Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT STATION - PDP - PDP130004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com June 29, 2012 - Responses February 13, 2013 Dave Derbes Brinkman Partners 3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Re: 223 West Prospect Road Description of project: This project proposes a 4 story, 35,000 s.f., mixed-use building with 3 - 5,000 s.f. of commercial on the ground floor and the remainder as 36 multi-family dwelling units and 47 parking spaces between surface and "tuck under" parking. The site is a 0.73 acre lot in the Community Commercial (CC) and TOD Overlay Districts. The proposed uses are permitted subject to administrative review (Type I). The site is not in any specific plan area but is directly adjacent to the railroad and the Mason Corridor/MAX. Please see the following summary of comments regarding the project request referrenced above. The comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com 1. Land Use Code (LUC) 4.18(B)(2) Mixed-use dwellings is a permitted use in the Community Commercial (CC) zone district that is processed by a Type 1 review (public meeting with an administrative hearing officer). Response: Acknowledged. 2. LUC 4.18(E)(2)(d) In the CC zone district all buildings shall be at least 20ft in height but limited to 5 stories. Response: Acknowledged. LUC 4.18(F) TOD Overlay projects shall be subject to requirement in Division 3.10 LUC 3.5.3 This section does apply. This section does include build-to-line standards. Response: Acknowledged. The building is located 17.89’ from the new Prospect Road right-of-way. 3. Since the project does not have access off a street there is possibility to develop the current access easement as a street like private drive. Doing this will ensure the multi-modal access to the other properties that share the access easement. Response: We think it was determined at a meeting that we don’t need this drive being a street-like private drive. However, we have sidewalk connections and opportunities for street trees. There is minimal parking along this drive with only 5 spaces. 4. LUC 3.2.5 Trash/Recycling enclosures need to be designed with a walk-in access without having to open the main service gate, on a concrete cement pad, and at least 20ft from a public sidewalk. Response: Acknowledged. 5. LUC 3.2.2(K) Parking standards, Like the applicant stated there is no minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay zone. However there are new requirements for bicycle parking that are in the process of being adopted. Response: 38 parking spaces will be provided within the site boundary, with an additional 11 spaces on the Griffin Foundation property to the west. When providing any off street parking accessibility spaces are required, For 47 vehicle spaces at least two of those shall be accessibility spaces that a located as close to the primary entrance. On of these spaces shall be van accessible. These spaces are required to be designated by a sign. Response: Accessible parking spaces are provided. 6. LUC 3.2.1 This section requires that a Landscape plan be provided (see section for requirements). Response: Landscape plan is provided. LUC 3.2.4 This section requires that a Lighting plan be provided (see section for requirements) Response: Lighting plan is provided. 7. Mechanical/Utility equipment (vents, flues, conduit, meters, and units...) locations shall be identified on plans (Site, Elevations, and Landscaping) with a note on how they are to be screened/painted. Response: Mechanical wells are inset from perimeter walls with hipped roofs for concealment. The mechanical well will conceal rooftop condensing units and will be capped by architectural metal copings and materials to coordinate with facades Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com 1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include an 8-inch water main and a 10-inch sewer in Prospect and a 6-inch water main in Tamasag Drive. Response: Noted on the plans. 2. The existing building on the site has a ¾-inch water service connecting to the main in Tamasag and a sewer service connecting to the sewer in Prospect. If not used, these services must be abandoned at the main. Response: Noted on the plans. 3. Separate water and sewer services will be required for the commercial and residential portions of the building. Response: Noted on the plans. 4. . This project will be required to install an 8-inch sewer main in Tamasag from the sewer in Prospect to the south property line on the site. Response: New sewer is shown. 5. Grease interceptors will be required for any restaurants included in the mixed-use building. Response: A restaurant requiring a grease trap is not anticipated. 6. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: Acknowledged. 7. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Credit will be given for the existing established account on the site. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Transfort Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com 1. 6/28/2012 - Please refer to Andrew Gingerich's comment regarding the ROW and the location of this Bus Pullout, he indicates that the pullout will fit in the ROW to be provided by the project. The sizing indicated in LCUASS suggests this pullout needs to be 180", but Transfort does have working pullouts that are as small as 130', which can be accommodated in the area available. Please work through exact placement of the bus stop and pullout dimensions with Andrew and myself. 6/21/2012 - This site is directly adjacent to the Mason Corridor and the MAX bus rapid transit service planned to begin service in May 2014. The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan indicates that a route will ultimately run on Prospect Road as a feeder route into MAX. Section 3.6.5 of the LUC states that development proposals shall accommodate planned or existing transit infrastructure needs. This project will need to provide a bus pullout in accordance with drawing 711 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and provide a transit easement for a future bus stop adjacent to the bus bay of at least 12' x 18'. I am unable to attend the conceptual review meeting on the 25th, but am happy to talk about coordinating the exact location with you. Feel free to contact me with questions. Response: The bus bay has been designed per a meeting with Emma and Andrew. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com 1. The eastern edge of this property abuts the FEMA regulatory 100-year Spring Creek floodplain. A Flood Risk Map is attached. It isn't readily apparent if the floodway extends onto this property, so the floodway should be mapped onto the site plan to determine if there is any overlap between the floodway boundary and the property line for this address. Any development within the floodway (dark blue on the Flood Risk Map) must conform to Chapter 10 of City Code. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 2. Please contact Shane Boyle of Stormwater Master Planning at sboyle@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. This information will be needed to insert the floodway boundaries on the site plan. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 3. Any development (buildings, sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) in the floodway must be preceded by a floodplain use permit, no-rise certification, $25 permit fee, and approved plans. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 4. A no-rise certification, documenting that there will be no change in the Base Flood Elevation or floodway boundary must be prepared by a professional engineer. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 5. Floodplain use permit forms, no-rise certification forms and development review checklists can be obtained at http://fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents. Please utilize these documents when preparing plans and permits for submittal. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 6. The Floodplain Administrator for the Spring Creek Basin is Brian Varrella; 970.416.2217, bvarrella@fcgov.com. Please contact Brian or Mark Taylor, 970.416.2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com to schedule a meeting at your convenience. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 7. The narrative provided states that the amount of impervious area that will be removed will be about the same as what will be installed. It is still important to document the existing impervious area on an exhibit since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. If there is any increase, detention is required for the increased area. The additional allowed on some projects does not apply to sites that are totally scraped for redeveloped. Response: The project boundary does not touch the floodplain / floodway. 8. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan and the Spring Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan as well the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual. The purple line on the topographic map provided is the line between the two basins. The design engineer will need to address the shifting of the southern portion of the site to the Old Town drainage basin as proposed in the narrative and show that the inlet in Prospect is sized to take the additional flow. Water cannot pond on Prospect any more that it already does. Response: All of the site currently drains to Spring Creek either sheeting to the south (very slightly) or in the inlet/pipe in Prospect. The MSO model assumes the entire site flows south which is incorrect. We are proposing to drain in a new storm system to the inlet in Prospect and to the MSO pipe since we are so close to the BNSF pond. The sheet flows to Prospect will be reduced. 9. Water quality treatment of the runoff needs to be for 100 percent of the site. The narrative stated water quality treatment may be provided by using a mechanical device. Mechanical devices are usually used in a "train" of water quality treatment or in areas where there is no other possible way to provide treatment. The parking lot medians or perimeter landscaped areas are preferred to be used for treatment over a mechanical device. The landscaped areas are places that bio-retention or rain gardens can be installed. Other methods can be found at: (http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual_volIII.htm) Response: We are proposing to use two (2) snout water quality devices in the parking area. The area is a brownfield site and had a leaking tank in years past. We do not want to promote any additional infiltration into the soil. 10. The Bus Rapid System will be building a new storm sewer along the eastern property line that will be deeper than the existing one. Just as a word of caution, the excavation may be disruptive to the site especially considering how close the proposed building is to that future storm drain. The unused easement for the trail may still be needed if the trail is moved to the west to accommodate the new storm drain line. Response: The trail easement was only for trail in the easement agreement and the vacation allowance is also in that agreement. No easements were obtained by the Mason project for this site. We have reviewed the plans and do not see a concern. 11. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans (which includes a grading plan) are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete. The erosion control requirements can be found in the Stormwater Design Criteria Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com. Response: Drainage report is provided. It is our understanding that EC report is not needed until final. 12. The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria. Response: Noted Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com 1. This project has the potential to affect a property that has been determined to be eligible for designation on both the Colorado Register of Historic Properties and as a Fort Collins Landmark. Therefore the project would be reviewed for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. Response: Acknowledged. 2. LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Response: Acknowledged. LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object that is [designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Response: Acknowledged. LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible: Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Response: Acknowledged. 3. The appllicant is encouraged to take advantage of free design assistance to help ensure compatibility with LUC Section 3.4.7. Available is the Design Assistance Program, which provides up to $2,000, provided the applicant selects a design consultant from the Design Assistance Program Consultant’s Master List, and the design meets the requirements of the city’s building codes. This assistance is available regardless of the building’s age or eligibility for designation. Response: Acknowledged. 4. The applicant is encouraged to take advantage of free Complimentary Reviews with the Landmark Preservation Commission Design Subcommittee very early in the project. These may be arranged by contacting staff. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com 1. This project is approximately 500' from the Spring Creek Corridor. An Ecological Characterization Study will not be required, but all landscaping and site design should emphasize the Spring Creek Corridor, per 3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code. Response: Acknowledged. 2. The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any trees on site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221-6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements as the result of development impacts. Response: Acknowledged. We will meet with the City Forrester on-site to evaluate existing trees. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com 1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. Response: Acknowledged. 2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Acknowledged. 3. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. Response: Acknowledged. 5. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Response: Acknowledged. 6. 6/28/2012 - Transportation Staff has met and discussed the future Right of Way needs for Prospect adjacent to this project. It has been decided that the 102' of constrained arterial right of way will be sufficient for this project. 6/22/2012 - This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Additional Row along Prospect will be needed to meet arterial standards (115 foot row section). Response: The 102’ ROW dedication is shown on the plat. 7. Construction plans will be required. Response: Acknowledged. 8. A Development Agreement is required and will be recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. Response: Acknowledged. 9. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Acknowledged. 10. 6/28/2012 - Transportation Staff has met and discussed the future Right of Way needs for Prospect adjacent to this project. It has been decided that the 102' of constrained arterial right of way will be sufficient for this project. This should accommodate full 12' travel lanes, 8' parkway, 7' bike lane and 6' sidewalk in the future. This will also reserve enough space for a future transfort bus pullout. 6/22/2012 - Prospect is classified as an enhanced travel corridor and will need to have right of way dedicated for this project. The right of way for a 4-lane arterial is 115¿ and this project will be responsible for dedicating its half of this requirement. Response: The 102’ ROW dedication is shown on the plat. 11. The Mason Tail easement will need to be discussed further and it will not be allowed to be vacated by plat and if it is determined that a portion can be vacated it will need to be addressed by separate document. Furthermore, this easement was purchased by the City of Fort Collins so it is likely that fee will need to be collected to vacate a portion to this project. Response: Please discuss the vacation with Patrick Rowe in Real Estate. The easement agreement is very clear that the unused portion of the original easement can be vacated with no repayment to the City. 12. Easements other than the Mason Trail can be vacated via plat for this project provided that there is verification in the form of a letter that adjacent property owners (mainly southern) do not require these easements for future development or property needs. Response: We plan to vacate the easement that was Tamasag with a separate document as well. It is our understanding that the city requests any comment from the neighbors (although when we vacated the ROW, the intention to vacate the unnecessary portion of the easement was made clear to the owner to the south). 13. Parking setbacks will need to comply with LCUASS standards, figure 19-6. Response: Parking is all set back per standards. 14. It appears from the site plan that this project is proposing improvements to the access and parking west of the site along the west side of the access. These improvements will require an offsite construction easement from the adjacent property owner to construct. Response: Noted – we will discuss this with you during review. 15. Staff wants to convey that they are willing to meet offline to continue discussions regarding Prospect Right of Way Dedication, Mason Trail Easements, vacation of easements, etc. Response: Noted – please see the plat and we can further discuss. 16. The 6' sidewalk along Prospect will need to be constructed with the back of the sidewalk on the right of way line. Additionally, a transfort shelter easement will need to be dedicated behind the right of way. Please contact Emma McArdle with Transfort at 970-221-6197 to coordinate the location of the easement. Response: Walk and bus stop have been designed per conversations with Transfort. Department: Electric Engineering Contact: Janet McTague, 970-224-6154, jmctague@fcgov.com 1. Currently the property is served with single-phase power. There is three-phase power available to the west, but we would need to intercept an existing three-phase line and install an electrical vault. We'll need to coordinate a transformer location within 10' of a paved surface. We'll need to coordinate the electric meter bank to ensure that there isn't a conflict with the gas meter bank. Normal development fees plus system modification fees will apply. Response: Acknowledged. We are showing a transformer located at the entrance to the site, northwest corner of the building. We would be happy to coordinate a location that is satisfactory. Current Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com 1. Entrances shall face the street per Sec. 3.10 (A). Response: The Live work and retail components orient entrances towards the Mason Street Corridor bike trail and Prospect Road. Residential access is via a primary entrance that is accessed both from tenant parking and the Mason Street Corridor bike trail. 2. A plaza feature shall accompany the transit stop ajacent to the site. (Sec. 3.10(B). Response: A central gathering plaza is provided and located at the connecting transit nodes of Prospect Road and the Mason Street Corridor. This public plaza connects transit frontages including a transit stop and future kiosk. Natural seating, landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, public art and building architecture create gathering opportunities along the entire Prospect Road frontage and wrapping the building to front the Mason Street Corridor. 3. No parking shall be located at the side of the building per Sec. 3.10.4(C). Response: Off-street parking is provided on the interior of the project and behind street and pedestrian oriented facades 4. Is development being proposed on the lot to the west? Response: We are planning on improving the area by adding parking spaced and sidewalk connections. We anticipate a reciprocal parking agreement with the owners to the west. 5. The corner unit and patio encroach onto the Mason trail and the other retail units are very close. A certain clear area will need to be established to avoid conflict. This should be discussed further with staff. Response: We have addressed this with the PDP plans. 6. The proposed development project is subject to a Type 1 review and public hearing, the decision maker for Type 1 hearings is an Administrative Hearing Officer. The applicant for this development request is not required to hold a neighborhood meeting for a Type 1 hearing, but if you would like to have one to notify your neighbors of the proposal, please let me know and I can help you in setting a date, time and location for a meeting. Neighborhood Meetings are a great way to get public feedback and avoid potential hiccups that may occur later in the review process. Response: Acknowledged. 7. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide includes links to just about every resource you need during development review. Response: Acknowledged. 8. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm. Response: Acknowledged. 9. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard. Response: Acknowledged. 10. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php. Response: Acknowledged. 11. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal. Response: Acknowledged. 12. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with Community Development and Neighborhood Services at (970)221-6750. Response: Acknowledged.