HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - FDP - FDP120010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -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
July 03, 2012
RE: Legacy Senior Residences, PDP120015, 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, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or
lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A walk should extend straight out to Linden Street on the south side of the drive.
This requires the removal of the one northernmost parking space to allow the walk to align and
maintain a landscape area.
TBG Response: The 6’ walk has been added
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The sidewalk that connects around the building to the west should be aligned to
the simplest and most direct route possible as shown on the trace paper notes discussed at
the review meeting.
TBG Response: We have added a 4’ wide crusher fines path following the 63’ contour and tying into the
crosswalk.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The sidewalk connections to the trail on the north and to Pine Street on the west
should be increased in width from 4 feet to 5 feet.
TBG Response: The walk connecting to the trail on the north side is 5’ wide. Due to cost reasons, the
applicant would like to leave the walk to Pine Street 4’ wide.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A grouping of 3 Lanceleaf Cottonwoods should be placed around the sidewalk
connection to the trail. The purpose is to reinforce the break in the building facade and
highlight the sidewalk connection.
TBG Response: Done.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: As discussed at the review meeting, the street trees lining both sides of the
sidewalk along Pine Street could be reduced in number by two or three, and the effect would
be greater if Honeylocust were used to match trees across the street, thus lining the street as
an allee. Related to this, the elms could be used in the parking lot instead of Honeylocust.
TBG Response: Done.
Topic: Site Plan
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The pedestrian framework is minimal and indirect. Alignments do not follow the
logical routes for walking to and from the entrance. 4-foot attached sidewalks do not
accommodate two people walking together and given the intensity of use, number of people
living here, and location, the pedestrian framework should be more generous and direct.
Walks along the front building faces should be 8 feet wide with 4x9 tree grates.
TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6’, the minimum required by Code.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Prior to Hearing: Please provide renderings prior to hearing illustrating the
buildings, including the materials and their colors. The images provided for the Building Height
Review may be sufficient for this requirement. Note that building colors and materials should
reflect both the historic neighborhood characteristics and the Poudre River, as per the PDR
comments.
TBG Response: Done
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please also label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility
plans. Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans, "Please see Section 3.4.1
of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." Finally, please
call out the NHBZ in the Gross Acreage calculations as a separate area.
TBG Response: Done
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please note the following comments from Building Services:
1. Building code requires a 1-hour building if constructed with wood.
2. Fire-sprinkler required.
3. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler.
4. State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units per that code.
5. New Green Code requires:
a. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building
located within 1000ft to train tracks.
b. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
c. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
e. Low VOC interior finishes.
TBG Response: So noted, passed along to architect
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to hearing, please indicate how the current proposal meets the parking lot
perimeter landscaping along Linden Street, specifically Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) that requires the
following:
- "Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter,
earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a
minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70)
percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of
the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the
required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways.
Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic
depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the
required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three
(3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened."?
-Note that one option discussed during staff review was a 36" fence or wall to provide the
screening and take up a minimal amount of space on the site.
TBG Response: To keep costs at a minimum, we are providing landscape material to meet this standard.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The stormwater detention pond that fronts on Linden Street is contrary to earlier
discussions that indicated the Linden Street frontage would be preserved for commercial uses.
Based on discussions at the staff review, let's continue to review (after the hearing) the ways in
which this portion of the site can be enhanced.
TBG Response: Resolved.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Please see the landscape redlines, including the recommendation that street trees
along Pine Street mimic the existing street trees (honey locust), that the currently proposed
honey locust could be replaced with the proposed elm species, and that the landscape area in
front of the building recessed area should be significantly different than the other landscaping
on the north. Please also note Advanced Planning comments regarding the design along the
front of the building.
TBG Response: The street trees along Pine are now Honeylocust.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please note that the two upsized trees (currently the boxelder trees) need to still
meet the 3' requirement. Please make a note on the landscape plans which trees are meeting
the mitigation standard.
TBG Response: Changed to 3” caliper.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Site Lighting - see Zoning's comments regarding the lighting plan.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.
Topic: Modification of Standard
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The project has requested two modifications (1) Section 4.17(D)(c)(4) Frequent
view/access and (2) Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) Height/Mass. Both of the modifications are
supported by Section 2.8.2(H)(2) because the project "substantially alleviates an existing,
defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to
the City." In addition, staff supports the justification for 'Height/Mass' that the provision of a
pedestrian scale environment meets this standard equally or better than the standard sets forth.
TBG Response: The modification request was approved.
Topic: Planning Objectives
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: In your statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies please also
discuss the following:
-Principle LIV 16 (Historic Preservation), e.g., how is this project addressing historic
preservation planning and regulations (Policy LIV 16.4)?
-Policy LIV 22.3 - Offer Multi-Family Building Variation
-Any applicable Principles and Policies for the Downtown District Principle LIV 32, and the
Poudre River Corridor Overlay (LIV 45), including Policy LIV 45.3(3).
TBG Response: Done
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: In your statement regarding proposed open space, wetlands, please describe the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone this project is dedicating on the north side of the project. Please
also address this in section (vii) of the statement.
TBG Response: Done
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Can the bike rack be moved closer to the project entrance (see Section 3.2.2(C)
(4)(b) of the Land Use Code?
TBG Response: The bike rack has been relocated to the west side of the main entrance walkway.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing. The walkway on the north side of the project (the promenade)
should connect to the walkway that extends out to Linden (Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) and Section
4.17(D)(1)(b). Another requirement is to continue the connecting walkway directly across the
parking lot to have a more direct pedestrian connection. Based on Long-Range Planning
comments, it would also be desired to have sidewalks on both side of the Linden Street
Entrance to the project.
Is there any way to provide a low seating wall (retaining wall) so that this suggestion doesn't
conflict with the site's grading plan?
TBG Response: We have added a 4’ wide crusher fines path following the 63’ contour and tying into the
crosswalk.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: All connecting walkways should be a minimum of 6' in width
(Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)).
TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6’.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Is there a drop-off area in the front of the building? See Section 3.2.2(F).
TBG Response: The driveway width is 30’, so there is room for a car to park in front, although PFA may
require the curb to be striped red and signed no parking, fire lane.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: While only two ADA spaces are required (Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)), are the
applicants sure that is sufficient for the proposed use?
TBG Response: The applicant feels that 2 spaces are sufficient.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Standard stall depth requirement is 19' (See Section 3.2.2(L)) -
see Zoning comments regarding overhangs and allowable depths. If this standard is not met, a
modification is requierd.
TBG Response: The modification request was approved.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Trash Enclosure- how is this plan meeting Section 3.2.5(B)(5) of the Land Use
Code along Poudre Place?
TBG Response: The trash enclosure design provides pedestrian access and is adequately sized for trash
and recycling.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Note Section 3.5.1(C) of the Land Use Code that requires new buildings in historic
areas to reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. Compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the
Land Use Code is required.
TBG Response: Regarding compliance with 3.5.1(C), the building materials and colors are complimentary
with the historic nature of the RDR district and the downtown area. Regarding 3.4.7, the applicant
acknowledges that future development on the parcel along Linden Street will be reviewed by the historic
preservation staff.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Continue the sidewalk in front of the trash enclosure (see Section 3.2.2.(C)(2) of the
Land Use Code.
TBG Response: See revised plans.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Building Height Review - Staff has received the shadow analysis
and summary required by Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b) but not the visual analysis required. Please
provide this analysis, including an elevation of what the view from Linden Street looks like (to
meet both this standard and Section 3.52.(C)(2) regarding Street-Facing Facades.
TBG Response: Done
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C000 - A typical cross section of the Poudre Street (Alley)
needs to be included on either the cover sheet, grading sheet or preliminary plan and profile
sheet.
NES Response: A typical cross section has been added to drawings.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. The preliminary Plan and Profile is required prior to hearing for a number of
reasons but in this case we are specifically concerned with the south edge of Poudre Street
and how the design and construction will interact with the adjacent property owners. If a
preliminary design profile can not prove that adjacent property owners will be affected then
letters of intent will need to be gained by adjacent property owners agreeing to allow for
construction or grading easements for construction. 05/16/2012: A preliminary plan and profile
design of both flowlines will need to be provided for Poudre Street (Alley) prior to hearing. A
design sheet may be submitted for review directly to engineering prior to hearing.
NES Response: Adjacent property owners were notified by developer and Letters of Intent were provided
prior to the public hearing.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C100 - Adjacent property owners will need to be notified and coordinated
with regarding moving the fence along the south edge of Poudre Street out of the Right of Way.
NES Response: Adjacent property owners were notified by developer and Letters of Intent were provided
prior to the public hearing.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Is there design considerations for the large radiuses of the returns on
the south property access? Engineering would support a smaller radius for such a large access
off of an Alley.
NES Response: Curb returns are designed based of PFA truck turning movements.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Please provide a 2.5' concrete apron, 12" in depth across the south
access of the project adjacent to the right of way line. This does not need to be a concrete
pan but is required as a delineation and set grade for future maintenance and paving of
Poudre Street.
NES Response: A concrete collar has been added on the south side of Poudre Street along existing right-of
way.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C300 - How is the swale crossing the poudre trail north of the project? A
culvert is recommended by engineering.
NES Response: Proposed drainage swale will widen out to disperse flows and terminate at existing low
crossing along public trail.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - It is unclear how portions of proposed drainage basin 4 will drain into
area inlet in island of parking lot.
NES Response: Spot elevations have been added to clarify grading/drainage.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - The minimum allowed cross slope is 1.5% and maximum
is 4% for reconstruction. The cross slopes on Poudre street exceed 5%. Consider creating
another low point and high point to minimize these cross slopes to less than 4%.
NES Response: Cross slopes have been revised to meet city standards.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: Page 5 of the Drainage report makes reference to Drake Road.
NES Response: Drainage Report has been revised.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: A repayment of $42,078.88 for the Linden Streets Streetscape will be due prior to
issuance of building permit.
NES Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: An easement and maintenance agreement will be required for the sidewalk
connection, steps and railing north of the project on the adjacent project. Engineering will
require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property owner (City of
Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department and discuss
obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with real estate
services.
NES Response: The drainage, access and landscape easement is currently being approved by Council.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No Comment
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: From the County Assessor's website it appears that their are different ownerships
for the numerous lots associated with this project. If this is the case than multiple signature
blocks will need to be added to the plat corresponding to the different owner's.
NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has
not been determined.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: It is understood that the outlet pipe for the detention pond will require an easement
by separate document. Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating
that the adjacent property owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify
the appropriate department and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the
applicant begin speaking with real estate services.
NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The NE corner of Poudre Street and NW Corner of Pine Street should have a 10' x
10' triangle right of way or easement provided to ensure the corner is not obstructed in the
future. Refer to details 7-11F and 7-12F of the LCUASS standards.
NES Response: Sight triangle easements have been added.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Utility easements need to be dedicated on the back of the right of way along
Poudre Street and Linden Street.
NES Response: A utility easement is being provided along Poudre Street.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: An offsite easement will be required for the drainage swale north of the project.
Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property
owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department
and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with
real estate services.
NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: ECS -
- Conflict with the ECS, which suggests not regrading the entire site, with the site's grades, this
is prohibitive, but the ECS should be updated to reflect the current proposal. For example,
what management strategies are suggested to address the proposed conversion of the site
from a non-native grass dominated area to a native grass/shrub/cottonwood landscape?
- In addition, as the stormwater detention area is within the NHBZ, please have the ECS
address this as well.
Cedar Creek Response: We will be contacting Lindsay Ex to discuss ECS.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Fugitive Dust Control – A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from
Larimer County Environmental Health for development involving:
- Land clearing of 5-25 acres;
- Land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or exceeding 6
months in duration.
TBG Response: So noted.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: As with zoning and current planning comments, the lighting plan
must extend into the buffer zone to ensure Section 3.2.4(D)(6) has been met.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: : Landscape notes that address tree separations could add these separation
dimensions in LUC 3.2.1. Six feet between trees and water and sewer service lines. Street
trees placed at least eight feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys.
TBG Response: The notes have been added to the landscape plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Discuss with the City Forester and Project Planner street tree placement and
selection along Pine Street to achieve the canopy street tree standard.
TBG Response: See landscape plan – trees have been changed to Honeylocust.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Northern Red Oak does not thrive in Fort Collins soils often being deficient in iron.
Texas Red Oak or Shumard Oak are similar and are much more tolerant of Fort Collins soils.
Some designers prefer to use Tartarian Maple in place of Ginnala Maple. Both are on the Front
Range Recommended Tree list with Tartarian receiving a higher rating due to its generally
better adaptability to soil chemistry.
TBG Response: The tree species has been changed to Shumard Oak.
Department: Historic Preservation Planning
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
The project has taken advantage of a complementary design review offered by the Landmark Preservation
Commission, and has incorporated a few features and materials similar to those on the historic buildings in the
downtown area, such as red brick, decorative lintels and brick arch details above the third story windows. Although
there are concerns regarding the compatibility of a four-story building adjacent to single family homes that have been
determined to be eligible for the national, state and local registers of historic properties, the applicant is addressing
these concerns by placing restrictions on the parcels of land fronting Linden Street, to act as a buffer and maintain
both the streetscape and historic character of Linden. These parcels will be restricted to ensure that they are
developed to be in character with the adjacent historic buildings in size, scale, materials, and design, as determined
by Historic Preservation staff. The restriction will be approved by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner and City
Attorney’s Office and will be documented on the plat prior to recording.
TBG Response: The building materials and colors are complimentary with the historic nature of the RDR
district and the downtown area. The applicant acknowledges that future development on the parcel along
Linden Street will be reviewed by the historic preservation staff.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700) will need a Commercial Service
Information (C-1) form completed and a 1-line diagram of the electric service. Electric
development and system modification charges will apply.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Electric utility facilities will need to be installed before the sidewalk.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: If any regulated or hazardous materials are encountered during Light & Power
construction, removal or remediation will be at the developer’s expense in addition to normal
electric development and system modification charges.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: If a fire booster pump is required, please coordinate power requirements with
Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700.
RWE Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: After plans are final, please send an AutCAD drawing (version 2008) of the site
plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
Response: So noted.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Megan Harrity,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Five parcels are in ownership of; KIEFER BLAIR A FAMILY TRUST
One parcel is in ownership of; KIEFER MARJORIE R
Please include a signature block for all owners to sign the final plat. Please feel free to contact
me if there are questions about the ownership. My number is 970.498.7065 and my email is
mharrity@larimer.org
NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has
not been determined.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Landscape plantings need to continue to be reviewed by Parks and Forestry for
compatability with the City trail and the City will need to grant construction and maintenance
easements.
TBG Response: So noted. Council is in the process of approving the easement.
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-416-2864, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
08/29/2011: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Poudre Fire Authority charges a fee for submitted
development review plans. Cost for this review is $250. For more information, contact Hayley
Spurrier at hspurrier@poudre-fire.org.
Response: The applicant would be happy to pay the $250 review fee, but we need to ask if the fees still
apply if this is an affordable housing project?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: 08/29/2011: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM Where adequate
radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification
systems shall be installed in the following locations: 1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in
size or addition(s) to an existing building that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 SF.
For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. 2. All
new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater than 50,
regardless of the occupancy classification. 3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1
and 2 of this section undergoing alterations exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the
building. Public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority. PFA Fire Prevention Bureau
Administrative Policy 07-01
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Addressing: The customer wishes to have the building addressed off of Linden.
This will only be honored if all fire department panels and services can be provided in a room
for fire dept use only, or the lobby. There must be a paved walk from the dedicated fire lane to
said room or lobby.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A full 13 fire sprinkler system is required to offset the lack of emergency access to
the rear of the building.
RWE Response: We will work with the fire department to see if 13R can be used in lieu of a 13 system.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please do not lose sight of the associated Fire Pump requirement that
accompanies the Standpipe System.
RWE Response: Our mechanical engineer is working with fire and water/wastewater to determine if
required PSI can be met without pump. If not, one will be included in the design.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A remote fire dept connection is not necessarily required, but can be provided if
already planned.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Because the fire lane is contiguous from Linden to Poudre St (alley), Poudre
Street shall be improved to be a hard deck which is designed to support 40 ton.
NES Response: Poudre Street will be improved with an asphalt pavement section
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012:
1. Drainage Report P. 4 – Please revise the FEMA Map date to be May 2, 2012.
2. Drainage Report P. 4 – Please include a FEMA FIRMette of the site area in the appendix.
Please label or include a legend for the floodplain map on P.4
3. Drainage Report P. 9 – Please discuss that the structure has been elevated to account for
potential debris blockage at the Linden bridge. Compare the BFE to the floor level and the
bridge deck and the ground elevation where water may spill around the bridge.
4. Drainage Report P. 9 – Discuss the floodplain issue for the outfall pipe and that a floodplain
use permit and pre- and post-construction no-rise certification will be required. You can include
your no-rise justification in the drainage report instead of a separate memo, if you prefer.
Please document the tolerances for surveying for no-rise is 0.00 feet.
5. Please see comments on the plans related to the floodplain notes.
6. More detail will be required on the outfall pipe.
NES Response: Drainage report and drawings have been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please see redlined plans for other minor floodplain comments.
NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The outfall pipe for the site needs to be discussed regarding the best location on
where to release the flows. In the field, the best location looked to be at the toe-of-slope near
the bank of the river. This may be in the Poudre River Floodway where regulatory measures
will need to be planned and executed by the Applicant.
NES Response: The horizontal and vertical location for the proposed outfall pipe has been agreed upon per
on-site meeting with City staff on 7/2/12.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The design details for the off-site swale, the PLD in the parking lot, and the water
quality pond can be determined during final compliance.
NES Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Off-site drainage easements are required for the drainage swale and water quality
pond outfall pipe. If the off-site property owner is the City of Fort Collins, drainage alignments
will be required. A Letter of intent for these easements is required before a public hearing.
NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A reminder that Detention Pond Landscape Standards apply to the water quality
pond.
NES Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A curb cut was missed to drain part of the parking lot into the PLD.
NES Response: Curb cuts have been added.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet LS2.
TBG Response: Fixed.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The boundary & legal description close.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholder's signature block.
NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has
not been determined.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add a note referencing development agreements & other documents
affecting this property, per Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(u).
NES Response: A note has been added to plat.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add missing lot numbers, ownership, and linework for the surrounding
properties. See redlines.
NES Response: Plat has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: All right of ways must reference how they were dedicated.
NES Response: Plat has been revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add "Point of Beginning" to sheet 2.
NES Response: Plat has been revised.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add a complete legal description.
TBG Response: Legal description added.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Please place an R1-1 (Stop) sign on the alley intersections with Linden and Pine
streets.
NES Response: Stop sign has been added.
Topic: General
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Seems that I recall some future plan for the alley to extend to the Azatlan Center. If
that is true a sidewalk serving this section of the alley would be an asset.
TBG Response: The alley is being paved with construction of this project. In addition there is a 6’
continuous connecting walkway through the site from Linden Street to Pine Street.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Please locate both Honey Locust trees at the alley access 3-4 feet further north
than shown on sheet LS2. Reviewing the sight triangle here provides the possibility that the
trunk could be in the line of sight of someone attempting to pull out into the alley. Granted its
just one tree trunk but I would like to give cyclists and the senior residents as much
unobstructed visibility of each other in that area as possible.
TBG Response: The existing trees located on-site will be removed with construction of the alley. The
existing street trees installed with the Linden Street Improvements will need further discussion among City
staff.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Route 81 and 8 provide service on Linden Street adjacent to this site. Section
3.6.5 of the LUC states that all development proposals shall accommodate existing and
planned transit facilities. Currently there is not an accessible southbound bus stop in the
vicinity of this site, therefore the applicant shall provide a 12' x 18' accessible concrete pad for
a bus stop, preferably in the ROW between the sidewalk and existing curbline, additional
space may be necessary behind the sidewalk to accommodate the 12' depth. The location of
the pad should be at least 50' south of the driveway proposed. Please let me know if you
have questions.
TBG Response: We have added a 12’ x 18’ pad as requested.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: A 4" water service and an 8" sewer service seem large for the number of units
included in the project. Provide hydraulic sizing calculations for review. If the 8" sewer service
is really needed, add a manhole at the point that the 8" service connects to the City sewer.
RWE Response: Mechanical Engineer is evaluating proposed sizes for both sanitary sewer and domestic
water services and will provide calculations as necessary.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: At final, label all fittings valves, pipe lengths, etc. and include standard details.
NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: See redlined plans for other comments.
NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 4.17(D)(3)(d)4. This section requires a minimum roof pitch
of 8:12 for hipped and gable roofs. Please call out the roof pitches on the elevation drawings
to verify compliance.
RWE Response: We have labeled the roof pitches and overall building heights to the revised elevations.
The roof lines shown on the architectural elevations are in conformance with design guidelines
of Article 4, page 85 of 142. Since all of the roofs at the top of the four story building are hip
roofs we are conforming to the 6/12 pitch stated in paragraph 4 entitled "Rooflines".
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Please provide elevation drawings for all structures (Trash Enclosure and Utility
Enclosure). Elevations drawings need indicate building height
RWE Response: Enclosure Elevations are provided with the Final Plan set.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5 When a landscaped area has vehicle overhang on two parallel
sides then the landscaped area shall be at least 7 ft in width between those two sides.
LUC 3.2.2(H) Vehicular use area shall be setback along a nonarterial street at least 10 ft and
along a lot line 5ft.
Along Poudre Street the proposed setback is not in compliance with the code.
TBG Response: The modification for the 7’ width was approved The setback on Poudre Street has been
changed to 5’ to meet Code.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.2(K)(5) Accessibility spaces are required to be identified also by a sign.
NES Response: Signs have been added.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Mechanical/Utility equipment (vents, flues, RTU, ac units, conduit...) should be
included on plans (site, landscaping, elevations) with notes on how such equipment will be
screened/painted.
RWE Response: All mechanical vents, flues, AC units, etc. are screened by hip roof parapet on the
building. All units are below top of roofline.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D) This section states the standards for Reduced Minimum Size of
plantings for Affordable Housing Projects.
TBG Response: The landscape plan shows reduced minimum sizes.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.5(B) and 3..5.1(I) Trash/Recycling enclosures shall be constructed on a
concrete cement pad and designed with walk-in access without having to open the main
service gate. Also the enclosure is to be setback 20ft from a public sidewalk.
The proposed enclosure does not have a walk-in access.
TBG Response: The trash enclosure design provides pedestrian access and is adequately sized for trash
and recycling.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.4 The lighting plan is for the entire site and light levels twenty feet beyond
property lines. Please adjust lighting plan to include the mentioned items and other standards
found in the cited section.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.