HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE UNION ON ELIZABETH (FORMERLY 1208 W. ELIZABETH STREET) - PDP/FDP - FDP170024 - CORRESPONDENCE -Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please see redlined plans (provided via pdf).
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Based on the total number of parking spaces, this project will
require a total of 8 handicap parking spaces. One of these must be van
accessible. Please include in the parking table.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Light levels measured twenty (20) feet beyond the property line of
the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public rights -of -way) shall
not exceed one -tenth (0.1) foot-candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall
feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up -light, spill -light, glare and
unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. Fixture Type (SD) Visa Lighting
OW5524-Shine does not comply
18
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: TRANSFORT
Consistent with the comment made from Emma Belmont during the PDR, a bus
stop is required per the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. Please see "Figure 20:
Planning for Redevelopment" (page 46-47) and "Figure 24: Parking
Management Focus Areas" (page 56-57) for identification of a bus stop at this
location for phase 4 West Elizabeth BRT. Also, please see Appendix E for the
"Typical Bus Stop Island Design" that should be installed at this location.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
09/05/2017: 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 @fcgov.com
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City construction detail drawings are to be
used in their original, unaltered state. ANY modification(s) must be clearly
distinguished and all City logos/identifiers must be removed from the modified
detail. Detail drawings can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats through the
links to "Construction Drawings" on www.fcgov.com/utility-development.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City of Fort Collins Utility Customers are
subject to City Code requirements for wastewater. These requirements include
Section 26-306 Wastewater Discharge Permit Requirements and Section
26-332 Prohibitive Discharge Standards. A permit may be required depending
on activities on the site; however, discharge standards apply to every customer,
both large and small, regardless of what activities take place on the site.
Please contact Industrial Pretreatment, (970)221-6900, to discuss these
requirements and how they apply to this development.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please locate proposed meters in landscape areas. Please see
redlines.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Residential and commercial water and sewer services must be
provided from separate taps. Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide calculations for maximum intermittent and
maximum continuous flows in accordance with AWWA M22 manual design
procedure to support proposed water service sizing.
17
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The proposed access location on the east side of the development
is a high conflict location, and is negatively offset from the Campus West
access. We would like to work with you to find another location for the parking
garage access. One solution would be to convert the alley on the West property
line to the main access location. If another solution to the access location
cannot be identified, access will need to be controlled to a right in/ right out
condition. An amendment letter to the traffic study indicating that the TIS
conclusions do not change will be needed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Cross -access e/w should be developed through, or on north side
of, the project to facilitate access out to City Park
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Need to meet intent of West Elizabeth ETC plan along frontage of
Elizabeth in terms of pedestrian facilities, future bus stop facilities and future
ROW needs.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Consider additional options for the n/s bike and ped connection
from Scott Ave to Elizabeth, to guide people to and from the Elizabeth
pedestrian crossing on the very east end of this project
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017:
The traffic study indicated that the Northbound left turn lane operates at a LOS F
in the PM peak hour. This condition will need to be mitigated, or a variance
request for this failing movement will need to be pursued.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
K-1
areas. See redlines.
Topic
Comment Number: 11
09/12/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please revise the sub -title to match the corrected sub -title on the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please remove the address from the title block. With the project
being replatted, the address could change.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Why doesn't the Basis Of Bearings match the Subdivision Plat?
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8
09/12/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you
disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections
were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in
response letter.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the sheet titles & numbers in the sheet index do not
match the sheet titles & numbers on the noted sheets.
15
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the RFPE and BFE are both shown as being
equal. The RFPE should be 5031.1 ft. NAVD88.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the HVAC is shown as having the same elevation
as the RFPE. Note 9 on this Sheet says that it will be located on the roof. The
drawing accompanying the table also shows the HVAC as being at ground
level. Which is correct?
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the FFE is shown as 5031.1 ft. NAVD88. The plan
indicate a FFE's of 30.09, 30.36, 31.18, and 31.33.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: If there are two buildings are not connected and are separate, two
Summary Tables and Detail Drawings will be required on Sheet C800 of the
Utility Drawings.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; please show an elevation
at the entrance to the parking garage. That will be crucial in determining how we
approach the garage entrance and whether or not it is sufficiently elevated. The
grading plan indicates an elevation of 30.67 ft. It needs to be no less than 31.10
ft.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add a note to Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings, indicating
whether the floodplain use permit for the building will be approved as part of the
development review process or at the time of building permit application.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add a note to Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings, indicating that a
post construction Elevation Certificate must be approved before a Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Section I.C.1 of the Drainage Report states that the project site is
not in a City or FEMA regulated 100-year floodplain, which is obviously
incorrect. Please update the Drainage Report to include all applicable parts of
the 100% Floodplain & Development Review Checklist for a Drainage Report.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-65885 icounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
14
this drainage facility with sediment during construction.
Comment Number: 114 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please see redlined drainage report and plans (provided via pdf).
Comment Number: 115
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtavlor@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show and label the Canal Importation 100-year Current
Effective floodplain and floodway boundaries on the Plat.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: A Corrected Effective Floodplain was modeled as part of the CSU
Underpass CLOMR. FEMA requires that "best available data" be used if it
exists, and in this case the CLOMR model is the best available data. Please
show and label the Current Effective and Corrected Effective floodplain and
floodway boundaries on the Site Plan. The Corrected Effective model is
available to the developer's engineer upon request.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add notes to Sheet C100 of the Utility Drawings, requiring the
approval of a floodplain use permit for any abandonment taking place in the
100-year floodplain, and approval of a floodplain use permit and no -rise
certification for any abandonment taking place in the 100-year floodway.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show the current effective and corrected effective
floodplains and floodways; and include the standard floodplain and floodway
notes for work within the floodplain on Sheets C300, C400, C401, and C402 of
the Utility Drawings.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show the current effective and corrected effective
floodplains and floodways on Sheet C700 and C800 of the Utility Drawings.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; please use the corrected
effective model for all cross -sections, BFE's, etc.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated:
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; the BFE should be
interpolated at the upstream edge of the building, not the property line. It
appears there are two buildings. If that is the case, each building will have it's
own BFE. If they are connected, than the BFE of the upstream building will take
precedence for the entire structure.
Comment Number: 9
09/08/2017
09/08/2017
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; currently, the
cross -sections are over the stationing bubbles. Please bring the stationing to
the top.
Comment Number: 10
13
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that a clause in the development agreement
regarding access to the detention and LID facilities located within the structure
will be required as there is not an easement for these facilities.
Comment Number: 104
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: The proposed LID facilities must be sized for the entire runoff area
reaching the facility regardless of whether the area is on- or off -site. Please see
redlines.
Comment Number: 105
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please review drainage report and plans for consistency and
clarity throughout. It appears the drainage report is currently a conglomeration
of different iterations of design, and there is not consistency between what is
written and what is seen in the plans. For instance, the drainage exhibit in the
plans is not the same as the drainage exhibit in the drainage report. The plans
call out a "detention area" in the SW corner of the site; however, the drainage
report calls for no detention in this area. The drainage report as submitted is
incomplete or at least deficient; please be sure to provide complete report with
next submittal. Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 106 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: What are the proposed overflow paths for the proposed detention
areas?
Comment Number: 107 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide modeling to show conditions if the paver system
were to be clogged and that runoff is still safely conveyed to Elizabeth Street.
Comment Number: 108
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide an easement for the detention ouff all paths
including pipes and spillway/emergency overflow.
Comment Number: 109 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Storm pipes are proposed directly under dwelling units. This is
not acceptable. Any outfall pipes must not pass directly under dwelling units as
any future maintenance would be extremely difficult. Please revise.
Comment Number: 110
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide details for the design of the proposed detention
and LID facilities within the structure including building plans so it can be
verified that utility and building plans are in alignment.
Comment Number: 111 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: It appears there is proposed landscaping over the proposed
pavers. Are there planter boxes here? Please help me understand what is
proposed.
Comment Number: 112 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Extended detention water quality is not allowed beneath the paver
system. Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 113
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please add the following note to the proposed paver system on
the grading and utility plans:
Please refer to the erosion control plan sheets and report for temporary control
measures and construction sequencing that shall be used to prevent loading of
M
appropriate access point. The elevator access area on each floor is also not as
easily secured; views are obscured and will likely have safety issues, or at least
an unsafe feeling, especially on the upper levels. Also, parking stall blocks the
entrance. Please consider ways to orient elevators to interior spaces that have
access control and provide double cabs.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Accessible routes to entries— unclear on the plans.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Existing spruce trees in SE, would suggest removing the south
spruce tree to accommodate a straight sidewalk alignment, and placing two
additional street trees in 5x5 openings behind the curb.
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Along the retail frontage, what if the outdoor seating areas here
were maximized by using an alternative layout that has more concentrated
landscaping, perhaps some walls or other hardscape features, site art etc., to
from a separate space away from the 12' sidewalk, and not use the large
sweeping semi -circles but a different concept. Anther idea is to raise the entire
area to the same level as the elevated area that is currently located behind the
columns.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Harridan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
09/05/2017: Please indicate flow arrows on the site in order to assess the
need for perimeter protection. How will paver field in the middle of the site be
protected from clogging up during construction, please delay in the construction
phasing and provide protection after installation. Please contact Basil Hamdan
@bhamdan@fcgov.com 970 224 6035 with any questions.
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 101 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City construction detail drawings are to be
used in their original, unaltered state. ANY modification(s) must be clearly
distinguished and all City logos/identifiers must be removed from the modified
detail. Detail drawings can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats through the
links to "Construction Drawings" on www.fcgov.com/utility-development.
Comment Number: 102 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance
with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information
on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a
spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at
http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet.
Comment Number: 103
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
If the trash enclosure must be located in an interior location, we need to figure
out a screened staging location outside of the building so that pick up can occur
conveniently and without the trash truck blocking drive aisles.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Please provide full dimensions/typical dims for parking areas.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: If the trash enclosure must be located in an interior location, we
need to figure out a screened staging location outside of the building so that
pick up can occur conveniently and without the trash truck blocking drive aisles.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Please provide full dimensions/typical dims for parking areas.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Need details to show trash room layout; also doors seem too
narrow.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike ingress/egress areas in the NW corner seem tight with the
column spacing. Will there also be issues with snow buildup and dropping of
ice/snow onto the bikes and residents in the area where the building overhang
occurs over the bike area.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike area outside of the building in the SE corner seems tight in
relation to the drive aisle and attached sidewalk. The building foundation
placement here is also tight, with the foundation only five feet away from the
drive aisle. Bikes extend further and crowd the entry. Also unclear whether there
is a conflict with the FDC shown and the rack. The combination of elements
here could use more consideration and more maneuvering space to/from the
elevator. Sidewalk to elevator in this area next to the pkg. garage entrance — is
this a sidewalk, does not appear to go through to the building face. Entrance /
walk on the opposite side are behind the elec. room and will likely have visibility
issues with bike/ped/ auto conflicts. Arch. set labels a bike area in the NE part
of the site.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: In general, the building footprint does not yet fit well on the site and
there are circulation and landscape issues.
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike dispersal. Entrances are spread out and with limited access
to elevators; more bike parking options on the east side of the building are
warranted.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated:
09/15/2017: Elevators -- there are only two single cab elevators and the project
relies on in -room bike parking. This does not seem viable.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated:
09/15/2017: Elevators —the one in the SE is accessed from the exterior from
within the parking garage. This is a high conflict area and does not seem like an
09/15/2017
09/15/2017
10
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Height, bulk, mass and scale are not adequately addressed. The
proposed design isn't compatible with the surrounding area per LUC 3.5.1(C)
and (G), and landscape buffer space is not sufficient to accomplish a
compatible design with 3.5.1(G) Land Use Transition. Building design does not
provide significant mass reductions that that would provide visual transitions.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The design has significant adverse shadowing impacts onto the
adjacent affected properties to the north that need to be addressed by reducing
the mass of the building and increasing the west landscape setback. The west
landscape area is considered a high visibility area and must accommodate tree
placement in addition to utility and drainage placement.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: A six story building height is proposed that is not permitted, and a
taller upper projection for an amenity area that does not meet the height
exceptions outlined in LUC 3.8.17(C).
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The development does not accommodate an off-street loading
zone for deliveries, maintenance, moving etc. and the trach enclosure is not
located along the perimeter of the building at an off-street location.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Landscape setbacks proposed do not have sufficient space for
shade tree stocking, drainage and utilities.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The project does not meet the requirements in the C-C zone —
Block Size (7 acres max), Block Structure, Central Feature or Gathering Space.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The pedestrian and bike access provided for the development
does not meet the connectivity standards in 3.6.3(B). The north/south public
bike/ped connection is not open and is too constrained by building mass.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The balance of commercial space remaining with the project
appears to be detrimental to the intent of the Elizabeth corridor. Staff
recommends incorporating additional space to support a more balanced mix of
uses in the area.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Need to work on material balance and pedestrian / street level
design along Elizabeth, amount of glazing proposed, columns, canopy, etc.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Staff may have concerns with the amount of amenity space
provided, please provide complete labeling of uses proposed within the
non -unit areas so that this can be discussed further.
91
more logical to have the box located somewhere else on the structure. Knox
Box size, number, and location(s) to be determined by time of building permit
and/or final CO.
All new or existing Knox Boxes must contain the following keys as they apply to
the building:
> Exterior Master
> Riser room
> Fire panel
> Elevator key if equipped with an elevator
The number of floors determines the number of sets of keys needed. Each set
will be placed on their own key ring.
> Single story buildings must have 1 of each key
> 2-3 story buildings must have 2 of each key
> 4+ story buildings must have 3 of each key
For further details or to determine the size of Knox Box required, contact the
Poudre Fire Authority Division of Community Safety Services.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITY
Poudre Fire Authority is currently looking to acquire a commercial property to
use for a major emphasis drill. Please contact me if your site may be willing to
pursue a discussion along this line and I will put you in touch with our training
division chief. Thank you.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
09/14/2017: AUTOTURN EXHIBIT REQUESTED
During the city staff meeting of 9/13/2017, some concern was expressed by city
staff regarding the under -building, drive -through and the ability to meet the
needs of fire apparatus. An AutoTurn exhibit is requested at this time to ensure
this function. The turning template should be completed using a 52' PFA vehicle
template.
Comment Number: 11
09/14/2017: ROOFTOP VEGETATION
Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
City staff suggested that rooftop landscaping might be included at the pool
area. Rooftop gardens and landscaped roofs shall be shown to comply with IFC
317 to prevent the accumulation of dead or drying vegetation.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
09/14/2017: DELIVERY STAGING VS FIRE ACCESS
After the city staff meeting, there remains a question regarding commercial
deliveries to this property, move -ins, move -outs, etc. Fire lanes are to remain
free and clear of obstructions at all times. Blocking of fire lanes is prohibited
and it remains unclear how the need for commercial deliveries to this building
will not be in conflict with fire access. The project team is being asked to
re-evaluate and provide a plan with the next submittal round.
e
signs. Please label sign locations on the Horizontal Control Plan or Site Plan.
Code language provided below,
> IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
The FDC will need to be located within 100' of the existing hydrant.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ROOF ACCESS
Stairways to the roof shall have a direct means of exterior access or be
protected along the exit pathway by a fire rated corridor, etc. Such stairways
shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway
continues to the roof. Where roofs are used for roof gardens or for other
purposes (eg. assembly occupancy), stairways shall be provided as required
for such an occupancy classification.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ROOFTOP ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY
> Project team to confirm height of pool deck. An occupied floor located more
than 75' above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be
classified as a high rise building.
> An assembly group occupancy load of 50 or more persons will require a
minimum of 2 approved exits from the pool area. The current plan appears to
indicate just one egress pathway from the pool assembly through the intervening
S-2 occupancy.
> Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with IFC 1016.2.
> Building Dept. to approve the egress plan.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ELEVATED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES W/ CLERESTORY
WINDOWS
The function of the elevated roof projections containing clerestory windows has
not been defined on the plans. Further details are requested.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
> IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: Poudre Fire
Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an
approved, exterior location (or locations) on every new or existing building
equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall be
positioned 3 to 7 feet above finished floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or
closest door to the fire alarm panel. Exception can be made by the PFA if it is
7
diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all
proposed commercial buildings and multi -family (commercial) buildings larger
than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any building larger than a duplex or greater than a 200amp
service size is considered commercial and the secondary service will be
installed, owned, and maintained by the owner.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system
modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact
Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970-221-6700. Please
reference our Electric Service Standards, development charges and fee
estimator at the following link:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwiler@poudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ALTERNATIVE MEANS & METHODS
Preliminary discussions with the project team have identified perimeter access
and aerial access deficiencies. Where project size and scope and/or site
constraints conflict with fire code compliance, the intent of the fire code may be
met via alternative means and methods, as approved by the fire marshal. As
per IFC 104.8 & 104.9, the fire marshal may allow this approach when
perimeter access and/or aerial apparatus access requirements cannot be met
on the site plan. A written plan to meet the intent of the code via alternative
means and methods will need to be submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow
for review and approval prior to final plans approval.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS
> EAST SIDE: The limits of the east side EAE should be revised to extend
farther north to coincide with the limits of the proposed drive aisle. It should also
extend east to the property line to coincide with the proposed cross property
access points.
> WEST SIDE: The alley is described as being dedicated as an EAE on the
plat. The Site Plan should be labeled so as to include this information.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and 75' spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
M
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code - Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2015 IECC
commercial chapter.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are currently no available electric facilities, for any of the
existing properties, running along Elizabeth. All of the electric infrastructure for
this area runs along the rear of the properties. Therefore, Light & Power would
not be in favor of vacating the existing easements around this site.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The existing electric transformers that feed the current Pan
Handlers Pizza building, also serve a building to the West at 1240 W. Elizabeth.
This equipment and electric service will need to remain in it's current location or
a suitable transformer location, and any utility easements necessary, will need
to be provided by the developer.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The proposed transformer location in the Northwest corner of the
site looks to be in conflict with shared bike racks on the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Light & Power will need to install at least 2 primary switch
cabinets, one in the Northwest corner and one in the Northeast corner, to feed
the 2 proposed transformers.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be
at the expense of the owner/developer.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any proposed Light & Power electric facilities or existing electric
facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within a
utility easement.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Transformer locations need to be within 10' of an asphalt surface
accessible by a line truck. A minimum clearance of 8' must be maintained in
front of the transformer doors and a minimum of 3' on the sides Transformer
and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power
Engineering. Certain building materials and or building design may require
more clearance. Please click on the following link for Electric Service
Standards.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line
5
10' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines
4' between trees and gas lines
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Please use the current version of the City of Fort Collins General Landscape
notes (November 2015). Contact Molly Roche at mroche@fcgov.com to receive
a copy.
Please add City of Fort Collins Tree Protection notes on the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
The proposed building layout appears to be roughly 4 feet from existing spruce
tree #1 and 7 feet from spruce tree #2. Discuss the feasibility of adjusting the
building layout to provide additional separation between the spruce trees and
the building to avoid any unnecessary pruning on the north side.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970416-27489 scarter@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: Please schedule a pre -submittal meeting with Building Services
for this project. Pre -Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design, that the new 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.
Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com 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.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
2015 International Residential Code (IRC)
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com/building web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 129vult or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
4
Any shade canopy trees used to meet the tree mitigation requirements will need
to be upsized to 3" caliper.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Staff recommends including more native
and/or wildlife -friendly plant species in the plant list. Fruiting and flowering native
plants can provide habitat for birds and pollinators, even on highly developed
sites.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LIGHTING PLAN: The photometric plan should extend to 20 feet
beyond the property line in all directions. The foot-candle measurements at 20'
beyond the property line shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candles to the north and south
of the property (adjacent to residential uses and public ROW).
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LIGHTING PLAN: The Visa Lighting linear LED pendant does not
comply with the standards in section 3.2.4(D). Please select a fixture that is
either: fully shielded, sharp cutoff and down directional; or if the fixture is
mounted under a canopy it should be flush -mount with a flat lens.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: GENERAL: Due to the size and mass of this building, staff
suggests taking measures to mitigate or reduce its environmental impacts
above and beyond code requirements, particularly related to energy
consumption, urban heat island effect, and stormwater management. Examples
of such techniques include solar energy production, reflective roof materials, the
use of landscaping for shading and cooling, and green roof/blue roof features.
These opportunities may be particularly relevant if the applicant is pursuing any
modifications of standards.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Species Selection
City Forestry does not suggest Deborah Norway Maple to be planted in Fort
Collins because they do not reliably survive in our soils. Please use an
approved canopy shade tree, such as Kentucky Coffeetree or Catalpa in its
place.
Princess Kay Plum is not readily available in nurseries and may be hard to find.
Instead of using another ornamental species, please consider increasing
canopy shade tree plantings on the project. Species such as Bur Oak, Texas
Red Oak, Linden, Honeylocust, Hackberry, Catalpa, and Kentucky Coffeetree
are all great substitutes.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please
adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.
3
aisle for that property, a "re -stripe parking for Campus West Shopping Center"
but I can't seem to find any indication of the re -stripe design. Having the striping
changed here to diagonal parking stalls to lend further credence to the one-way
aspect of the drive aisle should occur, otherwise I'm concerned that access to
this parking lot might be encouraged to occur from the southern access,
creating more "friction" at this intersection.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The placement of a wall along the new Elizabeth Street property
line with the right-of-way dedication would not allow for a 2 foot separation from
both the existing and future sidewalk as part of the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan. The wall should be offset 2 feet north from the right-of-way line.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The demo plan shows that a sawcut line for the rework of the
private drive occurs at the westerly property line which does not technically then
require an offsite easement for the rework of the asphalt being only on this
property, yet the plans do show that utility relocation occurs on that property to
the west, which would presumably require tearing up the asphalt west of the
proposed asphalt limits. What sort of coordination is occurring with the property
owner to the west on impacts and do we have a "letter of intent" from that
property owner with the work in mind?
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Doesn't the emergency access easement need to be aerially
defined as portions of the building(s) would be built over the easement?
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The drawings should be differentiating between pavers that are
permeable vs non -permeable either by their linetype and/or labelling. I am
seeing the concrete banding used to define but additional labelling/discernment
would be helpful.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The obligation for the local street portion for Elizabeth Street under
24-95 (given that the road is slated to be widened and a new sidewalk system
in place) with the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor project is needed to be
determined.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970416-26259 rverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11 /2017: LANDSCAPE PLAN: The landscape plan does not meet the
requirements in section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code for full tree
stocking. At least 50% of the trees used to meet this standard must be canopy
shade trees, not ornamental species.
In addition, section 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) specifies that there must be canopy shade
trees every 40 feet (at least) along driveways to and through parking areas. This
would apply to the eastern driveway accessing the parking garage.
N
Fort of
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/developmentreview
September 15, 2017
Stephanie Hansen
Ripley Design
419 Canyon Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Union on Elizabeth (formerly 1208 W. Elizabeth Street). FDP170024, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 orjholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The development's access design doesn't meet driveway spacing
requirements along an arterial in accordance with LCUASS 7-3. Access
spacing from the exit driveway approach on the property directly east, the
mid -block pedestrian crossing, and the lack of alignment with the driveway
across the street (and their potential conflicting left turn movements) has
concerns. With the coordination that is occurring with the property to the east,
the exit approach that ties onto Elizabeth Street in front of the existing building
storefronts should instead look to tie into the one way traffic aisle directly west of
the buildings to help with driveway consolidation. In general access design,
location, and/or restrictions may need further discussion, especially a the time a
traffic study is provided for concurrent review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: In conjunction with the previous comment, a Traffic Study wasn't
received and would need to be reviewed with the next submittal.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The site plan shows east of the depiction of the one-way drive