HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT STATION II - PDP - PDP150021 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)Comme. ,Dumber: 1 . omment Originated: 11/09/2015
02/11/2016: Same comment - please clarify in the note on the demo plan that the
services are to be abandoned at the main.
RESPONSE: Note has been clarified.
11/09/2015: 2 (Demolition Plan): Please note that the water and sanitary sewer
services to be abandoned in Prospect Road will need to be abandoned at the main.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
02/11/2016: LS 3: In the first note under "Landscape Notes" please also add that we
require 4' separation between shrubs and water and sewer mains and services.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. City Notes have been updated
11/09/2015: LS 2: The water meter is placed in a landscape island with a tree and
shrubs. Please make sure that there is 44 separation from the edge of the meter
vault to any shrubs and 6� separation from trees. Also, a note regarding
landscape/utility separation requirements should be added to the plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Shrubs have been removed. Tree is over T from
meter
0
likelihood of discharg.. along prospect. If you need clarification �'_'Icerning this
section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or
email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountv()fcaov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/16/2015
02/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Line over text issues have been resolved.
11/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015
02/16/2016: There are text over text issues. Move the street name out of the lighting
values. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been fixed.
11/16/2015: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015
02/16/2016: This has not been corrected.
RESPONSE: There will not be a lienholder.
11/16/2015: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a
signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include
response in written comments.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(&fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
02/17/2016: no further comments
RESPONSE: Thank you
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolsonCa)fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Originated: 02/17/2016
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015
11/06/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit.
The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of
the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric
Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowellafcaov.com
Topic: General
Comma. Aumber: 1 : omment Originated: 11/09/2015
02/16/2016: Staff has reviewed this new concept for an LID water quality chamber
using CDOT #4 aggregate. However, we are not willing to accept this as an LID
treatment because of the following reasons:
1. The #4 aggregate is similar to the middle layer required in the permeable pavers
section, however, without the benefit of a smaller -aggregate layer on top (like the
one found in the permeable pavers detail), the entire 34of the aggregate layer
you're proposing will need to be maintained. How the maintenance of this type of
system is conducted is unclear. Regular maintenance for the permeable pavers
includes vacuuming the surface which mostly removes the fine particles from the
upper layer.
2. A non -paved surface in a parking lot is not allowed.
3. The pavers system you were proposing the in the first submittal is a great solution
to the LID for this site. The run-on ratios can be accomplished by reducing the roof
runoff on the south side of the building by putting the roof drains into an underdrain
(like you're doing on the north side) and piping all roof drainage into the sub -strata of
the paver section. You can then do a WQCV volume calculation (like the one
presented in the drainage report) for the roof drainage.
11/09/2015: 4 (Grading Plan): LID - For both LID requirements, please provide an
exhibit that shows which basins/areas drain toward each requirement. An LID table
is also required to be included on the Drainage Plan that shows the LID techniques
being used on the site and the area treated by each. (These are required to be
provided prior to recommendation for hearing.)
- 25% Permeable Pavement requirement - what is the run-on ratio of the pavers
(ratio of area draining to pavers: paver area itself). The city will allow a maximum
run-on ratio of 3:1.
- 50% LID requirement - The drainage report states that Basins A, B, and C are
treated with the porous pavers, but basins B and C don't drain into/toward the
pavers. Please verify which areas drain into the pavers.
RESPONSE: The surface above the chamber is 6" concrete. This detail has
been updated to call this out.
02/11/2016: Please add some slope labels to the grading plan. I realize that the
slope changes frequently around the site, but slope labels around the perimeter of
the building and in the parking area allow for quick and easy understanding of the
general grades around the site.
RESPONSE: Slope labels have been added.
11/09/2015: Contour and slope labels should be added to the plans.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam0fcaov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015
02/17/2016: Noted comment about supplying at FDP.
RESPONSE: Erosion Control report has been submitted.
11/18/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion
Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. As a result of the last phase's
construction, this phase will need to take proactive/additional steps to prevent
materials from being allowed to leave site, the Erosion Control Materials need to be
sumbitted with a section discussing how the Developer plans to ensure that the site
will not be discharging with this phase. Also as a result of the last phase 'Straw
Wattle' will not be accepatable with this project due to how tight this site is and the
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/17/2015
11/17/2015: Existing 3-Phase primary electrical service is available to this proposed
facility. (Currently feeding the Griffin Office Building.) The existing transformer is a
75kVA 120/208 3-Phase. If the electrical service needs to be re -located and or
modified then system modification and added kVA charges will apply.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/17/2015
11/17/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer
and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Multi -family units shall be individually metered "ganged" together on one end of the
building preferably opposite side of where the gas meter cluster will be located.
RESPONSE: We have added the location of both the gas and electrical meters on
the west side of the building.
Transformers shall be installed within 10' of a paved service and must have an 8'
Clarence on the front and a 3' clearance around the sides and back.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/17/2015
11/17/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use
our fee estimator at
hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
02/16/2016: No changes on behalf of Light & Power since first round in November
of 2015.
RESPONSE: We still plan to leave the transformer, some lines may need to be
rerouted.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson(cUcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/20/2015
11/20/2015: Comcast
Comcast has service in the alley and would like to do joint trench with City Light and
Power. Developer will need to sign joint trench agreement with Light and Power.
- Don Kapperman
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell()fcaov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
02/16/2016: The LID Table on the Drainage Plan shows 34,621 sf of impervious
area but the Rational Method tables in the report indicate 33,984 sf. Please reconcile
these numbers.
RESPOONSE: The LID Table has been revised.
11/09/2015: See redlined drainage report.
Topic: General
at the front c....ie building.
RESPONSE: One Arnolds Sentinel Pine has been added.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek(&fcoov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/17/2015
11/17/2015: The existing building at 303 West Prospect is not old enough to require
historic review, but it has been surveyed for historic significance as part of an
inventory of post -WWII architecture in Fort Collins. Because the building is
associated with the historically significant Gasamat company, and because the
building itself is well -designed and a significant representation of its type and era,
staff respectfully requests that the applicant consider a documentation process to
preserve knowledge and information about the building prior to demolition. Measured
drawings of the exterior and interior and a set of photographs of the building would
be an appropriate way to recognize the contributions and significance of site to Fort
Collins history before the site is redeveloped.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter(cDfcaov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/17/2015
11/17/2015: Please schedule a pre -submittal meeting for this project. Pre -Submittal
meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the
new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the
adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in
the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new
commercial or multi -family projects should call 416-2341 to schedule a
pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor
plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square
footage and type of construction being proposed.
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson(cDfcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/20/2015
11/20/2015: GIS
1. Addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final
approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City.
2. Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form
to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final
approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can
occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are
installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to
Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to
contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address
changes.
The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at
gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, CAlthoff0fcaov.com
Comment Number: 8 Comment Oriy,_.ated: 11/20/2015
02/09/2016:
It appears the new General Landscape Notes and Street tree Notes still need to be added
to the plan. Please review and add. The tree protection notes are OK. Thank you for
adding the note pertaining to the pruning of off -site trees.
RESPONSE: New Landscape Notes have been added
11 /20/2015:
Use the new landscape, tree protection and street tree notes on the landscape plan.
These notes are available from the City Planner or City Forester. Add this additional note
to the tree protection notes.
Pruning of any off -site trees that have canopy that extends over the project shall only
occur based on an evaluation and recommendation of a private ISA certified arborist and
with the approval of the adjacent property owner or their designated representative. Tree
pruning shall be by a business that holds a current City of Fort Collins Arborist License.
02/09/2016:
Edit this note at the bottom of the Existing Tree Inventory Table.
Removed — T =Possible tree to be transplanted at owners discretion to other privately
owned sites or removed. Transplanted trees can be counted towards mitigation
requirements. If transplanted trees do not provide for the balance of required tree
mitigation then additional landscape trees will be required off -site to satisfy the
mitigation requirement for the project as described in the LUC. For transplanted trees to
be counted towards the mitigation requirement the following must be met:
1. A qualified tree transplanting contractor must provide written information to the
City Forester that it is feasible for a tree to be transplanted and for it to survive. In
addition the qualified tree transplanting contractor shall also provide the City Forester
written recommendations to be followed for the tree transplanting and after care.
Recommendations by the transplanting contractor need to be followed.
2. The tree/trees must be transplanted to a location within the city limits of Fort
Collins. The developer shall provide the City Forester a written description of the
location within the city limits where tree/trees will be transplanted.
RESPONSE: Transplanted trees will not be located in the City of Ft Collins. Notes
are added anyways
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 02/09/2016
02/09/2016:
Edit the Utility Plan sheet 2 that shows existing trees to be consistent with the
Landscape Sheet LS3 for tree retention and removal. The information for tree retention
or removal shown on Utility sheet 2 needs to follow exactly what is shown on the final
landscape plan.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 02/09/2016
02/09/2016:
The Evergreen trees need to be listed as 8 feet height to be mitigation trees. Please edit
tree heights to make them 8 feet.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 02/09/2016
02/09/2016:
Evaluate adding two more Arnolds Sentinel pine east of the two that are shown along
the south side of the building at an appropriate location to provide more evergreen form
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimole()fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/24/2015
11/24/2015: No comments
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tuchanan anfcoov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans02/09/2016:
Continue to explore options to provide more protection of this tree. 11/20/2015:
Tree number 21 is a 24 inch diameter blue spruce. It is branched to the ground and has
surface roots that extend to the north. Move the parking lot peninsula located to the
east of this tree to align with the spruce and explore making it wider. This will help
protect lower branches and the shallow root system of this prominent tree. At the
current location the peninsula has pine branches extending over it that may limit having
a tree planted at that location.
RESPONSE: Because of the proposed LID utility concept and the required parking
spaces we could not move the island or increase the islands size
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015
02/09/2016:
Evaluate design changes to retain this tree and provide those design changes to the
City Forester to review. The honeylocust planted close to this pine should be evaluated
for making it an ornamental tree such as a chanticleer pear to reduce competition with
the pine.
RESPONSE: Tree #37 cannot be preserved based on further discussions with the
Civil Engineer and Surveyor. Too much cut / fill in this area creates too much
liability on the developer trying to save it. The Honeylocust will now remain
11/20/2015:
It appears that existing tree number 31 may be able to be retained. This tree is an 18
inch diameter Ponderosa Pine. Evaluate how the sidewalk and drainage shown by this
tree need to be modified so this tree can be retained.
RESPONSE: Field adjustments will still need to be made to the drain pan during
construction to avoid conflicts with this tree.
Comment Number:
Comment Originated: 11/20/2015
02/09/2016:
Edit the tree inventory table to list tree number 34 the multi -stem chokecherry to retain.
It is listed to remove. Also clarify if tree number 33 will be kept in place or
removed/transplanted. This tree is shown to remove/transplant in the tree inventory
table but on the landscape sheet LS2 it is shown to retain. If these two trees (33 and
34) cannot be retained then edit plans and provide a brief explanation why it is not
feasible to retain.
RESPONSE: Because of the proposed grade changes these trees will not be able to
be preserved. An attempt will be made to transplant the Spruce tree to a location out
of the city limits
11/20/2015:
Existing trees 34 and 35 appear to be kept in place? Evaluate and confirm is this is the
case and then adjust the existing tree inventory table.
RESPONSE: Because of the proposed grade changes these trees will not be able to
be preserved.
proposal's contribution to ., ie percentage of secondary uses in the ..iployment Zone
area. Do not include CSU property in your justification, as it does not have a City zoning
designation.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
02/16/2016: The pedestrian seating/lighting is now shown on the site and landscape
plans, but should also be included on the photometric plan.
RESPONSE: The Site Photometric has been updated to show this
11/13/2015: Does the project provide pedestrian seating and lighting along Prospect Rd.
as required in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.10.4(A)? Please include these elements
in your plans.02/16/2016: Please note the type of rack used for enclosed parking on the
site plan. Also, is there a possibility that a set of bike lockers, an enclosure or other
similar space could be created under the stairs? This could provide additional security
and weather protection.
11/13/2015: Bike Parking: The project meets bike parking requirements for the number
of bike spaces. However, LUC 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) specifies that 60% of the provided bicycle
parking must be �enclosed.� Enclosed is defined in LUC 5.1 (in part) as secure,
lighted and protected from the weather. The site plan identifies enclosed bicycle
parking in the breezeways of the building. Where will this enclosed parking be provided,
and how will it be secured, lighted, and protected from the weather?
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mraaasalg�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/18/2015
02/16/2016: Easements on the Utility Plan (south of property that was reserved with
the Tamasag Vacation) are not being shown on the plat. Please revise the plat or
the Utility Plans so they correspond with one another.
RESPONSE: The Utility Plans have been revised to correspond with the plat.
11/18/2015: The 30' offsite Access, Emergency Access, Utility and Drainage
easements are not being shown on the plat provided. These easements were
reserved with the vacation of Tamasag Drive. Please verify location
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/18/2015
02/16/2016: The ramp will need to maintain the 10' width. The ramp for the walk to
the south may need to be rebuilt to accommodate the 10' ramp at the driveway.
RESPONSE: Walks along Prospect have been revised
11/18/2015: The 10' sidewalk/shared path ramp at the driveway to the north will
need to be reconstructed so that the sidewalk transitions further south to line up with
the receiving ramp to the east. See redlines. Refer to LCUASS drawing 707.1 for a
Type III driveway detail.
RESPONSE: Walks along Prospect have been revised
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/16/2016
02/16/2016: The sidewalk along Prospect Road to the west needs to maintain the
10' width to the south. There is an area that can be removed. The lightpole will also
need to be reset. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Walks along Prospect have been revised
.ESPONSE: We have increased the siz.., f the trash enclosure to
be 240 S.F. (14'-8" x 16-0" )
11/13/2015: Please ensure that you are providing adequate space
for trash and recycling enclosures. Adequate size is estimated at
100 square feet for the first 10 units and 5 square feet for each
additional unit. The Trash and Recycling Enclosures Z Design
Considerations6 referenced in LUC 3.2.5(C) can be found here:
http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/enclosure-guidelines08O4. pdf.
,.Topic: Landscape Plans
' 02/16/2016: Trees #33 and #34 are still shown on the landscape plan. Please remove
them if they will be removed as part of the proposed development.
RESPONSE: These Trees are to be removed and removed from the site plan
11/13/2015: The landscape plan shows two existing trees on the northwest corner of
the site that are marked for removal (trees #33 and #34). Will these trees be removed?
If so, please remove them from the landscape plan.
RESPONSE: These Trees are to be removed and removed from the site plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
02/16/2016: The response letter indicates that trees #35, 36, and 37 are not able to be
preserved. However, tree #37 is shown as "protected" on the landscape plan.
Please clarify.
RESPONSE: After a second site visit with the City Foresters we all decided that tree #35
and #36 do not have enough room to preserve. Tree #37 cannot be preserved based on
further discussions with the Civil Engineer and Surveyor. Too much cut / fill in this area
creates too much liability on the developer trying to save it.
11/13/2015: If feasible, the three mature pine trees on the western edge of the site
(#35, 36, and 37 on the landscape plan) should be preserved as described in LUC
3.2.1(F) as these trees are some of the largest on the site, and provide screening
between the adjacent building and the site. The space required to preserve these trees
could be used as resident amenity space, thereby satisfying the requirements of LUC
4.27(D)(7).
RESPONSE: After a second site visit with the City Foresters we all decided that tree #35
and #36 do not have enough room to preserve. Tree #37 cannot be preserved based on
further discussions with the Civil Engineer and Surveyor. Too much cut / fill in this area
creates too much liability on the developer trying to save it.
Topic: Modification of Standard
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
02/16/2016: 1 suggest revising the modification of standard to use the "nominal and
inconsequential" justification rather than the "equally well or better than" justification on
page 2 (#1 and paragraph 1 under "Justification").
RESPONSE: The Modification was revised.
11/13/2015: The submitted request for a Modification of Standards relies on a
justification that the plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or
better than a plan that complies with the standard and states that allowing this
modification would be "nominal and inconsequential when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan." Please provide additional information to
support this justification. In particular, include information about the percentage of
secondary vs. primary uses in the Employment Zone area south of Prospect Road and
West of College Avenue as defined in LUC 4.27, as well as an estimate of the current
City of
Fort Collins
February 17, 2016
Cathy Mathis
T8 Group
444 Mountain Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80513
RE: Prospect Station II, PDP150021, Round Number 2
.;ommunity 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
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, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or
slorson@fcgov.com.
•.11.11 - 1 L.-1
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Meaghan Overton,
moverton aftuov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
11/13/2015
Comment Originated:
02/16/2016: Have you considered adding an extra story to the
building? I'd support going up an extra story if it could create more
usable open space and perhaps save the large trees along the west
property line. In the E zone, 4 stories is the maximum height.
�V RESPONSE: With this type of apartment building product, 3 stories
is the preferred height in respect to not having to provide an elevator
and finished/conditioned interior corridor space. 4 story building
triggers other code requirements related to rated stair enclosures
and stand pipes/fire pumps for the fire suppression system and other
related requirements that have been deemed not feasible for this
project.
11/13/2015: How did you measure the distance between the project
and Lilac Park? LUC 4.27(D)(7) specifies that the distance to a park,
central feature, or gathering place shall be measured along street
frontage without crossing an arterial street. It appears, using this
measurement requirement, that Lilac Park is more than the required
1,320 feet away from the building.
Comment Number: 14
11/13/2015
Comment Originated:
02/16/2016: The trash enclosure shown appears to measure
approximately 130 square feet. According to the calculations
provided in the first round of review, the enclosure should be 230
square feet.