HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE UNION ON ELIZABETH (FORMERLY 1208 W. ELIZABETH STREET) - PDP/FDP - FDP170024 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSComment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide calculations for maximum intermittent and
maximum continuous flows in accordance with AWWA M22 manual design
procedure to support proposed water service sizing.
Response: As the building is still in the SD and DD phases, these calculations are not
available yet. We will be happy to provide them prior to mylar approvals.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please see redlined plans (provided via pdf).
Response: All redlines have been addressed.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
mglasgow@fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Based on the total number of parking spaces, this project will
require a total of 8 handicap parking spaces. One of these must be van
accessible. Please include in the parking table.
Response: See note below parking table. 8 spaces are provided, one of which is van accessible.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Light levels measured twenty (20) feet beyond the property line of
the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public rights -of -way) shall
not exceed one -tenth (0.1) foot-candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting.
Response: See revised photometric
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall
feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up -light, spill -light, glare and
unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. Fixture Type (SD) Visa Lighting
OW5524-Shine does not comply
Response: See revised cut sheet
24
Management Focus Areas" (page 56-57) for identification of a bus stop at this
location for phase 4 West Elizabeth BRT. Also, please see Appendix E for the
"Typical Bus Stop Island Design" that should be installed at this location.
Response: It was determined in the City Traffic meeting that the bus stop would not be necessary at this time.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
09/05/2017: 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
Response: Understood.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City construction detail drawings are to be
used in their original, unaltered state. ANY modification(s) must be clearly
distinguished and all City logos/identifiers must be removed from the modified
detail. Detail drawings can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats through the
links to "Construction Drawings" on www,fcgov.com/utility-development.
Response: It is Northern's policy to follow the procedure outlined in your comment. If
there are specific details that you feel have been altered, please let us know so we can
work to rectify the situation.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City of Fort Collins Utility Customers are
subject to City Code requirements for wastewater. These requirements include
Section 26-306 Wastewater Discharge Permit Requirements and Section
26-332 Prohibitive Discharge Standards. A permit may be required depending
on activities on the site; however, discharge standards apply to every customer,
both large and small, regardless of what activities take place on the site.
Please contact Industrial Pretreatment, (970)221-6900, to discuss these
requirements and how they apply to this development.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please locate proposed meters in landscape areas. Please see
redlines.
Response: The meters have been relocated to landscape areas.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Residential and commercial water and sewer services must be
provided from separate taps. Please see redlines.
Response: Separate taps are provided for commercial and residential uses.
23
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The proposed access location on the east side of the development
is a high conflict location, and is negatively offset from the Campus West
access. We would like to work with you to find another location for the parking
garage access. One solution would be to convert the alley on the West property
line to the main access location. If another solution to the access location
cannot be identified, access will need to be controlled to a right in/ right out
condition. An amendment letter to the traffic study indicating that the TIS
conclusions do not change will be needed.
Response: The garage is now accessed via the west alley as discussed with staff.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Cross -access e/w should be developed through, or on north side
of, the project to facilitate access out to City Park
Response: The existing access from the west alley to the west has been maintained,
which provides access out to City Park.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Need to meet intent of West Elizabeth ETC plan along frontage of
Elizabeth in terms of pedestrian facilities, future bus stop facilities and future
ROW needs.
Response: The Elizabeth frontage has been closely coordinated with various City
departments. With the exception of a bus stop (which has not been included since there
is not bus service along Elizabeth), we believe that the design intents have all been met.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Consider additional options for the n/s bike and ped connection
from Scott Ave to Elizabeth, to guide people to and from the Elizabeth
pedestrian crossing on the very east end of this project
Response: We have worked with staff to provide a strong N/S pedestrian connection by
using the paseo as a pedestrian corridor.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017:
The traffic study indicated that the Northbound left turn lane operates at a LOS F
in the PM peak hour. This condition will need to be mitigated, or a variance
request for this failing movement will need to be pursued.
Response: A variance letter is now submitted
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-4164320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: TRANSFORT
Consistent with the comment made from Emma Belmont during the PDR, a bus
stop is required per the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. Please see "Figure 20:
Planning for Redevelopment" (page 46-47) and "Figure 24: Parking
xA
areas. See redlines.
Response: Masking has been added.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Drawings have been revised.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Drawings have been revised.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you
disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections
were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in
response letter.
Response: The redlines have been addressed.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Response: Please clarify? Do you want the future legal description?
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the sheet titles & numbers in the sheet index do not
match the sheet titles & numbers on the noted sheets.
Response: Sheet table has been fixed
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Drawings have been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Drawings have been revised.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Response: Drawings have been revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcqov.com
Topic: General
21
incorrect. Please update the Drainage Report to include all applicable parts of
the 100% Floodplain & Development Review Checklist for a Drainage Report.
Response: The report has been updated.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues will be resolved with the next submittal
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues will be resolved with the next submittal
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: Text boxes have been revised.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please revise the sub -title to match the corrected sub -title on the
Subdivision Plat.
Response: The sub -title has been updated.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Please remove the address from the title block. With the project
being replatted, the address could change.
Response: The address has been removed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Why doesn't the Basis Of Bearings match the Subdivision Plat?
Response: The basis of bearing on the utility plans now matches the plat.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Response: The easements on the plat and utility plans are coordinated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text corrected.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated:
09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
20
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the HVAC is shown as having the same elevation
as the RFPE. Note 9 on this Sheet says that it will be located on the roof. The
drawing accompanying the table also shows the HVAC as being at ground
level. Which is correct?
Response: Current plans call for all HVAC to be on the roof, however we wanted to
provide guidance in the event that changes for any reason. We have modified the note to
help clarify what is intended.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Orginated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the FFE is shown as 5031.1 ft. NAVD88. The plan
indicate a FFE's of 30.09, 30.36, 31.18, and 31.33.
Response: The table has been updated to reflect the actual FFE's on the project.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: If there are two buildings are not connected and are separate, two
Summary Tables and Detail Drawings will be required on Sheet C800 of the
Utility Drawings.
Response: We have added separate tables for both buildings.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; please show an elevation
at the entrance to the parking garage. That will be crucial in determining how we
approach the garage entrance and whether or not it is sufficiently elevated. The
grading plan indicates an elevation of 30.67 ft. It needs to be no less than 31.10
ft.
Response: A spot elevation has been added as requested.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add a note to Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings, indicating
whether the floodplain use permit for the building will be approved as part of the
development review process or at the time of building permit application.
Response: The floodplain use permit is will be applied for outside of the entitlement
process. A note has been added indicating that a permit must be acquired prior to
starting work.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add a note to Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings, indicating that a
post construction Elevation Certificate must be approved before a Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued.
Response: The requested note has been added.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Section I.C.1 of the Drainage Report states that the project site is
not in a City or FEMA regulated 100-year floodplain, which is obviously
Wel
only showing the updated floodplain info that was developed as a part of the CSU
underpass. We understand that this floodplain is under review and has not been formally
adopted yet.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Add notes to Sheet C100 of the Utility Drawings, requiring the
approval of a floodplain use permit for any abandonment taking place in the
100-year floodplain, and approval of a floodplain use permit and no -rise
certification for any abandonment taking place in the 100-year floodway.
Response: The requested note has been added.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show the current effective and corrected effective
floodplains and floodways; and include the standard floodplain and floodway
notes for work within the floodplain on Sheets C300, C400, C401, and C402 of
the Utility Drawings.
Response: The requested information has been added.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show the current effective and corrected effective
floodplains and floodways on Sheet C700 and C800 of the Utility Drawings.
Response: The requested information has been added.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; please use the corrected
effective model for all cross -sections, BFE's, etc.
Response: The requested information has been added.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; the BFE should be
interpolated at the upstream edge of the building, not the property line. It
appears there are two buildings. If that is the case, each building will have it's
own BFE. If they are connected, than the BFE of the upstream building will take
precedence for the entire structure.
Response: The BFE has been interpolated as directed.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; currently, the
cross -sections are over the stationing bubbles. Please bring the stationing to
the top.
Response: The display order has been corrected.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: In the Mixed Use Building Summary Table and Detail on Sheet
C800 of the Utility Drawings, the RFPE and BFE are both shown as being
equal. The RFPE should be 5031.1 ft. NAVD88.
Response: This has been corrected.
18
building plans will be finalized.
Comment Number: 111 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: It appears there is proposed landscaping over the proposed
pavers. Are there planter boxes here? Please help me understand what is
proposed.
Response: Landscape has been revised.
Comment Number: 112 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Extended detention water quality is not allowed beneath the paver
system. Please see redlines.
Response: ED is not provided in the pavers. The pavers now include a Stormtech
chamber system, including two isolation rows. The rows have been sized to provide the
required WQ volume when accounting for a reduced release rate through the fabric. This
information has all been documented in the LID appendix of the report. Feel free to
contact us if you have questions about the design.
Comment Number: 113 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please add the following note to the proposed paver system on
the grading and utility plans:
Please refer to the erosion control plan sheets and report for temporary control
measures and construction sequencing that shall be used to prevent loading of
this drainage facility with sediment during construction.
Response: The requested note has been added.
Comment Number: 114 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please see redlined drainage report and plans (provided via pdf).
Response: All redlines have been addressed.
Comment Number: 115
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Response: All comments received to date have been addressed.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: Please show and label the Canal Importation 100-year Current
Effective floodplain and floodway boundaries on the Plat.
Response: The requested information has been added. As discussed with staff, we are
only showing the updated floodplain info that was developed as a part of the CSU
underpass. We understand that this Floodplain is under review and has not been formally
adopted yet.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
09/08/2017: A Corrected Effective Floodplain was modeled as part of the CSU
Underpass CLOMR. FEMA requires that "best available data" be used if it
exists, and in this case the CLOMR model is the best available data. Please
show and label the Current Effective and Corrected Effective floodplain and
floodway boundaries on the Site Plan. The Corrected Effective model is
available to the developer's engineer upon request.
Response: The requested information has been added. As discussed with staff, we are
17
Response: Acknowledged —the offsite flows are no longer being treated by our project.
Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please review drainage report and plans for consistency and
clarity throughout. It appears the drainage report is currently a conglomeration
of different iterations of design, and there is not consistency between what is
written and what is seen in the plans. For instance, the drainage exhibit in the
plans is not the same as the drainage exhibit in the drainage report. The plans
call out a "detention area" in the SW corner of the site; however, the drainage
report calls for no detention in this area. The drainage report as submitted is
incomplete or at least deficient; please be sure to provide complete report with
next submittal. Please see redlines.
Response: All redlines and highlights in the utility plans and drainage report have been
addressed. Extra care has been taken to ensure that all plans/reports/calcs are
coordinated across the board.
Comment Number: 106
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: What are the proposed overflow paths for the proposed detention
areas?
Response: The emergency spill path from the garage vault is out the north side of the
vault, through the garage and out into the paseo.
Comment Number: 107 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide modeling to show conditions if the paver system
were to be clogged and that runoff is still safely conveyed to Elizabeth Street.
Response: The requested information has been provided.
Comment Number: 108
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide an easement for the detention ouff all paths
including pipes and spillway/emergency overflow.
Response: Detention easements are provided for all storm facilities located outside of
the building footprint. We have not provided an easement for the emergency spill path,
as it has not been required in the past, and we are unsure how this would be defined. We
are open to providing this easement if requirements have changed, but would need to talk
with staff in more detail about how it is defined since there is not a specific flow or storm
event to base the easement extents on.
Comment Number: 109
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Storm pipes are proposed directly under dwelling units. This is
not acceptable. Any outfall pipes must not pass directly under dwelling units as
any future maintenance would be extremely difficult. Please revise.
Response: The storm pipes were located under an open area beneath the building that
was accessible for maintenance. The building footprint has since changed, but the storm
outfall from the garage vault is located in a similar space — an open air hallway behind the
retail spaces. This hallway could be dug up if maintenance on the storm drain line is
needed in the future.
Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide details for the design of the proposed detention
and LID facilities within the structure including building plans so it can be
verified that utility and building plans are in alignment.
Response: A detailed grading design of the vault is provided. as are details on the sand
filter, subdrain and outlet structure. Final structural plans have not been developed yet,
but can be added/provided prior to recording mylar, which is when we can expect that the
16
from a separate space away from the 12' sidewalk, and not use the large
sweeping semi -circles but a different concept. Anther idea is to raise the entire
area to the same level as the elevated area that is currently located behind the
columns.
Response: Area has been re -designed
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Harridan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
09/05/2017: Please indicate flow arrows on the site in order to assess the
need for perimeter protection. How will paver field in the middle of the site be
protected from clogging up during construction, please delay in the construction
phasing and provide protection after installation. Please contact Basil Hamdan
@bhamdan@fcgov.com 970 224 6035 with any questions.
Response: Flow arrows have been added and notes clearly indicating that the pavers
must be protected during construction have been included.
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 101 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that all City construction detail drawings are to be
used in their original, unaltered state. ANY modification(s) must be clearly
distinguished and all City logos/identifiers must be removed from the modified
detail. Detail drawings can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats through the
links to "Construction Drawings" on www.fcqov.com/utility-development.
Response: It is Northern's policy to follow the procedure outlined in your comment. If
there are specific details that you feel have been altered, please let us know so we can
work to rectify the situation.
Comment Number: 102 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance
with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information
on this statute is available at hftp://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a
spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at
hftp://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet.
Response: A drain time spreadsheet has been provided showing compliance.
Comment Number: 103 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Please note that a clause in the development agreement
regarding access to the detention and LID facilities located within the structure
will be required as there is not an easement for these facilities.
Response: Acknowledged -a clause can be included, similar to West Plum Housing.
Comment Number: 104 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: The proposed LID facilities must be sized for the entire runoff area
reaching the facility regardless of whether the area is on- or off -site. Please see
redlines.
15
is a conflict with the FDC shown and the rack. The combination of elements
here could use more consideration and more maneuvering space to/from the
elevator. Sidewalk to elevator in this area next to the pkg. garage entrance — is
this a sidewalk, does not appear to go through to the building face. Entrance /
walk on the opposite side are behind the elec. room and will likely have visibility
issues with bike/ped/ auto conflicts. Arch. set labels a bike area in the NE part
of the site.
Response: Bike spaces have moved
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: In general, the building footprint does not yet fit well on the site and
there are circulation and landscape issues.
Response: Acknowledged. The building footprint has been revised, as well as the associated landscaping and circulation.
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike dispersal. Entrances are spread out and with limited access
to elevators; more bike parking options on the east side of the building are
warranted.
Response: Bike spaces have moved
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Elevators -- there are only two single cab elevators and the project
relies on in -room bike parking. This does not seem viable.
Response: A third elevator has been added to the project, near the clubhouse.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Elevators —the one in the SE is accessed from the exterior from
within the parking garage. This is a high conflict area and does not seem like an
appropriate access point. The elevator access area on each floor is also not as
easily secured; views are obscured and will likely have safety issues, or at least
an unsafe feeling, especially on the upper levels. Also, parking stall blocks the
entrance. Please consider ways to orient elevators to interior spaces that have
access control and provide double cabs.
Response: The location of the SE garage elevator has been revised to the NW corner of the garage.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Accessible routes to entries — unclear on the plans.
Response: Accessible entries have been labeled. Accessible entries will be provided per code at the following locations: entry into
retail spaces; entry into the precast garage from exterior and interior; entry into the apartment building for access to all units; entry
into the clubhouse/fitness and leasing areas. The accessible route will link these entry's and allow full site accessibility
accommodations.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Existing spruce trees in SE, would suggest removing the south
spruce tree to accommodate a straight sidewalk alignment, and placing two
additional street trees in 5x5 openings behind the curb.
Response: All three trees were removed to allow for the patio and sidewalk
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Along the retail frontage, what if the outdoor seating areas here
were maximized by using an alternative layout that has more concentrated
landscaping, perhaps some walls or other hardscape features, site art etc., to
14
Response: The 111 floor design/materiality has been revised based on comments. Re: elevations.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
09/13/2017: Staff may have concerns with the amount of amenity space
provided, please provide complete labeling of uses proposed within the
non -unit areas so that this can be discussed further.
Response: Additional labels have been added
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
If the trash enclosure must be located in an interior location, we need to figure
out a screened staging location outside of the building so that pick up can occur
conveniently and without the trash truck blocking drive aisles.
Response: The trash compactor room is located in the garage. An additional trash staging area for full bins has been added to the
north side of the drive aisle adjacent to the NW stair. This will allow the trash truck to conveniently pick up without blocking drive
aisles. We have confirmed the number of bins required for the project with a trash company representative.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Please provide full dimensions/typical dims for parking areas.
Response: Dimensions have been added
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: If the trash enclosure must be located in an interior location, we
need to figure out a screened staging location outside of the building so that
pick up can occur conveniently and without the trash truck blocking drive aisles.
Response: See response to Comment Number 11. The center retail bay will drop trash into the compacter
room through the garage. The western retail bay will take the trash out through the fire lane to be
dropped in the trash staging area.
Response: See above
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Please provide full dimensions/typical dims for parking areas.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Need details to show trash room layout; also doors seem too
narrow.
Response: The trash compactor room and trash staging area have double 3' doors on the 1 s' floor; upper levels have a single 3'
door. The compactor room in the garage will feature spaces for 8 bins, with room for an additional 4 bins located in the trash
staging room. We are working with a local trash company to finalize the trash plan.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike ingress/egress areas in the NW corner seem tight with the
column spacing. Will there also be issues with snow buildup and dropping of
ice/snow onto the bikes and residents in the area where the building overhang
occurs over the bike area.
Response: This has been revised
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017: Bike area outside of the building in the SE corner seems tight in
relation to the drive aisle and attached sidewalk. The building foundation
placement here is also tight, with the foundation only five feet away from the
drive aisle. Bikes extend further and crowd the entry. Also unclear whether there
13
Retail faces the street. All major entries face Elizabeth Street.
(b)Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1) prominent or central location within each geographically
distinct Community Commercial District shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities
such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities may be placed on blocks with
community facilities.
We have provided over 10,000 sq.ft. of paseo with benches, lighting, and landscape. There is a 7,000
rooftop pool area with hot tub and outdoor kitchen. In addition there is a ground level fitness room and
study rooms.
(c)lntegration of the Transit Stop. Community Commercial Districts shall be considered primary stops on the
regional transit network. Transit stops, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to
the core commercial area. Commercial uses must be directly visible and accessible from the transit stop.
Transfers to feeder buses shall be provided for in the design and location of these stops. (See also Section 3.6.5.
Transit Facilities Standards.)
There is a bus stop less than 400 feet from this location. When a future bus stop is needed one may be
constructed on this site.
(2)Block Requirements . All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the
decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual
topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature:
(a)Block Structure. Each Community Commercial District and each development within this District shall be
developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). (See Figures 17A through 17F at
subsection 4.6(E).) Natural areas. irrigation ditches. high -voltage power lines. operating railroad tracks and other
similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.
We have streets on two sides and are constrained on the other two due to existing development.
(b)Block Size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. except that blocks containing
supermarkets shall be limited to ten (10) acres in size.
We are constrained with existing development from developing a block 7 acres.
(c)Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the total of all block
sides shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space.
We comply with this minimum.
id)Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof
line of a flat -roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped -roof building. In the case
of a complex roof with different co -dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All
buildings shall be limited to five (5) stories.
We comply with the minimum. However surrounding buildings do not. We also comply with the maximum.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The pedestrian and bike access provided for the development
does not meet the connectivity standards in 3.6.3(B). The north/south public
bike/ped connection is not open and is too constrained by building mass.
Response: We have revised the building to only have one overhead gateway.
Comment Number: S
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The balance of commercial space remaining with the project
appears to be detrimental to the intent of the Elizabeth corridor. Staff
recommends incorporating additional space to support a more balanced mix of
uses in the area.
Response: The revised plans have commercial space along the 1 st floor of the Elizabeth corridor. The retail spaces have been
divided into 2 separate spaces on each side of the paseo and the clubhouse/leasing/fitness has been moved to the SE corner of the
site.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Need to work on material balance and pedestrian / street level
design along Elizabeth, amount of glazing proposed, columns, canopy, etc.
12
will not be in conflict with fire access. The project team is being asked to
re-evaluate and provide a plan with the next submittal round.
Response: There is a loading zone provided. Apartments are fully furnished to reduce the need for moving large furniture.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, 'holland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Height, bulk, mass and scale are not adequately addressed. The
proposed design isn't compatible with the surrounding area per LUC 3.5.1(C)
and (G), and landscape buffer space is not sufficient to accomplish a
compatible design with 3.5.1(G) Land Use Transition. Building design does not
provide significant mass reductions that that would provide visual transitions.
Response: Surrounding area also includes buildings adjacent to the site. There is a five -story building to the north. Several revisions
have been completed based on further staff comments.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The design has significant adverse shadowing impacts onto the
adjacent affected properties to the north that need to be addressed by reducing
the mass of the building and increasing the west landscape setback. The west
landscape area is considered a high visibility area and must accommodate tree
placement in addition to utility and drainage placement.
Response: The property owners to the north are aware and sent an email of project support. Trees have been added to the west
landscape bed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: A six story building height is proposed that is not permitted, and a
taller upper projection for an amenity area that does not meet the height
exceptions outlined in LUC 3.8.17(C).
Response: The building has been reduced to 5 stories
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The development does not accommodate an off-street loading
zone for deliveries, maintenance, moving etc. and the trach enclosure is not
located along the perimeter of the building at an off-street location.
Response: The west alley has a loading zone on the north side. There is also a secondary trash staging area provided
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Landscape setbacks proposed do not have sufficient space for
shade tree stocking, drainage and utilities.
Response: The landscape plan and utility plan has been revised.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The project does not meet the requirements in the C-C zone —
Block Size (7 acres max), Block Structure, Central Feature or Gathering Space.
Response:
Development Standards .
(1)Site Planning.
(a)Building Orientation. The configuration of shops in the Community Commercial District shall orient primary
ground -floor commercial building entrances to pedestrian -oriented streets, connecting walkways, plazas. parks or
similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary
entrances from off-street parking lots: however. on -street entrances are strongly encouraged. The lot size and
layout pattern for individual blocks within the Community Commercial District shall support this requirement.
11
the building:
> Exterior Master
> Riser room
> Fire panel
> Elevator key if equipped with an elevator
The number of floors determines the number of sets of keys needed. Each set
will be placed on their own key ring.
> Single story buildings must have 1 of each key
> 2-3 story buildings must have 2 of each key
> 4+ story buildings must have 3 of each key
For further details or to determine the size of Knox Box required, contact the
Poudre Fire Authority Division of Community Safety Services.
Response: Knox boxes will be provided per PFA requirements.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITY
Poudre Fire Authority is currently looking to acquire a commercial property to
use for a major emphasis drill. Please contact me if your site may be willing to
pursue a discussion along this line and I will put you in touch with our training
division chief. Thank you.
Response: Depending on project scheduling/timeline, the owners may be interested in
accommodating this request.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
09/14/2017: AUTOTURN EXHIBIT REQUESTED
During the city staff meeting of 9/13/2017, some concern was expressed by city
staff regarding the under -building, drive -through and the ability to meet the
needs of fire apparatus. An AutoTurn exhibit is requested at this time to ensure
this function. The turning template should be completed using a 52' PFA vehicle
template.
Response: The site plan has been revised. An Autoturn exhibit is provided using the 52' PFA vehicle template.
Comment Number: 11
09/14/2017: ROOFTOP VEGETATION
Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
City staff suggested that rooftop landscaping might be included at the pool
area. Rooftop gardens and landscaped roofs shall be shown to comply with IFC
317 to prevent the accumulation of dead or drying vegetation.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/2017
09/14/2017: DELIVERY STAGING VS FIRE ACCESS
After the city staff meeting, there remains a question regarding commercial
deliveries to this property, move -ins, move -outs, etc. Fire lanes are to remain
free and clear of obstructions at all times. Blocking of fire lanes is prohibited
and it remains unclear how the need for commercial deliveries to this building
10
Comment Number: 5
09/12/2017: ROOF ACCESS
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
Stairways to the roof shall have a direct means of exterior access or be
protected along the exit pathway by a fire rated corridor, etc. Such stairways
shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway
continues to the roof. Where roofs are used for roof gardens or for other
purposes (eg. assembly occupancy), stairways shall be provided as required
for such an occupancy classification.
Response: Roof access and signage will be provided at each stairwell, per code.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ROOFTOP ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY
> Project team to confirm height of pool deck. An occupied floor located more
than 75' above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be
classified as a high rise building.
> An assembly group occupancy load of 50 or more persons will require a
minimum of 2 approved exits from the pool area. The current plan appears to
indicate just one egress pathway from the pool assembly through the intervening
S-2 occupancy.
> Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with IFC 1016.2.
> Building Dept. to approve the egress plan.
Response: The height of the pool deck is 74'-8". 2 exits will be provided from the pool area.
It is noted that egress plans must be approved by the Building Dept.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ELEVATED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES W/ CLERESTORY
WINDOWS
The function of the elevated roof projections containing clerestory windows has
not been defined on the plans. Further details are requested.
Response: Elevated roof elements are meant to be decorative only and do not provide any occupiable space.
Comment Number: 8
09/12/2017: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
> IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: Poudre Fire
Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an
approved, exterior location (or locations) on every new or existing building
equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall be
positioned 3 to 7 feet above finished floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or
closest door to the fire alarm panel. Exception can be made by the PFA if it is
more logical to have the box located somewhere else on the structure. Knox
Box size, number, and location(s) to be determined by time of building permit
and/or final CO.
All new or existing Knox Boxes must contain the following keys as they apply to
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-28699 Lynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: ALTERNATIVE MEANS & METHODS
Preliminary discussions with the project team have identified perimeter access
and aerial access deficiencies. Where project size and scope and/or site
constraints conflict with fire code compliance, the intent of the fire code may be
met via alternative means and methods, as approved by the fire marshal. As
per IFC 104.8 & 104.9, the fire marshal may allow this approach when
perimeter access and/or aerial apparatus access requirements cannot be met
on the site plan. A written plan to meet the intent of the code via alternative
means and methods will need to be submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow
for review and approval prior to final plans approval.
Response: A separate letter outlining the alternative means and methods plan for meeting the
fire code will be provided to the Fire Marshall.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS
> EAST SIDE: The limits of the east side EAE should be revised to extend
farther north to coincide with the limits of the proposed drive aisle. It should also
extend east to the property line to coincide with the proposed cross property
access points.
> WEST SIDE: The alley is described as being dedicated as an EAE on the
plat. The Site Plan should be labeled so as to include this information.
Comment Number: 3
09/12/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and 75' spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
signs. Please label sign locations on the Horizontal Control Plan or Site Plan.
Code language provided below.
> IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
Response: Fire lane signage/markings will be provided per code
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
The FDC will need to be located within 1 00'of the existing hydrant.
Response: A new fire hydrant is located on the north side of the drive
I
located outside of the existing easement. We have discussed this with staff, and our
understanding is that, since the portions of the lines outside the easement must be
relocated at the cost of the City, there are opportunities for cost sharing on the entire
relocation along the north side.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any proposed Light & Power electric facilities or existing electric
facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within a
utility easement.
Response: All UP facilities are located within easements.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Transformer locations need to be within 10' of an asphalt surface
accessible by a line truck. A minimum clearance of 8' must be maintained in
front of the transformer doors and a minimum of 3' on the sides Transformer
and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power
Engineering. Certain building materials and or building design may require
more clearance. Please click on the following link for Electric Service
Standards.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Response: All transformer locations meet the requirements.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line
diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all
proposed commercial buildings and multi -family (commercial) buildings larger
than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Response: A C-1 form will be provided once the transformer locations are finalized.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any building larger than a duplex or greater than a 200amp
service size is considered commercial and the secondary service will be
installed, owned, and maintained by the owner.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system
modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact
Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970-221-6700. Please
reference our Electric Service Standards, development charges and fee
estimator at the following link:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: PFA
7
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code - Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2015 IECC
commercial chapter.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There are currently no available electric facilities, for any of the
existing properties, running along Elizabeth. All of the electric infrastructure for
this area runs along the rear of the properties. Therefore, Light & Power would
not be in favor of vacating the existing easements around this site.
Response: The existing 12' easement has been left in place along the north side of the buiding.
Please note that our information indicates that portions of the existing electric facilities are
located outside of the existing easement. We have discussed this with staff, and our
understanding is that, since the portions of the lines outside the easement must be relocated at
the cost of the City, there are opportunities for cost sharing on the entire relocation along the
north side.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The existing electric transformers that feed the current Pan
Handlers Pizza building, also serve a building to the West at 1240 W. Elizabeth.
This equipment and electric service will need to remain in it's current location or
a suitable transformer location, and any utility easements necessary, will need
to be provided by the developer.
Response: Our project has provided two new transformer locations at the northwest corner of the
project, at the north end of the alley. These two transformers are in addition to the two needed
by our project, and are intended to replace the existing transformers in the alley.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The proposed transformer location in the Northwest corner of the
site looks to be in conflict with shared bike racks on the Site Plan.
Response: The site plan has been updated and the conflict removed.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Light & Power will need to install at least 2 primary switch
cabinets, one in the Northwest corner and one in the Northeast corner, to feed
the 2 proposed transformers.
Response: With the new site layout, we would appreciate staff reviewing what additional
facilities will be needed. We will work with staff to provide the appropriate facilities in
suitable locations.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be
at the expense of the owner/developer.
Response: Understood, for the most part. As mentioned in our response to L&P
Comment #1, our information indicates that portions of the existing electric facilities are
s
4' between trees and gas lines
Response: Utility lines are shown
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Please use the current version of the City of Fort Collins General Landscape
notes (November 2015). Contact Molly Roche at mroche@fcgov.com to receive
a copy.
Please add City of Fort Collins Tree Protection notes on the landscape plans.
Response: New notes are used.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
The proposed building layout appears to be roughly 4 feet from existing spruce
tree #1 and 7 feet from spruce tree #2. Discuss the feasibility of adjusting the
building layout to provide additional separation between the spruce trees and
the building to avoid any unnecessary pruning on the north side.
Response: Planning Staff recommends removal of these trees.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: Please schedule a pre -submittal meeting with Building Services
for this project. Pre -Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design, that the new 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.
Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com 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.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
2015 International Residential Code (IRC)
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2017 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/building web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 129vult or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
5
Response: See updated planting plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LIGHTING PLAN: The photometric plan should extend to 20 feet
beyond the property line in all directions. The foot-candle measurements at 20'
beyond the property line shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candles to the north and south
of the property (adjacent to residential uses and public ROW).
Response: Photometric has been updated to show 20' beyond the property line. We are not currently exceeding 0.1 foot-candles.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LIGHTING PLAN: The Visa Lighting linear LED pendant does not
comply with the standards in section 3.2.4(D). Please select a fixture that is
either: fully shielded, sharp cutoff and down directional; or if the fixture is
mounted under a canopy it should be flush -mount with a flat lens.
Response: The Visa Lighting fixture has been replaced with a new, full cut off fixture. Refer to attached updated cut sheets for
additional information.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: GENERAL: Due to the size and mass of this building, staff
suggests taking measures to mitigate or reduce its environmental impacts
above and beyond code requirements, particularly related to energy
consumption, urban heat island effect, and stormwater management. Examples
of such techniques include solar energy production, reflective roof materials, the
use of landscaping for shading and cooling, and green roof/blue roof features.
These opportunities may be particularly relevant if the applicant is pursuing any
modifications of standards.
Response: We have added landscaping on the roof. There is a unique storm water feature in the wall along Elizabeth St. that will
flow water through scuppers into a plant bed after storm events.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcqov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Species Selection
City Forestry does not suggest Deborah Norway Maple to be planted in Fort
Collins because they do not reliably survive in our soils. Please use an
approved canopy shade tree, such as Kentucky Coffeetree or Catalpa in its
place.
Princess Kay Plum is not readily available in nurseries and may be hard to find.
Instead of using another ornamental species, please consider increasing
canopy shade tree plantings on the project. Species such as Bur Oak, Texas
Red Oak, Linden, Honeylocust, Hackberry, Catalpa, and Kentucky Coffeetree
are all great substitutes.
Response: Tree species have been substituted. Additional shade trees have been added
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
09/15/2017:
Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please
adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.
10' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines
4
09/12/2017: The drawings should be differentiating between pavers that are
permeable vs non -permeable either by their linetype and/or labelling. I am
seeing the concrete banding used to define but additional labelling/discernment
would be helpful.
Response: The paving plan now distinguishes between permeable and impermeable paver
areas.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The obligation for the local street portion for Elizabeth Street under
24-95 (given that the road is slated to be widened and a new sidewalk system
in place) with the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor project is needed to be
determined.
Response: Our discussions with staff indicated that there will be a repay obligation for
improvements that were made to the Elizabeth corridor around 2004 or so. The project will of
course pay whatever obligations exist. Philosophically we believe that requiring a project to pay
for a capital improvement project that is over 10-years old seems unfair. Furthermore, City code
requires that a project pay for its local half section if the roadway doesn't exist, however the
Capital Project did not provide a new roadway — it replaced and enhanced an existing corridor.
Were any of the existing businesses required to pay for the improvements along their frontage?
If an existing business along the frontage was not required to pay because of taxes paid or some
other mechanism, it would seem that requiring a new development to pitch in would in effect
charge this property twice. We would like to discuss this in more detail when appropriate.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970416-2625, rverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LANDSCAPE PLAN: The landscape plan does not meet the
requirements in section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code for full tree
stocking. At least 50% of the trees used to meet this standard must be canopy
shade trees, not ornamental species.
Response: See revised plan. Shade trees have been added based on suggestions from Tim B. There is 921 linear feet of building
face resulting in the need for at least 23 trees. We have provided 57 in addition to the existing 4 street trees. More than 50% of the
required 23 are shade trees.
In addition, section 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) specifies that there must be canopy shade
trees every 40 feet (at least) along driveways to and through parking areas. This
would apply to the eastern driveway accessing the parking garage.
Any shade canopy trees used to meet the tree mitigation requirements will need
to be upsized to 3" caliper.
Response: Trees have been upsized.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/11/2017
09/11/2017: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Staff recommends including more native
and/or wildlife -friendly plant species in the plant list. Fruiting and flowering native
plants can provide habitat for birds and pollinators, even on highly developed
sites.
rk]
all site traffic related to Union will access the building via the alley on the west side of the project.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: In conjunction with the previous comment, a Traffic Study wasn't
received and would need to be reviewed with the next submittal.
Response: Traffic study was supplied to Nicole and Martina.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The site plan shows east of the depiction of the one-way drive
aisle for that property, a "re -stripe parking for Campus West Shopping Center"
but I can't seem to find any indication of the re -stripe design. Having the striping
changed here to diagonal parking stalls to lend further credence to the one-way
aspect of the drive aisle should occur, otherwise I'm concerned that access to
this parking lot might be encouraged to occur from the southern access,
creating more "friction" at this intersection.
Response: Striping is shown on this submittal.
Response: The Krazy Karl parking lot will be restriped as shown on the plans. It will have a
two-way drive aisle that accesses 90-degree parking spaces.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The placement of a wall along the new Elizabeth Street property
line with the right-of-way dedication would not allow for a 2 foot separation from
both the existing and future sidewalk as part of the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan. The wall should be offset 2 feet north from the right-of-way line.
Response: All walls are 2 feet off of the property line.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The demo plan shows that a sawcut line for the rework of the
private drive occurs at the westerly property line which does not technically then
require an offsite easement for the rework of the asphalt being only on this
property, yet the plans do show that utility relocation occurs on that property to
the west, which would presumably require tearing up the asphalt west of the
proposed asphalt limits. What sort of coordination is occurring with the property
owner to the west on impacts and do we have a "letter of intent" from that
property owner with the work in mind?
Response: The sawcut line is shown at the tie-in location for the paving. While we acknowledge
that there may be some utility work that occurs beyond this limit, we are not planning for any
specific work, so we are unable to determine that exact location at this time. Should work be
needed on the property to the west, we would assume that whatever easement allows for the
existing utilities to be located in their current location would also allow work to be completed if
they need to be relocated.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: Doesn't the emergency access easement need to be aerially
defined as portions of the building(s) would be built over the easement?
Response: The plat now defines a vertical limit to the emergency access easement that is 14'
above the highest finished grade elevation.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
2
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/developmentreview
September 15, 2017
Stephanie Hansen
Ripley Design
419 Canyon Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Union on Elizabeth (formerly 1208 W. Elizabeth Street), FDP170024, Round
Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about
any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through
the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 orjholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fc-qov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: The development's access design doesn't meet driveway spacing
requirements along an arterial in accordance with LCUASS 7-3. Access
spacing from the exit driveway approach on the property directly east, the
mid -block pedestrian crossing, and the lack of alignment with the driveway
across the street (and their potential conflicting left turn movements) has
concerns. With the coordination that is occurring with the property to the east,
the exit approach that ties onto Elizabeth Street in front of the existing building
storefronts should instead look to tie into the one way traffic aisle directly west of
the buildings to help with driveway consolidation. In general access design,
location, and/or restrictions may need further discussion, especially a the time a
traffic study is provided for concurrent review.
Response: Traffic study was supplied to Nicole and Martina. The existing driveway needs to stay
for access to the adjacent property to the east. There is an existing cross -access agreement. At
the September 21 st meeting it was discussed to move the garage entry to the west which is what
we show now.
Response: Driveway locations have been coordinated with the various departments and the site
layout has been updated. Access to Krazy Karl's will remain at the existing location, however