Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON PLACE - FDP190005 - 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 March 08, 2019 Klara Rossouw Ripley Design Inc 419 Canyon Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Mason Place, FDP190005, 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 Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane, at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com. RESPONSES 3.11.2019 HOUSING CATALYST; SHOPWORKS; JVA ENGINEERING; DELICH; RIPLEY DESIGN Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: For approval: The site plan is missing a couple of notes that are part of our standard site plan notes. Please add notes 5 and 16 to the site plan as stated in the attached document. Response: Notes have bene added back to the cover page. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2019 03/08/2019: For approval: To meet the mechanical equipment screening requirement in 3.5.1(I), you will need to provide either a screen wall or parapet to screen all of the rooftop mechanical equipment shown on the elevations. The screen wall or parapet should match the design of the building. Response: Response: Please see rooftop screening plan and diagram provided on Sheet 12. Screening is provided for equipment visible from Mason and Creger, specifically as requested. 2 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for the detailed submittal and for including sidewalk cross slope. Engineering has no further comments. Response: Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: With the final technical details wrapping up, staff is drafting development agreement language and will send a draft to Housing Catalyst as soon as possible. Please fill out and send over the DA info sheet to enable us to complete the draft. This form can be found at: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php Response: DA info sheet is provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: DCP: Please fill out and send over the project public improvements cost and quantities estimate at any time. Although the security is waived for affordable housing projects, the total cost will determine whether we'll need a "small project" DCP (<$20k) or a regular DCP. For more information on the DCP: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php Response: Please see draft public improvements cost and quantities estimate. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Not addressed last round. The demo plans (C0.3 of Utility Plans) still do not match the Tree Mitigation sheet (sheet 6 of Landscape Plan). For instance, tree 1 should be retained and protected (see comment 20), tree 10 should be indicated as to be retained, tree 21 should be indicated as to be removed, and tree 22 should be indicated as to be retained and protected. In addition, please include the City of Fort Collins Tree Protection Notes to page C0.3 of the utility plans. Response: The Tree Mitigation Plans and Demo Plan now match with this round. Response: Demo plan has been updated to reflect Tree Inventory. PREVIOUS COMMENT 5/22/2018: On sheet C0.3 of the Civil Utility Plans, the demolition plan is not consistent with the Tree Mitigation Plan (sheet 5) of the Landscape Plans. For instance, tree 1 is shown to remove (it should be retained and protected), tree 21 is not shown 3 on the plan (should be indicated as to be removed), and tree 22 is not shown on the plan (should be indicated as to be retained and protected). Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: According to my scale, the trees are less than 4 ft from the gas line. One of the GDI in the parking lot is less than 3 feet from the SD utility – is this a storm drain line? The tree position might need to be adjusted to meet tree utility separation requirements. There are two water lines that are less than 6 feet away from street trees along Mason. Please adjust the utility line or trees to meet required separation distances. There is a SS line less than 1 ft away from a Swedish Columnar Aspen. Please adjust the utility line or tree to meet required separation distances. Fire hydrant close to proposed street tree – please shift hydrant to remain 10 ft from street tree. Response: Tree separations are met with the submission. See redlines for reference 5/22/2018: There is a gas line that runs through two parking lot islands and is close to two proposed Kentucky Coffeetrees. Please verify that these trees are positioned at minimum 4 feet from the gas utility. Response: The tree is now 6 feet from the exiting gas line. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Not addressed last round. PREVIOUS COMMENT 5/22/2018: Please provide a detail on both the Landscape and Civil Utility Plans specifying the grading and distance between the existing trees (#1-3) and the proposed sidewalk. Response: Sections describing the grading conditions adjacent to the existing trees is now provided on the landscape plans. Response: xisting elevations have been labeled at the trees on sheet C1.0. Distance between trees and proposed sidewalk has been labeled on sheet C3.0. Refer to Landscape plans for detail. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts 4 shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. Response: A Tree Removal Feasibility letter is provided with this submittal and an updated mitigation plan is include in the plan set. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL This comment is a follow up to previous comment #4: In the Plant List, it is not very clear which trees are upsized mitigation trees. Please specify which species are upsized with a M. If a single species has both upsized and non-upsized trees, it might be helpful to add another line to the plant list such as: TR(M) (2) 2” Caliper TR (1) 1.5” Caliper Response: Plant list had been updated to clearly show the proposed mitigation trees. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Swedish Columnar Aspen do not live very long at this elevation and is probably not the best species for this site. Please replace these 4 trees with another fastigiate tree such as Fineline Fernleaf Buckthorn or ‘Sutherland’ Siberian Peashrub. Response: The Swedish Aspen is substituted with Acer Platanoides ‘Crimson Sentry’. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Forestry has concerns with the planned removal of 5 significant trees that exist on-site. Tree #1 was shown to be retained during the last round of review but is now marked to be removed. Please provide reasoning related to the “utility improvements” stated in the tree inventory table. Several discussions and an on-site meeting took place to design the sidewalk around this tree in order to keep it in place. It should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. Trees #24, 25, and 26 are Honeylocust trees that provide great value to the site and should be retained, protected, and incorporated into the proposed design to the extent reasonably feasible. The proposed landscape plan shows several shrubs and a few trees to replace the (3) Honeylocust in the same area. Please address. Tree #27 is a beautiful Colorado Blue Spruce in good condition and should be retained, protected and incorporated into the proposed design. The new curb cut location is not clearly identified to display how this tree might impact your design. If feasible, the curb cut should be redesigned to accommodate the existing tree location. The critical root zone of this tree equals approximately 9 ft all the way around the tree. If possible, pinch the drive aisle or alter the 5 sidewalks to preserve the tree. Response: A Tree Removal Feasibility Letter is provided with this submittal that will help clarify this comment. In addition, the tree mitigation plan now reflects the proposed site plan for easy reference. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: Please consult with Jesse Schlam with Erosion Control to verify that straw/coconut soil retention blankets are safe. To the best of my knowledge, coconut straw has been found to be dangerous to pets, particularly dogs. Response: Note removed as it is not applicable with these plans. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL The street lights appear to have disappeared from the landscape plan this round. Please add them back to the plans. Response: The streetlight is now shown on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 3/4/2019: FOR APPROVAL The species diversity table does not match the species quantities in the plant list. Please update the species diversity table to be consistent with the plant list on sheet 5 of the landscape plan and update the percentages as necessary. Response: Tree species diversity chart is now updated and reflect the proposed tree schedule. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 3/5/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please provide a sheet that shows an overlay of existing tree locations with proposed plans (sidewalk, curb cut, parking lot, and utility layout) for Forestry, PFA, Utilities, and Planning to review. Response: The Tree mitigation plan now shows the proposed site plan in relationship to the exiting trees. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: Outstanding redline comments on the erosion control plans still need to be addressed along with the erosion control report/letter that was provided. The erosion control escrow will need to be recalculated based upon comments. If you need clarification concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact myself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Plans, report and escrow have been revised/updated based on the received redlines. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Please have the Utility and Storm Plan match the StormTech layout. Response: Utility and storm plans have been revised to match stormtech layout. 6 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: The WQ weir details were not included. This needs to be located in the downstream manifold(MH) of the StromTech system. Response: Weir detail has been included. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: All the isolator rows need a direction pipe connection. Please revise. Response: Pipe connections have been added to isolator rows. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: The under-drain needs to connect to the manhole downstream of the weir plate. Response: Note has been added to connect underdrain downstream of weir. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Please add a drainage easement for the limits of the StormTech chamber system. Response: Drainage easement has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: There are some conflicts with storm sewer and trees. Please revise. Response: Tree and sewer conflicts are resolved with this submission. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Please show the curb stop and label on the Utility Plan. Response: Existing curb stop to remain is shown has been labeled on sheet C2.0 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: The meter pit needs to be at least 2 feet behind the sidewalk. Please label distance. Response: Distance has been labeled on sheet C2.0. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: A thrust block will not work for the fire line with the domestic service behind it. Please label as a restrained joint. Response: Note has been revised to label as restrained joint. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: There are some conflicts with the hydrant line, water service, and fire service with trees. Please revise. Response: Tree and utility conflicts are resolved with this submission. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org 7 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR INFORMATION 2018 IFC CODE ADOPTION Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins (Town of Timnath, Larimer County) are in the process of adopting the 2018 International Fire Code. Code adoption is anticipated in early 2019. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application. Response: Noted. The project is designed around 2018 IBC codes and 2018 IFC. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR APPROVAL ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING >The building is addressed from Mason but accessed from Creger Dr. Please note that the full address including street name will be clearly visible on the north elevation in no less than 8" numerals on a contrasting background. >The entrances to Stair 2 and 3 are noted on the provided elevations. Each of these should have signage stating 'Roof Access'. Response: We will provide addressing at Mason and Creger approaches, and stair door signage as requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR INFORMATION FIRE LANE SIGNAGE Please note that the Fire Lane No Parking signs should be aligned parallel to the edges of the fire lanes. Response: Fire Lane No Parking signs have been rotated to align parallel with edges of fire lane Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR INFORMATION The hydrant and FDC are noted in the correct locations Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: When you submit for your building permit though the City of Fort Collins please be advised Poudre Fire Authority is an additional and separate submittal. The link for Poudre Fire Authority’s plan review application can be found at https://www.poudre-fire.org/online-services/contractors-plan-reviews-and-permit s/new-building-plan-review-application. Response: Noted. Department: Internal Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide plan enlargements for the main level and upstairs levels trash and recycling chute access rooms. These should 8 be included on page 9 along with the plan enlargement for the enclosure itself. Response: Please see the enlarged plans as requested on Sheet 9. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL: As mentioned in PDP with 60 units you are likely to need ~25 cubic yards of trash service per week and ~ 16 cubic yards of recycle service. The proposed bin sizes are not adequate as proposed and would require 13 weekly pickups for trash and 9 for recycling. It is recommended to increase the size of the room to be able to store 4 dumpsters (this way full dumpsters could be swapped for empty ones, decreasing weekly pickups and saving money long term) or look into larger compacting units with would provide even more efficiency. Response: As discussed in a meeting on 3/25, 50% more capacity is provided than at a similar property with the same population and number of units with three trash pick-ups per week. Additionally, there is adequate space available in the parking lot to the south of the building for a future dumpster enclosure if needed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Please be aware dumpsters can not be stored outside (unless stored in an enclosure) for pickup and the hauler will need to have access to the storage room unless onsite staff is able to assist in giving them access. Response: Noted. Trash service will have keyed access to the dumpster room Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make sure the path dumpsters will be rolled out of the building and into the parking lot is free of obstructions such as curbs and does not have any large elevation changes to make sure wheeled containers can be rolled freely. Response: A curb cut is provided at the dumpster room to allow for rolling dumpsters onto the parking low. Response: There is no curb or large elevation changes at the exterior that should limit movement of the dumpsters. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL The current doors to the dumpster storage room do not provide efficient access. The proximity of the trash dumpster to the wall/bollard separating the two enclosures will make it very challenging to maneuver. It is recommended to provide a 10ft opening with the dumpsters being more centered within the opening. Response: A 9’-6” opening is provided, which is about the largest that can be framed into the dumpster room exterior wall. Additionally, metal angles are provided at the floor to help guide dumpsters through the opening. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: FOR DCP: Thank you for supplying us with a C-1 form prior to this submittal. We will need to continue discussions pertaining to the issues of master metering as well as the size of your secondary conductors. Response: A variance request to master meter with sub-metering at the building was submitted on 3/20/19. We initially called for 6 9 parallel runs of 600kCMIL, but will change to 7 parallel runs of 500kCMIL to comply with the size limitation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION: It appears that this project is installing a new fire hydrant. Please ensure with the water district you are working with that the location of the electric facilities does not hinder this fire hydrant installation. The applicant will be charged for any work associated with relocating our facilities to accommodate the fire hydrant. Response: Fire hydrant has been moved further away from electric facilities. Contractor shall verify in field that electric facilities do not hinder fire hydrant installation. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION: According to your C-1 form, you will be seeking to have 120/208 three phase service to the building. This will require us to exchange the existing transformer for a different one. All costs associated with this work will be charged to the applicant. Response: Noted. Yes, the existing transformer will be replaced. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION: It is the understanding of Light and Power that this minor amendment will not cause a change to the electric capacity needs or the location of our facilities. If this an incorrect understanding or if plans change, please contact me directly at akreager@fcgov.com or (970)224-6152. Thank you. Response: This is incorrect. We have discussed this with Austin and determined that this note was not intended. The existing transformer will be replaced and relocated, RE: UTILITY PLAN. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: No comments. Ready for Mylars. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The Benchmark Statement has been revised. Please provide the following 10 information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. 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 DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 - X.XX’. Response: Benchmark statement has been changed to this format. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are spelling issues. See redlines. Response: Spelling issue has been corrected. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Redlined line over text issues have been fixed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: All changes have been made as marked. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Response: Legal description is revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Sheet titles and index now match.