Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAINT JOHN XXIII CATHOLIC CHURCH AND LOMBARDY STUDENT HOUSING - PDP190001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 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 01, 2019 Jason Messaros BHA Design Inc 1603 Oakridge Dr Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Saint John XXIII Catholic Church and Lombardy Student Housing, PDP190001, Round Number 1 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 Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane, at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Parking: Parking in the TOD zone does allow for reductions based on the TOD Demand Mitigation Strategies, however the 50% reduction proposed should be applied to each “Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit for Sale or for Rent (equal to or less than 60% Area Median Income)”, and not applied as a 50% reduction for units that are not affordable units. The overall parking provided for the housing is significantly less than what the code allows. The parking ratio on a per unit bases stands at .27 spaces per bed which is significantly less than what other student housing projects have recently provided. The project may qualify for other TOD reductions that have not been considered with the Land Use Table provided, however even if these other reductions are considered viable, the housing component appears to be short about 100 parking spaces. Response: Parking provided within the development exceeds code requirements, as shown: 2 Housing Component: Required Parking Count (Prior to Reduction) = 315 Spaces Reductions based on Demand Mitigation Strategy Table in LUC: • Transit Passes (10%) = 31 Spaces • Car Share (5 spaces/carshare (3 spaces)) = 12 Spaces net • Bike/Ped. Level of Service A (10%) = 31 Total Reduction = 74 Total Requirement (Housing) = 241 Spaces Total Requirement (Church) = 197 Spaces Total Requirement (Overall) = 438 Total Provided = 448 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Building mass and scale – step-backs along the street: Per the WCAP guidelines, page 31, building height should be stepped back. To address this, other projects have stepped the 5th story back or the design team could explore the current design concept but with 4 story buildings. Would suggest a separate staff meeting to discuss building mass and scale for each of the three housing buildings. Comment provided as a suggestion -- A one story element appears to be provided along the piazza frontage of Building C, which is helpful. The overall mass of building C appears to dominate the mass of the Church. A lower building might provide a better backdrop for the church structure and would reinforce the church as the focal point in the immediate area. Response: The following adjustments have been made to address mass and scale comments: Building A: Level 5 (Stucco (previously metal panel)) now steps back 4’-4” from dark brick volume and 2’-4” from beige brick volume at south façade. Level 5 steps back 2’-4” at west façade, which is further restricted by setbacks. Level 5 is stepped back 2’-10” at east façade. Additionally, dark brick volume at west end of Building A has been reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories. Stairwells have been shifted south and now align with adjacent facades. Brick on west stairwell also reduced to 4 stories. Building B: Level 5 of the east wing south façade steps back 1’-10”. Building footprint surrounding courtyard reduces the perceived scale of building along University Ave. Building C: Beige brick volume in center of south façade and center-east reduced from 4 levels to 3 levels. Beige brick volume on north side reduced from 4 levels to three levels. Newman Center volume on east façade increased from one level to two levels to aid in scale with the Church. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Finish floor level of the west building (Building A) is a concern. I understand that the building is built up over the street to access the parking, however the FFE of the main level is raised considerably, exacerbating the looming effect of the building in relation to the 3 street and surrounding properties. ADDED COMMENT-- is stepping of the building FFE possible to allow a more even height relationship with the street. Excessive amounts of exposed foundation walls are also a concern. Grading around Building A appears to also be an issue with the existing trees to be saved. The slope of the grade extends to the north property line and the grade is significant, with the swale transition appearing to be inadequate to handle the drainage in this area without effecting the landscape areas offsite to the north. Response: FFE of Building A is set by grade on west side (5% minimum slope away from building). Grade drops considerably moving towards the east side of the building. FFE is not set based on parking below. Lobby on east side is set 6’ Below FFE to reduce need for ramp from the sidewalk and bring scale back to street level. Parking below Building A has been removed. Full foundation planting has been provided around the west and south facades. The north elevation will be screened with a 6’ privacy fence. Grades have been adjusted to preserve existing trees to the extent possible on the west end of Building A. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Building A entrances shown on the north side of the building – these seem to be in areas that are unsafe due to access control and lack visibility from the City Park Avenue. This is also related to the architectural design -- a secondary entrance feature fronting on City Park Avenue is preferred. In general, we would like to discuss options to provide entrance canopies on secondary entrances, including the west wing of Building B and other areas where entrances are provided along walkways and at bike parking areas. Sidewalks abutting the north sides of the building – the application should address how these walkways can be kept in a safe condition – how will snow and ice buildup be addressed. Response: Northwest entrance shifted into the stairwell and is now visible from City Park Ave. Additionally, a canopy has been added and extends from the door past the west face of building. Secondary entrance canopies have been added to all buildings. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Block size requirement in the CC zone: The east/west driveway provided does not qualify as an SLPD. To address this standard a Modification of Standard would need to be considered. A north/south bike/ped connection is supportable from a Planning perspective (in lieu of a north/south through street that would connect to Elizabeth and form two smaller blocks that would support higher intensity redevelopment). Staff is concerned that the north/south connection needs to demonstrate future viability where it would continue north offsite to Elizabeth Street. One question is whether the future connection aligns in a location that is that is safe, convenient and viable for future development scenarios by owners to the north. 4 Would suggest a separate meeting be organized to discuss this further, with the following suggested goals. Satisfying these goals could be used as justification the Modification of Standard to the CC zone block standard: A- Determining interim improvements that allow safe and convenient bike and ped flow to nearby destinations. B- In lieu of a north/south street connection, ensuring that the proposed site plan layout does not preclude and accommodates a potential ultimate north/south bike and pedestrian connection that adequately functions in place of street sidewalks and bike lanes. Response: On-site accommodations for North – South pedestrian travel will be provided to the extent possible. Vehicle and pedestrian access are accommodated west of Building B and pedestrian access only is provided between Buildings B and C. This North – South pedestrian connection between building B and C is designed to accommodate a future development pedestrian way that extends from University to Elizabeth that will be safe and convenient. In addition to the North – South pedestrian connection between buildings B and C, (Mid-block connection) the Piazza (located between Building C and the Church) will provide North – South pedestrian access between University and the emergency access road. We also eliminated the vehicular north access to the parking garage to encourage a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment along the emergency access road. Off-site connections within adjacent private property are not provided with this project. While pedestrian permeability is not precluded to the north, formal accommodations are not proposed with this project. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Parking layout plans must be provided for each level of proposed parking. More information is also needed to show interior functions of the building locations of elevators, etc. Response: Parking garage plan has been added to document set. Additionally, a site roof plan has been added to show locations of stairwells and roof access. Site plan shows location of elevators and stairs at level 1. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: More detailed comments and redlines will be provided for the final letter on Friday. I will also highlight the code provisions that need to be addressed regarding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Site Plan: Bike Parking comments: - sliding door, wider door for ease of access? - some areas where the entrances are restricted For Final - Landscape Plan: -A few tree and utility/transformer/lighting conflicts along the private drive. -Where plants are planted in rows along the tighter planting areas, check to see if the species will allow these to grow together and be maintained as a hedge 5 vs. gaps between the plants. -In the looser planting areas, preference to reinforce the xeric feel with a few sandstone boulders here and there, if feasible. -Will there be places where long term the mature plans will crowd the sidewalks, would it be desirable to have at least a 1-foot mulch transition area. Response: Door sizes at bicycle storage have been increased to 48”. Plant species and spacing will be provided with FDP. The landscape plan has been adjusted to better account for proper spacing between adjacent plants and walks. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: I’m adding a comment here with additional feedback on the questions that were discussed with the applicant team after the staff meeting regarding mass and scale. Building height transitions should be used appropriately to address the area context and to strategically address mass and scale of the buildings when viewed from the neighborhood, and not be placed in areas that are mainly based on the building layout. Prominent view corridors, with views to towards the building at key corners and edges should be considered. The development’s location should be considered, as a southwest gateway of sorts along the City Park Avenue corridor into the commercial core of the West Central Area. This gateway and transition concept is also reflected in the zoning transition that occurs at the property. The PDR comments discussed the design principles on page 31 of the WCAP. The LUC also has a definition of Compatibility in Article 5 which should also be reviewed by the applicant team. My suggestion is that the applicant team look at the site context and WCAP character areas and provide an outline of specific design strategies employed that are proposed to address the WCAP design principles for each building. Design strategies employed with other recent projects are in different character areas (see WCAP) when compared to the area south of Elizabeth, and responding to different streets and existing conditions, and therefore the design strategies employed to meet the WCAP for this project may be different. A combination of design strategies may be helpful to provide a more significant response to the guidelines for each of the buildings. Response: See response to comment #2. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: One more comment – some of the past designs had entrance features that had taller glazing and seemed more prominent. Not sure of the appropriate scale/proportions but it did seem that entrance design alternatives in key areas of the project might be helpful. Response: Main entrances to all buildings have prominent canopy elements with significant stretches of glazing to signify entrance locations. Department: Internal Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 6 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please label intended trash and recycling chute diameters on the "Trash Details" page. It is recommended to use a larger chute for recycling. Response: Diameters have been added to plans and recycle has been increased to a 30” diameter. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the trash and recycling chute outfalls on the "Trash Details" page Response: Outfall locations now indicated on Trash Details page. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Trash and recycling containers cannot be placed on the service road for collection. Coordination should be made with the hauler to have them service the containers directly from the building. If it is desired to have a separate "staging" area for trash and recycling containers that area must be enclosed and conform with Land Use Code standard 3.2.5 Response: Containers will be serviced directly from building. Paving set up for truck to pull off service road closer to trash room. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please label the paths all dumpsters must be wheeled between the storage location, truck access point (point where the bins will be emptied into the truck) and if applicable the staging location. This entire path must be concrete, free of obstacles, curbs, etc. that would prohibit them from wheeling freely. Maximum allowable grade for these paths is 5% directionally and 2% cross slope. Please label grades along with each path. Response: Service vehicle access is provided to close proximity at each trash enclosure. See site plan for depiction of expected access. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Service openings for trash and recycling storage locations must be at least 10ft wide to allow efficient maneuvering of dumpsters. The current proposal shows 5ft openings. Response: Doors increased to 10’ wide. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide a plan enlargement and elevations for the exterior trash and recycling enclosure dedicated for church use. This can be included on the same "Trash Details" page. Response: See sheet AE13 for trash enclosure details. Per review with Waste Management, (1) 4 yard waste and (1) 4 yard recycling will be provided. 7 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The Community Recycling Ordinance (No. 109 2016) requires that all new business and multifamily complexes subscribe to recycling service that is at minimum 1/3 of their overall service capacity (total bin capacity x number of weekly pickups, include both trash and recycling when calculating overall service capacity). In general recycling containers must be at least 50% the size of proposed trash containers to meet this requirement. Please make sure proposed containers meet this requirement and that adequate space is provided in all enclosures. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The proposed trash and recycling capacities/service frequency is not adequate. You are estimated to produce 44 cubic yards (c.y.) of trash and 28 c.y. of recycle per week in Building C, 57 c.y. of trash and 37 c.y. of recycle per week in Building B and 41 c.y. of trash and 27 c.y. of recycle per week in Building A. Response: See responses below. Previous iteration met the recommendation of Waste Management. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Per comment #8 Building A will need more space dedicated to trash and recycling storage. Each building at minimum will need to be able to hold 4 containers one that can be full/out for collection and one that will be under the chutes outfall. Response: Additional recycling container added. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The cost for trash and recycling service is significantly based on the service frequency and less the size and number of containers. For example it is cheaper to have more/larger containers serviced less frequently then the opposite. It is highly recommended for this reason to use compactors for both trash and recycle as it will reduce service frequency and save a lot of money long term. Currently the container beneath the compactors will need to be switched out frequently, please include a note with the trash details explain who will be responsible for this. Response: Compactors for trash and recycling are not provided at this time due to budgeting constraints. The management team will be responsible for maintaining this area and the facilities will be managed by Waste Management. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: All enclosures and staging areas are required to provide methods to protect the interior walls from being damaged by dumpsters. Common methods include metal framing, bollards, angle iron/curbing. Please provide details on the "trash details" page. 8 Response: Bollards are provided on each side of door. Floors will be constructed with a curb so a dumpster cannot role into wall. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please be aware trash trucks need ~20-25 ft of overhead clearance while servicing containers. Please make sure proper overhead clearance is provided in front of all enclosures. The exterior enclosure has a tree to the west that may cause interference as it grows, please consider relocating this tree or choosing a species that is narrower. Response: Landscape screening is provided adjacent to the exterior trash enclosure as required by code. Tree species will be selected at time of FDP and will accommodate necessary trash access. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: All chutes must include signs "landfill" and "recycle" as appropriate. Please include labels for signs on the "trash details" page. Response: Included on Trash Details sheets. See architecture plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: It appears that the project will require an offsite construction easement from the property owner to the northeast. Please provide a letter of intent from the affected property owner which indicate that they’re looking to extend an easement for construction. Alternatively, this could be an item addressed in the memo of understanding. Response: We plan to address this in the Memorandum of Understanding, which will be submitted prior to the Hearing. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: Please add turn lane design dimensions to the plan. Please provide a variance request/narrative which details the reasons for the design and addresses safety. Response: A variance will be submitted ahead of the hearing to address the right turn lane. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: Are there architectural elements which overhang into the right of way? If so, these would be subject to a major encroachment permit. Please let me know if this is something that needs to be pursued so that we can meet about this with the City Engineer sooner rather than later. 9 Response: Architectural elements are not being proposed to overhang the right of way. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: Please label clear space between the sidewalk and any permanent objects which are nearby the sidewalk, including any architectural columns adjacent to the walk – space should be provided per LCUASS 16-1. Response: Clear space of at least 2’ is provided and labeled on the site plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: It is our understanding that a modification is being requested to use a bike/pedestrian connection in the middle of the block in lieu of a roadway connection – please provide an exhibit with the proposed interim and ultimate design/delineation of this connection/pathway and include any necessary public access easements. Please work closely with Planning, Traffic, and Engineering on this connection. Response: An illustration is provided indicating the intended pedestrian traffic patterns for the site. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR FINAL: At final plan, please include all relevant construction details, including ADA details, along with ramp spot elevations where applicable. Response: Relevant details will be provided at time of FDP. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: The traffic study has been received and reviewed. For vehicular circulation, will there be an exit onto Shields? It doesn't appear the TIS assigned any traffic to that driveway. Is it a shared driveway with Campus West? Exit only? Please provide some detail on how this is expected to function. Response: As it is contemplated, the applicant will provide a shared, exit only, driveway onto Shields. This exit will serve patrons of Campus West, service and delivery vehicles, and administrative and/or handicap parking (restricted use) for Church parking on the north side of the development. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: The TIS notes that ped and bike LOS is met. Can we get an exhibit that clearly shows the bike and ped access routes, especially to the north. Both interim (current configuration) and ultimate (when campus west 10 re-develops) would be good. How do these routes ensure easy access to the underpass? What offsite improvements are needed to make this happen? Response: For ease of pedestrian and bicycle access, the proposed development will provide East – West access from Park to Shields on North side of the development and North – South connectivity between University and the emergency access road between all buildings. See Comment #5 in Planning Services section for additional information. A detailed pedestrian analysis, as discussed with city staff, will be provided to indicate the pedestrian/bicycle LOS related to this project in the near future. To accommodate off-site ease of access, we proposed to relocate the bus shelter closer to the underpass (on Shields). These adjustments will provide greater connectivity and will ensure easy access in as much as what the applicant controls. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: Let's discuss and review the anticipated trip generation for the coffee shop. They can vary tremendously - and the study assumed more than 800 daily vehicular trips for the shop. Response: The 800 daily vehicular trips was derived from the peak hour based on the intended use is drastically overstated, as the patrons will likely be residents, church goers and other pedestrian users. Many of these are likely to be pedestrians to/from the other uses on the site. It is likely that daily motor vehicle trip ends would be 30-40% of that shown in the TIS. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: Let's discuss the LOS at City Park and West Elizabeth. There may be some differences that we need to check. Response: Discussions with City staff indicated that City LOS calculations and TIS LOS calculations were similar. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: The bus stop on Shields needs to be brought up to current standards. The design details should be consistent with the Type III stop according to the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines: http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard s.pdf You can coordinate with Melina Dempsey (Transit Planner) for purchase of the new shelter and amenities. Response: Bus shelter will be constructed per current city standards. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: Saint John XXIII owns an abutting property along West Elizabeth which would serve well as a pedestrian access to the Transfort bus stop on 11 Elizabeth. While another pedestrian access further east would bring bikes and peds to the underpass. Response: The adjacent property owned by St. John XXIII is considered an independent property and is not part of the project. Due to shared parking agreements with other adjacent properties, this project is not at liberty to force off-site improvements on adjacent private property. While pedestrian movements to the north will not be precluded with our project, no formal accommodations have been able to be negotiated with neighboring property owners at this time. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: In our attempt to reduce pedestrian/automobile conflict and possibly reduce pedestrian cut-through, we recommend that the north access into the parking structure be removed. Response: North access into the parking structure has been removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: We recommend installing between 8-10 electric vehicle charging stations in your parking structure. Response: At this time, the project does not include any electric vehicle charging stations. This will be reviewed at a later time based on budget constraints. Are there any city incentives given for providing electric charging stations? Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/27/2019: BUILDING HEIGHT A High-Rise building is one where the floor of the highest habitable level is greater than 75ft from the lowest level of fire department access. Building C may be raised to accommodate a lower level of parking and the floor of the 6th floor amenity may then become greater than 75ft above University Ave or the Fire Lane to the north. The project team will provide this height detail at time of next submission for the three buildings on the west parcel. Response: 6th Level Amenity has been removed from the project. The highest floor level of parking is 70’-0” above adjacent grade. Sheeted added to show section through building. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/27/2019: The project team confirmed that there would be two gates that would enable access to the Courtyard area from University Ave. These should be secured with Knox Padlocks and all buildings will be in compliance for perimeter access. Response: Gates at the courtyard will have knox boxes and crash bars for egress. 12 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL PERIMETER ACCESS >Access is required to within 150ft of all portions of the exterior perimeter of each of these buildings. This can be measured from both City Park Ave and University Ave which are both unclassified streets. >The Fire Lane shown from Shields St to University Ave is appropriately located and will provide the perimeter access from the north side of each building. >The Courtyard area of Building B will require access which may be achieved by gate from University Avenue or an internal standpipe connection to the courtyard area. >SUMMARY- Perimeter access can be achieved for each building as shown with the exception of access to the Courtyard area of Building B. >FYI-please note that the StormTech structures in the fire lane will be required to support 40T. Response: Acknowledged. StormTech detention chambers are appropriately rated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/27/2019: Due to City setback requirements it is understood that the buildings cannot be moved south towards University Ave to overcome the lack of aerial apparatus access. Further discussion is invited on which alternative means and methods will be appropriate. Response: Applicant plans to meet with PFA after comments are received from Round 2 Submittal. After meeting, applicant will submit formal alternative means and methods document. 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS >These buildings are all greater than 30ft in height which triggers the requirement for a 26ft wide fire lane no closer than 15ft to and further than 30ft from each building. >PFA requests that the proposed parapets be no greater than 4ft in height to assist with fireground operations. Response: Parapet heights are noted on added roof plans. BUILDING A >Aerial access cannot be achieved from the north side because it is a neighboring property. >Parking is allowed on University Avenue adjacent to Building A which creates an out of compliance measurement for aerial access of 34ft to the south elevation of the building. >Therefore this building is out of compliance for aerial access Response: See response to comment #3 BUILDING B 13 >As measured from the Fire Lane, Building B is in compliance for Aerial Access from the West and North Elevations. The East elevation is out of compliance and the building is 33ft to 35ft from University Avenue and therefore out of compliance to the south. Response: See response to comment #3 BUILDING C >This Building is in compliance with aerial access from the north Fire Lane >Out of compliance from the East and West sides. >Measuring from University Avenue includes the parking area and measures 33ft which is out of compliance for aerial access from the south CHURCH >The Church is partly in compliance for aerial access as measured from the Fire Lane to the north. >Aerial access cannot be measured from Shields Street since it is classified as a major arterial >Aerial access cannot be measured from the west Piazza >The setback from University Avenue is between 43ft and 32ft therefore considered out of aerial access. Response: Response: See response to comment #3 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL ALTERNATIVE MEANS & METHODS Where project size and scope and/or site constraints conflict with fire code compliance, the intent of the fire code may be met via alternative means and methods, as approved by the fire marshal. As per IFC 104.8 & 104.9, the fire marshal may allow this approach when perimeter access and/or aerial apparatus access requirements cannot be met on the site plan. A written plan to meet the intent of the code via alternative means and methods will need to be submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow for review and approval prior to final plans approval. Response: Applicant will submit an alternative compliance proposal to PFA. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION BUILDINGS FOUR OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT > IFC 504.3 - ROOF ACCESS: New buildings four or more stories above grade plane, except those with a roof slope greater than four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33.3 percent slope), shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1011.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. Where roofs are used for roof gardens or for other purposes, stairways shall be provided as required for such occupancy classification. 14 Response: Roof plans have been provided indicating locations of roof access. > IFC Sections 905 and 913 - FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2012 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. Buildings equipped with standpipes are required to have a hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection. > IFC 507.5.1.1 - HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant capable of providing 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, located within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where approved by the fire code official. Response: Noted. See response to comment #7 > IFC D105: In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 26 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Response: Requirement is being met at Fire Access Lane. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER AND ALARM SYSTEM These buildings will require an NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler and Alarm system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. >Please note that should the individual building fire alarm panel be located in a remote location in that building, a fully functional alarm panel will be required at the main entrance of that building. Response: Noted Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) Building A. The FDC location shown is approximately 155ft from the hydrant. Please move this FDC to the South-east corner of the building to be located within the required 100ft distance from the hydrant Response: FDC location adjusted to the south of the building adjacent to lobby canopy 15 Building B. The FDC is shown in an appropriate location Building C. The FDC, as shown, is 130ft from the hydrant. Please move its location to within 100ft. Please also confirm that this FDC will supply the Newman Center. Response: FDC location adjusted to southwest portion of Building C adjacent to lobby. Church. The FDC is located appropriately Response: Confirmed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION FIREPUMP It is understood that the project team will be designing one Firepump that feeds the three buildings on the west parcel. Response: Building B will have a firepump that will serve all 3 buildings on west parcel. One fire line from the street will be brought to Building B and from Building B’s fire pump two lines will serve Building A and C. MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SERVED BY ONE FIRE PUMP Should a single fire line/fire pump be proposed to serve multiple buildings, the configuration will need to be shown on the Utility Plans. The plan shall be approved by Water Utilities Engineering and a covenant agreement will be required. The applicant shall coordinate fire line locations with Water Utilities. Please contact Water Utilities Engineering for further details at (970)221-6700 or WaterUtilitiesEng@fcgov.com. Response: A detailed plan will be presented during Design Development for this configuration. At that time, it will be sent to Water Utilities for approval. The approved/revised detail after the review from Water Utilities will be used for the final plan. The owner is aware of the covenant agreement between the three buildings and is willing to agree to this requirement. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/27/2019: After discussion at the Staff review meeting today, the new hydrant at the north of Buildings B and C may prove problematic for maintenance. Further discussion is invited. 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION HYDRANTS The two new hydrants are appropriately located. Response: The fire hydrant has been removed and a wall hydrant has been added to the northeast corner of Building C. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL LIFE SAFETY EGRESS PLAN 16 A life safety egress plan from the Amenity space at the 6th level of Building C will be required for final approval. Response: Amenity Space at 6th level of Building C has been removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL The project team has stated that they will provide an ERRC system where required. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COMMUNICATION - AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST > IFC 510 & 1103.2: New & existing buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. 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. The installation of required ERRC systems shall be reviewed and approved under a separate permit process through PFA. LOCAL EXCEPTION: PFA will waive the testing requirement and system installation in all buildings less than 10,000 sq. ft. and any Type V construction building less than 15,000 sq. ft. PFA policy P15-510.1 Response: The applicant will coordinate with PFA to determine the type of radio amplification to be used, if deemed necessary. If it is required, the applicant will facilitate the design and coordination of an ERRC amplification boosting system within the building. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response, an overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required for FDP approval. Response: Wayfinding will be provided in Building Permit Application. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: REQUEST TRAINING OPPORTUNITY PFA is currently looking for training opportunities using vacated buildings, both residences and large structures, that are about to be demolished. Please contact me should this be a possibility. arosen@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2599 Response: The applicant is willing to work with PFA and will coordinate as we get closer regarding this opportunity. There are some logistical challenges that will need to be addressed. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com 17 Topic: General Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The drainage analysis provided for the existing site does not take into account existing detention on both the church and gas station sites. It appears the site redesign will eliminate these ponds; therefore, grandfathering existing impervious area is not appropriate for this site. Updated analysis will need to show detention provided for the entire site with 2-year historic release rate. Please contact me if you would like to meet to discuss the proposed design. Response: Based on meeting with City Staff on 4/3/19, a release rate of 5.0 cfs was agreed upon. This release rate accounts for the project area as well as areas to the north that drain on the project area. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Sizing information was not included for the proposed StormTech system which is intended to meet LID requirements. Analysis needs to be provided in order to determine if the system is adequately sized to provide the intended LID treatment. Please note: water quality treatment is required for the entire site, and LID treatment is part of the overall water quality required of the site. Please address how water quality is provided for all of the site. (see redlines) Response: Please see revised design and report. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The proposed outfall crosses adjacent property. Have easements or agreements been made to allow for this outfall? Response: Easements are being negotiated. The applicant is working with the neighbors to the north to determine a fair and equitable way to address existing conditions. As we our considering options, is the city willing to require future development to the north to contribute towards these improvements as a condition to any future development? The easement will be finalized prior to the submission of the final site development plan. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please see redlines (PDF). Response: Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR FINAL: Has any phasing of this project been considered? I encourage you to consider stormwater certification requirements early and how they will relate to the construction of this project. Typically, stormwater certification is required prior to issuance of the project's first certificate of occupancy. Please contact me to discuss how certification will work for this project. 18 Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We will be including a phasing plan during final design. Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 Information Only: A portion of this property is located in the City regulated, 100-year Canal Importation Basin floodplain. Any development within the floodplain must obtain a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Response: Understood. A floodplain use permit will be obtained. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Please verify that the plans are showing the final CSU LOMR linework as the LOMR is now finalized and the linework is regulatory. The linework may have changed from CLOMR to LOMR. The designation of “per CSU CLOMR” can be removed from the floodplain/floodway callouts. Please contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at banderson@fcgov.com for the final floodplain linework. Response: The plans were showing the final CLOMR/LOMR linework that was received by Beck Anderson on 9/6/2018. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: DCP: The drainage report states that the applicant is planning to go through the CLOMR/LOMR process to remap the floodplain. Is the plan to remove all the structures from the floodplain? Please note that the CLOMR would need to be completed prior to site grading and an approved LOMR is required prior to the release of any building permits for structures that would not meet the current regulatory requirements. Please expand the discussion in the drainage report to explain how flood flows will be routed through the site without impacting neighboring properties. Please add a table with elevation information for any structures that will remain within the floodplain per the floodplain development review checklist. RESPONSE: The plan for this development is to remove flood hazard status from all proposed structures currently encroached by flood fringe. Preliminary modeling has been conducted showing no-rise resulting from the proposed fill within flood fringe; hence, no impact to neighboring properties will occur due to the proposed fill. Please see revised text. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Please provide information about how each of the structures will comply with the City’s floodplain regulations (elevation, floodproofing, removed with the CLOMR/LOMR, etc.). Residential uses must be elevated while non-residential uses and parking garages can incorporate floodproofing to reach the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 19 RESPONSE: We plan for all proposed structures to be removed with the CLOMR/LOMR that will be submitted subsequently. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Figure 3 in the drainage report has the outdated floodplain linework. Please update this figure to the new regulatory mapping. RESPONSE: Please see revised report. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Please show the proposed floodplain site improvements and CLOMR linework on the plans so that it is clear what portions of the site and buildings will be located outside of the floodplain. RESPONSE: We will provide this with the CLOMR that will be submitted at a later date. Please note that preliminary modeling info shows that this approach will be successful and result in no-rise of the floodplain elevations. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: For any structures that will remain within the floodplain, please clearly call out the Base Flood Elevation, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (Base Flood Elevation + 18 inches), and Lowest Finished Floor Elevation along with any Floodproofing Elevations as planned. Stepped down Base Flood Elevations across a building are not allowed without an approved variance from Water Board. Residential structures must be elevated and cannot be floodproofed. Parking garages must be either elevated or floodproofed. RESPONSE: We plan for all proposed structures to be removed with the CLOMR/LOMR that will be submitted subsequently. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: If the project will continue moving forward in the planning process prior to CLOMR approval please add a note stating that the applicant is aware that the current plan does not meet regulatory requirements and is continuing through the planning process at the applicant’s own risk. Building permits for structures not meeting floodplain requirements based on the current regulatory floodplain may be held up if the LOMR is not finished and regulatory. RESPONSE: Please see revised plan. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Add and label the floodplain boundary on the site plan. RESPONSE: Please see revised plan. 20 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Add the following notes to the site plan: • This property is located within a City regulated 100-year floodplain and must comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code. • Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation. • Critical Facilities, including facilities for at-risk populations, are prohibited within the 100-year floodplain. RESPONSE: Please see revised plan. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: Information Only: Development review checklists and permit application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal, especially the checklist for what is required in the drainage report. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Forms will be utilized. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Please add the following note to the floodplain plan: • Per Section 10-103 (9), Critical Facilities are prohibited in the floodplain. The definition for Critical Facilities includes facilities for at-risk populations (daycares, schools, nursing homes, etc.). This regulation does not include Sunday school type services where parents are on-site with their children. RESPONSE: Please see revised plan. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: Information Only: Any development within the floodplain boundary including, site work, structures, utilities, and landscaping must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. The permit for can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Permit will be approved prior to construction Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 02/21/2019: Information Only: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are located in the Stormwater Design Criteria in Chapter 2 Section 6.0 a copy of the requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion 21 RESPONSE: Report will be provided at final. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 02/21/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Will look for redline revisions at Final. RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 02/21/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: Report will be provided at final. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 02/21/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: Escrow will be provided with final submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 02/21/2019: Information only: Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Permits will be obtained prior to construction activities. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are concerns with the proposed hydrant on the north side of the site and making this a public hydrant. As currently proposed, this hydrant would be private. The location internal to the site is not along a drivable path for access/maintenance and there are concerns with flushing maintenance in this location. Is the hydrant required at this location or is there potential for relocation? RESPONSE: Design has been updated to a wall hydrant on north side of building. Hydrant would be private. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: 22 It appears there is at least one mixed-use building on this site. Separate water and sewer services are required for residential and commercial uses. Please provide separate services for each use. RESPONSE: Separate services are now provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Water meters and wastewater separators are typically required to be located outside the utility easement. Please relocate accordingly. (see redlines) RESPONSE: Wastewater separator is now shown out of the easement. Water meters are currently being shown in the utility easement while we work with the City to determine the proper location for them as numerous previous projects have placed the water meter in the utility easement (West Plum, West Elizabeth, Scott Plaza, Maple Mixed Use, to name a few). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please show all existing utilities. It is believed there is existing fiber/vaults adjacent to the Comcast site. It is important to show this and any other utilities as they may present significant challenges in crossing the road with proposed utilities. Response: All existing utilities were shown and are based on field locates. Most existing utilities are located quite far south in the University ROW and are not expected to propose difficulties outside of the regular impacts. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please review the landscape separations provided. It appears that there are trees/shrubs too close to proposed water and sewer services in multiple locations. Please note that it may be necessary to relocate these services as well as add additional services in order to address other comments here. Response: Required separations are provided per code requirements. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please see redlines (PDF) and contact me with any questions/discussion. RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR FINAL: The water services and meters for this project site will need to be sized based on the AWWA M22 manual design procedure. A sizing justification letter that includes demand calculations for maximum flows and estimated continuous flows will need to be provided as a part of the final submittal package for this 23 project. Response: Initial estimated calculations based on the preliminary drawings have been performed using the AWWA M22 manual design procedure. The sizing justification letter that includes the above-mentioned information will be provided as a part of the final submittal package. The final sizing will be performed once the number of tenant apartment spaces and tenant buildout requirements have been finalized. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR FINAL: It is unclear if fire services will serve multiple buildings. While separate services are shown in this submittal, the comment response letter says that one fire pump is anticipated. If multiple buildings are to be served, the plans will need to clearly show the configuration and a covenant agreement will be required. Please clarify what is proposed. Response: One fire line will be routed to Building B to feed the fire pump that will serve all three buildings. Two separate lines from Building B to Building A and C will be routed on the site. The owner is aware of the covenant agreement between the three buildings and is willing to agree to this requirement. The fire service layout has been updated. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: A dust control plan is required for all development projects or construction sites with greater than five (5) acres in size. If the project is required to obtain a development construction permit, then the dust control plan shall be submitted with the development review application or the development construction permit application. A copy of the dust control plan shall be available onsite at all times for compliance and inspection purposes. For more information, see https://www.fcgov.com/airquality/fugitive-dust.php Response: Our general contractors will submit this information along with the construction permit application. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The at-grade uplight fixture proposed at tree grates (ZT) have 3500k color temperature. Warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for any LED light fixtures is preferred. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed. Site light sources shall be fully shielded and down directional to minimize up light, light spillage and glare [see LUC 3.2.4(D)(3)]. Response: The use of in-grade uplights at the tree grates has been removed from the project scope. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure proper placement and spacing 24 of trees from utilities. A tree is placed on top of a proposed transformer box while other trees appear closer than 4' to gas lines. Response: Required separations are provided per code requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: City staff has reviewed the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Terracon Project No. 20187106) for the proposed Lombardy Student Housing project, located at 1220 University Avenue and 1015 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. In accordance with best practices to protect health, safety and welfare, City staff has the following observations and recommendations to Blackbird Investments LLC and any contractors or sub-contractors that may be involved with development and construction activities associated with this project: Multiple confirmed releases associated with previous gas station activities have been identified as a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) at the location. Although contaminated soil was excavated in 2017 during tank removal and clean back-fill was brought onto the site, it is possible workers may come across petroleum contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater during excavation. City staff recommends that the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be shared in bid/contractual documents to ensure that prospective contractors have a full picture of site conditions and can plan appropriate training and related procedures to address the management of potentially contaminated soils and groundwater. While the No Further Action (NFA) determination issued by the Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety indicated that the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) concentrations are below the Colorado Risk-Based Screening Levels, City staff recommends that the groundwater indoor inhalation exposure pathway be re-evaluated for the entire site. The original determination that the exposure pathway is closed relied on the land use in place at the time of the ESA (i.e. no buildings). Staff understands that the proposed development includes the construction of human-occupied structures (a church and residences) in the vicinity of the eastern portion of the property. This change in land use should be figured into a reevaluation of the inhalation exposure pathway. Response: The applicant has provided the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the general contractor to ensure that prospective contractors have a full picture of site conditions and can plan appropriate training. Within the Church structure, the rectory / residence is no longer part of the development. In the basement of the Church, a passive venting system will be a part of the foundation, which will mitigate any potential exposure pathway within the structure. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings 25 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please ensure that the demolition plan (utility plan – sheets C100 and C101) matches the tree retention and tree removal plans. There appear to be some trees shown to remain on this sheet that are planned to be removed. RESPONSE: Tree removal has been updated. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 8/21/2018: Please include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please adjust street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Response: Required separations are provided per code requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING In the Tree Inventory and Mitigation Table please change the word “DEMO” to “REMOVE”. There are some other changes that need to be made to the inventory table and plans – some tree species and numbering was incorrect on the submitted plans. Forestry will provide an updated tree inventory and mitigation table to the development review coordinator, Tenae Beane. Response: The Tree Inventory and Mitigation Table has been updated per the redlines and notations corrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please submit an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter for City Forestry and Planning to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from 26 noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. Response: An existing tree removal feasibility letter has been provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please directly label tree and plant species and provide quantities of each in the plant list. Response: Full plant labels and quantities will be provided at time of FDP. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING On the tree inventory and mitigation table, please clarify “TOTAL POSSIBLE MITIGATION” vs “TOTAL EXPECTED MITIGATION”. According to the plant list, currently only 119 trees are proposed. If mitigation requirements cannot be met on-site, please provide justification as well as the number of trees that will be mitigated through a payment in lieu. If payment in lieu is required, please add the following note to the landscape plans: PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE DEVELOPER MUST FULFILL TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE FORM OF A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PLANTING UPSIZED MITIGATION TREES ON-SITE. THE FOLLOWING METHOD MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE __ MITIGATION TREES NOT SHOWN TO BE PLANTED ON THE PLAN. PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION TO PLANT __ MITIGATION TREES ON CITY PROPERTY. PAYMENT SHALL BE $450 PER UPSIZED MITIGATION TREE. Response: Notes have added to the mitigation plan regarding payment in lieu. The total possible mitigation number represents the total mitigation needed if all trees on site are removed. The anticipated mitigation number represents the number of mitigation trees that we anticipate providing either on-site, or by payment in lieu based on the number of trees being saved and or transplanted. Additional transplanting is expected further reducing the mitigation requirement however details are to be determined. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please provide a grading detail for trees #24, 26, and 28. Minimal to no grading shall occur within the critical root zones of each tree: Tree 24: Critical Root Zone = 11 feet radius around tree Tree 26: Critical Root Zone = 12.5 feet radius around tree Tree 28: Critical Root Zone = 11.5 feet radius around tree – is it possible to narrow the sidewalk around this tree to minimize potential root impacts? Response: Critical root zones for these trees have been noted on the site plan and sections provided in the grading plan 27 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 2/27/19: PRIOR TO HEARING Please provide a separate landscape sheet that shows proposed building layout and other site plan details with a layer of all existing tree locations shown so that Forestry can review. Response: Existing and future building footprints are included in the tree mitigation plan. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, , csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 BY HEARING: There are existing electrical lines running between the old gas station and the existing parking lot. There are also electric lines running north south through the east portion of the property. These electric lines will need to be relocated within an easement to maintain a connection. Please see redlines for these locations and show them on the plans within easements. RESPONSE: Electric lines will relocated be as needed. Please see updated plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 BY HEARING: There are a couple of existing electrical facilities not shown on the Existing Conditions Map (see redlines). Please add these to the plans. RESPONSE: Electric facilities have been added to plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 BY HEARING: Please show proposed electric routing through the site to ensure minimum utility spacing is being met. A minimum of 10 feet separation is required between all water, sewer and storm water facilities. A minimum of 3 feet is required between natural gas. RESPONSE: Minimum spacing met. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: The services to each building will be a commercial service; therefore, the applicant will be responsible for installing the secondary service and will own and maintain each service. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: 28 Streetlights will need to follow City of Fort Collins Street Light Standards. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/ch15_2007.pdf Response: Trivalent/BCER will coordinate the final locations of the new and relocated City of Fort Collins street lights with the project team as well as Light and Power, which will need to be incorporated into the site background for final placement. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Response: Individual metering will be provided based on Fort Collins Light and Power standards. Final sizing and locations will be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within a dedicated easement. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will coordinate relocations with Light and Power. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: It appears that there is a separate transformer for each building, which seems adequate from a loading standpoint, but please note we are limited to 12 secondary runs out of the transformer. If you exceed 12 secondary runs, than an additional transformer will be need. Please provide preliminary power requirements once known. Response: Power requirements will be provided when available. Building A: Two transformers will be required in the location indicated based on the maximum of 12 secondary runs out of the transformer. One transformer to serve the residential loads at 208V/3P. One 29 would serve house loads at 208V/3P. Approximate load: 1068 kVA. 1285A at 480V or 2966A at 208V. Building B: Three transformers will be required in the location indicated based on the maximum of 12 secondary runs out of the transformer. Two would serve the residential loads at 208V/3P. One would serve house loads at 208V/3P. Approximate load: 1570 kVA. 1888A at 480V or 4357A at 208V. Building C: Two transformers will be required in the locations indicated. One transformer to serve the residential loads at 208V/3P. One would serve house loads at 208V/3P. Approximate load: 1375 kVA. 1654A at 480V or 3817A at 208V. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: A riser (one-line) diagram will be provided in the final plans. The C-1 form will be submitted along with the final plan review for Light and Power Engineering. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: The applicant will prepare an estimate of charges and fees for the project and coordinate with Tenae Beane to schedule meetings with individual departments to discuss the development fees regarding the unique circumstances of this complex urban site. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: Please document the existing panel sizes on existing building within the project prior to demolition to receive credits on capacity fees. Response: Documentation of the existing building panel sizes will be recorded. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: Please contact Cody Snowdon with Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2306. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric services standards, and fee estimator at : http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. 30 Response: Noted. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Noted. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: Redlines have been addressed.