HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP130038 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSMarch 10, 2014
RE: Mason Street Sustainable Development, PDP130038, Round Number 1
Please see the following responses noted in red to comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies
dated December 10, 2013
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Add total proposed building height in feet to the land use table. Also break down
the square footage proposed for each mezzanine.
Response (VFLA): Total Height has been added PDP-2. The Building has been reconfigured to accommodate
more full floor plates and the mezzanine levels have been removed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: 3.5.3(E)(7) The portion of the building that encroaches into the right of way is
significant and does not comply with allowable LUC encroachment features. Elements would
need to move including stairwell and balcony elements completely within the property
boundary.
Response (VFLA): Based on the city’s concerns the building has been reconfigured to bring the building
envelop within the property lines. We will require a canopy at the second floor line and a stone cap on the third
level setback to go through the city encroachment process.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Building mass reduction is required. The design does not comply with 4.16(D)(4)
(b)(1) and (2). Material selection and material fenestration at the ground level are too similar to
the remainder of the building. Design must reinforce a human scale
Response (VFLA): The building mass has been redefined and is in compliance with the 4.16(D)(4)(1) and (2)
please refer to the details PDP 1 & PDP 2 Based on the building’s footprint, setbacks have been provided at the
NE corner of the building dedicated to open public space. The building entrance has been moved to the east
elevation on Mason.
The building exterior has (8) different high-end precast stone finishes incorporating (3) different colors. Steel
accents in the lighting, exposed structural steel column at the NE corner of the building, metal overhead
canopies wrapping the street elevations and a separate metal canopy and horizontal steel louver accent over
the building entrance all add unique material fenestrations to each portion of the building. The highest quality
finishes will be used at the ground level.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: The design does not comply with the requirement that upper floors above the
second level must have a significant setback above the base per LUC 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) in order
to mitigate the height and mass of the building.
Response (VFLA): The building mass has been refined and is in compliance with the 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) please
refer to the details on PDP 2. A setback has been provided at the 3rd
Level accented with a change in material
finishes and color to provide a (pedestrian friendly) base to the building. The highest floor also contains a large
setback to mitigate the height and mass of the building.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: The design is not in compliance with 4.16(D)(1) and is required to have a
landscaped ground floor setback along Magnolia street in order to mitigate height and mass of
the building; see also diagram on page 106-1.
Response (Ripley): The building is in compliance with the 4.16(D)(1) There are display windows along the
Magnolia façade which exempts the landscape setback per section4.16(D)(1). Display windows have been
called out on the landscape plan for clarification
The design is not in compliance with 4.16(E)(1)(c) and must have ground floor open space 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.
Response (Ripley): The building and site has been refined and is in compliance with the 4.16(E)(1). A plaza
space has been provided at the corner of Mason and Magnolia. The plaza includes planters, benches and
ornamental pavers.
The screen wall feature reads as a single wall plane approximately 36 wide x 73 feet in height.
The design perforations and slight undulations provide detail but do not break up the massing -
- the screen feature does not comply with the step back requirements of the Downtown District,
articulation requirement of TOD 3.10.5(A), 3.5.3(D) and pedestrian scale requirement of 3.5.3(B).
Response (VFLA): The building solar screen has been deleted.
The west and south sides of the building design do not provide significant architectural interest
and must have substantial variation in massing to comply with 3.5.3 (B),(D) and 3.10.5(A)
Articulation. The use of windows similar to the street-facing facades must be used in
conjunction with massing variation unless windows are not feasible because of the nature of the
use of the building.
Response (VFLA): The building mass has been refined to increase architectural interest. Similar material
finishes, colors and architectural details are used on all four elevations. “Infilled” openings on the south and
west elevations provide articulation and scale to match street elevations.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
12/05/2013: Due to the overall comments provided for the building design, it is recommended
that additional concepts be explored that achieve stronger pedestrian scale elements, height
mitigation and compatibility / neighborhood scale with the surrounding architectural context.
Response (VFLA): The design team has met with many community leaders and members, repeatedly over an
extended period of time; including multiple city planners, LPC members, and neighbors to discuss their input
and refine the final design while maintaining the building efficiencies and occupancy for which the new structure
is intended.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
12/05/2013: Bike rack location north of the building is very close to the driveway isle.
Response (Ripley): The refined design does not include a garage or drive and the bike rack location has been
adjusted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
12/05/2013: Please provide a visual analysis and narrative with the resubmittal that meets the
submittal requirements of 3.5.1(G)(1)(b) and includes a narrative that explains how the structure
meets the review criteria regarding views, light and shadow, privacy and neighborhood scale.
Response (VFLA): Understood. Please find the attached shadow analysis, visual analysis, and summary as
shown on sheets PDP 3 and PDP4. The new structure is designed at 68% of the allowed building height of
115’-0”.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
12/10/2013: Building Services Department, Contact- Russ Hovland 416-2341
1. This would be considered an 8-story building unless specific floors are designed as
mezzanines per the Building code. Type I-B (2-hour) construction is required for an 8-story B
occupancy.
2. Any commercial building closer than 10 feet to the property will have fire rated walls and
limited openings in those areas.
3. Part of the building appears to cross the property line on the street side. This is not allowed
by the building code without a variance from the Building Official.
4. Fire-sprinkler required.
5. If any occupied floor is more than 75ft above grade, then high-rise requirements in the
building code would be required. See all high-rise provisions in section 403 of the IBC.
6. New Green Code requires:
a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
b. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
c. Low VOC interior finishes.
Response (VFLA): The building design has incorporated or better identified the above requirements.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: As mentioned at Conceptual Review the fire escape stairs appear to overhang into
the Right of Way. Engineering is not in support of a buildings means for emergency egress
overhanging into the Right of Way.
Response (VFLA): Based on the city’s concerns the building has been reconfigured to bring all means of
egress or fire escape(s) within property lines and building envelope.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please provide leaders on the site plan pointing to the bike rack, patio, fence, etc.
that references note 9. Additionally, note 9 should begin with Bike rack, seat walls, patio,
fence, balconies, etc. within the right of way are not approved per this plan. Then continue with
a separate revokable permit is required....
Response (VFLA): Leaders have been added to the adjusted plan. A revocable permit will be sought for public
amenities.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The grease interceptor underneath the public sidewalk is not something that a
variance request may be submitted for as this is not a variance to larimer county urban area
street standards. I was not able to confirm with others in the engineering department whether or
not the interceptor underneath the outdoor patio seating would be acceptable.
Response (VFLA): The grease interceptor needs to remain in the public right of way; however, it is not longer
in the path of the primary pedestrian walk path.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: No comments.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Add a tree mitigation table to the landscape plan. The table should include columns recording
each existing tree number, species, size, intent to retain/remove or transplant and mitigation
number. Please use information provided at the site meeting to include in this table. The tree
on Magnolia is labeled as a Siberian Elm but is an American Elm.
Response (Ripley): The tree mitigation has been addressed on sheet L1 in the labels and on the plant list.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Provide the required number of upsized mitigation trees. If off-site tree planting mitigation will
need to occur and the applicant would like to consider City Property then the applicant should
contact the City Forester for process information to include on the plans. Off-site mitigation may
occur on private property within a defined distance but also would have to record the process
for doing that on the final landscape plan.
Response (Ripley): Understood, mitigation tree locations will be coordinated with Forestry.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Provide a statement for project record explaining why the three street trees cannot be kept in
place and need to be removed due to construction impact. Please provide specific information
in the statement that is sufficiently clear on impact to existing trees based on the requirement to
retain significant trees the extent reasonably feasible.
Response (Ripley): Understood, see attached statement
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
If this note does not already appear on the landscape plan then please add it:
Tree removal shall be by a business holding a current City of Fort Collins Arborist License and
on the City bid list. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before trees are
removed. This note should be added to sheet L1 and note 8 on sheetC1.00
Response (Ripley): Understood, see sheet L1.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Tree utility separations listed in Landscape note number 2 include a tree separation from
electric. There is not a separation standard for electric so please consider an edit to this note.
Response (Ripley): Understood, the note has been revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Please use 5X5 feet tree grates for improved tree growth. The applicant should contact Tracy
Dyer in the City Engineering Department to obtain general City standard tree grate
specifications to include on the plans.
Response (Ripley): Tree grates are no longer used in the landscape design.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013:
Please add these Street Tree planting notes:
Street Trees shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape
contractor.
The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance
inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be
established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance.
Response (Ripley): Understood, refer to landscape notes on sheet L1
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
12/05/2013:
Show the location of the existing street trees just to the west of the project by 207 W. Magnolia.
This is a mature Hackberry tree and appears to be close to the new curb cut. Review with the
City Forester any possible impact to this tree and adjust the design as necessary to adequately
protect the root system of this tree.
Response (Ripley): Understood, The curb cut is no longer in the site design.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
12/05/2013:
Evaluate tree and utility separations for the two new proposed street trees along Magnolia. It is
important for the design to include street trees in this area.
Response (Ripley): Understood, utilities have been adjusted to accommodate trees.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: This property contains a building that is 50 or more years old, and which will need
to be reviewed for Landmark eligibility under the City's Demolition/Alteration Review Process
(Municipal Code Section 14-72). This has not yet occurred.
Demolition/Alteration Review results in a determination of eligibility and of effect of proposed
work, made by the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Director of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services. The review requires current color
photographs of all side of the building, taking sufficient photographs to show any previous
alterations or additions. Digital photographs are encouraged, and should be sent to
kmcwilliams@fcgov.com or jweinberg@fcgov.com. Hard copies may be sent to P. O. Box
580, 80522, attn. Historic Preservation; or dropped off at the Development Review Center, 281
North College Avenue.
Response (VFLA): Understood; demolition/ alteration process has been submitted to the LPC for
review/comments.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: The project is adjacent or in close proximity to several historic properties.
Therefore, the project needs to comply with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, "Historic and
Cultural Resources." Nearby historic properties include, in part, the two properties immediately
adjacent to the project, at 415 South Mason (determined by the State Historic Preservation
Office to be individually eligible for the National and State Registers, and found to be
individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark); and 419-423 South Mason
(previously found to be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark); the
Montezuma Fuller House, at 226 W. Magnolia (designated on the National, State and Fort
Collins Landmark Registers); and the Fuller Flats, at 228 W. Magnolia (previously determined to
be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and potentially eligible for
National and State Register listing). Other properties in the area may also be eligible, and
should be evaluated.
Response (VFLA): Understood; the design team has meet with LPC members to discuss the adjacent
properties. Those meetings concluded that the 415 South Mason structure was the only eligible historic
structure that should be considered for the intent of the Land Use Code Section, 3.4.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: This project does not meet the intent of LUC 3.4.7(A), Purpose, which states: "This
Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: ...(2) new construction is
designed to respect the historic character of ... any historic properties in the surrounding
neighborhood." LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, defines Maximum Extent Feasible: "Maximum
extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible
efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been
undertaken."
This project does not ensure to the maximum extent feasible that the new construction is
designed to respect the character of the historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood.
Specifically, the current design for a building that is over 80 feet tall does not comply, due to
the considerable height discrepancy between it and the adjacent single story buildings with
nearly flat roofs, (415 S. Mason and 419-423 South Mason), and the Montezuma Fuller House
and Fuller Flats, which are 1½ and 2 stories, respectively.
Response (VFLA): The proposed submittal has been greatly refined to reflect architectural compatibility and
character of the adjacent 415 Mason property. Elements include design features such as complimentary deep
material tones used in the vertical and base elements of the east and adjacent (south) elevations, horizontal
extended metal canopies to provide similar street scale, structural precast stone insets (faux fenestrations) on
property line to compliment existing masonry inset accent(s), large glass store front windows, and the use of
high-quality, long-lasting materials and details that are in character with many historic stone structures.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: This project does not meet the intent of LUC 3.4.7 (B), General Standard, which
states: "...to the maximum extent feasible...the development plan and building design shall
protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that ... (b) is
located on property adjacent to the development site and [is designated or is individually
eligible for designation]. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any
such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto."
This project does not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the several
historic property that are located on property adjacent to the development site and are
designated or are individually eligible for designation. Specifically, the current design for a
building that is over 80 feet tall does not comply due to the considerable height discrepancy
between it and the adjacent single story with nearly flat roof, (415 S. Mason and 419-423 South
Mason) or the Montezuma Fuller House and Fuller Flats, which are 1½ and 2 stories,
respectively.
Response (VFLA): The proposed submittal has been greatly refined to reflect architectural compatibility of the
adjacent historic eligible property, 415 Mason. This property and development requires density. Respectfully,
we believe the height difference enhances the diversity of the architectural styles and original intended building
use(s) of the two structures in Fort Collin’s Canyon District. Contrast in architecture and style can bring
importance to an adjacent structure understood to be historical significant. In addition, the large open parking
lot, not part of the proposed development exists between the new structure and the historically eligible structure
allowing future development to further enhance a transition.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: This project does not comply with LUC 3.4.7 (F)(1), which states: "To the maximum
extent feasible, the height, setback, and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of
existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any
portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new
building is located...."
Response (VFLA): The proposed submittal has been greatly refined to reflect architectural compatibility of the
adjacent historic eligible property, 415 Mason. To the maximum extent feasible we have designed and
programmed the use of this property to compliment the adjacent historic eligible property.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: This project does not comply with LUC 3.4.7 (F)(2), which states: "New structures
shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements,
such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such
existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of
such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the
pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum
extent feasible..."
Response (VFLA): The proposed submittal has been greatly refined to reflect architectural compatibility and
character of the adjacent 415 Mason property. Elements include design features such as complimentary
material tones used in the vertical and base elements of the east and adjacent (south) elevations, horizontal
extended metal canopies to provide similar street scale, structural precast stone insets (faux fenestrations) on
property line to compliment existing masonry inset accent(s), large glass store front windows, and the use of
high-quality, long-lasting materials and details that are in character with many historic stone structures.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: The location shown for the electric transformer is acceptable to Light & Power.
However, in order to approve this location Light & Power would need written approval from City
Engineering (Rick Richter or his designate) to install it between the sidewalk and curb. Please
contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700 with any questions.
Response (VFLA): Understood, the design team has contacted Rick Richter.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: Light & Power will need a Commercial Service (C-1) form completed, a copy of
the recorded replat, and a paper (or pdf) of the utility plan in order to prepare a final electric
utility design and to calculate the electric development charges.
Response (VFLA): Understood.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: After the plan is approved and final, an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the
utility plan will need to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
Response (VFLA): Understood.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: Electric meters are normally required to be outdoors. If meters are requested to
be indoors, they must be accessible to utility personnel at all times without having a special
key or obtaining an escort. Indoor meters are only allowed with the written consent of the
Electric Metering Supervisor.
Response (VFLA): Understood, the design team will coordinate indoor location with your electric metering
supervisor.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
12/05/2013: The site plan, project narrative details the top floor and associated mezzanine as a
residential occupancy, however the "Building Areas By Floor" details the top floor to be
restaurant. For a building of this height, Accessible Means of Egress requirements for Group A
Occupancies shall include elevators (as per IFC1007.2.1), Standby Power (as per IFC604.2.5),
Areas of Refuge (as per IFC1007.6), Two-way communication (as per IFC1007.6.3) and Signage
(as per IFC1007.7). Other fire code requirements may apply.
Response (VFLA): The occupancy will be planned to accommodate a future restaurant; with that in mind the
above mentioned requirements will be met.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: No Comment from Erosion Control. This site; disturbs less than 10,000 sq-ft, is not
in a sensitive area, and is not in a larger development under construction. Therefore, no
submittal of erosion control material is needed. However, the site still must still be swept and
maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer or
else BMPs will be required of the site. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there are
any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response (United Civil): Noted.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
12/05/2013:
1. We strongly suggest that rather than obtaining the floodproofing approval as part of the
building permit process; all floodproofing information should be included in the utility plan set
and the approval obtained as part of the development review process. The floodproofing
requirements are lengthy and complex, and in our experience it is better to start working early
to address all the requirements of Section10.38. We have found that the amount of time and
work needed to obtain the floodproofing approval is usually underestimated. In addition, if
something unexpected comes up and the development plans have to be amended, it will end
up being more expensive and cost the developers lost time. Please contact Mark Taylor
(970.416.2494 – mtaylor@fcgov.com) so a meeting with Floodplain Administration staff can be
scheduled as soon as possible to go over the floodproofing requirements and make sure
everyone understands just what will be required. We have previous development submittals
that can serve as examples of what is included in the floodproofing submittal.
Response (United Civil): Per our meeting on 3/4/2014, flood proofing notes will be provided during PDP
and flood proofing details will be added by the architect and included in the Construction Plans during
Final Compliance.
2. Site Plan --- Show and label the limits of the flood fringe & floodway as City-regulatory Old
Town 100-year Floodplain and City-regulatory Old Town 100-year Floodway.
3. Site Plan --- Add these notes – 1) Critical facilities are not allowed in the floodplain. 2) All
residential use must be on a floor completely above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
4. Site Plan --- A no-rise certification must be approved prior to beginning any work in the
floodway. I think it will be difficult to certify no-rise for the 3-sets of seat walls shown in the
floodway, and it may be advisable to find other locations out of the floodway.
5. Drainage Report --- Please change the second sentence of Floodplain in the Existing
Conditions section so it says ‘Refer to the attached Drainage Exhibit for additional existing
condition information’.
Response (United Civil): Revised.
6. Drainage Report --- Please refer to the City’s Floodplain Review Checklist and include all
items listed under Drainage Report in the discussion of Floodplain in the Developed Conditions
section of the report. The Floodplain Review Checklist can be found at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
Response (United Civil): Additional information has been added to the drainage report.
7. Drainage Report, Grading & Erosion Control Plan, and Drainage Exhibit --- the fees
associated with floodplain use permits will change on January 1, 2014. Please change the
notes about the floodplain use permit and $25 fee to read “applicable fees”.
Response (United Civil): All documents have been revised as noted.
8. Drainage Exhibit --- Please be sure that all CSL’s are labeled with the stationing and the BFE
elevation, using NGVD29 Datum.
Response (United Civil): CSL’s are now labeled with the BFE information on NGVD 29 Datum.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
12/05/2013:
9. Drainage Exhibit --- Include BFE’s and make sure that the elevation is labeled as NGVD29.
Response (United Civil): BFE’s are included and are on NGVD 29 Datum.
10. Drainage Exhibit --- Include a table that lists the BFE at the upstream edge of the building,
the RFPE, the lowest floor elevation, the floodproofing elevation, and the HVAC elevation.
Response (United Civil): The table has been added.
11. Drainage Exhibit --- Include a typical detail drawing showing the foundation type proposed
and showing the elevations included in the table.
Response (United Civil): A typical detail has been added.
12. Drainage Exhibit --- Please change note #1 to refer to a City-regulatory 100-year floodway
and flood fringe.
Response (United Civil): Note has been revised.
13. Drainage Exhibit --- Please change note #4 to “A floodplain use permit and no rise
certification is required prior to performing any work within the floodway (i.e. curb cut, curb &
gutter, utility work, landscaping, etc.).
Response (United Civil): Note has been revised.
14. Drainage Exhibit --- If the developers are planning to submit the floodplain use permit for the
building at the time that they apply for a building permit (rather than as part of the development
review process), a note should be added to that effect.
Response (United Civil): Floodplain use permits will be submitted during the Final Compliance stage
of development review.
15. Drainage Exhibit --- If the floodproofing information isn’t submitted as part of these plans,
then a note should be added stating that the floodproofing information will be submitted at the
time of the building permit application.
Response (United Civil): Flood proofing details will be added by the architect and included in the
Construction Plans during Final Compliance
16. Drainage Exhibit --- Please add an additional note: Any items located in the floodway that
can float (e.g. picnic table, bike racks, etc.) must be anchored.
Response (United Civil): Note has been added.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: The City has determined the green roof design can be during final compliance with
a public hearing condition of approval stating the green roof will be designed and constructed
during final plan submittal for this development.
Response (VFLA): Understood; additional information will be provided at final plan.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: No comments.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please change the legal description to include more detailed information. Make
sure that the description matches the Site Plan.
Response (United Civil): The legal has been modified to match the Assessor’s Office legal
description and has been coordinated with the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please change "City" in the legal description and Basis Of Bearings to "Town".
The original Fort Collins plat was the Town Of Fort Collins.
Response (United Civil): Revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Benchmark #28-97 has been replaced by #1-11. Please change sheets C0.00 &
C0.01.
Response (United Civil): Revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please mask text within hatching on sheets C1.00, C2.00, C3.00, C4.00 & C5.00.
See redlines.
Response (United Civil): The drawings have been revised.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please mask text within hatching on sheet L1. See redlines.
Response (Ripley): L1 has been updated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: There is a line over text issue on sheet L1. See redlines.
Response (Ripley): L1 has been updated.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: No comments.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please change the legal description to include more detailed information.
Response (VFLA): Legal description has been revised.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please change "City" in the legal description and Basis Of Bearings to "Town".
The original Fort Collins plat was the Town Of Fort Collins.
Response (VFLA): Legal description has been revised to Town.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please add a space between "Site" & "Plan. See redlines.
Response (VFLA): Legal description has been revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label the lines shown on Mason and on Magnolia.
Response (United Civil): The right-of-way and property lines have been labeled.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: No TIS submitted but is required.
Response (VFLA): Traffic study was submitted prior, however please find attached.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/22/2013
11/22/2013: The landscape plan reflects only a drip irrigation system will be installed; Please
include a rain sensor into the irrigation plan.
Response (Ripley): Rain sensor has been included in the notes on sheet L1
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Add note on demolition plan to coordinate with Water Utilities (416-2165) on the
abandonment of the 3/4" water service.
Response (United Civil): Note has been added.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Show the existing sewer service and add appropriate notes regarding the
abandonment.
Response (United Civil): The approximate location of the sanitary service has been shown and per
communication with City staff have shown it to be removed to the existing curb of Mason Street.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Maintain a straight alignment on the domestic water services from the City main
through the curb stops and meter pits.
Response (United Civil): Water service alignments have been updated.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Has the size of the commercial water service been checked and confirmed?
Development fees for a 2" commercial service total nearly $190,000 plus a surcharge for the
higher strength restaurant waste.
Response (United Civil): For PDP a 1-1/2” service and meter with an upsize to 2” service has been
shown. Final sizing will be determined during Final Compliance.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Is there a residential component included in the project?
Response (United Civil): The residential component of the project has been removed.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: The narrative states that the first two floors will be restaurant, the next three will be
offices, and then the top floor will be residential. However, the 'Building Area by Floor" table
on sheet PDP1 indicates that the first floor will be retail, the next 4 floors will be office, and the
top floor will be restaurant. The narrative and/or the building area table need to be changed so
that they both describe the same use mix. Also, if retail is proposed, then this will be a Type 2
review in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the Downtown zone.
Response (VFLA): Narrative has been revised to reflect that no residential is proposed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: If the top floor is residential, how many units will there be? and how many
bedrooms per unit? This data will need to be in the Land Use table.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: If there are residential units, then parking is required in the TOD per a recent code
change. Please refer to Sec. 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1). Provide a floor plan of the garage area,
showing the dimensions of the parking stalls and drive aisles. At least one of the spaces will
need to be a van accessible handicap parking space.
Response (VFLA): No residential is proposed.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: Show the building footprint/envelope dimensions on the site plan. Label the lot
lines and show building setback distances.
Response (VFLA): Site plan has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: Add a General Site Note regarding where the trash and recycling collection area
is. If in the parking level, then show it on the floor plan and include the dimensions.
Response (VFLA): Site plan has been noted.
Additional Comments since submittal:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-224-6126, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Email: 1 Comment Originated: 2/25/2014
2/25/2014: An underlying issue in staff’s opinion is that this particular lot is simply too small to appropriately
absorb the proposed height. It is fundamentally at odds with the urban design and compatibility standards. The
80-foot height on this lot stands in sharp contrast and does not reflect the context.
Response (VFLA): The concept is right in line with the infrastructure and urban growth of Mason Street
Corridor. The proposed height is 68% of what zoning would allow. The design follows the City Downtown
Strategic Plan which states in section 2.1.4: ‘The Mason Street area should be the location of significant new
development to take advantage of longterm transit opportunities.’ City Downtown Strategic Plan also states in
section 3.2.2.C: ‘Various interests generally agree that buildings up to about 6 ½ stories (about 80’) can be
acceptable throughout the area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing buildings
taller than that. Standards should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly straightforward review
based on the general agreement on key parameters.’ The diagrams on PDP3 depict the scale and relation to
adjacent context as well as to recently approved projects such as Canyon Place. Please not that the
proportions of the east face of Canyon Place a very similar to our east face, the only difference would be our
presence along a Mason which is planned to be more dense development.
Comment Email: 2 Comment Originated: 3/04/2014
3/04/2014: Standards limit glass buildings in favor of defined windows. Something to keep in mind:
(c) Windows. Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and
courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible.
1. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominate style of fenestration for
buildings in this District. This requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent
features used as embellishments to the principal building.
2. If ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses have large pane display windows, such windows shall be framed by
the surrounding wall and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total ground level facade area.
Response (VFLA): The refined building façade has removed the originally proposed balconies due to staff
comment. The proposed fenestration reflects 56% of the exterior façade and does not use spandrel-glass as a
predominant style, instead is utilized as a sensitive treatment to the overall building mass.