HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST RANGE FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP120028 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -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
November 15, 2012
Brent Cooper
Ripley Design, Inc.
401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RESPONSES 12-12-12
Planning Response (Ripley)
Civil Response (Northern)
Architect Response (VFLA)
Electrical Response (APS)
RE: West Range Fort Collins, PDP120028, 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, Sherry Albertson-Clark, at
970-224-6174 or salbertson-clark@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: A temporary construction easement/agreement from the adjacent property owner
will be required for the concrete wall construction on the west property line.
Response: Conversations have been started with the adjacent property owner.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: It is the developer’s responsibility to improve the frontage along the property
including repairs to damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk. We understand that this may be
difficult along Arthurs Ditch and we will work with you on alternatives for the repairs identified
over the ditch.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: You may want to think about shoring any excavations that could potentially impact
Arthurs Ditch.
Response: General contractor will coordinate this with excavator during construction, note will be added to
architectural permit drawings.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please update General Note #5
Response: Revised
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please revise General Note #34 to reference the City of Fort Collins
Response: Revised
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Construction details were not included in the plan set with this submittal.
Response: Construction details will be included at final design.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Proposed utility plan and profiles were not included in the plan set with this
submittal.
Response: Plan & profiles will be included at final design.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The site plan shows (2) trees in the sight distance easement. Please note that
landscaping within the sight distance easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height.
Response: The two Red Barron Crabapple trees were removed from the sight distance easement.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add the Sight Distance Easement Restrictions language to the plat- contact
me for an updated copy of this language.
Response: The language has been added to the plat.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Arthur Ditch representatives will need to sign the plat for the easement dedication.
Response: A signature block has been added to the plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: This submittal is not dedicating the standard 9 foot utility easement along the east
boundary of the property. If you are not dedicating this easement then approval from utility
owners must be confirmed prior to final approval of the plat.
Response: Utility easements were discussed within the Utility Coordination Meeting. The easements
shown with the plat represent the discussion had at the meeting.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add our standard note to the plat- “There shall be no private conditions,
covenants or restrictions that prohibit or limit the installation of resource conserving equipment
or landscaping that are allowed by Sections 12-120 – 12-122 of the City Code.”
Response: This note has been added to the plat.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The drainage easement boundary is not clear. Please identify the boundary with
arrows on the plat.
Response: The drainage easement has been dimensioned to make the limits more distinct.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: No comments.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: Please add this sentence to Landscape note #14: To protect existing trees from
root damage do not cultivate more than 2 inches deep within the drip line zone of existing
trees.
Response: Note added.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: Please add the following as a tree protection notes:
All tree pruning and removal work shall be performed by a City of Fort Collins licensed arborist
as required by code.
Response: Note added.
Prior to grading or excavation with in the drip line zone of any existing tree contact the City
Forester. Contractor is responsible to schedule inspections.
Response: Note added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: The condition of tree #4 is poor.
Response: Condition updated in mitigation plan.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Will this site require any 3-phase power? 3-phase or 1-phase power will require
system modifications with 3-phase being more problematic. Owner will be responsible for
system modification charges.
Response: It will be 3-phase power to service the elevator. This will be coordinated between electrical and
architect during construction documents.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The existing electric vault shown on the utility plan will need to be replaced with an
oval vault or a switch cabinet. An oval vault maybe preferred due to the sight distance
easement. This is something that cannot be driven over.
Response: The replaced vault is located outside of a drivable path. If 3-phase power is decided on, we will
required to remove that vault all together.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The proposed electric line and transformer will need to be in a utility easement.
Response: A utility easement has been dedicated on the plat.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Owner will be responsible for Electric Capacity Fees, Building Site charges and
system modification charges for this development.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Relocate the proposed electric line to the West drive entrance so it's not located
under the second story of the building.
Response: The electric line has been relocated.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: This building will require an automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate
permit.
Response: This will be addressed during the construction documents phase of the project
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed
parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located
beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3
occupancies.
2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1
Response: This will be addressed during the construction documents phase of the project
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS - GROUP R-2
A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in Group R-2 (residential) occupancies where any
dwelling unit is located three or more stories above the lowest level of exit discharge and
where the building contains more than 16 dwelling units. Your current plan of 15 units and
2-stories does not trigger this need however, should the number of dwelling units increase, a
manual alarm system may be required.
2006 International Fire Code 907.2.9
Response: This will be addressed during the construction documents phase of the project
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: FDC
Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. The
location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department.
2006 International Fire Code 912.2
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved
location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system.
The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor.
2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20
Response: This will be addressed during the construction documents phase of the project
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from
the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals
on a contrasting background.
2006 International Fire Code 505.1
Response: This will be addressed during the construction documents phase of the project
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 7 & 8.
Response: Adjustments have been made to the drawings
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please change the sub-title on sheet C0.00 to match the subdivision plat.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The description for benchmark CSU2 does not match the City's published
description. Please change this on all sheets.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The Basis Of Bearings statement on sheet C0.00 does not match the subdivision
plat.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet C1.00.
Response: These have been revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please change the West Laurel Street right of way on all sheets to "varies". See
the subdivision plat for more information.
Response: This has been revised.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 3.
Response: Issue corrected.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheet 5.
Response: Corrected
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The boundary & legal description close.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add "A Part Thereof" & "And A Portion Of Lot 6" to the sub-title.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add the Sight Distance Restrictions statement.
Response: This has been added.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Is the Arthur Ditch easement new or existing? If it is existing, please provide a
reception number. If it is new, please add an Easement Dedication for the Arthur Ditch.
Response: The Arthur Ditch Easement is being proposed with this project.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Are there any lienholders of this property? If so, please add the Lienholder
signature block.
Response: This is being looked into and will be added at final.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add "and it's southerly extension" to the Basis Of Bearings statement.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please add a note #3 referencing the agreement the City & CSU have for the right
of way of Laurel Street. If more information is needed please call.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please make the found monument symbols the same size in the legend & on the
boundary.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please clearly label the sight distance easements.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please make sure that all distances are clearly defined.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please describe & tie the southeast corner of Block 86 or remove it.
Response: This has been revised.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: Please label all right of way widths.
Response: This has been revised.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2.
Response: Corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: Just for verification, this project is not expecting to change the current on-street
parking layout on Meldrum correct?
Response: Correct, it will remain as-is.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: Looks like there will be sight triangle issues with the Red Baron Crabapple trees
planted between the two alley accesses. The problem looks greater at the east access but
both look to be problematic. Per review of Crab pictures on the internet they look to have a low
habit and may not be the correct choice for the location. Please review for access sight triangle
requirements.
Response: Red Barron Crabapple trees removed from sight triangle.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: The TIS is accepted.
Response: Noted
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: Show all existing water and sewer services and add appropriate notes on the
abandonment of any services that will not be used for the proposed project. Unused services
to be abandoned at the main.
Response: All existing water services are shown on the plans. The existing sanitary sewer service
locations are unknown at this point and a note on exploration of the services and abandoning the services
at the main has been provided on both the Existing Conditions Plan and the Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
11/13/2012: See redlined utility plans for additional comments.
Response: Redlines have been revised.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2012
10/31/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 5.1.2 Fraternity and sorority houses shall mean residences
housing students in organizations established primarily to promote friendship and welfare
among the members (i.e., Greek-letter social fraternities and similar organizations), and which
residences are affiliated with Colorado State University.
At this time the City has no proof of the Fraternity's affiliation with Colorado State University,
therefore the applicant will need provide such proof.
Response: The fraternity use has been deleted from the application and will be a Type 1 review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/31/2012
10/31/2012: 3.2.2(L)Table A and B Drive aisle width for two way traffic is a minimum of 24' this
includes the egress/ingress. The east entry into the parking area needs to increase in width to
24'.
Response: After discussions with City staff and the design team it was decided to make the parking lot a
one-way loop. The drive aisles, including the entry aisles, are now 22' wide. Signage will be placed at the
ingress and egress points indicating one way movement. Also, arrows will be painted on the lot indicating
direction of traffic.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The lighting plan shows foot-candles less than 1 in some of the parking area.
These areas need to be brought up to at least 1 foot-candle.
Response: I believe compliance reviewer is misapplying the intent of Land Use Code. He is trying to apply
the minimum values in section 3.2.4(C) as minimum point values in lieu of viewing them as minimum
average values. This makes a big difference on the lighting levels that I do not think is appropriate nor is
actually desired by the city for the area in question. The average foot-candle currently shown is 1.3 and is
more than adequate for the site in question. A follow up email was sent to Peter Barnes on 12-10-12
requesting interpretation of this issue.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: The trash enclosure is required to be designed with walk-in access without having
to open the main service gate. Please show the walk-in access on the site plan and provide
elevations of the enclosure.
Response: Access door has been added. Elevation 2 on sheet 7 of 8 shows the access door.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Sherry Albertson-Clark, 970-224-6174, salbertson-clark@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
The Building and Project Compatibility Standards (Section 3.5.1) of the Land Use Code require
that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings be compatible within the
context of the surrounding area. These standards address architectural character; building
size, height, bulk, mass, scale; privacy; building materials; building color; mechanical
equipment; and operational/physical compatibility. The east elevation along Meldrum Street is
the longest elevation and the one that would be most visible from the adjacent streets. Of
concern to staff is the length of this elevation, as well as the parking below the 2nd story, which
will be visible along Meldrum Street.
Response: The landscape plan has been updated to show treatment along this edge. Three large trees
are proposed to remain, substantially breaking up the mass and providing screening from the street.
Additional trees have been added where feasible between the existing trees. A substantial shrub bed is
located along the length of the east side of the building. The shrub bed ranges from 5' to 20' and will
contain shrubs and ornamental grasses that will be 30" and higher. A section has been provided with this
submittal to show a typical arrangement.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Several of the elevations appear to have the labels for brick and stucco switched (as
compared to the graphic symbol used).
Response: Adjustments to the drawings have been made.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Building colors need to be added to the architectural elevations.
Response: Exterior finish schedule added to the elevation sheets
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Shrub beds must be delineated and drawn to scale with dimensions; and the extent and
location of all plant materials and quantities and type (deciduous vs. evergreen) shown so that
compliance with Section 3.2.1 of the Land Use Code can be evaluated.
Response: Individual shrubs have been added to the plan.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Screening of the parking area visible along Meldrum Street requires a fence, wall, planter,
berm, plant material or a combination at least 30” high and extending at least 70% of the length
of the frontage of the parking area. As currently designed, the required screening does not
appear to have been accomplished. A section showing the proposed screening will also be
needed.
Response: A substantial shrub bed is located along the length of the east side of the building along
Meldrum. The shrub bed ranges from 5' to 20' and will contain shrubs and ornamental grasses that will be
30" and higher. A section has been provided with this submittal to show a typical arrangement.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
The area along the west property line, north of the plaza, indicates lighting levels that exceed
0.1 foot candle (ranging from 0.3 – 0.7 foot candle) and appears to be a result of the two 20’ tall
lights in the parking area, along the west property line. The maximum 0.1 foot candle level
must be attained at no more than 20’ into the adjacent site, since the adjacent use (sorority) is
considered a residential use under the Land Use Code.
Response: Response: Changed from 2 to 1 poles and changed the pole type, and added a house side
shield to bring the photometric into compliance.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 7
Since the proposed fraternity use is not affiliated with CSU at this time, the fraternity use must be
deleted from the application and the project will become a multi-family development. Given the
proposed density of less than 24 DU/acre, the project can be a Type 1 review.
Response: The fraternity use has been deleted from the application and will be a Type 1 review.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
A wall is proposed along the west property line of the site plan and construction plans show
this as a concrete wall. Please add the proposed height and description or sketch of the wall
design, as well as indicate the extent of the wall along the west property line. A maximum
height of 6’ is permitted in the rear or side yard, and 4’ is the maximum height in a front yard between
the front building line and property line.
Response: The extent of the wall starts at the northwestern property corner and runs south to the existing
fence corner on the neighboring lot. The wall height varies and top of wall/bottom of wall elevations are
shown on the Grading Plan. This wall is currently being proposed as plain grey concrete with the exteriors
buried.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
The site plan notes “enhanced paving” on one of the parking areas. Please provide a
description of this proposed treatment.
Response: Note has been updated to read 'colored concrete'. Color is to be determined but will likely be a
buff color, no stamps.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Additional information is needed on how the enclosed bicycle parking area is intended to
function. Also, the bike rack shown in the sidewalk along Meldrum Street should be provided
closer to an entrance or in an area that is more functional.
Response: Response: The enclosed bicycle parking will be key access to the building tenants and will have
space to hang the bikes vertically on the wall to save space. This will provide higher security as well as
protection from the elements. The bicycle rack on Meldrum has been moved closer to the main entrance.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
The proposed height and materials of the trash enclosure must be provided. Also, please show how
the collection and storage of recyclables will be addressed.
Response: Response: Height of the trash enclosure is shown on elevation 2 on sheet 7 of 8. Refer to plan
for garbage and recycling location within the trash enclosure space.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
The site plan notes that rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened. Please clarify how
this will be accomplished.
Response: Roof top units will be housed inside the roof cavity. This has been noted on elevation 1 on sheet
7 of 8
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012
Section 3.2.3 addresses solar access, orientation and shading and requires that the right to
solar access be protected and that elements of the site plan (building) not cast a shadow onto
structures on the adjacent property that would be greater than the shadow of a 25’ high wall
located along the property line, between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM on December 21. Please
provide information to evaluate this requirement.
Response: Shadow study performed. Exhibit is attached with submittal showing shade on December 21 at
9am and 3pm. The shadow does not exceed that of a 25' tall wall at the property line.
Department: Building Inspection – see attached information sheet.
Reviewer: COMCAST – Need to redo line to fee new building.