HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - PDP - PDP120020 - CORRESPONDENCE - (13)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
August 14, 2012
RE: River District Block One Mixed Use - Encompass, PDP120020, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of Staff 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or
tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Please ensure that the building elevations show the property line on all the sheets
as was done offline.
RB+B Response: Property lines have been added to all plans and elevations.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Prior to scheduling a public hearing for the project, a letter of intent is needed from
the appropriate City department for the offsite drainage easement that is needed to the north of
the site. Additionally, a letter of intent appears to be needed from Ranch-Way Inc. for the offsite
grading and water line work shown on their property.
Northern Engineering Response: Letters of Intent will be provided prior to scheduling a public
hearing.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The driveway down to the parking structure was brought up as a concern at the
PDR for adequate sight distance. The analysis for sight distance isn't negated by the proposed
driveway being located in the same area as the existing driveway. Sight distance will need to
be analyzed for both adequate sight distance for pedestrians along the Linden Street sidewalk
crossing the driveway, as well as sight distance for vehicles heading southbound on Linden
Street with the bridge across the river acting as a constraint. Is the crowning of the driveway ten
feet from behind the sidewalk necessary, as it seems to further impair sight distance for
vehicles exiting the parking structure. For analyzing the sight distance heading northeast, the
drawings should show the bridge and additional roadway to the northeast.
Northern Engineering Response: Variances have been submitted by Matt Delich with Delich
Associates and approved per Marc Virata’s email dated 8/31/12.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The various encroachments into right-of-way were elevated to the PDT (Planning
Development and Transportation) Director Karen Cumbo, for discussion and her input. After
evaluation of the plans submitted, including the updated building elevation set indicating the
property line, it is the position of PDT that the amount and impact of the proposed
encroachments onto Linden Street right-of-way factored with the site being a new construction
without existing constraints, are more than what PDT would be able to rationalize as being
permissible through an encroachment permit. PDT is unable to support the proposed
encroachments as being permissible through an encroachment permit.
Rich/Jeff/BHA Response: Our design encroaches into the ROW in two ways: A) Stairs that provide
access to the building ground floor as the site slopes downhill and B) an elevated outdoor terrace fronting
Linden Street matching the height of the adjacent tenant space. These encroachments exist to for no other
reason than to improve the urban design character and accessibility of the project as follows:
1. The Linden Street ROW slopes toward the river roughly 6 feet over the length of the frontage. This
condition does not occur in any other location we are aware of in the River district or greater downtown area
where a commercial, minimal building setback typology is desired.
2. The site acts as the “end” to the downtown and River District as it abuts the Poudre River. In fact, Linden
Street effectively narrows as it crosses the river and our project site is the location for the transition to the
narrower roadway and sidewalk width. This jog in the sidewalk creates an eddy that is ideal for a use to
activate the streetscape.
3. In order to create the best possible design for the pedestrian environment as well as accessing on-site
parking, our curb cut is located at the lowest end of the building in order to minimize ramp length and
therefore minimize the impact of the ramp on the ground level of the building.
4. We desire and have an obligation to optimize access to the building and the site for non-ambulatory
users. With this is mind it is best to minimize ramps and stairs on each accessible level. As a result, our
ground floor uses, both indoors and out, are kept at a consistent and universally accessible level.
5. We are providing an open passage through the building to a terrace beyond that will provide a place to sit
and relax and enjoy the river environment beyond. This passage was not a requirement within the LUC—it
exists purely to improve the quality of the urban experience.
As stated, our responses to these conditions are qualitative in nature: We desire to make the building street
and pedestrian friendly as it transitions downhill. We want to make the “end” of the pedestrian streetscape
as it approaches the river a vital, vibrant and engaging place, literally a punctuation mark within the
streetscape. We hope to minimize the impact of the curb cut and auto ramp on the pedestrian and riverfront
experience and our outdoor terrace and elevated planters (not encroaching) help achieve this. We need to
make the building inviting and accessible, a natural continuation of the urban streetscape--particularly the
inviting nature of the open passage through the building that invites the public into the project to the
terraces beyond to enjoy a river overlook. Therefore, the stair that accesses this passage extends into the
streetscape and invites pedestrians to explore the passage and the terrace beyond.
The interface of the private and public realm has a long history in downtown Fort Collins. There are dozens
of precedent setting examples. One question that has arisen is that this project is new construction and
should conform to current standards that have a tendency toward a suburban model: set back the building
from the street wall to accommodate all transitions. In our opinion this would lead to a dilution of the
character defining qualities of the greater downtown commercial district. This direction is contrary to the
established pattern language of architecture and urban design throughout the downtown. It is important to
not lose sight of the fact that the downtown parcel and lot layout was established more than 130 years ago,
and for that same time period, the community has grown into it in a very discernible and valued pattern.
Block One and the few other projects that have been considered in the past year are not exceptions, but
rather the most recent in a very long line of examples that span decades, and which have contributed to
shaping this appropriate pattern for an urban core. Much of the charm in downtown Fort Collins can be
contributed to its messy vitality in the interface between the public and private realms. Indeed, many of the
best urban places in the world are those where the public/private interface pattern may be carefully defined
in legal terms but in experiential terms, seamlessly integrated.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: If, under the assumption that a design solution is met for the Linden Street
streetscape with the concerns expressed in the previous comment, any outdoor dining in the
right-of-way would need to be legitimized under the outdoor dining permit process and not
through the PDP. The plans under the PDP should remove the indication of the outdoor dining
as being part of this approval and would need to indicate that the review and approval of any
outdoor dining in the right-of-way is subject to the outdoor dining permit process.
Rich/Jeff/BHA Response: Tables and chairs are shown for reference on PDP resubmittal.
Annotations specifically calling these items out have been removed and note has been added to
‘General Notes’, SITE PLAN sheet 1 of 2 which states ‘Review and approval of outdoor dining in
Right of Way is subject to the outdoor dining permit process.’
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The PDR comments indicated a general concern with the amount of clear zone
provided for the pedestrian with ideally a 9.5 feet of area be a clear pathway space for the
sidewalk. The response indicated that 8 foot clear width is provided in most areas. The 8 foot
dimension shown across the driveway and along the first 25 feet of attached sidewalk past the
driveway appears to include the widened curb head as part of the dimension. There is a
concern that the widened curb head is being considered part of this walkable area dimension,
as it's generally too narrow to walk solely within the 18 inches and pedestrians may be less
inclined to straddle between the curb head and general sidewalk. In our view the effective clear
path dimension is closer to 6.5 feet. In coordination with discussion through Transportation
Planning, the sidewalk across the driveway as well as the first 25 feet of attached sidewalk past
the driveway should be widened to 8 feet not including the curb head, reducing the planter area
accordingly.
BHA Response: Per 08.20.12 phone conversation with Mark Virata (who coordinated with Dean
Klingner at the City), design as shown in PDP submittal is acceptable.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: It is assumed that the pedestrian lights indicated in the right-of-way is intended to
be City Light and Power serviced public lighting. If this is intended to be private lighting, there
would be concerns of the placement of a private utility in public right-of-way. Is the cost of these
being paid for by the developer?
BHA Response: From Bill Whirty’s email: “We will assume responsibility for the planters and
sidewalk debris cleaning (we will invoice engineering). For now the lights can be ours too….” The
cost of the fabrication/installation is paid by the developer. Once installed, parks will maintain and
engineering will pay for electricity, since these are in the City’s Right-of-Way.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The horizontal control plan of the construction plan set specifies the area in front of
the proposed outdoor dining to be a proposed bus stop. This indication is not made on the
site plan detail, which should be indicated as such if intended. The trash receptacle and bench,
shown on the site plan, if intended to be part of a Transfort bus stop (and coordinated for
acceptability through Transfort) should not be of concern. If however these items are not
intended to be part of Transfort's bus stop "system" there may be concerns about their
placement as private appurtenances in right-of-way.
BHA Response: Bus stop has been indicated on site plan detail, and this area is intended to be part
of Transfort’s bus stop “system.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The trash dumpster indicated on the site plan is shown as the electric transformer
on the construction plans.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – annotation has been corrected.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: If not already occurred, a utility coordination meeting should take place to
ascertain utility placement (meters) and whether their placement may be of concern. The results
of a utility coordination meeting would also confirm that a utility easement behind Linden Street
right-of-way is not needed.
Northern Engineering Response: We have been in contact with Doug Martine (City Light and
Power), Don Kapperman (Xfinity), Bill Johnson (CenturyLink), and Stephanie Rich (XCEL) and they
have all told us that they will not require a utility easement along Linden Street since dry utility
mains are currently within right-of-way. The proposed gas meters and electric meters will be
located south of the proposed building within the utility enclosure.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The handicap parking space along Linden may need to be modified pending
confirmation from Randy Hensley in Parking Services, as typically the handicap parking space
in a diagonal parking configuration has a wider overall width to allow for loading on either side.
BHA Response: Per 08.20.11 phone conversation with Randy Hensley, 8’-6” dimensions shown in
PDP is acceptable given the wide ‘striped out’ area adjacent to this space, and the ADA ramp
adjoining the ‘striped out’ area.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Will the building have subsurface items in the right-of-way such as exterior footings
and/or perimeter drains that are not evident with the PDP submittal but would be part of the
building plan submittal? Footings, perimeter drains, and other subsurface items should be
placed outside of public right-of-way.
RB+B Response: All subsurface building related elements will be installed within the property lines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: With Linden Street's condition as a relatively brand new pavement roadway in
conjunction with the Linden Street improvement project, the three street cuts shown will result in
pavement impact fees with a triple penalty fee. It may be worth exploring the cost differential of
the triple penalty fee vs. a mill and inlay of the full width street frontage as a potential option.
Northern Engineering Response: Noted, this will be explored in final design.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Carrying over a PDR comment for future reference. There will be repays required
for Linden Street frontage. This can be coordinated with Engineering Capital Improvements.
Rich/Jeff Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: At the time of a final plan submittal, additional Linden Street design information will
be needed for review to demonstrate that a proposed neckdown to the street still maintains a
consistent cross slope for Linden Street while keeping the flowline grade sufficient. Linden
Street spot elevations and/or cross sections would be needed to help verify this. Flowline
curve radii should be provided to verify that street sweeping operation can reach the flowline
throughout.
Northern Engineering Response: Noted, this will be addressed in final design.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The Landscape Plan specifies the use of planter pots along the property line, with
the "annuals by City". Has it been confirmed by whomever in the City (Parks?) is intending to
provide/maintain the annuals? If this note is intended to remain, should it perhaps indicate
"annuals by the City [Department] as part of the [project/agreement]?
BHA Response: From Bill Whirty’s email: “We will assume responsibility for the planters and
sidewalk debris cleaning (we will invoice engineering).” Parks will plant and maintain annuals and
engineering will pay for their work. Note has been modified as requested.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: ECS: The ECS should reference all sections of Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the ECS
requirements, even in this memo format. Please update the ECS to briefly address each of
these requirements, e.g., are there any raptor nests? What wildlife use this area?
In addition, staff should clarify that, in the RDR zone district, Section 3.4.1(E), specifically the
buffer standards, is the only section of 3.4.1 substituted and not the entire section.
Other than these concerns, staff concurs with the mitigation recommendations of the ECS.
Jeff Response: The ECS Report has been updated as requested.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: Three Siberian elms are proposed to be removed from this site plan. However,
site has concerns that the removal of these trees could negatively affect the stability of the river
bank. A 'best professional judgment' letter has been provided, via the ECS, that discusses the
bank stability, but the applicants still need to provide additional evidence to meet Section
4.17(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code regarding the ability to withstand a 100-year flood event.
In addition, the ECS should specifically highlight the habitat value of these three species, if any,
to ensure that all habitat value on the site is either maintained or restored.
Jeff Response: Approximately 85 feet of river bank next to the restaurant, where the project will
cause disturbance because of the removal of non-native trees, will be fully rebuilt and stabilized to
meet the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event in accordance with Section 4.17(D)(1)(a). See
additional detail provided in the Flywater report. Minor landscaping along the remainder of the river
buffer will not alter the current condition of the bank’s stability.
Additional information on bank stability and Siberian elm tree removal is provided in the
Flywater/EEC reports.
Information on the wildlife habitat value of these trees is provided in the updated ECS report.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: A graphic will need to be provided that illustrates the varying distances proposed
from top of bank to the edge of the development. In addition, please provide the metric for the
total buffer area proposed.
RB+B Response: River landscape buffer total area has been provided on Hydrozone Plan sheet,
River Landscape Buffer exhibit. Two separate drawings have been included. One set of
measurements extends from the top of bank to 'developed' area (not including 'natural' areas), this
includes the building or parking. The average setback for this is 47 feet. The second drawing is
measured from top of bank to the building. For both drawings we started a vector perpendicular to
the top of bank every 10 feet and extended it to the face of the building. If the vector did not
intersect with the building, it was not included in the calculation.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: Please add a note to the site, landscape and grading plans that states "Please
refer to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the buffer zone."
BHA & Northern Engineering Response: Acknowledged – note has been added on site, landscape,
and grading plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: Staff appreciates the long management implications outlined in the ECS. As the
project proceeds through to construction (should it gain approval), staff will require a weed
management plan and a landscape bond for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to ensure this area
achieves its design objectives.
Staff also cautions the applicant in selecting a landscaping company that is proficient in
establishing and maintaining native landscapes to increase the site's success.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: The submittal documents appear to suggest that this project steps down to one
story where it abuts the river, but the parking garage and planters serve as the first story, while
the restaurant serves as the first story, in my opinion. This would require a modification to
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1).
BHA & RB+B Response: Per Zoning request, raised planter portion of building has been extended
as requested. Per ongoing coordination with Current Planning, cross sections of building/planter
portion of building/landscape area/path have been provided in PDP resubmittal to better illustrate
the ‘step down’ nature of the building.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: Can you please clarify what "uplifting" means?
BHA Response: Uplifting mean light thinning and limited raising to provide partial/filtered views.
Revised wording, per Forestry request, has been incorporated on drawings.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: Regarding the wetland species proposed in the detention area, the only time City
staff has observed great success with the plantings is when plugs are used and not broadcast
seed. Plugs should be designed at 12" O.C. but can be 24" O.C. if they are larger in size.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: More trees and shrubs will be required in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. A
separate meeting may be required, now that plans are able to be reviewed. It might be worth it
to overlay the tree mitigation plan with the proposed landscape plan to evaluate where
additional plant material can be placed. BHA Response: Acknowledged – more vegetation has been
added as requested. Separate meeting has taken place and tree mitigation plan has been overlayed
with proposed landscape plan for evaluation.
The trees and shrubs in the buffer zone area will need to be labeled to evaluate the species and
their wildlife contribution.
BHA Response: Acknowledged
Also, because of the extensive compaction at the site, the applicants should consider
over excavating for the trees on the site to increase the success of tree establishment.
BHA Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: In the native grass seed mix, consider adding in Canada Rye and Western
Wheatgrass for added variety.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: There appears to be light spillover into the buffer zone. According to Section 3.2.4
of the Land Use Code, "Natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage
from off-site sources." A revised lighting plan will be required that does not have light spillover
into the river buffer.
RB+B & SRB Response: Acknowledged – lighting plan and planting plans have been revised so that
no light spills into the buffer zone, see sheet Landscape 2 of 2.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012
08/06/2012: In general, I may have more comments once I'm able to see other staff members'
comments.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: The three Siberian elms along the River edge shown to be removed need further
discussion. Do these trees contribute to bank stabilization? What are the objectives for
removing these trees?
Jeff/Flywater/BHA Response: Based upon on site discussion with EEC, it is our understanding that
these non-native trees do not help stabilize the bank; they are located high enough up the side of
the bank that they actually add weight to the bank. The objective for removing these trees is to
open up views to the River.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Please set up a meeting with the City Forester to discuss some changes to the
pruning information recorded on Tree Mitigation Plan Sheet 1 of 1.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – changes requested at meeting have been incorporated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012:Please provide information if their will be wildlife impact from the proposed pruning
and removal of trees along the River edge.
BHA Response: Information on the wildlife habitat value of these trees is provided in the updated
ECS Report.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012:Please provide a clarification note that any approved pruning and removal work on
the City property along the river edge would be by the development. Also that any future
pruning work to maintain the management objectives of the plan would be by the adjacent owner
with approval by the City Forester.
BHA Response: Acknowleged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Will there be any grading within the drip line of any of the existing trees? If so
review in an on site meeting with the City Forester.
BHA Response: Per meeting with City Forester, exhibit showing proposed grading relative to
existing trees was emailed to City Forester on 08.30.12. Per revised plans, three trees that were
previously planned to be removed for a stormwater utility (including one native tree) now have the
potential to be saved because the bank stabilization efforts have allowed for an alternate
stormwater utility location. Ongoing coordination with Forestry will be taking place.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012:: Tree protection note #2 can be replaced with the following information which is
taken out of note #7.
Pruning and Removal of any tree on site shall only be by a Fort Collins licensed arborist
following City of Fort Collins tree management standards under the direction of the City
Forester.
Note #11 should be changed to read...Licensed Arborist to work with City of Fort Collins
Forestry staff and Environmental Planner to address several small Siberian Elm trees
(non-native) along Poudre River Bank that were too small to be picked up in site survey. Trees
should not be removed if it is determined that their retention is important for bank stabilization.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – note #2 has been modified as requested. Note #11 has been
changed as requested.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: The plans, as presented, comply with the standards of LUC 3.4.7. The two-story
element along Linden Street provides relief to surrounding historic properties. The added
articulation, horizontality, and location of taller elements within the interior of the site, along with
the use of similar materials to adjacent historic structures, in addition to those of the Old Town
Historic District, all contribute to the project's compliance with this section.
RB+B Response: Noted, no response.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012:As discussed during the meeting on 7-16-2012, a more comprehensive stability
study is required to evaluate the current bank stability and the impact of any proposed changes
(both on- and off-site) to the bank stability. Mitigation measures may be required. The ability of
the City to complete Master Plan improvements in the future needs to be preserved.
Flywater Response: A more comprehensive stability study has been submitted with this re-
submittal that addresses bank stability, bank improvements, and constructability/future
maintenance of bank.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: The Tree Mitigation Plan and any Landscape Plan needs to be integrated with the
bank stability analysis. If the final plan calls for planting or removal of trees/shrubs in the
floodway, notes regarding construction in the floodway will need to be added including the
need for a floodplain use permit, documentation of no-rise, bank protection measures, etc.
BHA Response: Acknowledged. Floodway/floodplain construction notes (per civil) have been added
to landscape plans and tree mitigation plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Site Plan, Sheets C400 and C500 - Needs to show and label the 500-year
Floodplain
BHA Response: Acknowledged – 500 Year Floodplain is shown and labeled on Site plan, C400, and
C500.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Site Plan - Need to include a note regarding the prohibition of critical facilities.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Sheets C400 and C500 - Please see edits to the required floodplain notes.
Northern Engineering Response: Floodplain notes have been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Drainage Report - Please see edits and the 50% floodplain review checklist:
a. P.3 Need to discuss off-site floodplain work
b. P.6 Revise the floodplain compliance section based on stability study. Discuss stability
issues. Discuss off-site work (trail, plantings, grading, tree removal, bank work, etc.)
c. P.7 Discuss critical facilities prohibition
d. P. 7 Discuss the need for a floodplain use permit for any work in the floodplain and a
no-rise certification for any work in the floodway.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Glen Schlueter this will be addressed in
final design.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Please see 50% and 100% development review checklists for items needed.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Glen Schlueter this will be addressed in
final design.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Under the general comments #2 is states that the offsite flows and patterns will be
maintained. It should be anticipated that the offsite flows will be concentrated when the areas to
the southwest of the site redevelop. Those site will be required to detain their flows and treat
them before they discharge to the Poudre River. So a path/easement needs to be provided
for the discharge of future pond(s). This will take some guess work but at least it will give those
sites a possible outfall path and not drainage lock the future sites.
Northern Engineering Response: A 20-foot wide drainage easement has been provided along the
southeastern property line for future storm water conveyance.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Basin OS1 is planned to directed to Linden St. Therefore the capacity of Linden
St. needs to be verified and document the complete path of the outfall to the river.
Northern Engineering Response: The capacity of the Linden Street storm sewer, including the
existing “Baysaver” water quality structures, has been verified and calculations have been
provided to Wes Lamarque. Further documentation/calculations have been included in the
preliminary drainage report with this re-submittal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Basins OS2 and OS3 are directed in sheet flow to the river. It should be shown
that the flows are equal to or less than the existing flows. Presently there is a berm preventing
these flows from flowing to the river so this may be a change from the existing condition. If so
what are the affects of the sheet flow on the stability of the river bank?
Northern Engineering Response: Basins OS2 and OS3 as currently shown do not sheet flow to the
river as these areas are directed towards and into the proposed water quality pond. The only areas
that are draining directly into the river without being directed through the water quality pond are
drainage areas 3 and 5 but the developed flows from these two areas will be less than the existing
conditions. Also the majority of the existing berm along the river is not being disturbed allowing
the area adjacent to the river to drain as it always has. The only portion of existing berm that will be
disturbed will be the portion along the bank stabilization.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Detailed review of the calculations submitted was not performed during this initial
review but will be checked in more detail during the next round of review. The next round of
review should also include modeling of the outfall system and in particular interest is the
capacity of the outfall pipe from the Bay Saver and the affects on the upstream system of tying
into this existing outfall.
Northern Engineering Response: The capacity of the Linden Street storm sewer, including the
existing “Baysaver” water quality structures, has been verified and calculations have been
provided to Wes Lamarque. Further documentation/calculations have been included in the
preliminary drainage report with this re-submittal.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: During final plan review the detail is needed to be shown on the plan set for how
the driveway and grading is to be accomplished in the vicinity of the Bay Saver.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Glen Schlueter this will be addressed in final
design.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: There are line over text issues on the Garage Plan & Plan-Elevation-Section
sheets.
RB+B Response: Line over text issues have been addressed.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please make sure the legal description matches the revised subdivision plat. We
have asked that the legal on the plat be changed.
Northern Engineering Response: The legal description has been revised to match the subdivision
plat.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please correct the north arrow on sheet C100.
Northern Engineering Response: North arrow direction has been corrected on sheet C100.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: No comments.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: The boundary & legal closes.
Northern Engineering Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please change the subtitle to match the legal description.
Northern Engineering Response: Subtitle has been revised to match the legal description.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please change the plat name in the legal description to River District Block One
Mixed Use.
Northern Engineering Response: The legal description has been revised to change to plat name to
“River District Block One Mixed Use”.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Is there a lien holder? If so, please add a lien holder signature block.
Northern Engineering Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property
ownership/lien holder has not been determined.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please add a "s" to Note, and numbers to the notes.
Northern Engineering Response: An “s” has been added to the word “note” and the notes have
been numbered.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please correct the Block number in the basis of bearings.
Northern Engineering Response: The block number was corrected on the basis of bearing.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please show monumentation at the northerly & westerly corners of the Block. Or
state & show the monumentation found on the northwesterly line of the Block.
Northern Engineering Response: Plat has been revised to show monumentation and property
corners found/set.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Have the monuments shown been found? Please indicate if corners are found or
set. Also show the controlling corners found in which the survey is based.
Northern Engineering Response: Plat has been revised to show monumentation and property
corners found/set.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please show the northerly right of way line of Linden Street, and how it was
dedicated.
Northern Engineering Response: Plat has been revised to show Linden Street northerly right-of-
way.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please show all of the surrounding subdivisions
Northern Engineering Response: Plat has been revised to show surrounding subdivisions.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Was the westerly corner of Block 1 a found monument?
Northern Engineering Response: Plat has been revised to show monumentation found/set for
westerly corner of Block One.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please show the reception number for the drainage easement by seperate
document along the easterly boundary.
Northern Engineering Response: Proposed offsite drainage easement has not been recorded and
therefore a reception number cannot be shown.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please move the "26.12'" along the easterly line on the property.
Northern Engineering Response: The “26.12” measurement was moved along the easterly property
line.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please indicate what the record measurements were from, and include recording
information.
Northern Engineering Response: Plat was revised to include recording information for recorded
measurements.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please correct the spelling of enlargement on sheet 1.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: Please remove the dots from the text at the top of sheet 1.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012
08/08/2012: Please provide names of plantings near the Linden access so we can verify plant
type will not cause sight distance issues on the sidewalk or on Linden St.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – short plants have been chosen to allow good site visibility.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012
08/10/2012: TIS (motor vehicle portion) is accepted. No comments.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: I assume the bench, bike rack and trash on the street is a bus stop, please label
as such on all plan sets. If this is not located within the ROW, please provide a transit
easement for any area outside of the ROW. If this is needed, please submit a Plat to me for
the next review.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – this area has been labeled ‘bus stop’ on site plans. The bus stop
is located in the Right-of-Way.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: If you are proposing to build the bus stop on your own, you will be responsible for
maintaining the bench and other amenities as necessary. Transfort and/or our contracted staff
will check trash and maintain signage.
BHA Response: Acknowledged. The trash receptacle currently exists on site; it will be removed
during construction and re-installed with this project.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Provide information (elevations, clearances, etc.) on pipes crossing the existing
storm drain.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Roger this will be addressed in final design.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Provide specification and design thickness and width of the insulation over the
sewer service.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Roger this will be addressed in final design.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Provide more information (surfacing, grades and elevations) of the area around the
meter pits. Schedul3e meeting to discuss possible option for meters.
Northern Engineering Response: Per discussions with Roger this will be addressed in final design.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Show/label curb stops on all water services.
Northern Engineering Response: Curb stops were labeled on all water services.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Add profile of sewer service.
Northern Engineering Response:Per discussions with Roger this will be addressed in final design.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: The re-located meter pit to Ranchway Feeds must NOT be in a drive or parking
area ass it is not traffic-rated.
Northern Engineering Response: The re-located meter pit will not be located in a drive aisle or
parking lot.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: On the proposed plans a note on the clock states it will be customized,
depending on the final design this clock could be considered a sign. If the design is deemed
to be a sign then this would need approval through a separate permitting process (sign permit).
RB+B Response: Noted, will review final design to determine if clock is deemed a sign.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Land Use Code 3.2.1(D)(3) There is a minimum species diversity requirement.
The landscape plan shall include species and quantities of existing and new plantings of trees
in order to verify compliance.
BHA Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: On the site plan remove on street parking spaces and bike racks in the Right of
way from parking quantities.
Required ADA spaces shall be located on the property proposed plan indicates only two on
the property when the requirement for 65 off-street parking spaces is at least 3 of those are to
be ADA spaces.
A note needs to be added that if the phases are not completed within five years of approval of
the Final Development Plan that those not completed will need to be reviewed by minor
amendment to bring the site into compliance with the current code of the future time.
BHA Response: Acknowledged – street parking and bike racks have been removed from parking
quantities. Additional ADA parking space has been added in parking garage. Note has been added
to site plan as requested.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: The trash/recycling enclosure needs to be labeled on the site plan. In addition it
is unclear at this time how trash/recycling removal will function behind the transformer.
BHA Response: Acknowledged. Trash/recycling will be rolled out for collection.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: Site plan indicates the above ground TV vault along the Linden St. It is unclear
how this will be screened. It is suggested to make this either a below grade vault or to move
this to behind the fenced area by the trash enclosure.
Where are the gas and electric meters? How are they screened?
Northern Engineering Response: Northern Engineering Response: The proposed gas meters and
electric meters will be located south of the proposed building within the utility enclosure. Per
discussions with Don Kapperman (Xfinity) the relocated cable TV amplifier must be above ground
and located where shown. Screening efforts for cable TV amplifier will be addressed in final
design.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012
08/07/2012: With the retaining wall being at least 5 ft from the north wall this portion of the
building can be determined one story if the retaining wall extends the full length of the wall.
Possible still need a modification pending other staff comments.
RB+B & BHA Response: Acknowledged – retaining wall portion of building has been extended as
requested.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: With only 20 feet of drive aisle width serving double loaded parking stalls, the
parking lot needs to be limited to one-way traffic flow. (Section 3.2.2(L). Please indicate on the
Site Plan.
BHA Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: Please remove contour lines from the Site Plan.
BHA Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: As we have discussed, Section 4.17(D)(1)(b) which is the standard addressing the
requirement for creating outdoor spaces and linking them with a continuous connecting
walkway, remains an issue. Current Planning interprets this standard in such a way that the Site
Plan does not yet comply. As indicated, the path terminates in a parking lot. This path should
continue as indicated by dashed line. This path may continue to be crusher fines. At its
termination, it can include such features as a picnic table, benches, interpretative signage or a
landscape feature (softscape or hardscape).
BHA Response: Acknowledged – crusher fines path has been extended as requested. Large
boulders that serve as seating terminate the path.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: Staff remains concerned about the north elevation and compliance with Section
4.17(D)(3)(c) - Height and Mass. This standard requires that building mass be terraced back
from the river to one story. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the proposed terracing.
The north elevation perspective indicates that there may be greater than a one-story height
along the river. This issue needs further discussion.
RB+B & BHA Response: Per coordination with Current Planning, typical cross sections of the
building/planter portion of building/landscape area/path have been provided in PDP resubmittal to
better illustrate the ‘step down’ nature of the building.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: Also along the north elevation, there is an indication that the exterior materials are
board formed concrete as well as Masonville sandstone rubble. It is not clear as to the extent
of the exposure of the concrete is vis a vis the river. Please note that Section 4.17(D)(4)
requires that walls complement nearby buildings or be brick, stone or other masonry.
RB+B Response: The board formed concrete is shown as a stipple pattern while the masonville
sandstone is shown as a generic random stone coursing pattern. Both are labeled with arrow
leaders pointing to the areas of each material.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: On the Lighting Plan, it appears that the AA3T parking lot fixture with double fixtures
is excessive given the proximity to the river and the dwelling units. The level of lighting
around this fixture has the potential of being intrusive. The parking lot lighting looks to be
sufficient if this fixture were eliminated or reduced to a single fixture.
SRB Response: With the reduction of pole quantities and the change of the 'AA3' fixture closest to
the river, the double head fixture is needed to maintain light levels across the parking area,
especially up towards the handicapped space. Going to a single head fixture would necessitate the
addition of another pole at the handicapped space area, which would increase the light spillage into
the river buffer zone.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: The AA3 fixture closest to the river should be equipped with a back-side shield to
prevent light spillage.
SRB Response: This fixture has been changed to a shorter pole with a lower wattage lamp to
prevent light spillage.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: For the parking lot, has any consideration been given to dimming the lighting
levels after a certain hour? For example, could lighting be reduced by one-half after 10:00
p.m.? Again, consideration for both the river habitat and the residents should be factor in
reducing unnecessary lighting after a specified time.
SRB Response: The surface parking lot pole fixtures are assumed to be for the commercial and
retail space uses and not for the residential tenants. With this in mind, we propose to circuit the
pole fixtures on a separate zone that will be switched off within 2 hours after normal business
closing to meet the FC Green Code requirement.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: On the shadow analysis, please provide the condition at both 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. on the winter solstice.
RB+B Response: The additional shadow analysis requested has been provided.