Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP - FDP130056 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSThe Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4114 We have added foundation plantings to as much of the perimeter of the building as possible, working within constraints presented by existing utilities and the storm water channel on the west side. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The modification on the handicap parking spaces is okay as long as the handicap spaces are moved to the first floor of the parking structure and a sign is added to the entrance stating "all handicap parking in the parking structure is located on the first floor." We have provided 4 structured handicap parking spaces on the ground level of the deck and 6 handicap parking spaces in the lot directly north of the parking structure. Signage S12/A at the entry in the west bay indicates all spaces are at first level. Reference Drawing AP101. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01121/2014 01/21/2014: We would like to see a mock-up demonstration of the modification for the drive aisle width to insure the public can safely navigate the proposed 15' width. We have incorporated the modification to standards for drive aisle widths with auto -cad turning template to substantiate safe maneuverability for standard and compact cars in the proposed 15' width. See supporting document. Page 20 6D0 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 214114 Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffingtonMcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The relocation of the sanitary sewer is currently under review; therefore, comments on the sewer location and resulting easement will await the revised location. The location shown and 15 foot easement are not adequate allow for future maintenance and replacement of this sewer. The proposed garage has been shifted 15' to the west as flood control channel conveyance has been demonstrated. A 30' utility and access easement will be dedicated by replat along the east property line Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The water service connection is shown in an area where the water main was lowered to pass under three storm sewers and a sanitary sewer. The water main is 10+ feet deep in this location. An alternate point of connection is needed. Alternate connection point set to just north of the fire hydrant in Choice Center Drive, maintaining 10' separation from the existing sewer service. See utility plan, sheet C2.0. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: A 4" water service seems larger than needed for a parking garage and will result in high development fees and raw water requirements. If a 4" is needed, provide the estimated peak day flow rate in gallons ser minute and the estimated annual usage in gallons for calculating the fees and the raw water requirement. The drawings have been revised to reflect a 1" water service. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970416-2743, avandeutekornAfcaov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 1/21/2014: LUC 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) Foundation plantings are required in high -use or high -visibility areas of at least 5 feet wide and 50% of such walls. All four sides are fairly visible, at the least, the South side wall needs to have the 50% required foundation plantings. Page 19 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 01/21/2014: There are text over text issues on sheet C1.0. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: There is missing text on sheet 2. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanfordiafcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Traffic Op's will restrict parking on W. Stuart leaving 3 parking spaces near the west end. Comment acknowledged, but applicant would like to point out that these spaces are not a part of Lot 1. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Aaron Iverson, 970416-2643, aiverson(a.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Would like to see the number of total bicycle parking spaces closer to the required overall total (for entire project), bumping up enclosed as much as possible. In addition to the 378 bike rack spaces already on site, we have proposed to add approximately 154 additional bicycle spaces in racks on the ground level of the parking deck (indicated on revised architectural floor plans), all of which will be covered, lighted and securable. Additionally, we propose to purchase 100 bike stands to be assigned to tenants on an as requested basis for storage of bikes in individual units if desired. The stand that we propose is moveable so as to not interfere with ADA / FHA clearance requirements and can be viewed at hftp://www.orsracksdirect.com/delta-manet-floor- stand.html We would be willing to purchase additional stands should more be demanded by tenants, but feel it imprudent to agree to purchase (and store) quantities above this number unless sufficient tenant demand is demonstrated. The proposed additions of covered bike storage in the parking deck and the stands for use in units would brino our total bike storage capacity to 632 which is almost equal to the number of beds available for tenants (and the occupancy achieved Year 1)� s '7 oQ (ob5 , Page 18 property line. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 26 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please show the right of way of Stuart Street and the recording document dedicationg the street. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please dimension and tie the 10' power line easement (Bk 1723 Pg 728). If someone different than the City, please note. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please check the distance marked in Detail D. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please check the areas marked in Detail F. See redlines. Comment addressed. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please remove "Replat Of"from the legal description on sheet 1. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please change the subdivision name to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please change the "NAGVD" to "NGVD" in the benchmark description on sheet 1. These are not necessary for the Site Plans, and can be removed. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The title for sheet 2 in the index on sheet 1 does not match sheet 2. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Page 17 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 01/21/2014: Please correct the Land Use Breakdown note as shown. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please correct the note #2 as marked. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: If you are using the Basis Of Bearings as shown in note #3, you should be showing it on the Plat. This is not necessary, since this Plat is replatting a portion of an existing Subdivision Plat. You may use an existing lot line. Comment noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: If the section line is used for the Basis Of Bearings, you will need to provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. If this is the case, please email the monument records directly to Jeff County at icounty aVcgov.com. Comment noted. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please revise note #4, if there have been updates to the title commitments. If easements have been granted since the date of the commitment how do you know? Comment noted.. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please review note #5 carefully and remove any items that don't affect Lot 1. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: All of the curve data contains double labeling for the delta angle. Please remove one of them. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: All easements must be locatable. See redlines. Comment noted. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please add "not accepted" to all found comers whos position was not accepted. See redlines. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please change the delta angle degrees to 2 digits on the curve along the west Page 16 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 01/21/2014: There are text over text issues on sheet CE1.0. See redlines. Text over text issues corrected on sheet CE1.0. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: FLOOR PLANS: If these plans are filed, they will need to be 24"06" sized sheets. All plan sheets are now 24"x36" Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please change the subdivision name to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please remove the legal description from sheet 1. It is not necessary. Addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/2112014: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheet 1. See redlines. Addressed per redlines. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: These plans will need to be 24"06" sized sheets. All plan sheets are now 24"x36" Topic: Plat Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Please rename the Plat to Choice Center Second Filing. Comment addressed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: You may keep the metes & bounds description in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision for internal reasons if necessary, but from our standpoint the description is "Lot 1, Choice Center". See redlines. Comment noted. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Is Guaranty Bank And Trust Company a lienholder? No, this is a holdover from the original plat and has been corrected. The current lienholder is PNC Real Estate. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Page 15 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 Water quality pond grading shown on the plans and sizing calcs provided in the drainage report. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/2412014: The PLD/water quality pond needs to be landscaped more than just grass seed mix per the detention pond landscape standards. We have added plant material around the water quality pond and are proposing an attractive "river rock" surface of the proposed water quality pond area. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty(cUcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 01/21/2014: Please provide the plans at 24"x36" sized sheets. All plan sheets are 24"x36" Comment Number: 2 01/21/2014: The smaller text is hard to read. See revised 24"x36 sheets. The text is now easier to read Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Is the description for benchmark C 322 on sheet C0.0 what is stamped on the benchmark? The NGS describes it as "C 322 Reset 1959". Benchmark description revised on sheet C0.0. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The benchmarks on sheet C0.2 do not match what is shown on sheet C0.0. Benchmarks revised on sheet C0.2 to match C0.0. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet C1.0. See redlines. Line over text issues corrected on sheet C1.0. Comment Number: 6 01/21/2014: Please mask all text in the profiles. Text has been masked in the profiles. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Page 14 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 equipment associated with the elevator will either be elevated at or above the RFPE, or that all equipment will be floodproofed. Include a note stating sensors will be included with the elevator that will return the elevator to one of the upper floors (state which floor) in case of flooding. Elevator notes added to the Floodplain Exhibit, sheet C1.3. 7. If the parking garage will be vented allowing floodwaters to pass into and then out of the structure, show the location and sizes of those vents on the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1.0). The vents should be located on the upstream and downstream sides of the structure, and the total square inches of open vent space should equal or exceed the total square feet of the ground floor of the parking garage. Venting sizes and locations are shown on the Floodplain Exhibit, sheet C1.3. 8. The red -lined comments in the "Preliminary Drainage Report for the Summit on College Parking Garage" should all be addressed. All redline comments in the drainage report have been addressed. 9. In the drainage report, include the following: a. Discuss the floodplain modeling report which will be needed to prove that the parking garage will not cause a rise, or less than 0.3' drop, to the BFE or a change to the floodway boundary. Explain why the report is needed, etc. b. Discuss the type of foundation which will be used. c. Describe how the development will be in compliance with Chapter 10 of City Code. e. Include a table, listing the finished floor of the parking garage, the BFE at the upstream edge of the parking garage, the RFPE for the parking garage, and the minimum elevation of all duct work, heating, ventilation, electric systems, etc. (NAVD88). Comments noted and drainage report revised accordingly. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: A drainage easement is required for the realigned storm sewer and the proposed water quality pond. Drainage easements will be dedicated by replat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: Pleas show the grading of the water quality pond on the plans with all details and provide sizing calcs in the drainage report. Page 13 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 01/21/2014: 1.On the Plat, the FEMA 100-year floodway and floodplain boundaries should match FEMA Map Panel Number 08069C0979H, dated May 2, 2012. Contact Shane Boyle (sboyle@fcgov.com) to obtain the floodplain line work if needed. FEMA boundaries updated to match current effective linework on the plat. 2. On Sheets 2 and 3 of the Site Plan, include and label the FEMA 100-year floodway and floodplain boundaries. These boundaries should match the Map Panel referenced in Note 1. These boundaries, labels and notes have been added to the plans. 3. Please revise or amend the notes on the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1.0) to include the following notes: a. Portions of this property are located in the FEMA-regulatory 100-year Spring Creek floodplain and floodway, and must conform to the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. b. All development in the floodway (including the parking garage, fill, excavation, landscaping, etc.) must be certified by appropriate floodplain modeling techniques to cause no -rise in the BFE and the floodway boundary, or any more than a 0.3' fall to that BFE. After construction, the work must be recertified prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. c. A FEMA Elevation Certificate must be approved prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. d. All development in the floodplain (including the parking garage, fill, excavation, landscaping, etc.) must be preceded by an approved Floodplain Use Permit. e. Storage of equipment or materials, whether temporary or permanent, is not allowed in the floodway. f. Any items which can float (such as picnic tables, bike racks, etc.) that are located in the floodway must be anchored. All notes added to the Floodplain Exhibit, sheet C1.3. 4. Please include the most recent the FEMA 100-year floodway and floodplain boundaries, as well as the cross -sections and the BFE lines on the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1.0). Reference NAVD 88 elevations on the cross sections and BFE lines. Boundaries, cross sections, and BFEs added to the Floodplain Exhibit, sheet C1.3. 5.On the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1.0), include a detail drawing, showing the finished floor of the parking garage, the BFE at the upstream edge of the parking garage, the RFPE for the parking garage, and the minimum elevation of all duct work, heating, ventilation, electric systems, etc., and a table showing all of those elevations (NAVD88). Detail drawing and table added to the Floodplain Exhibit, sheet C1.3. 6.On the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1.0), include information about the elevator, showing the type of elevator specified (traction, hydraulic lift, etc.), and show that all Page 12 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 214/14 Fire access on the north side of the parking garage (south side of the Summit residences) shall be maintained at 30' in width. The EAE shall show 30' width in this location. Code reference provided below: The EAE has been updated on the Plat to 30' width and current design complies. STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR) THREE OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT 061FC Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5: In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. 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. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: SCALE CORRETION The 1" = 20' scale on the Site Plan (page 3) appears to be in error. Corrected Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218-2932, ischlam(d�fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2014 01/14/2014: Erosion Control Plan has redlines and needs a sequence chart. The Erosion Control Plan Details/Report needs redline changes as well as needs the following standards to be answered. 1) Existing Percent Vegetation 2) Closest Receiving water 3) Rainfall and soil Erodibility 4) Timing and sequencing 5) Identify Pollutant sources 6) Identify and Describe the means of control of the following a) disturbed and stored soils b) Vehicle tracking of sediment Sweeping was not talked about c) management of contaminated soils d) Loading and unloading operations e) Outdoor storage f) equipment maintenance and storage g) on -site waste management h) concrete washing i) dedicated asphalt or concrete batch plants 7) Soil Type how that effects the erosion 8) Soil amendments. Erosion Control Escrow will need to be calculated. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlarrl(@fcqov.com Comments noted and incorporated Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarcluet?a.fegov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Page 11 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 01/03/2014: A location for an electric transformer to serve the garage will need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. The transformer will most likely be 79" wide by 56" deep. Also the minimum clearances to the transformer are 3 feet on the back and two sides, and 8 feet unobstructed in front. The transformer cannot be placed under an overhang. It must be located within 10 feet of an all-weather surface that is accessible to a utility line truck. We have found an acceptable location for the transformer in the island on the north side of the deck adjacent to the proposed elevator, which meets clearance and access requirements. Coordination with Light & Power is ongoing. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2014 01/03/2014: A Commercial Electric Service (C-1) form will need to be completed and provided to Light & Power Engineering outlining the electric service to the building. Light & Power Engineering will also need a 1-line diagram (paper or pdf) of the electric service. Electric development AND system modification charges will apply. Per email from Doug Martine on 1/28/14, the C-1 form and single line drawing will be required in order to provide power, but shall be submitted once plans are finalized, but that it will not delay Major Amendment plan approval. The C-1 form and single line diagram will be submitted once all loads are determined, followed by submission of system modification fees. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2014 01/0312014: Relocation of the existing underground electric facilities may be problematic. It is suggested that the relocation(s) and the transformer location are coordinated with Light & Power Engineering before the plan is finalized. We will coordinate with Light & Power Engineering. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2014 01/03/2014: After the plan is finalized, Llght & Power Engineering will need a paper or pdf of the utility plan. Also, an AutoCad drawing (v. 2008) of the utility plan will need to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX afCGOV.COM. Comment noted. / Department: PFA ✓/ Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwilerApoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2014 01/17/2014: FIRE LANES Page 10 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 stop sign against the northeast corner of the building.Not sure if this is ultimately of any concern, especially with the building potentially shifting further to the west, but some further input/dialogue on this would be beneficial upon understanding how a shifting of the building might occur. Site distance diagram submitted and approved via email by Marc Virata on 01-28-2014 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: It appears an existing 10' power line easement will need to be vacated either by the replat, or by separate document prior to approval of the replat. It was indicated at the staff meeting that this easement is City Light and Power. We intend to vacate the easement by replat as required. A portion of the existing power line will need to be relocated out of the northeastern corner of the proposed parking deck, but based on our preliminary survey, this line may be able to relocated within the existing easement without a modification. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: 1 had brought up at the staff review meeting on why all of Lot 1 needs to be replatted vs. a portion of Lot 1 where the parking structure will be. Upon further discussion with the City Surveyor, he indicated potential concerns with replatting a portion of a lot. It would appear that the present submittal of replatting the entire Lot 1 should remain. Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: We'll need to add a note on the plat indicating: "The Choice Center Development Agreement dated October 10, 2011 between the City of Fort Collins and Capstone Development Corp, Johnson Investments, Inc., and Kelly C. Brown shall apply to the property shown on this replat." From an Engineering perspective, I don't see a need to amend the original development agreement. If other departments have a need to amend the development agreement of record, I'll look to coordinate compiling any resulting amended development agreement. Note added to the plat. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2014 Page 9 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 spaces. Attached is a revised Request for Modification that includes expected clearances when turning onto and out of this drive aisle utilizing an auto -cad turning template to substantiate safe maneuverability for standard and compact cars in the proposed 15' width. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Bike Parking What is the reasoning for not providing the required amount of bike parking? Does each of your tenants own a bike? Please provide details as to how the enclosed bike parking will function (security and access), and the number of space at each location on site. Ste, When our existing facility was proposed and approved, the LUC contained a very minimal requirement. for bike parking (10% of the vehicle parking, for a total of 24 bike parking locations for lots 1 and 2) and no requirement for enclosed bike parking. Given the location of our development as well as the knowledge that Fort Collins is a very active community with high bike ridership, we chose to install 378 bike racks on site. While we do not have data on bike ownership by our tenants, we believe that 50- ;^('F 60% of our roughly 650 residents (665 is full occupancy) own bikes, with approximately 10-15% of our 3 qs existing bike racks being open/unused at any given time. 6I �_ We have proposed to add 154 additional bicycle rack soaves, with as many of these racks as possible being added in designated locations around the perimeter of the existing buildin hich cannot tG"I �6 be added around the existing buildings due to space limitation wi Fe added on the covered group evi el of t e ar in decEkpotential location indicated on attached revised architec ura oor plans). d itionally. we propose to purchase 133 bike stands to be assigned to tenants on an as requested basis for storage of bikes in individual units, if desired. The stand that we propose is moveable so as to a�_not interfere with ADA / FHA clearance requirements and can be viewed at http://www.orsracksdirect.com/delta-manet-floor-stand.html. We are willing to purchase additional lands should more be demanded by tenants, but feel it imprudent to agree to purchase (and store) l(` additional quantities unless sufficient tenant demand is demonstrated. The proposed additions of Qbb� Q covered bike storage in the deck and the stands for use in units would bring our total bike P�PON parking to 665, is to the beds for tenants. Given that the CAN storage ca acit which equal number of available current bike storage requirements were enacted after the approva o our development, the fact that we do not have adequate space to designate for common area interior bike storage in our existing facility, S� and the fact that we are not adding any additional beds, we feel our proposal for alternate compliance is reasonable and meets the spirit of encouraging bike ridership in the T.O.D.F Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirataPfcgov.com UY Topic: General j XIX\ Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/�2/2014 01/22/2014: Would like to get )Sense of the sight distance for vehicles heading east to the Page 8 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4114 We are actively marketing the project as adjacent to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit line and to international students who we believe are less likely to be reliant on cars (we are also attempting to partner with the CSU INTO program,), but the current on -site parking is inadequate to support the needs of current residents and to ensure healthy lease -up/ occupancy. The addition of the proposed parking structure will actually bring the Summit into compliance with the minimum 60% required parking ratio for TOD zones. It should be noted that our proposed parking addition will only make available storage parking to roughly 69% of our tenants, with an additional 5% allocated to guests, 2.5% (17 spaces) allocated to handicapped parking and 1 % (8 spaces) for short-term and car -sharing, pick-up and drop-off Examples of the materials and disclosures are included with our submittal as well as on The Summit's website: http://www.thesummitoncolleee.com/our-apartments/amenities/ Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: As we are anticipating the structure to move 15 feet to the west, this provides an opportunity to really improve the area on the east abutting the existing retail and outdoor dining. Please consider a plaza element and enhanced landscaping. Jhis is a great suggestion. We have incorporated some benches, expanded the walk and added additional landscaping in this area to take advantage of the additional space gained by moving the structure to the west. Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Handicap Parking As per your modification request 10 spaces are required between the two lots (12 surface; 436 ,,,p�structured). Please put all 4 structured handicap spaces on the first floor. Then we will C�'� determine that the structure and the aux lot outside are one lot. 5,H �4,p4-We have provided 4 handicap parking spaces on the ground level of the parking deck and 6 handicap parking spaces in the lot directly north of the parking structure. Reference Drawing AP101. Comment Number: 2 01/21/2014: Drive Aisle Width Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 The request for a drive aisle width reduction from 206 to 15L is a substantial reduction. Please provide a demonstration as to how this will function. The parking space at 60 degrees are required to be a depth of 21 i or compact at 17.9� which may only make up 40% of the overall Page 7 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 214114 ,/ towards our LEED Certification goals. Even if those two points were lost, Capstone still has enough points for Certification with several "cushion" points remaining. 2. Construct a bicycle and pedestrian connection all the way to Prospect Road as required under the original approval. Capstone has for some time been working with one of our neighboring property owners to the north of The Summit to amend the easement for the bike path to allow for a slight reconfiguration of the pedestrian and bicycle pathway. This is being done in a cooperative effort to minimize the impact on the neighbor's existing parking. The neighboring property owner is working with his lenders to obtain approval, which is reported to be imminent. We have a contractor lined -up to perform this work to create the pedestrian and bicycle pathway and we anticipate beginning construction this spring (late March/ early April), once local asphalt plants are back operational. We believe this pathway will further encourage bike/ pedestrian traffic flow, but on -site storage parking will still be needed. 3. Model parking demand based on operation of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system and the results of such modelling. Based on a recent survey of residents, approximately 75% of our residents own cars and require storaa inn. While the MAX Bus Rapid Transit will undoubtedly reduce the need for daily use of cars, it will not reduce the need for storage parking and we do not see that need decreasing materially in the foreseeable future. 'The feedback from current and prospective Summit residents is that the lack of resident and guest parking is the primary negative in considering a re -lease or lease at The Summit for next year. The need for at least 60% to 70% on -site parking is supported by resident feedback as well as the City's adoption of recent parking minimums in the Land Use Code for TOD projects. Our survey of Summit residents indicates that a majority (approximately 73% of students), walk or bike to campus on a daily basis, which indicates our efforts to encourage residents to utilize alternate forms o _rN-A.35 transportation whenever possible is succeeding. However, a vast majority still depend on their cars to ot=42 "S'PE- travel to work, home, or to run errands. QP4_ 5 4. Provide marketing materials that relay to tenants that The Summit is a transit -oriented development, including the disclosure that tenant parking will be limited. The Summit management and leasing staff, through handout materials, posters, website and verbal communications, has and continues to represent that"The Summit is a walking and biking friendly community located in a transit -oriented district adjacent to the (future) MAX BRT, with limited on -site parking.''Our lease states, "Parking is limited and subject to change". At the time The Summit was approved, it met the City's Land Use Code (LUC), including parking standards. Since that time, the LUC has been modified to establish minimum parking standards. We currently have on -site parking for just under 30% of our residents, which is far below the TOD parking minimums currently required by the City. Page 6 C*_ 3'Omf The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments - 2/4/14 Going forward, the CSU Lot and the Discount Tire lot will not be available beyond this first operating year (assuming Discount Tire goes through with its plans to rebuild its College Avenue store); Foothills Assembly has been approached by the City for BRT parking. Additionally, each of these off -site yof cad options are at distances and locations that the majority of Summit tenants have told us is unacceptable pks�Z� n contributing to the overflow parking into neighborhoods and businesses surrounding our development._ f�y(Z J5� As Capstone approaches the renewal and re -leasing of The Summit for Operating Year 2, it is clear that the shortage of on -site parking is proving to be a leasing dis-incentive, as we are currently onlyl9% leased for the 2014-15 operating year. By comparison, we only have 39% of the new leases this year as we had at the same time last year, which is alarming considering we were under construction. Capstone, our equity investment partners, and our lender are very concerned about this situation and the clear negative feedback we have received from residents and prospects about our on - site parking deficiency. Given the low tolerance of most Summit residents and prospective students for non -proximate off -site parking, we have concluded that for the Summit to maintain economic viability, and avoid catastrophic results, we will need to provide on -site parking for 60% to 70% of our residents, another 2.5 % handicap spaces, and 5% parking for visitors and guests. This ratio is consistent with the policy we understand the City has adopted on an interim basis for TOD zones and student housing generally. We have further concluded that we can only achieve this improvement in the overall on -site parking ratio by constructing a multi -level parking structure on the surface parking lot south of our Building 1. Even after constructing this structure, this will leave roughly 31 % of the total beds without on -site parking spaces. So it will continue to be our goal to attract this percentage of residents annually who will (a) not have a car, or (b) be willing to accept an off -site shared or storage parking solution. do not believe we can rely totally on off -site storage parking for our long-term, permanent solution - n if an option within walking distance or along the Max Transit line can be found. Further, based upon our research, it is clear that most CSU students, while willing to ride a bike, walk, 7w5 u� F-S or take a bus for most trips to and around campus, still bring a car with them to school at CSU, even if they do not use it often. Our research indicates that student need their cars to get to and shopping or dining establishments, part time jobs, or for weekend trips home or to other destinations. As such, it is important to provide parking that works for these student residents. Capstone believes that for the Summit to be viable and successful, it is critical and necessary that we provide the 69% on -site parking for residents that our proposed garage will provide. With respect to LEED Certification, Capstone has already submitted its application(s) for LEED Certification, since Certification is a requirement for release of the URA funding holdback. However, the low number of on -site parking spaces originally constructed only contributed to two total points Page 5 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 least 60 to 80% parking on -site in order for our community to be marketable and economically viable. The following is the background and history of how the parking situation for The Summit has evolved. During the early planning and design phases of The Summit, Capstone anticipated that we would be able to provide on -site parking for roughly 50% of our 665 beds and 7,400 sf of retail development. As it turned, out, to meet City and FEMA regulations for storm water and flood mitigation, we were only able to build on -site parking for about 30% of our residents. Our strategy and hope was that roughly 30 to 50% of our residents annually would be able to park on campus with commuter passes, and roughly 20 to 30% of our residents annually would not have a car. Working closely with senior City officials who led discussions with CSU officials, Capstone believed a verbal understanding was reached with CSU officials that residents of The Summit would be able to park without restriction in designated commuter parking lots on the CSU campus. Capstone and City officials sought to have this understanding confirmed in writing by CSU, but we and City officials were �A told that since this was consistent with CSU's parking policies, no special dispensation or agreement was needed or desired by CSU. Since several of CSU's storage parking lots were in the southeast quadrant of the campus and thus convenient to The Summit, we marketed this parking option to our residents during the months leading to our initial opening in August 2013, and indicated Capstone would purchase the first year commuter parking pass for residents choosing this parking option. (Roughly 200 residents elected this parking option during the pre -leasing phase, roughly 161 opted for an on -site, reserved space, and roughly 174 indicated they would not need either parking option). - 3�_ 0�� OAF' In the summer of 2013, just months before our scheduled opening, Capstone was informed by CSU officials that with the loss of on -campus parking spaces to the BRT and other developments on - campus, that CSU would not be able to issue permits allowing Summit residents to park on an extended basis in on -campus commuter lots. This was a major departure from the understanding we believed we had, and from CSU's stated policies. As a result, much discussion ensued between Capstone, City and CSU officials about whether this decision could be changed or postponed, and if not, how we could ease or overcome the impact of this decision both near term (in the first operating year), and long term (in future operating years). During the summer and early fall of 2013, Capstone officials spent months evaluating and pursuing alternative off -site parking options with CSU, City staff, and various landowners, churches, retailers with large unused parking areas, and brokers in the area. These explorations yielded little in the way of satisfactory, workable, sustainable parking alternatives. CSU ultimately agreed to provide commuter storage parking for one year for only 150 residents, in a lot that was over 1 mile from The Summit. Capstone purchased parking passes in this lot for all students who would use them, but the designated location (in Lot 240), proved too far and not particularly appealing to Summit residents. After searching the Midtown Corridor, we ultimately were able to lease enough spaces to meet demand in the nearby Discount Tire lot and in a remote lot we improved and leased from the Foothills Assembly Church (roughly 1.2 miles south of The Summit). We have utilized shuttle transportation to provide access to this remote parking location. Page 4 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4114 stone or metal detailing are encouraged in order to subdivide masses and establish human scale. (3) Predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high -intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. (4) Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, and black, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. (5) Exterior building materials shall not include smooth -faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted ilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels. (Sec. 3.10.5(C) See attached architectural elevations and renderings dated 1/29/14, which comply with the Land Use Code as well as Section 3.10.5 of the T.O.D. Overlay District. Topic: General ,-Comment Number: Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The request will be processed as a Major Amendment, subject to consideration by the Hearing Officer as an Administrative Review. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 1/21/2014: Staff has expanded the Affected Property Owner (APO) area to comply with the requirements in Sec. 2.2.6. See map attached. Acknowledged — we are generating a new list of Affected Property Owners to comply with the new boundary. V1 q� 1 Comment Number: 1 01/22/2014: Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 The project was approved without such a parking structure under the premise that it would be operated as a transit -oriented development. The intent of transit -oriented development (TOD) to provide a walkable and bikeable environment that will encourage alternative modes of transportation and discourage use of automobiles. Please provide information identifying methods used by the applicant to: 1. Provide off -site, long-term automobile storage options for tenants. The shared parking facility was a LEED requirement and noted in the URA approval of The Summit financial assistance package. Capstone)was and remains committed to provide a significant percentage)of parking for Summit - - wtiC residents {n off -site, shared parking lots. We have concluded, however, th�t we need to provide at Page 3 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The following comments are sections of the Land Use Code as cited in conceptual review that support the comments for a higher quality architectural design: The building will be evaluated for compliance with Section 3.10.5 - Character and Image in the T.O.D. Overlay District. While this section was not codified with parking structures in mind, the design of the proposed garage must strive to comply with these standards to the extent reasonably feasible. There will be high visibility from the public right-of-way to the east, west and south. Even as a utilitarian structure, there must be attention given to architectural treatment of the building. Where high quality finish materials cannot be achieved, staff expects that there be sufficient land area in which to plant a generous amount of landscaping to mitigate the height, mass and bulk of the building. A good example of a private parking structure is the Poudre Valley Hospital Garage located at the comer of South Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street. As noted above, the design of the structure is required to provide articulation: Exterior building walls shall be subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using projections, overhangs and recesses in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size. (3.10.5(A) The rooflines cannot be flat and devoid of design treatment. They shall include cornice treatments: Flat -roofed buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment on all walls facing streets or connecting walkways, or a rail at the top of the wall of a usable rooftop deck, unless the top floor is stepped back to form a usable roof terrace area. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings. Accent roof elements or towers may be used to provide articulation of the building mass. To the maximum extent feasible, a minimum pitch of 6:12 shall be used for gable and hipped roofs. Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 4:12. (3.10.5(B) The material and design of the structure is intended to disguise parking structures in order to promote interest and activity. The openings to the structure should be organized to appear to be windows. The ground floor should be a high quality material and serve as a strong foundation for the rest of the structure. (C) Materials and Colors. (1) Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt -up concrete systems. (2) / l building facades shall incorporate stone, stone veneer, brick, lirick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood and/or equivalent accent material in a mans* that highlights the artidation of the massing or the base and top of the building. An all-Irick building does not need to incorporate an accent material, though soldier courses and banding or other brick, Page 2 The Summit on College Parking Garage Response to Major Amendment Review Comments — 2/4/14 Conceptual Review Comments & Responses (Applicant responses in Red below): Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970.224-6189, slorson(&fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Per the most recent elevation renderings, dated 1/20/14, the following comments /apply: The stone veneer should be brought up higher on the base and capped to provide a strong / high quality pedestrian experience. Per attached elevations dated 1/29/14, stone veneer has been brought up higher on the base and capped with horizontal stone banding. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: The red tower elements should be changed to the light gray as used in the residential buildings. Per attached elevations dated 1/29/14, we have replaced the red color with the requested light gray on / the east and south elevations. We have updated the northwest corner of the deck with a red color that more accurately represents the color as on the existing development (as our intent is to match all e4' VVV existing colors). This should be considered as a "placeholder" so that the reviewer may see the effect of adding the light gray color and the updated red color. We will incorporate whichever color (light gray or red) that the reviewer feels is the most appropriate. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: All 4 sides of the building shall provide a clearly delineated base, middle, and top element. The base should be the stone veneer. (Sec. 3.5.3 (E)(2) Per attached elevations dated 1/29/14, stone base elements have been added to the south and west elevations as well as being further enhanced on the north and east elevations. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 f01121/2014. The west side of the building needs landscaping to buffer from the MAX line. Per the Major Amendment review meeting held on 1/22/14 and directive from Brian Varrella, City Floodplain Administrator, it was agreed that landscaping should not be added on the west side of the parking deck (east side of the flood control channel) because of the inability to accurately predict the long term effects on the performance of the channel. Page 1