Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAINT JOHN XXIII CATHOLIC CHURCH AND LOMBARDY STUDENT HOUSING - PDP190001 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview May 24, 2019 Jason Messaros BHA Design Inc 1603 Oakridge Dr Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Saint John XXIII Catholic Church and Lombardy Student Housing, PDP190001, Round Number 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 Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane, at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/23/2019: Changing this comment back to unresolved to highlight the concern. The building design provided does not adequately provide measures to mitigate the mass, scale, and shadowing of the 5 story buildings. Massing stepbacks are recommended using techiques shown on page 32 of the WCAP. 5th story stepbacks should be provided along the university frontage for Buildings B and C. Staff recommends a 5' min. stepback along the building frontages (see redlines), or corner stepbacks equivalent to the floor area that would be provided with a 5' stepback. For Building A, the 5 story building appears out of scale and more transition is recommended along University and City Park to respond to the site context and to minimize shadowing of private property, per the WCAP guidelines. Staff recommends that all or a significant portion of Building A be reduced to 4 stories. It is unclear how stepbacks would work with this building or what specific recommendations to make due to the narrow building footprint. If there are updates to the building designs proposed to address these comments, please send them and we can provide comments 2 outside of a formal round of review. See updated final round 2 redlines. 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Building mass and scale – step-backs along the street: Per the WCAP guidelines, page 31, building height should be stepped back. To address this, other projects have stepped the 5th story back or the design team could explore the current design concept but with 4 story buildings. Would suggest a separate staff meeting to discuss building mass and scale for each of the three housing buildings. Comment provided as a suggestion -- A one story element appears to be provided along the piazza frontage of Building C, which is helpful. The overall mass of building C appears to dominate the mass of the Church. A lower building might provide a better backdrop for the church structure and would reinforce the church as the focal point in the immediate area. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/23/2019: Updated: need the Modification request to be submitted with next round. 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Block size requirement in the CC zone: The east/west driveway provided does not qualify as an SLPD. To address this standard a Modification of Standard would need to be considered. A north/south bike/ped connection is supportable from a Planning perspective (in lieu of a north/south through street that would connect to Elizabeth and form two smaller blocks that would support higher intensity redevelopment). Staff is concerned that the north/south connection needs to demonstrate future viability where it would continue north offsite to Elizabeth Street. One question is whether the future connection aligns in a location that is that is safe, convenient and viable for future development scenarios by owners to the north. Would suggest a separate meeting be organized to discuss this further, with the following suggested goals. Satisfying these goals could be used as justification the Modification of Standard to the CC zone block standard: A- Determining interim improvements that allow safe and convenient bike and ped flow to nearby destinations. B- In lieu of a north/south street connection, ensuring that the proposed site plan layout does not preclude and accommodates a potential ultimate north/south bike and pedestrian connection that adequately functions in place of street sidewalks and bike lanes. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/23/2019: Provide typ. dimensions. Provide clarification on the number of compact spaces provided. 02/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Parking layout plans must be provided for each level of proposed parking. More information is alos needed to show interior functions of the building locations of elevators, etc. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 05/20/2019: COMMENT UPDATE, PRIOR TO HEARING: 3 Staff recommends deeper building step-backs be provided along the University and City Park frontage to better respond to the design guidelines. See site plan redlines for recommended locations on each building A,B, and C. The applicant should also provide an analysis with the presentation to P&Z outlining how the project responds to the context and WCAP design principles (page 31). 02/28/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: I’m adding a comment here with additional feedback on the questions that were discussed with the applicant team after the staff meeting regarding mass and scale. Building height transitions should be used appropriately to address the area context and to strategically address mass and scale of the buildings when viewed from the neighborhood, and not be placed in areas that are mainly based on the building layout. Prominent view corridors, with views to towards the building at key corners and edges should be considered. The development’s location should be considered, as a southwest gateway of sorts along the City Park Avenue corridor into the commercial core of the West Central Area. This gateway and transition concept is also reflected in the zoning transition that occurs at the property. The PDR comments discussed the design principles on page 31 of the WCAP. The LUC also has a definition of Compatibility in Article 5 which should also be reviewed by the applicant team. My suggestion is that the applicant team look at the site context and WCAP character areas and provide an outline of specific design strategies employed that are proposed to address the WCAP design principles for each building. Design strategies employed with other recent projects are in different character areas (see WCAP) when compared to the area south of Elizabeth, and responding to different streets and existing conditions, and therefore the design strategies employed to meet the WCAP for this project may be different. A combination of design strategies may be helpful to provide a more significant response to the guidelines for each of the buildings. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Along the ground level of the north side of buildings B and C, are there ways to provide more visual interest with the architectural design. Mural behind the bike parking is one idea. Could also provide benches, lighting and trash receptacles. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: With the off-site parking stall striping proposed, the site and utility plans are not clear. Access into the stalls is not clear and whether additional parking is proposed, or the extent of the parking coverage along the lot line is changing. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: The shadow analysis needs to be formatted so that the times are illustrated in different details. The overlapping is difficult to read. I have an example. 05/23/2019: Provide a narrative outlining how the project addresses the building height criteria in LUC 3.5.1(G). see example per email. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 4 05/21/2019: Suggesting stairs to improve access to the building B bike room - see redlines Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: On the parking garage plans, provide dimensions showing stall and drive aisle dimensions. Also, compact spaces are limited to 40% of the total site parking, so this may need a modification to the code. Please show the amount of compact spaces on the cover page table. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: On a separate sheet in the set, we recommend that off-site improvements be provided to clarify and better prioritize/emphasize a mid-block bike/pedestrian route to the bus stop and underpass entrance. This could include directional signage, striping and other measures. No minor amendment will be required to implement these potential improvements. We would like to meet to discuss design options that are proposed with the SJ23 team and the adjacent property owner. If no off-site changes are recommended by the SJ23 applicant team or agreed to by the adjacent owner, the SJ23 applicant should be prepared to defend the proposed PDP design and how it addresses the following land use code provisions: 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking: Off-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. Off-site pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2(E)(1) (Parking Lot Layout), Section 3.6.4 (Transportation Level of Service Requirements), or as necessary to provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for bicycles and pedestrians both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Points of Conflict. The (parking) lot layout shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in order to provide continuous, direct pedestrian access with a minimum of driveway and drive aisle crossings. Remedial treatment such as raised pedestrian crossings, forecourts and landings, special paving, signs, lights and bollards shall be provided at significant points of conflict. General Standard. The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on-site bicycle system must connect to the City's on-street bikeway network. Connections to the off-road trail system shall be made, to the extent reasonably feasible. Development Standards All developments shall meet the following standards: (1) Safety Considerations. To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. (a) Where complete separation of pedestrians and vehicles and bicycles is not possible, potential hazards shall 5 be minimized by the use of techniques such as special paving, raised surfaces, pavement marking, signs or striping, bollards, median refuge areas, traffic calming features, landscaping, lighting or other means to clearly delineate pedestrian areas, for both day and night use. Curbcuts and Ramps. Curbcuts and ramps shall be located at convenient, safe locations for the physically disabled, for bicyclists and for people pushing strollers or carts. The location and design of curbcuts and ramps shall meet the requirements of the International Building Code and the City's Americans With Disabilities Act ramp standards and shall avoid crossing or funneling traffic through loading areas, drive-in lanes and outdoor trash storage/collection areas. Street Crossings. Where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or internal roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian access and safety. The material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as it crosses the driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way. The pedestrian crossings must be well-marked using pavement treatments, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping. (See Figure 3.) Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: The tuck-under bike storage area seems tight. A 5’ min. clear east/west walkway path is recommended. Provide more information and dimensions here to show how walkway space remains if automobile overhang and bikes are parked along the walkway. Will there be enough space to walk around the bikes, and also though the area. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Street like private drive – change this to private drive. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Is the PL shown on the site plan the new right-of-way line? Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Bike racks are shown on top of water meter and grease interceptor. 4” water meter location, does this work here at the corner where entrances are proposed. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Pleases see redlines for comments. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: BY HEARING: The document labeled MOU that was submitted includes an exhibit and a note explaining that the team is working toward an MOU. Please submit the finalized MOU including intent to dedicate easements or a letter of intent to provide easements prior to hearing. 6 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: (ROUND 1 COMMENT) It appears that the project will require an offsite construction easement from the property owner to the northeast. Please provide a letter of intent from the affected property owner which indicate that they’re looking to extend an easement for construction. Alternatively, this could be an item addressed in the memo of understanding. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2109: No variance was submitted. This must be addressed prior to hearing. 02/25/2019: BY HEARING: (ROUND 1 COMMENT) Please add turn lane design dimensions to the plan. Please provide a variance request/narrative which details the reasons for the design and addresses safety. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 05/20/2019: BY HEARING: Thank you for agreeing to meet with Engineering and Utilities staff to discuss the utility easement and utility layouts. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: BY HEARING: We still need to see an addendum to the TIS to clearly detail the calculations for bike / ped level of service. We need to understand how the stated conclusions were reached. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: BY HEARING: Continue to work with Transportation Planning and FCMoves on bike/ped connectivity to the north. We had originally asked for a clear understanding of how to guide students in both the interim (existing) and the ultimate (when Campus West redevelops). Funneling students to Shields is a concern for us. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR INFORMATION: Please see the comments provided from CSU as a referral agency. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 05/21/2019: Please provide a detail of the bus stop in the proposed location to verify that it fits into the allotted space. 02/26/2019: The bus stop on Shields needs to be brought up to current standards. The design details should be consistent with the Type III stop according to the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines: http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard s.pdf You can coordinate with Melina Dempsey (Transit Planner) for purchase of the new shelter and amenities. 7 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 05/21/2019: To accommodate temporary/current and future access to the two destinations to the north on Elizabeth: the bus stop, and the ped/bike underpass, please move the proposed pedestrian "raised driveway" to the west so it begins with the "pedestrian boulevard" between building B & C and ends at the sidewalk along the east side of the Newman Center. The principal intent for this is to provide public (and internal) ped/bike access from University Avenue to Elizabeth Street. 02/26/2019: Saint John XXIII owns an abutting property along West Elizabeth which would serve well as a pedestrian access to the Transfort bus stop on Elizabeth. While another pedestrian access further east would bring bikes and peds to the underpass. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: We recommend installing between 8-10 electric vehicle charging stations in your parking structure. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: In the interim, until the property to the north redevelops, we would like to see some crosswalk striping and signage across their sites to safely accommodate the large amount of pedestrians whom will be making these movements. City staff is happy to facilitate a meeting with the adjacent property owner for purposes of this discussion. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Erika Benti, CSU Transportation Services, 970-491-7600, erika.benti@colostate.edu, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/17/2019 05/17/2019: CSU Parking and Transportation Services - (from looking at pg 6 of the Site Plan): • For the several bike/ped connections to the North of the development (Campus West businesses and other properties owned by the Church), please make sure that the connections are accessible for pedestrians, bicyclists and people in mobility devices (i.e., not only stairs if there is a grade separation). • We encourage the owner to install wayfinding signage directing people on foot/bike to the underpass and the bus stop on Elizabeth. • The covered bike parking and bike storage/repair room shown on pg 3 are well placed to conveniently intercept bikes for residents, and should help to avoid residents misusing the retail bike parking (looks good!) After the hearing, the City, applicant team and CSU should set up a meeting to talk about bike share and other topics. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 05/20/2019: 8 Please note that the City of Fort Collins and PFA have recently adopted the IFC2018. 02/27/2019: BUILDING HEIGHT A High-Rise building is one where the floor of the highest habitable level is greater than 75ft from the lowest level of fire department access. Building C may be raised to accommodate a lower level of parking and the floor of the 6th floor amenity may then become greater than 75ft above University Ave or the Fire Lane to the north. The project team will provide this height detail at time of next submission for the three buildings on the west parcel. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 05/22/2019: The project team will be contacting PFA to organize a meeting to discuss alternative means and methods to offset the setback distance of the buildings from University Avenue which is shown as greater than the 30ft maximum 02/27/2019: Due to City setback requirements it is understood that the buildings cannot be moved south towards University Ave to overcome the lack of aerial apparatus access. Further discussion is invited on which alternative means and methods will be appropriate. 02/22/2019: FOR APPROVAL AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS >These buildings are all greater than 30ft in height which triggers the requirement for a 26ft wide fire lane no closer than 15ft to and further than 30ft from each building. >PFA requests that the proposed parapets be no greater than 4ft in height to assist with fireground operations. BUILDING A >Aerial access cannot be achieved from the north side because it is a neighboring property. >Parking is allowed on University Avenue adjacent to Building A which creates an out of compliance measurement for aerial access of 34ft to the south elevation of the building. >Therefore this building is out of compliance for aerial access BUILDING B >As measured from the Fire Lane, Building B is in compliance for Aerial Access from the West and North Elevations. The East elevation is out of compliance and the building is 33ft to 35ft from University Avenue and therefore out of compliance to the south. BUILDING C >This Building is in compliance with aerial access from the north Fire Lane >Out of compliance from the East and West sides. >Measuring from University Avenue includes the parking area and measures 33ft which is out of compliance for aerial access from the south CHURCH 9 >The Church is partly in compliance for aerial access as measured from the Fire Lane to the north. >Aerial access cannot be measured from Shields Street since it is classified as a major arterial >Aerial access cannot be measured from the west Piazza >The setback from University Avenue is between 43ft and 32ft therefore considered out of aerial access. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 05/22/2019: >It is understood that the City may require the upper floor levels to be set back. Should these then be habitable amenity spaces, then they will be designed with standpipe protection at the appropriate access doors. 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER AND ALARM SYSTEM These buildings will require an NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler and Alarm system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. >Please note that should the individual building fire alarm panel be located in a remote location in that building, a fully functional alarm panel will be required at the main entrance of that building. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/22/2019 05/22/2019: After further review, it seems more appropriate to relocate the hydrant that was planned as a wall hydrant by Building C to the north-west corner of Building B. This will provide a water supply to the north side of the property without the significant engineering and maintenance challenges of the wall hydrant which can now be deleted. 02/27/2019: After discussion at the Staff review meeting today, the new hydrant at the north of Buildings B and C may prove problematic for maintenance. Further discussion is invited. 02/22/2019: FOR INFORMATION HYDRANTS The two new hydrants are appropriately located. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: PFA will require the addressing, numbering and wayfinding signage plan for FDP approval. 02/25/2019: FOR APPROVAL ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response, an overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required for FDP approval. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: PFA appreciates any training opportunity and realizes that it may not be 10 possible. We very much appreciate your efforts. 02/25/2019: REQUEST TRAINING OPPORTUNITY PFA is currently looking for training opportunities using vacated buildings, both residences and large structures, that are about to be demolished. Please contact me should this be a possibility. arosen@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2599 Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FIRE PITS & GRILLS Fire pits & grills fueled by natural gas may be allowed in association with multi-family buildings with prior approval of the fire marshal. Wood burning or smoke producing fire pits & grills are strictly prohibited. Fire pits & grills shall be located in a permanent/fixed location, such as a built-in kitchen or fireplace with UL fixtures as appropriate; or as otherwise limited by manufacturer's installation guidelines. Connections shall have hard pipe, not flex pipe and be equipped with an emergency shut off. Fire pits and grills fueled by natural gas shall have a 10' separation to combustible construction and/or vegetation. This distance is measured both horizontally and vertically from the fire source. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/22/2019 05/22/2019 SOLAR ARRAYS Solar arrays require a separate plan review and permit from the Poudre Fire Authority. Please call Plan Review Technician Roger Smith at 970-416-2876 with Solar Array questions. Refer to 2018 IFC 1204 for access, pathway, and marking details. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Clarification is needed on the proposed StormTech sizing. Please see redlines and contact me to discuss. 02/25/2019: Sizing information was not included for the proposed StormTech system which is intended to meet LID requirements. Analysis needs to be provided in order to determine if the system is adequately sized to provide the intended LID treatment. Please note: water quality treatment is required for the entire site, and LID treatment is part of the overall water quality required of the site. Please address how water quality is provided for all of the site. (see redlines) Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR FINAL: I understand discussions are in process with the adjacent property. Please note that easement/agreement will be required prior to final plan approval. 02/25/2019: The proposed outfall crosses adjacent property. Have easements or agreements been made to allow for this outfall? Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 11 05/20/2019: FOR FINAL: I understand phasing will be proposed at final. Please contact me if you would like to discuss phasing as it relates to Stormwater certification and what might work for this project. 02/25/2019: Has any phasing of this project been considered? I encourage you to consider stormwater certification requirements early and how they will relate to the construction of this project. Typically, stormwater certification is required prior to issuance of the project's first certificate of occupancy. Please contact me to discuss how certification will work for this project. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 05/20/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please see redlines (PDF). I encourage you to contact me with any questions or to discuss any proposed revisions. Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 Information Only: A portion of this property is located in the City regulated, 100-year Canal Importation Basin floodplain. Any development within the floodplain must obtain a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Please show the proposed floodplain site improvements and CLOMR linework on the plans so that it is clear what portions of the site and buildings will be located outside of the floodplain. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Add and label the floodplain boundary on the site plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: For Approval: Add the following notes to the site plan: • This property is located within a City regulated 100-year floodplain and must comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code. • Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation. • Critical Facilities, including facilities for at-risk populations, are prohibited within the 100-year floodplain. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: Information Only: Development review checklists and permit application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal, especially the checklist for what is required in the drainage report. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 02/25/2019: Information Only: Any development within the floodplain boundary including, site work, structures, utilities, and landscaping must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. The permit for can be obtained at 12 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 05/20/2019: For Approval: Staff must be comfortable that the proposed design for the floodplain is reasonable prior to hearing. Please submit the preliminary floodplain modeling and mapping for review. The HEC-RAS output text is not necessary or useful in the drainage report appendix and can be removed. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 05/08/2019: For Final: Will look for Erosion Control Report at final. 02/21/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/21/2019 05/08/2019: For Final: Will look for Erosion Control Escrow at final. 02/21/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR APPROVAL: I understand the proposed hydrant has been revised to a wall hydrant. I am currently working with PFA to determine if this will meet their requirements for the area and if a maintenance agreement (part of development agreement) will be required for this wall hydrant. 02/25/2019: There are concerns with the proposed hydrant on the north side of the site and making this a public hydrant. As currently proposed, this hydrant would be private. The location internal to the site is not along a drivable path for access/maintenance and there are concerns with flushing maintenance in this location. Is the hydrant required at this location or is there potential for relocation? Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Water meter placement is pending further discussion/utility coordination - currently scheduled to be discussed 5/22. 02/25/2019: Water meters and wastewater separators are typically required to be located outside the utility easement. Please relocate accordingly. (see redlines) Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR FINAL: Thank you for confirming this information will be provided at final. 02/25/2019: The water services and meters for this project site will need to be 13 sized based on the AWWA M22 manual design procedure. A sizing justification letter that includes demand calculations for maximum flows and estimated continuous flows will need to be provided as a part of the final submittal package for this project. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 05/20/2019: FOR FINAL: I understand the fire services will serve multiple buildings. Please see redlines requesting clarification. Covenant agreement will be required prior to approval. 02/25/2019: It is unclear if fire services will serve multiple buildings. While separate services are shown in this submittal, the comment response letter says that one fire pump is anticipated. If multiple buildings are to be served, the plans will need to clearly show the configuration and a covenant agreement will be required. Please clarify what is proposed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 05/20/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please see redlines (PDF). I encourage you to contact me with any questions or to discuss any proposed revisions. Department: Environmental Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Because the exterior trash and recycling enclosure is over 6ft tall it will require a separate building permit. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR APPROVAL: All enclosures and staging areas are required to provide methods to protect the interior walls from being damaged by dumpsters. Common methods include metal framing, bollards, angle iron/curbing. Curbing and bollards are labeled on the interior trash and recycling rooms, but not on the exterior enclosure. Please make sure methods of protection are provided and labeled on the plan enlargement for the exterior enclosure. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR APPROVAL: A label is provided for an interior trash and recycling room for the Newman Center, but no plan enlargement is provided. Please provide a plan enlargement as done for the others and label the "bin management zone". Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR APPROVAL: All trash and recycling bin management zones as labeled must be concrete, free of obstacles, curbs, etc. that would prohibit them from wheeling freely. Maximum allowable grade for these paths is 5% directionally and 2% cross slope. Please label grades along with each path. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: It is recommended to add additional containers to the following buildings to help with capacity/service frequency for trash and recycling. The allotted room sizes should work fine with the additional containers and pedestrian circulation, but it is encouraged to test fit the 14 following configurations to avoid issues down the road. - Add 1 trash dumpster to building A - Add 1 trash, 1 recycle dumpster to Building B - Add 1 trash, 1 recycle dumpster to Building C Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: While compactors are not being considered for trash and recycling at this time it is strongly encouraged to provide 3 phase power or adequate conduit to all trash and recycling rooms for future expansion. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR INFORMATION: City staff have reviewed your response to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and feel modifications to the residence have minimized exposure to potential contaminants. No further action needed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR PDP: Please ensure all lighting fixtures, including bollards, are down-directional and fully shielded. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR PDP: Maximum on-site lighting levels shall not exceed 10 foot candles except for loading and unloading platforms where the maximum lighting level shall be 20 foot candles. The City encourages foot candles to be within the range of acceptable standards (min-max) instead of at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR PDP: Please remove the monument sign from the photometric plan. Once Final Development Plans are approved, the sign and its lighting will be subject for review. Please note, the sign's lighting will have to adhere to the same lighting standards in 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: FOR PDP: Private light fixtures cannot be located within a utility easement without prior approval from the utility company. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 5/20/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Continued: The demolition plan and tree inventory plan still do not match. Please reference Forestry redlines to view these changes. 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please ensure that the demolition plan (utility plan – sheets C100 and C101) 15 matches the tree retention and tree removal plans. There appear to be some trees shown to remain on this sheet that are planned to be removed. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 5/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: There appear to be a few utility/tree conflicts. Please refer to Forestry redlines on the Landscape Plan set. - Are transformer locations existing or proposed? - Some street trees shown less than 4 ft from gas line. 8/21/2018: Please include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please adjust street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 5/20/2019: PREFERED PRIOR TO HEARING, OKAY AT FIRST ROUND FDP Continued: Plant labels and quantities must be shown no later than first round FDP. Forestry staff prefers to review species quantities, diversity percentages, species location and placement, and mitigation tree locations at this stage (PDP) and the earlier you can provide the specific species selection in terms of location and quantities, the sooner we can begin coordinating changes. Typically species selection and location takes several rounds of review to get through the changes, but since you are showing typical locations of shade and ornamental trees that is okay for now. At FDP, please provide direct labels to species symbols. If there is room, please provide the plant list on each sheet. In the plant list, please note that species diversity percentages should originate from the total number of trees proposed on-site. Please do not break up percentages amongst tree category (shade, ornamental, evergreen). Please denote which trees are mitigation trees in the plant list and show with a bolded M next to the symbol on the landscape plans. 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please directly label tree and plant species and provide quantities of each in the plant list. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 5/20/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Continued: Details were not included on the site plan as stated by the applicant. It seems to make more sense to provide these details on the landscape plan instead of the site plan. In addition, the critical root zones were not provided with the exhibits on the grading plan. In all three cases the grading encroaches the critical root zone significantly. Is there room to play with the drive width and lessen grade 16 changes around these trees? Also shown on the grading plan are landscape walls, but no details were provided to understand what these will look like. Prior to hearing, City Forestry would like to understand how the project will minimize grading impacts around these three trees without the use of landscape walls circling the entire tree. 2/25/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Please provide a grading detail for trees #24, 26, and 28. Minimal to no grading shall occur within the critical root zones of each tree: Tree 24: Critical Root Zone = 11 feet radius around tree Tree 26: Critical Root Zone = 12.5 feet radius around tree Tree 28: Critical Root Zone = 11.5 feet radius around tree – is it possible to narrow the sidewalk around this tree to minimize potential root impacts? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 5/20/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING Continued from previous comment #5: Thank you for providing the Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. In this letter, please update to provide more descriptive justifications for each individual tree removal (example: how does the grade impact the tree (be specific), if a tree is close to but not within the building footprint please explain the need for removal, etc). Please refer to Forestry redlines (sheet 1 of the EXISTING TREE INVENTORY PLAN) – there appear to be several groupings of trees and individual trees that are in locations free of development that could be preserved with careful planning. If retention is not possible for any of these trees, please be sure to provide justification for removal in the existing tree removal feasibility letter. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 5/20/2019:FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please provide an update regarding the status of transplanting trees on and off-site. There was interest from City of Fort Collins Natural Areas to transplant trees onto one of their properties to act as a wind break. I reached out to Jason Messaros about the potential to collaborate this transplanting with Natural Areas, but never received a response. It has also been mentioned that some trees might be transplanted off-site to other Archdiocese locations. Is this still the case? If so, we will need to determine a way to track off-site transplanting in terms of date of transplant, location, and potentially success. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 5/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please consider incorporating the existing Living Tribute Trees on-site into this design, either through retention or transplanting. Show trees to be transplanted in the tree inventory table and label transplanted trees with a bolded “T”. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 5/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued from previous comment #7: In lieu of showing “total possible mitigation” please only show the total mitigation required based on the number of trees planned to be removed. The way it is shown currently is confusing. Please change “ANTICIPATED MITIGATION” to “MITIGATION PROVIDED ON-SITE”. Once final transplant numbers are 17 determined, please provide a table on this sheet that outlines the following: EXISTING TREES ON-SITE - ## EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED - ## EXISTING TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED ON-SITE - ## EXISTING TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED OFF-SITE - ## TOTAL REQUIRED MITIGATION - ## MITIGATION PROVIDED ON-SITE - ## MITIGATION PROVIDED OFF-SITE - ## Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/20/2019 5/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please include Southwestern White Pine in the species list. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970-416-2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 BY HEARING: 05/21/2019: Please see redlines for rerouting of the existing electrical line in the western portion of the project. 02/25/2019: There are existing electrical lines running between the old gas station and the existing parking lot. There are also electric lines running north south through the east portion of the property. These electric lines will need to be relocated within an easement to maintain a connection. Please see redlines for these locations and show them on the plans within easements. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 BY HEARING: 05/21/2019: Please see redlines for potential routing of the electric line internal to the project. Please ensure all minimum spacing is achieved and all internal electric lines are within a dedicated easement. 02/25/2019: Please show proposed electric routing through the site to ensure minimum utility spacing is being met. A minimum of 10 feet separation is required between all water, sewer and storm water facilities. A minimum of 3 feet is required between natural gas. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: 02/25/2019: The services to each building will be a commercial service; therefore, the applicant will be responsible for installing the secondary service and will own and maintain each service. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: 02/25/2019: Streetlights will need to follow City of Fort Collins Street Light Standards. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting 18 requirements can be found below: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/ch15_2007.pdf Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: 05/21/2019: Please show the meter locations on the Utility Plan. 02/25/2019: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: 05/21/2019: The Utility Plans are proposing for a couple of the existing vaults to be relocated along University. We should have further discussions regarding these relocations, as this could add significant cost to the overall project. 02/25/2019: If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within a dedicated easement. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR HEARING: 05/21/2019: The response to the number of transformers indicated that a total of 7 transformers will be required for the student housing portion of the project. Please show those transformers on the plans to ensure adequate spacing and clearance from building openings. Please refer to our Service Standards for requirements. 02/25/2019: It appears that there is a separate transformer for each building, which seems adequate from a loading standpoint, but please note we are limited to 12 secondary runs out of the transformer. If you exceed 12 secondary runs, than an additional transformer will be needed. Please provide preliminary power requirements once known. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR FINAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: 19 Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: Please document the existing panel sizes on existing building within the project prior to demolition to receive credits on capacity fees. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2019 FOR INFORMATION: Please contact Cody Snowdon with Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2306. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric services standards, and fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 05/17/2019: INFORMATION ONLY-UPDATED: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 02/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 05/17/2019: FOR APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. 02/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Department: Building Services Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2019 20 05/09/2019: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments 2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): * 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or * Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado Risk Category I: 130mph (Ultimate) exposure B Risk Category III & IV: 150mph (Ultimate) exposure B Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2018 IRC Chapter 11 or 2018 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2018 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2018 IECC commercial chapter.