Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNARCONON FENCE @ 1225 REDWOOD ST. - PDP/FDP - FDP120023 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement November 20, 2013 Ms. Lindsay Ex City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Lindsay, Response to City comments for the Narconon fence at 1225 Redwood St. Please see the below response to comments and the revised drawings. If you have any questions regarding these responses or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to contact us. Stephanie Sigler, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Sherry Albertson-Clark, 970-224-6174, salbertson-clark@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 Fences along collector streets shall be made visually interesting and avoid creating a tunnel effect. This standard can be met by integrating architectural elements (brick or stone columns), using articulation, or openings in the design, varying the alignment or setback, softening the appearance with plantings, or similar techniques. To the extent reasonably feasible, fences and sections of fences that exceed 100' in length shall vary the alignment or setback of at least 1/3 of the length of the fence by a minimum of 5 feet. The southern area of fencing is about 480' in length, so variations in alignment are recommended in this area, as well as along Redwood Street. Because of the existing mature landscaping that would be affected in this area, the variations should be done in such a way that does not affect the existing landscaping. The area where the alignment changes (setback area) would be an alternative place for landscaping. Since the fence along the west, south and east property lines will be very visible from Conifer and Redwood Streets (both collectors) we would suggest that columns be considered as a way to improve the appearance of the fence where visible from these streets. Another option to consider (depending on the location of utility lines) may be to set the fence farther inside the property lines and use the existing trees to help break up the appearance of the fence. Response: There is a lot located between the fence and Conifer Street and therefore this fence is not along that collector Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 2 of 7 street. I understand the fence is visible from Conifer and in order to minimize the “tunnel effect” we propose groups of shrubs. There are mature existing trees which will be preserved and also provide visual interest. The fence along Redwood Street has been relocated in between two rows of mature existing trees due to a fiber optic line at the back of sidewalk. Columns require foundations that would be harmful to the root systems of these trees. In order to minimize root damage it is preferred that the fence run in a straight line parallel with the tree rows. Groupings of shrubs have also been added to create visual interest on this side as well. 3.9.8 Fencing and Walls (A) Materials. Walls and fences shall be constructed of high-quality materials, such as tinted, textured blocks; brick; stone; treated wood; or ornamental metal; and shall complement the design of an overall development and its surroundings. The use of chain link fencing or exposed cinder block walls shall be prohibited. The fence shall be treated redwood with a wood cap. (B) Location. Fences and walls shall be set back at least six (6) feet from the back edge of an adjoining public sidewalk, and such setback area shall be landscaped with turf, shrubs and/or trees, using a variety of species to provide seasonal color and plant variety. This fence has been placed away from the public sidewalk and in-between two rows of existing trees. (C) Maximum Length. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken and uninterrupted fence or wall plane shall be forty (40) feet. Breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, transparent sections and/or a change to different materials. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken and uninterrupted fence is 40 feet. Breaks of shrubs 33 feet long have been provided as well as existing mature trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 Fences between the front building line and front property line or in the front yard are typically no more than 4 feet high, unless necessary for a demonstrated unique security purpose. Please provide a written response to address the required security needs. There are also concerns as to how emergency access will occur with the front area being fenced and a gate proposed. If gates are proposed, a detail of what they will be constructed of needs to be included. Response: The reason we are seeking to install a 6-foot privacy fence all the way around the facility is that we are a health care facility and we are treating drug and alcohol addiction in a residential setting. Our patients are accorded confidentiality through both State and Federal statute. As our clients are usually admitted to the facility for 90 days they spend quite a bit of time outdoors. While they are outside their confidentiality is just as legally and socially important as when they are inside the facility. Our goal is to protect the privacy of those in treatment under HIPPA (Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act) and CFR 23 and these are the primary legal reasons we are looking to protect the identities of our clients. Erecting a 6-foot privacy fence is a reasonable measure to take to protect our patients’ identities and make them feel safe with regards to their privacy. Secondly, we get an inordinate amount of pedestrian traffic (loitering and trespassing) through our property, particularly across the corner of our property along Conifer St and Redwood St. and a 6-foot fence would create a sufficient impasse to these activities. If a gate is installed across the driveway we will coordinate with Poudre Fire to determine the best option. Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 3 of 7 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 Comcast provided a map to show the trunk location (see attached) and asked that if there are any questions, call Don Kapperman at 970-567-0245. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 The landscape plan includes a note (#6) that an irrigation plan will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. A building permit is not required for the installation of a fence, so this note should be revised. Given the proposed locations of landscaping along and outside the fence, how will irrigation be provided? Response: The note has been removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 A copy of the site and landscape plan was sent on 1/2/13 to REA for review of the proposed fence along the north property line. Comments were requested from REA by 1/16/13. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: The proposed gate across the driveway. • If there is to be a gate it will need to be setback from the street so there is room for vehicles can pull in the driveway and not block or be within the street or across the sidewalk while the gate is opened. • How will the gate be operated? Will there be a call box or a punch pad and will the driveway need to be widened to accommodate this? I will need to review any changes to the driveway. • The driveway and the parking area is a public access easement. I don’t know why this was dedicated this way with the plat, but if the desire is that the public no longer has access to this area (because of the gate) then this would need to be vacated. Response: The gate is 23 feet west of the flow line for Redwood Street. The property owner will coordinate with emergency services if a gate is installed. If public access is cut off with a gate the easement will be vacated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Need verification from whoever has the overhead electric lines that they are okay with the proposed fence within and crossing their easement. A letter from them or a signature on the plans will work. Response: Please see attached letter Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 4 of 7 12/28/2012: The utility plans for this site show a swale along the south property line. Does this still exist and where is the fence in relationship to this if it does exist? Response: The swale partly still exists however the fence will not impact it. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Need verification from Stormwater that they are okay with the drainage easement being fenced. Response: Please see attached image Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please note on the plans that the fence and columns shall be placed outside of the row and a minimum of 2 feet behind the edge of sidewalk. Response: The note has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: It would probably be a good idea to show the storm inlets, storm line and utility services that go into the site so they can be avoided. Response: These items have been added Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No comments on the proposed fence. However, the applicants should be aware that a 50' wide corridor is planned, through the Aspen Heights project to the south, for wildlife habitat. This corridor should continue north through the western edge of this property. As the fence is proposed 20' east of the vacant lot's western property line, it still preserves the opportunity for this area to serve as a wildlife corridor and to be enhanced should any future development occur on this site. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The use of taller shrubs at the corner may impact sight distance at the corner. Please review use of taller shrubs at this location. Response: The plans have been modified Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The fence is very close to some existing trees. Will these trees be impacted? Please schedule a on-site meeting with the City Forester to review construction impact. Please add the tree protection specification found in LUC 3.2.1G. Response: The site visit took place on November 1st with Ralph and Tim. The plans have been modified to what we Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 5 of 7 discussed. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012 12/17/2012: There are existing 13,000 volt underground power lines near the proposed fence locations. Before digging, be sure to call the state One-Call system by dialing 811 to have these lines located on the ground. Depending on the distance between the power lines and the fence, the builder may need to excavate and expose the power line to determine the precise location. The fence cannot be constructed within 4 feet of any underground power line. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No comments Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: SECURITY GATES The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. 2006 International Fire Code 503.6 Response: Acknowledged. A note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property. A plan for re-addressing the facility shall be implemented if the fence is to obstruct visibility of the currently posted address. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 6 of 7 Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: A drainage engineer needs to submitt a letter to verify how this fence can be installed and not affect the drainage system. The fence location follows an existing onsite swale which may be blocked by the fence posts. Also there is a major drainage outfall for the regional pond to the north that is not identified on the plan. How close to the outfall channel is the fence to be located? A cross section showing the channel and the fence is needed from the engineer. The engineer needs to be licensed in Colorado. Response: Per a phone call with Glen on October 31, 2013 it was agreed that the fence will not impact the drainage system and an engineer will not be required. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please darken the sheet number "L-2" to match "of 3". Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please move the label for Parcel 1, it is on Parcel 2. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: There are 2 line over text issues on sheet L-2. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please darken the sheet number "CVR" & "L-1" to match "of 3". Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Parcels 1 & 2 are labeled incorrectly on sheet L-1. Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet L-1. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please move the degree symbol for the bearing along the north line of Parcel 1 on sheet L-1. Response: The plans have been updated. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please show the existing bus stop on all plan sets. It is located to the west of the sidewalk that connects the entry way to the sidwalk on Conifer Street. Narconon Fence PDP/FDP Comment Responses Page 7 of 7 Response: The bus stop has been added to the site plan. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/26/2012 12/26/2012: Obtain field locations for the water and sewer services and fire line. Show/label these on the project drawings with notes to avoid placing fence posts over these lines. Response: The plans have been updated. Department: Zoning Contact: Gary Lopez, 970-416-2338, glopez@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 While standard wood picket fences may be appropriate for neighboring individual residential properties a better product of wood fence along street views is recommended for this facility. The LUC would normally require walls made of similar material/color of building however understanding the expense of these vs. Narconon's non-profit status wood fencing of high quality would be a reasonable compromise. Response: A wood cap has been added to the privacy fence and we have specified redwood rather than cedar. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 In the event that existing signs need to be relocated, the new sign locations must comply with the setback requirements for ground signs set forth in Sec. 3.8.7(G)(1) of the Land Use Code. The setback is based on the size and height of the sign. Response: Acknowledged. The fence has been relocated to avoid moving the signs. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 Its not clear whether there are columns per the elevation but these seem to show up on the site plan. Columns are needed to break up the long fencing but need to appear on the street face. Columns should be of brick similar to the building. Please show elevations and description of what these are made of. Response: Due to cost, columns have been avoided. Plant groupings of shrubs and large existing trees will serve to break up the long fencing. In order to avoid a fiber optic line at the back of curb, the fence is placed between two rows of existing trees. This will also help the appearance.