HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMIT VIEW CHURCH, WTF (MOBILITIE) - PDP180016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSdo you feel a ioo' monopine fits with the surrounding area of trees close to half the
size?
Response: The site has been relocated and reduced in height to conform to planning
comments and subsequent meetings/discussions about the overall project.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 1-0/27/2017
10/17/2017: The elevations shown do not represent what is likely to be constructed or depicted
in the photo -simulations. The elevations should either be updated to be more realistic to what
will actually be constructed, photo-sim, material samples, and/or specify all details of the
monopine design. Additional supporting information would also be useful, including any
material samples or photographs of similar monopines Mobilitie has constructed elsewhere.
LUC 3.8.13
Response: Please see attached revised plans and Photosims.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 3-0/17/2017
10/17/2017: The fence shown is g'-6" which exceeds the maximum height of 6'. A modification
would be required if you wish to proceed with that height. LUC
3.8.13(5)
Response: The height has been reduced to 6'.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 1-0/17/2017
10/17/2017: Please submit tree/landscape mitigation plan. If using same as site plan, please
highlight mitigation tree.
Response: Due to site relocation and no trees being impacted this comment is no longer an
issue.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 3.0/17/2017
10/17/2017: Is there any lighting being added on the site? What type of lighting fixtures are
being used?
Response: Please see lighting notes on sheet 1.1.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-222.-6588,jcounty@fcgov.com
fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated: 10/20/2017
10/20/2017: All plan sheets must be 2411x3611
.
Response: This appears to no longer be valid, please confirm.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 3.0/20/2017
10/20/2017: Some of the sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the noted
sheets. See redlines.
Response: See revised plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 3.0/20/203.7
10/20/203-7: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
Response: See revised plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 3.0/20/203.7
10/20/203-7: The address is on the south side of Drake Road at the church building. The address
associated with the other telecom equipment in the parking lot is 1600 West Drake Road.
Response: No action required.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2017
3.0/20/203-7: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: see attached revised plans.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/02/2017
10/02/2017: It does not appear that any water or sewer services are proposed or needed for this
development. Please contact Dan Mogen at dmogen@fcgov.com or (970)224-6192 if services
are needed.
Response: No action required.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Missy Nelson, mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/17/2017
20/17/201-7: The proposed monopine is in a Public Open Lands zone district and at
a prominent arterial intersection. Accordingly, the monopine should feature the
highest quality materials and features to support the stealth design and compatibility
with surroundings as required by LUC 3.5.3. (Building & Project Compatibility). How
31878 DEL OBISPO ST. SUITE 118..454 (925) 785-3727
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 WWW.TSJCONSULTINGINC.COM
Comment Number:17 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017
The tree analysis consisted of 49 on -site trees which ranged from a minimum size of 3.4ft to a
maximum size of 6oft. Because of this staff is recommending a reduction in height of the
proposed structure. Staff is more comfortable matching the height of the previously approved
plan that was approved with an 8oft maximum height (see PDF in attached email).
Response: Please see attached revised design with a new height of 75'•
Comment Number: A Comment Originated: 11/01/2017
Could there potentially be an option of reducing the height even more and then deploy a
smaller scale service within the right-of-way? The intent of the comment aims to reduce the
amount of visual impact a tall tree could have on the site.
Response: the height has been reduced as much as possible and is reflected in the attached
revised design.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: zi/oi/2oi7
Because the parking lot contains over a hundred spaces. The plans will need to indicate the
total amount of interior landscaping to the parking lot. If the number does not meet the 3.o%
requirement, additional landscaping will be required.
Response: Since no landscaping is being removed as part of this project, is this comment
still relevant.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/01/203.7
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6292, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/02/2017
There are two future lease areas called out and hatched on the plan which fall in the floodplain
- please see Sheet SV-i (this area is essentially north of the proposed monopine) and Sheet A-2
(this area is essentially west of the proposed monopine). Please provide clarification of what is
proposed for these areas so it can be determined if any requirements apply. Please contact
Dan Mogen at (970)224-63.92 or dmogen@fcgov.com to discuss.
Response: This has been removed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:10/02/2017
10/02/2017: The proposed site changes shown in this submittal are not substantial
enough to trigger Stormwater detention and water quality requirements, however, a
grading plan is required. Please show proposed grading for the island or include a
note stating the grading will provide drainage from the island into the adjacent curb
and gutter. If future submittals include site changes that are not shown on these
plans, please contact Dan Mogen at (970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com to
coordinate and determine what requirements will apply.
Response: Please review if this comment is still valid after the relocation of the facility.
Response: The fence height has been reduced with the relocation of the site. The
equipment already comes from the manufacture in a neutral earth tone.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated:10/29/2017
On sheet A-4, please indicate the brick detail that includes color/technical specifications used
to construct the pier.
Response: The fence detail has changed due to the relocation. Please confirm this is still
valid.
Comment Number:14 Comment Originated: 10/1.9/2017
Please include the following note on sheet number SV-2. No wireless telecommunication
facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to
exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building,
structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owners or lessees or
employees thereof, and applicants for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities
or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co -location of wireless
telecommunication facilities and equipment.
Response: This note has been added.
Comment Number:15 Comment Originated:10/19/2017
A site visit with forestry was made to determine the height of the existing trees and
to do a tree inventory analysis.
The site visit confimed the following:
The analysis studied 49 trees contained within i6o3./i600 W. Drake Rd
Minimum Tree Height:14 ft
Maximum Tree Height: 6oft
Average Tree Height: 31.61. ft
The site visit confirmed size, species and mitigation values. The site visit also revealed that
eight trees have already been removed from landscape islands within the site. Four from the
City of Fort Collins parking lot and four from the summit view church parking lot. No landscape
amendments exist for either site. Based on 2014 LIDAR data each tree was approximately 20-
22 in ft in height.
Response: No action required
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated:10/30/2017
Staff conducted a tree analysis after a site visit on io/26/2017 and found that several loft
linden trees had been removed at an undetermined time between 2014 and 2oi6. Forestry will
have to determine the mitigation values of the lindens that were removed or recommend new
trees to be planted in the existing irrigated planters.
Response: No action required unless new trees will be conditioned as part of this project.
31878 DEL OBISPO ST. SUITE 118-454 (925) 785 3727
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675 WWW.TSJCONSULTINGINC.COM
Response: The site has been relocated and is no longer impacting the removal of a tree.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: io/18/2017
Could the wood access gate on sheet "A-2" be located on the east side of the enclosure be
relocated on west side of the enclosure? This would help reduce interference with the drive
isle.
Response: This site has been relocated and the access design is no longer the same.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: io/i8/2017
The tree should widen towards the bottom to mimic a spruce/fir branch form. Please the
spacing of the branch structure so that staff can determine if it is dense enough to screen the
equipment.
Response: Please refer to the revised plans with the new location and denser design and
shape of tree.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: io/i8/203.7
Please submit a letter confirming that the monopine will collapse rather than topple to satisfy
setback requirements. Letter will have to be produced prior to hearing from a licensed
engineer.
Response: Please confirm that this is still required.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated:10/18/2017
On sheet A-3.o and the photo simulations that are to be added to the plan set please
include the following note : The intent of the monopine structure is to create as accurate a
representation of a natural evergreen tree as possible. The sample images shown above are to
be representative of the overall look and character of the proposed monopine in terms of
branch -density, antenna concealment, shape/form, and trunk diameter, texture, and color.
Response: Please confirm that this is still required.
Comment Number: io Comment Originated: 3.0/19/2017
What is the branch density of these examples. Are any examples or images available of
antenna socks?
Response: The branch density of a tree like this is 3 branches per foot. Antenna socks can
be added to this tower design, both have been noted on the revised plans.
Comment Number: ii Comment Originated: 20/3.9/2027
What species of tree is this mimicking?
Response: This is a pine tree
Comment Number:12 Comment Originated:10/19/2017
The fence is currently 9 feet in height. Regulations limit the maximum height of fence to 6 ft. If
equipment is not fully screened one fence is reduced in height, please indicate on the plan that
the equipment will be painted a neutral earth tone
color.
our fee estimator at http://www.fcaov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-
investment-development-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator
Response: No action
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/17/2017
10/3-7/2017: PFA has no comment relative to the installation of a telecom tower in the parking
lot on the north side of Drake, across from Summit View Church. If the tower is to be placed on
the south side of the church as was formerly proposed, PFA will have additional comments
consistent with the CDR, at that time.
Response: No action required
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkieer@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated: 3.0/18/2017
Note on Title Sheet "Confidential and Proprietary Not for disclosure outside Verizon Wireless
without permission." Conflicts with who is indicated on the lease site for the wireless facility.
Response: Please see revised plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: io/18/2017
Please include photo simulations immediately after the Title Sheet of the plan set.
Response: Please see attached revised plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: io/i8/203.7
On sheet number SV-i there is a note and delineated area that shows a "proposed future
carrier lease area." What is the intent of this area and why is it missing from other sheets in the
plan set? If not needed please remove the indication on the plan set.
Response: This has been removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: io/i8/202.7
On sheet number A-i there is a note and delineated area that shows a "proposed future carrier
lease area." What is the intent of this area and why is it missing from other sheets in the plan
set? If not needed please remove the indication on the plan set.
Response: This has been removed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: io/3.8/203.7
As one tree is proposed to be removed, please contact the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, to
conduct an on -site tree inventory and determine mitigation values. Tim can be reached at 970-
221.-6361. or tbuchanan(a)fcgov.com.
31878 DEL OBISPO ST. SUITE 118-464 (925) 7 8 5 - 3 7 2 7
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675 WWW.TSJCONSULTINGINC.COM
submittal.
Response: The ECS Report was provided to the City and included again with this
documentation.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 3.0/17/2017
20/27/2027: City CDNS Environmental Planning staff spoke on the phone with an ecological
consultant regarding the memo -style ECS requested, thus, it is unanticipated to not receive
the memo -style ECS with this submittal.
Response: The Ecological Report is included again with this response.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:10/27/2017
3-0/17/2017: Currently design shows a fence — is there any possibility for incorporating native
shrubs into design for screening purposes instead of a fence.
Response: There currently is no design in place for a landscape plan, if planning feels that
additional trees/shrubs is required then that can be added.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: i Comment Originated: io/i6/2017
Please contact City Forestry if there will be any impact to existing trees on -site.
Response: There is no impact to existing trees.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: io/-16/2017
Please contact City Forestry if there are plans to incorporate new landscaping on
this project.
Response: There are currently no plans to add additional landscaping.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Clint Reetz, 970-221-6326, creetz@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated: 10/17/2017
10/3-7/2017: Light and Power has a 5okva 3.20/240v single phase transformer at the property.
We will need a C-i form and one line diagram to define electric requirements. The C-i form can
be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-iForm.pdf
Response: This will be included with the Construction Drawings.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:10/17/2027
10/3-7/20i7: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system
modification charges necessary will apply to this development.
Response: This will be included with the Construction Drawings.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:10/17/2017
10/1-7/2017: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use
December io, 2o3.8
City of Fort Collins
Brandy Bethurem Harras
283. North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Permit # PDP170037
Dear Brandy:
Below is a response to the comment letterthat was issued on November ill, 2017. Please
review and let me know if there are any further questions.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/0212017
As identified in the conceptual comments. The existing ramps along Drake road at both
driveways will need to be updated to meet current ADA standards with this project. Truncated
domes will need to be added to these ramps.
Response: The current plans that are under review are for Zoning purposes only and do not
represent the construction details of the project. Once planning is complete then we will produce
the construction plans that will address this comment.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: i Comment Originated:10/02/2017
10/17/203-7: Environmental Planning did not receive the Ecological Characterization Study
(ECS) that was requested during the Conceptual Review meeting in July 2017. An ECS is
required by City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.1(D)(i) as the site is within
Soo feet of known natural habitats and features (aquatic; wetlands; riparian forest; grassland;
Spring Creek; Ross Natural Area). Note the quantitative buffer zone standards for these
features range from Soto ioo feet, as identified in Section 3.4.1(E) of the LUC, as you proceed
with your site design process. A memo -style ECS (2-3 pages) is sufficient for this site based
upon current proposed development project scope. The ECS should address the estimated
ecological value of the site and impacts the proposed development project might have to
natural habitats and features on -site and/or directly adjacent to the site.
A reminder that generally the ECS is due a minimum of io days prior to PDP
31878 DEL OBISPO ST. SUITE 118-454 (925) 785-3727
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675 WWW.TSJCONSULTINGINC.COM