HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - PDP - PDP150013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -June 19, 2015
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave.
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: 310 S. College - Second Preliminary Design Review, PDR150012, 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: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189,
slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Building Height:
The height limit for this property is 5-6 stories, +/- 85 feet per Sec. 4.16
(D)(2)(b). However, there are multiple sections in the Land Use Code that
modify the permitted height in terms of breaking up the massing with
articulation and stepbacks, and compatibility with the surrounding context.
RESPONSE: Noted.
The building height has been reviewed in several meetings with the
neighbors and staff to evaluate all mitigating concerns regarding
building bulk & mass. Since the initial submittal for PDR which
illustrated a six story building with a height of 75’; the building bulk and
mass has been reduced to articulate and synthetize the comments
from staff to reduce the building height to 4 stories along the public
streets (College and Olive). Then, interpreting the requirements for
the Old City Center Sub-District to set back the upper floors, following
a 35 degree imaginary line, we have moved the upper floors from the
street side from 12 feet up to 30 feet. These setbacks have permitted
a building front that is more compatible with the context of buildings
within the guidelines of the neighboring Old City Center Sub-District.
Page 1 of 14
Following the advice of staff we have also reduced the floor to floor
heights for the retail base and the typical residential floors; bringing the
building overall height just below 71 feet.
Sec. 4.16 (D)(4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over 3
stories) - requires that the building have a clearly defined base of one
or two stories and upper floors stepped back to reduce the perceived
size of the building.
RESPONSE:
Indeed, the proposed development follows the guidelines of the
Canyon Avenue Sub-District articulating an obviously defined building
retail base which follows the historical “water-line” datum created by
the retail base along College Avenue to the north. With stepped-back
residential upper floors (level 2 to level 4), then over the 4th level,
setting the building back 12 feet at the 5th level and 30 feet at the 6th
level back from the property line.
The elegantly crafted retail base, built with masonry, metal columns,
glass and appropriate signage, is highly articulated by an energized,
welcoming and transparent retail storefront that reveals the activities
inside. The upper three floors, respecting the maximum height
allowed for the Old City Center Sub-District immediate to the north
along College, express a residential brick façade with proportioned
punched windows surrounded by highly articulated window trim, and a
projected cornice to cap the street front of the building wings. The
intent of the proposed materials, features, openings and expression
lines is to ensure similarity to the experienced context of downtown
and provide a visual cap to further limit the expression of height.
The pedestrian nature of the four stories above-grade hides the
allowed upper floors that step back to the sky allowing residential
terraces. These penthouse levels will be clad with simply articulated
cement stucco or cement boards with larger windows to provide a
lighter feel to the top of the building.
Sec. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (C) Building Size,
Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale -
requires that new buildings be similar in size and height as other
structures in the area. If larger, it should be divided into massing
modules that reflect the area. Retail modules should be approximately
25' feet wide.
RESPONSE:
The mixed-used development proposed for this site conveys the
traditional size of the historical downtown to the north, respecting the
retail modules of the 25’ originally platted lots. The retail base
Page 2 of 14
continues the height and modularity of the great buildings in the old
downtown. As we progress along College, south of Olive, the building
base is separated into three differently articulated retail bases that
allow a more dynamic and interesting progression; which also relates
to the different articulation of the three stories apartment masses
cladded with textured brick patterns above.
The maximum proposed building height at 71 feet above grade is well
within the 85 feet maximum allowed for the Sub-District. Appreciating
we are at the edge of the Sub-District, and after careful review with
staff and neighbors, we have reduced the height and mass of the
buildings along the public streets relating to the maximum height
allowed for the Old City Center Sub-District of 4 stories or 56 feet. The
additional height of the building is pulled back to minimize the impact
to the pedestrian and to the vehicles entering the City Center.
To soften the perception of mass immediately adjacent to the
pedestrian side walk, the building volume above the retail base, along
College, has been subdivided into three buildings elements, viewed as
three different building masses. The facades have also been layers
horizontally to provide setbacks and stepbacks that minimize the
impact of the facade to the pedestrian and the automobile traffic. The
articulation of these three building elements utilize similar materials
(masonry and glass) in different colors and patterns - still, the
repetition of similar features allow a cohesive street experience.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Building Materials:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(e) requires that "All street-facing facades shall be constructed of
high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with
the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta,
architectural pre-cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural
metals or any combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not
exceed either five (5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear
expression of a joint. For the purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall
mean metal panel systems that are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with
expressed seams; metal framing systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal
panels. Architectural metals shall not include ribbed or corrugated metal panel
systems."
RESPONSE:
Noted.
As illustrated in the responses above and the attached elevations, the exterior
materials used for the proposed project are compatible with the vocabulary of
Downtown. The goal of the project is to create a timeless elegant presence that
continues the flavor of the Old City Center south of Olive along College.
Also, Sec. 3.5.1 (E) requires that materials be similar to those already being used in
the area.
Page 3 of 14
RESPONSE:
Noted, see attached elevations.
Downtown is characterized by brick and local sandstone. These should be the
predominant material used. It is important to reiterate that high quality materials shall
be used for the entire height of the building and all sides.
RESPONSE:
The street elevations are characterized by the use of natural stone/masonry as an
anchoring base and brick as the main building material. Metal columns and panels
articulate more transparent part of the building base as well as separating the
vertical building masses. Above the fourth level simpler lighter materials are
introduced to reduce the perceived mass of the building, similarly to many other new
buildings in downtown. The degree of diversity seen in the proposed elevations
create a sense of scale experienced in the context of downtown and the allowed
building heights establish for the Downtown Sub Districts.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015 06/16/2015:
Multi-family dwellings with greater than 50 units are subject to review
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Type 2 projects are
required to have a neighborhood meeting at least two weeks prior to submitting the
Project Development Plan (PDP).
RESPONSE:
Noted.
The project has been presented to the immediate neighbors as well as an advertised
public neighborhood meeting on 8.22.2015.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
At PDP submittal please provide the following additional information:
- Color perspective renderings
- Contextual elevations and sections (we can discuss what sections are necessary)
- Shadow study
Also, please provide us with the 3D model of your proposal so we can input it into
the downtown model we are creating for use with the Downtown Plan. This will help
tremendously with evaluating context and compatibility.
RESPONSE:
See attached drawings.
Page 4 of 14
A revised 3D model will be sent to your office for inclusion in your Downtown Plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Parking:
The proposed project has 270 bedrooms. As a student housing project, it appears
you will be using a rent-by-the-bedroom model, thus the requirement is 0.75 parking
spaces per bedroom equalling a minimum parking requirement of 203 parking
spaces. Reductions to this minimum requirement will have to very thoughtfully
vetted.
RESPONSE:
In response to the comments from staff, and to the public meeting on 8.22.2015, the
petitioner has adjusted the decade old business model by eliminating our marketing
strategy for a student shared environment and concentrate on market driven rentals.
This has: reduced the overall program of the development, eliminated all 4 bedroom
units; and revised the leasing model to rental by unit vs. by bed. These reductions
are reflected in revised minimum parking requirements (please refer to the attached
drawings).
The retail component is required to provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet and a maximum of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
RESPONSE:
Noted, all parking requirements will be met.
If more parking (or storage) is needed, the applicant is encouraged to contact the
owner of the underground parking at the Safeway shopping center, located one
block to the south.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Bicycle Parking:
Sec. 3.2.2 (C)(4) requires multi-family project to provide bike parking at one space
per bedroom in the form of 60% enclosed and 40% fixed. Please see Sec. 5.1 for the
defintions of enclosed and fixed bicycle parking. It is fine to exceed the enclosed bike
parking percentage but fixed spaces will need to be provided for retail and near the
residential entrances.
RESPONSE:
Noted, all bike parking requirements will be met.
Page 5 of 14
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Regarding Engineering's comment about not staging construction
materials and equipment in the public right-of-way, there is an area across the street
on the south side of Clock Tower Office building that could be used. Or, contact
McWhinney/Wells Fargo about staging in front of Sports Authority.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
02/13/2015: Fort Collins only permits 3 unrelated people living in a dwelling unit. Sec.
3.8.16(E)(2) provides additional requirement if you propose to have 4 bedroom units:
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
RESPONSE:
In response to the comments from staff, and to the public meeting on 8.22.2015, the
petitioner has adjusted the decade old business model by eliminating our marketing
strategy for a student shared environment and concentrate on market driven rentals.
This has: reduced the overall program of the development, eliminated all 4 bedroom
units; and revised the leasing model to rental by unit vs. by bed.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the
type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the
applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been
satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual
dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied
that the applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private,
to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential development, to
adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent
neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space,
buffer yards, on-site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor
cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus
shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services.
RESPONSE:
Per response above, the removal of the four bedroom units was based on our desire
to adjust to community and staff comment. However, we will maintain our high
standard of built environment by the integration of amenities such as: on-site
management, business center, recreational areas, private outdoor courtyards and
recreational areas, first floor commercial mixed-use, increased sidewalks widths,
Pocket park at residential entry.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
Page 6 of 14
06/16/2015:
In addition to the Downtown District standards, please review Sec.
3.5.3 (D & E) of the Land Use Code which provides additional requirements that will
help with breaking up the massing of the building and other facade treatments.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(1) requires that "landscaping shall be designed as an
integral part of the development plan." In order to incorporate landscaping into
the design, you may have to setback portions of the ground floor. Also, it is important to
retain all existing trees.
RESPONSE:
The applicant team has participated in several site walks with the Department of
Forestry to evaluate the trees in relation to the building elevation. Adjustments to the
building are anticipated per those discussions. (See submitted “tree report” memo from
David Jordan, ISA certified arborist).
All existing right-of way trees are marked as ‘to be protected/remain’. There are four
small trees located within the property boundary adjacent to the existing Perkins
building. These trees have been discussed with Forestry and are noted as ‘to be
removed’ as they are centrally located on-site and conflict with the building.
The site has been evaluated and designed to provide a cohesive landscape/hardscape
plan which is consistent with the downtown area. Inclusive of maintain the tree lawn
along the sidewalks.
The character of the street frontage is going to be determined by how you address the
floodplain. Flood proofing the building will allow for a more consistent grade and
streetscape. If you propose to raise the building entrances out of the floodplain, it will
require a very thoughtful design that will still engage the building with the public realm.
RESPONSE: In careful response to the existing context and continuation of College
Avenue, the building/sidewalk interface has been designed in a manner which allows for
direct access from the walks to building doors without the need for stairs or elevated
entrances. The design team will provide adequate flood control measures necessary to
mitigate risk and provide a seamless transition and continuation of the walkable
downtown.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(b) & (E)(1)(c) require the inclusion of plaza space for
active and passive public use. This also provides an opportunity to incorporate more
Page 7 of 14
landscaping into the design.
RESPONSE:
A pocket park/plaza is provided on the south side of the building near the entry
adjacent to a paseo which will provide pedestrian connections from College Avenue to
the alley. We noted this feature to be appreciated by some citizens in the neighborhood
meeting, and feel an opportunity to provide massing relief to the street front and our
neighbors to the South. The connectivity that this pocket park and east/west paseo,
coming to College Avenue, provide to the neighborhood was seen as a welcoming
amenity becomes as well as a great benefit to future development to the south.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
The current sidewalk is an inadequate width for the amount of activity
that the proposed use will generate. But, the planting strip is in good shape and the
trees are healthy. The sidewalk should be widened onto the development site and
incorporated into plaza spaces as noted in Site Plan comment #1.
RESPONSE:
The walk has been widened and meets the requirements per the Land Use Code. The
‘tree lawn edge’ of the walk has been maintained.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Marc Ragasa mragasa@fcgov.com or 221-603 will be the Engineer
assigned to this project. Please contact him if you have further questions regarding the
engineering comments or requirements.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the
time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see:
Page 8 of 14
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the
site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be
reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. It should be noted that this project proposes to reconstruct the
sidewalk ramps at the southeast corner of College and Olive to mitigate existing
adverse drainage conditions, thereby improving functionality for pedestrians of all
abilities as well as enhancing the quality and aesthetics of the hardscape along the
street fronts.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements
that are necessary for this project.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. In October of 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 – 0 to
approve the Belle Claire Project Development Plan (PDP# 26-05) for this site. The
current subdivision plat proposal is in general conformance with the previously
approved plan, which did not contemplate any additional right-of-way or easement
dedication. The exception is that the new development proposal will dedicate
additional on-site public access, emergency access, drainage and utility easements
along the south and east property lines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be
recorded once the project is finalized.
Page 9 of 14
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway and all access to the site is
governed by CDOT. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the
applicant will need to obtain access permits from CDOT for any access changes
(closure and/or change of use or change in construction). The proposed side by side
access shown on the plans will not be allowed or approved by the City or CDOT.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. This development proposes to abandon the existing curb cut on
College, replacing it with parallel parking spaces. This should be viewed favorably from
a CDOT access management perspective.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: We actually recommend that the access be taken off of the alley. This will
allow for additional parallel parking to exist on College where the driveway goes away.
RESPONSE: The College access was removed between the February 2015 and the
May 2015 PDR submittals.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: With the proposed zero setback the building will need to be setback so
that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk before pulling out across the
sidewalk. This setback can be less when the access enters onto the alley as there is
not an adjacent sidewalk.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. An additional 5-ft public access, emergency access, drainage, and
utility easement will be dedicated along the west side of the alley, which will serve to
mitigate potential conflicts. The access points into the garage off the alley are
separated from major pedestrian crossing locations, which will further improve the
situation.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The alley adjacent to the site will need to be improved. In particular the alley/
olive intersection grades need to be improved so that emergency vehicles and other
vehicles can safely and easily utilize this access point.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. These public improvements will be made as part of the development.
Page 10 of 14
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to
starting any work on the site.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Really need to think through the design and construction of the basement
for this building. Tie backs into the right-of-way will not be allowed. The foundation
needs to be constructed in such a way that it doesn’t encroach into the ROW.
RESPONSE: Noted. We are exploring a variety of shoring/ foundation systems that
are absent of tie-backs and do not require any excavation into the ROW.
This exploration is advantageous for two reasons; one is separation and preservation
from the roots of the trees in the ROW and two; to keep the equipment mast from
damaging the tree canopy.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: In regards to construction of this site. The public right-of-way shall not be
used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development,
nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel
working for or hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will
need to find a location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary Staging
and/or parking needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information
on the location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of
the Development Construction Permit application.
RESPONSE:
Noted. We contemplate having local, but remote contractor parking that would
consider either public or shuttle transportation to the site. Any and all ROW requests
will be sought in the interest of public safety vs. construction storage, loading or
staging.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public
right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit.
Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to Engineering Department for
review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the
site plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is
revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. At this point, no encroachments are contemplated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The public right-of-way should be free of any encroachment of
Page 11 of 14
structures such as steps and patios. Doors shall not swing out into public right-
of-way and will either need to be recessed, or swing inward (into private
property). Underground detention systems, LID/PLD measures should similarly be
located out of public right-of-way. Above ground transformers are not allowed within the
right-of-way or parkway and will need to be accommodated on site.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. At this point, no encroachments are contemplated.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be
followed depending on parking design.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The sidewalk adjacent to this site is narrower than the standard downtown
sidewalk, but has worked since it is adjacent to a parking lot and not adjacent to a
building. With a building being placed at 0 setback or adjacent to the ROW the
sidewalk does need to be widened. The minimum clear sidewalk requirement for
downtown is 7 feet. Additional discussions with Engineering and planning are needed
to determine what the frontage is going to look like how the sidewalk needs can be met
and achieved.
RESPONSE:
The sidewalks along College and Olive will be reconstructed to a minimum width of 7-ft.
The building will be setback a minimum distance of 2-ft from the College ROW. The
setback area will be paved, thereby serving as an extension of the sidewalk system
and providing an effective clear width of 9-ft. Furthermore, the building entrances will
be setback another 4-ft, providing additional pedestrian relief at the ground level.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the
development/ site storm runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street
flows – the design standards for these are still in development.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Baseline storm water treatment for this site is already provided in the
Udall Natural Area. Any rain gardens proposed in the ROW would be above
minimum code requirements, such that this development will remain compliant should
any rain gardens be removed or modified in the future.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-
of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when
Page 12 of 14
bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Any potential bike parking in the ROW would be added at a later
date via an encroachment permit, and would be above and beyond any code
minimum requirements for bike parking.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimple@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: Same comments as 2/10/2015 - with respect to landscaping and design,
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use
native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass
lawns as much as possible
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. The planting design for this site will conform with the Land Use Code.
Existing bluegrass tree lawns (tree lawns located in the right-of way) shall remain but
new bluegrass lawns are not proposed.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
This project is located near several properties that are either potentially eligible for
designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, eligible for designation as Fort Collins
Landmarks, or that have been designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. For this reason,
the project will be reviewed for compliance with LUC 3.4.7
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum
extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated
into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the
characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect
the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the
historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding
neighborhood
RESPONSE:
Noted. Please clarify, as this comment recites (1) and (2), but description would
suggest only (2) is applicable.
Page 13 of 14
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object
that is [designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent
feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and
adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall
protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is:
(a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property
adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New
structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property,
whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any
historic property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and
qualifies [as an individual landmark]. New structures must be compatible with the
historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or
adjacent thereto.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
There is concern regarding the relationship and compatibility of the proposed building to
the historic residential district (Laurel School National Register Historic District) just to
the east of the project site. Also, there is concern regarding the proposed building's
other three elevations and their relationship to the street and the historic character of
College Avenue to the north. To address these concerns, massing needs to be broken
up with articulation and modulation that picks up on the traditional one and two story
nature of the surrounding context. Upper stories, above the first and second story,
should be substantially stepped back to emphasize a strong base element. The base
element should be modulated in a way that picks up on the retail context of the
blockface, including elements like awnings, recessed storefronts, glazing, etc.
Additionally, dominant building material choices shall be derived from the surrounding
historic context ¿ brick, stone, etc. Furthermore, while the project is not located within
the Old Town Historic District, many of the principles for compatible new construction
contained in the Design Standards for the District will be helpful in designing a project
for this location: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/ftc_oldtown_final_july2014_low.pdf
Also, see LUC 3.4.7 (F) for specific language regarding compatible new construction.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties
Page 14 of 14
containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-
mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of
Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially
designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall
receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would
not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of
the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this
subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code."
Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark
Preservation Commission. The Commission meets the second Wednesday of each
month for Regular Meetings where recommendations can be given, and the fourth
Wednesday of each month where design review sessions are available.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 3-Phase power is available along Olive St. There is also an existing
3-phase service to the existing building along the alley way on the S.E. corner of the
property. There may be options to re-purpose portions of that service to serve the new
building.
RESPONSE:
The existing 3-phase transformer near the southeast property corner will be upgraded to
serve the new development. This will require careful coordination with Light & Power
and the property owner to the south to minimize any disruption of service.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power
Engineering. The C-1 form can be found at:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. This will be provided during the Final Plan portion of the development review
process.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Page 15 of 14
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged, thank you. Our team will be in-touch throughout the process.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM
> IFC Sections 905 and 913: 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, or where the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest
level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of
supplying at 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.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Design will be in compliance of the 2012 IFC.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FDC
> IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA
standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings,
fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle
access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department.
RESPONSE:
The FDC will be located at the northeast corner of the building, facing Olive St.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS
> IFC 507.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with
Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant 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:
Acknowledged. Hydrant numbers and locations will be confirmed once Comments 4 &
5, below, are resolved.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
The site plan does not provide for minimum fire access for aerial apparatus required by
code. The PFA will be working with the project team to meet the intent of the fire code
through alternative means of compliance. PFA advises the project team to consider high
rise provisions in future discussions. Should the highest occupied floor exceed 75' in
Page 16 of 14
height, all high rise provisions shall apply.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Design will be in compliance of the 2012 IFC, FCLU, Poudre Fire Authority Bureau
Admin Policy, and Division of Community Safety Services and will be used with respect to the
design of the site and building life safety and fire protection standards. We will also make
work with the Poudre Valley Fire authority to provide any preferential design alternatives
possible, per discussion with Jim Lynxwiler on 3/30/2105 these may include but are not
limited to: sprinkler system; roof access for fire fighters; areas of refuge in stairwell; 2 hour
protected and possible pressurized stairwell; fire separation between portions of the building
as required by code. The design team will strive to maintain a dynamic engagement with the
Poudre Valley fire authority throughout the approval process.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/19/2015
06/19/2015: Prior comments from earlier PDR remain active.
RESPONSE:
Noted. We intend to address specific alternative measures with Jim at Poudre Valley Fire
Authority, as the DRT proceeds.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage
requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the
existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required
prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. This is included with the preliminary drainage report.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 5,000 square feet a
drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must
be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report
must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage
engineer. If there is less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious area on an existing
development, a drainage letter along with a grading plan should be sufficient to
document the existing and proposed drainage patterns. If there is less than 5,000 but
more than 350 square feet of new impervious area; a site grading and erosion control
plan is required instead of a complete construction plan set.
RESPONSE:
Page 17 of 14
Acknowledged. See the preliminary drainage report for additional information.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: When there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square
feet on an existing development, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic
release rate for water quantity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as
long as it is not deeper than one foot. If there is less than 5000 but more than 350
square feet of new impervious area; a grading and erosion control plan is required
instead of a complete construction plan set.
RESPONSE:
The increase in impervious area is less than 5,000 sq.ft.; therefore, on-site detention is
not required.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Water quality treatment for 50% of the site is provided for in the Udall
Natural Area water treatment facility. However additional onsite water quality treatment
is encouraged as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3-Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Extended detention is the usual method selected for
water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged.
(http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-form s-
guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria)
RESPONSE:
While the minimum code requirements for water quality treatment are already provided
in the Udall Natural Area, additional on-site BMPs are being explored. Items such as
in-line filters on the roof drains, a mechanical separator for the parking structure, and
permeable pavers in the pocket park/paseo will be further evaluated, but are not
required.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or
redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with
the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50%
of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. For more
information please refer to the City’s website where additional information and links can
be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-impac t-
development
RESPONSE:
Since the parking structure is entirely covered by rooftops and other uses, it is exempt
from the 25% permeable pavement metric. The other components of the LID
regulations are satisfied in the Udall Natural Area. Additional measures will be
explored through the systems described in the response to Comment #4, above.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre ($0.1795
Page 18 of 14
sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a
$1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.-ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious
area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued.
Information on fees can be found on the City’s web site at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-de
velopment-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. There is
also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is
issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based
on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance
with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the
Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. See the preliminary drainage report for additional information.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2015
06/15/2015: No comments.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: We may have more comments once the TIS is received and reviewed.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Please see submitted TIS performed by ELB engineering, LLC for your review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: The alley will see pretty significant traffic volumes with this
development, so we'll want to make sure that alley circulation is good, that alley access to
Olive and Magnolia works well, and we'll need to ensure sight distance along and into the
alley is adequate.
RESPONSE:
The design will be compliant with all required sight clearances necessary for the safe
navigation into and out of the alley as a way to ensure pedestrian safety. Please see the
Page 19 of 14
submitted TIS for calculated volumes.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: Be thinking about bike storage in the garage, such as cages, etc.
RESPONSE:
All required on-site bike storage shall be secured, and have at grade access from the
garage, common are circulation and the ROW. This is to ease the cross traffic concerns
with vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Existing water mains in the area include a 4" main in College, an 8"
main in Olive, and a 6" main in Remington. Sanitary sewers in this area include a 6"
main in the alley to the east of the site.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: There is an existing 4" fire line tapped off the 4" main in College with a
2" water service tapped off the fire line. Existing sewer service is from the main in
the alley. These services will need to be reused with the proposed development or
abandoned at the main.
RESPONSE:
The existing 4” water line from College will be abandoned at the main. The existing
sewer service will be further evaluated for re-use, but will likely be abandoned at the
main.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Separate water and sewer services will be required for the residential
and non-residential portions of the building. Grease interceptors will be required for
any restaurants in the project.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Separate services and a grease interceptor will be provided.
Page 20 of 14
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Given that this development is tying into a 6" sewer main, sewer
modeling using peak flows from the development should be completed to ascertain
whether the sewer has adequate capacity for this scale of development. The City
can help with this modeling as the demands for the building become known. Any
upsizing of the existing sewer main due to impacts from this development will be at
the cost of the developer and will need to be included as part of this development.
RESPONSE:
The current proposal includes boring/bursting a new 8” sanitary sewer line under
Olive to the north, which will connect into an existing 8” public sewer main. The
Applicant’s design team will continue to work with Fort Collins Utilities as the project
evolves to ensure wastewater is properly designed and coordinated.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: It is questionable whether sufficient water service for this site can be
provided from the 4" main in College. Likely, water service from the 8" main in Olive
and/or multiple taps to serve the development would be a better scenario.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. The existing 4” line from College will be abandoned at the main. New
water taps will be made on the existing 8” main in Olive near the alley.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will
apply. Information on these requirements can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/standards
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015 06/17/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building
permit.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. It is kindly requested that Staff provides the
corresponding credits available for the existing water and sewer services already
provided to the property.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Gary Lopez, 970-416-2338, glopez@fcgov.com
Page 21 of 14
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/03/2015
06/03/2015: I came up with 193 spaces in which one would be a van accessible
space & the number might include 2 regular handicap spaces (on Level M and 01) if
indeed these will be such. If so that still leaves 4 hc spaces unaccounted for the
minimum required.
RESPONSE:
Please refer the attached drawings which illustrate the specific parking provided for
all uses. Note that the number of apartments as well as the area of commercial
space provided for rent has been reduced considerably.
Page 22 of 14