Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - PDP - PDP150019 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSDepartment: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970.221-6704, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 eolson(aD.fcgov.com Comment Originated: 09/24/2015 09/24/2015. Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. Response: Russian Sage has been removed from the plant list. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2015 09/24/2015: The overall water budget for the property appears to need adjusting. Please confirm water use values of landscape demands with overall landscape area. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. :espouse: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/24/2015 09/24/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson(@fcgov.com Res^ors- Acknowledged. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen a().fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please see redlines. Response: Redlines have been addressed. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Topic: Site Plan Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: It's still unclear if you are meeting the parking requirements. Are these rent by the bedroom? Also, the commercial square footage on the first floor will need to be listed. You will have parking requirements for the commercial use. Response: Please see Site Plan Comment Response #5. above. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please make changes to the sub -title as marked. See redlines. Response: The changes have been made. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please make changes to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision as marked. See redlines. Response: The changes have been made. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please add new title commitment information as available. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please explain the need for the vertical component of the Sight Distance Easement. Response: The upper portions of the building will overhang into the easement so it is prudent to add a vertical component to the easement limiting the easement so that it does not encroach on the building. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Sheet LS001 is numbered as LS100. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/2912015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: Something to keep in mind is ensuring adequate sight distance in the alley to the parking area, and from the alley onto Locust (potentially removing a parking spot on Locust). We can work on this during final. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlamt@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated 09/29/2015: Saw comment will wait for FDP for Erosion control requirements. The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam(o fcoov.com Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty.@fcuov.com Topic: Building Elevations 09/29/2015 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/2912015: Please make changes to the sub -title as marked. See redlines. Response: The changes have been made. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: The elevation for benchmark 28-92 does not match what was published in 2013. Please verify. Response: The changes have been made. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Sheet C200 is numbered as C100. See redlines. Response: The changes have been made. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: The changes have been made. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These changes have been made. 09/29/2015: Please break the site down into subbasins to show what areas are being treated by what LID measure. An LID table would be helpful (please email dmogen@fcgov.com for a sample if desired). Water quality is required for 100% of the site so if there are areas that are draining undetained, these will need to be identified and explained. Response: The requested LID exhibit was provided shortly after the last submittal. As discussed, the majority of the project will be treated using the porous paver area or planters along the west side of the building. There are still areas along the south side of the building that are not being treated. These areas are not being treated because of the need for the roof form to fit in the historic neighborhood context. However, over 80% of the project site will be treated by LID measures, far exceeding the requirement of 50%. We understand from discussions with staff that 100% of a project needs to be treated for water quality. The requirement for the roof form to match the surrounding area combined with the limited space on the south side of the building precludes the small roof areas from being treated. However, the roof areas are being released into landscape areas within the public ROW, so the water is still being treated. Furthermore, roof areas are generally a less intense type of stormwater runoff, as their exposure to pollutants are much lower than areas that are exposed to pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as is currently the case on the existing site. With this in mind, as well as the fact that the remainder of the site will not only have water quality provided but will also be treated by LID measures, it is the applicants belief that the design as shown provides suitable water quality that is equal to or better than that required by code. If a formal variance request is needed, or additional info is required, please let us know. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: It appears there is a discrepancy between the water quality planter locations called out on the Utility Plans and Landscape Plans. Please review for consistency. Response: The planter locations are now coordinated and only shown along the College frontage, outside of the ROW. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Will water quality planters be permitted in the right of way? This needs to be coordinated for approval with the Engineering Department. The planters will need to be in an easement if they are not located within the ROW. Response: No planters are proposed within the ROW. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09129/2015 09/29/2015: Please modify the water quality planter detail (shown on Sheet LS501) to be consistent with the proposed bioretention. Please include a volume for ponding at the top (calculated thru spreadsheet available from Urban Drainage), bioretention media mix at least 12" in depth, pea gravel at least 4" in depth, and #57 washed rock at least 4" in depth. Filter fabric is not to be used in the bioretention cross section. Response: The planter detail has been updated, see LS501 Detail D. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please show that the water quality planters are in compliance with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). Response: The planters utilize the standard bio-retention media and have subdrains provided, which facilitates the quick draining of the planters. If additional documentation is needed, please specify what this would be, and we will provide it. during emergency operations that are inherent in taller buildings. Even if the project is unable to meet the prescriptive requirements of the International Fire Code, it will still need to meet the intent of the code. As such, fire department approval will be based upon the project team taking a hard look at the high rise provisions of the 2012 IFC and presenting a plan to the fire marshal for review and approval which incorporates appropriate measures to ensure occupant life safety and resolve firefighter operational concerns. Possible alternatives may include (but may not be limited to) adding areas of refuge, roof access for both stairwells, hose connections on the roof, additional fire separation within the building, pressurized stairwells, etc. Feel free to contact me for additional input or guidance. Code language provided below. Response: Per meeting with Jim Lynxwiler on Friday, November 6, 2015, we will make a formal proposal to add the following measures to deal with the 35-36' distance we have from the building to the fire lane: 1. Provide an area of refuge at the west stair 2. Provide both a "ship's" ladder and roof access hatch to both the west and east 2- hour rated stairwells 3. Extend the stand pipe to be located at the east stair to the roof level and provide a hose connection > FIRE LANES IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire -sprinkler system. Response: Comment Acknowledged. > AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Response: Please see response to PFA Comment No. 1. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmoaen(&fcuov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: The existing site and historical stormwater fees paid have been investigated and it has been determined that water quantity detention is not required at this time. Response: The legal description has been updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/02/2015 10/02/2015: A commercial service information form (Cl form) and a one line diagram for the commercial meter will need to be completed and submitted to Light and Power Department. C1 form can be found at the below link: http://www.fcgov. com/uti litieslbusi ness/bu ilders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/02/2015: A digital copy of the AutoCAD drawings will need to be submitted to Light and Power once the plans are approved. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/02/2015: Light & Power will need the following documentation before electric design can start. Approved Slte plan, plat, Landscape drawings and one line diagram. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickeyaO.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated 09/16/2015: Comment from Xcel -Max gas pressure is 14" WC. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/23/2015: Comment from Larimer County - My review comments are within the Subtitle of the Plat and also in the Statement of Ownership and Subdivision. Right now the prelim has for the subtitle, Lot 6, Block 128 FTC, in the Southeast quarter section 12, Twn 7, Range 69. Please correct this to the Northwest quarter section 13-7-69. Lot 6, Block 123, City Fort Collins... Please correct to Block 128, FTC, Northwest quarter section 13 in the statement of subdivision. Response: The section has been updated on both the plat and cover sheet. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilvnxwiler ftoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 09/16/2015 09/23/2015 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: FIRE ACCESS The location of the building footprint and overall building height place the building out of both general fire access (access to within 150' to all exterior portions of the building) and aerial fire access (30' wide fire lane located no farther than 30' from the building). Fire access cannot be measured from arterial roads or alleys. Although the building is not a high rise by definition, site limitations and building dimensions create many of the same access challenges 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24" Response: Comment Acknowledged. 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. Response: Comment Acknowledged. All units are either Type A or B Accessible. 5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 7. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 9. Low VOC interior finishes. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 10. The wall closer than 3ft to north property line must be a 1-hour wall with no openings (windows/doors). Wall also requires a parapet. Response: There is no wall closer than 3 ft. to the property line. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund(cDfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Will 3 phase power be needed for the commercial/retail space? Response: It is unknown at the time, but it is anticipated that we will need it. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building for the residential units. Electric meter gangs shall be separated from the gas meters. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Electric Capacity Fees, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 416-2772. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at hftp://www.fcgov.com/util ities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Acknowledged. 09/29/2015 09/28/2015: Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting: Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Response: Comment Acknowledged. We are planning to set up a pre -submittal meeting in the next 2 weeks. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. 830 — project specific concerns: 1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required. A new code amendment effective in 2014 will require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system. Response: Comment Acknowledged. 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general comments regarding proportions: The step down height works well, the LPC was comfortable with the proportions of the building that it was broken down well and addresses compatibility with the neighborhood and Scott Apartment building. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general comments regarding the gable roof portion: LPC thought that the roof forms speak to the residential nature of the historic district. Consider adding craftsman elements to the gable roof, for example, exposed rafter ends. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general comments regarding the flat roofs: Take a second look at these to soften them by using a design element, such as parapeting, or explain why you decided to keep them as is. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general comments regarding materials: LPC thought that the brick material is compatible with the adjacent Fort Collins Landmark, Scott Apartments. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general comments regarding windows: The proportion of stair tower is successful, but take a second look at the patterning. The windows on the east portion of the building correctly borrow elements from the adjacent building and residential neighborhood. Response: Comment Acknowledged, The LPC made general suggestions regarding greenery: Provide landscape plan with the next submittal. Response: Comment Acknowledged. The LPC made general suggestions regarding setbacks: Provide a drawing that shows the dimensions of the setbacks of the proposed development compared to the setbacks of the Fort Collins Landmark, Scott Apartments. Response: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: Contact Karen McWilliams, at kmcwilliams@fcgov.com, to schedule the Final Review and Recommendation to Decision Maker of this development proposal with the LPC. Response: Comment Acknowledged. We have submitted the project for Final Review of the LPC scheduled for November 18th. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovlandOfcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/28/2015 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 tbuchanan(a)fcgov.com Comment Originated: 10/09/2015 10/09/2015: For the new street trees along college use Bur Oak to match the existing Bur Oak. Response: Acknowledged, see LP103. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/09/2015 10/09/2015: Provide tree inventory information on the landscape Plan. Exiting trees should be identified by location with the species, condition, intent to retain or remove and mitigation recorded for each tree. Response: Acknowledged, see LP101. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/09/2015: Show location of street lights and provide tree- light separation of 40 feet for canopy shade trees or 15 feet for ornamental trees. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Katie Dorn, kdorn(afcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10/09/2015 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) met on September 28, 2015 at a Work Session to review this Preliminary/Conceptual development proposal. Response: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: "LUC 3.4.7(F)(2): 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." In order to comply with 3.4.7(F)(2), the following suggestion was made by LPC: Consider a soldier course or row lock brick pattern that ties into the horizontal elements expressed in the Fort Collins Landmark, "Scott Apartments," across Locust Street to the proposed development. Response: A horizontal row of brick veneer soldier coursing with rowlock directly above and below has been added at the second floor level to reflect the existing brick detailing in the adjacent historic Scott Building to the south. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: 09/30/2015: Does the transformer shown on the property just west of the alley right-of-way need to be in an easement? Response: At this time, it is unclear if an easement will be required. If an easement is needed, it can be easily added at final design. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberaerta7fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/09/2015 10/09/2015: The project owes an additional $2,749 for the PDP TDRF. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, Topic: General Comment Number: 3 reverette cDfcgov.com Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Our city has an established identity as a forward -thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens and has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit your project. Of particular interest may be the: 1. ClimateWise program: http://www.fcgov.com/climatewise/ 2. Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP): http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com 3. Green Building and the Climate Action Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 9704164238 or traeker@fcgov.com 4. Nature in the City Strategic Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/? key=advanceplanning/natureinthecityl, contact Lindsay Ex at 970-221-6767 or lex@fcgov.com Please consider the City's sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage with these efforts. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: How tall will the "vine fence" be? Will it be irrigated? Response: The vines will be irrigated, the fence is 6' tall, refer to LS501, Detail I. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Detailed specifications for the light fixtures that will be used will be requded at the time of Final Plans. In regard to LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian rhythms for both humans and wildlife. Please consider a warmer color temperature (closer to 2700K) for your LED light fixtures. Response: Acknowledged, see LL101. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: In addition to potentially less concrete west of the existing ramp, it seems that less concrete east of the ramp could also occur, which would match the feel of the sidewalk system to the south. Response: The sidewalk and ramp configuration has been modified to minimize the amount of concrete flatwork at the corner. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The placement of sidewalk along Locust is narrowing the amount of detachment and reducing the parkway that's been established in the surrounding area (to the east and to the south). The sidewalk should maintain the same alignment that's been established east of the alley. Response: Additional meetings with staff have determined that the walk alignment as shown is acceptable. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The proposed sight distance easement shown should be dedicated as right-of-way (a 10' x 10' triangle) in accordance with 7-11 F/12F. Regardless of whether this area is sight distance or right-of-way, the placement of bike racks with associated bike parking is problematic in this area and the bike parking should be shown outside of this area. Response: Due to the prohibition of buildings being located within public right-of-way, the project would like to maintain this triangle as an easement so that upper portions of the building can protrude into the space. The bike racks and building column have been moved out of the triangle. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The landscape wall along College Avenue sidewalk should be set back 2 feet from the back of walk in accordance with Figure 16-1 of LCUASS. Response: The landscape wall has been removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The landscape plan shows pre -cast planters in the Locust Street right-of-way and appears to specify them as water quality planters. The civil plans do not reflect this. The placement of planters in the right-of-way would be an encroachment that should be outside of right-of-way, and if they are needed to meet a water quality requirement, it is of further concern that it's shown in right-of-way on the landscape plan. Response: The planters along Locust have been removed from the landscape plans. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: Shouldn't the plat be calling out the lot created with the replat as Lot 1, instead of Lot 6? Response: The lot number has been changed to Lot 1. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: With the right-of-way dedication for the 10' x 10' triangle the plat language for dedication should be the standard language, not limiting conveyance to just easements. Response: As mentioned, due to the prohibition on buildings within public ROW, it is desired by the project to provide the required triangle as an easement. As such, the language has not been changed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The permeable pavers shown would need to stop 5 feet short of the alley right-of-way (and specify the use of a concrete cut-off wall and associated details at time of final plan). Response: The pavers now stop 5' from the alley ROW. Need for cutoff wall at final acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The edge of alley pavement and its relation to the right-of-way line along with the proposed site improvements illustrating how everything ties in together is unclear. Further information is needed which depending on the amount of impact to the alley, may require additional alley pavement improvements than what is currently specified. Is the undergrounding of utilities indicated along the alley occurring under alley pavement? Response: Due to the preliminary design, the exact location and identification of which, if any, utilities will be placed underground as well as their location within the alley ROW are still to be determined. Additional coordination between providers and the City are anticipated during final design, at which time the need for additional alley improvements can be addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The existing access ramp at Locust and College would need to be reconfigured with truncated dome detection. Response: The access ramp has been reconfigured and truncated domes have been added. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015: The plans show with a dashed line that the building is overhanging onto right-of-way for both Locust Street and the alley. The design of the building should not have portions of the building extending into right-of-way. Response: The upper potions of the building do not overhand beyond the main level or into the ROW. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/3012015: The plans show doors swinging open that would encroach onto Locust Street right-of-way. The design should be modified to either recess the doors to ensure doors swinging open remain on private property, or the doors (if building code allowed) swing into the building as opposed to out of the building. Response: The door swings have been changed to swing inward and no longer swing into the ROW. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/3012015: Tom Knostman, Pavement Manager for City Streets is looking to reduce the amount of concrete being provided, from the back of curb along College Avenue to the access ramp directing across Locust. This concrete wouldn't appear to be needed with pedestrians not being directed to the west across College Avenue, and it additional affords more area in which snow clearing operations along College Avenue could utilize without clearing snow onto sidewalks. Response: The sidewalk and ramp configuration has been modified to minimize the amount of concrete flatwork at the comer. Response: Acknowledged, see modification request. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: The tree mitigation legend on the Landscape Plan is confusing. The legend doesn't show any trees that will be removed as part of this development plan yet the plan calls for 3 mitigation trees. Will the existing Swamp White Oak be removed or will it be protected? Response: Please refer to the revised sheet LP101 Tree Protection and Inventory Plan Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/25/2015 09/25/2015. The site plan shows 27 parking spaces, which is 2 spaces short of the minimum required per Land Use Code 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1). You will require more parking given that the first floor will have commercial uses as well. Please provide a modification request to this standard or show how the proposed site plan meets the code via the alternative compliance strategies outlined in 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1)(a). Response: Commercial/Retail Space: 2,436 S.F of leasable space Based on LUC 3.2.2(K)(2)(b): "Existing Buildings Exemption: Change in use of an existing building shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the expansion or enlargement of an existing building which does not result in the material increase of the building by more than twenty-five (25) percent, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the redevelopment of a property which includes the demolition of existing buildings, the minimum parking requirement shall be applied to the net increase in the square footage of new buildings. " Our Rationale based on LUC 3.2.2(K)(2)(b): The existing C-store and related retail building on site currently is 3,439 S.F. The proposed area of commercial/retail use is 2,436 S.F. Since the proposed commercial/retail S.F. area is less than the existing building use on site and there is no net increase in square footage with the new building, this project would be exempt from minimum parking requirements. In addition to this, this project is providing an another 12 on -street parking spaces on Locust that do not currently exist. Residential Units: Unit Tvoe Parking Required 2"a Floor Studio/1 Bdrm — (7) 5.25 2 Bdrm — (5) 5 3`tl Floor Studio/1 Bdrm — (7) 5.25 2 Bdrm — (5) 5 4`h Floor Studio/1 Bdrm — (6) 4.5 2 Bdrm — (4) 4 Total Parking 29 Minus (10%) 2.9 (10% Demand Mitigation Strategy for Transit Passes for each tenant per LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1)(a)) Total Parking Req'd. 26.1 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a))fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Response: A horizontal row of brick veneer soldier coursing with rowlock directly above and below has been added at the second floor level to reflect the existing brick detailing in the adjacent historic Scott Building to the south. The design team evaluated changing the stair, flat roof elements but felt that they are appropriate with this design and have been integrated with the gable roof forms via the dormer elements. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09115/2015: Comment from GIS - Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. Response: Comment Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: How many square feet will the commercial use be? The vehicle and bike parking required for this project will change depending on the amount of commercial use you are proposing. Resposne: Refer to response for Site Plan Comment Number 5 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Similar to the previous comment, the amount of commercial will impact the setback requirements along College and Locust. If this is a true mixed -use project, the setback standards in 3.5.3 will apply. This means you would need a modification to achieve the 9' setback along College. According to LUC section 3.5.3(C)(2), the minimum setback for mixed -use buildings along an arterial is 10'. If this is a multi -family project, the setback standards in 3.8.30(E)(3) would apply. This would require a minimum 15' setback on College and a 9' setback on Locust. In this instance, you would require a modification to both setbacks and staff would be unlikely to support that modification request. Response: This is a mixed -use building. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/25/2015 09/25/2015: There is no interior landscaping shown for the parking area. 6% of the interior of the interior space of the parking lot is required to be landscaped per Land Use Code section 3.2.2(M)(1). Please submit a modification request to this standard. F6rt Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentreview November 09, 2015 Craig Russell Russell + Mills Studios 141 S. College Ave Ste 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: College Eight Thirty, PDP150019, 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, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224.6045, cfrickeyta7.fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/22/201r, 09/22/2015: Please provide staff with a material board that contains samples of the proposed materials. Staff is concerned with the quality of the materials shown at the ground level in particular. Response: Based on the timing of this submittal and when building construction is likely to start, we would prefer not to submit a material board at this time due to fluctuations in building material costs and availability. Please also note that a material board of the proposed materials in not required by the PDP check list or Land Use Code. The brick veneer will be of high quality and chosen to compliment the historic Scott Apartment building to the south. It is the intent that the synthetic stone veneer will be chosen to emulate local sandstone material. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/30/2015 09/30/2015. Staff agrees with the Landmark Preservation Commission's recommendations provided at their work session on September 28th. A soldier course or other horizontal element that relates to the Scott Building would improve the project's compatibility with surrounding historic resources. Increased greenery and landscaping along Locust would also contribute positively to the project's compatibility. Please also explore alternatives to the flat roof elements.