Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPANSION - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA170001 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity 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 August 07, 2017 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion, MJA170001, Round Number 1 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: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: The civil plans should be clearly labelling all existing on-site easements. Acknowledged, utility plans show existing and proposed easements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: The new proposed emergency access would require the dedication of an emergency access easement. The process to dedicate an easement can be found here under Easement Dedication and would need to be completed prior to plan approvals. Acknowledged, an EAE has been shown on the utility plans. Once the configuration is accepted, legals will be prepared for easement dedication. http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: Should the portion of the rain garden that falls outside of the existing drainage easement need to be dedicated as an easement, the easement process identified in the previous link would also be applicable. A portion of the proposed rain garden does fall outside of the existing drainage easement, so a proposed easement has now been shown. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: The upgrading to City/ADA compliant crossings for sidewalks and ramps abutting the site along Seton Street, Southridge Greens Boulevard, and Lemay Avenue was not identified on the plans. Access ramp upgrades with truncated dome detection in accordance with LCUASS 1604 and 1607 should be depicted on the plans along with the details provided in the civil details sheets. This is required for the southeast corner of Seton Street and Lemay Avenue and the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Southridge Greens Boulevard. Note that the City Streets Department is slated to do concrete repair work this year as a precursor to their street pavement rehab work in 2018, which would involve upgrading these access ramps to City/ADA compliance. Should the timing result in the City's work moving ahead of the developer's construction start, then this obligation of the developer would no longer apply. Existing crossings at each site entrance were evaluated and the northeast and southeast entrances are shown to be updated. Also, a note is added for the ada ramps at Lemay Ave., so that the developer can bring those into compliance if the City project has not already done so. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: In addition to the access ramps at public street intersections, the two driveway approaches onto Seton Street and one driveway approach onto Southridge Greens Boulevard would need to be be re-built with City/ADA compliance utilizing LCUASS designs such as 706.1 or 706.3 for the eastern driveway out to Seton Street and the driveway out to Southridge Green Boulevard, and 707.2 for the western driveway out to Seton Street. Note that City Streets will not upgrade these crossings as part of their concrete repair work. The northeast and southeast entrances have been redesigned to meet ada criteria. The northwest entrance meets criteria for longitudinal slope and cross-slope. Detectable warning plates will be added to replace the existing red paint. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/27/2017 07/27/2017: Additional information on the civil set as part of our submittal requirements (General Notes, Construction Notes, Indemnification Statement etc.) is required. Acknowledged, additional information has been added. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2017 07/31/2017: Landscape Plans are sufficient including note regarding timing of tree removal and songbird nesting season. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2017 07/31/2017: No further comments at this time. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Light & Powers existing electric facilities look to be clear of the new addition. Field locate and verify the existing primary on the South side will not be in conflict with the new addition. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be at the expense of the owner/developer. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Any proposed Light & Power electric facilities or existing electric facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Does the applicant anticipate any change to the existing electric service? If yes, a C-1 Form and a One-line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970-221-6700. Please reference our Electric Service Standards, development charges and fee estimator at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: FIRE LANE DEDICATION & DETAILS > The project team will need to provide details of Emergency Access Easement dedication and identify the limits of the EAE on the plans. This will need to include the "hammerhead" turnaround on the west side of the building. An EAE is shown on the plans and includes a hammerhead for vehicle turnaround. > The turnaround design will need to verify there is no vehicle conflict with adjacent vegetation, vertical plaza elements, planters, building façade, etc.. The EAE shown is free and clear of physical obstructions as shown on the drawings. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: SURFACING > All portions of the fire lane will be required to support 40 tons. All areas shall be hard surface unless otherwise approved. This will include both plaza areas where fire apparatus may be required to stage. Acknowledged > The fire marshal has agreed to allow the fire lane on the west side of the building to be built with two, 7.5' wide, parallel concrete tracks separated by 5' wide of grass pavers so as to downplay the visual impact of the fire lane if the applicant so desires. The owner has decided to go with a solid concrete driveway, with a total width of 18 feet. This sounded like it was acceptable after our comment meeting with the Fire District. > Due to the steepness of the grade in this area, the fire marshal will not approve an 18' wide "2-track" design but will allow this at 20'. The owner has decided not to go with a two-track access, so the access has remained at 18 feet wide per conversations after the comment meeting. > Details of such plan will need to be incorporated into the site design and updated plans for final review and approval. We’ve provided turning movement exhibits previously and the proposed layout and EAE are consistent with those exhibits. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: ROLL OVER CURBS The transitional fire lanes may incorporate roll over curbing onto the east plaza or entry to the west drive. No vertical curbing will be a permitted. A portion of the existing vertical curb and gutter will be replaced with rollover for the entrance to the emergency access. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: SIGNAGE The entry point to the fire lane on the west side of the building will require signage with at a minimum of 12" x 18". Sign shall include the wording, Emergency access only, Weight limit 40 tons. The entry points onto both plazas shall also contain signage indicating Fire Lane - No Parking, weight limit 40 tons so that responding apparatus are able to understand that the plazas are built to support the weight of fire apparatus. Acknowledged, three signs have been added. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The project team was also asked to evaluate the need for fixed ladders at critical points of the roof so as to allow enhanced roof access. Without more information, it is still unclear if there is such a need. Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/28/2017 07/28/2017: Since the proposed building addition is over 40' in height, please submit a shadow analysis. RESPONSE: A shadow analysis is included. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Also, please submit a modification request for the building height proposed. The height of the building exceeds the three story height limit in the RL zone district. Staff supports this modification. RESPONSE: A Modification request is included. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2017 08/07/2017: Places of Worship are a Type I use in the RL zone. This means a hearing officer will be the decision maker for this Major Amendment and will not be able to go before the Planning & Zoning Board in conjunction with the ODP amendment. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The landscape plan does not have a hydrozone table. Please add this table on your next submittal. RESPONSE: Table added Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: It looks like the new concrete fire lane will impact some existing trees. Please meet with our Forestry department to determine a mitigation value for these trees and mitigate for the loss of these trees on-site. RESPONSE: We met with Forestry to evaluate the impacts to the trees. A tree inventory and mitigation plan is included. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: How is the site handling bicycle parking? There should be one space per 3,000 sq. ft. Please show this on the site plan and add a bicycle parking section to the parking table. RESPONSE: Labels have been added to better identify the existing bike parking spaces. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The additional impervious area and resulting runoff will need to be analyzed using the Rational Method, which utilizes runoff coefficients and the frequency factors (CxCf). Table 2-2 on Page 3 includes information on areas and their contributing imperviousness. In lieu of providing this information, composite runoff coefficients should be provided for use with the Rational Method. After conversations with stormwater, it sounds like this is no longer required. Since new impervious areas don’t drain through existing inlets and storm sewers, and drain directly to the detention pond, hydrology isn’t necessary. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The detention pond has been analyzed using the UD-Detention spreadsheet for detention pond capacity. We don’t allow this spreadsheet to be used to determine detention volume requirements because this spreadsheet utilizes Denver rainfall data, not Fort Collins rainfall data. Our criteria requires the use of a modified FAA mass-balance approach for determining detention pond volume requirements. This process is outlined in Chapter 10, Section 3.2.3 of our criteria manual. Please note that the UD-Detention stage-storage spreadsheet is allowed to be used to verify volume. UDFCD Modified FAA tab has been used. City of fort Collins rainfall data was used, and the intensity curve variables were slightly adjust to achieve intensities matching Fort Collins criteria. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please update the rain garden calculations to include the entire area that drains to it. Acknowledged, the sizing now considers the contribution from sub-basins 30 and 35. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please include pertinent sections of the previous drainage reports for this site within an appendix to this report. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please see the redlined report for additional minor comments. Acknowledged Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The previous plans for this site indicate a 6-inch PVC pipe shown along the approximate location where the drainage swale is located, within the future parking lot area and east of the proposed rain garden. What is the plan for this pipe? The pipe is difficult to see so it may have been missed by the site survey. Minor flows from the parking lot enter the pipe which discharges downstream toward the detention pond. More significant flows will enter an existing grass swale and drain toward the detention pond. The owner has not indicated that there have been any flooding issues with runoff in this areas. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: LID: The actual area draining to the proposed rain garden looks to include the two existing parking lots located along the easterly side of the property. The drainage report indicated that the rain garden has been sized based upon 75% of the newly added or modified impervious area for the site, which does meet the ordinance requirements. However, the rain garden must be sized to treat everything that actually drains to it. If you can’t limit the basin that drains to it to be the area required by the ordinance, then you have to treat the amount that drains to it. Raingarden has now been designed to consider flows from sub-basins 30 and 35. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The grass swale that is indicated on the plans looks to be very shallow. Please verify that this swale has adequate capacity to convey the 100-yr storm from the basin that drains to it. The original SWMM analysis showed the total 100yr proposed flows from sub-basins 30 and 35 to be 23.3cfs. The updated analysis shows the 100yr proposed flows to be 42.7cfs. There is no attenuation in these numbers, they have just been added together. The existing swale averages about 7% slope with 15:1 sideslopes. Swale depth varies, but ranges between 0.6 to 0.8 feet. A UDFCD analysis shows a capacity range of 27 to 58 cfs. Since attenuation was not calculated, the capacity range of the existing swale seems reasonable. Additionally, the owner has not indicated that there has been flooding issues in this swale. At this time, no changes have been proposed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please label the square footages for all of the proposed and future impervious areas on the drainage plan. Acknowledged. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/20/2017 07/20/2017: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. 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 (Based upon returned redlines), an Erosion Control Report (that meet the Erosion Control Criteria please see the returned criteria sheet), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Was not included). If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com A stormwater management plan and escow worksheet have been prepared and included with 2nd submittal. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. Acknowledged. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX’. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Acknowledged Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Cut off text fixed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Where did these marked easements come from? Dedicated by separate document? See redlines. RESPONSE: The easements came with the survey and titlework and are existing. We have labeled them as “by separate document”. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: The titles on the sheet 2 do not match. See redlines. RESPONSE: The title has been changed to match the Sheet index. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: line over text easement labels are now fixed. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Where did these marked easements come from? Dedicated by separate document? See redlines. RESPONSE: The easements came with the survey and titlework and are existing. We have labeled them as “by separate document”. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Legal revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Index has been corrected.