Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK PDP W/ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - PDP130033 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview October 22, 2013 Brad Florin NOCO Townhomes, Inc. P.O. Box 270070 Fort Collins, CO 80527 RE: Townhomes at Library Park PDP with Addition of a Permitted Use, PDP130033, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Building materials will need to be noted on drawings. The brick is apparent, but there are other smoother materials shown. The brick modules anchoring corners are a positive element that establishes building as primarily a brick building. The projecting boxes need careful detailing to ensure that they don't detract from the brick. Complementary color, texture, and quality of sills, lintels and cornices will be important. On the east side along Mathews Street, the large panels detract from the effect of the brick building. For compatibility with the context, that elevation should be all brick rather than adding the panel materials. Brick coursework should define transitions between modules and components as needed. The projection of all bands, sills and lintels should be noted on drawings. [ Acknowledged. The East elevation has been updated. ] Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: A question: the whole north wing looks like it could create compatibility problems with the residences next door, particularly due to the front doors of 6 homes fronting directly onto the side yard of the neighboring building with no transitional layers of space. Has this approach been vetted with the neighboring owner? This can be addressed at the meeting. It is acknowledged that the whole approach to the project leaves no room for any additional space. [ The neighboring owner is in support and a written agreement has been executed to provide a permanent easement for the exclusive use of the southernmost 10 feet of the lot to the North, allowing the new fence line to be at least 15' from the building as well as the creation of buffer landscaping and green space. ] Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: The maximized building leaves no apparent space for bike parking, trash and recycling. This can be addressed at the meeting. [ There is space in each garage for bike parking as well as individual trash and recycling. ] Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013 10/22/2013: With regard to the comment from Traffic Operations requesting removal of one parking space to improve sight distance at the alley, I will coordinate with Ward Stanford and Randy Hensley as this space is designated for the proposed on-street, public, large-capacity bike rack. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013 10/22/2013: Be sure to make revisions to the plan indicating a three foot wide walkway and a planting strip along the north. Also, be sure all plan sheets indicate that all but the eastern most unit along the north will be three stories in height, not four. Be sure to note that exterior lighting along the north will be limited to one porch light, no greater than 60 watts, or equivalent, and shall be down-directional and dark-sky compliant. For the access gate to the center driveway, please indicate that this shall be an open wrought-iron (or equivalent) to be compatible with the adjoining property to the north. Be sure to note that there will be enclosed bike parking within each garage so that there is one bike parking space per bedroom. In addition, please note that each unit will accommodate individual trash and recycling containers and that there will be no central trash facility. Finally, be sure to indicate on the site plan that each garage contains two vehicle parking spaces. [ Acknowledged. ] Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: There should be a construction plan set created with an index, demo plan, grading plan, utility plan, etc. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: There is an existing overhead line that crosses the alley into the existing building on the property. There should be some indication that the overhead line crossing the alley will be removed with the project and either installed through a crossing under the alley (with appropriate permits), or removal of the line without the need for a new crossing. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Is the proposed storm drain past the proposed inlet, in the Mathews right-of-way, a public storm drain system, or private? If private, private lines are not allowed to be placed and traverse along right-of-way and an alternative design would likely need to be explored. [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: There appears to be some inconsistency between the planning and engineering sheets as to whether the sidewalk along Olive and Mathews is new, removing the existing (which seems to be the case on the engineering drawings, indicating "proposed") vs. the existing sidewalk remaining (planning drawing indicates "match existing"). Please clarify. To the extent that a storm line is shown underneath a portion of the Mathews sidewalk, it is presumed that at least a portion of the existing sidewalk (if not all) is to be removed. [ The sidewalk along Olive and Mathews will be new. ] Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: There is the indication of "proposed bike storage" on the plan sets located within Oak Street. If the premise is that the bike storage shown is to meet bike parking requirements specified in the Land Use Code, the use of the public right-of-way isn't allowed to meet this standard and would need to occur within the development property boundary. I was recalling however that in a past reiteration of a redevelopment proposal that there may have been an intent to allow the conversion of a parking space to general bike storage use for the public at large. If this is for general public use and not a requirement of the development to meet, then further discussion would be needed with the City. I suspect coordination and verification with Tessa Greegor, the City's Bikes Program Manager would be needed along with Randy Hensley, the City's Parking Manager before the concept would be approved. [ The proposed public bike parking is not designed to meet bike parking requirements specified in the Land Use Code. Space is provided inside each garage for bike storage. ] Topic: Plat Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: The subdivision plat indicates that the lot lines of the "front units" along Olive Street directly abut the lot lines of the "back units", and that there is no separate tract for the drive aisle that would be traversing between the front and back units. This is an unusual approach as rather than having a common ownership tract for the roadway, it by design results in vehicles and forms of traffic to cross onto someone's lot to get to their own lot. Additionally the proposed subdrain shown on the utility set would traverse solely on the back portion of the front units only, leaving responsibilities for this line only to the front units. Another consideration is that the individual water and sewer services would be crossing another lot owners property to get to ones own property. Finally, the definition of a "lot" in the City's Land Use requires that each lot abut either a dedicated right-of-way, private street, or private drive, any of which is at least 20 feet wide at all points. There needs to be a minimum 20' tract of land between the front and back units in order to meet the lot definition, and potentially address the additional concerns mentioned above. [ The plat has been updated to reflect these comments. ] Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: The four Siberian Elms (2 on Olive Street and 2 on Mathews Street) were evaluated by the Forestry Division by conducting an aerial evaluation. This evaluation determined that the trees can be retained and pruned. Show these 4 Siberian Elms to be retained and protected. Label these 4 trees by species, diameter and condition. Contact the City Forester to obtain size and condition information to put on plan. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Add the tree protections specifications found In LUC 3.2.1 G to the landscape plan. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Explore options to possibly not do a basement on the two units by the trees and construct on a slab or span areas by root system of trees. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: The large Silver Maple tree located off-site just to the north of the property line appears to have its root system and canopy serious impacted by proposed construction. The tree is quite large and prominent, but is showing signs of decline. Contact the City Forester to obtain information on size, condition and mitigation. Approval to remove this tree would need to be by the adjacent property owner. If tree is to be removed then the applicant should provide written statement from the adjacent property owner allowing removal. Mitigation trees would need to be planted on-site or off site. It the tree is removed explore the option to provide mitigation trees to replace this tree off-site. Mitigation trees would need to be upsized as follows: Canopy Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Conifer trees 8 feet height [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Provide new street trees in the parkways along Olive Street and Mathews Street. [ These have been added to the landscape plan. ] Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Electric development and system modification charges will apply. The developer will need to provide Light & Power Engineering with the size (amps) of the electric service to the existing building in order to receive the credit for it. Please coordinate Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. [ Acknowledged. ] Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM At this time, the project is planning to move forward with installing 13D sprinkler systems into each unit meeting the definition and construction requirements of a single family home. Each separate home will require an automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: FIRE LANES 06IFC 503.1.1: Fire Lanes shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. When fire lanes cannot be provided, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. The site plan does not meet the intent of the fire code as an 'out of access' condition is created between the secured vehicle assess gate on the west side of the property and the fence line on the east side of the property. This access problem may be resolved by adding a man-gate within the east fence and provided both gates with a means for firefighter access. (Refer also to general commentary regarding Security Gates) [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: OUTSIDE FIRE PITS & COOKING DEVICES It has been previously discussed with the applicant that because the building is fully sprinklered, outside fire pits or cooking devices on the rooftop, patios, or balconies will be allowed. These devices are required to be fueled only by natural gas. Due to building height and fire access, wood burning or smoke producing fire pits or cooking devices of any kind are prohibited. Approved devices are to be built-in, stationary or otherwise permanently fixed units (not mobile, on wheels, etc.). They cannot be constructed of combustible material and they may not be located within 10' of any combustible material. As part of the building plan review, the final design(s) for any and all fire pits or cooking devices shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department prior to construction. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: SECURITY GATES 06IFC 503.6: Where security gates are installed which block or otherwise impair required fire access, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. Gates securing fire access shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. You may wish to visit www.knoxbox.com to better determine your available options for providing firefighter access at the vehicle gate on the west end and a man-gate on the east side. Please contact me with any questions. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 KEY BOXES REQUIRED 06IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: As a reminder, Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ('Knox Box') to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. As each unit is to be considered a separate, single family home, the number of required Knox Boxes and location(s) is currently undetermined and will be addressed at time of building permit. Contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Ron Gonzales for more information or to discuss this further. [ Acknowledged. ] Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please provide a preliminary grading plan. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please document the amount of impervious pavers being proposed compared to the required 25%. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/21/2013 10/21/2013: Please update the drainage letter to the PDP level. [ Acknowledged. ] Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: No comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please mask all text that is within hatched areas. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: There are line over text issues. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: Plat Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please add "Being a replat of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Block 132, Town of Fort Collins" to the sub-title and Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please change the "Northwest" to "Southwest" in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please correct the distance of the last call on the boundary in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision, and along the south line shown on sheet 2. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Are there any Lienholders? If so, or if you are uncertain at this time, please add a signature block. This can be removed later if necessary. If not, please add a note stating that there are no Lienholders. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: If you are using the Basis Of Bearings shown on sheet 1, you will need to show the monuments, dimensions and ties to the outer boundary of the plat; and you will need to submit current acceptable monument records for the corners used for control. Consider using a Block line as your Basis Of Bearings. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please correct the label for the "West" line of Lot 1, Block 132. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please label the dedication information for all street right of way. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please add "Part Of Lot 2, Block 132" were marked. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please label the former lot line between Lots 1 & 2. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please add "FTC" to the surrounding properties as marked. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please add a "FTC" and definition to the legend. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please make the outer boundary a solid line with consistent width. See redlines. [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Where does access to Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 come from? [ For bikes and autos the access is via a common interior driveway to be owned by the HOA. For pedestrians the access is through a common sidewalk to the North side of the building. ] Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: Please show all found and set pins. [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 10/16/2013: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Previously the diagonal parking on the north side of Olive was inset and out of Olive St travel lanes providing good sight distance between Olive and the alley. Please remove the diagonal parking space on the north side of Olive nearest the alley to provide better sight distance between Olive commuters and alley exiting traffic. [ Acknowledged. ] Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: City code requires individual water and sewer services for each property (i.e. each unit on a separate lot). The plan as submitted does not meet this requirement. [ Individual water and sewer services have been added. ] Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: Need elevation drawings showing height of buildings. Need notes indicating that mechanical equipment will be screened from view. Need notes regarding lighting (shielded and down directional). [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: I have no comments regarding the modifications. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: Need note on plan explaining how/where you're providing bike parking and how trash collection occurs (individual containers in garages?) [ Acknowledged. ] Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: If the buildings are taller than 40', a building height review is required per Sec. 3.5.1(G) of the Land Use Code. [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: Need a landscape plan. [ Acknowledged. ] Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: Add a land use table to the site plan (use, # of parking spaces, # of bedrooms, size, etc). At some point, the site plan will also need to include notes listing the approved modifications, assuming there are approved modifications. [ Acknowledged. ]