HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSU LAKE AND PROSPECT PARKING LOT - FDP190018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSOffice of Facilities Management
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030
6030 Campus Delivery
April 22, 2019
Jason Holland
Planner
Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot, SPA19001, Round 1 Comment responses.
Dear Jason,
The following are CSU responses to the March 22, 2019 final staff comments.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Site Plan: An additional island along northwest portion of the lot is
Recommended. Please see redlines. Please also see minor edits to to the
submittal narrative.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Site Plan: No additional tree island was added along the northeast
portion of the lot. As per previous SPAR approved projects along Lake Street
(Aggie Village and The CSU Heath and Medical Center) internal landscaping
standards are governed by CSU landscaping standards, where the Character
aspect of the Location Character and Extent criteria required by State Statute is
the jurisdiction of the State Agency. I believe that the existing tree island in this
portion of the lot is meeting the intent of city parking lot landscaping standards,
and the landscape buffers of both sides of the lot greatly exceed minimum city
setback standards mitigating the need for additional islands. The greater than
minimum landscape setbacks yield approximately 50% more landscape area
equating to over 6,000 square feet of additional buffering landscaping.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Site and Landscape Plans – It’s difficult to see on the plans
whether ROW is being dedicated and where the new ROW line is located in
relation to the detention pond.
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Site Plan and Landscape Plans: Plans are updated to reflect
requested ROW lines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Landscape Plan: The other question/concern is grading transition
around the pond along the sidewalk edge. A flatter transition area along the
Prospect sidewalk is preferred. The trees in this area that are intended as
street trees may not be elevated sufficiently out of the pond. A transitional
shoulder is preferred so that the trees will be at a similar grade as the sidewalk
in order to relate to the street grade. An abupt grade transition along the
sidewalk edge, or using the walkway edge as a small grade drop is also a
concern. The design section provided and the contours appear to show
conflicting grade transition designs. Notes clarifying that the finish grade along
the sidewalk will be flush with the sidewalk and clarifying a gradual slope
transition before the 4:1 pond slope will be helpful. If a wall is needed to make
up grade, a natural wall using sandstone boulders is recommended.
`
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: Landscape Plans: Plans are updated to reflect CSU standard of
minimum 4:1 slopes in landscape areas and a smooth transition between sidewalk
and landscape, in this case a 4’ wide 2% shoulder. This creates a zone for street
trees.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Landscape Plan: The fastigiate beech trees. Would it be better to
provide a wider, vase shaped shade tree to provide more shading of the
parking lot. Also, I’m unsure of the whether beech trees are tough enough for
this location. I’d like to learn more about their use in the NOCO area, if CSU has
any experience with these I’d like to learn more. I’m wondering if they are similar
to hornbeams and are prone to dieback during temperature swings and
exposure to cold winds.
CSU Response Comment: 4
04/22/2019: Landscape Plans: Narrow trees were chose in areas where either
there were a competition for space with pole lights or where the path of fire trucks
trough the site would benefit from narrow canopy trees (PFA comment). We have
had to cut down parking lots trees in the past because of safety concerns of
inadequate lighting where tree canopy blocks light distribution.
The choice of the beech trees is not tried and true, but we have had success with
limited numbers thus far, and they were in our short list of trees for this year’s
Arbor Day planning. In an effort to increase tree diversity on campus we are
willing to fail a little, and as the owner willing to replant when we fail.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Landscape Plan: How much interior landscape space is provided
in comparison to the entire parking lot? This may be a question from P&Z. I’m
curious whether this is close to the City’s standards, which require at least 10%
interior landscaping for parking lots with more than 100 spaces.
CSU Response Comment: 5
04/22/2019: Landscape Plans: The project will not meet the 10% interior
landscape standard, and is estimated to be approximately 3.5%. While we are
subject to our own landscape standards, not the City’s, I question the applicability
of the City 10% standard where the parking lot in question is as elongated as this
one, where half the lot is a double loaded aisle, and the over half is only two
parking aisles wide. It would seem that the edge condition is providing much of
the same heat island cooling effect and overall landscape aesthetic when the
situation is not the perfect square, and this project has generous edge
landscaping.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Landscape Plan: Are there options to reduce the irrigation water
use in the detention pond area. Is this preferred as a green/manicured edge or
are there other alternatives that can be easily established that are lower water
use but also appropriate in the urban setting.
CSU Response Comment: 6
04/22/2019: Landscape Plans: The preference by the university is to provide a
lawn in on both the Lake Street and Prospect edges. The intention is to enhance
visibility into the parking lot from a security perspective, and be constant with our
other campus edges. The edges of College, Laurel and Shields all take this
approach of placing the park on the edge, which in the case of those edges is a
welcoming collegiate gesture. In the case of the Prospect frontage, this turf edge
will be only 8’ wide, and the detention area will be seeded with native grasses.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: The proposed detail shows an 8’ horizontal mast
arm extending from the top of the pole. Is this the best design option and will the
form of the lights with the mast arm and pole height appear out of scale within
this area.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: Staff recommends significantly reducing the height
of the poles so that the light source is less viewable from the ground in the areas
surrounding the poles. Staff recommends adjusting the location of the lighting
poles and the 32’-6” TOF (top if fixture) height of the light poles to reduce the
light spillover onto neighboring properties.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: Staff recommends meeting or exceeding the city
LUC requirement -- that light levels measured twenty (20) feet beyond the
property line of the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public
rights-of-way) not exceed one-tenth (0.1) foot-candle as a direct result of the
on-site lighting.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: Staff recommends providing additional clarification
on the plans that demonstrate concealed, fully shielded and shall feature sharp
cut-off fixtures so as to minimize up-light, spill-light, glare and unnecessary
diffusion on adjacent property, to the maximum extent feasible. An NFO
(neighborhood friendly) option is specified, but the appearance and details of
this option are unclear.
CSU Response Comments: 7-10
04/22/2019: Lighting Plan: CSU Planning is directing the consultant team to
revise the lighting plan more consistent to the proposed project context. Pole
height, number of poles and off-site light levels will be addressed or mitigated.
The site rendering for the P&Z submittal will not be reflective of number of pole
lights of the resubmitted design. The lighting plan will be resubmitted.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: Generally, the recommended average minimum
parking area lighting level is 1.0 footcandles. Staff recommends adjusting the
design to provide more evenly distributed lighting levels in tandem with the
above comments.
CSU Response Comments: 11
04/22/2019: Lighting Plan: Lighting levels will be consistent with lighting levels for
CSU parking lots.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: Lighting Plan: Cooler color temperatures are not recommended.
Warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for any LED light
fixtures is preferred. The current spec proposes 4000k, and there appears to be
a 3000k option. Less than 3000k is preferred if this is available.
CSU Response Comments: 12
04/22/2019: Lighting Plan: The recommendation will be considered.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: General Comment: The plan had been to provide two or three
illustrative plan sheets for the SPAR review, and follow up with detailed final
utility and drainage plans (construction plans) for the public improvements after
the SPAR hearing. Because detailed plans have already been submitted, with
the next submittal these could be submitted as the Final Plan review (using the
FDP checklist) and applicable FDP fees. Please work with Tenae, engineering
and stormwater staff if there are comments on the format and requirements for
the final utility plan and drainage set.
CSU Response Comments: 13
04/22/2019: General Comment: An illustrative plan will be provided with a follow
up of detailed utility and drain plans.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: General Comment: It's not clear which plan sheets will be provided
to the Planning and Zoning Board for the SPAR hearing, and which sheets can
be removed. The bid package format provided appears to be too much
information for the SPAR hearing (step one of the schedule), yet not enough
information to complete step two of the schedule provided.
CSU Response Comments: 14
04/22/2019: General Comment: A site rendering, landscape plan and grading
plan will be provided. This seems to meet the Location Charachter and Extent
intent.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR APPROVAL
I would defer to PFA's judgement on this, but the AutoTurn vehicle path does not
appear to be realistic. I don't think that a vehicle or driver could actually follow
the path of pieced together arcs and line segments that is shown on the exhibit
as submitted. I think the vehicle path should follow a smooth, continuous
pathway that can actually be navigated. I don't believe that such a pathway
exists through the parking lot as currently configured. The parking lot should be
revised to adequately accommodate emergency vehicles.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Under revision. Site plan has been modified to reflect comment
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
See bid set redlines for multiple comments on cover sheet and note sheet.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Under revision.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/21/2019: UPDATE
Since the Prospect access is intended to be for emergency only, I agree that it
makes sense to give relief from the LCUASS standard which would require 75
feet. The setback as shown will be adequate. We will need to have more
discussion regarding the Lake St. parking setback. If the proposed setback is
to be less than the standard, we will need to review a formal variance request.
The request should be submitted to Engineering and follow the variance request
standards in LCUASS (Section 1.9.4).
03/18/2019: FOR APPROVAL
The parking setbacks are incorrect. The Prospect Rd. and Lake St. setbacks
are both 25' less than they should be. See redlines and LCUASS Figure 19-6
for explanation. Per our discussion at the staff review meeting, since the
Prospect access will be emergency only, it may make sense to give relief from
the standards in that location. We can also discuss the setback distance from
Lake St. in more detail.
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: See attached exhibits detailing two recent CSU SPAR approved
projects on the south side of Lake Street that do not meet this standard. Both
projects with greater parking lot space numbers and arguably greater visual
impacts than this project. We ask that this project be evaluated with the same
criterial of the recent referenced projects.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
The proposed gate at the Prospect Rd. access needs to be shown on all plans.
CSU Response Comment: 4
04/22/2019: Under revision
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
Please include curves in the proposed 10-foot walk transitions to existing, rather
than the angle points as currently shown on the plans.
CSU Response Comment: 5
04/22/2019: Under Revision
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
There are no crosspans shown at either of the site access points. See redlines
for more information.
CSU Response Comment: 6
04/22/2019: Under Revision
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
This project needs to dedicate additional road ROW along Prospect Rd. as well
as the standard City utility easements along Prospect Rd. and Lake St. There
will also be an Emergency Access Easement that will need to be dedicated per
PFA criteria. Please show these on the plans. Approval of the SPAR by the
City will be contingent upon the ROW and easements being dedicated. Since
there is no plat, these will need to be dedicated by separate instrument. These
documents (legal descriptions and exhibits) need to be submitted to the City
along with a completed TDRF Application and review fees ($250/esmt. or
ROW) for review and approval.
Per the staff review meeting discussion, a letter of intent will be submitted to the
City regarding the ROW and easement dedications. The dedication action can
only be done by the Board of Governors and would need to wait until May.
CSU Response Comment: 7
04/22/2019: The University does not grant Emergency Access Easements to
PFA. PFA has access to all CSU owned property on the main campus, but
without dedicated easements. There is no requirement that the SPAR approval by
P&Z is contingent upon the dedication of ROW and Easements. CSU will
provide a letter stating their intent to dedicate their intent of ROW dedication,
followed by a dedication of ROW contingent on available Board of Governor’s
meeting timing. This has been adequate for previous CSU SPAR projects along
Prospect which dedicated ROW.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
It looks like there is a proposed sign in the proposed walk near the accessible
parking spaces adjacent to Lake St. (see redlines).
CSU Response Comment: 8
04/22/2019: Signage is included
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: FOR FINAL
Please show the ROW and utility easements that are to be dedicated with this
project, on the site sections.
CSU Response Comment: 9
04/22/2019: Resolved
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
Please refer to the redlines provided (Bid Set Plans, Sections Exhibit and PFA
Turning Exhibit) for additional comments and clarification on these written
Comments
CSU Response Comment: 8
04/22/2019: Resolved
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/20/2019:
Poudre Fire Authority is currently looking to acquire a residential property to use
for a major emphasis drill (lost or injured firefighter). The training is intended to
be non-destructive in nature: no walls or ceilings breeched, no water flow, etc.
Please contact me if your site may be willing to pursue a discussion along this
line and I will put you in touch with our training division chief. Thank you.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: CSU has no current properties available, but have provided these
opportunities in the past and will continue to.
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL
ACCESS
>The Autoturn exhibit for the Fire Lane through this parking lot appears
dis-jointed and shows the Truck having to mount the curbs.
>Please re-design to show one fluid driving motion through the fire lane in its
entirety
>Appropriate Fire-Lane No Parking signs will be required for final approval
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Under revision
03/15/2019: FOR INFORMATION
>It appears that only the Prospect entrance will be gated. Please note, as
previously discussed, a Knox Key Switch will be required for any gate.
>PFA is requesting that the gate is set back approximately 40ft from Prospect
Road to allow the Apparatus to be out of traffic while activating the gate.
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: Under revision
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: FOR HEARING: Where is the Prospect access denoted that it
should be emergency access only (i.e. not be for everyday use)? That should
be clearly noted somewhere. The potential operations for the access on game
day should not be included in the SPAR review / approval.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: The illustrative Plan (P&Z Submittal) notes as emergency access
only.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: The proposed bus stop appears to be severely under-sized to be
a Type III which has a 30' x 8' pad. Preferably the shelter is detached from the
street as shown in the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard
s.pdf
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: This area has been redesigned to accommodate a type three
constrained layout. There appears to be adequate room for both bike and
pedestrian movement around the transit stop and queuing at the transit stop.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/20/2019
03/20/2019: Amenities such as a shelter, trash can, bike rack etc... need to be
included with the bus stop. You can coordinate with Melina Dempsey
(mdempsey@fcgov.com - Transit Planner) for purchase of the new shelter and
amenities.
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Will be coordinated
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: It appears 4000K lighting is proposed. City requests 3000K or
less CCT lighting for LEDs to support City Night Sky Objectives. Note in regard
to outdoor lighting, especially LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are
harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian (biological) rhythms for
both humans and wildlife. Warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or
less) for any LED light fixtures is preferred. Please also consider fixtures with
motion-sensing or dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as
needed. Site light sources shall be fully shielded and down-directional to
minimize up-light, light spillage and glare [see LUC 3.2.4(D)(3)]. Thank you in
advance for supporting City of Fort Collins Night Sky Objectives. For further
information regarding health effects please see:
http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from-leds/
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Will consider modifying CSU standard for this project
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: Please consider a more natural-like detention area design and
native grass seed mix containing warm and cool season grasses and higher
habitat value species. This would support the Nature in the City Strategic Plan.
Consider using: Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc Foothills Native Mix, Native Prairie
Mix, and/or Native Prairie Wildflower Mix and/or Western Native Seed High
Plains Foothills Mix and/or Shortgrass Prairie Mix. Recommend drill seed rate
of 15lbs/ac and double that for broadcast seeding method along with temporary
irrigation and active weed management to achieve establishment.
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Detention area will be native seeded.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: BY NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW
Thank you for including the tree inventory and providing a landscape plan.
Please show which trees are being proposed for removal by adding a column
on the tree inventory plan.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Resolved
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: BY NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW
There are three street trees along Prospect Rd. Please clarify whether these
trees are to be retained or removed. Given the condition of these trees, Forestry
would permit their removal with mitigation. The number of new trees proposed
on the landscape plan should be adequate.
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Frontage trees will be removed
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: BY NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW
Forestry recommends installing tree protection during construction around trees
that are to be retained. As such, we would request that you include City of Fort
Collins Tree Protection Notes to the plan, which includes information about
hiring licensed arborists as well as regulations regarding songbird nesting and
tree work. Additionally, please include the General Landscape Notes to the
plan.
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: CSU will protect trees reaming per CSU tree protection standards.
Tree removal will be made by ISA certified CSU Arborists.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2019
03/18/2019: BY NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW
The construction fence shown on the east and west side of the lot will very likely
impact tree roots, if not entire trees. Some of these seem to be property line
trees. If any of these shared trees are proposed for removal, obtaining an
approval letter from the adjacent property owners is recommended.
CSU Response Comment: 4
04/22/2019: CSU has meet with the adjacent property owners, with the result
most of the fence lines trees will be removed at the request of the adjacent
property owners
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2019
03/19/2019: No Drainage Report or detention pond calculation information was
submitted with Round 1, so no assessment of the adequacy of the Stormwater
design was completed. Please submit appropriate Stormwater calculations
and a Drainage Report with the next submittal.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Resolved
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015,
all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the following
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’.
CSU Response Comment: 2
04/22/2019: Under revision
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the
noted sheets. See redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 3
04/22/2019: Under revision
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 4
04/22/2019: Under revision
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
FENCING PLAN: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 7
04/22/2019: Under revision
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 1
04/22/2019: Under revision
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 6
04/22/2019: Under revision
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/15/2019
03/15/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
CSU Response Comment: 5
04/22/2019: Under revision
Sincerely,
Fred Haberecht, LEED AP
Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030
970.491.0162 970.491.0105 - fax