HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Response: The above comments were addressed with the 2"d PDP submittal. It
doesn't appear that the water conservation's comments were updated.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcaov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015: Due to the change in grade on the 8 north lots the basement level may
be considered a story. We defer to the building code (2012 IRC) which states:
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its
finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which
the finished surface of the floor next above is:
1. More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
2. More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished
ground level at any point.
We will need the elevations to show the finished floor heights and the grade planes.
Response: The grading around these units was revised as part of the 2nd PDP submittal.
It doesn't appear that Zoning updated their comments based on the latest submittal.
Page 18 of 18
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected, however these drawings
won't be filed.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please make changes to the sub -title as marked. See redlines.
Response: Comment addressed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines.
Response: Comment addressed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please make sure that all Tract uses are labeled. See redlines.
Response: Comment addressed.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Comment addressed.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please show & label the west line of the southwest of the northeast
quarter of section 24. See redlines.
Response: Comment addressed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcaov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: Variance request received and can be supported with the addition of an
exhibit that details the information. Parking restrictions will be minimal and can be
determined at final.
Response: Understood. Thank you.
03/24/2015: We'll need figure out if a variance is needed for the outbound drive or
not, and whether any parking needs to be restricted for sight distance.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
03/11/2015: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City
of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If
you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015
03/11/2015: 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
Page 17 of 18
05/11/2015: The eastern two buildings are about 1 foot above the BFE. The City
recommends these buildings to be at least 18-inches above the BFE even though it
is outside of the floodplain.
Response: We believe this comment is left over from the first submittal. The
ground at the north wall of the north buildings is now 4' to 7' above the base flood
elevation. The units no longer have walkout basements.
03/25/2015: On the Grading Plan, it appears that the finished floor elevations of the
basements of the four buildings along the floodplain boundary match existing grade.
Due to the strong likelihood of flooding, as well as our experience with the 1997
Spring Creek Flood, we strongly recommend that the lowest floor of these four
buildings be elevated a minimum of 18-inches above the corresponding Base Flood
Elevation. This will also reduce flood insurance costs if a lender requires flood
insurance.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wiamaroue@fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Reminder for final compliance.
Response: Seed mixes have been added to the landscape plan to reflect the city's
detention pond landscape standards, and changes have been made to address
Environmental Planning's comments. Additional refinements can be incorporated in the
final compliance plans, if needed.
03/25/2015: The water quality pond needs to meet our Detention Pond Landscape
Standards and the requirements of the Environmental Planner.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty@fcaov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/04/2015: This has not been corrected.
03/24/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Response: Text has either been removed from hatched areas or has been masked
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
05/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected
Topic: General
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
05/04/2015: If the Half Story Analysis plans will be filed, they will need to be full size
(24"x36") sheets.
Response: the half story analysis plans will not be filed, so smaller sheets are included.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
05/04/2015: If the Half Story Analysis plans will be filed, there are line over text
issues that will need to be corrected.
Page 16 of 18
trench agreement.
Response: Utility easements have been reviewed by light and power and
deemed adequate for service to the project. There is the ability for Comcast to
joint trench if the owner chooses to use Comcast for telecom service. This will
ultimately be determined after approval and during construction of the project.
03/25/2015: Comcast -
Facility needs to be in a 6' utility easement. Comcast would like to joint trench with
Fort Collins Light and Power. See exhibit.
Don Kapperman 970-567-0245
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilvnxwiler@ooudre-fire.ora
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
5/6/2015: TURNING MOVEMENT
The Autoturn exhibit reveals some potential turning challenges at the north end of
the site, at the T-intersection. As the site is already very compressed, extra effort
needs to be made to ease this movement, not only for fire apparatus but other large
vehicles. Either the turning radius needs to be increased at the intersection or the
"T" leg (east/west leg) of the fire lane needs to be greater than 20' in width to make
more room. Even 2 feet could make a big difference here. See prior comment for
further detail.
Response: Per email from Jim on 5-13-15, the layout as previously submitted is
acceptable.
03/26/2015: TURNING RADII
The site plan has provided for 25' inside turning radii. This code requirement is
intended to apply to 20' wide fire lanes. When the fire lane is reduced, as in this
situation, the turning radius needs to be increased to compensate for the drive land
width restrictions.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlamC�fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/17/2015
03/17/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area,
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. Current Erosion Control
Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control
Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need
clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact
Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: Erosion and Sediment Control Materials will be submitted with the first
round of Final Compliance.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcaov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
Page 15 of 18
The proposed project consists of single family attached dwellings on separately sold lots
and as such is exempted by C.R.S. 9-5-105(1).
5. New Green Code requires:
a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
b. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are
required.
d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
e. Low VOC interior finishes.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Response: Acknowledged
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, siorson@fcoov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/20/2015
05/04/2015: G I S
Watercourse Way and the private drive extension of Cherokee Dr are approved and
added to Larimer County Street Inventory System.
Response: Thank you.
03/20/2015: 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. Two street names are requested to aid in the proper addressing for emergency
response. The first is for the private drive running north/south and accessing from
Stuart St. The second is the private drive running east/west accessing lots 15-22.
Street names can be requested through the City of Fort Collins GIS Office and
should be noted on the subdivision plat. The current street name reservation list
and guidelines for street names can be found at http://larimer.org/streets/.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, Iunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Meter locations and Transformer locations will be finalized at final
review. Reminder per last discussion: Transformers need to be within 10' of an
all-weather drivable surface.
Response: Understood
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/08/2015: Comcast -
Comcast would like to do a joint trench with City. Developer needs to sign joint
Page 14 of 18
more landscape space around it? Not clear if it is a sidewalk along the west side
of the tree, but can that feature be moved a little further away.
Response: The proposed sidewalk has been reconfigured to be a little further
away from the trees, as suggested.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcaov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
03/25/2015:
Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to 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 and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review
meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to 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.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC.
2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial
chapter.
Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these
requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone
number.
River Modern — project specific concerns:
1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required in all duplexes and property line townhomes.
2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler.
3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24"
4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible
units.
Page 13 of 18
C. A table listing each specific plant species and quantity.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: See comment #1 above - the proposed buffer zone
should be labeled and not just the 100' buffer.
Response. The Spring Creek Buffer vignette shown on the site plan has been
revised to include only the required 100' buffer area. The remainder of the open
space between the northern most lots and the buffer line will be landscaped to
match the "spring creek buffer" planting palette to encourage native habitat, but
will not be included in the designated buffer area. The site and landscape plans
are consistent with this direction. The proposed plan is compliant with code.
03/25/2015: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to delineated and labeled on the
site, grading, utility, and landscape plans along with the Top of Bank.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tuchanan@fcaov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/11/2015:
Comment continued: It appears that mitigation trees have not been recorded on the
landscape plan as upsized trees. Provide 25 upsized trees. Please list these in the
plan list and mark them with an M as part of the direct label on the landscape
sheets. 03/25/2015:
Provide upsized trees to meet the final mitigation count. Mitigation trees should be
sized as follows.
Canopy Shade Trees: 3 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Trees 8 feet height
Response: The landscape plan and plant lists have been revised to clearly show the
mitigation tree locations and sizes
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015:
Please add some additional information to general note number 2 that clarifies
automatic drip irrigation will be provided to native trees and shrubs in the natural
area along spring creek.
Response: General note #2 on the landscape plan has been revised as suggested
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015:
It appears that grading near the base of tree number 39 which is the 26 inch
diameter cottonwood shown to be retained along the east boundary and the location
of the foundation of unit number 15 could impact the root system. Please evaluate
the construction impact to this tree with the project arborist.
Response: Site grading has been modified to maintain existing grades within 13 feet
of tree 39 (0.5' offset per inch of tree caliper, 26" caliper x 0.5" = 13 feet offset).
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015:
Can exiting tree number 6 which is the 19 inch ponderosa pine be afforded any
Page 12 of 18
Tree 39 - SAVE - After examining this cottonwood, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it could be save, would advise it be pruned.
Tree 39 is shown to remain, per this recommendation
Tree 40 - REMOVAL - After examining this elm, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it should be removed.
Tree 41 - REMOVAL - After examining these elms, with their locations, and its
condition, it is my opinion that they should be removed.
Tree 42 - REMOVAL - After examining this cottonwood, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it should be removed.
Tree 43 - SAVE - After examining this cottonwood, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it could be saved but would advise pruning.
Proposed private drives, grading and drainage did not allow us to save tree 43.
Tree 44 - REMOVAL - After examining this cottonwood, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it should be removed.
The landscape plan was revised based on the tree assessment recommendations.
Two mitigation trees are proposed within this location to mitigate the loss of the
existing trees, and additional mitigation trees are proposed nearby within the Spring
Creek buffer.
3. Staff suggests adding additional plant material in the pathways between the
northernmost buildings into the buffer zone, both in the center and on the eastern
edge of the plans.
Response: Proposed storm pipe and sanitary sewer utilities limit the ability to
plant trees within some of these areas. However, one more tree was placed
within the central area, and one more tree was placed near the eastern edge.
03/25/2015: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)
(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer
zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone.
From a quantity perspective, additional material should be provided to meet this
standard and the standard highlighted in Comment 2 above. Please update the
plans accordingly.
From a quality perspective, more detail in the buffer zone is needed to evaluate
compliance with this standard. The ECS discusses several measures meant to
enhance the buffer zone, including enhancements through native plantings such as
chokecherry and other appropriate species. Buffer planting enhancements should
include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical
structure.
Thus, on the landscape plans please provide the following:
A. Provide additional plant material in accordance with this standard and the
standard referenced in comment 2.
B. Label each individual species that will be planted within the natural habitat buffer
zone so staff can fully evaluate the plan for appropriateness.
Page 11 of 18
Response: Additional color and black and white perspectives have been included with
this submittal. These images have been coordinated with the landscape drawings.
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must also comply with Section
3.4.1(1)(2) of the Land Use Code. stating:
Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the
degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to
minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
To evaluate this standard. a perspective rendering from the Spring Creek trail or the
north side of Spring Creek should be provided to illustrate how the proposed
development minimizes the obstruction and/or degradation of the scenic view from
Spring Creek.
For the scenic views to Spring Creek please address how this project meets this
standard within the project objectives statement and other documentation as you see
fit.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: The landscape plan has been updated significantly
since the last round. Staff has the remaining comments prior to hearing:
1. Please provide the upland and wetland seed mixes on the plan; note that staff
strongly recommends using wetland plugs instead of a seed mix to ensure success
early on.
Response: Upland and wetland seed mixes have been added to the landscape
plan.
2. Please address the removal of the cottonwoods/windbreak on the western border
of the property; this was to remain. Can any of the fair trees be retained? Where can
construction impacts be minimized to retain these trees?
Response: The first PDP submittal indicated that trees 34 to 42 would remain, and
trees 43 and 44 would be removed. Shortly after the first PDP submittal, Jordan Tree
Company performed a field/aerial assessment of the existing trees and made
specific recommendations for each tree based on its current health, form, etc. We
can provide a full copy of Jordan Tree Company's assessment, if desired.
The City Forester reviewed the tree assessment and supported Jordan's findings,
which included the following recommendations:
Tree 34 - the north most 2 dead elms should be removed and the others could
just be pruned.
The current plans indicate removal of the entire grouping of elms.
Tree 35 - REMOVAL - It is my opinion that this cottonwood should be removed
with its lean and the decay pocket present.
Tree 36 - REMOVAL - It is my opinion that this cottonwood should be removed
with its co -dominate leader, its decay pocket at grade present, and its close
proximity to the homes directly to the west.
Tree 37 - REMOVAL — After examining this cottonwood, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it should be removed.
Tree 38 — REMOVAL — After examining this Mulberry, with its location, and its
condition, it is my opinion that it should be removed.
Page 10 of 18
3.4.1(1)(1) of the Land Use Code, stating:
Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors,
including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor.
shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques
such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping. and choice of
colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic views across
or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are screened from off -site
observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area. These requirements
shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground utility installations.
To meet this standard, the following should be addressed in the site, landscape,
utility plans and project objectives:
A. Architectural design and manmade facilities blending with the visual character of the
area: The section of Spring Creek that is adjacent to this site contains significant
meanders. Current plans show the northern most lots arranged squarely to the creek,
and encroaching approximately 15' into the natural habitat buffer zone. While the 100'
buffer zone standard offers flexibility in a specific distance, to meet 3.4.1(1) (1), the
northernmost lots should be arranged to follow the curve of the meander in Spring Creek
and blend with the natural visual character of this area. Addressing
this standard should also remove the proposed encroachment into the buffer zone.
B. Architectural design: Significant attention needs to be paid to the building materials,
colors, etc. Staff recommends reviewing the site plans for New Prospect (now called
Streamside) for examples of the types of colors, setbacks, etc. that are appropriate in
this site's context. Notes shall be added to the site plans at a similar level as to what is
provided by the New Prospect project.
C. Scenic views: See comment 3 below
D. Site design and scenic views: Currently, the northernmost lots are acting as a wall
between Spring Creek and the rest of the site. In addition to meandering the lots, as
suggested above, the lots should step down to 2 stories adjacent to the buffer zone in
order to keep building height in scale with the surrounding natural features. This is
consistent with what has been required of other projects, e.g.. New Prospect. and with
Section 3.5.1(H) of the Land Use Code regarding Land Use Transitions.
E. Native landscaping: See comment 4 below.
*At the March 25, 2015, meeting, we discussed this standard in detail and ways to
meet this standard in detail. Toward the end of the meeting it was agreed that a
coordinated site visit should occur to further explore best ways to ensure
compliance with the 3.4.1(1) standard and other standards relevant to this project
development proposal.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: There is only one perspective provided and the proposed
landscaping is not included. Staff suggests creating a separate sheet for addressing this
code issue, including both perspectives that were discussed in the field, and include the
proposed landscaping. These photos should be photo renderings to reflect the most
accurate depiction of the site. Also, the perspectives illustrate the cottonwood trees on
the western edge of the property that you currently have proposed to be removed -
please rectify this issue.
Page 9 of 18
project sooner, could some of the mitigation (upsized) trees be placed in the buffer
zone?
Response: The landscape plans have been updated to clearly indicate the location and
sizes of mitigation trees, some of which are located within the Spring Creek buffer.
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: This comment is generally resolved, but please label the
proposed buffer zone area on the plan sets (to be updated on the site,
landscape and utility plans) instead of the straight 100' buffer. The vignette illustrates the
100' buffer and the plans should illustrate what you are proposing.
Response: The Spring Creek Buffer vignette shown on the site plan has been revised to
include only the required 100' buffer area. The remainder of the open space between the
northern most units and the buffer line will be landscaped to match the "spring creek
buffer" palette, and to encourage native habitat, but will not be included in the designated
buffer area. The revised site and landscape plans are consistent with this direction. The
proposed plan is compliant with code
03/25/2015: Thank you for providing an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS),
required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1). as the site is within five hundred feet (500') of known
natural features (Spring Creek and isolated riparian forest). If you recall, the buffer
zone standard for Spring Creek is 100' (one hundred feet). Current plans illustrate an
approximate fifteen foot (16) encroachment into the 100' buffer zone.
Please provide the following in a table on the site plan:
A. The total acreage required by the standard 100' buffer zone for Spring Creek. B.
The total acreage proposed within the submitted site plan.
This may be best illustrated through a vignette/detail on the site plan for clarity. We can
discuss this further at the 'March 25th Staff Review meeting and view redlines together.
"At the March 25, 2015, meeting, you mentioned an Alternative Compliance Letter
regarding this topic of the 100' buffer zone. I have not seen said document. Please
provide an electronic copy or hard copy directly to me of this letter.
sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/25/2015
05/06/2015: Overall, this comment is resolved but see specific notes below:
A: The plans have shifted the northernmost buildings further south to avoid
encroachment into the buffer and have provided slight meandering to help blend with the
visual character of the area. This issue is resolved.
B: The notes provided to this point are sufficient. C:
See comment #3 below.
D: These elevations are much more in character with creating a transition between the
creek and the development. This comment is resolved.
E: See comment #4.
Response: Understood
03/25/2015: Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must comply with 'Section
Page 8 of 18
taller than 6 feet in height. A condition of approval could be that the applicant work
with adjacent property owners for the desired fence height.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: Please add to the land use data:
- square footage of each unit
- number of bedrooms of each unit
Response: The requested information has been added to the site plan.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/04/2015: Please adjust the transitions from attached sidewalk to detached
sidewalks. See redlines.
Response: The sidewalk transitions have been revised per the redlines.
03/24/2015: Since sidewalks will be detached along the East Stuart Drive, show the
transition from detached to attached. More detail may be needed near the east of the
property where the 12' driveway is proposed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/04/2015
05/04/2015: Show the new detached sidewalk width on the Utility Plans.
Response: The walk width has been added to the overall utility plan.
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/04/2015: Please provide an exhibit to the variance request letter showing the
distances below the 30' separation.
Response: An Exhibit has been provided to include with the request.
03/24/2015: Variance Request #3 to allow the driveways to be within 30' of each
other looks like it will be acceptable. Please show the driveway details to the east
shmk-,inq the distances between the three driveways.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slanoenbercier@fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
05/06/2015: An additional $200.50 is due for the PDP fee's based on the information
provided on the site plans.
Response: This resubmittal includes a check for the additional TDR fees
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimole@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
05/06/2015: Prior to Hearing: In order to help achieve greater screening of the
Page 7 of 18
stop the light from spilling into adjacent backyards. We have included a cut sheet of
the external house -side shield.
03/24/2015: Fixture CC reads that it is wall -mounted at T6" but seem to be placed
on 6' fences. Please explain.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: Because the proposed site plan cannot meet the alternative
compliance requirement for open space/patio/deck, a modification of standard
should be persued. See section 2.8 for requirements.
Response: Please refer to the Setback Modification Request included with this submittal.
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2(E)(2). Units 1 - 4 require a minimum building setback
of 15 feet from the public right of way (ROW). Units 5 - 14 & 23 - 30 require a
minimum building setback of 15 feet from lot the front lot line or back of sidewalk.
Sec. 3.6.2(N)(c & d) note that street -like private drives shall not "be permitted if it
prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Code."
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: No crosswalks are shown on the site or landscape plans.
Response: Crosswalks have been added to the site plan
Section 3.6.2(M) requires private streets to be designed to the same criteria as
public as found in LCUASS. Including providing sidewalks. An attached sidewalk can
still fit alongside the child care center.
Response: An attached sidewalk has been added along the east side of Cherokee
Drive adjacent to the child care center. See associated Attached Sidewalk
Modification Request included with this submittal.
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.6.2(N). The proposed street -like private drive is required to
have detached sidewalks along both sides, including along the child care center lot.
Also, crosswalks are required at intersections.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: Please confirm that all units are only 3-bedroom. The requested floor
plans will also help confirm.
Response: A bedroom data table has been added to the site plan confirming the
number of bedrooms for each unit type, and schematic floor plans are included
with the resubmittal.
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.2(D). The parking spaces in the driveways may not be
counted toward the minimum requirement of 3 spaces per 4-bedroom unit because
they preclude access to the garage spaces. However, Sec. 3.2.2(K)(2)(b) permits
on -street spaces to count toward the minimum requirement. These additional
on -street spaces per 4 bedroom unit should be adjacent to the unit it is serving.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: A condition of approval will be that the applicant work with adjacent
property owners for the desired fence height.
Response: Understood. Fence heights will be within LUC limits.
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.11(C)(3). The fence along the property line cannot be
Page 6 of 18
- Applicant will provide perspectives from neighbors outdoor space: patios etc...
Response: Notes illustrating the points above have been added to the architectural
elevations. An additional perspective from the neighbors to the west has been added to the
submittal drawings.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: The alternative compliance request suggests that lots 5 and 30 meet the
requirement in subsection (3) in that the south property line abuts a public street or
open space wider than 50'. According to my review, they do not. Please clarify.
Response: The Alternative Compliance Request for Solar Oriented Lots and the site
plan have been revised accordingly.
For your justification of alternative compliance please look at section 3.2.3(F)(2). Your
current justification is a hypothetical code change in the form of "if these lots are
considered solar oriented..."; which does not meet the outlined criteria of the section.
Response: The Alternative Compliance Request for Solar Oriented Lots has been
revised accordingly
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C). This plan is required to provide at least 65% (or 20
units) of lots as "solar -oriented lots." Sec. 3.5.3(F) provides alternative compliance for
this standard.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/11/2015
05/11/2015: Scheduling for a public hearing:
The remaining comments that need to be addressed prior to scheduling a public
hearing are from Planning Services. The response to comments and corresponding
revisions will require one week for Planning Services to review. At which time, if the
resubmittal complies with the Land Use Code, a public hearing will be scheduled. A
2 week notice and APO mailing is required prior to hearing.
Response: Understood
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: Please provide further explanation of the 0.5 LLF.
Response: We have now provided the corrected optics with actual lumen output as such the
light loss factor LLF has been changed to 1.0 LLF as requested.
03/24/2015: The photometric projections should be done with a Light Loss Factor of
1.0.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: The proposed condition will have the light protruding above the fence -
on the fence line - with neighboring properties at lower grade (west) directly on the
other side. This seems like the light source will be visible and intrusive on the
neighbors. What can be done to revise and remedy this condition?
Response: The light fixtures located near the perimeter fences have been changed
to a pole mounted version (no longer mounted on fence). These fixtures have been
provided with an external house -side shield mounted to bottom of fixture to reduce
light spillage from the backside of the fixtures, they no longer rely on the fence to
Page 5 of 18
areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by
using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character
is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use
Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for
future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through
techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building
mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door
patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar
to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and
stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials.
Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived
from the neighboring context.
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.. Buildings shall either be similar in
size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face,
abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or
cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.)
3.5.1(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged
to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize
infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan
shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or
security. (See Figure 8.)
3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual
character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not
possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the
maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of buffer yards
and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/05/2015
05/05/2015: The plans seem to be missing a layer. In several instances lines are
missing and detail is washed out.
Response: The print settings have been adjusted to make the printed drawings more
clear.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 05/06/2015
05/06/2015: Please provide color renderings of the buildings.
Response: Color images have been included.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2015
05/08/2015: Staff met with the architect to discuss building height, the notes follow:
- Add building height and story height measurements to the building elevations.
- The 12'-8" maximum height for a story applies to the top or 1/2 story.
- The 3 foot rule for the intersection of wall face and roof applies to parapets.
- A roof that does not go all the way to the wall face can be measured with a
hypothetical extension for compliance with the 3 foot rule (mentioned above)
-When two sides of a building (separate units) have different grade and different
floor plates, the height measurement (in stories) shall be measured separately.
- Dormers and gables are not included in 3 foot rule (mentioned above).
- "Floor level" as the base for measuring the top 1/2 story will be extended from
where it exists into areas where it may not due to vaulted 2nd story ceilings.
(Example in half story analysis for building 62).
Page 4 of 18
drawings in the submittal.
The section through the creek does not show the creek or trail. Please label.
Response: Labels have been added to the site sections
Your response to the section regarding architectural compatibility suggests that the
development to the east are 2 1/2 story buildings. There appears to be only 2 story
buildings in that location. Please clarify.
Response: Refer to the image below of the existing 2 1/2" story buildings located in the
Spring Meadows neighborhood abutting the east property line.
The west property line elevation show trees that are not on the landscape plan
obscuring the northernmost buildings. Please clarify.
Response: Site elevations, site sections and perspective views show trees that have
been coordinated with the landscape plans.
Your response to the land use transition section says that "reduced architectural
massing" lends to the transition. Step downs do not appear on the building
elevations oriented toward neighboring properties. Please clarify.
Response: Revisions have been made to the building massing per our meeting on
5-7-2015
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.1. Please provide section and perspective drawings between
the proposed development and the existing abutting developments as shown in the
attached exhibit. This information will help us evaluate compliance with the following
sections:
3.5.1(B) General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed
Page 3 of 18
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.5.2 fl(1). Units 15 - 22 do not meet this standard that
require "street -facing garage doors must be recessed behind either the front facade
of the ground floor living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch..."
Subsection 4 permits an exemption if the dwellings face onto a major "walkway
spine and shall include windows, doorways, and a structured transition from public
to private areas using built elements such as porch features, pediments, arbors, low
walls, fences, trellis work and or similar elements integrated with plantings." See
also, Sec. 3.5.2(D), Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: Please provide complete floor plans in order to review for compliance with
height requirements. Also, each model occurs multiple times on the site yet the
elevations show the "grade plane"; which occurance does the grade apply to?
Response: The architectural elevations now show a grade profile and Grade Plane for
each unit, and schematic floor plans are included with the resubmittal.
- Building Al complies with height requirements.
- Building A2 height analysis lacks a floor for half of the top story but is being counted
toward the area above floor plate. The floor plan will help with this analysis.
- Building B1 without a floor plan, I cannot review for compliance with height
requirement (the section is even cut in a staggered line)
- Building B2 half story analysis seems to have some inaccuracies. Where is unit
2-B's away room on the section?
- Building C half story analysis has two different section lines and one through the
section. The grade plane is floating about two feet off the ground as shown.
Response: The half story analyses have been checked for accuracy and revised for
clarity
The buildings along Stuart Street are still out of scale with the predominant pattern of
horizontally oriented houses that exist along the street.
Response: Building type A3 that is located on lots 1 & 2 has been further revised to
relate to the scale of the adjacent buildings. This building is identified in the drawing set
as building type A3. The building located on lots 3 &4 has also been revised to relate to
the scale and style of the existing house to the east. This building is identified in the
drawing set as building type C2.
03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.17(A)(2)(c). The maximum vertical height permitted for each
residential story is 12' 8". The maximum height in the LMN District is 2.5 stories (Sec.
4.5(E)(3)). Thus the maximum height of buildings for this development are 31' 8" (12'8"
x 2.5). The height of many of the buildings will have to be lowered.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/24/2015
05/05/2015: The sections are not oriented with a site plan which makes it nearly
impossible to confirm their location and accuracy. Please provide a site plan with
section lines.
Response: Key plans have been added to site sections and perspective views
An 8 foot fence is show on the property line elevations and the site plan indicates the
fence will be 4 - 6 feet in height. Please clarify.
Response: The fence heights in these elevations have been coordinated with the other
Page 2 of 18
Fort Collins
May 11, 2015
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224,6134 - fax
tcgov. com/developmentreview
APPLICANT'S RESPONSES ARE PROVIDED FOLLOWING EACH COMMENT IN RED TEXT.
BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: River Modern. PDP150005. Round Number 2
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.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcaov.com
Topic: Building
Elevations
Comment Number: 1
03/24/2015
Comment Originated:
05/05/2015: The site plan does not show access to these units nor a walkway spine
as noted in the previous comment (3/24/2015). Where do the "embellished" entries
and stairs lead? Another alternative is outlined in subsection 5 with further
explanation in the Fort Collins Design Manual:
Response: A walkway spine (sidewalk) has been added north of lots 15 -22 and
entries to residences have been embellished and connect directly to the walkway
spine. Refer to revised site plan and architectural elevations.
(5) Alternative garage door treatments shall be accepted by the Director if:
(a) the configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition of the lot makes
the application of these standards impractical; and
(b) the proposed design substantially meets the intent of this Code to line streets
with active living spaces. create pedestrian -oriented streetscapes and provide
variety and visual interest in the exterior design of residential buildings.
Response: With the changes described above 5a and b are no longer
necessary.
Page 1 of 18