Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - PDP - PDP150019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: If a mixed unit building is proposed, it will be necessary to provide separate water and sewer services for each separate use. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekomcDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: We will need a breakdown of bedrooms per unit to determine if the parking requirement is being met. Or is this project rent by the bedroom? RESPONSE: Main Level: All commercial/retail space Second Level: (5) 2 bdrms units, (5) 1 bdrm units and (2) studios = 12 units/17 beds Third Level: (5) 2 bdrms units, (5) 1 bdrm units and (2) studios = 12 units/17 beds Fourth Level: (4) 2 bdrms units. (4) 1 bdrm units and (2) studios = 10 units/14 beds Total: 34 units/48 beds Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: This project will be a type I (administrative) review. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Contact: Jeff County, 221-6588, iicountya(�.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/01/2015 06/01/2015: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: The estimated trip generation for 57 beds of student housing is much lower than the existing gas station. That, together with the proposal to close the existing accesses on College and Locust and utilize the alley is very helpful from a traffic standpoint. Because of that, I'm anticpating the traffic impact study requirement can be waived, other than working with you on any required documentation to CDOT for the access closure on a state highway. RESPONSE: Per 8/25/15 email to Dave Derbes from Martina Wilkinson, the TIS requirements have been waived. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle(dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Existing water and sewer mains in the vicinity include an 8-inch water main in the east side of College Ave, a 6-inch water main in Locust St, and an 8-inch sewer main in the alley to the east of the site. There is an existing private sanitary sewer main in Locust St south of the site that is owned by CSU. It may be possible to tie into this main with coordination and permission from CSU. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The intention is to connect to the 8-inch sanitary sewer main in the alley, and the 6-inch water main in Locust. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Existing water service for the site is a'/< -inch commercial service tapped from the main in College, which is a fusible PVC pipe. This type of pipe cannot be wet -tapped so extra coordination will be needed if additional connections to this main are proposed. It is not known what size the existing sewer service for the site is. Water and sewer services will need to be reused with this development or abandoned at the main. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The existing 1/4-inch commercial service will be reused for the commercial portion of the mixed -use development. The existing sanitary sewer service will be abandoned at the main in the alley and replaced with a new service. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: hftp://www.fcgov.com/standards Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. RESPONSE: A .,riance is requested to recognize the 1000r, .e impervious value for which fees have historically been paid to the Stormwater Utility. There will actually be a slight reduction in impervious percentage due to the LID/PICP, and an even greater reduction if the adjacent parkways are considered. Therefore, on -site detention is not required. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Water quality treatment is required for 50% of the site as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulationslstormwater-criteria) RESPONSE: Water quality treatment is being met by two primary methods. One is stormwater planter boxes, and the other is Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (PICP). The PICP system will also be fitted with a water quality control structure containing an orifice plate with micro perforations to slow the release of the water quality capture volume. This increases contact time across the surface area of the sub -base aggregate, promotes infiltration (to the extent feasible), and ensures that sub -surface roof drain discharges receive sufficient treatment. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact -development. There is an existing inlet at the southwest corner of the site that can be used for an outfall point. RESPONSE: The 50% metric is being exceeded, per the methods described in Number 5, above. The 25% metric is also being exceeded, especially when considering the amount of parking exposed to rainfall. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,8171acre ($0.1795 sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.0241sq.-ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: hftp://www.fegov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services criteria establish jy the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire iority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam(a)fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: 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 (The Erosion Control Report should take into account the excavation and removal of the gas tanks as well as the possibility of any leaks and the removal of that material and how that is to be handled if it is incountered.), 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 @ ischlamafcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This will be supplied during Final Plan. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221.6339, sboyle fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: A drainage report, erosion control report, and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four -step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. The erosion control report requirements are in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Section 1.3.3, Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Fort Collins Amendments. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or ischlam@fcgov.com. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Additional detail will be supplied during Final Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: When a site is completely redeveloped (scraped) the standard requirement is to provide onsite detention with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as long as it is not deeper than one foot. A variance to the 2 year historic release rate may be justified if the site has been paying fees for a higher imperviousness. Please contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 to determine the present Stormwater fees and runoff coefficient category. BALCONIES AND DECKS > IFC 903.3.1.2.1: Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM IFC Sections 905 and 913: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2006 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. Buildings equipped with standpipes are required to have a hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: ROOF ACCESS IFC 504.3: New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: FDC 061FC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS > 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. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with been in the east . ,vest direction by approximately 10'. Furt._.more, the proposed design makes and more significant step-down to the existing structures to the east than the historic 4-story brick building directly to the south. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, CAlthoffa()fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Please note that the owner is responsible for the demolition of the existing secondary electric service to the gas station. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: 3-phase service is available to the site. The proposed transformer location (N.E. corner of the property) needs to have a minimum of an 8 ft clearance from the front side and a 3 ft clearance around the sides and rear. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: The residential portions of the building must be metered individually. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Please contact Coy Althoff at Utility - Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.224.6150. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Development and capacity charges will apply at owner's expense. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416.2869, ilvnxwilerftoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 05/27/2015: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM This building will require a NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. In addition: GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS > IFC 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3 occupancies. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 9/23/15, Please -ee response to Comment Number 8 below a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter -mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 05/29/2015: In review of this project, the Landmark Preservation Commission will be paying particular attention to the interface and compatibility between the proposed building, the existing historic district to its east, and the Landmarked apartment building to its south, in terms of massing, articulation, character, materials, design, etc., which is further outlined in LUC 3.4.7(F). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 While staff agrees that the context surrounding this property is varied, this project should focus on compatibility with the historic district to its east, and also relate to the designated Fort Collins Landmark to its south. The height descrepency between the predominantly one and two story historic district, and the proposed building, will be a concern. Many of the material choices currently proposed will also be of concern. Substantially stepping back the fourth, and possibly third, stories will contribute to compatibility with the smaller -scale context to the east. Picking up on the dominant material and overall design pallette (fenestration, sills, lintels, etc) of the historic apartment building to the south will further contribute to this project's compatibility. RESPONSE: The design team has met with Planning and Historic Staff presenting design alternatives to address compatibility with the adjacent historic neighborhood. The project has reduced two units on the east end of the fourth floor in order to step down the facade to 3-stories. The building has been re -designed since the PDR that includes building materials, proportions and design elements that are reminiscent of the historic 4-story brick building directly to the south. The overall building length has also designated Fort �. .ins Landmark. Therefore this project wi.. ,a reviewed for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object that is [designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states, "...to the maximum extent feasible... the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is ... located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies [as an individual landmark]. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible: Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on Comment Numu.,: 15 ,imment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: CDOT will not allow the seat walls shown to be located within the CDOT (College Ave) right-of-way. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Only at -grade flatwork is proposed within the CDOT right-of-way. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit. Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to Engineering Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/0312015: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the developmentl site storm runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street flows — the design standards for these are still in development. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Doors are not allowed to open out into the right-of-way. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimplet?a fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: 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. RESPONSE: Native or adaptive/low-water use plants are specified in planting plans. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221.6206, iweinberg(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort Collins Landmarks within the Laurel School Historic District (immediateley to the east of this project). Additionally, the building at 900 South College, across Locust Street from this project, is a Comment Numt,..r: 7 comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: hftp://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Including the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind the right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all other street classifications). RESPONSE: No right-of-way dedications are necessary with this development. See separate administrative engineering variance request letter for additional information regarding utility easements. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval. The applicant will need to obtain an access permit from CDOT for the removal of the driveway that currently goes directly out to College Ave. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Also note, the property owner intends to coordinate with CDOT's US 287 Resurfacing project on this curb cut abandonment. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/0312015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending on parking design. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Why are you proposing to inset the curb line? Why doesn't it work as is? There is currently diagonal parking on both sides of the street to the east of here. I don't see this being approved. RESPONSE: The current PDP proposes to keep the curb and gutter in -line with that to the east. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Sight lines in and out of the parking garage will need to be looked at to make sure that cars exiting the garage can see oncoming vehicles. This applies to the head in parking as well — building. The setback for the 8 foot utility easement should help with this. RESPONSE: Sight lines will be preserved by an open structure along the alley, with only limited columns coming to the ground. A sight distance easement is being platted at the southeast property corner to ensure that low screen wall elements, planter boxes, etc. do not obstruct the critical sight distance zone. Further coordination with Light & Power will help minimize potential sight distance concerns with the final transformer setting. patio and the like .., order to mitigate the mass and enhance t,. ,)edestrian scale. Also, please label any entrance that serves only a stair tower. RESPONSE: The entire ground level of the building that is not covered parking in proposed as commercial/retail space. All entries have a steel awning/sunscreen overhead. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slanpenberger(a)fc-gov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.phi) RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The alley drive approach will need to be reconstructed to standards including ADA requirements. The alley itself is currently in pretty good shape. Reconstruction will be needed if the alley needs to be cut into for utility connections or other work. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The existing driveways that will be going away will need to be removed and the curb, gutter and detached sidewalk reconstructed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The existing overhead lines along the alley need to be undergrounded or conduit provided along the frontage of this lot (within the 8 foot easement) for the future undergrounding of the lines. RESPONSE: The existing Centuryt-ink lines along the west side of the alley will be undergrounded with this project. The buried location will generally follow the existing overhead route along the west edge of the alley right-of-way. The existing Comcast lines along the east side of the alley will remain as -is with this development. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/02/2015: Is any information known as to the environmental conditions of the site and the underground gas storage tanks? More information may be needed on any potential hazardous materials during the course of the development review process. RESPONSE: The owner will be providing testing around the exisiting tanks during the removal of such. Any mitigation required will be done through the State Fund and permitting process. Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221-6343, tshepard a().fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14. Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Staff supports the comment that in order to enhance the pedestrian scale, and neighborhood compatibility, the upper stories should be stepped back. RESPONSE: The entire east end of the building has a significant stepped back reducing it to 3-stories. Comment Number: 15. Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: Staff supports the comments from Historic Preservation Planners that the building's architecture does not reflect major contextual influences such as the historic apartment building to the south and the C.S.U. Field House and Gymnasium across the street. All of these buildings are iconic. Any new building at the subject site should consider the architectural influences of the surrounding area. For example, while portions of the exterior materials are specified to be cream -colored brick to match the Field House, suggesting compatibility with C.S.U., the projecting overhangs at the top of certain modules minimize any advantage gained by use of brick. The roof projections at the top of alternating modules are incongruous with the surrounding context. In addition, the expansive use of aluminum storefront system also does not reflect the surrounding context. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The project has been re -designed to reflect building materials, proportions, rooflines and detailing that are empathetic to the historic 4-stroy apartment building to the south and historic Laurel School District to the east. Comment Number: 16. Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The architecture at the street level needs to be more detailed and articulated than the upper stories. For example, the building entrance needs to be highlighted to a greater extent and should wrap the corner so it also helps articulate the south elevation. RESPONSE: The proposed design includes extensive use of glazing for transparency at the ground level to help activate the commercial/retail spaces along with use of brick and stone materials with overhead steel awnings/sunscreens. Comment Number: 17. Comment Originated: 06/03/2015 06/03/2015: The site plan indicates that there are four units, at grade level, along Locust Street but the elevations indicate only two entrances. Again, in order to activate the street, each unit must have its own individual entrance at the street. These entrances must be highlighted with a covered entry, porch, ` design to addres. _JC 3.4.7. The building/retail unit entrance along College Avenue should also be made more prominent at the ground -level. Section 3.5.3(E)(4) calls for entrances to be clearly defined with prominent framing, recesses, porticos, shelter elements, etc. RESPONSE: All entries along both College and Locust have steel awnings/sunscreens entry elements. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Staff is concerned with the lack of activating elements on the College Avenue frontage outside the corner entrance. The TOD Overlay Zone parking structure standards, Section 3.10.4(D), apply to this project and require at least 50% of the ground level frontage to be retail or nonresidential uses. Outside nonresidential -use areas, additional architectural/pedestrian interest and amenities are needed on College Avenue to help improve the ground -level experience. RESPONSE: The entire ground level of the building that is not covered parking in proposed as commercial/retail space and exceeds the 50% requirement. Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06101/2015: Depending on the final number and type of units, additional parking may be needed. The 10% reduction for being within 1,000 feet of a MAX station may not apply as it is not based on a straight-line measurement; but rather on walking distance utilizing ADA-compliant walkways and sidewalks. For project submittal, please include an exhibit demonstrating if this is being met. The specific standard states: Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We are not pursuing this 10% reduction as the MAX station exceeds 1,000 feet. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Additional information will be required on the proposed bicycle parking, including locations and the treatment of the enclosed spaces. Please keep in mind bicycle parking must be located on -site or a modification is needed. Bicycle parking in the right-of-way would also require applicable right-of-way permits. RESPONSE: There are 29 covered and 21 outdoor/fixed bicycle parking spaces provided. Refer to Site Plan for specific locations. Some covered spaces are vertically mounted due to spatial constraints. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/02/2015 06/01/2015: Staff is willing to consider modifications for the parking lot setbacks/screening on an "equal to or better than" criterion. Some additional fencing material/vegetation walls or treatments may be needed. Based on this initial site plan, an additional modification for interior parking lot landscaping (3.2.1(E)(5)) would also be needed. Comment NumL ... 3. .,omment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Building height, massing, and design will be important elements for this proposal in achieving compatibility on an infill site. RESPONSE: The project has been re -designed since the PDR submittal to address building height, massing and design. The entire east end of the building has been reduced to 3-stories in order to step down to the historic district located across the alley, massing and materials have been configured to reflect the historic 4-stroy building to the south and the design had been significantly changed to add gable roof elements with dormers, provides brick detailing and window fenestration consistent with adjacent properties. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Height/Massing: Echoing Historic Preservation's' comments, the building needs to consider the nearby historic resources and site context that generally feature 1-to-2 story buildings. Of particular interest is the difference in height at 4 stories between this proposal and the 1-story homes across the alley. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15, Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. A proposal with 3 stories, or a 4th story with significant setbacks and sensitive design would help achieve the desired level of compatibility the Historic and Cultural Resource Section 3.4.7(F) calls for. This section specifically requests that taller structures or portions of structures be located interior to the site consistent with upper floor setbacks. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Design: Section 3.4.7 also calls for new construction to emulate similar architectural elements and building materials of nearby historic structures. Of note is the extensive use of brick on structures to three sides of this site. Brick as a building material should be utilized more heavily on the structure given this context. The corrugated metal siding also does not feel context -sensitive at this location, especially where building faces orient to the single-family homes to the east. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the design to address LUC 3.4.7. 3.4.7 also calls for similar building elements to be recognized by new and adjacent construction. Potential design elements used on the Fieldhouse or 3.5-story apartment building that could be explored include greater definition of individual windows with sills/lintels, varied parapet roof designs, brick soldier coursing, etc. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant has scheduled a Work Session meeting with the LPC on 9/23/15. Please see response to Comment Number 8 below for a description of the changes made to the Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/deve/opmentreview September 08, 2015 Ian Snuff ALM2S 712 Whalers Way, Ste 6100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: College Eight Thirty - Preliminary Design Review, PDR150010, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224.6045, cfrickey(.fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: A mixed -use structure with 37 multifamily units is a permitted use in the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District, subject to Administrative (Type 1) review. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 06/01/2015: Additional study is needed to inform setback requirements for this site. Staff acknowledges the varied nature of setbacks along College Avenue, but note the abutting property to the north, to which the contextual setback is based, does not align with what is being proposed. As a commercial/mixed-use structure, build -to line standards typically call for a 10-foot setback along College Avenue. Setbacks will also need to be considered along with any requirements for utility easements behind the backs of sidewalks. RESPONSE: The design team has met several times with Planning and Engineering Staff to discuss the proposed utility easement setbacks. The applicant has moved forward with submitting a Utility Easement Variance Request to reduce only the setbacks along Locust and the Alley based on agreeable input previously received from the Staff for such proposal.