Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFTC MO JEAUX WTE VERIZON - BDR180026 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 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 September 07, 2018 Ryan Sagar LRK Consulting / Verizon Wireless 350 S Jackson St Unit 127 Denver, CO 80209 RE: FTC MO JEAUX WTE, BDR180026, 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. UComment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, Ukkleer@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2018 08/29/2018: The antenna locations do not adequately address 3.8.13(C)(3) which states, 'all wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible.' What other design/roof location options have you considered? Verizon took into consideration several alternate designs during the initial site visit and subsequent design discussions with the property owner. This included options such as façade mounts, central penthouse, and a new light pole structure in the parking lot. Each of these had their own design issues, which left us with the end concealment screen option. Design options: Façade Mounting: Façade mounting can be effective depending on the building design, layout, and height. The biggest issue with façade mounting at this location was that the final height of the antenna would be no higher than 33’. This height would severely reduce the effectiveness of the new facility and potentially warrant an additional nearby site to pick up the slack. Too low can affect line of sight. A secondary issue with façade mounting is that the building is actually pretty well covered with windows or other building elements leaving very little available placement options for the façade mounts even if Verizon could make the height work. 2 New Light Pole: In certain cases, a new structure can be appropriate. Verizon did not feel this was the case for this location because any light pole would need to be taller than the actual building or the building would serve as a giant wall blocking signal. A new pole at that height would have been inappropriate based on the character of the property. Something shorter would have severely reduced the effectiveness of the new facility and potentially warrant an additionally nearby site to pick up the slack. One new pole would have also not accommodated enough antennas to make the service improvements the area actually needs since poles with concealed antennas are limited in the number of antennas that can be internally installed. Therefore, one or more new structures would have been needed. Regardless, a new structure seemed to be unnecessary if the existing building could be utilized. Central Penthouse: This type of design can allow all equipment to be located together making it a much easier installation process. Unfortunately, it was simply not an option at this location because of the building dimensions. The biggest issue is that the building is very long north to south with a total stretch of more than 150’. The antennas inside the penthouse would have had no issue seeing west and east, but signals north and south would run into shadowing a/k/a signal interference. The only way to avoid this shadowing is to increase the height of the penthouse, and this would have required a height much taller than the allowed 15’. A secondary issue with the central penthouse was that it would require the relocation of existing ventilation pipes also difficult to do. End Concealment Screens: Since we knew that façade mounting and a new free-standing structure would not be suitable options for this location, we understood that a rooftop option would be the only way forward. Unfortunately, we already knew that a central penthouse would create shadowing unless we could exceed the maximum height allowed. Even if a variance was given to exceed the maximum height, anything over 15’ tall would make the feature stand out too much and thus visually taking away from compatibility with the existing building. By placing the new concealment screens near both ends of the building, Verizon would be able to prevent shadowing, maintain a height below 15’, have some setback, and utilize parts of the existing parapets for screening. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2018 08/29/2018: The site plan indicates a 2'x3' fiber vault on the northeast portion of the site where a tree and landscaping currently exist. In the project narrative it states that no landscaping will be impacted on the site, however, there seems to be a conflict from what is show as to what is stated. Please clarify and provide a landscape plan for the area of impact. The fiber vault has been relocated further west from the tree to provide additional buffer and protection. A landscape plan has been added to the drawings to call out existing trees, conditions, and how they will be affected by the project. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2018 08/29/2018: The 14' height of the screen wall is out of scale with the existing architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building. A reduction of height to match the buildings existing 11 story height will be necessary to better integrate with the overall architecture. The height of both concealment screens has been reduced by 2’ to accommodate scaling concerns. Unfortunately, Verizon is unable to go any lower without affecting the overall efficiency and performance of the antennas. Verizon will already be losing 4 antennas in order to compromise on the concern about massing and scaling of the screens along the east façade as noted in the comment below. The existing roof is 33’ AGL, parapet is 36’-7” AGL, and the tallest part of the building is 39’. The concealment screens will be at 49’ which means that they are only 10’ higher than the highest part of the structure. This 10’ allows the antennas to avoid shadowing north of the north concealment and south of the south concealment. It also allows Verizon to “see” over the pitched, higher portion of the roof should orientation need to change in the future based on network needs. The front screen wall appears to be a well-integrated feature from the south photo-simulation view but not from the southwest. The idea of turning the installation into an architectural feature could help alleviate the required setback from the edge of the building. 3 After our additional conversations regarding how the east façade of this building will be affected by the massing of the proposed concealments, Verizon discussed options to reduce the length of the screens. This has been achieved by getting rid of 4 antennas. This will of course affect the overall ability of this new facility to add capacity improvements to the area, but it was the only way to reduce the east facing wall dimensions. We hope that this compromise aids in the screens being more of an architectural feature. In previous conversations staff has indicated that 'The Hub on Campus' will be built to the west of this site. It is nearing the start of construction and will be approximately 81' at its tallest point. Have you considered partnering with the developer of this site to integrate the equipment into their design? It would likely be a minor amendment to the already approved plan. As with all new projects, Verizon utilizes a thorough search and analysis of any area that requires new network improvements before moving forward with any one particular candidate. This area located west of the Colorado State University campus is no different. One of the biggest issues that has been plaguing Verizon’s network in Fort Collins includes the over demand of existing wireless facilities on the CSU campus. As those few facilities became overwhelmed, they took away service from other nearby areas since priority is given to the closest users. A new location west of Park Ave and along West Elizbeth provides relief to the campus facilities, while bringing users in the area onto a more localized facility. This additional capacity is critical for a growing area. Please keep in mind that Verizon initially began noticing these network issues back in 2015 and 2016. Subsequently, Verizon’s radio frequency engineers sought to curb these issues before they began to be more frequent and with higher degrees of failure. Any new developments, additional users, or patterns of increased data usage from existing customers would only exacerbate this issue further. It is common for new projects to take anywhere between 18-24 months to be leased, zoned, constructed, and operational, which means that new projects must take into account current issues as well as predicted future issues. It should be noted that this project kicked off the site identification stage back in January 2017. When the project kicked off, there was no Hub on Campus project to consider. That property only had two, one-story buildings, neither of which were viable for co-location. The building we ultimately moved forward with was interested in doing a project, and it was the only rooftop option that would meet network objectives. During the first application and the subsequent staff review of this site back in October 2017, the city did not even bring up the Hub on Campus project likely because it was not yet a planned development or not a certainty to be built at that time. It’s simply impossible for Verizon to consider options that don’t exist or will not exist around the time that site identification occurs. It’s equally detrimental to Verizon’s timelines if they have to perform new due diligence every time a new development occurs near a proposed site. I can’t imagine many scenarios where the city would ask an applicant to examine additional options that were not present during the initial search stage. With that said, Verizon did not want to leave this option untested and would prefer to show compliance with due diligence even on a development that did not exist during most of the project’s lifespan. Upon examining the plans for the Hub on Campus, the biggest issue will be that the new building will be too tall at 5 stories high. Taller is not always better. Essentially, antennas that might be installed on the new building would be able to see too much. This would have been ideal years ago when coverage was the main objective. Nowadays, this kind of visibility will cause tremendous interference with other sites negatively affecting the performance of multiple facilities. Aside from the height issue, Verizon doesn’t even know if the property owner would be interested in a project on their brand-new investment which includes use of the rooftop by residents, whether terms could be ultimately agreed upon if they happened to be interested, and whether the final design would be any more acceptable than the one that we are now presenting. These uncertainties, the height issue, and the reality that this building was not even an option during the site identification stage should be enough to justify moving forward with the current location. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, Udmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/17/2018 08/17/2018: Please show existing utilities in the vicinity to ensure there are not conflicts or to show how conflicts will be addressed. I appreciate the sanitary sewer is shown under the Elizabeth sidewalk. There 4 are additional utilities in this vicinity to be located, including: 1 - Storm sewer main that extends west from the manhole shown at the sidewalk. This is a 15" RCP with an invert of ~60" meaning the top of pipe should be ~45" below the surface. 2 - Water services and hydrant. It appears the water and fire services to 1409 W Elizabeth come into the building west of the proposed fiber connection (please locate and show to confirm). The water service to 1405 W Elizabeth (Wendy’s) appears to come into the property west of the hydrant before turning 90 degrees and running to 1405 (it seems this will cross the proposed fiber). Total of 3 water services and 1 hydrant. A utilities page has been added to the drawings to show existing and proposed utilities. Department: Light and Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, Uakreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2018 09/04/2018: It is my understanding from the one-line diagram that this project will require a new service to the existing transformer. The existing transformer on the south west corner of the building is a 75kVA 120/208 transformer. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2018 09/04/2018: Light and Power would require the existing transformer and existing electric line to be in an easement if a new service is being run to it. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2018 09/04/2018: Please provide a COMPLETED C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2018 09/04/2018: 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/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use the fee estimator at 30TUhttp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developersU30T. A utility easement has been added between the existing transformer and the building to address the new power service. AeroSolutions will submitted required materials, fees, and forms as needed to obtain new service when the BP is submitted. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2018 08/29/2018: have been working with Ryan Sagar to dedicate the Emergency Access Easement to the facility location that is shown on the plans. I sent back the legals, deed of dedication and recording fees on 8/1/2018. I am still waiting 5 to receive the official documents and recording fees from Ryan. The dedication of the Emergency Access Easement is still being prepared. As Morgan noted, the completed package was returned to us because the certifying attorney was out-of-state. We’ve had to work with the property owner to find a local attorney who would complete the forms. One of the issues he’s had is that the joint access easement between the owner and the owner immediately east of owner partially overlaps with the proposed emergency access easement. The attorney believes that this warrants the adjacent owner’s signature in order to give away an additional easement. He’s had a hard time getting this completed. We will follow up with Morgan as soon as the EAE paperwork is ready for city execution. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2018 08/29/2018: I have a few questions regarding the other proposed easements shown on sheet 4. Is the 10' wide utility easement going to be public or private? Does the existing utility access and shared parking easement (RN #20120061363) on the property make the proposed 10' access easement unnecessary? The 10’ wide utility easement is for Verizon’s non-exclusive use. Verizon has already executed an agreement with the property owner including the completion of a Memorandum of Lease Agreement that has been recorded with the county. Therefore, this 10’ utility easement is technically “existing” and not “proposed”. Verizon uses drawings to show where new utilities will be placed and changing this easement from proposed to existing will be confusing for contractors when doing the final installation. Drawings are also used as exhibits in the lease agreement with the property owner so that’s another reason why the easement is proposed. Verizon acquires utility and access easements on all of their projects as it’s a legal requirement for them to protect their rights. Verizon has learned from many years of agreements where they relied solely on existing access and utility easements only to be burned by property owners who later used the lack of a Verizon easement to prevent Verizon from accessing or connecting to their own facilities unless Verizon increased rents or paid large sums of money. As such, Verizon avoids all of these potential pitfalls by acquiring non-exclusive easements like the ones they’ve done for this project so there is no gray area in the court of law. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2018 09/03/2018: Ensure no impact to existing trees. If there are anticipated impacts then onsite mitigation requirements apply. Refer to City Forestry comments. No impacts are anticipated to existing trees. Please see provided landscape plan for additional clarification. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: There appears to be existing trees on-site. Please schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. Existing significant trees should be retained and protected to the extent reasonably feasible. This meeting should occur prior to next submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: 6 Please include the City of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes, Tree Protection Notes, and Street Tree Notes to the landscape plans. These notes are available from City Forestry (Molly Roche – mroche@fcgov.com) or from the project planner. No impacts are anticipated to existing trees. Please see new landscape page for additional clarification. The new sheet in the drawings includes tree inventory and mitigation information that was obtained from the Forestry Department. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: ACCESS Access is required to within 150ft of all points of the perimeter of the building. This cannot be measured from Elizabeth Street because it is classified as an arterial street. A Fire Lane is required on the property to achieve this access. The building is greater than 30ft in height which will trigger the requirement for aerial apparatus access. The required Fire Lane will be 26ft wide and no closer than 15ft to the building or further than 30ft. This Fire Lane will be required from Elizabeth Street through the parking area along the east side of the building and connect to the Hub property at the southwest corner. This Fire Lane should be shown on the Plat or dedicated by separate legal document. It is unclear how personnel will access this equipment. Clarification is requested for PFA. Per previous discussions, the fire marshal has agreed to allow us to dedicate an emergency access easement on the south portion of the lot that would tie into the existing emergency access easement on the adjacent property to the west (Hub On Campus). When the Wendy’s property to the east of this property redevelops in the future, the city would request that they continue the emergency access easement to have one continuous connection. As of now, we are only able to dedicate this section south of the property owner’s building which essentially follows an existing driveway. Notes will be included on the drawings indicating best route to access rooftop equipment. It’s essentially the same route that PFA would take now to get to the rooftop since there is only one rooftop hatch on the south end of the building that is accessible from the top floor of the building from a utility closet with mounted ladder. I’m sure that this was all depicted in the final plans for the redevelopment of the building. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response wayfinding signage should be visible from the street that indicates best access to this project. Google street view shows appropriate building addressing but this should be verified. The building has accurate and existing addressing/wayfinding for this property. It is on the north wall of the building facing Elizabeth. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: HYDRANT The hydrant located at Elizabeth Street will be appropriate for this project. However, the applicant is responsible for verifying the required flow of 1500gpm 7 at 20psi residual pressure. The applicant has not made any changes to the hydrant that would have been installed or reviewed previously when this apartment was renovated. As such, it would be our conclusion that the required flow of 1500gpm at 20psi residual pressure is present. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/22/2018 08/22/2018: No Comment from Erosion Control at this time. Based upon the submitted Planning Materials it has been determined that this site; disturbs less than 10,000 sq. ft., is not in a sensitive area, has no steep slopes (greater than 3H:1V), and is not part of a larger common development under construction. Therefore, no submittal of Erosion Control Materials is needed at this time (if this site substantially changes in size or design where the above criteria are anticipated, erosion control materials should be submitted in such a case). Though the site at this time requires no erosion control material submittal, it still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times in accordance with City Code 26-498 or erosion and sediment control measures will be required of the site. Nearby area inlets should be protected as a good preventative practice. If at building permit issuance any issues arise please email erosion@fcgov.com to help facilitate getting these permits signed off. If you need clarification concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact myself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 30Tjschlam@fcgov.com Thank you for your comments. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2018 09/03/2018: All plan sheets must be 24"x36". Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2018 09/03/2018: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2018 09/03/2018: The smaller text does not scan or reproduce well. The text needs to increase in size. See redlines. There may be more text issues, but we can't know for sure until we have a full-size set of PDFs. Thank you for your comments. Please see if updates resolve the text and legal description issues.