Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFTC AUSTI8NS SC2, WTE (VERIZON) - PDP - PDP170038 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - CITY STAFFPage 1 of 7 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 November 01, 2017 Ryan Sagar LRK Consulting, LLC 1196 Grant St., Unit 313 Denver, CO 80203 RE: FTC Austins SC2, PDP170038, 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, Kai Kleer, at 970-416-4284 or kkleer@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017 10/25/2017: Need additional information on the proposed vault location in the alley. This alley is full along this frontage with bike racks, urban amenities, utilities and planters and there is not an existing open location for this vault to be installed. It looks that this location would displace either a bike rack or a planter. If so that is something that may also require approval by several other departments such as DDA, Parks, and FC Bikes. Which are not typically reviewers of these applications– so this will need to be reviewed by them once additional information is provided on the exact location proposed for the vault. The alley in which the underground vault is proposed is a paved with pavers and this will not be a standard patch or fix around the installation of a new vault and the lines running to it. The paver installation/ repair can only be done by a company experienced in this type of installation and repair. The pattern and layout of the existing surface will need to be matched. The following requirements apply to the alley - If the Developer or Contractor or any agent or representative thereof causes damage to any public infrastructure (including without limitation, any surface pavers, flagstones, or other stone or concrete surfaces, planters, street and decorative lights, or canopies) such damage shall be promptly repaired with the same kind, quality, color, serviceability and material composition aspects as was possessed by the infrastructure damaged, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the City in writing. Paver repair and replacement in Downtown alleys shall comply with the City’s specific requirements for pavers. The vault to be installed will need to be traffic rated and suitable to support emergency vehicles, trash trucks, and service vehicles. Page 2 of 7 Verizon or Verizon’s contractor shall promptly repair any damage with the same kind, quality, color, serviceability, and material composition replacement as required by the city or as expressly agreed to by the city in writing. Paver repair and replacement will comply with the city’s specific requirements for pavers. The installed vault will be traffic rated and suitable to support vehicles. Verizon or Verizon’s contractor will schedule work with a qualified company experienced in the type and repair of alley pavers. Photos have been included below to better demonstrate the proposed location of the future underground fiber vault. The proposed location will not displace any bike racks or planters so relocation plans will not need to be determined. Lastly, the proposed fiber vault is designed to be on located on top of one of the few remaining concrete portions of the alley as opposed to on top of the special pavers. Page 3 of 7 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: No comments. Thank you. Thank you for the review and comment. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Cassandra Bumgarner, 970-416-4250, cbumgarner@fcgov.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: 107 N. College Avenue was designated as the Woolworth Building-Welch Block on June 20, 1993. As a designated landmark, all proposed work is subject to design review. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: There are two types of design review: review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and administrative approval by staff. The extent of the proposed work on the designated resource determines the level of review required. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: The first is what other alternatives have you considered for placing the proposed small cell on non-designated resources? This proposed small cell project is a different type of design than the city has historically seen in the past. Small cell installations require almost immediate placement in or next to the location requiring improvements. In this case, the intersection of College Avenue and Mountain Avenue is the area needing improvements so the small cell needs to be on a building or other structure as close to the intersection as physically possible. Line of sight and height requirements also affect the usefulness of the facility. I’ve included a map below to visual depict why the other three buildings in this critical intersection were not viable alternatives for this project. Page 4 of 7 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Are there other options for placement on this building? It would be best to discuss this question as part of the response to comment 5. In short, the faux chimney is the most fitting and least intrusive design for this location. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: We would need to have an explanation of the placement choice and more detail about alternative options. If you moved the cell tower further back from the parapet and two primary elevations at College and Mountain Avenues, how would that effect the design? The location of the proposed faux chimney was decided after conducting an on-site design review with the architect, construction manager, and radio frequency engineer. It was further verified by the engineer after performing coverage and capacity data analysis based on presumed heights and placement. As briefly discussed in comment 3, the target service improvement area is the intersection southeast of the building. Therefore, any new antenna needs to have direct line of sight with this intersection. We knew right away that façade mounted antennas would be limited in functionality due to interference with the existing street trees and decreased height. We also knew that this would likely create negative visual impacts on the historic character of the building since the façade plays such a critical component. This was the basis of our contextual analysis that confirmed that rooftop mounted equipment would be the only feasible placement. Once we knew it had to be on the rooftop and towards the east side, we continued to think about how we could have an installation with the least amount of visual impact or noticeability. We decided it would make the most sense to replicate the existing brick chimney so that we had a continuation of the built environment. A structure that would be both believable and useful for screening the antenna equipment. Lastly, the exactly placement of the faux chimney was a combination of height limitations, line of sight, setback requirements, and the science behind wireless signals. In order to have a strong line of sight with the intersection, the antenna has to clear the rooftop. As we move further away from the parapet wall, this means that the overall height of the faux chimney has to increase as well to maintain that relationship. The city’s wireless regulations require that we do not exceed 15’ above the rooftop. Therefore, this creates a limitation on how far from the parapet we can go before we can no longer increase the height in order to clear the rooftop. I would like to note that the existing chimney itself is actually located along the building’s south parapet wall so a proposal to be immediately against the building’s east parapet wall for the new faux chimney would have been more fitting. However, we know that there would have still be some concerns about visibility if this was the case so we worked within our parameters to eventually place the faux chimney 9’ back from the south and east parapet walls. Page 5 of 7 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: What are the dimensions of the proposed faux chimney and actual historic chimney? New details regarding the faux chimney and existing chimney are located on page Z-5. The length, width, and height of the existing chimney is 2’-10”, 2’-10”, and 8’. The length, width, and height of the proposed faux chimney is 2’-10”, 2’-10”, and 8’-10”. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Additionally, we would like to see a material sample to understand how this material replicates the brick of the existing chimney. How will this material be textured? The screening material used to construct the faux chimney will be fiberglass reinforced plastic designed with an exterior painted and textured to replicate the existing chimney. A material sample, not painted or textured, can be provided to Kai Kleer or Cassandra Bumgarner upon request to demonstrate the composition and thickness during the next review or at the public hearing. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: How will the facilities (including antenna and associated equipment) be installed? The antenna is installed inside the proposed faux chimney on a sled mount. The sled mount, which is not visible over the parapet wall, is necessary to support the faux chimney screening as well as the antenna without penetrating the roof membrane of the building. These details are now better shown on page Z-5. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Does it damage historic materials, such as the parapet? New Unistrut mounts are installed ¾ inches into the interior side of the parapet wall. This installment is a standard technique and does not damage the parapet wall, especially not the historic façade side since the penetrations are only a fraction of the width parapet. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, , akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will initiate electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light and Power Engineering at 221-6700. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_F INAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Thank you for the review and comment. Page 6 of 7 Department: Planning Services Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017 10/25/2017: It is hard to identify the dimensions of the chimney. Please add dimensions to sheet Z-2 and Z-5. Dimensions of the proposed and existing chimney have been added to page Z-5. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017 10/25/2017: Please add chimney screen material specifications to sheet Z-5. The information should include material composition, thickness, what material will be used to create a textured brick, cap composition, etc. Material specifications have been added to sheet Z-5. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017 10/25/2017: Please provide a breif explanation of why this proposal cannot be "located as far from the edge of the roof as possible." As we move away from the parapet wall, this means that the overall height of the faux chimney has to increase as well to maintain that relationship. The city’s wireless regulations require that we do not exceed 15’ above the rooftop. Therefore, this creates a limitation on how far towards the center of the building we can go before we can no longer increase the height in order to clear the rooftop and have line of sight of the intersection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017 10/25/2017: Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment cannot be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city's Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. We will work with the Landmark Preservation Commission to obtain their permission. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: As this is a proposed rooftop installation, the proposed changes shown in this submittal are not substantial enough to trigger Stormwater requirements; therefore, no requirements apply at this time. If future submittals include site or grading changes that are not shown on these plans, please contact Dan Mogen at (970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com to coordinate and determine what requirements, if any, will apply. Thank you for the review and comment. Page 7 of 7 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: All plan sheets must be 24"x36". All sheets will be submitted in 24”x36” format. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: The addresses shown on the title sheet do not match. See redlines. Addresses have been updated on the title sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Sheet titles have been updated in the sheet index. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Legal description has been updated accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: The vicinity map shows the project area in the wrong location. See redlines. The vicinity map has been updated. Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Please provide detail of material and dimensions of proposed chimney Details of the material and dimensions of proposed chimney have been added to page Z-5. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. As we move away from the parapet wall, this means that the overall height of the faux chimney has to increase as well to maintain that relationship. The city’s wireless regulations require that we do not exceed 15’ above the rooftop. Therefore, this creates a limitation on how far towards the center of the building we can go before we can no longer increase the height in order to clear the rooftop and have line of sight of the intersection.