Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout215 MATHEWS OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - PDP150020 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - (5)1 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 October 13, 2015 Greg Fisher Greg D. Fisher, Architect, PLLC 3115 Clyde St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 215 Mathews Office Building - Preliminary Design Review, PDR150005, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 3.2.2(J) – minimum required parking lot setbacks, we will not apply this standard as the parking area is considered to be within a structure and not a surface parking lot. All setbacks from property lines will be focused on the building itself, including structural columns, and not the under-structure parking as if it were a separate component. The proposed vine trellis “green wall” is supported by staff as a positive design response to the north condition. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(1) – maximum floor-to-area ratio-entire lot, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification but there may need to be additional design mitigation. The Townhomes at Library Park also needed a Modification but the additional floor-to-area ratio was found to be justified based on the amount of brick on the street-facing elevations as well as overall building articulation. The requirement for a brick emphasis was based on proximity to Park View Apartments. For 215 Mathews, the masonry emphasis is also based on proximity to Park View Apartments. 2 Response: Understood. The front façade of the building is proposed to be entirely of brick and pre-cast concrete veneer and the side and rear facades are proposed to have significant brick veneer and pre-cast concrete bases. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(5) – maximum floor-to-area ratio-rear-one-half of lot, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification based on the surrounding context. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(6)(b) - minimum required front yard setback along Mathews Street, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification subject to a full discussion regarding not taking access off Mathews Street (see comment number 6). As with Townhomes at Library Park, there would need to be a demonstrable amount of building articulation, combined with landscaping, in such a manner that promotes a quality streetscape experience for the pedestrian. The building mass at the proposed setback must be sufficiently mitigated in order for the building not to loom over the public right-of-way. Response: After receiving input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. After receiving input from LPC in addition to staff comments, the front setback has been increased to 5’-8’ at the main entry and to 8’ for the more dominant portion of the façade. While there is still significant building articulation remaining the now proposed façade has less undulation to respond to LPC comments to make the building massing simpler and more like the Park View Apartments. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) – minimum required sideyard setback, staff is willing to consider supporting the element of the Modification between 18 and 37 feet of wall height where the building would not be stepped back at the ratio required by the standard. Staff will evaluate the amount of wall articulation, fenestration, quality building materials and shadowing (along the north) in order to assess the impact. The shadow analysis must be in conformance with Section 3.5.1(G). As with the relationship to Mathews Street, the building mass must be mitigated. The context of the area will also be considered. Note that the north elevation of Park View Apartments may be more sensitive with all its windows whereas the south elevation of Library Park Apartments contains a windowless two-story wall. Response: Understood. The building is proposed to be less than 40’ in height and thus would not require a shadow analysis per Section 3.5.1(G) Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(E)(6) – Access - staff does not support the Modification that would place the driveway access on Mathews Street. The narrative explains how this particular block face is bordered by the alley which also forms the zone district boundary between the Downtown (Old City Center) zone district and the N-C-B. The narrative goes on to state how this block face is more accurately characterized as being more Downtown-like versus N-C-B-like. Staff agrees with this assessment which then leads us to call attention to the rhythm, pattern and urban character of Mathews Street for this entire block face. Preserving this Downtown-like character by not perpetuating the driveway, along with eliminating the wide gap in the building façade, would 3 be a positive and important contribution to the urban context. Please note that the Townhomes at Library Park takes sole access from the alley. By deleting the driveway, and replacing it with sod, the pedestrian experience is enhanced and additional on-street parking spaces can be gained. Response: After receiving this input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: As with all considerations for Modifications of Standard, staff reserves the right to further evaluate all aspects of the project based on the nature of the input from surrounding affected property owners as a result of public outreach such as the neighborhood meeting. For example, based on public input gleaned from the neighborhood meetings, the Townhomes at Library Park was significantly revised over the course of the review process. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: The review will include an evaluation per Section 3.4.7 – Historical and Cultural Resources. In this case, the Park View Apartments to the south is a building that is potentially eligible to be designated as a local historic landmark. Compatibility with Park View Apartments must be considered. For example, has any consideration been given to selecting a brick color that matches, or is close to, the color tone of the brick of Park View Apartments? The color depiction provided indicates, at this point, that the brick color tone is very dark in contrast to the masonry of the building to the south. Response: Consideration has been given to selecting a brick that is similar in color to the Park View Apartments and the current illustrations reflect this. Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 7, staff is willing to support necking down the drive aisle width at the alley given the low number of parking spaces and that such spaces are private. It is more important to ensure that there is proper sight distance so that cars exiting can see traffic (all modes) in the alley. Response: Understood. Sight distances per City standards have been provided and the current site plan illustrates the sight distance triangles. Furthermore, the previously shown masonry piers near the alley access point have been removed. Comment Number: 10. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 10, has any consideration been given to not having a typical dumpster, recycle containers and enclosure? A dumpster requires a concrete surface. The enclosure must be sized to accommodate recycle containers. Why not simply rely on smaller containers that can stored in the under-structure parking area, and then be wheeled out on trash/recycle day? Response: The building owners prefer to have a designated trash enclosure to ensure that trash and recycle containers will be in the proper place when service vehicles come for pick-up. Comment Number: 11. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 12, be sure to properly size the electrical load to accommodate the power needed for the pump that pressurizes the fire sprinkler system for the upper parts of the building. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 12. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces are required. For the 4 space near the entrance, staff recommends considering placing the rack off to the side so as to have a minimal impact on the public right-of-way due to the building’s close relationship to Mathews Street. Would there be space in the under-structure parking area for the other spaces? Since the rear stairwell may be sprinklered, perhaps this would be a suitable location for the enclosed bike spaces. Response: The current site plan illustrates our intention to provide two bike racks (for two bikes each) at the front of the building. Comment Number: 13. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: There is an existing street tree in the parkway. This tree appears to be an Oak and in very good shape. It should be protected to the same extent as the four protected trees at Townhomes at Library Park. Protection must be in place prior to demolition of the existing house. Please be sure to add the standard tree preservation notes to both the Demolition Permit and the Landscape Plan. Since the tree is in the public right-of-way, a free permit from the City Forester will be required before installing tree protection measures. Response: Understood and requested notes have been included. Comment Number: 14. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The Demolition Permit is issued by the City but also includes an asbestos evaluation and abatement, if necessary, that is issued by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, Air Quality Division. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 15. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: Regarding reducing the parking lot drive aisle to 20 feet versus 24 feet, a Modification of Standard will be supported on the basis that there are only nine affected spaces and these spaces will be assigned to tenants and not available to the general public. Reducing this drive aisle also has the benefit of not needing a driveway off Mathews and thus enhancing the streetscape. Response: Understood. Please note drive aisle is now virtually 21’. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, 5 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. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Engineering is in agreement with planning in that access to this site shall be taken off of the alley. The existing driveway cut shall be removed, the curb line and sidewalk replaced as needed and striping added to the street for the diagonal parking. Response: After receiving this input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The public sidewalk will need to remain gray concrete. The enhancements shown on the plan are not permitted within the public sidewalk area. Response: Understood and site plan has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The trash enclosure. Doors are not allowed to swing out into the alley. This can be addressed by providing sliding doors. Response: Understood and sliding doors are now proposed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary and required for this project. This includes an 8 foot utility easement along the alley and a 9 foot utility easement along Mathew Street. Whether these easements requirements can be reduced is up to the utility providers. Any request to reduce or eliminate these required easements would be routed out to the utility providers along with a copy of the proposed structure so they could identify if the easement will be needed now or in the future. Response: Understood. An 8’ utility easement is proposed at the rear property line as requested. A 5’ utility easement is proposed at the front property line even though a 9’ easement was standardly requested. The reduction in size is based on the only utility provider comments we received when we requested a deletion of the easement. That utility provider was Comcast and their utility representative, Don Kapperman, indicated a 5’ easement would be acceptable. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 6 04/10/2015: Any required water quality and/ or detention shall be provided for on private property Response: Understood. Water quality is being treated by bio-retention planter boxes as shown in the utility plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The alley adjacent to this site is paved, but if there are any impacts or utility cuts into the alley for this project it will need to be reconstructed by this project. Response: Understood. No utility cuts are proposed with this project. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221 6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. If tree mitigation is necessary, please include a note on the tree mitigation plan or landscape plan, as appropriate, that requires a tree removal to occur outside of the migratory songbird nesting season (February 1-July 31), or that a survey be conducted prior to removal to ensure no active nests in the area. Response: Understood. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General 7 Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: As per the process outlined in Section 14-72(b) of the Municipal Code, the demolition of the building located at 215 Mathews was determined to not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the National and State Register District. Therefore, other than the required Plan of Protection, there will be no further review of its demolition by the Historic Preservation Division. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: The property is located in the Laurel School National Register District, so the project will be subject to compliance with the standards in LUC Section 3.4.7., Historic and Cultural Resources. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: LUC 3.4.7(A)(2) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) General Standard, 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 [is designated or qualifies for designation]. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that... (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 this is not necessary. Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. Response: The project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission in a work session on May 13, 2015. There was much discussion among the commissioners but generally there was a recommendation to reduce the height of the building as much as possible, increase the front setback to match the Parkview Apartments, to the south, to make the building more “blocky” like the Parkview Apartments and to horizontally align windows. The comments made by the commissioners have been treated very seriously and significant revisions have been made to address the comments as much as reasonable. The height of the building has been reduced significantly to the extent that ceiling heights and mechanical plenum heights above those ceilings have been reduced to sub-standard relative to today’s typical office building standards. The building setback has been increased by 5’-8” from 0’ at the main entry and to 8’ for the majority of the building front façade. While the existing Parkview Apartments are setback approximately 11’ the main entry of Parkview also protrudes further into this setback. In regards to making the building more “blocky”, the front massing of the proposed building has been simplified to one primary front wall plane with a protruding entryway and roof overhangs. In order to still provide an 8 aesthetically pleasing front façade with some relief, the wall planes have been embellished with pre-cast concrete detailing in the form of arches, caps, bands and base treatment. Fenestration has also been revised to be similar in proportion and detail to that of the Parkview Apartments. While new window heights, other than the ground floor, cannot align with the Parkview heights, a brick soldier course has been introduced in the new building aligning with top of the second floor window lintels of Parkview to provide a horizontal connection to the existing building. Lastly, it proposed that the new brick be similar in color to the existing brick color of the Parkview Apartments to make further visual connection between the two buildings. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: In order to adequately review for compliance with LUC 3.4.7, please submit cross sections, perspectives (including from the street level), and contextual elevations, with measurements, showing the proposed building in relation to the other buildings on the same block face. Also, please provide color photographs of the two apartment buildings on either side of this property. Response: These documents were all provided to the Landmark Preservation Commission. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: System modification charges and electrical capacity charges will for this commercial service. Right now the existing home is being fed with a single phase secondary conductor at a 150A service. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Transformer and meter location will have to be coordinated with Light & Power. Please contact us at 221-6700 to schedule this coordination. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Will the service being provided to this commercial complex require single phase or three phase service? Right now the block is very congested so modifications will have to be done in order to provide any three phase service. Response: Three phase service is desired for this project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: A Commercial Service Information Form (C-1) will have to be filled out by the electrician as well as a one-line diagram will have to be submitted to ensure metering requirements are met by the City of Fort Collins. A link to a blank C-1 form is provided below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: Understood. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The following information will need to be provided before any design can be finalized and construction can begin by Light & Power: Stamped 9 plat and site plan, approved utility and landscape plan, C-1 form and one-line diagram and anything else determined by Light & Power during the design phase. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The transformer will need to be located within 10ft of a driveable surface. The clearances for the transformer are as follows: 8ft in front, 3ft on sides and 3ft to the back. Response: Understood. The requested adjacencies and clearances have been provided with the current site plan. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Code requirements pertaining to fire hydrant locations, have been satisfied with the existing utility infrastructure available in the area. Code language provided below: > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM The mixed use building will require an NFPA 13, automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IFC 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3 occupancies. 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: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/16/2015 04/16/2015: FIRE LANES All portions of the building are to be within 150' of a fire access road. It is 10 recognized that the proposed building envelope exceeds this maximum distance, however as the building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, that distance may be extended in this case. The building is therefore considered to have met tier 1 conditions for general fire access. Tier 2 access requirements pertain to buildings over 30' in height, as defined by 2012 IFC, Appendix D105.1. Response: Understood. To allow roof access and rescue operations from upper floors, buildings over 30' in height require a 30' wide fire lane to be positioned within 30' feet of the building. As only a small portion of the building will front on Mathews St, the majority of the building is considered out of aerial truck access. I have discussed the project with the fire marshal and his recommendation follows. In order to meet minimum aerial access requirements, the east building envelope is expected to be within 30' of Mathews Street. In addition, the west stairwell will need to be: 1) 2 hr rated, 2) Have firefighter access at ground level, 3) Have appropriate roof access, 4) Be equipped with a standpipe in the stairwell with a hose connection on the roof. Because the building is only three stories in height and there are no R-group occupancies involved, the stairwell does not need "areas of refuge," pressurization, or smoke removal systems. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Code language provided below to assist with your design. Response: The building height has been reduced substantially to respond to comments made by the Landmark Preservation Commission and to bring the roof eaves to 30’ in height above grade. As such, the rear stair has been revised to an exterior stair and it is not anticipated to need to provide roof access. GENERAL FIRE ACCESS > IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. Response: Understood. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED > IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access 11 roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Response: The height of the roof eave has been revised to 30’. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH > IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING > IFC D105.3: 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. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Response: The building will be located at approximately 25’ from Mathews Street. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New 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. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 Response: Understood. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: What is the total area of disturbance please include a map showing all off site disturbance as well? If the site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: The total amount of disturbance is less than 10,000 sf (approximately 8,500 sf) as shown in the Utility Plans. The erosion control measures are shown on sheet C400. The escrow security calculation will be submitted with Final Compliance. 12 Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: Existing and proposed impervious areas have been calculated in tables included within the Utility Plans and Drainage Summary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: The total increase of impervious area is less than 5,000 sf (approximately 3,400 sf). A drainage letter is provided with this PDP submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: When improvements are being added to an existing developed site onsite detention is only required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. Response: The total increase of impervious area is less than 5,000 sf (approximately 3,400 sf); therefore, no onsite detention is being proposed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Response: Raised bioretention planter boxes are being proposed to provide the additional water quality treatment and is documented in the drainage summary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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 13 areas must be pervious. Existing stormwater infrastructure is in place at the intersections of Oak and Matthews and Oak and Olive that could be used for connection of any LID outfalls if needed. Both systems are less than 250¿ from the site. 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-im pact-development Response: Raised bioretention planter boxes are being proposed for the additional water quality treatment. Due to the small amount of pavement not covered by the building (approximately 850 sf), and per communication with City staff, no permeable pavers are being proposed with the development. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: As noted in the application, existing site drainage flows to both the alley and Matthews Street rights-of-way. Based on the notoriously poor stormwater conditions in the alleys in Old Town, an increase to the runoff into the alley will not be allowed unless an analysis is submitted by the Civil Engineer showing that the alley has adequate capacity to safely handle the additional runoff. The storm sewer system in Oak Street could be used to handle any additional runoff that is being conveyed to the alley if no other solution is feasible. Response: The site is graded to drain towards Matthews Street, therefore draining less area towards the alley. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre ($0.1795 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-investmen t-development-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: Understood. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: Understood. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2015 04/06/2015: No comments. 14 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The anticipated change in traffic volume (from single family dwelling to 9k office) is not expected to rise to the threshold of needing an official TIS. Based on section 4.2.3.D of LCUASS, the Traffic Impact Study requirement can be waived. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: Parking along Mathews will need to be moved with the relocation of the driveway. Response: Understood. New striping to add 4 new parking spaces including a van accessible space has been illustrated within the proposed plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: We'll need to ensure that there is adequate sight distance at the driveway entrance (and especially) the exit onto the alley. Response: Understood. Sight distance triangles have been indicated on the site plan to demonstrate proper visual ability. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: Is there bike parking with this proposal? Response: 4 bike parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building and 1 interior space is proposed inside the fire riser and electric room via the door directly off of the parking area. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: There site is served by an 8" sewer main in the alley and a 4" water main in Matthews. There are existing sewer and water services that will either need to be reused as part of this development or abandoned at the main. Response: Understood. The development is currently proposing to reuse the existing sanitary service and remove the existing water service to the main. Proposed water services (fire and domestic) are being proposed south of the existing service. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Response: Understood. Department: Zoning 15 Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Signs will need to be approved through a separate sign permit application but please note: this property is in the residential sign district. LUC 3.8.7(E) Response: Understood. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: LUC 3.2.2(C)(b) General Office has a minimum bicycle parking requirement based on the square footage of 1/4,000 SQFT, minimum of 4 spaces, 80% fixed racks 20% enclosed spaces. Response: 4 bike parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building and 1 interior space is proposed inside the fire riser and electric room via the door directly off of the parking area.