Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutELIZABETH & CITY PARK CORNER REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP120008 - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview April 23, 2012 Cathy Mathis The Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Elizabeth & City Park Corner Redevelopment, PDP120008, 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, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or clevingston@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Re the corner tower and projecting modules on the north elevation along Elizabeth Street: The effect of these projections, and the overall legibility of the building, are diminished by the division of those modules into horizontal strips, with masonry below and stucco system above. The effect would be much greater with full-height finishes on these massing modules. This includes the returns, to define those architectural modules. The sills could remain to add interest to the masonry walls. This is per LUC 3.5.1 Response: Exterior finishes have been selectively taken full height to create massing modules. Masonry wainscot has remained in high traffic areas for durability. Most of the windows lack any definition with lintels. Wherever windows occur in masonry or stucco walls, lintels should be added for this definition. This comment doesn't apply where windows occur in metal wall cladding. The metal joinery in those locations can be different to reflect the difference between the masonry and metal cladding. Response: Precast concrete sills have been shown at windows within masonry. Stucco bands have been added around windows/storefront within stucco areas Can the steel kicker brackets on the tower feature be thicker, for a stronger effect more in proportion to the cornice and roof? Response: Steel kickers have been enlarged to fit the tower scale. LUC 3.5.1, LUC 3.5.3 Topic: Site Plan Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: City Park frontage: This street frontage should have a wider sidewalk with street trees. 12-foot width, with 3 trees in cutouts/grates 5x5, would suffice. The purpose is to shape the pedestrian space with more of a sense of separation from the street. This is per LUC 3.2.1(D)(2) Response: As discussed in the field, the walk will be 12’ wide with two 5’ trees grates directly east of the building, then transition to a 10’ walk tying in to the existing 3’ walk at the Campus West Liquor store entrance. There will be an addition 5’ tree grate in the island between the two drives. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Please remove utilities from the site plan (keep on landscape plan). It is difficult to read and evaluate with the utilities information included. Thanks! Response: Utilities have been removed from the site plan. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please provide a detail table regarding percentage of landscaping and corresponding square footages on the landscape plan (LUC 3.2.1.(E)(5)) Response: Table has been adjusted to add additional information requested Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Per LUC 3.2.1 (E)(5)(a), please replace the 8 potentilla shrubs with something under 24" (sight distance triangle concerns). Response: The potentillas have replaced with creeping willow to mitigate sight distance concerns. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: How is LUC 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) being met? Response: Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/30/2012 03/30/2012: The photometric plan must be calibrated such that the light loss factor is 1.00. If not done so already, this may require resubmitting the photometric plan next round so that it is properly calibrated. Response: The light loss factor used in the calculation is 1.00. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/30/2012 03/30/2012: Per LUC 3.2.4(D), parking areas are required to meet a minimum lighting requirement as follows: building surrounds (nonresidential) 1.0 foot-candle, sidewalks .9 foot-candle, loading and parking areas 1.0 footcandle. As proposed, the project does not meet this requirement. • The Building Surround is higher than the required 1.0FC • Per LUC 3.2.4(D)(8) Light levels measured 20feet 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. Therefore per the land use code we are mandated to not spill light beyond our property line. • We believe minimum lighting levels are established in LUC 3.2.4(C) not (D) • The average and maximum values given in the numeric summary are inclusive of all areas and every number shown on the plan. • The Building Surround is much higher than 1.0FC. Refer to numbers around the building. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: I am assuming the fast food restaurant will be the western most tenant and the 7-Eleven (retail) will be on the corner. Is this correct? Could the square footages of each of the "units" be labled and the use be labled as well on the site plan? Additionally, Please remove the zoned CC from the building. Response: Tenant square footages have been added to the site plan and the CC label has been removed. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please clearly label the limits of this development. While the Campus West Liquor Depot building context is appreciated, we want to make sure it is clear what is part of this site plan/development and what is not. Response: A limits of disturbance line has been added to the site and utility plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 1 – Replace Local Entity with City of Fort Collins in the indemnification statement. Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 2 – The Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter along City Park Avenue is a uniform pour with no curb head. Removing the sidewalk will require a remove and replace of curb and gutter as well and possibly additional street cuts to tie and for demolition. Response: Sidewalk is now shown to be removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 2 – The curb head along Elizabeth and near the existing handicap ramps at the corner of City Park and Elizabeth is in need of repair. These sections of curb head will need to be removed and replaced as necessary. Response: It is noted that all damaged curb and gutter will be replaced at the discretion of the inspector (standard note). Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 2 – If the limits of demolition will occur on or affect an adjacent property owner then a temporary construction easement or agreement will be required. Proof of this agreement or easement will be required prior to hearing. Response: We will get a letter stating that the construction is allowed on the south property, and that the emergency access easement will be granted on the south property. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 2 – Show more clearly the limits of the existing driveway access on the north side of the property and the proposed vertical curb on the following sheets. Response: The linework has been modified to show this better. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 3 – Is the proposed storm sewer public or private and is it intended to be located within the proposed 7 foot utility easement? Response: Private and it is on the easement line intentionally. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 3 – It would be helpful to see a standalone sketch exhibit showing proposed and existing easements, easements to be abandoned and right of way to be dedicated. Response: Please see the horizontal control plan which has been added to the set. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 4 – Handicap parking should be located as close to building access as possible. Response: Per the review meeting, this is the best location for the parking based on grading. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 4 – At the corner the traffic signal pole provides a pinch point for the sidewalk. Provide additional sidewalk around the back of the signal pole to allow for better pedestrian circulation at this corner. Additional Right of Way may need to be dedicated at the corner to include the additional sidewalk. Response: Additional walk has been added in the corner. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 4 – Verify that no more than 750 square feet drains across the sidewalk and driveway access off of City Park Avenue. Response: Spot elevations are now provided. The standard is met. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 4 – It was unclear how the drainage and proposed contours work along the western property line adjacent to the proposed building. Is drainage spilling onto the property to the west or draining across the sidewalk and proposed access ramp on the northwest corner? Response: Inlets are now shown in the patio area to take the drainage to the roof drain piping. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Sheet 4 – The driveway must maintain a 2% cross slope adjacent to the proposed sidewalk on City Park Avenue. Response: See grading plan for spot elevations. The driveway has been designed like the drive to the east with the walking area of the sidewalk at 2% and the area that is in the tree grade shadow steeper. Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: No Comments Response: So noted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: LS 1.0 - It is unclear from the site plan or building elevation but it should be noted that no steps, extensions of railing, retaining walls, etc. may exist in public right of way. Response: A note has been added to Sheet LS1.0. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: LS 1.0 - Per 19.6 LCUASS the parking setback based on traffic volumes requires a 50’ setback from City Park flowline to the first parking stall. Engineering has a concern with traffic movement in and out of the parking lot relative to the proposed 20’ setback proposed. Similar projects have requested less of a setback than the required 50’ but a variance request with justification will need to be submitted and reviewed. Response: Per the meeting on 4-26, staff will allow a 16’ offset from the back of the new, wider walk to the first parking space. The parking space on the south has been eliminated. The variance has been rewritten. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: LS 1.0 – The emergency access easement proposed exists on the property to the south. This portion of the easement will need to have a legal description that includes only the portion existing on the south property. A separate legal description will need to be prepared for the proposed lot. Response: A 2nd legal will be prepared at final. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The subtotal shown for the Coffee/Donut Shop on page 10 appears to be incorrectly entered. Response: So noted. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: No comments. Response: So noted. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Please contact the City Forester to review at an onsite meeting the tree currently shown to be removed along Elizabeth. Existing trees need to be retained to the extent reasonably feasible or mitigated. Response: The owner has met on site with the City Forester. The tree has to go so the City Forester will determine what type of mitigation is required. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/11/2012: Incorporate street trees along City Park Drive and Elizabeth at 30- 40 feet spacing (3.2.1 D 2). If the sidewalk is wide enough along Elizabeth trees might be sited in cut outs with grates. Underground utility tree separation needs to be evaluated. Along City Park Drive explore placing trees in the planting bed behind the walk. Since this planting location is close to the building it may be more suitable to use ornamental trees at a closer spacing by the building. Canopy shade trees would be most suitable in areas not too close to the building, for example on either side of the entrance to the parking lot off City Park Drive. Response: Street trees have been added in tree grates. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/11/2012: Please add comment # 3 -5 to to the landscape notes. The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/11/2012: A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/11/2012: The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Response: Notes have been added to landscape plan. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/20/2012 03/20/2012: The landscape plan shows a row of 4' tall feather reed grass on the north and south sides of the proposed transformer location. Clearance requirements are 8 ft. unobstructed clearance on the front (south) side of the transformer, and 3 ft. unobstructed on the other 3 sides, as measured from the edge of the transformer pad. The likely transformer pad for this building will be 79 inches wide by 56 inches deep. The landscaping plan will need to be adjusted to provide the necessary clearances. Response: The feather reed grass has been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/20/2012 03/20/2012: The builder will need to coordinate power requirements and electric development and system modification costs with Light & Power Engineering (221-6700). Response: So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: After the site plan is final, an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) needs to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. Response: So noted. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/16/2012 03/16/2012: No comment Response: So noted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: 1. Please note all red-lined comments on the drainage report, site plan and utility plans, and make corrections as indicated. Response: Comment addressed. 2. Please refer to the City’s ‘Floodplain Review Checklist 100% Development Review Submittals’ in preparation of the plans. It can be found at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stromwater/flooding/forms-documents. Response: Comment addressed. 3. In the drainage report, please include wording describing the foundation type (e.g. slab-on-grade). Response: Comment addressed. 4. Also in the drainage report, include a table with the City BFE, RFPE, lowest floor elevation, and HVAC elevation. Response: Comment addressed. 5. Use NGVD29 datum when referring to elevation within the drainage report. Response: Comment addressed. 6. If the floodplain use permit and no-rise certification will be applied for at the time of the application for the building permit, as opposed to being completed as part development review process, please note that in the drainage report as well as on the grading and drainage plan. Response: We are submitting the no rise and floodplain use permit with this 2nd submittal. 7. Add a discussion of Chapter 10 compliance to the drainage report. Response: Comment addressed. 8. Include wording in the drainage report that a FEMA elevation certificate must be completed and approved prior to a C.O. being issued for the building. Response: Comment addressed. 9. In the drainage report, discuss the floodplain waiver, why it is needed, how it will be obtained, how it will be used, etc. Response: Comment addressed. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Please document how the roof drains for the minor and major storms. Can the roof piping handle the 100-year storm or will these flows be directed in a different direction. Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The rain garden should not be deeper than 1 foot per Urban Drainage. Is the wq volume calculated assuming deeper than 1 foot? Response: The rain garden is 12” deep. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Pleaes document the WQ volume required for the site and compare with what is proposed. Response: Comment addressed. The site is short, but we have done the best we could with the constraints. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: No comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: There is a line over text issue. Response: Corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: No comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Please correct the sheet numbers in the sheet index. Response: Corrected. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Please correct the "City" in General Notes #7. Response: Corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Please correct the typo in the legal description. Response: Corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: There is a line over text issue. Response: Corrrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Please label all easements as proposed or existing, and shown how existing easements were dedicated. Response: Done. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The middle access scales about 30' wide. This is very wide for 1-way traffic. How are you going to control it to a 1-way in only access? This access should be redesigned to encourage desired traffic flow and safety at the access. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The width of the middle access will allow motorists to enter into the diagonal parking area in front of the liqour store at higher speeds which can be problematic for peds and cyclists or other patrons in the parking lot. The access should be redesigned to promote movement control and safe movements in and around the access and parking lot. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: South access width is also very wide for a 1-way access. This access should be redesigned to encourage desired traffic flow and safety at the access. Response: No improvements are planned for the liquor store driveways. A limits of development line has been added to the utility and site plan. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 03/29/2012: For your information this corridor was identified as an enhanced travel corridor in the City's Transportation Master Plan. It is anticipated that someday the Elizabeth corridor will provide a strong transit connection between the Mason Bus Rapid Transit Enhanced Travel Corridor, CSU, the Campus West area and the CSU Research Campus. Special transit routing could be offered to Hughes Stadium for special events. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 03/29/2012: A bus stop is existing east of the intersection of West Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue. No bus stop improvements are required of this site at this time. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: At final, label all fittings, valves, pipe lengths, etc. Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Show and label curb stop. Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Provide additional information on how the proposed sewer service connection at the manhole will relate to the existing service in terms of elevation and direction. How will the manhole be modified while maintaining watertightness and structural integrity? Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Add note(s) to the demolition plan to coordinate with Water Utilities (416-2165) on the abandonment of the existing 1" water service. Response: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Is the existing gas service being used as is? If yes, how much separation between this line and the proposed water service? Response: The gas line will be removed and relocated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: HDPE is allowed for 1.5" water services. If interested, material specs can be provided. In addition, PVC is allowed on fire lines. If used, tracer wire terminating in a locator station is required. Response: At the moment, we have left copper in the plans. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.1(E)(5) This section requires at least 6% of the interior of the parking lot to be landscaped. This does not not include perimeter landscaping. To help comply with this section it is suggested the proposed 4 ft painted buffer separating 90 degree parking spaces with parallel parking spaces be landscaped. This can be designed also to create a Low Impact Development (LID) for stormwater treatment. Response: See calculations on site plan. We exceed the minimum 6%. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: Mechanical/Utility equipment need to be screened/painted. Please include the locations of such equipment on the elevations and site plan with a note on how it is to be screen/painted. Response: Locations shown and labeled on the site plan and elevation sheets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D)(2) Street trees shall be planted in the ROW in connection of the proposed development. Currently no street trees have been proposed. Response: Street trees have been added on the City Park side of the building. Because of the proximity of the sanitary sewer and storm pipe, there is not enough room to add street trees along the Elizabeth Street frontage.