Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGE COOPERATIVE FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP160036 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (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 December 29, 2016 – Responses 2/22/17 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Village Cooperative Fort Collins, PDP160036, Round Number 2 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, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/23/2016: It appears that the emergency access design may be revised. We'll want to understand the details of the proposed design before hearing (bollards/gates, driveable surface type, etc.) RESPONSE: The emergency access drive was redesigned with two 6’ concrete strips, delineators, and signage. These concrete strips connect to the garden entrance walk. 11/16/2016: The emergency access off of Horsetooth requires the specifying of a driveover curb for the access drive. Plastic delineator/bollards would need to be specified behind the right-of-way with further onsite design of the emergency access to meet PFA requirements. RESPONSE: A rollover curb and delineators are provided. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Station 14 and 15+50 have cross slopes for the widened section of Horsetooth roadway that fall below minimum cross slope requirements. Please look at potentially adjusting flowline grades to ensure sufficient cross slopes. RESPONSE: The cross-sections were updated to show the correct cross-slope. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Along the flowline, sag vertical curves into inlets are required to have a .5% straight grade into the inlet and not utilize a sag vertical curve into an inlet. RESPONSE: A minimum 0.5 % flowline grade are proposed to the inlet flowline. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Please have the area that's identified as a 20' sanitary easement within the platted boundary of the site also be defined and dedicated as a utility easement in order to allow other utility uses within this area beyond the sanitary easement. This area would likely be the location for the placement of dry utilities and isn't currently covered by a utility easement (but is directly south of a prescribed 5 foot utility easement). RESPONSE: The plat has been updated to shown the whole area as a utility easement. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Please have note 6 on the existing conditions and demo plan sheets also added to the horizontal control plan sheets (regarding limits of street repair). RESPONSE: Note has been added to the horizontal control plan. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Please depict the patching shown on the demo plan for the street cuts to Stanford also on the horizontal control and utility plan sheets. RESPONSE: Patching and sawcut is shown on the utility plan and horizontal control plan. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: The receiving ramp at the southwest leg of the porkchop (at the northeast corner of the intersection) needs to be wider and bring truncated domes around the curve to more clearly accept movements from the south and from the west. RESPONSE: The ramp has been widened with a radius to accommodate pedestrians from both directions. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Please have the following language on the plat pertaining to sight distance easement language: (this can also be emailed electronically if desired). RESPONSE: language has been added. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Sight Distance Easement – The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade: (1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions: (a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists. (b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner. For non-level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility. RESPONSE: Language has been added. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: The pork chop median needs to have a design for the hardscape within the median (there is not an expectation that the porkchop median be irrigated with landscaping, if this is however desired by the developer, it would raise additional concerns/review regarding underdrain installation, irrigation tap, maintenance responsibilities, etc). Under the presumed direction of a hardscape media, the design would need to look at pavers in the center of the porkchop and then consider borrowing from the material used on the outer edge of the median in center of Horsetooth west of the intersection to frame around the outer curb and gutter. The overall design needs to be on both the landscape and civil plans. RESPONSE: The existing median on Horsetooth is a colored concrete. This hardscape treatment is called out on the horizontal control plan. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016 12/23/2016: Along Horsetooth Road there is a tiny wedge of landscaping just west of the new proposed curb inlet where the sidewalk is still shown as detached just west of that inlet. It seems unlikely that this small wedge of turf would thrive in such a small area, it would seem to be more efficient if this area just west of the inlet was also concrete, and to add concrete just north of the northeast edge of the inlet. RESPONSE: This area is now shown as concrete Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: All comments to date have been addressed. Environmental Planning has no further comments. Thank you. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016 12/21/2016: Continued Thank you for providing the locations of street lights on the plans. Are there streetlights along Horsetooth Road? Please adjust the spacing of the trees to meet the LUC 3.2.1. requirements: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees RESPONSE: Lights have been located along Horsetooth approx. every 300’. Final locations will be determined / coordinated with the City 11/17/2016: Please show locations of street lights and adjust tree spacing according to street tree separation requirements if necessary. RESPONSE: Lights have been located along Horsetooth approx. every 300’. Final locations will be determined / coordinated with the City. Trees have been adjusted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016 12/21/2016: There seems to be a discrepancy on the landscape plans. According to the Tree List, there should be 4 Spring Snow Crabapples and 3 Royal Raindrops Crabapples. However, 3 Spring Snow and 4 Royal Raindrops are shown on the plans. Please correct these numbers on the Tree List or the plans in order to remain consistent. RESPONSE: Thank you. The symbols have been switched Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016 12/21/2016: Tree Selection: Typically Lindens do not survive or thrive well along roads treated with deicing salts. Please evaluate changing the three Lindens along Horsetooth Rd for another species from the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List, such as Catalpa. Please evaluate using fewer Accolade Elms on this project. For greater street tree diversity, switch the (3) Accolade Elms on the east end of Horsetooth Rd to (3) Western Hackberry and move them into the right of way. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: Comment from Comcast: "Comcast Cable has no issue with the plat map. Comcast will need a right of entry agreement to service this development. Comcast will need to coordinate with the developer on how to have the units pre-wired with conduit from the demark point to a media panel in the unit. Comcast will be planning on building this with a fiber to the unit design and will work with the developer on demarcation points. Please call Don Kapperman with questions." RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2016 12/09/2016: SECURITY GATES Two gates have been added to the site plan on the fire lane connection to Horsetooth Rd. For planning purposes, gates shall comply with the following criteria. > IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. RESPONSE: Knock down delineators are shown to mark the emergency access entrance. Additionally signage is provided to discourage use of the access route. > IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. RESPONSE: Knock down delineators are shown to mark the emergency access entrance. Additionally signage is provided to discourage use of the access route. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/12/2016 12/12/2016: KNOX PADLOCK If secured, each gate shall be equipped with a Knox Padlock. RESPONSE: knock down delineators are shown rather than a gate. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/12/2016 12/12/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE With the addition of gates, some discussion remains regarding sign placement. This can be worked out in future plans. RESPONSE: Signage is shown to mark the emergency access. Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 12/19/2016: Thank you for providing perspective renderings of the building. The patio addresses Horsetooth well. With that being said, staff would still prefer to have individual walks leading up to the units that front on Horsetooth. Is this possible to accommodate? RESPONSE: It is not possible to accommodate walkways to each unit. The owners and residents are concerned about safety. In fact, one buyer asked that the walkway to the outdoor patio be removed for the same reasons. 11/15/2016: Please provide color, perspective renderings of the building. This will help staff to evaluate the articulation of the building in conjunction with the quality of the porch facing Horsetooth. Staff wants to ensure the building is not turning its back onto Horsetooth. Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: The perspective elevations show a walkway leading from the patio to the sidewalk along Horsetooth. Neither the Landscape nor Site Plan show this connection. You must provide this walkway connection to the sidewalk on Horsetooth. Please show this connection on both the Site and Landscape Plans. RESPONSE: Walkway is now shown. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: To achieve the walkway connection from the patio to the sidewalk on Horsetooth, some of the shrubs will need to be relocated. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 12/19/2016: Thank you for submitting a modification request to this standard. Is there a reason why this project is parked at the lowest ratio when compared to your other developments around the country? Staff will be conducting their own analysis of similar projects in Fort Collins and northern Colorado to see if the modification request meets one of the modification criteria. RESPONSE: As discussed, additional parking has been added to help support the Modification. 11/14/2016: 88 parking spaces is required for this development. The proposed site plan only shows 75 parking spaces, which is 13 spaces short. Staff did not find a modification request as part of this round of review. Please submit a modification request as part of your next round of review. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 12/19/2016: Thank you for also submitting a modification request to the bicycle parking standard. Do you have any data that supports the number of bicycle parking spaces provided? Other senior housing projects have provided higher ratios of parking and target an older demographic. Would it be possible to provide one bicycle parking space per unit? This would be easier to justify than what the modification request shows. RESPONSE: We have provided one space per unit. 11/14/2016: The site is also 56 bicycle parking spaces short of meeting the minimum bicycle parking requirement. Please also submit a modification request to this standard. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Please show the walkway leading from the patio to the sidewalk along Horsetooth. RESPONSE: Walkway is now shown. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 12/20/2016: Repeat. 11/01/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you needclarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: An erosion control plan and SWMP report are provided with this 1st FDP submittal. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 12/20/2016: See minor redlines in the latest submittal. 11/15/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 12/20/2016: This has been explained acceptably in the Report. Please note, WQCV for extended detention requires a 40-hour drain time and a minimum depth of 1.0'. Please revise the WQCV calcs for the WQ pond accordingly. RESPONSE: The WQCV in the pond was updated to 40hr 11/15/2016: More detail will be needed on how the combination water quality in the chambers/Pond A works together. RESPONSE: A detailed discussion of the Stormtech chambers is now incorporated into the report. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: The calculations for the Stormtech Chambers also need to include the Modified FAA calculation to ensure the correct number of chambers are being used. RESPONSE: An FAA calculation has been provided. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 12/20/2016: Holding over for reference. This can be addressed fully at Final 11/15/2016: As shown, the Landscape Plan does not meet the Detention Pond Landscape Guidelines. Technically, neither does the grading, but it is recognized that there is a significant grade issue on this site that makes grading difficult. In light of that, additional and robust landscaping (i.e. screening) will be needed around the detention ponds to mitigate the slopes and lack of naturalistic shaping of these areas. RESPONSE: Additional trees and large shrubs have been added along the perimeter. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/19/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 11/16/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: SHADOW STUDY: Please add sheet numbers to these plans. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/21/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/21/2016: No plans were provided for review. 11/16/2016: No comments. RESPONSE: Lighting plans are provided. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/19/2016: This has not been corrected. 11/16/2016: Please make changes to the Owners & Lienholders signature blocks as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Owners and Lienholders signature blocks have been updated Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Please add the "Sight Distance Easement Restrictions" statement. RESPONSE: Sight distance language has been added. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Please revise the leader for the Sight Distance Easement as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Visually it appears that the new right of way line does not touch the old right of way along Stanford Road. Please verify that these do touch. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Please move the bearing & distance as marked to the left(west), so that the easterly end of the 20' Sanitary Easement shows. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 12/19/2016: This has not been corrected. 11/16/2016: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal description on the Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016 12/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: Please include signing and striping plans with your next round. RESPONSE: Signage and striping plans are provided in the Utility Plans. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/11/2016 11/11/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: The number of Parking Spaces provided does not meet the minimum requirements. A modification will be required to approve proposed parking. 12/19/2016: No modification was received for this request. RESPONSE: A Modification was approved at P & Z on 2/16/17.