HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - 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
March 27, 2015
BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: River Modern, PDP150005, Round Number 1
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(F)(1). Units 15 - 22 do not meet this standard that
require "street-facing garage doors must be recessed behind either the front facade
of the ground floor living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch..."
Subsection 4 permits an exemption if the dwellings face onto a major "walkway
spine and shall include windows, doorways, and a structured transition from public
to private areas using built elements such as porch features, pediments, arbors, low
walls, fences, trellis work and or similar elements integrated with plantings." See
also, Sec. 3.5.2(D), Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.17(A)(2)(c). The maximum vertical height permitted for
each residential story is 12' 8". The maximum height in the LMN District is 2.5
stories (Sec. 4.5(E)(3)). Thus the maximum height of buildings for this development
are 31' 8" (12'8" x 2.5). The height of many of the buildings will have to be lowered.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
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.
Page 1 of 18
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.1. Please provide section and perspective drawings
between the proposed development and the existing abutting developments as
shown in the attached exhibit. This information will help us evaluate compliance with
the following sections:
3.5.1(B) General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed
areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas
by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural
character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this
Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced
standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility
shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of
similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the
street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that
have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the
proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility
(including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring
context.
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar
in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block
face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or
cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.)
3.5.1(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be
arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and
minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the
development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors
without sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 8.)
3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual
character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not
possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to
the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of buffer
yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(C)(1)(a). At least 3 housing models are required for
this development and vary according to sub-section (b). No two like models may be
sited next to one another (3.8.15). Please provide information as to where each
model is located. This also informs comment #7.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: General
Page 2 of 18
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.1(H). The most significant asset of this project is the
relationship to the natural feature – Spring Creek and its watershed. This area is
characterized by a City-owned natural area – Mallards Rest and the Spring Creek
Trail. These are major public investments that are enjoyed by the entire community.
In addition, recent projects in the Spring Creek basin, between Stover Street and
Lemay Avenue (Pinnacle Townhomes and Stream Side) have been designed in
such a manner as to provide an open character with a strong visual connection
between the natural features and the developments. River Modern, however, lacks
this open characteristic and appears to be out of step with the larger context of the
surrounding area. The current arrangement of units 15 – 22 creates a wall and
obstructs the open relationship that is found in the watershed. Section 3.5.1(H)
requires that the transition between uses, such as residential and a natural feature,
be given thoughtful consideration. The overall site plan design lacks a positive and
open relationship with the Spring Creek and would be improved and comply with
Section 3.5.1(H) by creating greater visual and sensitive treatment at the north end
of the project.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.3(E). Please provide a shadow study as outlined in this
section of the Code.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C). This plan is required to provide at least 65% (or 20
units) of lots as "solar-oriented lots." Sec. 3.5.3(F) provides alternative compliance
for this standard.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/27/2015: We recommend a site visit with City Staff and the applicant for all to
have a consistent understanding of the project context. City Staff attending should
include - but not limited to - Planning, Environmental Planning, Stormwater, and
Floodplain.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/27/2015
Topic: Lighting Plan
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.4(D)(3). Please explain how the proposed fixtures have
"sharp cut-off capability". The cut sheets do not show this.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The photometric projections should be done with a Light Loss Factor of
1.0.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Fixture CC reads that it is wall-mounted at 7'6" but seem to be placed
on 6' fences. Please explain.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: Plat
03/24/2015: The 20' fire access easement overlaps the proposed on-street parallel
parking.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Please provide public access easements across all pedestrian
walkways. Also, the trail connection to the east, into Spring Meadows, should be
coordinated with their HOA.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: Site Plan
Page 3 of 18
03/24/2015: Detached sidewalk and street trees are required on Stuart Street.
Ornamentals can be planted if a street light constrains use of canopy trees.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(E)(2). Units 1 - 4 require a minimum building setback
of 15 feet from the public right of way (ROW). Units 5 - 14 & 23 - 30 require a
minimum building setback of 15 feet from lot the front lot line or back of sidewalk.
Sec. 3.6.2(N)(c & d) note that street-like private drives shall not "be permitted if it
prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Code."
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.6.2(N). The proposed street-like private drive is required to
have detached sidewalks along both sides, including along the child care center lot.
Also, crosswalks are required at intersections.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.18(A). Calculating the gross residential density shall be
all land within the boundaries of the development (190,081 s.f.; Larimer County
Assessor: 193, 140 s.f. [please reconcile]) minus the land dedicated to the child
care center (18,789 s.f.) for a total of 171,292 s.f. or 3.93 acres which equals 7.6
dwelling units per acre. The proposed site plan shows 6.88 dwelling units per acre.
The maximum permitted density in the LMN District is 9 dwelling units per gross
acre (4.5(D)(1)(b)).
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: The "site coverage" section of the site plan allots "drives" to both "lot
coverage" and "drives and parking". Please clarify.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.2(D). The parking spaces in the driveways may not be
counted toward the minimum requirement of 3 spaces per 4-bedroom unit because
they preclude access to the garage spaces. However, Sec. 3.2.2(K)(2)(b) permits
on-street spaces to count toward the minimum requirement. These additional
on-street spaces per 4 bedroom unit should be adjacent to the unit it is serving.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.11(C)(3). The fence along the property line cannot be
taller than 6 feet in height. A condition of approval could be that the applicant work
with adjacent property owners for the desired fence height.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/24/2015: Show the street cut locations for the utilities that will be installed on
East Stuart Street. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Since sidewalks will be detached along the East Stuart Drive, show the
transition from detached to attached. More detail may be needed near the east of the
property where the 12' driveway is proposed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: More details are needed for the property to the east of the proposed
project. Show existing conditions, driveway locations, grading and easements. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Page 4 of 18
03/24/2015: The water taps for buildings 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27,
and 30 cross over the adjacent lots. These sections need to be in a utility easement.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/25/2015: Please show drainage arrows on the Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Add a "One Way" and "Do Not Enter" sign on the property for the 12'
access to the east.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Topic: Site Plan
03/25/2015: Please refer to all alleys as private drives.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Topic: Variance Request
03/24/2015: Variance Request #2 to offset Cherokee Drive looks like it will be
acceptable. Please show this offset through a separate detail or clearly show it on
the Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Variance Request #3 to allow the driveways to be within 30' of each
other looks like it will be acceptable. Please show the driveway details to the east
showing the distances between the three driveways.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Variance Request #1 to allow a 4' attached sidewalk is not acceptable.
Since more than 50% of the sidwalk will need to be rebuilt due to the construction of
the driveways and installation of utilities, cross sections for a minor collector street
with an 8' parkway and 5' minimum walk will be required.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 5 of 18
03/25/2015: Thank you for providing an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS),
required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1), as the site is within five hundred feet (500') of
known natural features (Spring Creek and isolated riparian forest). If you recall, the
buffer zone standard for Spring Creek is 100' (one hundred feet). Current plans
illustrate an approximate fifteen foot (15') encroachment into the 100' buffer zone.
Please provide the following in a table on the site plan:
A. The total acreage required by the standard 100' buffer zone for Spring Creek.
B. The total acreage proposed within the submitted site plan.
This may be best illustrated through a vignette/detail on the site plan for clarity. We
can discuss this further at the *March 25th Staff Review meeting and view redlines
together.
*At the March 25, 2015, meeting, you mentioned an Alternative Compliance Letter
regarding this topic of the 100' buffer zone. I have not seen said document. Please
provide an electronic copy or hard copy directly to me of this letter.
sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 6 of 18
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must comply with *Section
3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code, stating:
Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors,
including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek
Corridor, shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat.
Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping,
and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that
scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are
screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the
area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any
aboveground utility installations.
To meet this standard, the following should be addressed in the site, landscape,
utility plans and project objectives:
A. Architectural design and manmade facilities blending with the visual character of
the area: The section of Spring Creek that is adjacent to this site contains significant
meanders. Current plans show the northern most lots arranged squarely to the
creek, and encroaching approximately 15' into the natural habitat buffer zone. While
the 100' buffer zone standard offers flexibility in a specific distance, to meet 3.4.1(I)
(1), the northernmost lots should be arranged to follow the curve of the meander in
Spring Creek and blend with the natural visual character of this area. Addressing
this standard should also remove the proposed encroachment into the buffer zone.
B. Architectural design: Significant attention needs to be paid to the building
materials, colors, etc. Staff recommends reviewing the site plans for New Prospect
(now called Streamside) for examples of the types of colors, setbacks, etc. that are
appropriate in this site's context. Notes shall be added to the site plans at a similar
level as to what is provided by the New Prospect project.
C. Scenic views: See comment 3 below
D. Site design and scenic views: Currently, the northernmost lots are acting as a
wall between Spring Creek and the rest of the site. In addition to meandering the
lots, as suggested above, the lots should step down to 2 stories adjacent to the
buffer zone in order to keep building height in scale with the surrounding natural
features. This is consistent with what has been required of other projects, e.g., New
Prospect, and with Section 3.5.1(H) of the Land Use Code regarding Land Use
Transitions.
E. Native landscaping: See comment 4 below.
*At the March 25, 2015, meeting, we discussed this standard in detail and ways to
meet this standard in detail. Toward the end of the meeting it was agreed that a
coordinated site visit should occur to further explore best ways to ensure
compliance with the 3.4.1(I) standard and other standards relevant to this project
development proposal.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 7 of 18
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must also comply with Section
3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code, stating:
Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the
degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to
minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the
site.
To evaluate this standard, a perspective rendering from the Spring Creek trail or the
north side of Spring Creek should be provided to illustrate how the proposed
development minimizes the obstruction and/or degradation of the scenic view from
Spring Creek.
For the scenic views to Spring Creek please address how this project meets this
standard within the project objectives statement and other documentation as you
see fit.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)
(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer
zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone.
From a quantity perspective, additional material should be provided to meet this
standard and the standard highlighted in Comment 2 above. Please update the
plans accordingly.
From a quality perspective, more detail in the buffer zone is needed to evaluate
compliance with this standard. The ECS discusses several measures meant to
enhance the buffer zone, including enhancements through native plantings such as
chokecherry and other appropriate species. Buffer planting enhancements should
include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical
structure.
Thus, on the landscape plans please provide the following:
A. Provide additional plant material in accordance with this standard and the
standard referenced in comment 2.
B. Label each individual species that will be planted within the natural habitat buffer
zone so staff can fully evaluate the plan for appropriateness.
C. A table listing each specific plant species and quantity.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses
in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as
possible. I see turf sod, dryland seed, and wetland seed listed in the landscape plan
legend. Similar to comment #4, please provide more detailed species and/or
species mix composition information for the buffer zone area specifically.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 8 of 18
03/25/2015: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP submittal.
Current plans illustrate light spillage into the delineated 100'¿ natural habitat buffer
zone. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article
3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from
light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other
site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please update the lighting
fixtures and photometric plan to remove this light spillage.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Regarding the Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat, the project
site ECS mentioned that: “Suitable habitat conditions were judged to be marginal for
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse because of the general lack of shrub and tree
cover and the adjacent presence of upland, nonnative grassland instead of moist
native meadow.” Staff contacted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and received a letter from the USFWS stating they had no concerns
regarding this site and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. I will provide a copy of the
letter to you at the meeting on March 25th.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The Land Use Code requires that whenever a project abuts a Natural
Area, then compatibility with and reasonable public access to that Natural Area is
required. Please ensure your ECS addresses this code requirement; see Section
3.4.1(L)(M) for more information. The submitted ECS and conceptual review plan
has provided a trail connection to the Spring Creek trail, meeting this requirement.
This proposed connection must be approved with the City Parks Planning
Department to ensure they agree with this location.
You mentioned an email response from Kurt Friesen in the City Park Planning
Department dated 2/24/15 approving the trail connection. Please provide a copy of
this email message to Planning Staff.
In addition to approving the location, please work with Parks staff to identify the
location of the trail easement on the plat.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The “top of bank” line needs to be delineated and labeled on site,
grading, utility and landscape plans. As required in Section 3.4.1(E): buffer zone
standards for stream corridors will be measured from the top of bank toward the
boundary of such lot, tract, or parcel of land. Top of bank refers to the topographical
break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope
cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to delineated and labeled on the
site, grading, utility, and landscape plans along with the Top of Bank.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that
show the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets that
show the Natural Habitat Buffer: Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for
allowable uses within the buffer zone.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 9 of 18
03/25/2015: Please add the following note to the site, landscape, utility, grading, and
storm sewer plans that: the natural habitat area is meant to be maintained in a
native landscape.
This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features
into the future.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
03/25/2015:
The plan does not appear to fully incorporate information and recommendations
provided in the report from the arborist (Jordan’s Tree Moving and Maintenance
3-11-15) that evaluates some of the existing trees located at the site for suitability for
retention.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Please place plant notes numbered 12-16 under a separate heading labeled City
Street Tree Notes. Also add the following note in with larger print place in a box with
a border on the landscape plan.
A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are
planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and
numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape
contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street
trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit
is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Existing tree numbered TR 17 is labeled to retain. It is a 6 inch diameter Siberian
Elm rated in poor condition. Review the value of retaining this tree considering its
species, size and condition.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Provide a final landscape plan that labels all the plant material and lists the quantities
use, and in the case of trees the percentage used.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Provide upsized trees to meet the final mitigation count. Mitigation trees should be
sized as follows.
Canopy Shade Trees: 3 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Trees 8 feet height
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 10 of 18
03/25/2015:
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
2014 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.
River Modern – project specific concerns:
1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required in all duplexes and property line townhomes.
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. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible
units.
5. New Green Code requires:
a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
b. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are
required.
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
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 11 of 18
03/20/2015: GIS
1. Addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final
approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City.
2. Two street names are requested to aid in the proper addressing for emergency
response. The first is for the private drive running north/south and accessing from
Stuart St. The second is the private drive running east/west accessing lots 15-22.
Street names can be requested through the City of Fort Collins GIS Office and
should be noted on the subdivision plat. The current street name reservation list
and guidelines for street names can be found at http://larimer.org/streets/.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/20/2015
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/17/2015: Light and Power has electric facilities on the Southside of Stuart St. that
could be utilized to provide power.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Will the Child Care Facility need three phase power? If so please
provide a C-1 form and a one-line –diagram. The C-1 form can be found at: :
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer
and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: Please contact Luke at Light and Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 416-2724. Please reference our policies, development charge
processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/25/2015: Comcast -
Facility needs to be in a 6' utility easement. Comcast would like to joint trench with
Fort Collins Light and Power. See exhibit.
Don Kapperman 970-567-0245
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Page 12 of 18
03/26/2015: MINIMUM FIRE ACCESS
The City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority have adopted the 2012
International Fire Code. Each new project, triggering a development code review is
required to meet minimum standards for fire access and water supply as specified
in the IFC or local amendments.
The River Modern site plan has been reviewed against the fire code and a few
details remain outstanding before the site plan is considered compliant with
minimum standards. A dedicated fire lane has been proposed and, once modified
as further outlined below, it will ensure all portions of every building perimeter will be
within 150' from the fire access road. The proposed hydrant plan meets minimum
standards and is acceptable in it's present state.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT
A conflict is shown on the site plan where the EAE limits overlap with designated
parking along the central drive aisle. As long as the drive aisle meets minimum city
standards, the fire marshal has approved the EAE reduction to 16' in this limited
portion of the site.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: TURNING RADII
The site plan has provided for 25' inside turning radii. This code requirement is
intended to apply to 20' wide fire lanes. When the fire lane is reduced, as in this
situation, the turning radius needs to be increased to compensate for the drive land
width restrictions.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015: RETAINING WALLS
Depending upon location and height, retaining walls may prohibit fire access which
has otherwise been provided for with the site plan. Please add the location and
height of the retaining walls to the site plan.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
03/26/2015:
While it is difficult to clearly ascertain from the elevations provided with the project
submittal, the height of the building standards, described as ARCHITECTURAL
UNITS B1 & B2, may exceed the 30' building height limitation in certain areas of the
articulated roof lines. If so, the building heights need to be adjusted or aerial
apparatus fire lane standards shall apply. Further details will be required. Refer to
IFC Appendix D105.1 for further details.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/26/2015
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
03/17/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area,
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 does 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
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Page 13 of 18
Topic: Floodplain
03/25/2015: On the Site Plan, the four northernmost structures are shown a few
feet outside of the floodplain boundary. We strongly encourage you to move these
buildings further back from the floodplain. It is highly likely that a lender/insurance
agent will call these structures in the floodplain and future owners will then be
subject to flood insurance purchase requirements.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please show the distance between the floodplain boundary and the
nearest foundation walls (to 0.1' accuracy) of all four buildings. We will require
separate documentation at the time of construction, from a registered land surveyor,
proving that the buildings are not in the floodplain.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Grading Plan, it appears that the finished floor elevations of the
basements of the four buildings along the floodplain boundary match existing grade.
Due to the strong likelihood of flooding, as well as our experience with the 1997
Spring Creek Flood, we strongly recommend that the lowest floor of these four
buildings be elevated a minimum of 18-inches above the corresponding Base Flood
Elevation. This will also reduce flood insurance costs if a lender requires flood
insurance.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Portions
of this property are located in the FEMA-regulatory Spring Creek 100-year floodplain
and all development must the satisfy requirements of Chapter 10 of City Code."¿
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Prior to
beginning any work in the flood fringe (detention pond, bike trail, landscaping, etc.)
an approved floodplain use permit is required."¿
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan please add a note, "Prior to
beginning any work in the flood way (stormwater outlet pipe, rip-rap, bike trail, etc.)
an approved no-rise certificate is required."¿
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, include the finished floor
elevations of the four buildings along the floodplain boundary, as was done on the
Grading Plan.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: On the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, please label all elevations
shown on the XS lines as being in NAVD88 datum. e.g. XS#10535 5954.88 FT
(NAVD88). In addition, all of the elevations shown in the Spring Creek floodplain
model were calculated in NGVD29, and 3.0 feet was added to convert to NAVD88.
Since the City now is using the NAVD88 datum, the correct conversion should be
used. Please adjust the XS's to the correct NAVD88 elevations. In this instance,
the conversion is 3.17 feet. Because the conversion is not 3.0 feet anymore, the
BFE lines are all incorrect. They can be omitted from the Drainage and Erosion
Control Plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, at the bottom of page 1, and again at the
bottom of page 5, the FEMA FIRM Panel number is cited. There are two panels for
this property, so in addition to citing 08069C0938H, please add 08069C0979H. Also,
the effective date is May 2, 2012 not 2013.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 14 of 18
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, include a copy of the FEMA FIRM Panels, with
the development highlighted.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In Section 3.6 of the Drainage Report, when discussing the no-rise
conditions and returning ground to existing grades after installation of the bike trail
and outlet pipe, refer to the floodway, not the floodplain. Any work in the flood fringe,
(water quality pond, etc.) does not have to be returned to existing grade. All work in
the floodplain has to have a floodplain use permit, but only work in the floodway has
to have a no-rise certification.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: In the Drainage Report, add discussion of the location of the buildings
in relation to the floodplain. Discuss the separation between the four nearest
buildings and note that there will be survey required prior to construction proving that
the buildings are indeed located outside of the flood plain (See the first floodplain
comment above).
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/25/2015: Please explain how the site is meeting or exceeding the LID
requirements in the drainage report. An alternative compliance form needs to be
filled out and included in the Drainage Report. Please contact Utilities for a copy of
the form.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please provide an updated hydraulic model confirming that releasing
the site's drainage without detention will not not increase the peak flows in Spring
Creek.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: An opportunity for additional porous pavers can be achieved with the
eastern most drive aisle east of the day care. This would bring the total closer to the
standard.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The water quality pond needs to meet our Detention Pond Landscape
Standards and the requirements of the Environmental Planner.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
03/24/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: Any plan sheets filed in color will be rejected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: Construction Drawings
Page 15 of 18
03/24/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the
following information in the EXACT format shown below.
If your project is started on NAVD88 datum:
1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum:
2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM)
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed.
NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
+ X.XX’
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/24/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: Landscape Plans
03/24/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or
reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
03/25/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Topic: Plat
03/25/2015: There is a typo in the legal description. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please change "Engineering Department" to "Clerk" in the Notice Of
Other Documents. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot
corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Please change **See Note 7** to a 1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 16 of 18
Topic: Site Plan
03/25/2015: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or
reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
03/24/2015: We'll need figure out if a variance is needed for the outbound drive or
not, and whether any parking needs to be restricted for sight distance.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
03/24/2015: TIS has been reviewed and the conclusions accepted
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/11/2015: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City
of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If
you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
03/11/2015: 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
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/25/2015: The waterline is required to be looped into another connection point of
our system. The City prefers this to be the water line in the multi-family
development to the east. Please revise accordingly.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: The water service configuration needs to be per the redlines on sheet 3
of the Utility Plan set. This includes an additional curb stop off of the main water
service line and additional easement.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Page 17 of 18
03/25/2015: Please provide elevations for the child care center trash and recycling
enclosure.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Due to the change in grade on the 8 north lots the basement level may
be considered a story. We defer to the the building code (2012 IRC) which states:
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its
finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which
the finished surface of the floor next above is:
1. More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
2. More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished
ground level at any point.
We will need the elevations to show the finished floor heights and the grade planes.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Topic: General
03/25/2015: Any retaining walls over 48" require a permit and would need to meet
the setbacks.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Topic: Site Plan
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Child Care Center regulations require 1,200 SF of outdoor
play area for 15 children or less. For 15 or more the requirement is 75 SF per child
for 33% of the child capacity of the center. Please show these calculations.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Child Care Center regulations require 40 sguare feet of
indoor space be reseserved for school purposes, per child. Please show these
calculations.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: LUC 3.8.4 Any such play area on the site of the child care center within
or abutting any residential district shall be enclosed by a decorative solid wood
fence, masonry wall or chain link fence with vegetation screening, densely planted.
The height of such fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with
Section 3.8.11.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 18 of 18