HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP130038 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)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
December 10, 2013
Justin Larson
VFLA
401 W. Mountain Ave. Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 1 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.
Comment Number: 2 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
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: The design does not comply with the requirment 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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or
jholland@fcgov.com.
RE: Mason Street Sustainable Development, PDP130038, Round Number 1
Page 1 of 11
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.
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.
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).
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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
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.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
12/05/2013: Bike rack location north of the building is very close to the driveway isle.
Comment Number: 7 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.
Comment Number: 8 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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/10/2013
Page 2 of 11
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
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.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Topic: Site Plan
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....
Comment Number: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
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
Page 3 of 11
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
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
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 4 of 11
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
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
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
Page 5 of 11
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
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
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
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
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.
Comment Number: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Page 6 of 11
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
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
Page 7 of 11
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.
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’.
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
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”.
8. Drainage Exhibit --- Please be sure that all CSL’s are labeled with the stationing and the BFE
elevation, using NGVD29 Datum.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
Page 8 of 11
12/05/2013:
9. Drainage Exhibit --- Include BFE’s and make sure that the elevation is labeled as NGVD29.
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.
11. Drainage Exhibit --- Include a typical detail drawing showing the foundation type proposed and
showing the elevations included in the table.
12. Drainage Exhibit --- Please change note #1 to refer to a City-regulatory 100-year floodway and
flood fringe.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
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
12/03/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Construction Drawings
12/03/2013: Please change the legal description to include more detailed information. Make sure that
the description matches the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Benchmark #28-97 has been replaced by #1-11. Please change sheets C0.00 & C0.01.
Comment Number: 4 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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 9 of 11
12/03/2013: Please mask text within hatching on sheet L1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: There is a line over text issue on sheet L1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
12/03/2013: No comments.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Topic: Site Plan
12/03/2013: Please change the legal description to include more detailed information.
Comment Number: 9 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.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
12/03/2013: Please add a space between "Site" & "Plan. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2013
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
12/04/2013: Please label the lines shown on Mason and on Magnolia.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
12/04/2013: No TIS submitted but is required.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
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 10 of 11
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: General
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.
Comment Number: 1 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: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
Topic: Site Plan
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
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 11 of 11