HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOTEL (DOWNTOWN HOTEL) - PDP - PDP150008 - CORRESPONDENCE -Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/09/2015
7/09/2015: 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
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen(&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Repeat.
07/07/2015: Additional comments may be forthcoming as additional details are
provided with future submittals.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Are water and sewer services proposed for parking garage? Please
show appropriate services for commercial spaces.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There is a 3/4" water service stubbed out to the parking area off
Walnut. Please show on plans and either use or abandon.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please include note to coordinate water lines being abandoned with
Field Operations, (970)416-2165.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please include utility separation requirements note on landscape plans.
No trees shall be planted with 10' of water or sewer mains or within 6' of service
lines. No shrubs shall be planted within 4' of mains or service lines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please see redlines.
Page 18 of 18
4
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines.
07/07/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
07/07/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: We'll have redline comments back on this sheet sometime next week.
07/07/2015: We'll need a signing and striping plan as we move forward in the
process.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The right in off Mountain and right out to Walnut need to have a curb
cuts and a crosswalk.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Is this moving?
07/07/2015: If the alley access to Jefferson is to move, we need to have that shown
on the plans.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: The porkchop shown doesn't adequately restrict turns. Engineering
can provide additional guidance on design.
07/07/2015: The Chestnut access to Jefferson needs to be right -in, right -out. This
inlcudes an exagerated pork -chop. The eastbound approach from Jefferson to
Chestnut warrants a right turn lane, and can be fully implemented with the road diet
when it is built in the future. In the meantime, the plans should reflect a flare for
turning traffic and identify parking to be removed to make this happen.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: 1 don't believe that this refinement was completed? The addundum for
the garage can wait, but the text updates to acknowledge CDOT etc will still be
needed seperate from the garage addendum.
07/07/2015: The TIS needs to be refined to acknowledge that Jefferson and College
are State Highways, and discuss the warrant for a right turn lane on Jefferson. This
has been previously scoped with the applicant's traffic engineer.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: 1 understand that this addendum can wait until the garage is actually
moving forward in design.
07/07/2015: We need an addendum to the TIS that provides information on the
proposed traffic impacts of the parking structure. This has been previously scoped
with the applicant's traffic engineer.
Page 17 of 18
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015: Repeat from PDR : 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. 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 @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, Icounty(&-fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
O8/04/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines.
07/07/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
O8/04/2015: Please clean up the fuzzy text on sheet A-400. See redlines.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: PARKING GARAGE: The titles need to match on all plan sheets. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: PARKING LOT: The titles need to match on all plan sheets. See
redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please remove all of the Lot numbers on sheet LP101. These will no
longer exist when the Subdivision Plat is filed.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Please add a name to the Plat. Fort Collins Hotel or Downtown Fort
Collins Hotel is an available name.
07/07/2015: Please add a name to the Plat. Fort Collins Hotel is an available name.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Please add new title policy information as available.
07/07/2015: Please add title policy information in note #3. See redlines.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: This has not been added.
07/07/2015: Please show the reception number of the 20' Access & Utility
Easement on Lot 2. See redlines.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
O8/04/2015: Please add distances as marked. See redlines.
07/07/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines.
Page 16 of 18
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 07/15/2015
07/15/2015: PARKING GARAGE
The size, scope and positioning of the parking garage does not meet minimum fire
access requirements. A dry standpipe system will be required in the parking garage
stairwells to offset the deficiency.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 07/15/2015
07/15/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS
A fire hydrant is required within 100' of any building equipped with a standpipe. This
shall also apply to the parking garage. Hydrants on the opposite side of an arterial
road are considered out of access. Code language provided.
> IFC 507.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance
with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department
connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where
approved by the fire code official.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/31/2015
07/31/2015: WEST SIDE SERVICE ALLEY
Based upon limitations in meeting minimum parking garage access, the fire marshal
is asking the west side service alley for the hotel, to also be dedicated as an
Emergency Access Easement.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/31/2015
07/31/2015: ROOFTOP LANDSCAPING
Rooftop vegetation shall comply with Section 317 of the 2012 IFC. A rooftop
landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval at time of building permit.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Not adequately addressed, please provide more detail.
07/07/2015: Please provide additional detail on utility plan for drainage
improvements.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Repeat, not enough detail on the plans to assess this.
07/07/2015: For pavers, 3:1 maximum run-on ratio is allowed. Please clarify
impervious areas being treated by the paver sections and include addtional
sub -basins if necessary.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Please see redlines report and plans.
07/07/2015: Please see redlined drainage report.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Repeat, not enough detail on plans to complete full review.
07/07/2015: Additional comments may be forthcoming as additional details are
provided with future submittals.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please provide detail on trench drains.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please include detail drawings in plans.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam(a?fcgov.com
Page 15 of 18
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff(aD_fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015: Light & Power has 3-phase electric facilities in this area for both of the
existing addresses. System modification and capacity charges may apply.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015: Continue to work with Light & Power Engineering to coordinate the
transformer and electric meter locations. It is understood that the current proposed
transformer location may not meet the 3 ft. from the back clearance standards.
More information will be available when the transformer size can be determined.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015: If the plan is to move forward with the parking garage option, two
separate C-1 forms and one -line diagrams will be required.
The C-1 form can be found at:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWikiNVikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use
our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2015
08/06/2015: Comments remain the same as on July 7, 2015.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorsonta'�_fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/13/2015
07/13/2015: Comcast
Comcast has facility in alley; will need to get relocated at owner's expense. Please
call to do walk -out once locates are down.
Don Kapperman 970-567-0245
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler(a)poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
07/08/2015: FIREHOUSE ALLEY
The fire marshal has concerns regarding any design elements which impact the 20'
alley width. If a parking garage is built with businesses fronting the alley, the full
width of the alley needs to be preserved in order to meet minimum fire access
requirements. Further review and discussion may be warranted as the site design
becomes more defined.
Page 14 of 18
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/10/2015
07/10/2015:
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.
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.
Fort Collins hotel — project specific concerns:
1. Upgraded insulation is required for electrically heated buildings.
2.Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler.
3.AII windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24"
4.Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units.
5. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if
building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
6. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are
required.
7. Low VOC interior finishes.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Page 13 of 18
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015:
LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6) directs that, at the time the plans are finally submitted, the
Landmark Preservation Commission shall provide the decision maker with a
recommendation. This will need to occur at a Regular Hearing. Please plan
accordingly. LPC Regular Hearings are held on the 2nd Wednesdays of each
month.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhoviand(cDfcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 12 of 18
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
The project will need to provide 23 upsized mitigation trees. Mitigation trees will need
to be listed in the plant list and clearly marked with the direct label.
Mitigation tree size requirements:
Canopy shade trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen trees 8 feet height.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
To further reduce to number of honeylocust used so as to be in line with the
minimum species diversity standard consider changing the 6 honeylocust used in
the parking lot to Accolade Elm or another canopy shade tree.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
Plant schedule comments:
List all trees as B&B
Record the percentage of each tree type used.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
Contact Steve Lukowski, Park Supervisor in the Parks Department, to determine
responsibility for maintenance of the planting beds in the public right-of-way. There
may be a need to assign maintenance of these planting beds to the project and not
the City. This should be determined in discussion with Mr. Lukowski and recorded
on the plans.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(abfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015:
This project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work
session held on June 10, 2015. The Commission member's did not identify any
significant concerns, and the Commission appears to be very supportive of the
design presented.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015:
At the June 10, 2014 work session, the Commission requested additional details
about both the hotel and parking lot/parking structure's design, along both sides of
Old Firehouse Alley, from Jefferson Street; and from the Old Town Historic District
and Linden Street. Commission members stressed the importance of activating
both the alley and Jefferson street through storefronts.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
07/07/2015:
Commission members did not appear to have significant concerns regarding the
proposal that the building height exceed the 4 story or 56 foot limit. The contextual
comparison with the Mitchell Building was very helpful.
Page 11 of 18
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
07/08/2015: 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:
• ClimateWise program: http://www.fcgov.com/climatewise/, contact Melissa
Hovey at 970-221-6813 or mhovey@fcgov.com
• 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
• Green Building and the Climate Action Plan:
http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Melissa Hovey at 970-221-
6813 or mhovey@fcgov.com
• Nature in the City Strategic Plan:
http://www.fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/?
key=advance plan ning/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or
jcharton@fcgov.com
Please consider the City's sustainability goals and ways for your development to
engage with these efforts.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan(cDfcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 07/16/2015
08/07/2015: Comment continued
07/16/2015:
For trees to be planted in sidewalk cut outs specifying trees at 3 inch caliper is
generally needed to provide a higher canopy that better accommodates pedestrian
movement and activity. Larger caliper trees would also be in better scale to the tall
building.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 07/16/2015
08/07/2015: Comment continued
07/16/2015:
Please provide a detail of the sidewalk tree planting. Specify tree grates or an
equivalent product and other aspects of the sidewalk tree planting.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
Tree mitigation plan sheet LP101 comments:
Please show the trees to be removed with an X on sheet LP101 tree mitigaiton plan
to improve readability.
The actual tree diameter's need to be listed for existing trees that were measured at
the site visit. Accurate diameters are not currently recorded.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 08/07/2015
08/07/2015:
An on- site meeting should be scheduled with the City Forester, Landscape
Architect and Civil Engineer to review construction impact to exiting trees number 12
and 13. The curb is shown very close to these trees and there is also a grade issue.
This meeting will determine the feasibility of retention of these two trees by exploring
construction options and the impact to the survival of the trees. The actual location
of the curb by these two trees should be determined and marked before the
meeting.
Page 10 of 18
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Since the civil plan which (still) depicts the non-ADA compliant public
sidewalk is not part of the documentation provided at public hearing, addressing this
at time of final will be acceptable.
07/08/2015: A few locations along the public sidewalk do not meet minimum ADA
cross slope requirements. As design moves forward, please ensure that all
sidewalks and pedestrian facilities meet ADA requirements.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: The site plan depicts access ramps and as such the site plan needs to
be updated prior to hearing to reflect that access ramps are being provided to meet
City and ADA requirements. Please have access ramps with truncated dome
detection depicted in the areas previously specified, and in addition, ensure it's
depicted between the two handicap parking spaces along Chestnut Street.
07/08/2015: All handicap ramp locations will need truncated domes to be installed
to meet ADA requirements. This includes all alley, driveway and road crossings.
See redlines
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: The drawings appear to show that the low point is addressed, though
this is by indicating a different elevation for the inlet from the previous submittal,
being a foot lower than originally indicated.
07/08/2015: Additional grading details are needed for the proposed paver plaza
area. It appears that there is a low point at the south corner of the site (right turn
onto Walnut St) that is collecting water without an inlet.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Because the PDP impacts this driveway use and is partially on the
property owner to the north, a letter of intent is needed prior to hearing, signed by
that offsite owner indicating that they are acceptable to the plan in concept and will
work out the details after hearing.
07/08/2015: Is the existing driveway off of Jefferson being utilized as part of this
project?
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
07/08/2015: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses
in your landscaping or re -landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as
possible.
Page 9 of 18
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: City Engineering would need an itemized list (with an exhibit for
depiction) of non-standard items (encroachments) proposed in the right-of-way
(stairs, planters, walls, private underground utilities, private lighting etc.) and also
non-standard operations (hotel drop-off, hotel valet parking, etc.) proposed in
right-of-way. The documentation of the non-standard operations in the right-of-way
should also include a narrative of the operations intent (hotel valet parking at all
hours, only on weekends, etc.) The utilization of the right-of-way for these purposes
would need a major encroachment approval by the City Manager (or City Council)
and should be evaluated at this time. Under the presumption that the project moves
forward to public hearing without this approval, a note would need to be placed on
the PDP (or condition of approval) indicating that these non-standard items and
operations are not approved with the PDP and subject to approval by the appropriate
decision maker. The actual locations of the various encroachments (if approved) will
still need to be more closely evaluated and potentially further refined to take into
account separation from pedestrians, maintaining ADA compliant widths, the impact
overall on the pedestrians through the corridors, etc.
07/08/2015: Further conversation is needed to determine if the Hotel entrance/drop
off area can be located within public right-of-way. A lease agreement or special
agreement may need to be executed to locate a private amenity to this extent within
the public right-of-way.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: The proposed solid white line behind the parking stalls on the north side
of Chestnut Street I will need to verify with Traffic Operations that its use is
acceptable. This does perhaps help address original comment 5 on the centerline
offset, but with this striping approach being non-standard, it should be verified that it
will be allowed and maintained. (I wonder if this area will become the defacto truck
delivery area?)
07/08/2015: Please provide a signing and striping plan that identifies a plan to
control access into and out of the site.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Carried over for verification of the centerline profile to be provided at
Final. and for coordination with the striping plan/previous comment.
07/08/2015: By narrowing the Chestnut travel lanes to 24ft in width south of the Old
Firehouse alley, please provide a centerline profile of Chestnut St to evaluate the
offset in centerline from travel width of 37ft north of the alley to 24ft travel width south
of the alley.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Carried over to coordinate with 2nd round comment for #3.
07/08/2015: Encroachment permit(s) will need to be obtained for the decorative
improvements placed within the right-of-way. This includes the planter boxes in the
Old Firehouse alley and all planters and seat walls.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Carried over to coordinate with 2nd round comment for #3.
07/08/2015: Please submit a variance request for the paver plaza, paver sidewalk,
and paver alley. The variance request should include a cross section and
construction details.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: Carried over to coordinate with 2nd round comment for #3.
07/08/2015: Have any agreements been reached on future maintenance of the
decorative improvements within the right-of-way (paver plaza, alley pavers, sidewalk
pavers, seat walls, planters)? Typically, any decorative features located within the
right-of-way will need to be installed and maintained by the property owner.
Page 8 of 18
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: The porkchop island design at Jefferson Street and Chestnut Street is
questioned by both City and CDOT in terms of its ability to physically limit the turning
movements to right -in, right -out and would need additional refinement. A sketch is
provided that shows additional extension of the porkchop median island further into
Jefferson right-of-way and providing more of a redirect for vehicles. The use of paint
hatching to define the turning movement on both side of the porkchop will need to be
done with curb and gutter instead as well, bring the pedestrian crossing distance
closer together as well. We would need to see this amended on the site plan before
hearing. If the additional refinement results in turning movements for vehicles not
being met, then mountable curb should be looked at with no landscaping in these
areas.
07/08/2015: Repeat comment from PDR:
This site is adjacent to a CDOT roadway and all access off of Jefferson is subject
to CDOT approval. CDOT has identified that access to Chestnut Street will need to
be limited to right -in right -out movements and these movements will need to be
controlled by a physical barrier (construction of a median in Jefferson or a pork
chop). The project will be responsible for the design and construction of this
improvement. A pork chop maybe the easiest to implement as a median in
Jefferson will require some other extensive improvements and coordination since
room does not currently exist in the roadway in which a median can be constructed.
Both solutions will impact existing parking 6 likely on both streets.
Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the applicant will need to
obtain an access permit from CDOT for Chestnut and the service connection.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015
08/04/2015: The turning movements provided are helpful for evaluation. Please also
include turning movement for SU-40 and WB-50 vehicles exiting Chestnut onto
Jefferson. With the "SWB Chestnut St to Alley" SU-40 analysis shown, we'll want to
see that no parking is indicated along Jefferson Street from just past the tree (in
front of the depicted SU-40 vehicle) to the intersection. This won't technically serve
as a turn lane, but will aid in turning movements for the areas.
07/08/2015: Turning templates are needed to evaluate the design of the new
Walnut/Chestnut/Mountain Ave intersection. Also, please provide a turning template
for the Hotel entrance/drop off circle to ensure vehicles can negotiate the turn and
head northeast to the parking area.
Page 7 of 18
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The 10" private storm line that cuts in a diagonal and ties out into
Walnut Street needs to be designed to be perpendicular to Walnut Street,
minimizing the length of pipe in right-of-way as was designed with the line out to
Chestnut Street. Both lines would be part of the major encroachment permit per
comment #3.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: For the median island at the junction of Walnut Street/Mountain
Avenue/Chestnut Street, please have the pedestrian crossing from the development
site into this median island to be facing more directly south rather than its depiction
of southeast. It minimizes the crossing length for the pedestrian, has the pedestrian
appear more visible (and sooner) to vehicles making the right turn, and better
balances the convenience of pedestrian movements between Chestnut and Walnut.
Truncated dome detection and access ramps (per Comment #10) would be needed
and the landscaping lights and planter seatwalls depicted (if ultimately approved
through the major encroachment) would likely need to be modified to align with the
access ramp locations.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Similar to the previous comment regarding the median island, with the
additional widening of the sidewalk approaching the Mountain and Walnut
intersection, please show the existing access ramp as being modified to be widened
and have truncated dome detection along the entire widened sidewalk opening onto
Mountain and Walnut.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: For the planter areas in front of the Lyric Cinema Cafe on the south
side of Chestnut Street., is there an understanding in place as to who will maintain
this planting area? If it's not the Hotel project's responsibility, we need a letter of
intent from the entity that is agreeing to maintain it, such as the property owner of
the Lyric.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There are bike racks on the Landscape Plan that are depicted in the
Walnut Street sidewalk. The public right-of-way cannot be utilized to meet bicycle
parking requirements and would need to be moved out of the right-of-way.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The site/landscape plans aren't coordinated with the civil plans in terms
of material and patterning of roads, alleys, and sidewalks in right-of-way. Additional
review and comment is anticipated upon further refinement and coordination of the
plans.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: As the plat is part of the plans presented and evaluated at a public
hearing, it should have the same name as the other documents and not T.B.D.
Subdivision. Will easements need to be dedicated within the lot(s) for infrastructure
shown within the lot(s) such as the transformer shown on Lot 2?
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmundpfcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 6 of 18
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015:
Section 4.16(D)(6) requires that parking structures apply the following design
criteria:
(a) Where parking structures abut streets, retail and other uses shall be required
along the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and
activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of
the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity.
(b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural elements shall be
incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street -facing level.
(c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details. emphasis on vertical
proportions such as posts, recessed horizontal panels and other architectural
features shall be used to establish human scale at the street -facing level.
(d) The architectural design of structures shall be compatible in architectural design
with adjacent buildings in terms of style, mass, material, height, roof pitch and other
exterior elements.
(e) Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts.
07/07/2015:
No retail or non -parking uses are being shown in the parking structure. Please show
these spaces.
'Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015:
Please remove the off -site (on -street) parking counts from the Site Plan. They are
public parking and do not count toward your requirement.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: In further conversations with CDOT after their review of the porkchop, a
waiver is required for not having met the turn lane length requirements on Jefferson
Street onto Chestnut Street. Access permits for both the Jefferson Street/Chestnut
Street intersection and the modification to the northern driveway out to Jefferson
Street intersection are needed as well by CDOT.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please ensure that the driveway from Chestnut into the parking
lot/garage is depicted as concrete in the right-of-way (where the sidewalk
traverses). The site and civil plans have discrepancies on this indication.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The plans need to coordinate on what the intention is for the area
between the Walnut Street sidewalk and the bump-out/neckdowns being created.
The landscape plan labels a decorative grate cover for the area between the larger
southern bump -out and the sidewalk, but this is not indicated in between the smaller
northern bump -out and the sidewalk. The civil plans do not depict the use of a cover.
In general, we would want to see some sort of plating/cover implemented in order to
not create the drop off abutting the sidewalk in between these bump -out areas.
Page 5 of 18
"Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Modification of Standard request for increased height
Please justify the modification request as outlined in Sec. 2.8 of the land use code.
The decision maker must find that 1) granting the modification would not be
detrimental to the public good; and 2) one of the following four criteria is met:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a
standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical
conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act
or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code
that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code
as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Please use the language in the Code to justify your requests. Also, please provide
exhibits detailing each request for modification .
Topic: Site Plan
Page 4 of 18
*Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Modification of Standard
The request for a modification from the parking lot setback and location standards
should use the "nominal and inconsequential" justification instead of the "exceptional
physical conditions" justification. It is easy to say that you are proposing to over -build
the site and that is why you don't have enough space for parking.
*Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Alternative Compliance for Number of Parking Spaces
Instead of the alternative compliance request, we suggest that you request a
modification of standard for the reduced number of parking spaces. The alternative
compliance explicitly requires a Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand
Management analysis, or a Shared Parking Study.
The capture rate that Sage Hospitality is referencing is from urban hotels in Portland
Oregon which has lightrail transit directly from the airport. This may not be an
appropriate comparison.
Please provide the methodology for the TOD Overlay Zone Exemption. It may be
applied to the other uses that have higher requirements. This may reduce the overall
requirement.
*Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Alternative Compliance Request for Bicycle Parking
According to our calculations. the total requirement for the hotel and accessory uses
is 47 bike parking spaces. This is because the "minimum of 4 spaces" is not per
land use but for the overall project.
The chart on the site plan needs to divide the requirement between "enclosed" and
"fixed" space.
The request should be consistent with the language in the code that reads, "plan will
better accomplish the purposes of this Section than would a plan that complies with
the standards of this Section." Thus, the purposes of the section need to be
incorporated into the justification.
Instead of requesting the hotel use to have no requirement, we recommend that the
reduction in provided spaces take from each use and utilize the provided bike
parking for all uses
Also, please provide a separate exhibit showing where the proposed bicycle parking
is located. If it is in the ROW, a revocable encroachment permit is required.
As discussed during the staff review meeting on Wednesday. the proposed
bulb -outs are probably the best location for bike parking in the ROW.
Page 3 of 18
Topic: Landscape Plans
'Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: The interior landscaping calculation looks to comply if the line drawn on
the plan is delineating between interior and perimeter. But, the perimeter
landscaping does not have a square footage calculation per 3.2.1(E)(4):
(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the
minimum setback areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and
Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards:
(a) Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet
along a public street and one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line
parking setback area. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be
uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting patterns and
organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and should be
integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way.
(b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from
abutting uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a
fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient
opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights.
Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence,
planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of
which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall
extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the length of the street frontage of the
parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any boundary of the parking
lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall be
permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening
from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic
depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used
for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal
condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be
screened.
07/07/2015:
Please provide calculation for interior and perimeter landscaping for the surface
parking option. Please see section 3.2.1(E)(4) of the Land Use Code.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Please show the seatwall in elevation. Initially it was discussed to be a
brick wall.
07/07/2015:
Please provide details of the proposed wall for buffering the surface parking lot.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: We will resolve this issue at FDP.
07/07/2015:
The lighting plan for the parking structure (LL101A) does not show any lights on the
top deck. Please provide updated plans.
Topic: Modification of Standard
Page 2 of 18
City of
Fort Collins
August 07, 2015
Stu Macmillan
Bohemian Companies
262 E. Mountain Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Fort Collins Hotel (Downtown Hotel), PDP150008, Round Number 2
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/deve/opmentreview
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, Seth Lorson, at
970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services -*Items required prior to P&Z (Aug. 19)
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson(Vcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: The parking structure is showing a great amount of metal trelis. Is this
for plants? What species are you thinking will grow on the east and west sides? Will
it be enough to screen the garage and vehicles within?
08/04/2015: The North elevation of the parking structure could use more
architectural detail. Please consider punching some windows with sills and lintels
along the second floor.
07/07/2015:
Please provide elevations for the parking structure. It should take cues from the
hotel.
Topic: General
*Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/07/2015
08/04/2015: Current materials need to be submitted to staff before anything is
presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. The review of the proposal must be
consistent with what is shown to P&Z.
Please coordinate with staff to have the necessary items for P&Z provided by
August 19. One exception is the request and improvement list for the major
encroachment permit.
07/07/2015: Additional review material.
Please provide the following additional material for review:
- color perspective renderings of buildings and streetscapes
- the 3D model to input into our downtown model
- detail cut sheets of materials and a material board (especially for the metal
screening)
Page 1 of 18