HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)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
May 11, 2015
BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: River Modern, PDP150005, Round Number 2
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
05/05/2015: The site plan does not show access to these units nor a walkway spine
as noted in the previous comment (3/24/2015). Where do the "embellished" entries
and stairs lead? Another alternative is outlined in subsection 5 with futher
explanation in the Fort Collins Design Manual:
(5) Alternative garage door treatments shall be accepted by the Director if:
(a) the configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition of the lot makes
the application of these standards impractical; and
(b) the proposed design substantially meets the intent of this Code to line streets
with active living spaces, create pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and provide
variety and visual interest in the exterior design of residential buildings.
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
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 16
05/05/2015: Please provide complete floor plans in order to review for compliance
with height requirements. Also, each model occurs multiple times on the site yet the
elevations show the "grade plane"; which occurance does the grade apply to?
- Building A1 complies with height requirements.
- Building A2 height analysis lacks a floor for half of the top story but is being
counted toward the area above floor plate. The floor plan will help with this analysis.
- Building B1 without a floor plan, I cannot review for compliance with height
requirement (the section is even cut in a staggered line)
- Building B2 half story analysis seems to have some inaccuracies. Where is unit
2-B's away room on the section?
- Building C half story analysis has two different section lines and one through the
section. The grade plane is floating about two feet off the ground as shown.
The buildings along Stuart Street are still out of scale with the predominant pattern of
horizontally oriented houses that exist along the street.
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
Page 2 of 16
05/05/2015: The sections are not oriented with a site plan which makes it nearly
impossible to confirm their location and accuracy. Please provide a site plan with
section lines.
An 8 foot fence is show on the property line elevations and the site plan indicates the
fence will be 4 - 6 feet in height. Please clarify.
The section through the creek does not show the creek or trail. Please label.
Your response to the section regarding architectural compatibility suggests that the
development to the east are 2 1/2 story buildings. There appears to be only 2 story
buildings in that location. Please clarify.
The west property line elevation show trees that are not on the landscape plan
obscuring the northernmost buildings. Please clarify.
Your response to the land use transition section says that "reduced architectural
massing" lends to the transition. Step downs do not appear on the building
elevations oriented toward neighboring properties. Please clarify.
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
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
Page 3 of 16
yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses.
05/05/2015: The plans seem to be missing a layer. In several instances lines are
missing and detail is washed out.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/06/2015: Please provide color renderings of the buildings.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
05/08/2015: Staff met with the architect to discuss building height, the notes follow:
- Add building height and story height measurements to the building elevations.
- The 12'-8" maximum height for a story applies to the top or 1/2 story.
- The 3 foot rule for the intersection of wall face and roof applies to parapets.
- A roof that does not go all the way to the wall face can be measured with a
hypothetical extension for compliance with the 3 foot rule (mentioned above)
- When two sides of a building (separate units) have different grade and different
floor plates, the height measurement (in stories) shall be measured separately.
- Dormers and gables are not included in 3 foot rule (mentioned above).
- "Floor level" as the base for measuring the top 1/2 story will be extended from
where it exists into areas where it may not due to vaulted 2nd story ceilings.
(Example in half story analysis for building B2).
- Applicant will provide perspectives from neighbors outdoor space: patios etc...
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2015
Topic: General
05/05/2015: The alternative compliance request suggests that lots 5 and 30 meet
the requirement in subsection (3) in that the south property line abuts a public street
or open space wider than 50'. According to my review, they do not. Please clarify.
For your justification of alternative compliance please look at section 3.2.3(F)(2).
Your current justification is a hypothetical code change in the form of "if these lots
are considered solar oriented..."; which does not meet the outlined criteria of the
section.
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
05/11/2015: Scheduling for a public hearing:
The remaining comments that need to be addressed prior to scheduling a public
hearing are from Planning Services. The response to comments and corresponding
revisions will require one week for Planning Services to review. At which time, if the
resubmittal complies with the Land Use Code, a public hearing will be scheduled. A
2 week notice and APO mailing is required prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
Topic: Lighting Plan
05/05/2015: Please provide further explanation of the 0.5 LLF.
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
Page 4 of 16
05/05/2015: The proposed condition will have the light protruding above the fence -
on the fence line - with neighboring properties at lower grade (west) directly on the
other side. This seems like the light source will be visible and intrusive on the
neighbors. What can be done to revise and remedy this condition?
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: Site Plan
05/05/2015: Because the proposed site plan cannot meet the alternative
compliance requirement for open space/patio/deck, a modification of standard
should be persued. See section 2.8 for requirements.
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
05/05/2015: No crosswalks are shown on the site or landscape plans.
Section 3.6.2(M) requires private streets to be designed to the same criteria as
public as found in LCUASS. Including providing sidewalks. An attached sidewalk can
still fit alongside the child care center.
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
05/05/2015: Please confirm that all units are only 3-bedroom. The requested floor
plans will also help confirm.
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
05/05/2015: A condition of approval will be that the applicant work with adjacent
property owners for the desired fence height.
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
05/05/2015: Please add to the land use data:
- square footage of each unit
- number of bedrooms of each unit
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 5 of 16
05/04/2015: Please adjust the transitions from attached sidewalk to detached
sidewalks. See redlines.
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
05/04/2015: Show the new detached sidewalk width on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
Topic: Variance Request
05/04/2015: Please provide an exhibit to the variance request letter showing the
distances below the 30' separation.
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
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
05/06/2015: An additional $200.50 is due for the PDP fee's based on the information
provided on the site plans.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: In order to help achieve greater screening of the
project sooner, could some of the mitigation (upsized) trees be placed in the buffer
zone?
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 6 of 16
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: This comment is generally resolved, but please label
the proposed buffer zone area on the plan sets (to be updated on the site,
landscape and utility plans) instead of the straight 100' buffer. The vignette illustrates
the 100' buffer and the plans should illustrate what you are proposing.
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 7 of 16
05/06/2015: Overall, this comment is resolved but see specific notes below:
A: The plans have shifted the northernmost buildings further south to avoid
encroachment into the buffer and have provided slight meandering to help blend with
the visual character of the area. This issue is resolved.
B: The notes provided to this point are sufficient.
C: See comment #3 below.
D: These elevations are much more in character with creating a transition between
the creek and the development. This comment is resolved.
E: See comment #4.
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
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 8 of 16
compliance with the 3.4.1(I) standard and other standards relevant to this project
development proposal.
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: There is only one perspective provided and the
proposed landscaping is not included. Staff suggests creating a separate sheet for
addressing this code issue, including both perspectives that were discussed in the
field, and include the proposed landscaping. These photos should be photo
renderings to reflect the most accurate depiction of the site. Also, the perspectives
illustrate the cottonwood trees on the western edge of the property that you currently
have proposed to be removed - please rectify this issue.
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
Page 9 of 16
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: The landscape plan has been updated significantly
since the last round. Staff has the remaining comments prior to hearing:
1. Please provide the upland and wetland seed mixes on the plan; note that staff
strongly recommends using wetland plugs instead of a seed mix to ensure success
early on.
2. Please address the removal of the cottonwoods/windbreak on the western border
of the property; this was to remain. Can any of the fair trees be retained? Where can
construction impacts be minimized to retain these trees?
3. Staff suggests adding additional plant material in the pathways between the
northernmost buildings into the buffer zone, both in the center and on the eastern
edge of the plans.
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
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: See comment #1 above - the proposed buffer zone
should be labeled and not just the 100' buffer.
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
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 10 of 16
05/11/2015:
Comment continued: It appears that mitigation trees have not been recorded on the
landscape plan as upsized trees. Provide 25 upsized trees. Please list these in the
plan list and mark them with an M as part of the direct label on the landscape
sheets. 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
05/11/2015:
Please add some additional information to general note number 2 that clarifies
automatic drip irrigation will be provided to native trees and shrubs in the natural
area along spring creek.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015:
It appears that grading near the base of tree number 39 which is the 26 inch
diameter cottonwood shown to be retained along the east boundary and the location
of the foundation of unit number 15 could impact the root system. Please evaluate
the construction impact to this tree with the project arborist.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015:
Can exiting tree number 6 which is the 19 inch ponderosa pine be afforded any
more landscape space around it? No clear if it is a sidewalk along the west side of
the tree, but can that feature be moved a little further away.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 11 of 16
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 12 of 16
05/04/2015: GIS
Watercourse Way and the private drive extension of Cherokee Dr are approved and
added to Larimer County Street Inventory System.
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
05/05/2015: Meter locations and Transformer locations will be finalized at final
review. Reminder per last discussion: Transformers need to be within 10’ of an
all-weather drivable surface.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
05/08/2015: Comcast -
Comcast would like to do a joint trench with City. Developer needs to sign joint
trench agreement.
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 13 of 16
5/6/2015: TURNING MOVEMENT
The Autoturn exhibit reveals some potential turning challenges at the north end of
the site, at the T-intersection. As the site is already very compressed, extra effort
needs to be made to ease this movement, not only for fire apparatus but other large
vehicles. Either the turning radius needs to be increased at the intersection or the
"T" leg (east/west leg) of the fire lane needs to be greater than 20' in width to make
more room. Even 2 feet could make a big difference here. See prior comment for
further detail.
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: 05/06/2015
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
Topic: Floodplain
05/11/2015: The eastern two buildings are about 1 foot above the BFE. The City
recommends these buildings to be at least 18-inches above the BFE even though it
is outside of the floodplain.
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
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
05/06/2015: Reminder for final compliance.
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
Page 14 of 16
Topic: Building Elevations
05/04/2015: This has not been corrected.
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
05/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
Topic: General
05/04/2015: If the Half Story Analysis plans will be filed, they will need to be full size
(24"x36") sheets.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
05/04/2015: If the Half Story Analysis plans will be filed, there are line over text
issues that will need to be corrected.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
Topic: Plat
05/05/2015: Please make changes to the sub-title as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please make sure that all Tract uses are labeled. See redlines.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please show & label the west line of the southwest of the northeast
quarter of section 24. See redlines.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
05/05/2015: Variance request received and can be supported with the addition of an
exhibit that details the information. Parking restrictions will be minimal and can be
determined at final.
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
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
Page 15 of 16
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: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
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
Page 16 of 16