The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREMINGTON ANNEX - PDP - PDP110017 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970416-2313, nbeals(cOfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 3.2.2(L)(1) Table A Two-way drive aisle width is 24ft, One-way drive aisle width is 20ft required. The drive aisles are 20ft in width which is inadequate for the two-way. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: 3.2.5 Concrete pad required for trash and recycling collection area. Clarify on plans that the trash and recycling area is on a concrete pad. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: Trash enclosure area's service gate has landscaping planted directly in front of it. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: Show lot dimensions on site plan. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: The modification requests need more detail (i.e. the floor area request - what is the specific FAR? Also, the floor area includes the TOTAL residential and garage floor area above grade. It would appear that the floor area being used is just the residential , with no garage.) Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: The applicant state in the third paragraph of the cover narrative that the east side of the Remington is zoned NCM. That's not correct. The east side is zoned NCB, the same as the west Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: Modification request #5 regarding the eave height is not needed. The 13' eave height is just for carriage houses or accessory buildings. Pleas see zoning comment # 7. Department: Zoning Contact Noah Beals, 970-416.2313, nbealsCr4fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: 4.9(D)(6)(d) 5ft side setback required if wall height is 18ft. If greater then 18ft there is an additional foot setback for every 2ft or fraction thereof in height. Wall heights on both sides exceed 181t. The building wall height is approximately 33ft on each side both the north and south therefore the building should be setback 13111 from each side property line. The side setback is based on the vertical wall height . An save does not serve to reduce the height of the wall. The setback modification request is based on eave height, rather than the wall height, and therefore the request is not accurate. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 4.9(E) The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall such entrance shall require a porch, landing, or portico. The submitted appear to have front entrances with porches but plans need to be clear that they do not encroach the front setback. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 4.9(E)(4) 40% of the front yard of the lot may be covered with asphalt, cement, paving and gravel. Plans do not indicate the percentage of these types of landscaping surfaces.. The plan need to provided front yard landscaped surfacing calculations broken down into percentages of the total front yard. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 3.2.1(D) A grove/belt of trees along city streets and with in landscaped areas of 50ft of any building or structure is required. There are no trees located in the landscaped areas immediately abutting the south and west sides of the building. There should be a grove of trees in each of the mention landscaped areas. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12127/2011 12/27/2011: 3.2.1(D)(1)(a) Landscaping areas on a high use side of any building shall allow full tree, extending 7ft from building. The West side of the building is a high use and the landscaping area along it is only 5ft and there are no trees according to the plans. This area shall be corrected to at least 7ft with trees. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: 3.2.1(D) Minimum species diversity requirement. The Plans submitted do not meet the minimum species diversity requirement. The landscaping plan should outline such calculations and be in compliance. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) 5% bike parking required and located near entrances. The Plans need to indicate bike rack spaces and locations. It is encouraged to increase the bike parking greater then the minimum for student housing. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) 51-75 vehicle parking spaces require 3 Handicap spaces and one at least van accessible. Only one Handicap space on the plan need to indicate the two additional required spaces. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(affcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Show the existing sewer services to be abandoned. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: At final, include all appropriate standard details. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Curb stop must be in easement or R.O.W. Should the easement labeled drainage easement also be a utility easement? Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970416-2313, nbealsOiNcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: Per City records, 715 Remington has a legal use of only a single family dwelling, any other use is illegal, and applicants cover letter should be corrected to state that the three existing buildings consist of 2 duplexes and a single family dwelling Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 4.9(D)(1) Lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area. It is not possible to calculate exactly without out individual floor plans, but it is assumed the total Floor Area is well over the approximate allowed 19,500 sq ft for the lot Applicant should perform the calucalation and include it on the PDP for verification. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12127/2011: 4.9(D)(5) FAR for the rear 50% is no more then 33% It is not possible to calculate exactly without individual floor plans, but it is assumed the total Floor Area is well over the approximate allowed 3,283 sq ft. Applicant should perform the calucalation and include it on the PDP for verification. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 4.9(D)(6)(a) 50ft lot width required, if more then one principal building then 5011 for the proposed building. As long as this is one building and not three buildings, the lot width is adequate, If three buildings the the front lot width is lacking approximately 10ft. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12127/2011 12127/2011: 4.9(D)(6)(b)15ft front setback required. On sheet PDP-1 of plans the setback is not being met Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/27/2011: 4.9(D)(6)(c) 5ft rear setback from existing alley required. If the rear stairs are covered they are encroaching into the setback. Also eaves in the rear extend more then the 2.5ft allowed encroachment into the setback. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountvialfcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 01/03/2012: The are minor line over text issues. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012; Please change the owner signature block to reflect the redlines on the plat. See Also your Sactuary West plat for the format. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Are there any lain holders on this property? If so, please add a signature block for it. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01103/2012: Please add "Being a replat of..." to the subtitle. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Please provide more information to explain the accepted positions of the monumentation shown. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/0312012: Is the 15' drainage easement existing or to be dedicated? Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 01/03/2012: Please add a north arrow to sheet PDP-1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Please add "Lot 1, Remington Annex Subdivision" to the legal description on sheet PDP-1. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Please correct the spelling of "January" in the legal description on sheet PDP-1. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Please correct the dates in the owner certification on sheet PDP-1. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffrnaton(a)fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Revise the label pertaining to the fire line connection as noted on the redlined plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Show all utilities (gas, electric, cable, telephone, etc.) in the alley and the Remington Street R.O.W. so contractor is aware of the potential conflicts. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Place meter pit outside of landscape curbing. Department: PFA Contact Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, ronzales()poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12/28/2011: minimum overhead clearance for emergency apparatus is 14 feet clear space. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(c)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01103/2012: At final the details of the detention pond design can be discussed including the freeboard, orifice and emergency spillway designs, etc. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: The water quality ponds could be wet quite often and this will not allow those areas to be usable space except for landscaping. Pond B draining through Water Quality Pond A will also hold water longer as well. These areas need to be landscaped accordingly so the front yard does not become a nuisance area. Department: Technical Services Contact Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountyOfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 0110312012: Please correct the Basis of Bearings on sheets 1 & 2. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Please correct the naming conflict on sheets 1 & 5. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6 & 7. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01103/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Remington" on both sheets. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: The text in the details is a Tittle small & pixelated. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 0110312012: The boundary & legal close. Department: Light And Power Contact Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine%2fcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2011 12/20/2011: There is a major underground electric 13,800 volt substation tie circuit along the westerly side of Remington St. This is a multi -conduit system with multiple high voltage cables encased in a 1000 psi concrete mix. It is believed that this line is under the existing sidewalk. This system cannot self-support a trench under it of over 4 ft. wide. This line needs to be field located by calling the One Call Locating system (811). The developer is also encouraged to 'pot hole' both the top and bottom of this line to be sure the concrete curb channel can be installed over the electric, and the water/fire linescan be installed under it. Relocation of this power line (vertically or horizontally) will not be practical. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2011 12/20/2011: Electric development and system modification charges will apply. It is estimated that this will likely total $40,000 to $50,000. Please coordinate power facilities with Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, , Topic: Easements Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: Comcast will require a 6' utility easement in alley. Additionally, 5' easement is needed to feed 121 East Laurel Street and any relocation is at owners expense. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, ronzales ftoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12128/2011: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the properties Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12/2812011: This project will be fire sprinklered using a 6-inch underground, until sprinkler calculations are submitted by the sprinkler contractor and confirmed by PFA a 4-inch is indeed an adequate supply. Because this is a mixed -use building, it will have a complete NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12/28/2011: The fire department connection shall be on the building and on the street side of the building. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12128/2011: A Knox Box key box is required on the premises by the front door. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12128/2011: PFA has no interest and therefore no requirement for an emergency access easement within the public alley in the back. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliamsCa#caov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/30/2011: LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(5) states, "To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees." Plans show only one historic tree to be preserved, and do not, to the maximum extent feasible, retain the historic patterns of landscaping evident in this block and which are a character defining element of the National Register District. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russ Hovland, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: Building code will require a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12121/2011: Building code will require 1-hour occupancy sep between garage and dwellings. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: Building code will require 1/2 hour dwelling sep walls/floors. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12121/2011: Building code will require 2-hour exit stair towers. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: Building code will require the north and south walls to be 1-hour fire rated walls with no more than 25% wall area openings (windows). Department: Light And Power Contact Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2011 12/20/2011: It is understood that the building will have an elevator. It is therefore assumed that 3 phase power will be required. Each apartment must be individually metered, with the meters outdoors at appx. eye level, and available to utility personnel 24-7. A 3 phase service will require the meters to be what is called 'network metering'. This means the meter sockets (provided and installed by the buildir) must be 5 terminal types, with the 5 terminal in the 9 O'clock position. It is assumed and encouraged that electric space heating will not be used. Please provide Light & Power Engineering with a 14ine diagram of the electric service and a completed Commercial Service Information (C-1) form. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(alfcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/30/2011: LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: "If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is offdally designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." This project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), because, while it contains a site that is both individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and is further located within the Laurel School National Register Historic District (an officially designated historic district), the plan does not provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure to the maximum extent feasible. This project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), as the development plan and building design do not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the historic property located on the site, nor those located adjacent to the development site. Land Use Code Section 5.1.2, Definitions, states, "Adjacent shall mean nearby, but not necessarily touching." These adjacent properties include two designated Fort Collins Landmarks, the M. G. Nelson House and Carriage House, at 700 Remington, and the Clammer/Juel House at 729 Remington; and the 10 other properties in the 700 block of Remington designated on the National Register as part of the Laurel School National Register District, several of which are also likely individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark recognition. This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(B), as the proposed new construction is not compatible with the historic character of the historic properties on the site or adjacent thereto, including the ten remaining properties located within the 700 block of Remington Street (all of which are designated on the National Register of Historic Places), the two properties with additional designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, and those properties that would likely qualify as individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Topic: Landscape Plans Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-22"078, kmcwilliamsQfcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/3012011: LUC 3.4.7(E), Relocation or Demolition, states, "A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible." LUC Section 5.1.2 states, "'Maximum extent feasible' shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken" This development project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(E) as there has been no attempt, to the maximum extent feasible, to preserve the existing historic structure; nor to minimize the adverse affects of this development on the rest of the National Register -designated properties in this block, which could be achieved by incorporating the comments received at the Landmark Preservation Commission6s October 12, 2011 Preliminary Hearing on this project and provided to the applicant Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/30/2011: As this project contains a building determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, the project will also need to comply with the requirements of the Demolition/Alteration Review Process, Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/3012011: Properties designated on the National or State Registers, or as a Fort Collins Landmark, are eligible for financial incentives. Financial programs include 20% State Tax Credits, $7,500 yearly no -interest loans, $15,000 Historic Structure Assessment grants, State Historic Fund grants of $200,000 and more; and, for income producing properties, an additional 20% Federal Tax Credit. Any work, both interior and exterior, which protects or promotes a buildingls historic character by meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (http://www.cr.nps.govlhps/tps/standguideAndex.htm) can qualify. For more details on financial incentives, please contact Historic Preservation staff. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12130/2011: Historic Preservation Staff is always available to assist with arranging for free advice from architects and design professionals and for complimentary design reviews. Please contact staff to arrange. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(a)fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: O1/0312012 12/30/2011: LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: "If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a'local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." This project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), because, while it contains a site that is both individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and is further located within the Laurel School National Register Historic District (an officially designated historic district), the plan does not provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure to the maximum extent feasible. This project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), as the development plan and building design do not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the historic property located on the site, nor those located adjacent to the development site. Land Use Code Section 5.1.2, Definitions, states, "Adjacent shall mean nearby, but not necessarily touching." These adjacent properties include two designated Fort Collins Landmarks, the M. G. Nelson House and Carriage House, at 700 Remington, and the Clammer/Juel House at 729 Remington; and the 10 other properties in the 700 block of Remington designated on the National Register as part of the Laurel School National Register District, several of which are also likely individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark recognition. This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(B), as the proposed new construction is not compatible with the historic character of the historic properties on the site or adjacent thereto, including the ten remaining properties located within the 700 block of Remington Street (all of which are designated on the National Register of Historic Places), the two properties with additional designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, and those properties that would likely qualify as individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Department: Historical Preservation -Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(a)fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12130/2011: LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(3) states, *The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block." Plans do not call out dominant building material(s) for project, other than stucco, which was addressed in a previous comment. Topic: General Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(cWcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/30/2011: LUC Section 3.4.7(F) deals with New Construction. Section 3.4.7(F)(1) states, "To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new building is located unless, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and/or width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Structures at the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to structures in the adjoining blocks." This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1). The width of this project is not similar to those of existing historic structures on the block face on which the proposed structure would be located, or the block face across the from the block face on which the new building would be located. While the new building is articulated, the articulations are not deep enough to "read" as side yards or divisions between buildings and the building will be perceived by the public as one building. The new structure would adversely affect the surrounding historic structures in regards to their historic integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a significantly dissimilar width. Historic building widths on the block are typical of single-family housing on single lots, whereas plans for the proposed new construction span the entirety of three lots. Also, taller portions of the proposed development are often closest to the street, rather than being located interior to the site. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12/30/2011: Section 3.4.7(F)(2) states, "New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible." This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(2). Window and door patterns of your project are not compatible, to the maximum extent feasible, with those in the surrounding neighborhood. For instance, windows on this project appear to be single fixed pane or sliding (metal?), whereas windows of surrounding neighborhood are wood double -hung, often with decorative multi -light sashes. Entries and doors on your project appear off -set and non -distinct, as opposed to the prominent entries of the structures within the surrounding neighborhood. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(a0coov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 12130/2011: LUC 3.4.7(D)(1) Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions, states, "Original materials and details, as well as distinctive form and scale, that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing quality or character of the structure or its environment." This development project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(D)(1) by failing, to the maximum extent feasible, to incorporate or preserve original materials and details, and distinctive form and scale, that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood preserved. Aside from the proposed demolition of an individually eligible Fort Collins Landmark, which would not preserve the distinguishing quality and character that contribute to its historic significance, the proposed new construction also does not preserve the distinguishing quality and character of this block of the National Register District. Primarily comprised of Late 19th and Early 20th Century architectural styles, the buildings in the neighborhood are typically single family residential in character, even though some have been adapted to commercial uses. Buildings typically feature intricate architectural detailing such as multi -pane windows, dentil molding, spindle porch posts, eave brackets, barge boards, window head molds, and patterned (i.e., fish scale) wood shingles. Materials in this proposed development project, such as stucco, and elements such as single pane sliding and faux windows or metal balcony railings, are not found within the neighborhood. The scale of these buildings is defined by their relatively low height; six of the seven buildings on the block face are one and two stories in height. The scale of the historic buildings are also defined by their front and side yard setbacks, creating open space, sight lines and visibility. The contextual setback of this development project is not in keeping with that of the historic block face, and would fail to preserve this significant character defining element. This development is a massive project, proposed to be set in among a series of individual homes. It changes the block face character on Remington, affects other designated historic buildings, and affects the defining character of the neighborhood. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, iweinbera(aftnov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 12/30/2011: LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose states: "This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site." Land Use Code Section 5.1.2, Definitions, states "'Maximum extent feasible' shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken" This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(A)(1) because it proposes to demolish, rather than to preserve and incorporate into the development to the maximum extent feasible, a structure that has been officially determined to both be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark; and, is already designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as a property within in the Laurel School National Register District. The undertaking would adversely affect the integrity of the historic property. Further, the applicant has not met the standard of maximum extent feasible, by not investigating other altematives that would comply with this regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts, including suggestions provided by the Landmark Preservation Commission. This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(A)(2) as the proposed new construction does not respect the historic character of the site, nor the historic character of the Laurel School National Register Historic District within which the development would be located. The development fails to protect designated and individually eligible historic structures as well as structures in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site, as provided for in this Purpose Statement Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(alfcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations ti Department: Engineering Development Review Contact Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirataialfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Per the requirements in Section 3.3.2(D)(7), please ensure to coordinate the undergrounding of the existing Qwest/Century Link overhead line with the development. Absent of this, the developer must provide conduit to provide for the future undergrounding of the Qwest/Century Link overhead line. Verification on whether undergrounding is to occur with the project, or conduit is provided needs to occur prior to a hearing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: With the entrance to the parking garage for the development being located directly across the driveway for Collegio that provides direct access to College Avenue, how does the applicant/owner intend to address an potential likelihood of residents of the Remington Annex using the access off for Collegio off of College Avenue? With this movement be somehow actively discouraged or encouraged in some manner? Is there intended to be a linkage between the two projects as a result, through covenants, cross -access agreements/easements, etc.? City Transportation Staff is intending to meet Thursday morning to discuss this with the input provided from the applicantlowner at the Wednesday review meeting and may have concerns to then present afterwards as a result. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: As per General Note #42 of the Construction Plan set, the applicant is required to replace any existing (or damaged during construction) curb, gutter and sidewalk. Some of the existing sidewalk along Remington Street appears to be questionable in its existing condition. It may be beneficial to conduct a walk-through of the existing infrastructure to ascertain what existing components might be identified for needing replacement. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: The plays titre of "Remington Annex Subdivision" differs from the the other drawings as "Remington Annex" please either remove "Subdivision" from the plat title, or add "Subdivision' to the other documents. Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Page 2 of the soils report indicated that a bridge across the alley will connect the proposed project with the existing Valle Collegio. Please verify that this is no longer proposed with the project as the drawings do not appear to indicate this. Department: Environmental Planning Contact Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lexialfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: No comments. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6106, iweinberg(a)fcgov.com r Department Engineering Development Review Contact Marc Virata, 970-2214567, mvirataCa)fcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Please provide finished grade information on the construction plans similar to PDP-2 showing the approach grade out to the alley to ascertain what sight clearance is provided with the design taking into account any vertical grade change. Does the stairwell coming down from the second floor along with the building walls on either side of the driveway provide any sight distance concerns? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Indicate whether the stairwell and bridge to second floor are proposing any structural components (such as footers) in the alley right -of --way, which would not be allowed to encroach onto the alley. Also, please confirm whether any similar structural components of the detention and water quality pond are situated within Remington Street right-of-way, which again would not be allowed to encroach. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Please indicate where and how downspouts are located from the building. Please ensure that downspouts do not discharge over the sidewalk along Remington and to the extent possible, are not disharged onto the alley. Can downspouts be directed to the sideyard swales that drain out to the water quality ponds and then under the sidewalk onto Remington? Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: At time of a final plan submittal, please ensure that construction details, including a joint pattern detail for the alley is provided in the construction plan set. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: Note 2 on sheet RD01 of the construction drawing set needs to state that final design for the alley pavement section shall be approved with the pavement design report required for the project (pavement design is not specified with the geotechnical report.) Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/0412012: The engineering variance request for the elimination of the utility easement (8') along the alley and utility easement (15) along Remington Street is considered pending thus far. The utility coordination meeting for the project held just prior to the PDP submittal seemed to indicate that City utilities (water/sewer, stormwater, light and power) did not appear to have an objection to the utility easement elimination for both the alley and Remington Street. However with external utility providers (Comcast/Xfinity, Owest/Century Link, and Xcel) not present, final determination hasn't been verged at this time. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: The engineering variance for right-of-way dedication at the alley/Laurel Street intersection is interpreted to not be required with this dedication being offsite of the development. It may have been understood from a previous iteration that the proposed development included the property abutting Laurel Street which would have then required the dedication along that Laurel Street abutting property. - call jV" [4ty fLv I (\S`aect�CY-\ C) ' slobauailcs . Department: Current Planning Contact Courtney Levingston, , Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/2212011: Three (3)13 foot wide handicapped parking spaces are required per LUC 3.2.2(K) (5). Currently, the site plan submitted only shows one handicapped parking spot (#49). Please add two additional spots near accessible building entrances. Per LUC3.2.2(K(5)(d), at least one (1) such space shall be designated as a van -accessible space, and must be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide and adjoin a minimum eight -foot -wide access aisle. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12122/2011 1212212011: Per LUC 3.2.2(K)(5)(c) please add a note to the site plan regarding the required signage for all three handicapped parking spots. The note should speak to the requirement that "Every handicap parking space shall be identified by a sign, centered between three (3) feet and five (5) feet above the parking surface, at the head of the parking space. The sign shall include the intemational symbol of accessibility and state RESERVED, or equivalent language." Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/22/2011: You site plans shows your parking garage two-way drive isle with at 20 feet. Per LUC 3.2.2(L) we require a 24 foot width. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/2312011 12/23/2011: 1 can not evaluate your modification of standard to section 4.9(D)(5) based on the information provided in the submittal. Please provide detail on the second and third floor as it relates to lot area - as it stands, I can't tell how much of the 13,262 square feet of the second floor is located in the rear half of the lot (for example). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: On PDP-2, please call out the setbacks of the existing residences at 701 and 719 Remington Street. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01104/2012: Please provide information regarding what dewatering measures, if any, are intended for the project for the below ground structure. If a perimeter drain system around the foundation is proposed, indicate the location on the construction drawings and ensure that such a system is located outside of right-of-way and any utility easement How would such a system release water, would there be eventual backlighting of flows out to the street either from a sump pump/pit or direct discharge? Show the location of any sump pit on the construction drawings to ascertain how and where any discharging of flows to the surface would drain. Ideally, flows would pass through the water quality/quantity ponds rather than directly discharge. Department: Current Planning Contact Courtney Levingston, , Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12122/2011: Please provide detail on the proposed wall. Additionally, please see historic preservation comments regarding contextual compatibility of this wall. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/22/2011: The detail for the fixtures on the lighting plan is illegible, please correct the pixilation. Additionally, what type of finish do these fixtures have. Per LUC 3.2.4(D)(4) they must be anodized or coated to minimize glare. Please add a note to the lighting plan staling this. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/2212011: Fixture type "CC" and "DID" do not meet the standard in Section 3.2.4(D)(3). Fixtures must be fully shielded and down directional. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/2212011: Please add a note to the lighting plan saying "light fixtures shall be attached to poles and buildings by use of nonadjustable angle brackets or other mounting hardware.' This requirement is per LUC 3.2.4(D)(3). Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2011 12/23/2011: The modification of standard request submitted was not adequate in providing the needed information for assessment. For your modification of standard requests, please provide the following: 1) Standard you wish to modify and verbage (e.g. LUC 4.9(D)....) 2) What you proposing (standard says rear FAR of .33 we are proposing a rear FAR of x (and associated calculation on how you arrived at your rear FAR)) 3) Percent change/deviation from standard. For example, if the standard requires a rear FAR of .33 and, as shown, your rear FAR is .495, that would be an increase of 17% over standard. 4) Justification for the deviation (using criteria outlined in 2.8.2(H)) Please resubmit your modifications using this format. Zoning comment number 19 piggybacks off this comment. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: Unable to comment on LUC 4.9(D)(1) and LUC 4.9 (D)(5) due to lack of information. 4.9(D)(1) Lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area. It is not possible to calculate exactly without out individual floor plans, but it is assumed the total Floor Area is well over the approximate allowed 19,500 sq ft for the lot. Applicant should perform the calucalation and include it on the PDP for verification. See Zoning comment 2 and 3. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12122/2011: Please call out on your site plan the required bike parking per LUC 3.2.2(C)(4). The bicycle parking should be conveniently located near building entrances and need to be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5%) feet in length, with additional back -out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet 0 Department: Current Planning Contact Courtney Levingston, , Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2011 12/23/2011: LUC 3.5.1(B) speaks to a projects architectural character noting that a projects design must be complementary and compatible. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as 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. You project is showing stucco at ground level as well as brick vaneer as opposed to actual masonry. Additionally, the window and door patterns are somewhat lacking in compatibility to the overall neighborhood context. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2011 12/23/2011: What is the total height of the building measured from grade at lot line to top of roof? If over 40 feet, the building will be subject to the building height review outlined in LUC3.5.1(G). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: Is the 1" - 20' scale on PDP-1 accurate? I am showing the setback at 12'6" from property line to proposed structure, however, on PDP-2, the setback is called out at 15'. This comment is piggybacking off of zoning comment number 5. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29%2011 12/29/2011: Please show 729 Remington Street, with home on lot (to scale) on PDP-1 for purposes of evaluating LUC 3.4.7(F). Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: Per LUC 3.2.1(D)(1)(c), "Full Tree Stocking" Canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50% of all tree plantings. The proposed landscape plan shows no canopy shade trees. Please refer to the City of Fort Collins approved plant list. This list can be found online at http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applicabons.php Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: Per LUC 3.2.1(D)(3), you can have no more than 50% of anyone species of tree on site. Your landscape plan does not meet this requirement since there are 13 trees total, and over 60% are Chanticleer Pear. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12121/2011 12/21/2011: The street trees should be canopy shade trees per LUC 3.2.1(1))(2)(a). The proposed landscape plan shows ornamental trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/21/2011: On mitigation plan, Please add to the 5th note after "orange protection barrier fencing erected.." minimum of 4 feet in height, secured with metal t-posts per LUC 3.2.1 (G)(3). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/2l/2011: Please add a tree protection note on the landscaping and tree mitigation plan (1-2), saying "the installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground fixture requiring excavation deeper than 6 inches shall be accomplished by boring under the root system of protected existing trees at a minimum depth of 24 inches" LUC 3.2.1(G)(7). Community Development and of Neighborhood Services Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com4developmentreview January 04, 2012 Jeff Hansen VFLA 401 Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Remington Annex, PDP110017, 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, Courtney Rippy, at 970416-2283 or nippy@fcgov.00m. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, , Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: Please call out height and materials on the adjacent existing structures at 701 and 719 Remington Street This will assist in evaluating compliance with 3.4.7(F). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 Please 12/29/2011: Please label the adjacent existing residences at 701 and 719 Remington. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: Please call out all building materials on the east elevation. Will the siding be wood or vinyl Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2011 12/2312011: The plan submitted does not comply with Section 3.4.7. Please see historic preservations comments for additional detail. You will either need to modify the plans to meet this Land Use Code section, or apply for modifications to Section 3.4.7(B), 3.4.7(E) and 3.4.7(F). Please see LUC 2.8.1 for details about the Modification of Standard process. For each of your modification requests, you will need to:1) state the standard you wish to modify 2) state how you are proposing to modify the standard. e