HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE STANDARD AT FORT COLLINS - FDP170023 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSResponse: The detention and pipes have been designed to direct the entire 10-year flow to Lake Street,
while only releasing the remaining restricted flow to Prospect Road in the 100-year event.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
12/16/2016: Can be completed at Final Compliance
Please address in the text of the drainage report each historical basin's release
rate in relation to the proposed release rate for each basin.
Response: Please refer to the revised Final Drainage Report.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
12/16/2016: Can be completed at Final Compliance
11/15/2016: Please document in the text of the drainage report the internal
storm piping for each building will be required to convey the 100-year storm
flows. At final, sizing calculations will be required.
Response: Please refer to the revised Final Drainage Report.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
12/16/2016: Can be completed at Final Compliance
11/15/2016: Please document in the text of the drainage report that all the
internal storm piping located within the buildings will need to be included in the
Overall Site Drainage Certification.
Response: Please refer to the revised Final Drainage Report.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
12/16/2016: Can be completed at Final Compliance
11/15/2016: All storm sewers need to be in a drainage easement.
Response: All storm sewer is within a Drainage or Utility Easement.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
12/16/2016: Can be completed at Final Compliance
11/15/2016: Please add a LID summary table to the Drainage Plan.
Response: The LID Table has been added to the Drainage Report.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221-6588, icounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/15/2016
12/15/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: This comment was addressed during the PDP approval process.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/15/2016
12/15/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: This comment was addressed during the PDP approval process.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/15/2016: Please change the sub -title to match the revised sub -title on the
Subdivision Plat.
11/09/2016: Please change the sub -title to match the revised sub -title on the
Subdivision Plat.
&I
east elevations.
Response: This comment was addressed during the PDP approval process.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Harridan, 970.224.6035, bhamdan(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
11/07/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan,
Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon
the area of disturbance State permits for storm water will be required since the
site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control
section, or if there are any questions please contact Basil Harridan
970-224-6035 or email @ bhamdan(cDfcQov.com
Response: An Erosion Control Report has been prepared and submittal with this submittal.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/07/2016: Please identify and protect the nearest outfall locations for any
potential tracking on Lake Street and Prospect Road. The erosion and
sediment control plan and details sheets are too cluttered and difficult to read
due to the scale used to fit all information on one page each. There is text that is
cut off, missing flow arrows, illegible text, illegible lines. Property edge is
currently protected with wattles with construction fence, no detail is provided for
that combination, while a silt fence detail is provided which is not called for on
plan. Plans should add notes as to how the permeable paver fields will be
protected at the end of the construction sequence especially at the construction
entrance location. Please see redlines for more detailed comments.
Response: Please see the revised plans and report.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218.2932, jschlam(@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 12/06/2016
12/06/2016: Saw note about submittal at FDP, repeat of Basil's comments
from PDP round 1 review will be looking for the changes come FDP.
Response: An Erosion Control Report has been prepared and submittal with this submittal.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarguena.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/16/2016: The City has agreed to allow the flows from the 100-year storm to
outfall to the south in the sump condition with a dry well. Flows up to the 10-year
storm need to outfall to the north into Lake Street with a positive outfall.
11/09/2016: The City normally does not allow outfalls that are in a
sumpcondition. A meeting is suggested to discuss options for the outfall of the
vault detention basin.
15
to limit the offsite spill onto Prospect. See specifications.
2.There is no existin light contribution from existing public roadway light fixtures onto this property. It
would be helpful for Light and Power along with the planner go to the site at night and look at this for
themselves in order to confirm what the design team is telling them is true in this regard. If there are new
public roadway light fixtures that are going to be added that the design team is unaware of please advise.
3.The spill over from the court yard will be minimal and insufficient to meet the minimum lighting levels
dictated by the Fort Collins Land Use code. (LUC 3.2.4(C) Lighting Levels: Average Minimum of 0.5
Foot -Candles for Walkway along roadside in residential areas).
4.Picking point foot-candle levels below the fixture of 3.3 and 4.8 and calling them excessive is not properly
evaluating the overall picture. Even though we can measure lighting levels in excess of this directly below
the existing public roadway light fixtures it does not make them wrong or in non-compliance with the Fort
Collins Land Use Code. LUC 3.2.4(D)(7)allows for point lighting to be up to 10.0, we are far less than this
and thus in compliance with the LUC.
5.The comment that there will be excessive "Glare" is not viable.
a.The fixtures specified are full -cutoff listed.
b.The fixtures specified are only 12' tall
c.The fixtures specified are provided with a house -side -shield
d.The fixtures specified limit the off -site light spillage to 0.1 foot-candles at 20-feet from beyond the
property line in compliance with LUC 3.2.4(D)(8).
6.The design exceeds the requirements of the LUC as submitted. In lieu of reducing the number of poles
and improperly lighting the area in question, we recommend simply placing the designed fixtures onto a
dimmer. This will maintain uniformity for a properly illuminated site, yet, simultaneously will be able to be
adjusted to appease the arbitrary evaluation of the planner and the Light and Power. Please advise if this is
an appropriate compromise to move forward with.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: On the height and shadow analysis, we do not need the shadow
analysis for June 21st, September 21st, and March 21st. Instead, in addition to
the winter solstice, we need the date that is 45 days prior to and 45 days post
the solstice.
Response: These exhibits were created and reviewed/approved with staff prior to P and Z. If you need
any of these exhibits please let us know.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Please remove all trees from the building perspectives.
Response: This comment was addressed during the PDP approval process.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: 1 have marked comments 5, 6 and 7 as resolved. While staff
acknowledges that due to the recent staff interpretation, there is a strict
technical compliance with the Section 4.10(D)(2)(b). There remains a concern,
however, that standards, or portions of standards, that are qualitative in nature
have been relegated or dismissed to a subordinate status. Staff encourages
the applicant to consider that Land Use Code standards be interpreted in total
and to further consider terracing the upper floors of Building A along the west and
14
common use vehicle(s) and/or activity van(s) must be provided.
11/09/2016: Staff is concerned that a project of this scale does not include a
car -sharing feature or an activity van. As noted, the nearest grocery store is one
mile away. Section 3.8.16(E) was written in an era when more than three
bedrooms per unit was the exception. It seems with 788 bedrooms, a
car -sharing option addresses the large-scale nature of the project.
Response: Per Condition 1 of the PDP approval, a contract will be executed with a car share service for no
less than three shared cars parked at grade level in the parking garage near the entrance for a period of
seven years. It is understood that a copy of the executed contract must be provided to the City prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Building B.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11 /09/2016: Section 3.2.4(D)(8) requires that light levels measured 20 feet
beyond the property line must not exceed 0.1 foot-candle as a direct result of
the on -site lighting. Along Prospect Road, there are foot-candles that
consistently exceed the maximum beyond 20 feet. Per the plan, it is not until a
distance of 34 feet beyond property line where the light levels are properly
reduced to 0.1. Please note that in this particular case, there is public roadway
lighting within the 20 feet allowable distance beyond property line that is
designed to illuminate the sidewalk so the proposed illumination beyond the
property line is redundant. It appears that there is an over -abundance of
illumination caused by the A-2 fixture. Please consider deleting these fixtures
as it likely that safe and compliant illumination levels can be accomplished
solely by the wall -mounted fixtures (WS), especially since the building is only 15
L 17 set back from the public right-of-way. The Lighting Plan needs to be
adjusted to comply with this standard. Excessive illumination along Prospect
Road runs the risk of non-compliance with neighborhood compatibility.
Carried Over: Dec.19, 2016: Staff remains concerned about the amount of
illumination along Prospect Road that is produced by the eight A-2
pole -mounted fixtures. The response to this comment indicates that there will
no illumination gained by the public roadway light fixtures. In checking with Light
and Power, these fixtures are 35 feet in height and feature Type III throw pattern
which will cast illumination across the street. In addition, there will spillover
illumination from the courtyard lighting and wall -mounted fixtures. Also, Light
and Power designers indicate that foot-candle measurements that range from
3.3 up to 4.8 are excessive for a safe pedestrian environment. Light and Power
designers further state that they are concerned about this level of illumination
causing unnecessary glare on the roadway that differs significantly from normal
roadway illumination. Finally, from staffs perspective, we are concerned about
the overall impact on the residential neighborhood to the south. Staff, therefore,
will require that this level of illumination be significantly reduced. Please
consider reducing the number of fixtures from eight to four. And, in order to not
cast glare onto the roadway, the remaining fixtures must be equipped with
house -side shields.
Response:
1.There are no type "A-2" lighting fixtures. The type "A-2" fixtures were replaced with a type "A-1" fixture to
appease the 1 st round of comments. The type "A-1" is a long and narrow type 1 distribution pattern that is
directed back towards the building, in addition these fixtures were specified with a HOUSE -SIDE -SHIELD
13
12/13/2016: This is a carry-over comment. Though the response letter
indicates that this comment has been addressed, it appears the elevations
have not been changed.
11/09/2016: On the west elevation of Building A, for floors three through five,
the windows that do not have balconies appear very flat. Please consider
adding trim to these windows in the form of sills, lintels, or other details.
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/13/2016: The response indicates that apartment entries have been add to
the north side of the building. However, the site/landscape do not show any
sidewalk connections to these entries. Staff remains concerned that the
individual unit entries on the north elevation of Building B, along Lake Street, still
appear (sheet 16) to be back door patio sliders and that these patios are
protected by a metal railing (thus contributing to the patio look). The front
entrance/stoops do not look like the south facing entrances on Building A
(sheets 20 and 21). This is not the intent of our original comment. Staffs
concept is to create a real streetscape with real front door entrances that are
highlighted by functional front porches and/or stoops. In addition, these
entrances need to be connected to the public sidewalk. Simply providing
entrances for the leasing office and the retail space is insufficient. These large
buildings need to relate to the street in a positive manner and street -facing front
doors along Lake Street will help break down the mass, scale, height and bulk
of the building.
11/09/2016: On the north elevation of Building B, along Lake Street, I see only
one front door with entry stoop. Per the PDR comments, there are supposed to
be more, and these are to include entry features and not just back patio sliders.
As discussed, height, mass, bulk and scale is mitigated at the street level with
front doors and front entry features. Besides, the retail and office, I see only two
per the site plan and only one per the architectural elevation. There needs to be
additional front entrances along Lake Street. [Section 4.10(E)(1)(b).]
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: Please note that Section 4.10(D)(2)(a) states that the maximum
allowable height is five stories and yet Building B and the parking structure
include a sixth floor. I did not see a Request for Modification in the submittal
documents.
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations.
Carried Over: Please add labeling to sheet 21 that calls out that the "roofline
variation" feature is not a story.
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/13/2016: There is confusion when referring to "Landmark" as we have more
than one project using this name. In order to meet Section 3.8.16(E), a
12
Response: No pergolas will be included in the courtyards for Building B.
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/13/2016: This is a carry-over comment regarding the pedestrian connection
in the northeast corner of Building A to the Stadium Apartments. It is not clear
that there is a connection. A label was added but no site improvements are
shown to indicate it is a pedestrian connection. If there are conditions where
the fire lane becomes the connection, then we need to see how this ties into the
Stadium Apartments with a graphic that includes details on both sites.
The plat should also indicate that this is an access easement.
1/09/2016: At the northeast corner of Building A next to the Fire Access, there
is supposed to be pedestrian connection to Stadium Apartments.
Response: The Fire lane itself will provide a pedestrian friendly walkway that will function as a pedestrian
and bike connection that is inviting and attractive.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: The proposed screen wall along the west property line abutting
Plymouth Church does not indicate the frequency of the stone columns. If the
frequency of the columns is not sufficient to provide proper relief, then the stucco
field needs to feature either horizontal reveals or pilasters at frequent intervals.
Response: An elevation has been provided on the site plan. Columns are 24' OC and reveals have been
added to the stucco field.
Carried Over: 121912016:
On the fence along the west property line, be sure to provide the height, width
and depth dimensions for the stone columns. Also, the term "light stucco" is
vague. The color that is selected must complement the building and not
replicate the white that is found on the Plymouth Church. Also, be sure to make
it graphically clear that this wall cannot extend any further south than the building.
Response: Dimensions have been added to the stone column and the color of stucco has been changed to
'tan'. It is noted on the site plan that the wall ends at the south edge of Building A.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: We've talked about the building setback standard and its
importance in contributing to neighborhood compatibility. The first part of the
standard describes the additional building setback required. The second part
of the standard states:
"Terracing or stepping back the mass of large buildings is encouraged."
Please note that while most of the attention is given to the first part of this
standard, the second part establishes an additional criterion for large buildings.
Staff interprets Building A to be a large building and thus subject to additional
consideration for terracing or stepping back in addition to meeting minimum
required building setbacks for the height over 35 feet.
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11
Comment Number: 14
12/13/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNS
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. While the project team has made
a preliminary effort to sign fire lane connections at Prospect Road, additional
signage is required along the length of the fire lane. Fire lane sign locations
should be indicated on future plan sets however additional locations may be
determined at time of field inspection and final CO. 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: Signs have been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 15
12113/2016: NO WALL HYDRANTS
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
The fire marshal has determined that exterior wall mounted hydrants should not
be installed in the three courtyards on the south side of Building A. Instead, he is
requiring interior standpipe hose connections inside the building at courtyard
entryways. This should provide an advantage to the design by allowing the
system to remain climate controlled and by not require an exterior wall mounted
on/off valve at each location. This is the same approach PFA previously
required for the courtyard entryways at Building B. Please contact me with
questions.
Response: The wall mounted hydrants have been removed from the plans.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/1312016: ALTERNATIVE MEANS AND MEASURES
The applicant's comment response letter dated 9/1/16 has put forward a
preliminary plan for meeting the intent of the code via certain high rise
provisions of the fire code. The fire marshal has the following comments:
> Fire control rooms shall contain status indicators, along with start/stop
functions and other features as required for systems function and control.
> All stairs to the roof will have walk -out ability.
> As one fire pump will serve two buildings, a remote fire enunciator for fire
pump will be required in each building.
Response: We will comply and coordinate further with PFA through the building permit approval process
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416-2313, nbeals&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: The courtyards indicate that pergolas are to be constructed, this
will not be in the easements correct?
The east court yard easement is blurred with the building. Can it be made
clearer that the building and any overhang/projections are not in the easement?
10
11/09/2016: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you
have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power6s Electric
Service Standards at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar
ds_FINAL_17June2016.pdf
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/busi ness/bu i lders-and-developers,
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/14/2016
12/14/2016: It may be more cost effective to feed all buildings from the north
due to the fact that there is an existing crossing under Lake St. that can likely be
utilized.
Response: That is our current design.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416.2869, illynxwiler(cDpoudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: SITE PLAN
The Site Plan should indicate the fire lane connection to Stadium Apts. at the
NW corner of Building A.
Response: Connection now shown.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES
The city is currently reviewing what level of traffic control will be needed for the
Prospect Road access points (and where). The plans still refer to removable
bollards, which are not typically allowed in this application. Ongoing discussion
is needed.
Response: Response: The tapers have been removed and roll-over curb has been installed on both ends
for the interim design. With the roll-over curb and gutter and the visually enhanced pedestrian corridor, we
feel that this will deter drives from entering the emergency access. We acknowledge that further restriction
may be required if continual path through occurs.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: LANDSCAPING
The landscape plan should take into account that mature trees cannot obstruct
the fire lane under 14' in height. The management of any such impact to the fire
lane over time should be acknowledged and accounted for in the development
agreement,
Response: Trees shall be limbed up to a height of 14' to provide appropriate clearances.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: FIRE SERVICE LINE TO BUILDING A
The fire marshal has approved the reduction of 6" fire service lines required
from two (2) down to one (1).
Response: Two fire services are currently shown to mitigate high rise measures.
9
of the wall.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016:
LUC 3.4.7(F)(5) Landscape, requires, to the maximum extent feasible, that
existing historic and mature landscaping is preserved, and that new street trees
are aligned and spaced to match existing trees. Staff believes this standard is
being met, by the plans' complying with the landscape requirements to the
maximum extent feasible.
Response: Noted.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, CAlthoff(o),fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: Light & Power has single phase available along the north side of
Prospect Rd. 3-phase primary is available along Lake St.
Response: We are currently showing 3-phase power coming from Lake Street. It appears that there is a
3-phase power feed on the south side of Lake Street.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will
initiate electric system modification charges. Please coordinate power
requirements with Light and Power Engineering at 221-6700.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: Multifamily buildings are treated as commercial services;
therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power
Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the
developer and their electrical consultant or contractor. The C-1 form can be
found at:
http://zeus.fegov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: As your project begins to move forward please contact Light and
Power Engineering to coordinate the streetlight, transformer and electric meter
locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. It is preferred to have
gas meters and electric meters on opposite sides of buildings. Gang meters
shall be ganged. Transformers shall be 10' from a paved surface and must
have a minimum of 3' clearance around the back and sides and a minimum of
an 8' clearance from the front.
Response: A meeting is scheduled August 17, 2017 to discuss all of these locations. Revisions may occur
from discussions had at the meeting.
Response: There are no existing public roadway lighting on the north side of Prospect (only the south), and
it was previously confirmed with Light and Power that no additional streetlights are proposed. The existing
streetlights on the south side of Prospect do not adequately illuminate this project's property. 12' pole
lights are added for additional lighting. They are "cut-off' rated and provide an attractive aesthetic (refer to
lighting plans). Please let us know if there are any issues or changes in regards to streetlights.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
9
paneling, and horizontal trim details along with deep overhangs and lower
pitched gable roof forms.
• Larger windows are intended to reflect those used on the church and in
homes in the neighborhood.
• Residential entrances at grade are planned with detailing to reflect the
porches found on the historic homes
Response: This comment has been addressed and the project has received LPC approval.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) Building Materials, requires that the dominant
building material of existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate
vicinity be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in
materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of
materials in the same block.
• Building A: Brick masonry has been introduced to the material palette in
order to complement the masonry accented with stone on the Plymouth
Congregational Church located next door to the west. The brick masonry will be
used on the Building A elevation that faces the church, as well as in the opaque
screen wall.
• Building B: The use of masonry at the base of The Standard buildings as
well as horizontal siding and simple trim details are intended to complement the
craftsman character and material selection for 720 W. Prospect.
Response: This comment has been addressed and the project has received LPC approval.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(4) Visual and Pedestrian Connections, requires, to
the maximum extent feasible, that visual and pedestrian connections between
The Standard and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church,
are preserved and enhanced.
• Building A: Currently a six foot masonry wall is proposed to be constructed
between Building A and the Plymouth Church. This interrupts the visual
connection between the site and the church.
Staff recommends that the visual connections with the church be enhanced by
softening the wall through a much more extensive use of masonry on the wall
and substantially reducing the amount of panel; and by plantings along the base
of the wall.
• Building B: The site plan preserves an east -west visual axis at the rear of
the two blocks that compose the overall property.
Both Buildings A and B:
• Streetscape and sidewalk improvements are planned on both W. Prospect
and W. Lake Streets.
• A network of pedestrian connections around and through the site will
enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• The design of The Standard will preserve both a north -south and east -west
view corridor through the property.
Response: The wall has stone columns 24' OC and reveals in the stucco. There is existing vegetation at
the base of the wall facing the Church and plant material, including trees, is being added on the west side
dissimilar, that the historic exterior integrity and significance of these properties
are not negatively impacted by the dissimilarity. This subsection further
requires the use of certain elements (such as walls, columns, hedges or other
screens) to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment if similar building
setbacks cannot be maintained. Taller structures or portions of structures shall
be located interior to the site.
The height, setback and width of The Standard are not similar to the historic
church and residential buildings on West Prospect Road. The height of the
Building A closest to the street is three stories or 34' 6", rising to 68' 6" at the
top of the 5th story. The historic buildings are one and two stories, including the
Plymouth Church. Some of the design elements that address and help mitigate
this dissimilarity are:
Building A has been designed with open south -facing courtyards fronting
onto W. Prospect that break up the mass and help to create the sense of four
narrower buildings along the street.
The 4th and 5th stories are stepped back by 8 feet at the 4th story
Building A is set back 36 feet from the existing edge of West Prospect. This
setback roughly aligns with that of the rectory building at 930 West Prospect.
The other historic structures are set back further from the road, the farthest
being the house at 730 West Prospect. The LPC previously determined that this
house could be moved forward to be in line with the designated house at 720
West Prospect.
The west elevation of Building A is set back 26-37 feet from the property
line, and approximately 90 feet from the east elevation of the church (the closest
historic property).
Response: This comment has been addressed and the project has received LPC approval.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: 3.4.7(F)(2): Character: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) requires that new
construction be in character with existing historic structures and describes
specific techniques for doing so: "Horizontal elements, such as cornices,
windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing
historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window
patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in
new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the
street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible."
The Standard has incorporated elements to address this requirement:
• The Standard has been planned as two distinct buildings, in order to respect
the existing historic block pattern of the neighborhood.
• Building A uses design characteristics like trim, warm, natural color
selections; materials like stone, brick, paneling and siding; residential -inspired
massing such as gables and porches; overhangs and low slope roof forms; and
fenestration detailing, to relate to the mid-century buildings in the area of
adjacency.
• The South elevation of Building A, along West Prospect, has been revised
to remove the more "commercial -feeling" elements from the fagade; the window
design has been revised to reflect the adjacent Plymouth Congregational
Church.
• Mid-century elements and details also include the use of horizontal siding,
9
Please consider using Iseli Fastigiate Spruce in place of Fat Albert Spruce due
to the narrow planting space close to building.
For the project's consideration, Crimson Sentry Norway Maple has similar
foliage color to Deborah Norway Maple, but has a narrower mature crown. This
may be a better fit for some of the desired planting spaces.
Response: Deborah Maple is no longer being used as a street tree. Iseli Fastigiate Spruce is now being
used in place of Fat Albert.
Comment Number: 7
11/10/2016:
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
Northern Catalpa should be listed at 3" caliper as it appears to be a mitigation
tree.
Response: Catalpa is no longer a species in the plan.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
11/10/2016:
Are street trees in the parkway along Lake and Prospect within City right of
way?
Response: The ones along Prospect are. Trees planted with this project along Lake are outside of the
ROW. Street trees will be planted in the future by others in a median as specified in the West Central Area
Plan.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224.6078,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
kmcwilliams(dfcgov.com
Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: The proposed project is located adjacent to designated and
individually eligible historic properties; therefore, the project will need to comply
with LUC Section 3.4.7.
Response: This comment has been addressed and the project has received LPC approval.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: At its November 9, 2016 meeting, the LPC established an area of
adjacency for the proposed project to consist of the following buildings: The
landmark designated properties at 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive and 720 West
Prospect Road; and the potentially individually eligible properties at 730 West
Prospect Road, 916 W. Prospect Road (the Plymouth Congregation Church),
and 920 W. Prospect Road (Church rectory). The surrounding area includes
several older properties that were previously reviewed and found to not be
individually eligible and there are also other approved or proposed larger
developments located around The Standard, including The Slab, Stadium
Apartments (Lake Street Apartments), and the CSU Stadium. These are not a
part of the Commission's consideration and application of LUC 3.4.7.
Response: This comment has been addressed and the project has received LPC approval.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/08/2016
12/08/2016: 3.4.7(F)(1): Height, Setback and Width: This section requires that
the height, setback and width of The Standard be, to the maximum extent
feasible, similar to the historic properties addressed on West Prospect or, if
subsequent submittals and upsized trees will be specified.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
11/10/2016:
Please provide a final landscape plan that addresses Land Use Code and
3.2.1 requirements. Be sure to show the following features
• Locations of water and sewer service lines and proper 6' tree separation
• Street lights and street tree separation of 40' for canopy trees, and 15' for
ornamentals. Show locations of street lights.
• Intersections for visibility if applicable
Response: Noted. Additional detail including callouts and counts will be added at subsequent submittals
once the site is set.
Comment Number: 3
11/10/2016:
Existing Tree Comments:
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
In addition to showing trees with existing conditions, please show existing trees
with reference to proposed site plans (not including new trees) on a separate
sheet. This helps the City Forester review the impact of the proposed
improvements to existing trees.
Take an additional look to see if feasible to retain trees 1, 2, 50, 57, and 58.
Please provide reasons why trees are to be removed by adding a column to the
Tree Mitigation legend labeled "Reason for Removal"
Response: Site is now underlayed in the Mitigation Plan. Trees 57 and 58 are now being preserved.
Reasons for removal are now provided in a column on the tree mitigation legend.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
11 /1012016:
Please provide a brief statement for Tree Protection Plan explaining why some
trees cannot be retained to the extent reasonably feasible.
Response: Reasons for removal are now provided in a column on the tree mitigation legend.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
11/10/2016:
If any existing trees end up being retained, please provide Tree Protections Notes.
Response: Tree protection notes have been added to sheet 3.
Comment Number: 6
11/10/2016:
Tree Species Selection:
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
Deborah Norway Maple is not listed on the Street Tree list. Please select a
suitable species from list. You may want to consider using Bur Oak as an
adaptable street tree.
4
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: A couple sheets have the incorrect scale. See redlines
Response: The scales have been revised.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
12/13/2016: The dimension should be from back of walk not edge of curb. This
proposal isn't changing the location of the curb line to the ultimate location, but
the sidewalk will be in the ultimate location.
11 /07/2016: Street trees along Prospect Road will need to be clearly shown in
the ultimate location. The West Central Area Plan calls for the curb line to move
north to create 6' parkways. Please dimension (3') the street trees along
Prospect Road from the back of walk (ROW) to the center of trees.
Response: Trees are now shown and labeled as 3' from the walk.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: Please look at the street trees along Prospect Road. Trees to the
west look like they may impact the turning movements for emergency vehicles
utilizing the emergency access.
Response: Trees were removed on either side of the emergency access to avoid conflicts.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/12/2016
12/12/2016: Thank you for responding to all comments provided in earlier
round of review. Glad to hear connected to the WRAP program.
Environmental Planning has no further comments at this time and is ready for
Hearing.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchanananfcaov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/10/2016
11 /10/2016:
The Tree Mitigation Summary shows 109 trees to be planted in place of the
removal of 65 existing trees. Even though there are 109 trees displayed on the
landscape plans, 3 trees are not labeled with their corresponding species. After
counting the proposed species count of new trees, it seems as though 2 Hot
Wing Maples and 1 Chanticleer Pear are missing from the map. Please label
the remaining three trees on the northwest side of Building A.
Response: The project is now preserving more trees, with anew total of 96 mitigation trees required. All of
these trees will be upsized and planted on -site. More detail will be provided to landscape plans at
3
Road.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
12/13/2016: Tapers should be removed both fire access driveways on
Prospect Road. Some sort of access restrictions will be needed. With this
project gates should be designed as the ultimate solution, however Engineering
would be okay with knockdown bollards/Flexible Delineators as an interim
solution. Language will be added in the Development Agreement that if vehicle
access isn't being restricted with the flexible delineators, that gates will need to
be installed. This can be taken care of at Final.
11/07/2016: The emergency access points along Prospect Road will need to
be modified. Please show limits of the rolled curb in each location. Driveways
should not be used at these points to prevent motorists from thinking there is
vehicle access. More treatment will be needed on the eastern access that
serves as a public walkway. Perhaps bollards, grasscrete, etc.
Response: The tapers have been removed and roll-over curb has been installed on both ends for the
interim design. With the roll-over curb and gutter and the visually enhanced pedestrian corridor, we feel
that this will deter drives from entering the emergency access. We acknowledge that further restriction
may be required if continual path through occurs.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: Bike racks along Lake Street will need to be set back 2' further.
Typically 6' will be needed from the rack to the ROW. This provides adequate
space so that bikes don't encroach into the ROW. The same can be said with
bike racks that line the emergency accesses on either side of the building.
Verify that these won't be an issue.
Response: Bike racks have been moved 6' off of the ROW.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: Will there be any overhangs along Building A that will encroach
into the 15' Utility Easement on Prospect Road?
Response: No.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: Will it be possible to move the electric vaults in the Parkway along
Prospect Road in accordance with the ultimate cross section of Prospect Road.
A number of the vaults are being reset, but could the be moved so that there
aren't any disruptions when the curbline for Prospect Road eventually is moved
further north?
Response: The relocated electric vaults are shown outside of the ultimate configuration of Prospect Road
and will not conflict with the ultimate curb and gutter alignment.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 12/13/2016
12/13/2016: The proposed driveway will interfere with the Stadium Apartment's
sidewalk chases. Please work with the Stadium apartments to move their
chases or redesign the driveway to prevent this conflict.
Response: The approved Stadium Apartment plans no longer conflict with the proposed plans of The
Standard.
2
Cf
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
/cgov. com/developmentreview
December 19, 2016
Linda Ripley J-
Ripley Deisgn, Inc.
419 Canyon Ave Ste 200 ° �)b 6Ca
Fort Collins, CO 80521 y�I N
RE: The Standard at Fort Collins, PDP160035, Round Number 2
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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
RESPONSES 11/23/2016
Civil- Northern Engineering
Planning- Ripley Design
Architecture- Dwell Design Studio
Traffic- Delich Associates
Lighting- APS
Developer — Landmark Properties
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
12/13/2016: All sidewalk chases need to be one larger plate or modify so that
flows fit in one standard sidewalk chase.
11/07/2016: There are chases on both Prospect Road and Lake Street that are
in close proximity to one another. Please look at solutions to try and consolidate
the chases or increase the distance between the chases.
Response: The chases have been modified to be a larger plate. We now only have one along Prospect
pedestrian access.
12/13/2016: How do the residents on the ground floor of building B access the
trash/recycling enclosure ? An access will need to be provided for pedestrian
access.
Response: Ground floor residents will access the trash chute on second floor.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: A detailed floor plan of both parking garages need to be
provided, including the layout of all the parking spaces and handicap spaces
contained within the garages.
12/13/2016: How will the 5th floor and B1 floor of the parking garage handle the
circulation of vehicles without a provided space to turn around at the dead
ends?
Response: Turnaround spec will be provided for dead ends at the top and basement levels of the parking
garage.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11 /02/2016: The HMN zone restricts the maximum building height to 5 stories,
Building B with it's rooftop amenity is in violation of the height limit. The
setbacks for both buildings do not meet the minimum required setbacks as per
4.10(D)(2)(b). The north elevation of building A is 68.6' which would require a
17' setback. The North elevation of building B is 74' which would require a 29'
setback. The east elevation of building B is 72' which would require a 19'
setback. The south elevation of building B is 13' at the wall and 19' at the corner
tower. Terracing would be encouraged to meet these standards.
12/13/2016: A modification will be required to include the pool amenity, which is
considered to be an additional level above the maximum building height
allowable in the HMN zone.
Response: This comment has been addressed and is reflected in the PDP approved elevations.
N9
study indicated this reduction would actually improve function along Prospect,
staff does not agree with that. Given the impact to the overall corridor function,
staff will not support split phase timing at Whitcomb and Prospect. Variance
letters will be required for the LOS standards at this intersection, and staffs
support of those variances will be dependent on the alternative mitigation
measures discussed above.
Response: This was addressed and approved in the TIS dated January 2017, along with letters in January
2017. If you need anything that was previously submitted please let us know.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2016
12/14/2016: The pedestrian LOS is listed as a D for two of the destinations
and an A for the third. The minimum LOS required by the standards is a C. If
both vehicular and pedestrian LOS are not met, this is a concern. This needs to
be further discussed as we move forward with mitigation strategies for the
development's impact on the transportation system. The multimodal
components of this corridor are not as strong as some of the other student
housing sites.
Response. This was addressed and approved in the TIS dated January 2017, along with letters in January
2017. If you need anything that was previously submitted please let us know.
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221.6820, nhahn()fcgov.com
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11 /09/2016
11/09/2016: The Traffic Impact Study has been received and reviewed. There
are some geometric improvments that have been triggered by this project. The
TIS indicates there are constraints prohibiting installation of these improvments,
but does not offer alternative mitigation strategies. In the absence of a
recommendation City Staff will determine what improvments will be required.
Response: This was addressed and approved in the TIS dated January 2017, along with letters in January
2017. If you need anything that was previously submitted please let us know.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/31 /2016
10/31/2016: 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(7fcQov.com
Response: Noted
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970.416-2401, rboehlena.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: The marked trash enclosures on the drawing need to include a
detail showing how the enclosure area is designed to provide adequate, safe ,
and efficient accessibility for service vehicles, and the separate walk-in
19
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
12/14/2016: Please make changes to the legal description as shown. See
redlines.
11 /08/2016: Please make changes to the legal description as shown. See
redlines. Also revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Response: Updated
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
12/14/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet
titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.
11/08/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet
titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.
Response: Updated
Comment Number: 17
12/14/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
11/08/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
Response: Updated
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
12/14/2016: 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.
11/08/2016: 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: Updated
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970.221-6887, mwilkinson(a.fcgov.com
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/14/2016
12/14/2016: The revised/ rescoped traffic study has been received and
reviewed. The right turn lane warrants for WB Prospect at Whitcomb as well as
NB Shields at Lake are met with site traffic alone, and the total turning volumes
at these locations are multiple times above the warrant. The study noted the
potential difficulty of building these lanes, and as requested by City staff listed
some mitigating measures the project is offering to alternatively comply with the
standards. The mitigation measures offered are pretty minimal, and do not
provide added mobility for any mode, so staff would like to work with you to find
mitigation measures that are proportional to the impact created by the project.
Response: This was addressed and approved in the TIS dated January 2017, along with letters in January
2017. If you need anything that was previously submitted please let us know.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2016
12/14/2016: Two movements at the Prospect and Whitcomb intersection reflect
LOS F. A split phase signal timing approach was suggested by the study, and
indicated improved operations would result. Split phase timing reduces the
green time on Prospect by more than 20 second per cycle, and although the
18
Response: The sub -title has been revised.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/15/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
11/09/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
Response: The sheet numbering has been revised and added upon.
Comment Number: 26
12/15/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
11 /09/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Please see revised plans.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
12/15/2016: 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 have been revised.
11/09/2016: 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.
Comment Number: 31
12/15/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: Please see revised plans.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 19
12/14/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
11/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Updated.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 21
12/15/2016: No comments.
11/08/2016: No comments.
Response: Noted
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/15/2016
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
12/13/2016: This has not been corrected,
11/08/2016: Please include in the sub -title & legal description: Apart thereof
being a replat of Lots 5, 6 & 19, and portions of Lots 4, 7, 16, 17, 18 & 20,
Block 2, College Heights. See redlines.
Response: The sub -title & legal description has been revised.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/08/2016
12/13/2016: If the Stadium Apartments plat is filed prior to this plat, please note
changes in surrounding subdivisions.
11/08/2016: If the Stadium Apartments plat is filed prior to this plat, please note
changes in surrounding subdivisions. See redlines.
Response: The surround property description has been revised to show Stadium Apartments.
17