HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 CHERRY ST., CHERRY ST. STATION - PDP - 9-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - (12)/,aa 11
zo
CA
to
.0I ■
1 I a
(.ohpirau AREA
4111
e
No Text
redevelopment activity will be supported if designed to complement and extend the positive
qualities of surrounding development..." Some of the most positive qualities of downtown and
neighboring developments are human scale, harmonious proportion and well -designed
streetscapes. This project is lacking in all three. 1 think serious redesign is in order to get the
project into an acceptable form, including.
+reduce the program
+reduce the floor to ceiling heights for all residences to 12'6" or under. Limit the
project to 3 stories.
+create human scaled proportions throughout the project.
+reduce hardscaping surrounding the project and create a more attractive and
safe streetscape
+choose a building type that is mixed -use or residential for design inspiration
+reduce the roof volume
+reconfigure the parking"
Response: The municipal planner alleges that the proposal for the site in question is
lacking in human scale, harmonious proportion and well -designed streetscapes. As has
been demonstrated above, the human scale and harmonious proportioning is being well
addressed, even if there is a difference of opinion between the planner and designer. (I
would refer to Vitruvius, Andrea Palladio, Leonardo da Vinci, Le Corbusier, and
Christopher Alexander to mention a few as those who do not share this view.)
M
items within this flower garden including but not limited to trash, vomit, feces, cigarette
butts, condoms, etc. It is my contention that this is the reason that one typically does not
observe "foundation plantings" in any established urban environment in the world. The
issue of "raising the building up on a plinth" was also raised repeatedly in the planner's
comments. This issue must be addressed. It is no mistake that the floor level of the
proposed project is 36" above the sidewalk level. Multiple experts in urban development
and new urbanism advocate this approach in order to create a livable environment on a
street which functions as an arterial. Just as no one would expect the residents of the
approved Pine Street Lofts to have their living room at grade with Jefferson or Pine Street
for obvious reasons, (The floor level of this APROVED project is 9'5" above the sidewalk
on the comer of Pine and Jefferson) we propose the 36" elevation above the adjacent
arterial as a logical and humane buffer between the urban streetscape and those units. It
also worth noting that the above -mentioned fully residential project was approved with no
foundation plantings whatsoever!
Number: 33
(3/18/05] There is virtually no distinction between the commercial and residential levels of this
building. There does not appear to be any way for a business to personalize its space. The
residents will find it very difficult to cover their windows and there is no way for residents to
personalize their space. "
Response: It is my understanding that "business personalization" is not a Land Use
Code issue, however, even if it was, it really wouldn't be much of an issue in this case.
The proposed non-residential portion of the building is quite small relative to the whole
project. The developers have been in negotiations with an internet service provider who
is attracted to the site because the owner would want to live in one of the units, and
conduct business on the main floor. ISP's as a rule, do not have many employees,
(particularly the one in question), and do not generally overly concern themselves with
business personalization of their office. The tenant's primary focus is the availability of
fiber optic connection. This is available on Cherry Street. A concern was also expressed
by the planner as it relates to the residents ability to "cover their windows", and "there is
no way for residents to personalize their space". While the "cover their windows" and
personalize their space" portions of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code seem to have
been omitted from my copy, I can tell you that window blinds do come in the sizes
proposed, and personalization is, well, personal.
Number: 34
(3118105] 1 am concerned about the safety of pedestrians where the streetscape intersects with
the drive ramp into the parking garage. Please add where the ramp starts to the site plan and
indicate clearly what happens on the edges of the ramp. It is a curb? Is it a low wall?"
Response: Katie Moore was our engineer at conceptual review, so all subsequent
questions we had relating to any engineering issues, were directed to Katie. I personally
met with Katy multiple times prior to the submittal of this PDP to discuss the issue in this
comment as well as the parking arrangement and distribution. We discussed in detail the
fact that the ramp was falling in the area of the new proposed pedestrian plaza. It is
unfortunate, that the City chose to switch engineering review staff upon submittal of the
PDP. The grading plan clearly shows that the ramp will fall, at a maximum .85' relative to
the new plaza area. This amounts to roughly 10", which is significantly less than many of
the curbs in the old town area including those surrounding the City of Fort Collins
Planning Department. If however, an open wrought iron fence would alleviate this
concern, we would gladly comply.
Number: 35
"(3/18/05) You referred to City Plan EXN 1.4 in your statement of planning objectives. This policy
concerns infill development. As you quoted, For parcels under 20 acres, such infill and
Number: 29
(3/18/05] No photometrics were submitted with this project. Two copies of the photometrics will
be required."
Response: Although we believe our comment # 19 on our sheet 1 of 8 explains how the
lighting standards in sections 3.2.4(C) & (D) are satisfied, we will do a lighting plan if
deemed absolutely necessary by Current Planning. For reference, our comment #19
stated the following:
"19. THE SITE LIGHTING WILL CONFORM TO SECTIONS 3.2.4(C) & (D) OF THE FORT
COLLINS LAND USE CODE WITH REGARD TO MINIMUM "LIGHTING LEVELS" AND
"LIGHTING STANDARDS" IN THAT: (1) THE SOUTH BUILDING SURROUNDS WILL BE
ILLUMINATED WITH THE EXISTING ON -STREET LIGHTING ALONG CHERRY STREET AND A
STANDARD DOWN -DIRECTIONAL CUT-OFF PORCH LIGHT FIXTURE ON EACH SIDE OF THE
MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR, (2) THE EAST BUILDING SURROUNDS WILL BE ILLUMINATED VIA
A STANDARD DOWN -DIRECTIONAL CUT-OFF PORCH LIGHT FIXTURE NEXT TO THE EAST
FACING ENTRY, AND (3) THE NORTHWEST SURROUNDS WILL BE ILLUMINATED VIA
STANDARD DOWN -DIRECTIONAL CUT-OFF PORCH LIGHT FIXTURES NEXT TO EACH OF
THE PATIO DOORS ON THAT FACADE. IN ALL CASES, THE LIGHT FIXTURES MUST
ILLIMUNIATE THE BUILDING SURROUNDS A MINIMUM 1.0 FOOT CANDLES, AND THE LIGHT
LEVELS WILL NOT EXCEED ONE -TENTH OF A FOOT CANDLE AT 20 FEET BEYOND THE
THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE (ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES OR
PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY), AS A RESULT OF ON -SITE LIGHTING."
Number: 30
(3/18/05] Please consult with the City Forester, Tim Buchanan regarding the existing trees on
the site. He can be reached at Tim Buchanan 221-6361, tbuchanan(cDfcaov.com."
Response: The trees have actually already been moved within the site, this has been
coordinated with Tim Buchanan.
Number: 31
(3/18/05] The ADA access to the front door should lead to the same front door as the stairs not a
secondary access on the side of the building."
Response: With regard to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, we comply with the Code on
this issue. It is our understanding that the ADA is a civil law, and to my knowledge is not
enforced by the City of Fort Collins as part of development review. We contend that it
would be at the detriment of the pedestrian scale (human scale) of the street facing
fagade to have this ramp facing Cherry Street. We've met with Rick Lee and Mike Gebo,
and from their perspective, we are in compliance with ADA requirements from a building
code perspective.
Number: 32
731181051 1 realize that this is a downtown project but given that it is primarily if not all residential,
it needs to have some foundation planning. Hardscaping completely surrounding the building is
not conductive to residential uses, especially when the building is raised up on a plinth and has
parking lot vents penetration the foundation at waist level. "
Response: With regard to foundation plantings along an urban sidewalk. I have lived in
the downtown environment for some time now, and have observed that the combination
of intense pedestrian traffic, drunks, smokers, urban dogs, the homeless inflect an
incredible amount wear and tear on anything that is not impervious. Old Town Square
has experienced this, as have I. A prime illustration of this is my flower garden. Every
spring for the last three years, I have planted a flower garden surrounding the tree to the
South East of my office. In that time, I have found an unbelievable amount of undesirable
are based on the radius of the shaft (the module). One could construct an entire temple
based on one part and the ratio. The "most perfect proportions" or the Golden Section
was the ratio of 1 to 1.618. The Cherry Street fagade of the proposed building falls
perfectly within the "Golden Section". While it may be the opinion of the reviewing
municipal planner that the proportions and massing need to be calibrated, there is a vast
body of architectural theory dating back to the Greek temples that would argue to the
contrary! Please see the attached exhibit.
Number: 27
(3/18/05] There are interesting ideas in your parking scheme but taken together, they add up to
not working. If the platform scheme is financially feasible, it is a great solution to some of your
parking constraints. By my count you could get 27 parking spaces with these alone, laid out in a
way that staff would probably support. But the remaining stalls are all long term and thus at the
smallest allowable dimensions. That coupled with the elevated spaces and triple tandem parking
does not make for a functional parking lot. There is not sufficient maneuvering room. There is no
space provided anywhere for guest parking which will be needed for this many residences, and
there are no commercial or retail parking spaces offered or space for employees if
commerciaUretail is offered. Also, since all of the units are 1 or 2 bedroom, the triple tandem
spots are problematic in that no one neighbor would control all three spots, so one neighbor
would have to call another neighbor (or two) to jockey cars in the morning! There are significant
issues in this neighborhood with parking as you are aware from the Cherry St. Lofts project.
Chevy St. is technically a collector but it functions as an arterial. While the commerciabiretail
parking is a maximum requirement, I should think that the marketability of the commercial unit
would be contingent upon sufficient parking. For these reasons, Staff will not be able to support
the modification for parking. The fact that there is not sufficient parking should bean indicator
that you are proposing too much for the site. You should seriously consider reducing the
program. "
Response: It is my opinion that providing 31 tandem parking spaces as opposed to the
required 27 spaces with vehicle lifts proposed lifts is a better solution. This is based on
my experience living downtown in a loft only a block south of the proposed project. My
wife and I personally own two vehicles. One has not been moved since April 1, 2004.
My wife uses the other roughly four times a week. While this is purely anecdotal, I have
spoken to many other urban dwellers, and have received the same sort of feed back.
Generally urban dwellers do not have substantially fewer vehicles than other
residents. However they do typically drive them much less. This led me to propose
a design solution for "archiving" little used vehicles in tandem spaces. Since the planner
has indicated that she would support a standard parking arrangement that meets the
code. I have read the writing on the wall, and would like to withdraw the parking
modification, and meet the parking requirement. The same parking requirement which
applies to Trilby, Harmony, Horsetooth, Drake, Prospect, Mulberry and Vine in our city.
Guest parking has been added to the bottom of the parking garage ramp with a "call
button" bank adjacent. 20 minute loading has also been added along Cherry Street. I
appreciate the planners concern for whether the marketability of the commercial unit
would be contingent upon sufficient parking, however Walker Parking Consultants Inc. of
Denver, and our vast cast of Brokers, marketing consultants and realtors have no
concern related to this. Please see attached revised site plan which provides the code
required parking. In addition, the attached site plan also provides guest and loading
parking.
Number: 28
(3/18/05] There are not bike facilities shown on the site plan. YouW need to provide for bike
facilities for at least 5% of the number of parking spaces."
Response: While bike storage is provided in the parking garage, we will provide public
bike parking in front of the building.
project sits adjacent to Martinez Park with hundreds of acres of open space. To the east,
there is a densely vegetated open area for a full one hundred feet before College
Avenue. I'm not sure what is meant by the comment that the building doesn't "read as
mixed use", but I am also unaware of the code section that requires mixed -use buildings
to "read as mixed use". The planner goes on to imply that a 25' foot floor to floor is
inappropriate because it begs the owner to turn it into two stories. A closer examination
of the submittal would reveal that the highest floor -to -floor height in the project is 17' —0".
In addition, we have been clear about the fact that we do propose to construct
mezzanines in these spaces. You will note that this is allowed by the land use and
building code. The planner goes on to suggest that such a ceiling height may be
appropriate for the commercial space, but that the residential spaces should conform to
the 12'-6" maximum. While there is nothing in the code to indicate that a 12'-6" maximum
ceiling height exists for residential buildings, I am aware of an administrative
interpretation #1-05 which relates to the application of the measurement of building
height in stories. On February 08, 2005, Troy Jones emailed Mr. Gloss to confirm
whether or not this interpretation would apply in the CCR zone. Mr. Gloss responded that
the interpretation "applies to residential zoning districts. We acknowledge that floor to
ceiling heights for mixed use and loft style developments are going to be different due to
the context and the method of construction."
Number: 26
[3/18/05] The proposed building has very minor variations is massing which are sufficiently out
of proportion to the other elements of the building that the result is that the building reads as a
monolith. In addition to correcting the scale of the building, the massing needs to be calibrated as
well."
Response: I assume that the planner is referring to 3.5.3(C) of the Land Use Code.
Upon reading this section, the code language of this section that applies states, "a single,
large, dominant building mass shall be avoided," and, "changes in mass shall be related
to entrances, the integral structure and/or the organization of interior spaces and
activities and not merely for cosmetic effect." In no way, shape or form is this proposed
building a "single, large, dominant building mass." Each of the three building facades has
a pediment type massing element protruding above the cornice line. Additionally, we
have pilasters that project a foot from the base massing of the building. (The Downtown
Civic Center Parking Structure's projections are less substantial in projection depth than
that of the proposed project's pilasters, and this structure seems to have met the code's
massing requirements). Finally, we propose a stainless steel and glass awning structure
that projects 10 feet out from the face of the building, above the south facing and east
facing entrances.
Each fagade has three vertical elements, three bays of fenestration on each end, and a
central projecting element framed by pilasters with a pediment, thereby integrating variety
into vertical massing. The cornice line of each fagade has a pediment element that
protrudes approximately 17 feet higher, thereby integrating variety into the horizontal
massing. It is clear that our massing meets code.
The planning reviewer goes on to say, "in addition to correcting the scale of the building,
the massing needs to be calibrated as well." While I am at a loss to identify the portion of
the Land Use Code that relates to "building massing calibration", I would offer the
following reasoning for the building massing as proposed" Throughout history, architects
have sought to create pleasing compositions by inventing proportional systems. The
ancient Greeks established the basis by which most architecture that post-dated them is
regarded as it relates to proportioning. Ancient Greek proportional systems were based
on mathematical ratios. These ratios were seen as evidence of a perfect universe that
could be demonstrated in mathematics, music, and in the human body; and therefore
their application was expected in architecture. The dimensions of most Greek temples
The planner writes in her comments "This project has elements like the windows, doors,
atrium window, floor to floor heights and plinth upon which the building sits which are
super sized to the point that the human scale of the building is seriously compromised."
The design inspiration for this building was both the downtown power plant, but also the
many grand historic train station and related buildings, which I have studied over the
years. While this building was not intended to copy or even replicate any specific
building, it does draw inspiration from them. The windows on the proposed project vary
from mulled 13' x8' on the main floor to 12' x 8' on the second floor to two 8'-6" x 4'
windows on the third floor. For reference, the windows on the Jefferson Street Station
Depot building, a modest sized one story structure are between 9'x4' and 9' x 12'. The
windows on the C&S train depot are 11'x5'. Given the additional size and mass of the
proposed building, it seemed appropriate to size the windows slightly larger than those
mentioned above, but it would be a gross exaggeration to say that these elements are
"super sized". The doors are also described as "super sized". At 12', they are certainly
not out of scale with other doors in old town. An informal survey of doors in the east side
North 100 block of College Avenue, I identified 19 entry doors which were 9'6-10' tall.
Nearly all had a large transom above them. Lastly, the plinth, which is actually a
wainscot, for the building was described by the planner as being too tall, and hostile to
the pedestrian environment and human scale, this is not true. The proposed wainscot is
7' tall. As compared to other wainscots in the area, 6' on the Jefferson Street train depot,
and 5' on the C&S depot, this hardly seems out of scale either. In addition, both of the
above mentioned depots have a very successful human scale and pedestrian
environment about them. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will as well. The
proposed project also incorporates large glass and stainless steel awnings, horizontal
stone veneer wainscots, rowlock and soldier coursing in the brickwork along with the
potential for traditional awnings along the cherry street fagade. All of this is intended to
enhance human scale interaction with the building.
Number: 25
(3118105] This is a tough leftover type of site and I appreciate your efforts to make something of
it that is code compliant. The choice of the old power plant as an inspiration for this project is
interesting in that it draws from very local history, but it is not an appropriately scaled or massed
building to use for a commerciaUretail and residential building up against the street in Downtown.
The site of the proposed building is very tight and right up against the road, in contrast with the
power plant which is on an expansive site well setback from the road. The proposed building
does not read as mixed -use. When these older buildings are converted to new uses, significant
etfort must be made to ensure that they are human scaled and use -appropriate.
In this case, building a NEW residence with 25' floor to floor heights is inappropriate because it
begs the owner to turn it into 2 stories. That is not the intent of the Land Use Code. The height
limit of this area is THREE stories, not five or seven. There is sufficient rationale for the
commercial level to perhaps have a higher ceiling than the residences, but the residential spaces
should conform to the 12Y maximum. It's one thing to retrofit an existing industrial building to
high ceilinged lofts but another thing altogether to build such floor to ceiling heights from scratch. "
Response: Buildings take on many different uses over their useful life. This has been a
fascinating subject to me over my career. The city planning department is situate in an
old lumberyard, my office was once a blacksmith and house of prostitution according to
the Fort Collins Police. Even the power plant building now functions as a university
engineering lab. It is myopic to suggest that simply because a building was originally
designed to be one thing, that it is ill suited to become another. A brief tour of LoDo
Denver will confirm this. Developers are even replicating old flourmills that are built to
become lofts. While it is true that the power plant sits away from College Avenue, there
are many examples of grand and stately buildings that sit directly on the street in nearly
any city in America. In addition, while the building is sited adjacent to Cherry Street, it is
surrounded on two of three sides by extensive open space. On the North West, the
4
a vacant parcel owned by the City (used for overflow ball field parking and mulch
distribution), and resides in a much less intense zone district. In addition, the code
requires "New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design
that is complementary". Mason Street North does not exist.
The planner takes issue with our assessment that a visual and shadow analysis is not
particularly pertinent as required by 3.5.1(G)(4)(b). As was mentioned in our Modification
of Height Limits request, the building is on the extreme North edge of downtown. Any
shadows cast by the proposed structure would fall first on the large mature trees
surrounding the building, and on the Martinez Park grassland area. Common sense
would dictate that this would not result in "casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient
to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as
reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow
and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for
more than three (3) months of the year". If however a shadow analysis is required, we
will produce one. The issue of the visual analysis is similar. The proposed structure is to
the West of a very tall dense stand of Austrian Pines. These trees already greatly reduce
views of the foothills from College Avenue and 400 North College. Again common sense
would indicate that a costly visual analysis would produce less useful information than a
simple site visit to confirm this. If a visual analysis is required however, one will be
produced. The reviewer indicates, "Had you gone through the exercise of these extra
submittal requirements I think you would have seen that this project is not compatibly
designed". (Referring to human scale). First of all, a shadow analysis or a visual
analysis would clearly not have offered any particular insight into whether the proposed
building is designed to be compatible with human scale. Secondly, it is simply not true
that the proposed architecture is not compatible with human scale. Article 5 of the land
use code defines human scale as follows:
"Pedestrian scale (human scale) shall mean the proportional relationship between the
dimensions of a building or building element, street, outdoor space or streetscape
element and the average dimensions of the human body, taking into account the
perceptions and walking speed of a typical pedestrian." Beginning with Vitruvius,
architectural thinkers have also underlined the necessity for architectural forms to have
features on a scale to which human beings can relate. Architectural scholars argue that
there are two independent aspects of scale as it relates to buildings. The first is use of
the physical contact with a building's components and dimensions, which must
accommodate people. Room sizes, staircases, placement and dimensions of doors and
windows, etc. have to be carefully fixed for maximal ease of use. A sensitive architect fits
the geometrical forms and accessible features of a building to activities on the human
scale. The second issue related to human scale as scholars argue is how a design's
subdivisions are perceived, which is solved by using a scaling heirarchy. At any given
distance, a person will connect to design components that correspond to the entire
human structural scale: the whole body; an arm's length; a foot; a hand; a finger's width,
etc. This impression is visual and relative, and depends on the changing distance
between the viewer and the structure. It is necessary to define designs that have the
complete range of internal subdivisions, regardless of the viewer's distance. Only a
building with scaling coherence provides the complete range of human scales to an
observer at any distance and from any perspective. This second principle makes a
dramatic difference to a user's experience of larger buildings. If a large building is
connected to the range of human scales through the scaling hierarchy, it is perceived in
psychologically positive terms. It could then be described as awesome, grandiose, and
impressive, in a way that is largely independent of other attributes.
Number: 24
"[3118105] Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (B) Architectural Character
states that, "new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas SHALL be
compatible with the established character of such areas.... Compatibility SHALL be
achieved through techniques such as... use of similar proportions in building mass and
outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, ..."
This project has elements like the windows, doors, atrium window, floor to floor heights
and the plinth upon which the building sits which are supersized to the point that the
human scale of the building is seriously compromised. Please compare these with the
scale of the future neighboring buildings at Mason Street North. You've claimed that the
documents required for special review for buildings over 40' are not pertinent but 1
disagree. Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)(4) states, "Buildings or structures greater than 40'
SHALL be compatible with the scale of neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms
of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale TO
HUMAN SCALE. Had you gone through the exercise of these extra submittal
requirements 1 think you would have seen that this project is not compatibly designed. I
have added scale figures and the Mason St. North facades reproduced to scale to your
building elevations for your review."
Response: Staff chose to quote the first sentence of Section 3.5.1(B), which does state;
"New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with
the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary" For whatever reason the sentence immediately following this one was
not quoted and seems to have been ignored. It states:
"In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established,
or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of
new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area."
It is my architectural assessment that the existing architectural character is not definitively
established, and the buildings currently in the vicinity of the site are not consistent with
the purposes of the Land Use Code. The closest "adjacent existing developed areas" are
the Taco Johns site and 400 North College Avenue. It is clear to me that both sites are
.not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code". Looking further into the
adjacent existing developed areas, the next closest project is the newly renovated
Schraders Country Store. While this site has recently been renovated, it is also my
architectural assessment that drawing from this context would not be consistent with the
purposes of the Land Use Code. To the south of Taco Johns are several tire stores of
dubious architectural quality. This would also be inappropriate to draw architectural
compatibility from. Looking farther out yet, roughly 500' to the south exists 281 North
College. It is clear that attempting to achieve architectural compatibility with this structure
would not be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code. 670' to our Northwest
lies the next closest existing architectural character, the Martinez P.U.D. Given the fact
that these Neo-Victorian residential and commercial structures are such a distance from
the site, (across two train tracks, a public and private street, a city bike trail, and two
vacant parcels) it is my opinion that these Martinez P.U.D. structures do not offer relevant
architectural context. This is reinforced by the fact that this area is zoned LMN, while our
site is zoned CCR. The only development "adjacent to existing developed area" that the
city planner chose to cite is not even existing! It is suggested that we should design our
building to be compatible with a project, which was originally approved in 1997. It was
then redesigned several years later, and has been approved since January 2002. In fact,
this project recently received the last available extension available from the Currently
Planning Department. Not only is the Mason Street North project over 400' from our
proposed building, but as mentioned above, it is across two train tracks, a public street,
1�c
Me
To: Cameron Gloss
From: Mikal Torgerson
Date: March 28, 2004
Intro
It is my nderstanding that role of a public sector municipal planner in the
devel men, review process is to ensure that the provisions of the Land Use
Cod are complied with, and make a recommendation to the decision maker
ba don whether or not the development application complies with the code.
Ar hitectural criticism, from the perspective of a public sector municipal planner,
ST be clear between recommendations and requirements, and in the case of
ese draft comments, this differentiation is not clear. Furthermore, it is my
nderstanding that when a comment is deemed to be a requirement, the staff
member making the comment is expected to reference the specific code section
of the requirement. The majority of the Current Planning draft comments haven't
referenced any code requirements. That being said, in advance of the formal
comments, we respectfully request that the draft comments be based on code.
not on opinions or preferences of the reviewing municipal planner. I think it
would be helpful for you to have the benefit of hearing my specific response to
each individual draft comment, so please see my responses below.
Comments & Responses
"[3118105] There are serous problems with this plan that mafs
unefrom a code compliance point of view, but also likely from ark ing andconstruction perspective. Unless these major design issues resolved, !
be unable to recommend approval."
Response: Given the fact that the LUC is silent on th
marketing and construct ability, these sorts of commL
II
inappropriate to have included in the formal City of
ncomments.
Since it was brought up however, it sh0
n
t we
have conduced numerous meetings with realtors an
consultants related to the marketability of this project
and their
comments and input was incorporated into this desigr.
An informal
"marketing package" has been assembled, and with
Po formal marketing
f any kind, we already have several buyers wanting o sign contracts as
s on as it is legally permissible. I have also selectec a building
co ractor, and have met with them numerous times long with every
majo ub-contractor, mechanical, structural and ele rical engineering
consulfkt. I have been assured that the building is i in budget, and
certainly nstructible" despite the tight site constrai its.
Mal S. Forgenm, AiA, NCARB
223 N [allege
Fort Collim, CO 80524
970.4167431
988.4161431
Fax: 970.416.7435
Email_ mikal®archilex.com
hHp:/ / VAWW AIchi fex.cam