HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP130038 - CORRESPONDENCE -Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
March 28, 2014
Justin Larson
VFLA
401 W. Mountain Ave. Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/25/2014: The proposed redevelopment and uses are consistent with the community vision and
zoning provisions, in most aspects. The design features and positive aspects of the proposed new
building highlighted by the developer team are acknowledged.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: Taller buildings (over 3 stories) are permitted in this zoning district, subject to key
standards for a base portion to define the scale of the building along sidewalks. Above the base
portion, the building’s mass must be reduced. The mass reduction must be a significant aspect of the
building design. Ground floor and upper floor setbacks may be combined to mitigate mass and
height of taller buildings. (LUC Section 4.16(D)(4)(b)(1) and (2).)
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: Building Base: staff finds that the base portion of the building does not meet the standards
because of the interruption created by the stair towers. The defining base features (canopy, cornice,
pedestrian interface, etc.) should span the full street frontage. Also, they should extend around a
return portion on the south side of the building. A notch at the southeast corner would help transition to
the historic 415 building with its greater setback.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
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, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or
cmapes@fcgov.com.
RE: Mason Street Sustainable Development, PDP130038, Round Number 2
Page 1 of 12
03/25/2014: The stair towers should be recessed behind the base portion. As proposed, the
projecting stair towers negate the effect of the base as the defining scale element. The south stair
tower interrupts and negates the effect of the metal canopy that provides compatibility with the historic
415 building. That canopy would have a much greater effect if it were continued to and around the
corner as the dominant feature, rather than the stair tower being the dominant feature.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: Could the transformer be part of a notch at this corner to achieve multiple purposes?
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: Building Mass Reduction at Upper Stories: Staff finds that the proposed design does not
comply with the adopted standards. The heavy cornice and small step-back are acknowledged as
positive features. But mass reduction is not a significant aspect of the overall building design as
proposed. Upper floor setbacks must be determined by an emphasis on certain factors including
compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, and sensitivity to the historic context and
scale of downtown, as the crucial factors in this case. If ground floor setbacks were provided they
would be a factor in determining upper floor setbacks. But given the lack of ground floor setbacks the
mass mitigation must be accomplished entirely by terracing back the upper building mass.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: Based on discussions to date, staff finds an underlying issue that this particular lot is
simply too small to appropriately absorb the proposed height, as significant mass reduction is not
feasible. The building height, mass and scale are fundamentally at odds with the urban design and
historic compatibility standards, by a matter of degree. The proposed 80-foot height on this lot stands
in sharp contrast and is not responsive to the context. Because the small lot does not allow for
recessed terracing of upper floors, staff opinion is that the height should be reduced along with other
design revisions noted. The degree of upper floor setbacks is partly a function of overall height.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014: From GIS regarding addressing: projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit
Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met
final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime
during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be
determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services,
and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may
result in address changes.
The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or
(970) 416-2483.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/25/2014:
03/25/2014: Bottom line: staff can not recommend approval of the project as ccurrently proposed. A
combination of reduced height and design revisions are needed.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Page 2 of 12
03/26/2014: The site plan and the civil drawings seem to be inconsistent with the location of the
grease interceptor. The site plan shows it more under the paver surface and the civil show it more
under the concrete sidewalk. Engineering has a separate meeting setup tomorrow to discuss the
appropriate placement.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/28/2014: It has been confirmed that only the portion around the inlets was removed and replaced so
the civil plans are correct in removing and replacing the rest. 03/26/2014: The demo plan is showing
curb and gutter being removed and replaced along Mason and Magnolia. It was my understanding
that the MAX project had replaced curb and gutter along Mason. Is there a reason it is being
removed? Or was only a portion removed and replaced by MAX?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014: The demo plan mentions the existing sanitary service will be removed at the southeast
corner of the lot. Street cut limits should be added to the plan similar to the other street cuts shown on
the sheet.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014: Benches, walls, planters, bike parking, etc. in the right of way will need to be approved
by a separate right of way encroachment permit. Civil, site and landscape plans shall note that these
are not approved per this plan. A note will need to be added to the plans prior to Public Hearing so
that it is understood that these are not approved at public hearing.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014: It appears that in order to construct the foundation soil or form pins will be required to be
placed into the right of way and/or adjacent properties. For pins into the right of way there is certain
design and materials to be used and for pins into adjacent properties we will need letters of
understanding from those adjacent owners stating that they understand what is required and that these
pins will extend into their property under the ground.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/28/2014: We have confirmed that the corner ramp is prefererred for this intersection to match the
other corners. 03/26/2014: The ramp at the intersection of Mason and Magnolia is shown as a corner
ramp and not our standard directional ramps. A separate meeting has been scheduled for
engineering to discuss what is required as many of the intersections on Mason were built with corner
ramps during the MAX construction.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014: Additional information is needed for the numerous types of pavers and materials shown
for the sidewalk along Mason and Magnolia. Once we have this information engineering will discuss
what is appropriate in the right of way and if additional design, information or materials are needed.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014: What is the material being used for the roof drain in the front of the building and tieing to
the back of the inlet? Is this RCP, PVC, ADS?
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Page 3 of 12
03/26/2014: Electric Transformers are not allowed above grade within the right of way or in parkways
per land use code 3.3.D.7. What other options have been explored for the placement of this
transformer? This has been brought up previously and do not recall any conversations about other
alternatives. The site will need to be reconfigured to incorporate the transformer or find an offsite
location not within the right of way. If an acceptable solution is not reached before the project is sent to
hearing than a condition of approval will be added to the staff report that it will be relocated outside of
the right of way for final approval.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
11/26/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
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.
Comment Number: 1 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.
Comment Number: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 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
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Page 4 of 12
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.
Comment Number: 5 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.
Comment Number: 6 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.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
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.
Comment Number: 8 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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
03/26/2014:
By the elm tree that unfortunately will be removed add the following information.
3 replacement trees
Stump to be ground to 20 inches below grade, stump chips removed from and stump cavity and filled
hole top soil.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014:
Add a heading - Mitigation Trees with the following information under the heading.
Four off-site mitigation trees shall be planted within a distance defined in LUC 3.2.1 F or a payment of
$450 per tree shall be made to the City of Fort Collins Forestry to plant the mitigation trees prior to
certificate of occupancy.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Page 5 of 12
03/26/2014:
For the file this is the American Elm evaluation summary report for 401 S Mason Street on Magnolia
Street by Ralph Zentz, Assistant City Forester.
A building proposed at the corner of Mason and Magnolia will severely impact an American Elm
located in the City right-of-way on the Magnolia side of the property. The footprint of the building is
over 80feet tall. The wall of the building would require that a significant portion of a main leader in the
tree to be removed. The foundation will require excavation to within 6ft of the south base of the tree. A
water line that cannot be located in another area requires excavation rather than boring. This trench will
be approximately 8ft from the east base of the tree.
An aerial inspection was conducted for: 1) verify where the wall of the building would actually impact
the southern leader: 2) the overall structural condition of the tree. The inspection verified that the
southern leader would have to be cut back so far that the tree would be topped or severely
misshapen. It also revealed a structural problem with a limb going out over the road. Between the
severe pruning to accommodate the building the anticipated root damage and the pruning required to
make the limb over the street safe, it was determined that retaining this tree with the proposed
construction is not advised nor feasible.
Mitigation for this tree would be 3 upsized trees.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
03/26/2014:
Place this note in a box with larger print and a bold boundary.
A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways
between the sidewalk and curb and in street medians. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of
street tree locations after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting.
Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the code of the City of Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 6 of 12
03/25/2014: The existing building at 401 S. Mason has been reviewed, and was found to be not
individually eligible for landmark recognition. Its demolition or alteration does not require further
historic preservation review.
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.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
03/25/2014: The design team met with 2 of the 9 LPC members at a Design Review Subcommittee
meeting on January 9, 2014. While the National, State and local landmark-eligible property at 415 S.
Mason would be most impacted by this development proposal, additional properties will also be
affected, as noted below.
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Page 7 of 12
03/25/2014: The proposed building fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7.(A) in significant ways. These
issues are interrelated with issues noted in Current Planning comments regarding height and massing.
The new construction is not designed to respect the historic character of historic properties in the
surrounding neighborhood, for example, the discrepancy and incongruity of the height, scale, and
massing of the new construction relative to the adjacent historically significant property at 401 S. Mason
Street and the many other historic properties in the neighborhood.
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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
03/25/2014: For the reasons stated in previous comments, which have not been addressed, this
project continues to not meet the intent of LUC 3.4.7 (B), General Standard.
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Page 8 of 12
03/25/2014: For the reasons state previously, which have not been addressed, this project continues
to not comply with LUC 3.4.7(F)(1). The definition of Maximum extent feasible is: ¿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.¿ The
applicants have failed to demonstrate how ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulations have
been undertaken.
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...."
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
03/25/2014: For the reason state before, which have not been addressed, this project continues to not
comply with LUC 3.4.7(F)(2). The definition of Maximum extent feasible is: “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.” The applicants have
failed to demonstrate how ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulations have been undertaken.
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..."
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
03/14/2014:
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.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
03/26/2014: 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION
By April 2014, it is anticipated that the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins will have
competed adopting the 2012 International Fire Code. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the
adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application. As
such, other fire code requirements may apply.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Page 9 of 12
03/26/2014: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
2912IFC510: All new buildings greater shall have approved radio coverage for emergency
responders. 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
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
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
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
03/27/2014: Please amend the Utility Plans, Drainage Report and Site Plan as per the red-lined
comments on each.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/27/2014
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
03/24/2014: Please change the title to 401 South Mason Street.
12/03/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
03/24/2014: No plans were routed to us this round.
12/03/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Site Plan
03/24/2014: This has not been changed.
12/03/2013: Please change the legal description to include more detailed information.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Page 10 of 12
03/24/2014: This has not been changed.
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.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
03/24/2014: This has not been changed.
12/03/2013: Please add a space between "Site" & "Plan. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
03/24/2014: Please change the title to 401 South Mason Street.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/24/2014
03/24/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/24/2014
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
03/25/2014: The striping shown on the south bound lanes of Mason do not seem to reflect current
striping. I believe it is now parking and a shared bike/car lane. Please verify and revise.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
Topic: Landscape Plans
03/25/2014: Please show the crosswalks on the Utility, Site and Landscape plans. Traffic assumes the
existing curb ramps will be reconstructed as directional curb ramps (Andrew Gingerich is checking ios
the directional ramps will be required). That does not seem to be reflected in the various plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/25/2014
03/26/2014: Enough of the full Mason St needs to be shown to verify sight distance aspects from
Magnolia to Nb Mason traffic. Please provide more of the full Mason street section south of Magnolia
to verify sight distance policies are being met.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/26/2014
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
11/22/2013: The landscape plan reflects only a drip irrigation system will be installed; Please include
a rain sensor into the irrigation plan.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/22/2013
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
12/03/2013: Add note on demolition plan to coordinate with Water Utilities (416-2165) on the
abandonment of the 3/4" water service.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Show the existing sewer service and add appropriate notes regarding the abandonment.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Page 11 of 12
12/03/2013: Maintain a straight alignment on the domestic water services from the City main through
the curb stops and meter pits.
Comment Number: 3 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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: General
12/03/2013: Is there a residential component included in the project?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
03/13/2014: Repeat comment. The response letter states that these items have been added, but I
don't see them.
11/19/2013: Show the building footprint/envelope dimensions on the site plan. Label the lot lines and
show building setback distances.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
03/13/2014: Repeat comment. The response letter states that the site plan has been noted, but I
couldn't find the note.
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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Page 12 of 12