Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST RANGE FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP130022 - 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 December 27, 2012 Brent Cooper Ripley Design, Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RESONSES 05-29-13 Planning Response (Ripley) Civil Response (Northern) Architect Response (VFLA) RE: West Range Fort Collins, PDP120028, Round Number 2 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: Current Planning Contact: Sherry Albertson-Clark, 970-224-6174, salbertson-clark@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 12/21/2012: The wall along the west property line is described as “plain grey concrete with the exteriors buried”. Please provide a detail on the site plan showing the design/height of this wall. Response: Detail added to site plan, sheet 2. Wall ranges from 0 to 30" and is utilized to direct water through the water quality area. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 12/21/2012: In interpreting the shadow study, it is not clear whether the shadow on the property to the west shown on the December 21 9:00 AM illustration is created solely by the hypothetical 25 foot wall, or if a portion is created by the building. I think this can be clarified through some additional labeling. Response: Colors were added to shadow study to clarify. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 12/21/2012: The upright landscaping provides some visual break in the mass of the building; however, screening of the parking area under the north end of the building and along the Meldrum Street side is still needed and will further help visually break up the scale and mass of the east elevation. (see comment 4 below). Response: Three 30" walls added to screen parking. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 12/21/2012: Please check labels on Sheet 8 of 8. Several of the elevations appear to have the labels for brick and stucco switched (as compared to the graphic symbol used). Response: Corrected Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 12/21/2012: It is not clear that the landscape screening along the Meldrum Street frontage achieves the required screening of the parking area. A low wall (30 – 36” 3 high) along much of this area would provide the necessary screening. Without a wall, I do not believe the plant materials achieve the necessary screening (ie. At least 30 inches high and extending at least 70% of the length of the parking area frontage), particularly with the use of ornamental grasses and perennials. Please add detail of wall height, location, materials. Response: Three 30" walls were added to provide more screening for parking. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 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: A temporary construction easement/agreement has been provided directly to your department. Comment Number: 7 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: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: You may want to think about shoring any excavations that could potentially impact Arthurs Ditch. Response: This will happen during construction Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: Construction details were not included in the plan set with this submittal Response: Construction details have been added. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: Proposed utility plan and profiles were not included in the plan set with this submittal. Response: Utility services are the only utilities being proposed for this project. Inverts, lengths and slopes are shown on the plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: Sheet C2 of the utility plans call to connect to the existing gas service in the parkway. After discussions with Xcel, all (3) existing gas services should have been cut off at the main prior to demo of the existing structures on the property. The service to feed this development will need to be a new tap off the existing gas main in College Ave. If the existing gas service that you call out on the utility plans has not been cut off at the main then Xcel states that this development will be responsible for the costs associated with abandonment and new tap and service fees. Please coordinate gas service installation with Xcel. Please show the new tap location and approximate patching limits on the next submittal. Response: Response: The existing service has been shown on the demolition plan to be removed and a new service is now shown on the utility plan with specification to remove the existing street patch and connect to the existing gas main. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: Arthur Ditch representatives will need to sign the plat for the easement dedication. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/20/2012: The drainage easements shown on the plat are split by a utility easement. With majority of the drainage from the parking lot draining across the utility easement should the easements be combined and dedicated as a drainage and utility easement rather than identifying separate easements? Response: The drainage easement spans the entire area and a separate utility easement is proposed over the drainage easement. The Utility Easement has been revised to be a drainage and utility easement. 11/14/2012: The drainage easement boundary is not clear. Please identify the boundary with arrows on the plat. Response: Arrows have been added to the plat for clarity. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: Sheet C3 of the utility plans reference a 6 foot utility easement along the west property line that is not shown on the plat. Response: The 6 foot utility easement has been added to the plat. 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: Comment addressed with previous submittal. 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: Comment addressed with previous submittal. 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: Comment addressed with previous submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2012 11/13/2012: The condition of tree #4 is poor. Response: Comment addressed with previous submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: 4. Evaluate using Canopy Shade trees in place of the two pear trees along Meldrum Street. (LUC 3.2.1 D 2 b) Response: Per discussion with Tim Buchanan, the Pears were replaced with Redmond Linden. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: 5. Please review the parking lot island for adding an additional canopy shade tree based on its dimension. (LUC 3.2.1 E 5 b) Response: Per discussion with Tim Buchanan, it was determined there wasn't sufficient room for a second tree in this island due to second story overhang. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: 6. Please review the possibility of adding trees in the landscape perimeter area along the alley. This includes the landscape areas between the entry and exit and just to the east of the parking lot exit along the alley. Response: Per discussion with Tim Buchanan, the landscape area along the alley between the entrance and exit cannot accommodate a tree because of an electrical box being added to this area and line of site issues. In the landscape area just to the east of the exit to the parking lot a Swedish columnar Aspen will be added in the planting bed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: 7. Please consider increasing the use of canopy trees by changing the three Spring Snow Crabapples and flowering pear along the west boundary by the parking area at the NW part of the site to Canopy shade trees. Using Kentucky coffee tree for the crabapples and Redmond Linden for the pear is one possibility. This will also help mitigate at this site for the loss of the large Hackberry tree. Response: Per discussion with Tim Buchanan, the north most tree in this area was changed to a Linden. The other ornamental trees were kept and pushed west to keep out of the low point of the swale. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: 8. For mitigation tree sizes in the Plant list Bosnian Pine would need to be 8 feet height. Swedish Columnar Aspen can be 2.5 inch caliper as an ornamental tree. Response: Upsized to 8' as requested. 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: Only single phase is required for the building. 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: Rerouting was discussed at the utility coordination meeting and is revised on the plans. 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. 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: 07 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM It has been previously noted that a fire sprinkler system shall be required. As this building is by definition, out of fire access, the required fire sprinkler system shall be a full NFPA 13 system rather than a 13R. Response: This will be drawn during construction documents Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2012 11/16/2012: Please provide water quality calculations and show that the space being provided is sufficient for the required water quality treatment. Response: The requested water quality calculations are included in Appendix C of the revised Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for West Range Fort Collins. The available water quality volume is less than the water quality volume (461 cu. ft. versus 261 cu. ft.) calculated with UD-BMP_v3_01, RG. The primary reason being site constraints such as a shallow existing storm drain outfall and a low adjacent parking lot finished grade. The shallow existing storm drain prevents us from installing an underdrain and providing at least eighteen inches of Bio-Retention Soil Media (BSM). The low adjacent finished grade limits the ponding depth within the water quality area to eleven inches. This depth is generally sufficient for ponding, but is not deep enough for ponding and developing a full BSM section with underdrain. The proposed design allows for nuisance flows to infiltrate and water quality event flows a maximum residence time of 12-hours. As designed, the available water quality volume will drain over a twelve hour period. Developed flows that fill the available water quality volume will overtop through an inlet grate and release through an orifice plate at a maximum rate of 0.50 cfs. Please refer to Section IV.B revised Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for West Range Fort Collins for additional details. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2012 11/16/2012: Proposed parking lot trees may be in conflict with the water quality mitigation area. This needs to be coordinated so all LUC requirements are being met. Response: This area has been widened to 10', allowing more room for the trees. Trees have been coordinated with the City Forester and are mostly smaller ornamentals. Proposed trees and the associated root systems are less of a concern now that the water quality mitigation area design does not include an underdrain. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2012 11/16/2012: Please provide updated hydrology calculations as verbally discussed for documentation of existing and proposed flows for each sub-basin. If the flows increase, further discussion and mitigation may be required. Response: The updated hydrology calculations are in Appendix A of the revised Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for West Range Fort Collins. The developed runoff calculations for Phase I were updated using the current City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves. In general, the net runoff neither decreased or increased. More specifically, the developed flows in sub-basin A did not increase or decrease because the quantity detention release rate remained unchanged (i.e., 0.50 cfs). The developed runoff in sub-basin B decreased during the minor and major storm events. The developed runoff in sub-basin C increased during the minor and major storm events. However, the increases, relative to the respective storm events are negligible (i.e., +0.35 cfs during the 100-year storm event). Please refer to Section IV.B revised Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for West Range Fort Collins for additional details. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: There is still a line over text issue on sheet 8. 11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 7 & 8. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/26/2012 12/26/2012: Please move the Hidden Elevation - Patio Entry on sheet 7 up toward the center of the sheet. Response: Elevation moved up. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: This has not been corrected. Please add "A Part Thereof Being A Replat Of" in front of the current sub-title. The sub-title should match the Subdivision Plat. 11/14/2012: Please change the sub-title on sheet C0.00 to match the subdivision plat. Response: The wording has been revised. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/26/2012 12/26/2012: There is one line over text issue on sheet C3.00. Response: The line over text has been revised. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: There are new line over text issues. 11/14/2012: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheet 5. Response: Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: The boundary & legal description close. 11/14/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: This has not been addressed. 11/14/2012: Are there any lienholders of this property? If so, please add the Lienholder signature block. Response: Lienholders will be supplied prior to mylar. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/26/2012 12/26/2012: Is the 15' utility easement meant to be an utility & drainage easement? Response: The 15’ Utility Easement has been revised. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 12/26/2012: There is still one issue on sheet 2. 11/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Response: Corrected per redline. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 12/21/2012: No further comments. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No further comments on the PDP. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No further comments on the PDP.