HomeMy WebLinkAboutUPTOWN PLAZA - PDP - PDP130025 - CORRESPONDENCE -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
February 14, 2014
Jim Hillhouse
Hillhouse Architects, Inc.
8897 Gander Valley Ln.
Windsor, CO 80550
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
02/11/2014: The material labels and notes do not match. Please revise.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/11/2014
Topic: General
02/11/2014: Please show where the 4 enclosed bike parking spaces are located.
09/11/2013: The site plan notes that 38 bike parking spaces are provided inside the building but there
are only 19 lockers. How will two bikes fit into each locker? Each bike is required to have 6 square
feet of space.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/11/2014: The street trees need to be in tree grates consistent with the rest of the area.
09/11/2013: A 10' detached sidewalk with street trees is required. This sidewalk coupled with the 10' -
25' build-to line should provide enough space to preserve some of the existing mature trees on site.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
Topic: Site Plan
02/11/2014: The parking calculations are incorrect. Please double check, I calculated a maximum of
82 spaces permitted. (retail = 35, financial = 16, fast food = 31)
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/11/2014
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, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or
slorson@fcgov.com.
RE: Uptown Plaza, PDP130025, Round Number 2
Page 1 of 10
02/11/2014: Please add to the sign note that signs are not permitted with this application and require a
separate sign permit.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/11/2014
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
02/13/2014: Please ensure the existing streetlights are depicted on the plans. We may need to have
the street lights shifted slightly depending on how they align with the sidewalk design commented in
#1.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2014
Topic: General
02/13/2014: The pedestrian movement is technically impacted in terms of being able to remain in
right-of-way by the half circle landscape strip being created. We would either need to look at having
additional right-of-way be dedicated in order to preserve the public area that traverses the property, or
if the landscape strip were eliminated/modified such that a pedestrian still has 5 feet of walkable
right-of-way behind that could be an option as well. The drawings should then show the concrete panel
sizing design, where ideally the right-of-way will coincide with the scoring such that the right-of-way is
discernable.
09/11/2013: The construction plan indicates keeping the existing attached sidewalk and saw cutting
out areas for tree and tree grates, which would leave about 2 feet of concrete width to the south of the
cut-out area. The plans are then ambiguous on what occurs directly south in terms of hardscape. With
the plans showing removal of the existing trees south of the existing walk, the implementation of trees
in tree grates will need to result in the removal of the entire existing sidewalk and the installation of a
new wider attached sidewalk. The sidewalk should be 12 to 15 feet in width to provide some shy
distance away from the structures as well as being in keeping with the Campus West study. Additional
right-of-way dedication and/or access easement may need to be dedicated.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
02/13/2014: The plans with the reconfiguration of the ramp should indicate the removal of the full panel
section in the drive approach to accomplish the reconfiguration of the access ramp.
09/11/2013: The construction plans need to indicate the reworking of the existing drive approach onto
Elizabeth Street, creating a sidewalk across the driveway as well as modifying the existing handicap
ramp to an access ramp with truncated dome detection and having the drive approach in concrete
within the right-of-way, in accordance with LCUASS detail 707.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
02/13/2014: Carried over for reference. After hearing we'll need a legal description drawn up for this
access easement, a completed deed of dedication document in our format, along with a $250
easement dedication fee and Larimer County. Please contact me for additional information when
undertaking the easement requirement.
09/11/2013: The access ramp on the west side of the driveway out to Elizabeth Street should ideally
also be rebuilt with truncated dome detection, though this appears to require work on the neighboring
property to the west, requiring an easement if not already in place. Should the access ramp on the
west side not be built at this time, an access easement should be conveyed to the City that allows
future redevelopment of the property to the west the legal ability to install an updated access ramp.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
Page 2 of 10
02/13/2014: Carried over, just as an FYI, the patching doesn't need to meet City requirement with the
roadway being private. The water tie in will be inspected, but the patching will not. Similarly, the retrofit
of the access ramp with truncated domes at this location can certainly be done but isn't required from
the City's perspective.
09/11/2013: The construction plans indicate that the patch for the street cut is to be per City
requirements. As the roadway is private and not owned or maintained by the City.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
02/13/2014: Is it the viewpoint that the work along the eastern boundary can be constructed without
needing a temporary construction easement from the property owner to the east?
09/11/2013: The construction plans show an area east of the property that implies off-site work is to be
done. Please clarify if off-site work is needed and if so, a letter of intent is needed from that property
owner prior to a public hearing, or indication of an already existing agreement/easement for the work.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/11/2013
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
09/10/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
09/10/2013: Can any additional good existing trees be retained? Please provide a statement that
explains the need to remove significant trees.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
09/10/2013: Contact the City Forester for an onsite meeting to obtain the number of mitigation
replacement trees for each significant tree that will be removed. A table should be provided on sheet
PDP L2 that has all the significant trees identified by number, diameter, and condition, retain or remove
and mitigation number of new trees for each removed tree. Total the number of required upsized
mitigation trees and provide for that number of upsized trees. Mitigation trees should be sized as
follows.
Shade Tree 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental Tree 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Tree 8 feet height
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
09/10/2013: Please add tree protections specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G to sheet PDP L2.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
Page 3 of 10
09/10/2013: Add standard landscape notes including the following.
• The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to
a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the
soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable
method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square
feet of landscape area.
• A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan
are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk
and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be
planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate
of occupancy.
• The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion
of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape
plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain
approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of
occupancy for future phases of the development.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
09/10/2013:
Please identify if tree grates will be used around new trees along Elizabeth and the size and type of
grate.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
09/10/2013: Skyline Honeylocust would be a better species to use as the street tree along Elizabeth
in the sidewalk cutouts so those trees can be changed to honeylocust. Consider using catalpa or Bur
Oaks in the parking lot islands where Honeylocust is currently used.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
09/10/2013: The Forestry Division has noticed that Princess Kay Plum does not survive well. Consider
using Chanticleer pear or a flowring crabapple in its place.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
Page 4 of 10
02/12/2014:
Retaining Existing Trees:
The project has incorporated many of the existing trees into the design to preserve additional tree
canopy. Hardscape improvements are shown to be installed near most of the trees to retain. It is very
important to carefully review all construction impact around the existing trees to be sure they can be
adequately protected enough from construction to ensure their likelihood of survival.
Please have an experienced, private, qualified and certified arborist or horticulturist evaluate the
proposed construction impact to all of the projects existing trees to retain. The design team arborist
may be able to provide information to modify or improve the design so tree survivability will be
enhanced.
Please have the certified arborist provide a report that explains and describes, 1) construction impact
to each of the existing trees and the likelihood of each trees survival, 2) any design modifications
being recommended or implemented to reduce construction impact to trees, 3) identify if there are any
existing trees to retain that may be damaged too much by construction that their retention may not be
advised, 4) and provide recommended maintenance steps and practices for existing trees after
construction.
These are some but not all things that should be evaluated by the design team’s arborist in preparing
the report:
1. Any grade changes that includes a fill or cut over a large portion of the root system within the drip
line of the tree. Design modifications that can improve any grade change.
2. Root system impact from any deep cut near the trunk of trees caused by excavation from
foundations, curbs, walls etc.
3. Evaluate the possibility of making larger openings where a tree is surrounded by hardscape.
4. Evaluate if walls can be moved further away from existing trees.
5. Evaluate the possibility of spanning with surface level beam sections of walls or foundations to
avoid cutting roots close to the trunk of a tree. Essentially this technique bridges over the root system
with a beam to avoid placing a deep foundation near the tree while the beam supports the structure.
6. Design of irrigation line locations to avoid cutting tree roots.
7. Design opportunities to protect a greater area of the root system.
8. Evaluate the Civil engineering plans to determine impacts to trees and possible modifications.
9. Evaluate spread of tree canopies for trees close to the structure for adequate clearance from any
building walls or roofs including tree number 22.
10. Located new utility lines away from existing trees or bore under root system.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
02/12/2014:
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Page 5 of 10
02/12/2014:
Please add these two tree protection notes and edit to note 7:
A private certified arborist shall review and monitor construction around existing trees on the project for
compliance with the tree protection specifications. Specifications shall be strictly followed. The arborist
shall provide recommendations and direction to the contractor on following tree protection
specifications and methods. Inspections shall be provided at critical times during the project to ensure
trees are protected. The general contractor is responsible to arrange for the involvement of the
certified arborist and to follow recommendations to the maximum extent feasible.
All tree pruning and removal work shall be provided by a business that holds a current City of Fort
Collins Arborist License as required by code. Tree pruning and removal shall occur prior to all other
construction starting on the project.
Add the table found in LUC 3.2.1 G 7 after tree protection note number 7.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
02/12/2014:
There are two existing Austrian Pines just off-site that are east of tree number 19 and 18 that appear to
be impacted by construction. Identify these trees in the inventory and mitigation list. If they are to be
removed the owner of the trees must provide approval for removal of the trees. If they are to be
removed provide documentation of the approval by the tree owner for removal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
02/12/2014:
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) was detected in Boulder Colorado in late September. It was thought that
there would be much more time before this insect pest was detected in Colorado.
EAB is a very aggressive and lethal pest of all ash species. Colorado State University Entomologists
state it is a matter of time until EAB is detected in Fort Collins. Treatments have been shown to be very
effective in protecting ash trees from EAB attack. Treatments need to be repeated every 1-2 year to
remain effective. Untreated ash trees in areas where EAB is epidemic will not survive.
Owners of ash trees in Fort Collins need to be willing to treat their trees for an extended period of time
if they wish to keep them alive once EAB has established and become epidemic in the City. It is
unknown when EAB will be detected in Fort Collins. It could be in the near future or more than a
decade away.
There are currently 5 ash trees being retained on the project.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Page 6 of 10
02/12/2014:
Add these two landscape notes:
Trees shall not be planted closer than forty feet between shade trees and street lights, fifteen feet
between ornamental trees and streetlights, twenty feet between shade and ornamental trees and traffic
control signs and devices, ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains, six feet between trees
and water or sewer service lines, four feet between trees and gas lines and eight feet away from
driveways.
The developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final inspection and
maintenance acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be
established, an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
02/12/2014:
Contact the City Planner to get additional standard landscape notes to add to the plan that address
such things as plant quality, approval of plants and locations by the landscape architect etc.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
02/12/2014:
Additional Trees:
Evaluate the possible City approval of planting a Chanticleer Pear in the planting bed in front of the
Financial Services Building. This location is a little closer than 15 from the street light, which is the
minimum separation standard. The City Forester recommends the applicant contact Doug Martine in
the Light and Power Department to determine if this ornamental tree can be allowed at this location
closer to the street light than standard.
In front of the Café there is a circle on the landscape plan that seems to be a tree but it is not a symbol
used for listed trees. Evaluate if a tree can be provided at this location and identify it as to species.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
09/09/2013:
1. Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed
and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development
Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any
utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and
submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to
contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes.
The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or
(970) 416-2483.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2013
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 7 of 10
08/26/2013: No comments
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
02/12/2014: FIRE CONTAINMENT
The building envelope exceeds 5000 square feet and shall be sprinklered or fire contained. As no fire
line is being shown on the utility plan, it appears the applicant intends to fire separate the units. If
containment is used, the containment construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire
Authority at time of building permit.
Please also note that any A-2 group occupancy (restaurant, bar, etc.) with an occupant load greater
than 99 persons is required to have a fire sprinkler system. Without a sprinkler system, the occupant
load will be limited to 99 or fewer persons.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
02/04/2014: Minor Redlines on all the Erosion Control Materials. Erosion Control Escrow, Plan and
Report. See stormwater engineering's plans for redlines. If you need clarification concerning this
section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/11/2014: This requirement might be met. Only two times the additional area of the porous
pavement may drain onto the porous pavement surface. This is to keep the porous pavement from
clogging prematurely. If this requirement is not met, than additional LID techniques may be required to
meet the 50% site area requirement.
09/10/2013: The site is also required to have 50% of the land area drain into a LID treatment facility.
The development is meeting the 25% porous pavement requirement which can be counted towards
this, leaving an additional 25% of the land area needing to be treated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
02/11/2014: The plans are still vague on to exactly where the porous pavement will be located.
09/10/2013: Please document on the plans where the porous pavement will be located, as well as the
underground detention.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2013
02/11/2014: At final, the City's standard details for porous pavement and other drainage infrastructure
will need to be included.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/11/2014
02/14/2014: The porous pavement areas need to be in a drainage easement.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/14/2014
Page 8 of 10
02/14/2014: Please see redlines for other comments.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/14/2014
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
02/12/2014: No comments.
09/04/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
Topic: Construction Drawings
02/12/2014: The Range number in the sub-title is incorrect.
09/04/2013: Please correct the sub-title on sheet 1. This project is located on Lot 1, Diamond
Shamrock Corner Store Subdivision.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
02/12/2014: Repeat comment. Benchmark 19-97 is listed as being located on the southeast corner of
Elizabeth & Shields. If you have found this in error, please let us know so we can send our Surveying
Department out to verify.
09/04/2013: Please add a number for the second benchmark listed on sheets 1 & 2. If this is
supposed to be benchmark 19-97, it is listed as being located on the southeast corner of Elizabeth &
Shields. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
02/12/2014: There are line over text issues on sheets 4 & 5. See redlines.
09/04/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 3, 4, 5 & 6. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
02/12/2014: There are 9 sheets in the plan set, but all sheets shown "X of 8" except the cover. Please
correct.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Topic: General
02/12/2014: This was not included in the review set. We will need to check it, if it is to be filed.
09/04/2013: SECOND FLOOR PLAN: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP-A5. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/12/2014: There is a line over text issue sheet L1. See redlines.
09/04/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
02/12/2014: This is still an issue. There are line over text issues as well. See redlines.
09/04/2013: The lighting fixture details have text that is hard to read. Please clean this text up. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
Topic: Site Plan
Page 9 of 10
02/12/2014: Please remove "A redevelopment of" from the description on all sheets.
09/04/2013: Please add a legal description of the property where this project is located.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013
02/12/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet A2. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/12/2014
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, ,
Topic: Site Plan
09/09/2013: Can you clarify on the site plan that there is a sidewalk at grade adjacent to the street?
There needs to be an accessible path with accessible ramps at the driveways also.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2013
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
09/09/2013: On the water services to be abandoned, add note to remove the curb stops and meter
pits.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/09/2013
02/10/2014: From Water Utilities standpoint, the project now includes two buildings. An excerpt from
City Code states..... "To qualify as one (1) building, all portions, additions or extensions must be
connected by an attachment that is an enclosed part of the building and usable by the occupants".
Each building must have separate water and sewer services.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2014
02/10/2014: See notes on the redlined plans regarding the existing water services.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2014
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/10/2014: Repeat comment.
09/09/2013: Show water and sewer mains and services on the landscape plan and adjust plantings to
meet required separations distances.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2013
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
01/30/2014: The table indicates that the parking is based on fast food restaurant, financial, and retail.
That means that any other allowed Type 1 use will require a minor amendment to the plan.
09/06/2013: The land use data table should contain a listing of the potential types of commercial uses.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013
Page 10 of 10