Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICES BUILDING - PDP - PDP140005 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Fort Collins Utilities Customer Service Building Project Development Plan e.) Preliminary Design Review Comment Responses o Preliminary Design Review Comments Dated: March 21, 2014 RE: City of Fort Collins Utilities Customer Services Building ‐ Preliminary Design Review, PDR140002, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970‐224‐6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970‐224‐6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations o Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 The permitted height limit is 7 ‐ 9 stories or +/‐ 115 feet. Any building greater than 25,000 s.f. per floor or over 6 stories or 85 feet is required to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for approval (Type 2).  RNL RESPONSE: The Utilities Customer Service Building is less than 7‐ 9 stories and 25,000 sf per floor. o Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 The architecture is overly repetitive and could use more creativity in its design to achieve a greater sense of permanence and importance.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged, see revised elevations. Topic: General o Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 Downtown Zone District ‐ Civic Center Subdistrict. Community Facilities in this district are permitted via an administrative hearing (Type 1).  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged 5/6/2014 Page 2 o Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Josh Weinberg 03/18/2014: At its March 12, 2014 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission held a conceptual review regarding the historic Poudre Valley Creamery "butterfly building." At this review the Commission was presented with three options for incorporating the building into the proposed redevelopment of the site: Option 1 ‐ retain the building in its current location, Option 2 ‐ relocate the building to the west, or Option 3 ‐ relocate the building to the east. Both relocation options would likely see the butterfly building temporarily stored while the remainder of the site was redeveloped. 03/18/2014: When presented with these options, The Commission did not feel that relocating the building would meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards. While the building would be retained in its current location under Option 1, the Commission asked for alternative plans to move the Utilities building further north. When presented with Options 2 and 3, the Commission was concerned that either relocation option would not allow the building to retain its historic integrity, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior. The Commission was further concerned with the idea of ¿temporarily¿ moving the building while the remainder of the site was redeveloped. 03/18/2014: A copy of the meeting minutes will be forwarded to the Operation Services team once they are approved by the Commission at their next meeting.  RNL RESPONSE: Option 1 will be provided. The historic Creamery building will remain in place and the CSB will be built around it and set back north and west to provide relief between the two structures. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: Landscaping is required to be provided per Section 3.2.1; specifically street trees shall be provided at 30' ‐ 40' spacing in the planting strip along detached sidewalks.  RNL/LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014  03/18/2014: The variety of stormwater treatment tools is a good opportunity to be used as demonstration and monitoring areas. 5/6/2014 Page 3  RNL/LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Planning Objectives Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: Important Special Provisions for the Civic Center Subdistrict, specifically for government and civic buildings: (F) Special Provisions – Civic Center Subdistrict. The Civic Center Subdistrict will serve as an important element of the Downtown District and as the primary location for new civic uses and buildings. The following criteria shall apply to all development in the Civic Center Subdistrict: (1) Civic spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north‐south and east‐west pedestrian connections. The civic spine will serve to connect various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas. As proposed the civic spine does not align with the stubs to the south and north. Possible solutions would be a direct tunnel through the building or moving the building further to the west. The slate is blank and this standard should be adhered.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. See ‘Statement of Planning Objectives, Question D, Section (vi), above. The CSB has been located further west on its site and the civic spine has been organized in such as way to create as direct a connection from south to north as possible. (2) Building materials. The use of local sandstone is required in all civic buildings to establish a visual continuity and a local sense of place.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. See ‘Statement of Planning Objectives, Question D, Section (vi), above. (3) Civic buildings. New major civic buildings, such as a library, government offices, courthouses, performing arts facilities and transit centers, shall be located within the Civic Center Subdistrict and placed in central locations as highly visible focal points. To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be close to a transit stop.  RNL RESPONSE: The Utilities Customer Service Building is located at the southwest corner of Block 32 within the Civic Center Subdistrict and is one half‐block west of the Max transit corridor on Mason Street. 5/6/2014 Page 4 (4) Incorporation of new buildings. New buildings shall be designed in a manner that establishes continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings within and adjacent to the Civic Center Subdistrict. The height, mass and materials of major public buildings shall convey a sense of permanence and importance. The proposed building may require further work to establish the sense of civic importance.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged, See ‘Statement of Planning Objectives’, Question D, above and re: Elevations. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The corner of Laporte and Howes would be a good location for the plaza and entrance providing equidistant access from the parking spaces and a focal point at a prominent intersection.  RNL RESPONSE: The suggestion of locating the south plaza of the CSB at the corner of Howes Street and Laporte was explored early in the design process. Ultimately, engaging the plaza with the civic spine and orienting it toward downtown provided not only an opportunity to benefit the pedestrian environment along Laporte, it allowed the project to preserve the historic creamery structure. If the building were to flip and move the plaza to the west and the corner, it would have a detrimental effect on the project’s ability to engage the civic spine in a strong way. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: Have you discussed the on‐street diagonal parking on Howes Street and possible time‐limited parking with Parking Services?  RNL RESPONSE: Studies of added parking along Howes Street from Laporte Avenue north to Cherry have been conducted through a coordinated effort between Operations Services and the City’s traffic engineers. Multiple strategies were explored and a preferred direction was recommended by Joe Olson. This option has now been implemented and adds diagonal street parking on the west side of Howes Street and parallel on the east for a total of 72 spaces or a net increase of 25 spaces. A copy of the initial parking study diagrams is attached following this section of the submittal. 5/6/2014 Page 5 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: Is there room to have all your employees park off‐site in the civic center parking structure? Can you ensure that they will use the structure even though they have to pay or will it contribute to the constrained on‐street parking? Have you considered a parking lot? The City will receive public criticism that we are not providing parking.  RNL/OPERATIONS SERVICES RESPONSE: With the re‐striping of Howes Street, 25 new parking stalls have been added to the Civic Center Campus. The CSB building will have immediate occupants numbering 122 with 41 coming from outside of downtown and the remaining 81 coming from 117 N. Mason Street. The latter group already parks downtown, so the parking load is only increased by 41 people coming from the 700 Wood Street facility. The City have had discussions with Parking Services and they have indicated there is room for the 41 people to use the parking garages during business hours. We currently cannot force the employees to use the garages, but the City is looking into the possibility of charging all employees for surface parking and this would encourage some employees to make use of the covered parking if they are paying the same price for open surface parking. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970‐221‐6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224‐6108 if you have any questions.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev‐review.php  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 5/6/2014 Page 6 o 03/15/2014: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224‐6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Study in progress. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: This project is responsible for dedicating any right‐of‐way and easements that are necessary for this project. Because this is City owned land rather than easements and Right‐of‐way they will be alignments that will need to be processed and recorded.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: Utility plans will be required.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Utility Plans are being provided with PDP submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5/6/2014 Page 7 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: The proposed diagonal parking on Howes Street impacts the bike lane and this is the main bike route in this area. If the desire is to do diagonal parking back in diagonal parking would be better and this would be a good location for it. Because vehicles backing in can hang further over the curb, a wider sidewalk behind this would need to be provided.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: “Back‐in” diagonal parking is being proposed with current design. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: Bumping in the curb lines to create parking spaces can create some design and drainage issues that we will need to work through. It is likely that additional inlets will need to be provided to capture the flows in these new areas.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Positive drainage is being maintained along curb flow line and no new curb inlets are proposed at this time. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: The ramps at the corner will need to be replaced with this project and ramps meeting ADA standards installed. Also we are hoping that the utility pole currently located at this corner will be able to be removed.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Existing ramps will be replaced with new ADA standard ramps. Removal of the existing utility pole will need to be discussed with appropriate utility service providers which will be addressed as design moves forward. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/15/2014 o 03/15/2014: There is a lot of demand and need for parking in this area and it would be great if in association with this project that some of the driveway cuts out onto Howes (both sides of the street) could be removed. The removal of the driveways would allow for additional on‐street parking spaces to exist and if the driveway just north of this site could be closed would certainly help a situation where there is no visibility around the buildings as a car pulls out into the sidewalk. With the addition of more employees and pedestrian traffic to this area – elimination of this hazard would be a really good thing. 5/6/2014 Page 8  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: See current design for on‐ street “back‐in” diagonal parking along Howes Street. Department: Light And Power Contact: Justin Fields, 970‐224‐6150, jfields@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering, 970‐221‐6700.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: A C‐1 form and a 1‐line diagram will need to be submitted to Light and Power Engineering. The C‐1 form is available at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c‐1_form.pdf.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The line marked as OHE, that starts at the southwest corner of the project runs due north to a street light and then turns west, is a communication line.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970‐218‐2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq‐ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970‐218‐2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5/6/2014 Page 9 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‐221‐6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970‐221‐6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/20/2014 o 03/20/2014: As this project appears to be a part of the larger City Civic Center campus vision, has any traffic study been conducted for the larger transportation changes considered with the Civic Center project? Please provide discussion on how the traffic and transportation aspects are planned to be reviewed and determined.  RNL RESPONSE: To date the an expanded traffic study of the Civic Center Campus vision plan has fallen out of the scope of the initial conceptual planning effort. As part of this initial effort, preliminary assumptions have been informed by historic information through Matt Delich, the traffic consultant for the CSB project. Further study will need to be completed in the future to understand how a change is Howes Street and densification of uses on Blocks 32 and 42 as well as changes to Mason Street will affect the final form of the Civic Center Campus. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 o 03/19/2014: The proposed use and scale meets criteria to require a Traffic Impact Study.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Study in progress. Department: Water‐Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970‐221‐6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General 5/6/2014 Page 10 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 o 03/12/2014: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include a 12‐inch water main in Laporte, a 4‐inch water main and a 6‐inch sewer in Howes and an 8‐inch sewer in the alley to the east and at the northeast corner.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 o 03/12/2014: Existing water services extending to the site include five ¾‐inch services. The two extending from the main in Laporte provide service to 212 and 222 Laporte. The three connecting to the main in Howes provide service to 208 N Howes and 222 and 230 Laporte. There is no service shown to the ¿butterfly¿ building. In addition, there is a 4‐inch main extending from the main in Laporte which previously ended at a fire hydrant which is no longer there.  RNL/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 o 03/12/2014: All water and sewer lines extending to the site must be used or abandoned at the main.  RNL RESPONSE/NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 o 03/12/2014: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards  RNL/LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 o 03/12/2014: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Credit for existing services to be abandoned can be applied toward water/wastewater fees for the proposed project.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning 5/6/2014 Page 11 Contact: Peter Barnes, 970‐416‐2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The use is classified as a 'community facility' per the Land Use Code definition. The use is subject to a Type 1 review process.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: The 'Building Height Review' process in Sec. 3.5.1(G) applies if the building is taller than 40 feet.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged. See attached shadow and view analyses and summary of conclusions. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 o 03/18/2014: Section 4.16 of the Land Use Code will apply with regard to building design. Based on the detail of and the number of drawings (being just the site plan), Zoning has no other comments at this time.  RNL RESPONSE: Acknowledged.