Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK RESIDENCES ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE - FDP - FDP150019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONSland planninglandscape architectureurban design entitlement May 6, 2015 Clark Mapes City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue, PDP140011, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comment responses from the above referenced project. If have any questions regarding the responses in red contact Stephanie Van Dyken with Ripley Design Inc. For responses in blue please contact Cody Snowdon at Northern Engineering For responses in purple please contact Andy Goldman at VFLA Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 Staff is prepared to support the Modification requests for the density number and the setback Number, as previously discussed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: The building design is highly responsive to LUC standards, public discussion comments, and staff comments. The work is acknowledged and staff supports the architecture as shown. Response: Acknowledged Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/13/2014 12/31/2014: The curb stop for the inch and a half service appears to still potentially be in future roadway widening for Shields Street. Response: The curb stop has been moved. 08/13/2014: The curb stop and meter pit locations are such that they may be in future roadway widening of Shields Street. These be moved to the east to prevent Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 2 of 12 Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: At time of final, please provide a joint pattern detail for the concrete alley paving. Response: A joint detail has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: We may need to add a concrete cut-off wall or other separation measures at the right-of-way line along Shields Street where the permeable pavers and drive approach meet. This will be reviewed at time of final. Response: The edge of pavers adjacent to the public right-of-way is located at a high point and therefore a barrier is not required. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: Please ensure street patching information is coordinated between the utility and demo plan sheets. The depiction and number of total street patches should be identified on the plans for verification of meeting patching requirements. Response: Please see revised plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: Given the limited area surrounding the property, the applicant should be aware that the utilization of public right-of-way for staging and/or storage of materials or equipment will not be allowed and language in the development agreement will be added indicating this. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: The plat has some oddities in the land use table, having "(127)" after Lots and "Right of Wate". Response: Revised. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: Why is the plat indicating the easternmost lot as Lot 30 instead of Lot 7? Response: Lot numbering has been changed. Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: The variance requests for the driveway spacing and parking stall setback will need final verification of approval from Rick Richter, who is out this week. Preliminary discussion with Martina before her vacation indicated support for both variances, under the premise that for the driveway spacing variance, the developer is made aware that future widening of Shields Street may add a median, restricting this driveway access to right-in, right-out. In addition, for the parking stall setback variance, the developer is made aware that both parking spaces may be removed in the future if they prove to be detrimental to the operation of Shields Street traffic. Under the presumption of approval of these variance, these conditions would need to be Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 3 of 12 specified in the development agreement for the property. Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/29/2014 07/29/2014: TDRF will be verified with next submittal provided information is provided on the site plan identifying the proposed commercial square footage. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2014 08/01/2014: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14.Thank you for adding these items as notes on landscape sheet 3 of 5. The applicant still needs to provide detailed written information explaining how the proposed alley design on the Civil Engineering plans conforms to the tree protection parameters provided by Forestry staff or provide an alternate design that meets those parameters. 08/12/2014: Forestry staff provided the following information at the on-site meeting held to evaluate the possible paving of the alleys impact to a mature Siberian elm on the north side of the alley. This information was provided to afford the needed protection of this large and mature Siberian elm. 1. Paving should not be closer than 5 feet from the outer bark of the tree. 2. Excavation should be no more than 6 inches deep (from existing grade) at a distance of 5 feet from the outer bark of the tree. 3. Excavation should not be greater than 12 inches deep (from existing grade) at a distance of 8 feet from the outer bark of this tree. On the proposed plans the edge of the paving with a thickened curb is show at around 4-5 feet from the outer bark of this tree. Please provide detailed written information explaining how the proposed alley design conforms to the tree protection parameters provided by Forestry staff or provide an alternate design that meets those parameters. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 4 of 12 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14. 08/12/2014: The building on lot 7 appears to be very close to tree number 2 which is a 27 inch Siberian elm. It appears that a deep foundation excavation would occur 4-7 feet from this tree. Can the building on lot 7 be reconfigured to provide greater root protection? Construction with traditional foundation close to this tree as shown could cause significant tree impact. Response:The main building structure is 11’6” away from the tree and it’s foundation will extend 4” from the edge of wall. The porch is approximately 5’-6” from the tree and will have a smaller footing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14. Please provide an explanation on the reason these trees will be remove. Response: The residential units must be 1.5’ above the base flood elevation. This creates a significant grade difference between the two properties. 08/12/2014: Existing trees 20, 21 and 21A provide some nice buffering to the project but are shown to be removed on the utility plans. Please provide an explanation of why these trees need to be removed and consider feasibility and benefit of design options to retain them. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14. Response: The wall has been moved an additional 2’ away from the tree. 08/12/2014: Existing tree 31 is a Green Ash 18 inch diameter. There appears to be a wall about 3 feet from the north side of this tree. Explore the feasibility of moving the wall further away from the tree and/or possibly spanning the root system in place of a continuous foundation excavation. Contact the City Forester to discuss and evaluate feasibility of options for protecting this tree. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14. Thank you for providing some information about this drain line. Please respond if it is feasible to move this line further from the existing trees. Response: 08/12/2014: At the location where the proposed storm drain is oriented east to west it passes about 7 feet from two existing trees shown to retain on the north boundary. Can the location of this drain line be moved a little further to the south? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This comment is continued from 08/12/14. Additional information on the two trees on the north side of the alley still need to be recorded on the Tree Mitigation Plan 3 of 5. Place each of these trees in the inventory table and record them as tree number 35 and tree number 36. Provide all the inventory information on these trees that includes species, size, condition remove or preserve and mitigation Response: Trees have been added to the mitigation table Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 5 of 12 08/12/2014: The two off-site trees on the north side of the alley need to be inventoried and recorded on the tree mitigation plan sheet 3 of 5. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 08/12/2014: This project is located adjacent to and near properties that have the potential to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. To determine the eligibility of these properties, staff will need to receive good quality photographs of all elevations (and partial elevations) visible from public rights of way, including alleys. Staff will also need photos of the properties a minimum of two deep on either side, and behind the project, for context. Digital photos are encouraged, and may be sent to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com. Hardcopies may be sent to P.O. Box 580, 80522; or dropped off at the Development Review Center, 1st Floor, 281 N. College Ave., attn. Karen McWilliams. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 08/12/2014: If adjacent or nearby properties are found to have potential eligibility, the project will be reviewed for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: "This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible...(2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood." LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states, "…to the maximum extent feasible… the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is…located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies [as an individual landmark]. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." 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." Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 6 of 12 Code." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2014 08/06/2014: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Landmark – project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required in all property-line townhomes effective 8/1/14. 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 4. New Green Code requires: a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. b. Low-flowWatersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 7 of 12 d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. e. Low VOC interior finishes. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: No gas lines were identified on the utility plans. Response: Gas lines have been added. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Location of new vault can be placed directly south of existing one and does not need to be moved towards the east. This can be coordinated during construction. Response: We have placed it to the east to avoid it being in the Ultimate Roadway section of Shields. If Engineering is ok with it being located further west, we have no issue moving it. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Location of proposed transformer appears to be in the same location as a new tree. Transformer must have 3 ft clearance in the back and sides and 10 ft in the front of any structure. Response: The transformer has been relocated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Any existing secondary lines that are to be removed with be the responsibility of contractor and not Light and Power. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Any removal/replacement of primary line or electrical vaults will be subject to modification charges. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Will the spare garages on the NE corner of the lot have electrical power? If so, how will they be metered? Response: Yes. There is a bank of electric meters located on the southern wall of the garages. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Will the commercial complex have 3phase or single phase service? A C-1 form will have to be completed and can be located at fcgov.com or by coordinating with Light and Power at 224-6700. Response: The commercial is planned to have single phase service. Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 8 of 12 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted dose not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plans (with the corrected redlines and an attached detail sheet), Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation during the FDP review. 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 08/12/2014: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted dose not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. 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 Response:A Erosion Control Report has been prepared with an Erosion Control Escrow Estimate. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: Please see minor comments on the redlines. Response: See revised plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: Stormwater is ready for a hearing Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: No comments. 08/12/2014: No comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: There are still line over text issues on sheet 4. See redlines. Response:Plans have been revised 08/12/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet 4. See redlines. Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 9 of 12 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: This has been added, but some is incorrect. See redlines. Response: Revised. 08/12/2014: Please provide the dedication information for the right of way of North Shields Street & Mountain Avenue. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: Please show the acreage to the 3rd decimal place. Response: Revised. 08/12/2014: The square footage & acreage shown in the legal description does not match what is described. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please show the record bearings & distances for the boundary. Response: Recorded bearings and distances have been added. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please add title commitment information as available. Response: Will add once received. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please make corrections to the Land Use Table as shown. See redlines. Response: Revised. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This also applies to properties on the opposite side of rights of way. See redlines. Response: All surrounding properties have been added. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. See redlines. Response: ROW lines have been added. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please change the new right of way line of Shields Street a solid line. See redlines. Response: Further discussions regarding this line type will be set up by meeting. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please add distances as marked. See redlines. Response: Distances have been added. Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 10 of 12 Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Should Lot 30 be Lot 7? Response: Lot number revised. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Is all of Tract A an Utility, Drainage & Access Easement (as shown on the Land Use Table)? If so, please label as such (and possibly remove the specifically defined Drainage Easement). If not, correct the Land Use Table. Response: Tract A is as specified within the Land Use Table. We are fine with eliminating the specifically defined Drainage Easement as long as Stormwater does not have an issue. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Please add "YPC" & "Yellow Plastic Cap" to the legend. Response: YPC have been spelled out on the label. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 12/30/2014 12/30/2014: Names of owners & addresses are not necessary, but you may leave them on the plat is you so choose. Response: Owners and addresses have been removed. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised 08/12/2014: Please mask the marked text on sheet 2. See redlines. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/30/2014: There are still line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised 08/12/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/12/2014 12/29/2014: I see the variance request for parking setback, not for the intersection spacing. 08/12/2014: Was the variance request for intersection spacing attached with the submittal? We didn't see it inlcuded... Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: The plans show 4 bike parking spacing as required by the code for this use. But because of the vehicle parking challenges and the proximity to the Mountain Avenue corridor and heavy bike usage, transportation planning staff strongly encourages and recommends the Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 11 of 12 applicant add additional bike parking - such as a bike corral. Response:Additional 4 spaces have been added in plant bed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: Please note re: the two parking spots, IF/WHEN Shields Street is widened, one of these spots may need to be removed. Based on the variance request from Matt Delich, it likely will work all right for now, but his analysis was based on a 40 foot distance to curb, not 20. Response: Acknowledged Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2014 08/06/2014: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2014 08/01/2014: The commercial portion of the project must have a separate sewer service connecting to the City sewer in Shields. Response: A separate service has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2014 08/01/2014: Are there existing utilities along Shields that would prevent moving the curb stops and the meter pit to the east? Response: There are no other utilities along Shield Street, but we are proposing a deck just east of the proposed Right-of-Way line. We have moved the meter just west of the proposed sidewalk. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2014 08/01/2014: Re-align the common, private water service extending to the residential units so that it is within the utility easement as it crosses Lot 1. Response: The water lines have been relocated. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/11/2014 08/11/2014: All existing water and sewer lines extending to the site must be used or abandoned at the main. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Landmark Residences on Mountain Ave. PDP –Responses2 May 6, 2015 Page 12 of 12 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2014 08/01/2014: Show water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans and adjust plantings to provide the required separation distances. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: This is a comment for the Final Plan, please, change the signature block for Planning on both the plat and site plan to Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Response: Plans have been revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: The landscape setback of 15 from the new property to the first stall is not being met. Zoning did not see a modification or alternative compliance request with the submittal. Response: Alternative compliance has been met through moving the bike racks south and planting shrubs to screen the vehicular use areas. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014 12/29/2014: On the elevations Sheets A1 and A2 please label the height to the tallest point of the structure. Response: Heights of roof ridges and chimneys have been noted on Sheets A1 and A2.