HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - FDP - FDP150038 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1
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
September 21, 2015
Cathy Mathis
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Uncommon (310 S College), PDP150013, Round Number 2
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: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Carried forward from 08/04/2015: Prior to the PDP submittal, the
proposed project has had multiple revisions and four meetings between staff
and the applicant to discuss its size and mass in the context of downtown. The
current plan incorporates a number of measures to mitigate the mass, bulk and
scale of the building in response to previous comments, and those measures
are acknowledged. However, staff continues to find that a building of this size,
in terms of bulk and mass, is out of scale and thus incompatible with the
sensitive downtown context.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
If the project's constraints will not permit a reduction in size to address staff’s
findings to date with respect to code standards, the applicants are welcome to
bring the project to the Planning and Zoning Board for hearing with a staff
recommendation of denial.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
2
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
Specifically, staff’s findings regarding building size, mass, bulk and scale
involve the following standards:
Downtown District Zoning Standards:
Subsection 4.16 (D)(4)(b)2, Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings:
Upper portions of taller building must be further set back above the base “in
such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design.
Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale
in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of
nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and
preservation of views in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic context and
scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual
character of the City.”
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Subsection 4.16 (E)(1)(c), Plazas: For taller buildings located in the Canyon
Avenue subdistrict, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized
and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general
public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public
and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human
sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether
natural or man-made.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Staff finds that the plaza is not open space due to its degree of enclosure in the
building structure with floor area above. This negates the effect of the open
space in mitigating and offsetting the mass of the building. As shown, the plaza
is very positive feature of the building, but it looks and feels like a part of the
building and its private space; and it is not really open space.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
General Development Standards for All Development Citywide:
3.5.1(B) General Standard states:
“New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a
design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural
character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of
this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced
standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof
lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces,
similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the
3
use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those
existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and
stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other
materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building
height) shall be derived from the neighboring context.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale requires buildings to “either
be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on
the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing
block face, or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection.
(See Figures 7a and 7b.)
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3. Special Height ReviewStandards, Neighborhood Scale,
requires buildings greater than forty (40) feet in height to be compatible with the
scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height,
height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015:
09/15/2015: Charm and detail along the base portion is crucial to success in
the required pedestrian oriented development. The plan reflects this, but if the
project goes forward, further fine grain detail will be important to clarify in final
plans. E.g., details such as a pattern in transom windows, pattern detail in the
stone masonry and metal joinery, and similar detail designed at a larger scale.
RESPONSE: We concur with this comment. Additional detail will be incorporated as the project
progresses. See enlarged storefront elevations for updated detailing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: To be more compatible with and complementary to the hotel, could
the top overhanging eave feature at the NW corner be replaced with a cornice
formed with brick courses? If a covering awning effect is desired over the
windows, smaller awning features (not necessarily fabric awnings per se) could
bring down the scale of that portion of the building and complement the scale of
the hotel which has individual fabric awnings over windows.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: From Excel: max gas pressure is 14” WC.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Can the inlet move to the center alley as depicted in LCUASS
4
Drawing 803. This will prevent the inlet from being in the wheel path of vehicles.
RESPONSE: The sanitary sewer main is centered in the alley, thus preventing the storm inlet from being
centered as well.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please work with Floodplain staff to determine if the proposed
doors to the parking garage are adequate. Please work with Traffic Operations
to determine if the sight distance triangle will be affected by the flood gates in
the open position. Will vehicles in the parking garage be able to view on coming
traffic in the alley? Please verify.
RESPONSE: The additional 5’ multi-purpose easement along the west side of the alley will serve to
mitigate sight distance concerns. Additional information was provided to Traffic Operations prior to the
PDP hearing.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Include the portion of the sight distance easement in the utility
easement.
RESPONSE: Due to limitations imposed by the underground parking structure, the “utility” portion of these
easements has been revised.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: The response to comments mentions a meeting to discuss Nature
in the City that previously occurred, as well as conversations with the
Environmental Services department about various programs. What were the
outcomes of those conversations? Do you anticipate making any changes to
the project based on those discussions?
RESPONSE: A brainstorming session was held in October. While the urban landscape features do have
some synergies with Nature in the City (NIC) objectives, there is no formal NIC component to this
development.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Will the "planting zones" include shurbs, flowering plants, and/or
grasses? Details on species selected and seed mixes will be required at the
time of Final Plan.
RESPONSE: Yes. Shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses will be included in planting zones.
Specific species have been identified and located as part of this FDP submittal.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Additional detail and specifications for the light fixtures will be
requried at the time of Final Plan.
RESPONSE: Cut sheets for the light fixtures as well as an updated photometric that includes lighting
at the level 2 courtyards are attached.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
5
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/16/2015: CONTINUED
The requested information and schematic layout in a final format as described
in the original 8-5-15 comment still needs to be provided and included on the
plans. Submit the requested information and diagrams to the City Forester.
Contact Ralph Zentz for a review of the five year management plan. Additional
information for the management plan plan needs to be included The severity of
the impact to the street trees from the fill material will be further evaluated once
the detail and management plan in a final format are provided.
RESPONSE: A 5 year management plan, aeration plan, product specification and cross sections have
been provided. These documents have been revised and include the latest direction per a meeting with
Forestry on October 12, 2015.
08/05/2015:
Fill material is shown over some of the root system of existing trees in the
parkway. Explore all options to minimize fill as this is a detrimental factor to tree
growth. Any fill should be a lighter soil mix and placed away from the tree trunks
as far as possible. A root aeriation system would be required. Provide a cross
section detail of the parkway where fill is to occur. This detail should provide the
design of the aeriation system, specified fill material, placement of structural soil
under the sidewalk, other recommendations by the project arborist and all
information pertaining to the re-sodding and irrigation of the parkway. Included
with the detail should be a street tree management plan that identifies specific
maintenance steps that will be taken over a 5 year period to help mitigate the
impact of fill over tree root systems. The management plan should be prepared
by a qualified and certified private arborist. The development would be
responsible for following the street tree management plan and providing the City
Forester annual written updates on the maintenance steps performed. The
detail and street tree management plan should be submitted to the City
Forester. The severity of the impact to the street trees from the fill material will
be further evaluated once the detail and management plan are provided.
RESPONSE: A 5 year management plan, aeration plan, product specification and cross sections have
been provided. These documents have been revised and include the latest direction per a meeting with
Forestry on October 12, 2015.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/16/2015: CONTINUED
To evaluate the how the building has been set back by existing tree number 9
provide a vertical profile of the edge of the building by tree number 9. Show the
back of the walk and property line for reference and the scaled distance of the
building set back at different building heights by the tree. Include in this
illustration how far to the north and south of tree number 9 the building set back
as described in the narrative will occur. Submit to the City Forester.
RESPONSE: ALAN??
08/05/2015:
To significantly reduce the pruning impact to the canopy of existing tree number
9 (American elm - 41 inch diameter) the building should be set back at
6
approximately the 39 feet height level. This set back should occur by the part of
the tree canopy where the furthest extension of limbs to the east occurs.
Stepping the building back approximately 13 feet where the primary conflicts
occur provides for a relative low tree impact from pruning. Radical pruning of
this mature tree that has decades of life remaining would not be consistent with
City of Fort Collins Tree Management Standards and Best Management
Practices that are authorized by the Code and have been approved by the City
Manager. These standards pertain to pruning and removal of City property
trees. If the building is not set back approximately 13 feet at the conflict
locations then the pruning impact to the tree will be significantly greater.
Standard 1.2 in Section A states - Pruning recommendations and actual
pruning work shall always regard tree health and the tree¿s structural integrity.
The Land Use Code provides in 3.2.1 F 3 that all existing street trees that are
located on City rights-of-way abutting the development shall be accurately
identified by species, size, location and condition on required landscape plans,
and shall be preserved and protected in accordance with the standards of
subsection G. LUC 3.2.1 G 2 ¿ All protected existing trees shall be pruned to
the City of Fort Collins Forestry Standards.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
09/16/2015:
Street tree species recommendation:
Along College - Shumard Oak
Along Olive – Catalpa
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
09/16/2015:
Note number one under the existing tree schedule should include the dollar
amount per tree. Contact Ralph Zentz in the City Forestry Division to obtain this
number and include in the note.
RESPONSE: The plan has been revised to include the dollar amount per tree.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
09/16/2015:
Add this information to tree protection note number 18.
Irrigation renovation/installation in the parkway area must take all due care to
not damage the root systems of existing trees. Trenching near parkway trees in
their critical root zone will not be allowed. Any trenching for irrigation in the
parkway must be evaluated by the City Forester prior to work.
RESPONSE: This information has been added to the notes. Reference Tree Protection Notes #18.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
09/16/2015:
For each tree to be removed provide a statement explaining the reason for
removal by the information provided for each existing tree shown to be removed
on sheet 2.
RESPONSE: This information has been added to the Existing Tree Schedule.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
7
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
09/21/2015:
This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on
the National Register of Historic Places, on the Colorado Register of Historic
Properties, and as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the
Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins
Landmark properties. Therefore the project would need to comply with the
applicable standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural
Resources.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
09/21/2015:
LUC 3.4.7 (B) states in part: New structures must be compatible with the
historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site
or adjacent thereto. The standard is stated as "must", which requires
mandatory compliance.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
In light of the definition of "adjacent" in LUC Section 5.1.2, and based upon the
height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project, property
adjacent to this project has been established by staff as being located one-half
block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed. This
area of adjacency takes into account the officially designated National, State
and Fort Collins landmark properties contained within this area, and to which
the above portion of 3.4.7(B) applies: the 3-story Armstrong Hotel (259 South
College and 100 - 104 Olive Street); the First Baptist (currently Mountain View)
Church at 328 Remington Street; the 1-story Bode Property (220 Remington),
as well as the one- and two-story dwellings in the 400 block of Remington
Street. Additional properties within this area of adjacency have been officially
determined to be eligible for Landmark recognition, but have not been officially
designated.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
09/21/2015:
The proposed building's height, mass, scale, and bulk are not compatible with
the historic character of adjacent historic properties. This is evident in the
discrepancy and incongruity of the proposed building's large footprint of 30,000
square feet; the extent of building mass at the upper levels; and the size of the
east wall, which is 240' in length and over 70' in height for 200 feet of that length,
far exceeding the height and length of any of the adjacent historic structures.
The adjacent buildings are all 1- to 3-stories in height, with substantially less
mass and bulk. Compatibility with the character of the historic buildings would
require substantial reduction in overall bulk and massing.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
8
09/21/2015:
Additional compatibility standards for ensuring that new construction is in
character with historic structures are contained in 3.4.7(F). Applicable
standards are (F)(3), pertaining to using the dominant building material of
historic structures as the primary material; (F)(4), which pertains to maintaining
visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal
points, such as a park, school or church; and (F)(5), pertaining to landscaping.
Staff finds that these standards have been met.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015:
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying
with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in
the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the
Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family
projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be
prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of
occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed.
RESPONSE: A presubmittal meeting will be scheduled in the near future.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC.
2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter.
9
Project specific concerns:
1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required. A new code amendment effective in
2014 will require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system.
2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler.
3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”
4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units.
5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min.
if building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
9. Low VOC interior finishes.
10. Egress windows can't exit onto the building roof below without approval from
the Building Official.
11. To achieve 6 stories with wood construction a platform and fire-treated ext
wood walls is required.
RESPONSE: Comments noted.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2015
09/10/2015: Prior comment carried forward:
07/31/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
COMPLIANCE
PFA and the project team have met off line to discuss the site specific
challenges related to aerial fire access code requirements. At this point, the
project team intends to study the problem and present a plan to the fire marshal
which meets the intent of the code through alternative means of compliance.
RESPONSE: A meeting will be scheduled in the near future to present the proposed alternate
methods of compliance.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015:
Page 5 indicates that a preliminary flood protection plan prepared by Oz was to
be provided. It doesn’t appear that this plan was submitted. Please provide.
RESPONSE: A PDF of an early draft (dated 07.24.15) was supplied to City Staff. The Site Plan by OZ
also contains flood door locations. The flood protection plan will be further coordinated with Floodplain
Staff during Final Plan.
10
Page 7 first paragraph looks to reference a different project “District at Campus
West”. Please revise the text.
RESPONSE: This reference has been corrected with the Final Plan narrative.
Page 9 indicates “Preliminary locations of paver fields are noted on the
drainage exhibit”. The plans don’t indicate pavers anywhere. Please coordinate.
RESPONSE: There will be no paver fields associated with this project. The Final Plan narrative has been
corrected accordingly.
Page 9 indicates that a Standard Operating Procedure Manual will be provided
to the City. The City will actually provide the SOP Manual now. Please reword
this section.
RESPONSE: This section has been reworded with the Final Plan submittal.
Appendix A.1 Runoff Coefficient Calculations – it looks like you’re calculating
imperviousness for basins 3 and OS1 assuming pavers. I think this needs to be
revised because I don’t think there are pavers proposed on this project.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Appendix A.3 LID Compliance Computations (can be addressed at Final)
o On the Flow-Through Stormwater Planter detail please provide details on
where (at what elevation) the downspout enters the planter relative to the
plantings and/or sand media. Keep in mind snow/ice build-up in the planter box
during the winter.
RESPONSE: Refer to detail sheet in the plans. The Architect and MEP Engineer will further evaluate
the need for icing prevention.
o Please provide a minimum of 18” bioretention sand media depth (24” is
preferred)
RESPONSE: A 12” BSM depth is proposed (consistent with City Detail D-53) as a tradeoff to provide
more surface ponding depth while maintaining a reasonable overall planter height.
o Please show the flow path of the 100-year storm from the planter boxes onto
and through the upper deck patio. What is the flow depth? Where is the area
inlet and pipe that will bring the stormwater down to the ground plane? Perhaps
this can be shown on the grading plan or some other more appropriate plan
sheet.
RESPONSE: Some of these details have been provided with the Final Plan package. However, since
the courtyard drainage is essentially a roof drainage system, final design details and documentation will be
provided with the Architectural and MEP Drawings during Building Permit. Presently, the courtyards are
proposed to have a permeable elevated decking system, and the drainage will be managed below with
sloping roof materials and drains.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C200: Paving Plan
Note 6 indicates that Site and Landscape Plans include additional information
related to decorative paving, hardscapes, etc. but those plans don’t include
callouts or details on decorative paving or hardscapes. Please either modify the
note on this page or include the pertinent information on decorative paving on
the site and landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Additional callouts for decorative paving and hardscape are shown on OZ’s Site Plan.
11
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
Sheet C400: Grading Plan
• The vertical difference between the adjacent FFE and the flowline of the inlet
is only about 4”. Please provide the ponding depth at the area inlet in the alley.
• Provide additional spot elevation information along the alley side of the
building. It is hard to tell what is happening at the garage entry locations and the
loading area.
09/14/2015:
RESPONSE: Approximately 2” of ponding depth is provided at this inlet prior to flows continuing north into
Olive Street. There is roughly 6” of vertical separation between the FFE of the water entry room and the
inlet grate.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C600: Drainage Exhibit
Proposed storm drain inlet is indicated as “private” but cannot be private
because it is accepting drainage from the public alley. Please revise the note.
RESPONSE: This label has been corrected.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C601: Floodplain Exhibit
BFE’s in the table doesn’t match those shown on the exhibit. Please revise.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Contact: Heidi Hansen, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Utilize the following FEMA Technical Bulletins (links available on
our website), in the design of the site: Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements,
Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings, Non-Residential Floodproofing –
Requirements and Certification, Below Grade Parking Requirements, and
Elevator Installation.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
RESPONSE: We are aware of these bulletins and will comply. See site plan for flood-proof
compliance notes.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please utilize an automatic float up flood gate for the parking area.
With the manual floodgates, if the gates were to not be closed in time the entire
structure would be compromised including individual commercial tenant
spaces.
RESPONSE: We are now calling for an automatic-rising gate at the parking garage entry.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please provide additional clarification on the general types of
floodproofing that will be used for the structure (i.e. sealant on the walls or
membrane).
RESPONSE: Exterior walls will be flood-proofed by membrane waterproofing behind cladding.
A note has been added clarifying this.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
12
09/15/2015: Please provide floodpoof doors for the main residential lobby
entry. Flood planks across the main building entry pose a safety concern for
egress.
RESPONSE: We have solicited input from Poudre Fire and the building department regrading egress
at this door, but have yet to receive a response. Should they accept the planks or a panel, this is what
we would prefer to do.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2015
09/09/2015: Repeat Comment - Saw acknowledgment
7/21/2015: Repeat : The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore
Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The
erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control
Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion
Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If
you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions
please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: This information has been provided with the Final Plan submittal.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are still line over text
issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Line over text issues have been corrected.
08/04/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are still line over text issues. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: This sheet has been removed from the set.
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: The legend for the zoning map. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This sheet has been removed from the set.
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask
all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
13
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Text has been masked.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs the
size increased. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Text has been masked.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please contact Jeff about this comment.
08/04/2015: Please remove the marked portion of the sub-title on sheet C001.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been discussed with Jeff. The original town lot and block references have been
added back to the plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See
redlines.
08/04/2015: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark
Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See
redlines.
08/04/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
08/04/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
14
areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Both masking and hatching have been revised, where appropriate.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines.
08/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: No comments.
08/04/2015: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/14/2015: The owner information is not necessary, and can be removed if
you choose.
08/04/2015: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the
subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been addressed.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please review Note #6. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Note the presence of below ground parking structure and upper floor overhangs.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please label the Floodway as the hatched area. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This label has been added with the Final Plan submittal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted
sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE:
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/15/2015: It is acknowledged that in the downtown area there are a number
of alley locations with limited sight distance. Since this will be a higher volume
alley, please work with your engineer/traffic engineer in using engineering
judgement on a reasonable about of sight distance (probably not 30 mph) -
show that on an exhibit. The typical question is 'will this work?' It would be
helpful to have an exhibit that shows how it will work.
08/05/2015: We'll need to see some sight triangles - especially at the alley
access to Olive and Magnolia.
15
RESPONSE: An exhibit was supplied prior to PDP hearing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: In the final plans we'll need to see some signage plans (such as
pedestrian crossing signs at the alley entrances).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The Applicant will coordinate such with City Staff.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE:
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C002: Notes sheet
Note E.4. last sentence indicates the curb stop shall be covered with a metal
box and tracer wire test lid per city water detail 25. Please indicate that lid to be
stamped with “Water” as per detail 11A instead of “CP Test Station” that is
shown on detail 25. (Can be addressed at final)
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C100: Ex. Conditions & Demo Plan
Existing sanitary sewer service doesn’t appear to be shown. Please indicate
existing sewer service and modify Note 9 to say something like “Contractor
shall coordinate with Fort Collins Utilities Field Operations Department at (970)
221-6700 for water and sewer service abandonment.”
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C300: Utility Plan
• Please provide the estimated size for the residential sewer service and for
the fire service.
• The floodproofing gates for the parking garage look like they swing into the
public alleyway. Coordinate with engineering to see if this is allowed.
• See redlines for other comments that can be addressed at Final.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet 1: Please correct acreage under Statement of Ownership
and Subdivision section.
RESPONSE: Corrected.