalk. The applicant would need to remove the existing attached curb & gutter and sidewalk and then provide new vertical curb and gutter with a detached sidewalk, or alternatively, the applicant would need to add a minimum of 4 feet additional width of sidewalk (6 inches thick) to the back of existing sidewalk. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/2212015: The plans shown do not reflect the relocation of the light pole that is required in the attached option. Please ensure it's shown to be setback 1 foot minimum from the new widened sidewalk. 07/08/2014: Under the second option in the previous comment where additional sidewalk is added to the existing, the existing street light would likely need to be relocated by the applicant in order to ensure the additional sidewalk width being added is free from obstructions with a minimum separation of 2 feet from the sidewalk being added. Under a scenario where the sidewalk is detached from the curb and gutter, the light pole may be able to remain in its current location in between the new detached sidewalk and vertical curb and gutter. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 05/22/2015: Carried over for reference. 07/08/2014: The reworking of sidewalk along Westward Drive to be City and ADA compliant (ID#1) along with the demo of the existing driveway onto Shields and the construction of the new driveway onto Westward (along with any other infrastructure work in right-of-way that's unknown at this time), would require either a Development Construction Permit, or an excavation permit from the City prior to any work. Final determination of the required permit will be made upon verification on the extent of the public infrastructure. Page 2 of 9 City of Fort Collins May 27, 2015 Yerachemiei Gorelik Chabad Jewish of Northern Colorado 1201 Shields St. Fort Collins, CO 80527 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax tcgov. com/deve%pmentreview RE: Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado, BDR140003, Round Number 2 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, Noah Beals, at 970-416-2313 or nbeals@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette(cDfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: Please indicate the building materials and colors that will be used on the proposed addition, as it is not clear on the elevations. Guidance on building materials and color can be found in section 3.5.1(E) and (F). Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: All tree species used for landscaping must be approved by the City Forester. Contact Tim Buchanan at 970-221-6361 or tuchanan@fcgov.com. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: The proposed addition meets the FAR requirements for the rear half of the lot (33% of the rear 50% of lot area). However, the future 1,600 square foot addition shown on the site plan may not meet this requirement. Please include the calculations for the proposed floor area on the rear half of the lot on the site plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: Land Use Code Section 4.9(E)(5) specifies that off-street parking lots cannot be located closer to the street than the front of the principal building. It appears that the proposed parking area is set about 8 feet closer to Westward Drive than the principal building. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2014 07/08/2014: A minumum of 4 bicycle parking spaces should be provided in a convenient location on -site. See section 3.2.2(C)(4). Page 1 of 9