HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP110006 (15-08) - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)•
Number: 54 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] show/designate a loading area for Building 2 non-residential.
Number: 55 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] Show building envelope or footprint dimensions on the site plan.
Number: 56 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] The landscape plan will need to contain a more detailed landscape table which
states the tree/plant species and size.
Number: 57 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] Since buildings exceed 40' in height, the Building Height Review required by
Section 3.5.1(G) will apply.
Number: 58 Created: 7/24/2008
Bike parking for Building 2 is shown at the southwest corner of the building. Code requires
bike parking to be near building entrances and visible from the uses they serve. The
proposed location is certainly visible from the parking lot, but I don't know where the "retail"
entrances are since I didn't get elevation drawings for Building 2 (which are required since
the building is part of phase 1). Bike parking should also be provided on the east side of
Building 2 if store entrances are proposed on the east and north sides.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6206. In my absence, contact Cameron Gloss at
221-6765.
Sincerely,
Anne H. Aspen
Senior City Planner
Page 12
Number: 9 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] The City will do some computer modeling of the proposed water lines to determine
if both water lines crossing College are needed.
Number: 10 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] If a fire pumps are required due to building height on Bldg 1, will two fire lines be
used (i.e. requiring TWO pumps)?
Number: 11 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] What water main material is planned? If PVC, include the two Std Details
pertaining to tracer wire.
Number: 12 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] The existing water service to the carwash must be abandoned at the main. Add
appropriate notes to coordinate abandonment with City Water Field Operations crews.
Number: 23 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Prior to construction, a CDOT utility access permit will be required for the water
main installation in College Avenue.
Number: 26 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] The area between Bldgs 2 and 3 appears to much too tight for the utility lines
currently shown. Consider separate sewer services lines from Bldgs 2 and 3 to the proposed
MH 4 which would allow less for separation distances than an 8" public sewer. This would
require a private easement for the service to the tire shop. Utility routings and separations
in this area need to be worked out prior to hearing.
Number: 27 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Install a curb stop and meter pit adjacent to Choice Center Drive for the tire shop.
A private easement would also be required for this water service extending south of the
public utility easement.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] Clarification is needed regarding the request to allow the number of unrelated
persons to be "increased to one individual per bedroom for each unit". If this means that
they are planning on having only 1 person per bedroom, then the request should simply be
to allow 4 unrelated persons in each 4 bedroom unit. The current wording - "increased to
one individual per bedroom" when taken literally would imply that if the variance isn't
granted, a 1 bedroom unit won't be allowed to be occupied by anyone.
Number: 52 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] The site plan table and drawing simply state that the non-residential portion of the
lot 2 building is retail. This description should be expanded to include things like standard
and fast food restaurants, offices, personal service and business service, etc. Otherwise,
anything other than a retail store will only be allowed subject to a minor amendment.
Number: 53 Created: 7/24/2008
[7/24/08] Is there going to be a trash enclosure for Building 2? Are the 2 trash enclosures
shown adequate for Building 1?
Page 11
6. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is required immediately after completion of
development activities at the Choice Center site, per City Code 10-45(2)(b). The LOMR
application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA.
7. A FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval
for each structure. Allow 2 weeks for review and approval.
8. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for any structures at the Choice Center
until the LOMR is approved by FEMA, and until an Elevation Certificate is approved for the
building by the City.
9. The Applicant's engineer shall provide quantitative evidence, supported by engineering
calculations, to prove the flood control channel on the west side of the residential structure is
erosionally stable as designed. The channel is so close to the railroad embankment and the
proposed residential building that any failure caused by erosion may threaten the life safety
and property of the railroad and the student housing complex. Please refer to specific
comments in the July 17, 2008 Floodplain Comments delivered to Nolte Associates, Inc.,
specifically Item #10, #10-a, #10-b, #15-b, and #15-c.
10. A vehicle containment system, or car catcher, has been proposed for the perimeter of
the south parking lot. This parking lot is located partially in the floodway, and the car
catcher was designed with the intent of containing all floating vehicles to the parking lot.
This design, if correctly applied, will help address some of the public safety concerns
associated with floating vehicles, and the potential rise in the BFE associated with clogging
of the College Avenue Bridge. Please refer to specific comments in the July 17, 2008
Floodplain Comments delivered to Nolte Associates, Inc., specifically Item #30, #30-a, #30-
b, and #15-e that relate to this design.
11. Please refer to the 50% and 100% floodplain review checklists for information required
on the construction plans and drainage report.
12. Please make sure that all information (plans, designs, calculations, descriptions, etc.)
in the CLOMR and LOMR submittals match the Development Plans. More coordination is
needed between the submittals to ensure they are consistent.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater . Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 4 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] Two 4" water services and meters for each of Bldgs 1 and 2 seem excessive.
Provide fixture counts and water service sizing calculations for these buildings.
Number: 5 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] For mixed -use buildings, provide separate water and sewer services for the
commercial and residential portions of the building.
Number: 6 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] Will there be any irrigation taps for the project?
Number: 7 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] North of proposed MH 4, move the water main to the east to provide more
separation from the storm intake as shown on the redlined plans.
Number: 8 Created: 7/22/2008
[7/22/08] At the location where the proposed sanitary crosses Stuart, move the sewer as
shown on the redlines to provide more separation from the water main tee and valves.
Page 10
Site Plan, south side. A few details could be adjusted to better accommodate pedestrian
circulation and functional landscaping.
Building, east side: how does the single entrance work? Does it create indirect routes to
units in the side wings? Why don't the other side wings have entrances? If the one single
entrance is the best solution, should it be highlighted more with arhitectural differentiation of
that stair tower?
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 13 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Please provide actual % impervious calculations for the proposed development to
determine if the site is under the assumed master plan % impervious of 75%. The standard
commercial % impervious numbers used in the calculations are lower than what is being
proposed. Instead of 60% impervious for some of the assumed basins, the number is
probably closer to 80%.
Number: 14 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Water quality mitigation needs to be designed and accounted for in the preliminary
submittal before a public hearing. The addition of water quality mitigation could have an
impact on the site plan.
Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Drainage easements dedicated to the City of Fort Collins are required for all of the
storm sewers and the flood control swale.
Number: 71 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08]
1. The Choice Center project is located in a FEMA regulatory floodway and floodplain on
Spring Creek. The development application must comply with all applicable sections of
Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code.
2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to document and quantify all
proposed modifications to the floodway and floodplain per City Code 10-45(2)(a). The
CLOMR application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA, and
shall be supported by floodplain modeling and technical analysis consistent with floodplain
modeling guidelines, per City Code Sec. 10-45.
3. The CLOMR shall be approved by City Floodplain Administration staff prior to the 50%
submittal hearing.
4. The CLOMR application shall be submitted to FEMA immediately following City
approval. FEMA's acceptance of the CLOMR as proposed shall be a condition of approval
for the 50% submittal.
5. No site work may commence prior to approval of the CLOMR by FEMA per City Code
10-45(2)(a). Floodplain Administration will only agree to the early release of a grading
permit if the Floodplain Use Permit and No -Rise Certification are approved, if all other
departments are in agreement, and if the applicant understands that all overlot grading shall
commence at their risk. Revisions to the site plan may be necessary based on FEMA's
comments on the CLOMR application. A Floodplain Use Permit shall be required for each
building and site element (parking lot, drainage channel, detention feature, etc.). A $325
permit fee and hydraulic review fee is required for the Floodplain Use Permit for the channel
construction. All other Floodplain Use Permits have a $25 permit fee.
Page 9
driving through the parking lot to the west, or by traveling south and then east on the private
drive, to College Avenue. So PFA will NOT require a turnaround at the intersection.
Number: 68 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] TURNING RADIUS: Curve 5 shows a 12-foot minimum turning radius. Our
minimum turning radius is 25 feet. We need to come up with a way to make that turn (from
College Avenue, north onto the drive aisle) navigable for fire apparatus.
Number: 69 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT: Please add an Emergency Access
Easement (minimum 20 feet wide) in the drive aisle of the parking lots east of Building 3 and
south of Building 2. All requirements of Emergency Access Easements (as stated in PDR
comments) apply.
Number: 70 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] STREET NAME: The name of Choice Center Drive for the private drive is
acceptable. However, as shown this name applies to the private drive as it runs both
north/south AND east/west. With a 90-degree bend, the private drive must have a name
change. Because it does not appear there will be any addresses off the east/west portion of
the private drive, my suggestion is to name the private drive only on the north/south portion
of the private drive and not name the east/west portion, since the east/west portion does not
have near the appearance of a "street."
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: Architecture and site planning
[7/29/08) Choice Center Capstone Student Housing: Site Plan, west side. The yards are
indicated similar to single family house yards -- should these receive more significant and
functional design attention? The high level of everyday use by hundreds of people walking
and bicycling appear to warrant it. Student housing complexes often have more developed
hardscape with patios/plazas/generous walk areas/seat walls/integrated bike parking etc.
which then define planters or panels of lawn. (vs a lawn with a typical sidewalk through it.)
The trellis structure in one of the courtyards reflects a little bit of this idea but could it be a
centerpiece in a courtyard designed more along the lines outlined above, vs simply sitting on
the grass? Also: are the other two courtyards less significant in some way?
The west side sidewalk should be generous. 6 feet in narrowest portions may be adequate
but please consider a more streamform layout with more width where they skirt building
corners - seems better for the high level of use. Also, if the meandering curves deviate too
much from point A to point B, people may simply short-cut off the sidewalk. This point is
illustrated on an attached plan with redline design suggestions/questions.
Bike parking, west side: are 5x10 areas adequate? These should be generous. Also, it
does not appear to relate to the window and detail patterns of the buildings which it butts up
against, and appears that a few bikes on the end of the rack may obstruct the entry to a
degree. This looks like an opportunity for a more generous and integrated site design.
Site Plan, north side. The main "collector' sidewalk which the whole west side feeds onto,
goes nowhere. It appears that there may be a way to better tie more directly into the
Mason/RR corridor with interim access and provisions for future access along more direct
desire lines.
Page 8
Topic: Technical Services
Number: 60 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Showing existing Zoning on Plat is not wrong but not necessary.
Number: 61 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Basis of bearings is not shown on the Plat.
Number: 62 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Typos on title sheet (Plat) and missing reception numbers in legal.
Number: 63 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Line over text (scanning) issues on all plans. See redlines for clarification.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 1 Created: 7/7/2008
[7/7/08] The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and transformer
locations with Light & Power engineering (221-6700). 1 understand from previous
conversations that another electric transformer (besides the one shown on the utility plan)
will be required near the south end of building #1 (location?).
Number: 2 Created: 7/7/2008
[7/7/08] It appears that several existing electric facilities will need to be relocated.
Relocation of existing electric will be at the developer's expense, in addition to normal
electric development charges.
Number: 3 Created: 7/7/2008
[7/7/08] The electric service line to the existing Discount Tire building is located where the
proposed building #2 is planned. It appears that there is little or no alternate way to
maintain electric service to Discount Tire.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 65 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] BUILDING AREA: Structures that exceed 5,000 square feet for type V
construction shall be fire contained or fire sprinklered. 97UBC Table9-B (City of Fort Collins
Amendment). This pertains to Building 3, which includes the addition of another level. If the
building is not equipped with automatic fire sprinklers, then it shall be fire contained between
each level, and also in no more than 5,000-SF areas on each floor. Full fire containment
includes fire -rated door assemblies, ventilation/duct connections, etc. If Building 4 is not
undergoing an addition and is merely going to receive a "facelift," this comment does not
pertain to Building 4.
Number: 66 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] WATER SUPPLY: Please include the addition of one more fire hydrant, to be
located on the west side of College Avenue, north of Stuart Street.
Number: 67 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] CUL-DE-SAC: Regarding comment 109 from the PDR (Sheri Langenberger) -
While Stuart Street ceases to exist as a public street at the intersection of the private drive, it
is not truly a cul-de-sac from an emergency response perspective; we can exit either by
Page 7
support the proposed access and median modifications and provide waivers for their
standards. Please submit formal waiver requests to CDOT for this proposed improvement
on College along with access permit applications. CDOT must provide acceptance of the
access permits prior to scheduling a hearing for this project.
Number: 46 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — The vertical street design for Stuart does not meet LCUASS
standards for VC lengths & K values. Please see redlines for clarification and revise as
needed or submit formal variance requests for consideration.
Number: 47 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — The detached sidewalk on College is only required to be 6 feet wide
with a 10 foot parkway per LCUASS 6-Lane Arterial standards. The typical college cross
section shows a 7 foot wide sidewalk? Was this intentional? Per the staff review meeting an
8 foot walk is required per the T.O.D. district requirements and 7 feet width was a
reasonable compromise accepted by Transportation Planning.
Number: 48 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — You will be required to submit a signage and striping plan on a
separate sheet with your next submittal. We will also need to have turning templates
provided showing that larger trucks can use the % access on College as well as all turning
movements at the intersection with Stuart (mainly left turns out of the site onto College).
Please also clearly show how the striping lines up with Stuart on the east side of College to
verify there will be safe movements in all directions at this intersection. I will provide the
maximum size truck template information as soon as I hear back from CDOT.
Number: 49 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] PRIOR TO HEARING
Phasing — Within the text of your submittal package (Project Overview) it states that parking
lot improvements etc... will be completed in phases. It should be understood that no actual
project phasing has been proposed on the plans (no phasing plan submitted) and all of the
proposed ROW improvements on College and Stuart will need to be completed with the
project or with any phase 1 of this project if phasing will be proposed. Any phased
improvements of the parking adjacent to the ROW improvements must also work with the
ultimate sidewalk improvements. The parking striping and parking arrangement adjacent to
College is not shown on these plans to verify how any interim or ultimate parking lot layout
will work for this site.
Number: 50 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] See redlines for any additional minor comments.
Number: 64 Created: 7/25/2008
[7/25/08] Please list all variance requests under note 48 on the general Notes sheet in the
Utility Plan set. A formal variance request must be submitted with justification stamped by
the engineer for consideration by the City. There are at least a couple parts of the Stuart
vertical design which do not meet LCUASS standards.
Page 6
Number: 36 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — Please provide at lease one typical cross section of the
College parkway, sidewalk and westerly parking lot to show that parked vehicles will NOT
overhang the sidewalk. Show any wheel stops if proposed and parked vehicle location.
Number: 37 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — The median nose at the % access on College should not
extend into the ROW. See redlines for clarification.
Number: 38 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — Please clearly show and label the approximate street cut
limits on College needed at the intersection with Stuart to construct the street and sidewalk
& ramp improvements.
Number: 39 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Grading Plan — Please dimension sidewalk and parkway ROW improvements on
College and Stuart. Show one cross section for Stuart showing the relationship to the
proposed retaining wall which should have 2 feet minimum clearance from the sidewalk.
Number: 40 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Grading Plan — Please add a note to the Grading Plan stating that any retaining
walls over 40 inches measured from bottom of footing to top of wall shall be under separate
permit by the Building Department.
Number: 41 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Grading Plan — Show & label all easements per the Plat comments. See redlines
for clarification.
Number: 42 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — Please dimension all parkways and sidewalks in plan view, revise
HC ramps at Stuart intersection and pull the median nose out of the ROW at the 3/ access
per previous comments. See redlines for clarification.
Number: 43 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — Please add a bold note to the street plan stating that Stuart Street
construction within the public ROW shall be constructed to current LCUASS standards and
accepted by the City Engineering inspector prior to City acceptance for maintenance.
Number: 44 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Street Plan — Please provide one intersection detail for College and Stuart per
LCUASS 7-27 and show the approximate limits of street cut needed to construct the
proposed street improvements at that intersection. Add the standard street cut note to the
plan sheet.
Number: 45 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] PRIOR TO HEARING
The median island creating % access to the site on College does not meet CDOT or City
standards for median construction and left turn lane lengths and tapers. We have discussed
this access in several meetings prior to this submittal and the City will support the access as
shown with a variance request (variance for median nose minimum width and radius, left
turn lane lengths and tapers for 6 lane arterial 45 mph design speeds). CDOT will also
Page 5
Number: 29 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] PRIOR TO HEARING
Plat — The City would like to see a public access easement connection dedicated all the way
to the north property line such that a vehicular and pedestrian connection can be provided if
the property to the north ever redevelops. You will not be required to construct a physical
connection at this time but we would like to have the easement in place for the future
connection. Please show off -site buildings to the north so that placement of the easement
connection is logical.
Number: 30 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Plat — The parking and access easement on Lot 3 adjacent to the tire store must
be dedicated as a Public Access easement such that the southerly driveway access to the
tire store is fully contained within a public access/cross access easement. CDOT may or
may not provide an access permit for both of these driveways in front of the tire store. From
previous meetings I recall that this was discussed and it was my understanding that CDOT
wanted to see one of these access points closed with cross access through this
development. I will coordinate again with CDOT.
Number: 31 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] PRIOR TO HEARING
Plat - Please clearly label and dimension all new ROW dedication on College and on Stuart.
The Stuart ROW dedication does not match the ROW shown within the Utility Plan set on
the street design sheet(s) etc.. The Plat shows approximately 60.72 feet total ROW (30 feet
on the south and approx. 30.72 of new ROW dedicated on the north side). The street
design with typical cross section shows 64 feet total ROW. Please correct the discrepancy
and verify that you are dedicating enough new ROW to build a standard road section curb to
curb and detached sidewalk on the north side.
Number: 32 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Plat — Please see the ROW dedication detail on the Plat. A line needs to be
removed where existing ROW is more than what is proposed. See redlines for clarification.
ROW cannot be vacated by the Plat. Must go to City council with 2 readings of Ordinance
... application for ROW vacation and fees must be submitted if you wish to vacate this small
area of ROW.
Number: 33 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — Please clearly dimension the ROW with parkways and
sidewalk widths on College and on Stuart.
Number: 34 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — There is a cross walk crossing college at the Stuart
intersection. Standard directional type ramps should be shown at the North West corner of
this intersection. Please also show the cross walk location.
Number: 35 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Overall Utility Sheet — Please show all utility and access easements as requested
under the Plat comments.
Page 4
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 78 Created: 7/29/2008
[7/29/08] The following note shall be added to the Site Plan and Plat at final review:
For allowable uses within a buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code.
Number: 79 Created: 7/29/2008
[7/29/08] During the final review process, a "Limits of Development" line will be determined
and shown on the following plans: Site, Landscape, Existing conditions and Demolition,
Utilities, Grading and Erosion Control.
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 80 Created: 7/29/2008
[7/29/08] Trickle pan in swale adjacent to the railroad R.O.W. should reflect the grading of
the side slope and walkway, creating a more curvilinear alignment.
Number: 81 Created: 7/29/2008
[7/29/08] Provide plan and profile of storm drain line adjacent to Spring Creek, between
SDMH-OS1and SDMH-OS2. The creek and the retaining wall are very close together,
which may have impacts to the creek.
Number: 82 Created: 7/29/2008
[7/29/08] The plan does not show any kind of riprap at the south end of the trickle pan
where it ties into the creek. Provide details of design to allow for evaluation on impacts to
the creek and associated wetlands.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number: 24 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] The shaded vicinity map on the Utility Plan cover sheet will not scan well. A one
one -line street vicinity map without shading is preferred.
Number: 25 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Please add the Traffic Engineers information to the cover sheet of the Utility Plan.
Number: 28 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/081 PRIOR TO HEARING
Plat - There are several references to easement vacations and dedications by separate
document on the Plat. Each easement vacation or dedication document (deed draft and
legal exhibits) must be submitted and review fees paid prior to scheduling a hearing for this
project. Easement vacations are $400 each and dedications are $250 each. This comment
applies to public easements only. See redline comments on Utility Plan set Plat.. If CDOT
will issue an access permit for both driveways to the tire store, then a public easement will
need to be dedicated on the Choice Center property that covers the shared driveway access
to the north. All private easements can be vacated by separate document but the City will
need to see those referenced documents prior to final Plat recordation.
Page 3
and read. Clark Mapes suggested looking at the University Village courtyards on campus
for ideas.
Number: 74 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] The walkway to the south that connects to the Spring Creek trail is very narrow at
5 feet. With 2 way bikes and pedestrians, this will likely not function adequately.
Topic: Elevations
Number: 17 Created: 7/23/2008
(7/23/08] Since the buildings are taller than 40 feet, the project is subject to the special
height review in Section 3.5.1(G). With the raised railroad tracks to the west and the higher
topography and existing buildings to the east, I don't see any reason for alarm but you will
need to submit a visual analysis prior to the hearing. See Section 3.5.1 (G) for details and
call me if you have questions about this.
Number: 19 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] We'll need to have either a colored rendering or a material sample board keyed to
the elevations prior to hearing. Also, if you want to include Phase II buildings in the
approval, we will need all elevations for those buildings as well.
Number: 72 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] Upon further review of the elevations, I wonder why there are no entries onto
Choice Center Drive except the main entry. On a building this large and with the intention of
Choice Center Drive to be a pedestrian activated space, I should think additional entries at
the other three stair volumes would be warranted in addition to the entries on the courtyard
side.
Number: 75 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] If you want Phase II buildings included in this approval, we must have elevations
of them and either color renderings or material sample boards keyed to the elevations.
Please provide with next submittal.
Number: 77 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] For the Choice Center Drive elevations to be pedestrian friendly as was intended,
additional design features need to be incorporated like additional entries, porticos, perhaps
metal awnings or trellises.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Number: 18 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] On the lighting plan, I need to see either the picture or sketch from the cut sheet of
each fixture proposed. Also, there needs to be more information in the chart including
wattage of bulb, LLF, etc.
Number: 22 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] Before hearing, please resize the lighting plan to standard 24x36.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Cih of Fort Collins
Dave Pietenpol
Jim Sell Design
153 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Date: 7/29/2008
Staff has reviewed your submittal for CHOICE CENTER MIXED -USE REDEVELOPMENT
PDP - TYPE I, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Topic: General
Number: 15 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] From a planning perspective, this is an excellent submittal --very thorough! Great
job with this complicated and challenging project!
Number: 76 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] There are significant comments on this project, some of which may require
changing the site plan. As a result, it will be necessary to have another complete round
prior to hearing. The biggest concern appears to be the flood mitigation and design for the
CLOMR/LOMR process. There are significant concerns that do not appear to have been
addressed adequately in this submittal. I urge you to coordinate your efforts with Brian
Varrella right away before proceeding.
Topic: Modifications
Number: 16 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] The documentation for the 3-unrelated looks adequate to take to the public
hearing. You do not need a variance (actually a modification) for this as you are complying
with the standard and providing info per the standard. Just FYI, modifications are needed to
standards in the Land Use Code. Variances are needed to standards in LCUASS.
Number: 20 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] For the bike level of service issue, you will need a modification of standards. This
can be done concurrently with your PDP hearing. The process is outlined in Section 2.8.2 of
the Land Use Code. You'll start by writing a letter to the hearing officer (send to me for now)
requesting the modification. You'll explain what standard you wish to modify and why, using
one of the 4 rationales in the code. I think hardship makes the most sense but we can
discuss further by phone. I can get you a sample modification letter or two to use as a
template if you wish.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 21 Created: 7/23/2008
[7/23/08] I'm still not seeing any context to the north towards Prospect. We need to see the
buildings and the proposed pedestrian connection from your site to Prospect. Please add
this to your site plan or as a separate exhibit.
Number: 73 Created: 7/28/2008
[7/28/08] 1 am concerned about the plaza design. The walkways are narrow given how
many students will be coming and going on them and there aren't areas to eat or bbq or sit
Page 1