Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN FLATS - PDP - PDP130022 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWMarch 15, 2013 Tina Hippeli Brinkman Development 3003 E. Harmony Road Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Block 23 - Preliminary Design Review, PDR130002, 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. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: 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. Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: 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 Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: 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. Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013:Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine required information for a traffic study on this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. The traffic study may result in the need to identify site related traffic improvements and/or traffic mitigation measures that would be required of the development. The traffic study is currently underway. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The City’s Traffic Engineer notes that a potential traffic concern for the project is the unrestricted turning movement for the drive access out to Cherry Street. The project may need to provide measures to physically restrict that driveway to solely a right-in, right-out (raised median along Cherry Street). As the project is no longer envisioned to extend beyond the southwest corner of Block 23, we do not foresee improvements to the far north end of the alley being completed with this project. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The access drives will need to be analyzed for sight visibility to ensure that pedestrians along the public sidewalks are adequately visible to vehicles (and vice-versa). Building placement with potential zero setback may cause sight visibility concerns, as well as vertical grade from the driveways (see LCUASS Figure 8-17 for intersection grade criteria). Sight distance has been taken into account with the building placement, and the required 10’ x 10’ ROW will be dedicated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The existing ramp at the southeast corner of the Cherry Street/Mason Street intersection (northwest corner of the site) will need to be reconfigured into directional ramps, delineating separate north-south and east-west crossings. As the project is no longer envisioned to extend beyond the southwest corner of Block 23, we do not foresee improvement’s to the ramps at the corner of Cherry/Mason. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: 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 Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The public right-of-way should be free of any encroachment of structures such as steps and patios. Doors shall not swing out into public right-of-way and will either need to be recessed, or swing inward (into private property). Underground detention systems, LID/PLD measures should similarly be located out of public right-of-way. A desire for placement of any of these private improvements in public right-of-way would require exploration of encroachment permits, leases, or other measures as prescribed by City Code to authorize it and may require action by City Council, financial commitments, and/or liability insurance commitments. Currently, the only Private right of way encroachments proposed with the project are the stairs from the patios along the south face of the building to the Maple Street sidewalk. We feel this is appropriate since these stairs are set back from the main pedestrian walkway, and would only be accessed by the units, as opposed to the general public. In addition to these private improvements, public improvements consisting of seat walls are included throughout the right of way/park area along Mason, as well as at the railroad crossing. These improvements have been included to enhance the overall feel for pedestrians by providing enhanced site design and grading features. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: For reference, the abutting streets have the roadway classification as follows: College Avenue is a 6 lane major arterial, Cherry Street is a collector, Mason Street is a 4 lane arterial, and Maple Street is a local street. Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: Repays will be due to the City for the previous construction of College Avenue streetscape frontage as well as the existing alley, regardless of whether these improvements are intending to be utilized by the project. We need to understand the extent of the repays that would be due by this project. Since the project no longer incorporates any improvements along College Ave., we are assuming only a pro-rata share of repays for alley improvements will be applicable. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The existing sidewalk along College Avenue should remain as it serves both pedestrian and bicyclist needs. Modifications along the College Avenue frontage will need to ensure that the bike and ped characteristics are still carried forward. At this time, the project is no longer planned to front College Avenue in any way, and will not seek to modify the frontage in any way. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: Presently, the northbound movement along Mason Street utilizes a sharrow combined bike and travel lane. A separate bikelane from the travel lane would be an item the City would look to have constructed with the project. Acknowledged. Currently, the only improvements proposed to Mason are outside of the roadway, behind the existing curb and gutter. However, we are proposing a ramp just south of the existing inlet that will allow bikes to move off the roadway, and onto our enhanced sidewalk, which will provide access to a perpendicular railroad crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The development plan will need to ensure that both proposed sidewalk and bike lane along Mason Street are configured to introduce a perpendicular crossing of the railroad track for safety concerns. Acknowledged. As mentioned in the response to Comment 14, a ramp is proposed that will allow bikes to exit the roadway, access the sidewalk, and utilize a perpendicular crossing of the railroad tracks. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: The streetscape for Mason Street with the conversion of Mason Street to two way, allows for potential opportunities regarding enhancement with medians. There may be opportunities for enhancement to that roadway that could be explored and could be considered a visual enhancement for both this project and the Penny Flats project across Mason Street. At this point we do not intend to provide enhanced medians. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be required and recorded (with recording fees paid by the applicant) once the project is finalized. Acknowledged Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway and all access to the site is governed by an access control plan. The access control plan will need to be followed and implemented with any project. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the applicant may need to obtain access permits from CDOT (even with the closure of a drive access). Acknowledged Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Acknowledged Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: In response to the questions asked with the PDR submittal, Engineering offers the following: 1. A potential access point on College Avenue mid-block between Cherry and Maple would need to be further reviewed and evaluated. Traffic Operations would need to review a traffic study to help form a position on a proposed access. An access onto College Avenue would require an amendment to the Access Control Plan and concurrence from CDOT and Larimer County as well. Acknowledged – the proposed project is limited to the southwest corner of the block and therefore access onto college is no longer being considered. 2. The relocation or removal of the railroad bungalow would need review and approval by the Railroad. The City has no jurisdiction with this item. Acknowledged – the proposed project is limited to the southwest corner of the block and therefore the railroad bungalow is not located on this site. 3. The City would need to look at proposal involving the utilization of the alley along with potential widening of the alley to understand any potential implications. It may be awkward if the physical alley width comprised of both public and private components. Please note that it appears that the northern alley access onto Cherry Street is too close in proximity to the railroad crossing to quality for making this area a quiet zone, and the access onto Cherry Street would need to be moved to the east (aligning with the existing driveway). This may have further thoughts or implications on the status of the alley Acknowledged. This project is no longer considering the option to widen the existing alley. 4. According to Current and Transportation Planning, the downtown streetscape for all 4 abutting streets as part of various master plan documents, calls for the use of attached sidewalks with tree wells. It is envisioned that these attached sidewalks are to be 15' in width. Please note that City Street Oversizing reimburses the property owner for oversizing improvements from local to the minimum standard of the particular street classification, and only to the extent that existing improvement are not in place. As a result, oversizing reimbursement for sidewalk will only apply towards Cherry Street (with a reimbursement of half a foot of sidewalk width for the difference from 4.5' in width (local) to 5' width (collector). Mason Street and College Avenue have existing sidewalk and thus aren't eligible for reimbursement (even if any portions of existing sidewalk are removed). Maple Street being a local street does not provide for any reimbursement. Acknowledged 5. No comment on bicycle parking requirements. Acknowledged 6. No comment on BNSF representation. Acknowledged 7. The existing curb cut along Cherry Street may be reused, subject to access approval from Traffic Operations and upgrading the drive approach to LCUASS standards. College Avenue access is similar to #1 above. All unused driveways are required to be removed with the development. Acknowledged. As the project is now confined to the southwest corner of Block 23, this comment is no longer applicable. 8. No comment on retaining the existing drive-through use. Acknowledged. As the project is now confined to the southwest corner of Block 23, this comment is no longer applicable. 9. No comment regarding potential uses on the northwest corner ¿island¿. Note though that the development plan will likely need to obtain approval from the railroad for the portion of railroad traversing the northwest corner of the site, especially with a platting of the property. The applicant should be aware that approval from the railroad was a critical path item for the similar Block 33 (Penny Flats) project directly west. Acknowledged. As the project is now confined to the southwest corner of Block 23, this comment is no longer applicable. 10. On street parking along Maple Street (whether parallel or angled) will need to be evaluated with the site design; adequate sight distance for driveways out to Maple Street may require removal an amount of parking on either side of the driveways. On-street parking along Mason Street would need to be reviewed by Traffic Operations and possibly the Railroad, the City’s Acknowledged. The project is currently proposing to include diagonal parking along Maple, matching the existing condition. We are open to additional modifications to the existing parking if they are warranted. No on-street parking is proposed along Mason. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Traffic Engineer notes that he might be more inclined to support a potential use of on-street parking along Mason Street if a roundabout at Cherry Street and Mason Street were implemented. Acknowledged. We are not proposing any on-street parking along Mason, and do not intend to construct a roundabout. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013 03/08/2013: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re- landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Acknowledged. We would propose to use native species for all planting beds. They require less water and promote sustainable practices for the landscape. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013 03/08/2013: 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. Acknowledged Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013 03/01/2013 No comments Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: At this time, PFA comments cover only the general development of Block 23 and the Group R occupancies for Phase 1 & 2 of the development. Specific comments pertaining to future phases of Block 23 build-out are reserved for such time as plans are submitted. Acknowledged Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Acknowledged Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 Acknowledged Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: FIRE LANES Fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1 A meeting with PFA at their office determined that, with the new site plan, PFA would be able to fight the fire from the center of Maple Street, thus eliminating the need for Fire Lanes. Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width* & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. *STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT Required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to on entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D See response to Comment 3 above. Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: TURNING RADII The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Local Amendments Acknowledged. Per the meeting with PFA, fire apparatus will not need to enter the site nor use the alley for this development. However, future development (specifically to the north) may need to rely upon the alley for emergency access. Therefore, the development of Old Town Flats will not restrict the alley or otherwise impede the future ability for emergency access to the north. The confirmation of turning radii will be the onus of future developments, as it is not applicable to this development proposal. Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: ROOF ACCESS New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. 2006 International Fire Code 504.3 Acknowledged Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Commercial requirements: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced no further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B An additional hydrant is proposed in proximity to the FDC, pursuant to the meeting with PFA. Comment Number: 08 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS An automatic sprinkler system installed in occupancies in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R (Residential) fire area. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.7 We will be providing a sprinkler in accordance with NFPA 13 since it is needed for an area increase. Comment Number: 09 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3 occupancies. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1 Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: BALCONIES AND DECKS Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. 2006 International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1 Acknowledged Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: FDC Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. The FDC is located on the east end of the Maple Street façade, convenient to the fire riser room and the designated emergency access. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2006 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approve fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. 2006 International Fire Code Sections 905 and 913 Acknowledged Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS & DETECTION SYSTEMS Fire alarm systems shall be installed in Group R-1 occupancies as required in Sections 907.2.8.1 through 907.2.8.3 of the 2006 International Fire Code. Fire alarm systems in Group R-2 occupancies shall comply with Section 907.2.9 of the 2006 International Fire Code. The installation of smoke alarms in Group R occupancies shall comply with Section 907.2.10 of the 2006 IFC (specifically 907.2.10.1.1 for Group R-1 and 907.2.10.1.2 for Group R-2). ALARM NOTIFICATION APPLIANCES Visible alarm notification appliances shall be provided in R-1 and R-2 occupancies in accordance with Sections 907.10.1.3, 907.10.1.4 and Table 907.10.1.3 of the 2006 IFC. Acknowledged. Note that this building will be apartments (R-2). Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 Acknowledged Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Acknowledged Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 03/13/2013: ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION Fire access to the site shall be maintained throughout all phases of construction. This may include but shall not be limited to locked gates. Further discussion with the fire official is required. Acknowledged Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: 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. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete. The erosion control requirements are in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Section 1.3.3, Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Fort Collins Amendments. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com. Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100 year developed inflow rate and the 2 year historic release rate. When a site is completely scraped of all buildings, the existing impervious area is not grandfathered. However the existing impervious area can be considered in a detention variance request if the fees being paid are based on a higher imperviousness. Acknowledged. Detention will be provided with the project beneath a proposed area of pavers. Refer to the preliminary drainage report for additional information. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms- guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Acknowledged. Water quality will be provided by this project through the use of extended detention, bio-swales, discharging roofdrains into landscaped areas, and any other LID practices that are found to be effective for the site. Specific details about the design of these features will be provided at final design. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements went into effect March 11, 2013. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new parking lots must be pervious. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. There is also more information on the EPA link at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm?goback=.gde_4605732_member_219392996. Acknowledged. The project will comply with the new standards through the use of the methods described in the response to Comment 4. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: The drainage outfall for Block 23 is the storm sewer in College Avenue which drains to a storm sewer in Willow Street and on to the Cache La Poudre River. If there are any increased flows to that system it will need to be analyzed to verify capacity. The Howes Street outfall is north of the site in the middle of the block to the west. That outfall system is fairly deep so there is the possibility that Block 23 could be designed to drain to it. In order to do that, there would need to be a storm sewer installed in Cherry Street (under the railroad) with 100 year developed capacity unless there is to be onsite detention. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as long as it is not deeper than one foot. Acknowledged. At this time, onsite detention is being proposed in the paver sub-base. From there, flows will pass through a storm drain to an existing inlet south of the old Taco John’s building, and into the system you described. We are not proposing any drainage to the Howes outfall, as the interface with the railroad is viewed as too cumbersome at this time. This development is utilizing the existing outfall, and is not proposing an increase in flows. See Drainage Plan and Report for additional information. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: I didn’t see any underground parking proposed this time, but if there is underground parking the access needs to be protected from street flows entering the building with one foot of freeboard from the top of the 100 year flow depth in the street to the access into the building. Not Applicable – no underground parking is being proposed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: The design engineer should refer to the Drainage Study for the North College Avenue (SH 287) Improvements by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU), dated May 9, 2003 for the most recent system analysis. Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: 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, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013 03/12/2013: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards. Acknowledged Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 No comments Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include a 16-inch water main and a 12-inch sewer in Maple, a 12-inch water main along the east side of Mason, an 8-inch water main in Cherry from Mason approximately three-fourths of the way to College and an 8- inch water main and a 6/8-inch sewer in College. Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: The water main in Mason appears to be near the R.O.W. or may be in an easement on the site. Provide an easement that extends a minimum of 10 feet to the east of the water line. We would like to propose a 7.75’ easement along the length of the western property line. In most instances, this will provide more than 10’ separation from the building to the waterline, and it will provide more than 9’ in all locations. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: Existing water services to the site include three ¾-inch service and one 1-inch service. Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: All water and sewer lines extending to the site must be used or abandoned at the main. Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: Separate water and sewer services will be required for the commercial and residential portions of the mixed-use buildings. Acknowledged – The project includes only residential uses and therefore a commercial service is not being proposed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 3/07/2013: Grease interceptor(s) will be required for any restaurant(s) included in the project. Not Applicable – the project includes only residential uses. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: Development fees and water rights will be due at time of building permit. Credit will be allowed for the existing services where there have been water and sewer utility accounts. Acknowledged Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: Overall Development Plans (ODP) are subject to a TYPE 2 review (Planning and Zoning Board) Land Use Code (LUC) 4.16 In the Civic Center Subdistrict Project Development Plans/Final Plans (PDP/FP) for Multi-family dwelling and Retail establishments are subject to a Type 2 review. LUC 4.16 In the Civic Center Subdistrict PDP/FP containing Mixed-use dwellings, Standard Restaurant and Offices are subject to a Type 1 review (Administrative hearing officer) LUC 4.16(D)(3) Any Development Plans with new building or additions exceeding 25,000 sq ft or 6 stories or 85ft in height is subject to a Type 2 review. If any use of a PDP/FP is subject to the higher level of review the whole PDP/FP is reviewed at the higher level. We are anticipating a Type 2 review since this project is multi-family and over 25,000 sf. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(2)(b)(Figure 18.5) The maximum building height for this block is 7-9 stores but not to exceed 115ft. Proposed building height is 5 stories and approximately 56 feet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(4)(b)1. Any building exceeding 3 stories shall establish a base that is no more than 2 stories (see section for further details). LUC 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. Upper story (those stories above the established base) shall be setback. LUC 4.16(D)(4)(b)3. There is an additional upper story setback for those story exceeding 6 stories or 85ft in height A masonry base, alternating between one and two stories, has been defined. The building above the base is set back by approximately 6”. Portions of the upper story are separated from the base by a roof element, which accentuates the setback. The upper story setback does not apply to this project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(5)(a) No blank walls along for 50ft in length along public street, plaza or walkway We have no blank walls exceeding 50’. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(5)(b) Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards for residents and workers The project promotes and accommodates outdoor activity by private decks and balconies, a series of small group seating areas along Mason Street, and a larger group gathering space at the north end along Mason Street. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(5)(c)1. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominate style of fenestration for buildings Neither glass curtainwalls nor strip windows are the predominate window style. LUC 4.16(D)(5)(c)2. If ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses have large pane display windows, such windows shall be framed by surround walls and not exceed 75% of the total ground level facade area. We do have some small storefront areas at the ground floor on the corner, which are used to accent the more public uses of the building. These are framed at either end by masonry. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(5)(d) All nonresidential buildings permitted in this District (including, without limitation, mixed-use and industrial use buildings) shall meet the standards established in Section 3.5.3 for mixed-use and commercial buildings. The proposed building is strictly apartments (residential) and thus, will not need to comply with Section 3.5.3 (commercial and mixed-use). Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(5)(e) All street-facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not exceed either five (5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear expression of a joint. For the purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall mean metal panel systems that are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with expressed seams; metal framing systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal panels. Architectural metals shall not include ribbed or corrugated metal panel systems. Street-facing materials are predominately brick and ground-face masonry at the lower levels. Ground-face masonry at stair towers and metal panel at the corner serve as vertical articulation, dividing the building into distinct masses. Stucco is used at upper stories in differing colors as a contrast to the masonry base. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(D)(6) Parking structures: a) Where parking structures abut streets, retail and other uses shall be required along the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity. Parking abuts Mason Street at the north end of the project. To mitigate the impact of the parking and to create pedestrian interest, a series of seating “niches” have been developed off the Mason Street sidewalk. This acts as an appropriate transition from the more active street fronts of downtown to the less intensive uses of Lee Martinez Park, the Discover Museum, and residential properties to the north and west. Seating groups and landscaping will provide interest at the street level and encourage pedestrian activity. b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level. Masonry piers with water-table banding will provide a backdrop for the seating groups and landscaping. This “soft zone” will act as a buffer to the building and provide interest at the street level and encourage pedestrian activity. Rows of trees on either side of the public walk will further enhance the pedestrian experience. c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details, emphasis on vertical proportions such as posts, recessed horizontal panels and other architectural features shall be used to establish human scale at the street-facing level. A series of masonry piers and openings provide articulation of the façade at the parking and help establish human scale. d) The architectural design of structures shall be compatible in architectural design with adjacent buildings in terms of style, mass, material, height, roof pitch and other exterior elements. The façade at the parking is compatible with nearby buildings in material and scale. e) Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. Auto entrance to the parking is off the alley to minimize pedestrian conflicts. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(E)(1)(a) Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian- oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed project utilizes a podium style of construction which allows for parking to be tucked under a portion of the structure above. This “tuck under” parking will be fully screened by residential units along the Maple Street frontage. The parking along Mason Street is not fully screened, but was positioned at the north end of the project where it is the least intrusive to pedestrians. The parking does not dominate the frontage, nor does it interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods as the parking is well-screened from street view by a combination of building façade elements and planting and offers an inviting amenity for passersby, building residents, and nearby workers. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(E)(1)(c) For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub-districts that are four (4) stories or taller, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made. The streetscape on both Maple and Mason Street fulfill this requirement. The concept of gathering spaces on Maple Street and Mason Street, as well as the seating nook areas that terminate in the northern plaza on Mason Street create unique and interesting places for people to gather. The native landscape planting and street trees also support human scale elements that create a successful human scaled street that offers a variety of passive activities. This streetscape will encourage a good balance between the proposed building and the street and offer a comfortable streetscape experience with the alley of trees, seating nooks and native landscape. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 4.16(F)(4) New buildings shall be designed in a manner that establishes continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings within and adjacent to the Civic Center Sub-district. Continuity and visual connection between the older, historic buildings (such as the Downtown Transit Center and the Trolley Barn) and newer buildings (such as Penny Flats) by use of: • Materials: Masonry is a unifying element between the old and new, but is used in an appropriate, contemporary way. Stucco and metal panel are introduced to relate to some of the newer and less historic buildings (Penny Flats, Discovery Museum, and the city building at 281 No. College). • Scale: The proposed building is larger than many of the older buildings. Like some of the larger, newer buildings (such as Penny Flats, Discovery Museum, Engines Lab, future Block 23 projects and the city office building on Mason), we have broken down the building mass by articulation into a number of smaller elements. • Proportion: Punched windows are used, which are in keeping with most of the buildings in the Civic Center Sub-district. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 3.5.3 In addition to the building in phase 3 and 4 this section also applies to Building R-1 because the Livework units. LUC 3.5.3(2) (2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Build-to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects for new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, by development projects for additions or modifications of existing buildings, in order to form visually continuous, pedestrian-oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. LUC 3.5.3 (C) This applies concerning Variation in Massing (see section for details). LUC 3.5.3 (D) This section on Character and Image does apply (see section for details). Live/work units are not being provided in the project; the building will be entirely residential. Therefore, 3.5.2, Residential Building Standards will apply (except where superseded by other divisions) rather than 3.5.3. While not bound to this section, we are following many of the principles advocated, such as: build-to lines, variation in massing, and articulation of the façade. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 3.8.30 This section on Multi-family dwellings does apply. This section contains distance requirements for the dwelling units to a public park and also there is no setback along a ROW (see section for further details and standards). Distance to Lee Martinez Park is about 800’ from the corner of Mason and Maple Streets. The remainder of the requirements of 3.8.30, Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards appear to apply to subdivisions and single-family. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/07/2013: LUC 3.2.1 A landscape plan is required this includes but no limited to Tree lawns along the ROW, foundation plantings, parking-lot perimeter and interior landscaping (see section for details). A landscape plan is submitted as part of the PDP. LUC 3.2.4 This section requires a lighting plan this usually includes photometric sit plan with catalog cut sheets (see section for details). A lighting plan and fixture cuts sheets are submitted as part of the PDP. LUC 3.2.5 This section requires an enclosure adequately sized for both trash/recycling. Such enclosure shall be designed with a walk-in access without having to open the main service gate and located on a concrete pad at least 20ft from a public sidewalk. An enclosure for trash and recycling is provided at the northeast corner of the site. Walk-in access will be provided. LUC 3.5.1 Mechanical/utility equipment (vents, flues, ac/rtu, air handlers, transformers, meters, boxes, conduits...) locations shall be identified on plans with notes on how such equipment is screened from public ROW and adjoining properties. Mechanical units (residential condensers and a few small air handlers) will be located on the roof. These will be located toward the center of the roof, which will allow the parapet to screen them from view. Meters are located under the building off the alley, where they will be screened from view. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/08/2013: LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) Bicycle parking spaces are required and shall be located near pedestrian entrances to the buildings. For the residential portions of the development the requirement is one space per bedroom with 60% of those being enclosed and 40% of those being fixed. For General office and General retail it is one space for every 4000 sq ft or a minimum of 4 spaces with 20% covered and 80% fixed. Residential enclosed bike parking is being provided internally in each unit. Visitor bike parking is being provided on the southwest corner. LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)1. In the TOD Multifamily dwellings and mixed-use dwellings have no minimum vehicle parking requirements. Acknowledged LUC 3.2.2(K) No residential uses have vehicle parking maximums. For General office the maximum number of spaces shall be 3 spaces for 1000 sq ft. For General retail the maximum number of spaces shall be 4 spaces for 1000 sq ft (see section for other details and uses). Acknowledged Though parking is not required when parking is provided it shall meet the standards of the code for parking lots and parking structures (see section for stall and aisle dimensions). Acknowledged LUC 3.2.2(K)(5) A certain number of vehicle spaces are required to be accessibility spaces, this is based on the number of total spaces being provided. Such spaces shall be located as close as possible to primary entrances and identified by a sign. Spaces provided. LUC 3.2.2(L) Compact spaces are only allowed in identified long-term parking areas at a maximum of 40% of the spaces in such area. Compact cars for this project comprises 58% of total parking. Variance Request noted under Planning Objectives. LUC 3.2.2(J) Vehicle use areas shall be setback by a landscape area at least 10ft from non- arterial ROW 15ft from an arterial ROW and 5 from a lot line. Acknowledged Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/08/2013: LUC 3.2.2(C) Pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. Acknowledged. Currently, it is envisioned that bikes that travel north bound along Mason Street have an opportunity of crossing the railway tracks using the proposed 90 degree crossing point. This would include bikes coming from Mason Street, entering the sidewalk space courtesy of a curb cut and lane. At this point it would be signed for cyclists to dismount. This is a unique situation and while similar to North College Avenue, it is slightly different to right of way space and railway angle and approach. LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Walkways within the site shall provide directness and continuity from pedestrian origins and destination that are not aligned solely on the outline of vehicle use areas and such sidewalks shall be 6ft wide. Acknowledged Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/08/2013: LUC 3.5.1(G) Any structure over 40ft in height shall provide an additional shadow and visual analysis. Visual and shadow analyses are submitted as part of the PDP. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013 03/08/2013: The livework units will need to build to IBC 2009 Section 419. Contact Russ Hovland 970 416-2341 concerning this requirement. Live/work units are not included in the project. Department: Current Planning Contact: Sherry Albertson-Clark, 970-224-6174, salbertson-clark@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 The alley offers an opportunity to create a “civic spine” as intended for the Civic Center Sub- district, with improvements oriented toward pedestrian activity. We have elected to focus the pedestrian activity towards the West side of the site along Mason Street. Comment Number: 2 Outdoor cafes, at grade level and on rooftops are encouraged for the Downtown District. Specific design details for outdoor cafes can be found in Section 4.16.E. The proposed project is strictly residential and does not incorporate café elements. Comment Number: 3 The City’s Green Building Code will result in interior noise levels being reduced, but additional noise attenuation may be a good idea for those units closest to the rail line. The City’s “Green Code” regarding sound transmission is understood and will be followed. Comment Number: 4 The former Taco John’s drive-thru is not a permitted use in the Downtown District. Fast food Restaurants are permitted, but without a drive-in or drive-thru facility and the Taco John’s site has lost its non-conforming status since it has been vacant for at least 12 months. A drive-thru facility for a bank or use other than a fast food restaurant would be permitted. Not applicable – The former Taco John’s site is not part of this proposed development. Comment Number: 5 There is a lower-cost alternative for the quiet zone for the Maple railroad crossing. Amy Lewin is the contact for this, or for additional information about the quiet zone and related study, and can be reached at (970) 416-2040. Acknowledged – The project as proposed does not include any provisions relating to the railroad crossing along Maple Street.