HomeMy WebLinkAboutFREEDONIA BREWERY - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR160005 - 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 09, 2016
Walt Gantt
KENNEY LEE ARCHITECTURE GROUP INC.
209 E 4TH STREET
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Freedonia Brewery - Basic Development Review, BDR160005, Round Number 1
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/09/2016: Need use information on the site plan table. What are the uses
proposed as specifically listed per the LUC, for each of the floors, all of the square
footage; existing and /or proposed. Label and dimension biergarten. Also show total
bike parking in the land use table.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Label outdoor seating areas. Sketchup plans show fencing, show this
on the plans and provide height and material description.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: We need a better landscape design. The RMJ's will get too big along
the alley, widht issues and also potential height issues with power line. Need more
variety than just miscanthus, which also gets very large and is generally not a good
choice for confined areas or is best as an accent plant along with other lower
shrubs. Add more shrub variety and also more evergreen varieties. Sandstone
boulders are also recommended to add variety. Also does not work to have RMJ's in
a water quality area. Would suggest that you hire a landscape architect to complete
your review more efficiently. Also need standard stie and landscape notes on the
plans. See PDP standard notes word file at this page:
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Parking spaces are labeled as 9x20, but that is not reflected on the
plan layout. In general more labeling and dimensioning is needed of the drive aisles,
parking typs., planting widths, etc. Plese tell the complete story across use areas
with additional labels and dimensions.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
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, Jason Holland,
at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com.
Page 1 of 10
03/09/2016: Is new asphalt proposed? Is the concrete pad being removed? The
surface is disjointed and needs to refreshed. Can this be unified and improved with
new surfacing?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Please look at the HC area and think about how this can be used more
efficiently. Can you make the HC spaces smaller, and then stripe the rest as an
additional pedestrian path. The way it is shown currenly could cause overparking or
other issues. Only one space needs to be van accessible.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: All landscape islands adjacent to and within the vehicle use areas must
have 6" concrete curbing. Any cutouts west of the wheel stops would not need
curbing.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Need more parking lot interior landscaping. There is perimeter
landscaping but no interior landscaping per the code. This needs to be addressed
with landscape cutouts. Could integrate more overhead trellis features,
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Label the places where you get into the brewery on the site plan. Also
is there any outdoor seating proposed? If so, where, how much? What does it look
like, how is it arranged?
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: What does the bike parking look like, how does it work with the
landscaping mentioned in comment 8.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: All landscape areas including parkway must be irrigated per the city
design standards. An irrigation plan will need to be reviewed an approved prior to
C/O. Recommend that this be started with the BDR process when the landscape
plan is resolved.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Need callouts on the plans and a note to clarify that parkway turf will be
overseeded, aerated, and with soil amendments specified as necessary to improve
the quality of the soil and eliminate bare areas and compaction.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Do the HC ramps meet ADA? If so label them as per ADA
requirements. Show south ramp and stairs on the site plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Is additional rooftop equipment proposed, and how will existing
equipment be screened. Show and label.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: See detailed PDP checklist for an explanation of land use table and
other requirements. I have tried to be complete from a design perspective with this
initial plan review but may need additonal info on the plans with the review of the
resubmittal.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
03/09/2016: Prior to resubmittal, please call me for a routing sheet and coordinate a
resubmittal appointment.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Page 2 of 10
Topic: General
03/04/2016: A drainage exhibit was provided for the accompanying drainage, I
would want to coordinate with Stormwater to verify if this can just remain an exhibit,
or if this project should have a recorded civil plan set/sheet with City approval blocks
and accompanying construction notes/details.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The site plan indicates a landscape water quality area behind the alley,
while the drainage exhibit depicts this also as a rain garden with infiltration. There's a
general concern with this infiltration occurring, abutting a paved right-of-way and
potentially undermining the integrity of the pavement and would require clay cut-off
walls (typically 36" deep) in between the rain gardens and the right-of-way to
minimize alley impacts.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The existing overhead line running along the alley for the portion
abutting the property would need to be undergrounded abutting the property in
accordance with 3.3.2(D)(7) of the Land Use Code. An exemption to this exists in
subsection (b) that allows the line to remain if conduit is installed to accommodate
future undergrounding.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: In accordance with the cross section for public alleys, an 8' utility
easement behind the right-of-way is specified. This would need to be dedicated with
through a utility easement dedication with associated review ($250) and Larimer
County recording fees (amount to be determined). The undergrounding of the
overhead line (or conduit provided) should be within this utility easement dedication.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The use of the rain gardens in what would be within the utility
easement, may be of concern for the utility to be located underneath and the rain
garden location may benefit from being relocated away from the utility easement as
a result.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The plan appears to show the renovation of the entrance such that
stairs would be placed in public right-of-way. The plan should be revised such that
stairs are not within right-of-way and remain on private property as is the case in the
existing condition.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: It is unclear to me whether access off the alley is confined to certain
areas, or is left unfettered aside from the proposed rain gardens. More information
should be provided. More information should be provided indicating access widths
off the alley.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The presumed trash enclosure on the southeast corner of the site
should not reflect having doors that swing into public right-of-way. Please revise the
design, perhaps by moving the enclosure further west, such that doors swinging
stay on private property.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
Page 3 of 10
03/04/2016: Please add the following note to the site plan (and civil plan if ultimately
part of the submittal): "As a part of this review and/ or any associated building
permit for this review the applicant will be required to repair or replace any damaged
public curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to this construction, as well as public
streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to
construction of this project. All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or
proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently
do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA
standards as a part of this project. The existing driveway will need to be evaluated
to determine if the slopes and width will meet ADA requirements or if they need to be
reconstructed so that they do. The work shall be at the Developer’s expense prior to
the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy."
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: It is anticipated that Stormwater's LID requirements will require either a
new development agreement or an amendment to the existing development
agreement. Coordination with Stormwater on ensuring necessary items for them to
complete legal language as part of this agreement should be considered.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: it appears that the access onto Remington Street isn't utilized and then
driveway then should be closed with the drive approach removed and landscaping
added in its place.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/16/2016: The project owes an additional $515.50 for the TDRF. The acreage
and full first floor square footage was not included in the application submitted.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/16/2016
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
03/01/2016:
The following is the correct Identification of Street Trees. Label each street tree by
species, size, condition, and to retain.
South most tree by 218 Remington is a White Ash 11 inch diameter good conditions
retain.
The existing street trees by 208 Remington are Pecan. There is an existing street
tree that is not shown which is between the north street tree, and as shown the next
tree to the south of the north tree. There are three Pecans by 218 Remington. The
north most street tree by 206 Remington is also a Pecan.
From South moving north:
Pecan 11 inch diameter good condition to retain
Pecan 10 inch diameter good condition to retain
Pecan 10 inch diameter good condition to retain
The north most street tree by 206 Remington is also a Pecan.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016
Page 4 of 10
03/01/2016:
The existing lawn area in the parkway by 208 Remington is described as: Existing
lawn areas are already irrigated and require no new upgrades or alterations.
There are places in the parkway between the sidewalk and curb along Remington
that are bare ground with no grass. Generally the lawn appears stressed and is thin.
Sprinkler heads are not readily visible in the parkway so the irrigation status could be
be uncertain. Review this comment with Jason Holland City Project Planner to
receive direction on improvements that might be needed in the parkway.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016
03/01/2016:
Rocky Mountain Juniper is a tree so should be specified as 6 foot height B&B. Good
cultivars of Rocky Mountain Juniper to specify for the size of the landscape areas
would be ‘Gray Gleam’ on the wider area on the south edge of the parking and
‘Woodward’ or ‘Skyrocket’ in narrow area on the east side of the parking.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016
03/01/2016:
Place the City Of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes and Tree Protection Notes
on the landscape plan. These notes can be obtained from the City Project Planner
or from the City Forester Tim Buchanan 221 6361.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/08/2016: The building is located adjacent to a couple of properties that have
been designated as Fort Collins Landmarks, and to others that are eligible for
designation. Therefore, the project will be reviewed for its compliance with 3.4.7 of
the Land Use Code. Please contact Maren Bzdek at mbzdek@fcgov.com; 221-6206
to discuss scheduling a hearing with the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
03/08/2016: For reference, the most pertinent sections of 3.4.7 are provided here.
LUC 3.4.7(F)(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of
new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any
block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face
across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is
located; or (b) when a block does not exist, similar to those on any land adjacent to
the property on which the new structure is to be located. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker,
such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their
historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being
constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks
cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens
shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures
or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
03/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character
with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices,
windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing
historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of
such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new
construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall
be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
Page 5 of 10
03/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) The dominant building material of such existing
historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure
shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can
be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same
block.LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties [which] 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 …"
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
03/08/2016: 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 Code." Please contact Historic
Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation
Commission.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
03/08/2016: Any exterior changes to or demolition of buildings 50 years old or older
need to be reviewed under the City¿s Demolition/Alteration Review Process
(Municipal Code Section 14-72). This process is required even if proposed changes
to the exterior will not directly alter the original 1906 portion of the building. This
process determines a building or structure¿'s eligibility to qualify for recognition as a
Fort Collins Landmark and whether the work is considered major or minor. The
determination of eligibility requires current color photographs of all sides of each
building or structure, provided by the applicant. Sufficient photos should be taken to
show the current condition of the building, especially any previous alterations or
additions. Additionally, photos of the front elevation of adjacent buildings or
structures are also required, to show the context of the building. Digital photos are
encouraged, and may be sent to mbzdek@fcgov.com. Hard copies may be sent to
P.O. Box 580, 80522; or dropped off at CDNS, 1st Floor, 281 N. College Ave.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/02/2016: Please coordinate with Todd Vedder regarding electrical service.
Currently power is fed from an open-delta bank transformer. Light & Power is
looking to improve this 3 phase area and could be fed better quality power coming
across the alley located at 215 Mathews St.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Page 6 of 10
03/03/2016: FIRE CONTAINMENT
Buildings exceeding 5000 square feet shall be sprinklered or fire contained. If
containment is used, the containment construction shall be reviewed and approved
by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to installation.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: BASEMENTS
The existing basement is reported to be 1,900 sq. ft. This area is required to be
equipped with a fire sprinkler system by current code standards and further
discussion will be necessary in order to determine how best to proceed with an A-2
occupancy above a non-compliant basement. It is understood that the original
building dates back to 1906 and represents a unique set of pre-existing conditions,
however approval of the building permit will require special exception. The basement
use is proposed to be for mechanical services only and it may be determined that
additional fire separation or other systems (eg. smoke detection/alarm system) will
be required so as to offset the non-compliant condition. A formal proposal will need
to be submitted to the fire marshal for review and approval before the current
condition will be accepted. Code language provided below.
> IFC 903.2.11.1: Stories without openings. Commercial basements exceeding
1,500 square feet shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: GROUP A-2 OCCUPANT LOAD
The occupancy load for an type A-2 assembly occupancy in a non-sprinklered
building is limited to a maximum of 99 persons per fire area. The actual occupant
load (which could potentially be lower than 99 per fire area) will be determined at
time of building permit.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: EXITING
An A-2 assembly requires one approved exit from any fire area with an occupant
load of 1 to 49 persons. Two approved exits are required from any fire area with an
occupant load of 50 to 99 persons (in a non-sprinklered building). The same exiting
requirement shall apply to the fenced in, outdoor biergarten on the south side of the
building. The exiting plan will be reviewed and approved at time of building permit.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: COMMERCIAL KITCHEN HOODS (as applicable)
> IFC 609.2: A Type I hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking
appliances and domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes that
produce grease vapors.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
02/18/2016: No Comment from Erosion Control. This site; disturbs less than 10,000
sq-ft, is not in a sensitive area, and is not in a larger development under
construction. Therefore, no submittal of erosion control material is needed.
However, the site still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings,
concrete wash, and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times or
BMPs will be required of the site. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there
are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/18/2016
Page 7 of 10
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/04/2016: The development is required to meet the City's LID requirements. This
would include 50% of the sites impervious area treated by a LID technique and 25%
of newly constructed vehicular impervious area to be porous pavement. Newly
constructed vehicular impervious area is defined as existing pavement removed to
subgrade and replaced or new pavement area that was not in that location before.
Please call Wes Lamarque with any questions.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: The rain garden locations shown are adequate. The City's soil media
specifications will need to be used for this application. Please add these details to
the drainage plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
Topic: Lighting Plan
02/26/2016: No comments.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
Topic: Site Plan
02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
02/26/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Page 8 of 10
Topic: General
03/04/2016: Can you please provide a narrative memo that describes your
anticipated traffic volumes and how the development and adjacent roadway system
will handle the traffic? This narration should outline your anticipated max attendance
(100 inside, up to another 100 outside), the number of trips that might occur in a
peak hour (probably somewhere between 30-50), if people are driving where they
will come from and where they will park, and then some sort of statement that the
existing roadway system is anticipated to accommodate the additional trips. We
need that for our files and in order to make a statement that we concur with and
accept the findings. If you have questions or need assistance, just call me.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/04/2016: Are any improvements to the water or wastewater service being
proposed?
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
03/04/2016: Please show the services on the site/landscape plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/03/2016: The landscape setback of 5ft for vehicle use areas is needed along the
north property line. This is area still shows concrete all the way to the property line.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: The site plan needs to show bike rack location, this more than a note
that state bike area. The bike rack should be sized for 4 spaces.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: The trash/recycling enclosure needs to be designed with walk-in
access separate from the main service gate.
Trash/recycling enclosure is required to be setback 20ft from a public sidewalk. The
proposed located is to not in compliance.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: Please label the dimensions of the handicap spaces.
Handicap spaces require a vertical sign.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: Is there curb and gutter around the landscaped areas? If not what
prevents vehicles driving over these areas?
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: The landscape setback for vehicle use area along Remington is 10'.
The proposed landscaping setback is not in compliance.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
Page 9 of 10
03/03/2016: The light fixture labeled A is not down direction and is prohibited. This
is considered up lighting and not in compliance. Revise plans to eliminate any
up-lighting.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: The plans and the plat are missing signature blocks.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
03/03/2016: The plans are missing a sheet index.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016
Page 10 of 10