Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOWNTOWN TRANSIT FACILITY - PDP - 9-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSDOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS ON ARCHITECTURE 12a The number of sheets submitted to the different departments varied as the entire set was submitted to James Stratis who as Rehabilitation Specialist would be concerned with both the exterior and interior of the building. Only sheets documenting the outside of the building and site conditions were submitted to the planning department. There is no discrepancy in the proposed elevations. 12b The scope of the project has changed since the previous submittal, and the addition to the existing building is no longer a part of the project. The majority of the comments generated by the Landmark Preservation Commission were focused on the addition to the existing building. We continue to consult with the Landmark Preservation Commission as the design proceeds. We will resubmit to the Landmark Preservation Commission in August for comments. 12b.i. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12b.ii. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. The new aluminum storefront systems in the existing building are designed to reflect the divided lite qualities of the upper portion of the existing freight doors. 12b.iii. Spandrel glass will be used in the upper portion of the restored existing freight doors as a new insulated wall system will be built directly behind the existing freight doors to remain. The glass in the new aluminum storefront systems will be tinted slightly for sun control but will have opacity well below 60%. None of the glass will be reflective. 12b.iv.The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12b.v. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12c. Reference the revised building elevations. 12d. Reference the revised building elevations. 12e. Reference the revised building elevations. 12f. Reference the revised building elevations. 12g. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12h. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12i. The comment is no longer applicable as the addition to the existing building is no longer part of the project. 12j. See the revised drawings. 12k. As soon as the final location of service utility equipment is determined it will be screened from view using masonry wall systems compatible with the existing historic structure. (i) See landscape plan 0) See landscape plan (k) Due to design changes the comment is no longer valid 12. Refer to architectural responses for comments referring to architecture Again we would like to thank you all for your help in making this a better project. If you require any further information please let me know. Thank you, for bha design,inc Russell Lee Downtown Transit Center Page 3 of 3 June 27, 2000 2. There will be no fence on the site. 3. Typical seating canopies have been dimensioned 4. See drawings 5. Refer to architectural elevations for trash enclosure design. 6. See drawings 7. Refer to attached architectural responses 8. Refer to attached architectural responses Natural Resources: 1. We worked with the City Forester (Tim Buchanen) in specifying the trees and shrubs on this project. Forestry: 1. Adjustments have been made to the planting plan. Current Planning: 1. Plans are submitted before the June 29' deadline 2. Property lines have been delineated 3. Building dimensions have been shown. 4. Index of drawings have been provided 5. Sheet labeling has been individualized. 6. Per request of Ron Fuchs we are submitting a revised context map showing more detail of the surrounding area.. 7. A scale has been provided on all sheets 2. Architectural features have been cross referenced on the site plan. 9. See Plans 10. See site plan 11. (a) Refer to attached alternative compliance (b) A ratio of 1 tree per 20 feet has been provided along the west side of the property to buffer the bus loading area. (c) Minimum species diversity is provided. See landscape plan (d)A ratio of 1 tree per 20 feet has been provided along the west side of the property to buffer the bus loading area. Street trees have been adjusted to 40' on center. (e) The walkways along the parking are lined with trees spaced 40' on center. (f) Due to design changes the comment is no longer valid (g) Due to design changes the comment is no longer valid (h) Due to design changes the comment is no longer valid Downtown Transit Center Page 2 of 3 June 27, 2000 i' �PoO June 27,-1999 Mr. Ron Fuchs Current Planning City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80522 RE: Downtown Transit Center - Responses to City Comments Ron, We are pleased to resubmit the Downtown Transit Center PDP for your review. We are submitting the required number of documents based upon your requests. If you require any additional copies please let me know. We have revised the PDP drawings and the Engineering drawings based upon your comments. We have the following responses to your comments: Water and Utility Department: 1. The required landscape/utility separations have been provided. 2. Also refer to redlined engineering plans with attached comments. Stormwater Utility Department: 1. Refer to redlined engineering plans with attached comments. Transportation Planning: 1. Cross -walks have been illustrated as requested. Engineering Department: 1. Utility plan changes have been incorporated into the site and landscape plans. 2. Also refer to redlined engineering plans with attached comments. Zoning Department: 1. Landscape note 10 has been changed. Downtown Transit Center June 27. 2000 Page 1 of 3