Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - PDP - PDP120020 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWCommunity 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 May 22, 2012 Response to comments below for PDP submittal 7/17/2012 RE: River District Block One Mixed Use - Encompass, PDR120001, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. The following comments are provided: Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: The site is located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. Within this overlay, there are no minimum required number of parking spaces for the dwelling units. BHA Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: The design standards within the T.O.D. are found in Section 3.10. The concept plan already accomplishes most of these standards. Note, however, that there are standards related to the parking structure in 3.10.4(D). RB+B Response: The underground parking conforms to 3.10.4.and auto entrances minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. The code section assumes the garage entry is at the building face (figure 16.5). In our case, the ramp is exposed and allows pedestrians and autos to be visually aware of one another long before a conflict can occur. The standard gray concrete walk changes to dark brown colored concrete to alert pedestrians to the fact that a vehicular driveway exists in this area. As such, the garage access is similar to a driveway and we feel cautionary signage is unnecessary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: For the non-residential land uses, there are parking maximums as detailed in Section 3.2.2(K)(2). Please note that if there is a number of parking spaces for the office component that exceeds the allowable maximum as described in the table, then the applicant may avail themselves of two provisions, the Exception to the Office Standard or Alternative Compliance, in order to provide a level of parking that is needed for a known end-user. These provisions are in Sections 3.2.2(K)(3) and (4). BHA Response: Based upon our calculations (see Site Plan 1 of 2) there are 104 allowable parking spaces and we have provided 73. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: On page five of the project narrative, under Architectural Character and Image, there is a reference to the "dock height" typology found in the general area. In furtherance of this concept, please note that historically, this area of the City was zoned I-G, General Industrial. RB+B Response: Noted. We believe this typology can help further emphasize and add character to the Industrial history of the River District as a sub-district, distinct from the general commercial character of downtown. A majority of the existing eligible and designated structures in the district have dock height ground floors. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: As mentioned, lighting will need to be designed to not spillover onto the Poudre River riparian area. Pole-mounted fixtures, if used to illuminate the parking lot, may need to be equipped with the house-side shield to prevent spillover lighting. RB+B Response: Site lighting has been designed to provide directional and sharp cut-off lighting of public spaces with acknowledgement of the adjacent buffer area. Low level bollard lights are indicated on the required connecting walkway closest to the river buffer to minimize light spill. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: Please give serious consideration as to how best mitigate restaurant hood, duct and ventilation systems so as to minimize impacts on the dwelling units. Section 3.5.1(J) may provide guidance on how best to address compatibility issues among the various users. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: If access to the trash enclosure is the only reason that public parking is not provided on Linden Street, then arrangements could be made to restrict trash removal to off-peak times. That way, public parking and trash removal can both be accommodated. This arrangement has precedence in Downtown area. BHA Response: Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: Since the path along the river is not yet able to connect to adjoining properties, perhaps it could be terminated with picnic tables or a gazebo or some other feature. This would be roughly equivalent to the path around the Gustav Swanson Natural Area. The site plan indicates that this path would not be extended to the limits of the property. If such is the case, then provisions would need to be made to extend the path at some point in future as deemed necessary. This may involve posting a form of financial security. Or, the path could simply be extended in conjunction with this project. BHA Response: The site plan incorporates multiple pedestrian connection opportunities through the site. The only adjoining property is the Ranchway feeds property currently in operation as an industrial use with heavy truck traffic. Given the industrial nature of the Ranchway site, we believe that continuing the path to the Ranchway property at this time poses a safety concern to pedestrians and a liability to Ranchway. We have designed the required pedestrian connection along the river to allow for future extension to any redevelopment that may occur on the Ranchway site, but at this time have terminated it at a terraced pedestrian plaza that leads up to the upper common plaza spaces. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/20/2012 02/20/2012: With a variety of users, the bicycle parking should be logically distributed around the site. For example, bike parking for the employees and residents could be provided within the parking structure (along with amenities such as an air station). The proximity of the breweries has generated significant bicycle traffic on Saturdays, especially along Linden Street and the Poudre River Trail. Consequently, sufficient space should be devoted to exterior bike parking for customers. BHA Response: Code requires bike parking be provided at 10% of the total parking spaces (73), requiring 7.3 bike parking spaces. There are currently (4) bike parking spaces shown on Linden Street and (12) bike parking spaces inside the parking garage totaling 16 provided bike parking spaces. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php NE Response: Fees have been included with application. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. NE Response: A traffic study is provided based on the scoping meeting with Joe Olson and comments from Transportation Planning. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. With Linden Street classified as a collector on the Master Street Plan a 9 foot utility easement is typically required as specified in LCUASS. The applicant would need to provide documentation from the utility providers not objecting to a reduced or eliminated utility easement, as part of a variance request. NE Response: A variance will be requested to eliminate 9-foot utility easement. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: There were some general concerns raised by the City's Traffic Engineer with the driveway access location and its proximity to the river with the bridge crossing potentially resulting in sight visibility concerns. This along with the ramp down, and the outdoor dining in close proximity has at least questioned how the driveway access would perform overall and whether their may be safety concerns. Further discussion with Traffic Engineering should occur on driveway access design and location. NE Response: The proposed driveway is being located in the same location as existing driveway. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: There are some general questions on the site's proposed utilization of the public right-of-way from several aspects which are outlined further below. Additional discussion should take place if these items are proposed to remain as the final approval on some of these items may need to be City Council: - There appears to be permanent type structures in right-of-way, including ramps, stairs, walls, and elevated outdoor dining. If ultimately allowed to remain, leases and/or encroachment permits would need to be issued by the City and may require elevated review and/or approval either through City upper management and/or City Council. BHA Response: We have relocated the building so that the building itself and the dock-height landings which access it are outside of the Linden Street right-of-way, but the stairs from this landing and the outdoor seating for the restaurant are located within the right-of-way. Given the sloping topography of the site, this provides the required strong relationship of the building to the street, and results in a vibrant and functional pedestrian-oriented streetscape condition particularly as the streetscape narrows to cross the Linden Street bridge. -Due in part to the encroachments noted immediately above, there appears to be several diagonal parking spaces along Linden Street that are now lost due to the encroachments taking up area that would have otherwise been available for diagonal parking along Linden Street. If the loss of the diagonal parking along Linden Street is allowed, there may need to be discussion as to whether the project should internally provide parking spaces for the public to help offset the loss for parking along Linden Street created by the proposal. BHA Response: We have revised the plans based on comments from the PDR. We are not reducing the amount of potential parking spaces along Linden Street. The plans show the extension of the Linden Street improvements with parking across the entire frontage except for the site access drive, the areas adjacent to the city storm drainage structures, and an enhanced transit stop adjacent to the sidewalk connection into the project. - Due in part to the encroachments previously noted, the amount of sidewalk remaining for the public at large travelling along Linden Street appears questionable in width and function. The amount left between the diagonal parking along Linden Street and the elevated platform in front of the buildings, provides a width that appears to comprise of trees in tree wells where ideally, the pedestrian through space should be provided exclusive of the tree and tree wells. The standard along Linden Street has been that the 9.5 foot area between the tree wells and the property line be clear pathway space for the sidewalk. This width is not adequate to accommodate the clear pathway sidewalk space and the proposed retaining walls and ramps. If ramps are needed to access the building they will need to be placed outside of the row on private property. BHA Response: We have revised the plans based on the PDR comments to include a wider sidewalk at the Linden Street frontage. The sidewalk matches the widths and design features of the recent adjacent streetscape improvements including 8’ clear width in most areas, and 7’ clear near the oversized 5’ square tree grates. In addition to the sidewalk at street grade, a 6’ wide upper ramp and “dock height” platform is provided adjacent to the building entrances bringing the total public walkway space to 13’ clear, minimum. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Coordinate through Engineering Capital Improvements on repay requirements for the Linden Street improvements. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A street cut permit is required for the utility connections in Linden Street. There would be street cut penalty fees assessed due to Linden being a recently improved street. Due to the potential for several street cuts to Linden Street in close proximity, a full mill and inlay from patch to patch may be explored. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Construction plans will be required. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A development agreement will be required and recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A utility coordination meeting on this site may be of benefit. NE Response: Noted. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 Linden Street has a non standard curb and gutter. The curb and gutter that was placed along this property is a temporary condition and will need to be fully replaced and the non standards curb and gutter continued along this property (2 foot gutter pan with an 18 inch curb head depth). The curb along this property was installed as interim because the plan was that diagonal parking would be provided along the full frontage of this property at the time of development, so none of this curb would remain in its current location. NE Response: Drawings show removal of existing curb/gutter and placement of new curb/gutter to match the Linden Street standard. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Just to the south and partially under the existing driveway are two large (12 foot diameter) storm scepters. These need to remain accessible for maintenance and the raised patio and retaining walls you are proposing can not be built over these. The depth of the scepters and the outfall pipe may also impact your ability to lower the driveway. NE Response: Current design has been revised with input from City Maintenance/Stormwater Depts to accommodate access. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The patio, if at street grade, would be allowed under the patio encroachment permit and the limits of the patio boundary would be based on what configuration is needed to retain the clear pathway space around tree wells and bus stops. BHA Response: Because of the sloping topography of the site, the restaurant seating area is elevated above the street level to be at the same grade as the restaurant. We understand that approval will be required. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Additional sidewalk width to the north of the driveway behind the tree well and tying into the bridge needs to be provided. As shown the clear pathway space behind the tree well is not even as deep as the tree well. The minimum clear pathway space in the rest of downtown is 8 feet (tree well grates do not count as part of the clear pathway space). BHA Response: Acknowledged. The plans have been revised to include an 8’ clear walk in this area, then tapers to tie in with the existing sidewalk located on the bridge. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The frontage design needs to make sure it accommodates the space needs for the bus stop and the clear pathway space. BHA Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (the Poudre River). Please note that the buffer requirement for the Poudre River is 300' from the top of bank. However, these prescriptive buffer zone standards do not apply in the RDR Zone. Instead, code requires that "the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of the transition between development and the River" (See Division 4.17(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. An Ecological Characterization Study must be submitted 10 days prior to the PDP submittal. Staff has already been working, and will continue to work, with the applicant regarding the nature of the river buffer for this site. While staff generally supports the removal of non-native trees along the river bank, as noted by floodplain staff, a stability analysis may need to be provided to assess the feasibility of this option. In addition, staff would like to reiterate that if the non-native species serve a habitat value, that careful, and potentially longer-term, planning may be needed to ensure the viability of this area for habitat over the long-run. This will likely include site-specific details that can be addressed at the final plan stage, but let's keep this in mind as we proceed. BHA Response: An Ecological Characterization Study was prepared and submitted 10 days prior to the PDP application. Design of the landscape buffer is based on the recommendations of the study. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Also, please note that Section 3.4.1(I) requires that the overall design of the project take into consideration design and aesthetics in relationship to the Poudre River. As the buffer in the RDR zone is often a smaller width than in other zones, please consider upsizing planting materials to quickly establish the buffer that will be established. BHA Response: Acknowledged. See landscape plans for more detail on proposed buffer. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Let's explore ways to minimize the intrusiveness of the parking right next to the "future walk connection," potentially by using alternative surfaces. BHA Response: We agree in efforts to minimize the intrusiveness of the parking lot. We have designed the lot to be small and efficient, with one-way drive aisles to reduce the pavement needed and a large landscaped center area to soften its appearance overall. We considered alternative paving materials, but have proposed concrete for long-term maintenance. (Grass pavers will not establish successfully due to frequent use of the lot, permeable pavement systems require periodic vacuuming which will not be feasible via access to this small lot through the parking structure). We do not believe changing the color of the concrete beneath parked cars will significantly minimize the intrusiveness of the parking lot. We considered creating berms between the future walk connection and parking lot, but this does not well accommodate the storm drainage design and floodplain considerations. We instead provided significant planting in this area to visually buffer view of the small parking lot. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: As a final and more general comment, the applicants will need to (continue to) work closely with environmental planning, forestry, floodplain staff, parks, and others to ensure that any proposals on the City-owned property are consistent with the area's planning documents and needs of the site. Creating the management objectives for this area, as suggested by Tim Buchanan during the 2/14 site visit, is a great start for this effort. BHA Response: Ackowledged. We anticipate further development of management objectives with feedback from the initial PDP submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D) (6) requires that “natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources.” Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. RB+B Response: Site lighting has been designed to provide directional and sharp cut-off lighting of public spaces with acknowledgement of the adjacent buffer area. Low level bollard lights are indicated on the required connecting walkway closest to the river buffer to minimize light spill. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: As views into the river are critical to this applicant, let's keep in mind that users best experience connection with the river through a sense of discovery and a views from different tiers/scales. In other words, staff is comfortable with the contiguous buffer being a mix of vertical structures, but again, decisions on these issues are likely micro-scale questions and should be determined in the field. BHA Response: Acknowledged. Coordination has taken place with City staff, and we look forward to continuing this coordination effort. We have designed the river landscape buffer based on recommendations from the Ecological Characterization Study, and with the intent to provide a variety of plant heights and species to increase habitat diversity while creating framed viewing pockets to the river. Please see landscape plans for proposed plantings adjacent to the Poudre River, and tree mitigation plans for proposed tree pruning, trees to remain and be protected, and tree removals. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: • The City's green building program has many programs that may benefit your project. Resources are available at the Green Building web page: http://www.fcgov.com/greenbuilding/. Of particular interest may be the Integrated Design Assistance Program, which offers financial incentives and free technical support to those interested in delivering high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements for energy performance. Gary Schroeder (970-221-6395) is the contact person for this program. This is the direct link to the web page for this program: http://www.fcgov.com/conservation/biz-idap.php. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: From a design perspective, staff encourages the applicant to think of increasing the accessibility of the terrace in the rear of the property so that all users can enjoy this space. BHA Response: The overlook terrace is directly accessible from Linden Street through the passageway between the two buildings. The lower level of the terraced pedestrian plaza provides seating opportunities and is accessible from the crusher fines path located between the river and the building. It is also accessible from the back parking lot. Contact: Matt Zoccali, 970-416-2283, mzoccali Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 02/13/2012: While no known environmental contamination exists at this location, past environmental assessments indicate an increased potential for concern due to past industrial uses. Please contact Matt Zoccali at 224.6008 with any questions. RB+B Response: A Phase One Environmental Study has been performed and is attached. The attached document does not include the studies appendixes, which are approximately 400 pages, a digital copy will be provided upon request. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: As this project is in close proximity to buildings and structures that have been determined to be eligible for individual National Register listing and for individual Fort Collins Landmark designation, the development will need to comply with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. RB+B Response: The project complies with LUC Section 3.4.7. No historic structures exist on the site or on adjacent sites, nor is the site within a historic district. There are also no designated structures or properties on this block face on either side of Linden Street. However, there are three residential properties on this block which contain buildings that were determined to be eligible for Local Landmark Designation in a 2002 study conducted by the City. The project as designed does not change or impact the eligibility of these structures. The building setbacks and building widths have been designed to be consistent with others within the neighborhood. Taller building elements are stepped back from the front and side facades as required in the R-D-R zone district. The proposed buildings have been designed with regard to these properties as well as other historic properties of varying uses and architectural styles within the nearby historic districts. With respect to height, setback width, etc. of the project structures it should be noted that the River District’s defining character is primarily made up of generally dissimilar industrial buildings (mills, depots, warehouses, sheds, worker cottages, etc) each with its own typological and morphological characteristics. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The flat roof two story element along Linden is a good nod to the historic buildings across the street, and does much to ensure the building's compliance with LUC 3.4.7. The deck on top of this element should be kept as wide as possible, enhancing the "two story building" perception. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The architectural design of the restaurant building does not appear to be in character with the historic Old Town buildings. The building's architecture appears to be more reflective of the industrial buildings in the area that of the many commercial buildings; historically in Fort Collins, industrial architecture would not be used for a commercial building. Additionally, this building’s elevations will require more articulation to be more compatible with the historic buildings in the area. Staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission would be happy to assist in revisiting the design to develop a more compatible building. RB+B Response: As noted in the Response to Comment Number 1 above, the River District predominant remaining architectural history was Industrial (depots, mills,sheds, warehouses) –especially subsequent to the turn of the century introduction of the railway and associated sidings etc. and not commercial (banks, offices, merchantile, dining, etc.). Our intention is to bring some of Downtown’s typological commercial character to the River District but also maintain the River District’s variety and “quirkiness”as a distinct sub- district. The recently completed Linden Street public improvements are illustrative of the sub-district character and therefore the architecture should be fun, nod to the river, and introduce typological character that enlivens the streetscape. We believe the architecture if the district should be reflective of the industrial buildings and character in the neighborhood. And where buildings anchor the district to the river they should acknowledge that adjacency. At the same time, we have revised building massing as it addresses the river to a) improve the river relationship with the river frontages—both from and towards the project, and b) to further step down the building mass as it approaches the riverfront. We have included a great deal of articulation in the design that will create a rich street and pedestrian scaled experience but at the same time we are being careful not to include gratuitous decoration. Please refer to the accompanying PDP elevations and diagrams. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Please look into making the connecting element between the buildings translucent, helping the two to appear as separate buildings. This also would likely help ensure compliance with 3.4.7. RB+B Response: This comment is a subjective opinion about the best method to bridge elements in the building. We believe the uses (both internal and the need to screen the very well located roof-top mechanical areas) warrant maintaining the general design direction currently proposed. The bridge mass is well stepped back from the maid building massing and we are proposing wood siding to help emphasize the lightness of the bridge and a dark paint color to further emphasize its “recessive” role. Department: Light And Power Contact: Justin Fields, 970-224-6150, jfields@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering (970) 221-6700. Contact Light and Power Engineering for the requirements for meter and transformer locations. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Contact Light and Power Engineering to review the wiring requirements for the fire pump. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A C-1 form and a 1-line diagram will need to be submitted to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form is available online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Street trees will need to be coordinated with the street lighting design. Forty feet of clearance is required for shade trees and fifteen feet of clearance is required for ornamental trees. BHA Response: There is only (1) street light in close proximity to this site and it is proposed to be relocated adjacent to the bridge. The landscape plan shows a shade tree 36’ away from this street light, and the tree is cannot move the additional 4’ away from the street light because of significant underground utilities. The design team looked into using an ornamental tree in this location to preserve the street lighting clearances. Because this tree is located adjacent to the vehicular drive, we believe an ornamental tree would not provide adequate site distance and would create dangerous pedestrian-vehicular interactions. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Contact Light and Power Engineering for and estimate of electric development charges. RB+B Response: Noted Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: I have been informed about the potential need to use some of the land adjacent to the Poudre Trail for landscape needs associated with the project. Park Planning is receptive to a discussion about this need. We will need to make sure the trail is not impacted by any landscape items. Work on park property will require an easement and agreement for long term maintenance. BHA Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Due to mixed use, this is a fully fire sprinklered (NFPA 13) project. This includes the garage. RB+B Response: Noted, building is planned to be fully sprinkled. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: A fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the building, measured as the hose would lay, not as the crow flies. The fire flow is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. NE Response: Existing fire hydrant along Linden Street will be used for this development. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The address numerals shall be 6-inches and posted on a contrasting background. RB+B Response: Noted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 A portion of this project is in the Poudre River 100-year floodway and flood fringe and Poudre River 500-year floodplain. This is a FEMA designated floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 All regulations in Chapter 10 of City Code apply to the areas within the floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 No new residential or mixed-use structures are allowed in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain. The proposed structures are shown to be out of the 100-year floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 Life-safety, emergency response, and hazardous materials critical facilities are prohibited in the 100-year floodplain. Life-safety and emergency response critical facilities are prohibited in the 500-year floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 Parking is allowed in the 100 and 500-year floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The outfall pipe for the water quality pond would be best to be connected to the storm pipe in Linden rather than trying to construct another outfall along the bank in the floodway. NE Response: The WQ pond outfall pipe is shown to be connected to existing storm along Linden as per these comments. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Any off-site work will require that property owner to sign the floodplain use permit. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: It appears that there is some fill being placed in the floodway. Fill is not allowed in the floodway unless Section 10-45 of City Code is met. NE Response: A conceptual “Bank Stability Analysis by Flywater Inc. dated 6/5/12 has been submitted. Based on design consultant team meeting with the City on Monday 6/16/12 we acknowledge that the City has concerns with the stability of the existing river bank and that a “Final Bank Stability Analysis” will need to be provided. The final analysis should entail but not limited to design, constructability measures, calculations, and documentation showing proper mitigation measures for the existing river bank based on the proposed site improvements. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: All work in the Poudre River floodway must show no-rise in 100-year flood elevations and no change to the floodway boundaries unless a CLOMR and LOMR are approved by FEMA. The grading, landscaping and trail within the floodway will need to be discussed in more detail. No-rise must be certified at pre-construction and at post-construction. NE Response: Design is intended to avoid any impact on the no-rise condition and no change to floodway boundaries. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Any bank work, including removal of trees, will need to be discussed in more detail. A stability analysis for removal of the trees may be required. NE Response: Storm drainage design has been revised to have no disturbance of existing river bank. The removal of a few non-native trees is still being discussed. As a result, a conceptual “Bank Stability Analysis by Flywater Inc. dated 6/5/12 has been submitted as part of the Ecological Characterization Study. The conceptual analysis recommends toe stabilization along one portion of the bank that is currently devoid of vegetation. Based on a subsequent design consultant team meeting with the City staff on Monday 6/16/12 we acknowledge that the City may have additional concerns with the stability of the existing river bank and that a “Final Bank Stability Analysis” will also need to be provided. The final analysis should entail but not limited to design, constructability measures, calculations, and documentation showing proper mitigation measures for the existing river bank based on the proposed site improvements. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The applicant and City will need to discuss the off-site work in more detail especially with regards to future plans for bank restoration as described in the Downtown River Corridor Plan. NE Response: See above. We understand that this larger overarching plan is currently unfunded and with an unknown timeline. In our discussions with staff at the 6/16/12 meeting, we acknowledged that we need to demonstrate that our project would not preclude this future corridor plan from being implemented at a later date. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Although the proposed structures are out of the floodplain, the information in the FEMA Technical Bulletins related to below grade parking and elevators may be useful. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: A floodplain use permit ($25 permit fee) is required for any construction (grading, landscaping, paving, etc.) in the 100-year floodplain. If any modeling is involved, the permit fee is $325. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Please see the 50% and 100% development review checklists for all items to be included on the plans and in the drainage report related to the floodplain. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: All forms and checklists can be found on our website at: http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The Floodplain Admin contact for this project is Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, (970) 224-6036, mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas is required. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Also standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be prepared for each of the BMPs being used on the site. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Onsite water quantity detention is not required since this site drains directly to the Poudre River, however the outfall would need to be sized for the 100 year developed release rate. The outfall into the Poudre River will need to be protected from erosion and be esthetically pleasing. The Environmental Planner and the Floodplain Administrator will need to review the outfall feature. NE Response: The WQ pond outfall pipe will be connected to existing storm along Linden. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Water quality treatment is required as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual_volIII.htm) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. It appears from the drawings that the north driveway entrance may be in the same location as the City's water quality treatment facility. The City will still need access to it and it needs to be protected from damage. This needs to be considered in the design of the driveway. NE Response: Current design has been revised with input from City Maintenance/Stormwater Depts to accommodate access. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: If you have questions about the escrow and erosion control requirements, the City's erosion control inspector is Jesse Schlam who can be reached at 224-6015. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan as well the City’s Design Criteria and Construction standards. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City’s web site at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development- fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or the minimum in accordance with the Stormwater Design Criteria. NE Response: Noted. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2012 03/06/2012: No comments. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include a 12-inch water main and an 8-inch sewer in Linden. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: There is an existing 2-inch water service extending to the site that served the former concrete business. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Separate water and sewer services will be required for the commercial and residential portions of the mixed-use building. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Credit will be given for the water service and account previously established on the site. NE Response: Noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 Land Use Code (LUC) 4.17(B)(2)(a) Multi-family residential, Mixed-use, restaurant, and office are all a Type 1 Review. LUC 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) Requires buildings to step back to one story along the river. The portion of the project that is 2 stories along the river will require a modification. LUC 4.17 does not state any setbacks, therefore standard of Article 3 apply. For this type of use (mixed-use) building, the building must be located between zero and 15 feet from the public right-of-way, however, subject to utility easements. RB+B Response: We are complying with LUC 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1). The building massing while inconsistent as it follows the natural topography of the site still steps down to one story building elements along the river. These building elements incorporate patios, balconies, and raised planter walls to create the stepped transition required. We have included diagrams and sections illustrating these design features. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 All signs will require a separate permit and are subject to 3.8.7 of the LUC Check with engineering about projecting a Clock over the public right-of-way. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 LUC 3.2.5 Trash/Recycling areas shall be enclosed. This enclosed area shall be on a concrete pad and at least 20ft from a public ROW. If the enclosure is contained within a building, then this distance may be reduced. Such enclosure shall be designed to allow walk-in access without having to open the main service gate. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 LUC 3.5.1 Requires that mechanical/utility equipment to be screened or painted. Please indicated on your plans all exterior mechanical/utility equipment with notes of how they will be screened or painted. Rooftop equipment that is visible from the upper residential areas shall be screened completely. RB+B Response: Mechanical equipment has been shown and is currently screened in the design, this is shown in the elevation. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 There should be clear delineation between residential and non-residential parking spaces. At 90 degree spaces they should be 19 ft in length and 9 ft in width. Drive aisles that are double-loaded should be 24 ft in width and 20 ft in width if single loaded. Unobstructed vehicle access to and from a public street shall be provided for all off-street parking spaces. Tandem parking spaces are not allowed. The three accessibility spaces are sufficient for the proposed 70 spaces. They are required to be signed. These spaces shall be as close to the primary entrance as possible. For the proposed surface lot accessibility space, it is unclear how the person makes it to a primary entrance. The surface parking lot is required to be 6% landscaped. Bicycle parking is required at ratio of 10% of the vehicle spaces provided. With 70 vehicle spaces 7 bicycle spaces are required at a minimum. It is encouraged to exceed the minimum number of bicycle spaces. These spaces shall be located near the primary entrances of the building on surfaced area. BHA Response: Reserved spaces in the underground parking lot will be made available to residential users. The back parking lot has one-way traffic and has standard parking spaces which are 19’ x 9’ or 17’ x 9’ (if a vehicular overhang exists). The compact spaces are 15’ x 8’. Unobstructed vehicle access has been provided for off-street parking spaces. Based upon our calculations, the back parking lot comprises 11,475 s.f. and 1,656 s.f of it is landscaped, totaling 14%. We are showing (73) parking spaces, requiring 7.3 bike parking spaces. There are currently (4) bike parking spaces shown on Linden Street and (12) bike parking spaces inside the parking garage (for apartments), totaling 16 provided bike parking spaces. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 LUC 3.5.1(J) May restrict delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations to be conducted in cetain areas and times, additional details required such as locations and any mitigation elements. RB+B Response: Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/09/2012 LUC 3.5.3(D0(4) Primary entrances shall be defined/framed. The first floor entrances to the building along Linden Street need to be defined/framed with a sheltering element. RB+B Response: Canopies are shown at the primary entrances.