HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOTEL (DOWNTOWN HOTEL) - FDP - FDP150033 - CORRESPONDENCE -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 23, 2015
Stu Macmillan
Bohemian Companies
262 E. Mountain Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Fort Collins Hotel (Downtown Hotel), FDP150033, Round Number 1
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/20/2015: Question:
Why are the LID pavers proposed in parking spaces instead of drive aisles? It
seems like the aesthetic quality of the pavers would better serve the project without
vehicles parked on them.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Landscape Plans
10/20/2015: Please discuss the note about further evaluation of the seatwall finish.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: No cover page is necessary for the landscape plan. The site plan cover
will serve as the signature cover for all planning docs except the plat.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Site Plan
10/20/2015: Please change signature block from "CDNS Director" to "Planning
Manager".
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please add note to "proposed on site vehicle parking count" section
that reads "Approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 10, 2015"
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please show the enclosed bike parking on the site plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Department: Engineering Development Review
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.
Page 1 of 11
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/21/2015: {With further discussion on this comment, this is reaffirming that the
concern of adding additional flows to the south side of Chestnut Street needs to be
mitigated with the flowline curb and gutter of the south side of Chestnut Street being
substandard. There may be options that could minimize the amount of work on the
south side, including providing an inlet that ties into the storm line within Chestnut
Street.} Existing Chestnut Street appears to have a crowned roadway throughout its
existing condition. The flow arrows on the grading plan show that centerline crown
appears to be going away west of the alley until the right turn onto Walnut Street,
with sheet flow of drainage from the sidewalk/hotel entrance and drop off, across to
the south side of Chestnut Street. In general, I'm wondering why the centerline
crowned roadway isn't being maintained throughout and what are the implications
with introducing a larger area draining onto the south side of Chestnut Street.
Existing flowline shown on the south side of Chestnut Street appears to indicate that
there's a low spot in this area that doesn't drain. Changing the Chestnut Street
cross section in this area from a centerline crowned street to a section that all
slopes to the south (including from outside of the roadway) would need to discussed
further and require a variance request for evaluation.
Comment Number: 200 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: The amount of drainage concern referenced in the previous comment
could appear to be slightly reduced by maintaining a gutter pan across the entrance
and exit of the hotel entrance/drop-off. Please look at providing a pan that connects
the flowline
Comment Number: 210 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: Please provide cross sections of Chestnut Street showing existing and
proposed cross-sections to gain a better understanding on the amount of
reconstruct and reshaping of the roadway is being proposed. 50 foot intervals would
be beneficial.
Comment Number: 220 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: Why can't the 10" RCP roof drain on Walnut Street not utilize the
sidewalk/right-of-way and remain on private property, tying into the trench drain in
the same manner as the design depicted along Chestnut Street?
Comment Number: 230 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: {This comment has been updated} A flowline design with
corresponding edge of alley pavement information for Old Firehouse Alley needs to
be provided on the civil plans. Public utilities and also the trench drain design needs
to be on the civil plans. Has it been confirmed that the DDA is establishing
maintenance responsibilities for the alley in the same manner as Old Firehouse
Alley to the north?
Comment Number: 240 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: There should be additional information shown as to how the proposed
alley work will tie into the existing to the north. Does the alley improvement match
the existing asphalt width to the north, show existing buildings, drive edge of
pavement widths tying into the alley on both the west and east side, etc.
Comment Number: 250 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Page 2 of 11
10/21/2015: {This comment won't be actively pursued but kept in as reference, with
the understanding that the alley is to be privately maintained by the developer (or
DDA) through an encroachment permit.} The presumed paver design for the alley
should be using concrete banding along the west and east sides of the alley for the
pavers to abut and is not depicted on the plans, I'm presuming the concrete banding
widths used for Old Firehouse Alley to the north would be sufficient. With the pavers
not being depicted to continue up to Linden Street, a concrete edge should also be
provided at the limits of the pavers to the north. This concrete section may need to
be wider than the width provided along the east and west sides, as the switch from
existing asphalt to pavers here will be with more vehicular traffic. I will need to
inquire on suggestions for how to address this change of interface.
Comment Number: 260 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: {This comment won't be actively pursued but kept in as reference, with
the understanding that the alley is to be privately maintained by the developer (or
DDA) through an encroachment permit. The civil plans do not need to have design
for the alley that pertain to the encroachment aspect of the alley work (pavers,
lighting, etc.)} The civil and site/landscape plans aren't in sync with depicting the
alley design, as the paver sizes are different and the landscape plan appears to be
depicting different paver types or colors based on lineweight and additional
lines/bands across the alley that I'm not sure what they represent. I do now notice
the alley cross section detail on the landscape plan and concrete header detail for
the east and west sides of the alley referenced in the previous comment. The 6 inch
width for the concrete header seems narrow, as the Old Firehouse Alley concrete
header appears to be 12 inches. The alley construction details should be provided
on the civil plans and not in the landscape plans. The concrete depth of 5" below the
pavers shown I don't believe we'd support as 6" in or minimum sidewalk depth.
Comment Number: 270 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: The access ramps on both sides of Chestnut Street at Jefferson Street
not being brought closer together up to the Chestnut Street travel lane seems
awkward, combined with how gutter pan/flowline drainage is designed in this area.
Further information/discussion on options for these areas should be pursued. Is a
10.9% flowline grade really occurring on the western side?
Comment Number: 280 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: There is one depicted sidewalk cross-slope along Walnut Street that
exceeds the required 2% max (shown as 4.4%) and would need to be adjusted. Are
there other areas not meeting 2%?
Comment Number: 290 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Topic: General
10/21/2015: How will the approval of the plans, plat, and development agreement be
envisioned with the approved PDP for both the hotel/parking lot and hotel/parking
garage?
Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: A response to the pork chop comment indicated that the TIS for the
surface lot does not warrant a right turn lane and that the plans will be revised to not
show a right turn on Jefferson. In discussing this with Martina, the City is still
requiring as previously commented: "we'll want to see that no parking is indicated
along Jefferson Street from just past the tree (in front of the depicted SU-40 vehicle)
to the intersection. This won't technically serve as a turn lane, but will aid in turning
movements for the areas."
Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Page 3 of 11
10/21/2015: The area shown as proposed sidewalk along the north side of the
parking lot aligns with the existing driveway out to Jefferson Street. Understanding
the recent input that the driveway is to remain open, wouldn't the drawings need to
be modified accordingly, with the removal of the planter area, street tree on
Jefferson Street and the concrete wall, as well as the site and landscape plans
showing the driveway? Is it understood, and any concern that the identified 7 foot
wide sidewalk will be driven on for a portion of it, for the access off Jefferson Street?
Please have all the plans show the existing infrastructure to the north (parking lot,
existing paving, existing buildings, etc.) identified to understand how the proposed
infrastructure will tie into the existing context. Truncated dome detection should be
provided on either side of the driveway, and in general the driveway itself I don't
believe has a 2% cross slope max for the sidewalk crossing, with the six inch drop
for the curb removal. The driveway would likely need to be rebuilt for ADA
compliance.
Comment Number: 120 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: The site and landscape plans do not reflect the truncated dome access
ramp detection required at the Walnut/Chestnut. There is a proposed (subject to
encroachment permit) concrete planter/seatwall that would be within the ramp area
and a landscape uplight that's abutting it. Their location is awkward and I believe
should be realigned out of the center of the access ramp movement.
Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: With the two handicap stalls along Chestnut Street, why isn't there
reflected an accessible ADA/City compliant access ramp between them, connecting
to the Chestnut Street sidewalk?
Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: {This comment has been updated, removing the reference to the water
meter.} Rob Mosbey indicated that the major encroachment permit information has
been forwarded "up the line" for City Manager review with input forthcoming.
Comment Number: 150 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Topic: Plat
10/21/2015: The name on the plat being Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision is confusing
as it doesn't coincide with the site, landscape, and civil drawings, making
cross-referencing awkward for future reference. Please look to have the title of the
plans be the same across all documents (either Downtown Fort Collins Hotel, or
Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision).
Comment Number: 300 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: The 3 foot wide emergency access easement shown dedicated on the
east side of the alley would also need to be an access easement. However, I think
that this emergency access/access easement would only be needed in the parking
garage scenario as the alley is only widened outside of the right-of-way in the
parking garage scenario, but remains fully in the alley right-of-way in the parking lot
scenario.
Comment Number: 310 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 4 of 11
10/21/2015: A conceptual plan has been submitted that explores retention of existing
trees number 12 and 13. Provide information on feasibility of moving the drive
around 5-6 feet away from the trees with a retaining wall. The conceptual indicates
moving the drive around 14 feet from the trees. Also evaluate feasibility of retaining
existing tree number 17. The location of this tree is currently shown in the proposed
sidewalk. Provide information on feasibility of retaining tree number 17.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Katie Dorn, , kdorn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 5 of 11
10/20/2015:
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the
approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or
potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall
receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the
Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the
Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project.
1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the
Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark
District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory
Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins
historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent to properties that have been officially
determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation.
2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation
Commission reviewed the development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and
as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts:
That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding
historic context for the following reasons:
a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like
adjacent historic buildings.
b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step-backs to mitigate height,
relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block.
c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are
compatible with adjacent historic properties.
d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent
historic context.
e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with
the historic context.
3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants’
request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building’s height and
setback, specifically: Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four
stories or 56 feet; and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35
degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and
the property line.
4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following
motion on a vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend
to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the
development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut
and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 6 of 11
10/21/2015:
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.
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.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/19/2015: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will initiate
electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power
requirements with Light and Power Engineering at 221-6700.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2015
Page 7 of 11
10/19/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use
our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2015
10/21/2015: Light & Power has 3-phase electric facilities in this area for both of the
existing addresses. System modification and capacity charges may apply.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
10/21/2015: If the plan is to move forward with the parking garage option, two
separate C-1 forms and one-line diagrams will be required.
The C-1 form can be found at:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
10/20/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
PFA and the project team have both acknowledged that the site plan does not
provide minimum fire access for aerial apparatus as required by code. Although the
building does not meet the definition of a high rise, access limitations, due to site
constraints, create a situation similar in nature to that of a high rise. The PFA will
continue to work with the project team to meet the intent of the fire code through
alternative means of compliance in order to offset code deficiencies. PFA advises
the project team to consider high rise provisions in future discussions.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: ALLEY LIGHTING
The alley shows string lighting to be located above 14' in height. This is acceptable.
The single globe, traditional pole mounted lights are shown at 12' in height. The fire
marshal is requiring the cross bars to be elevated to a minimum of 13'6"
(IFC503.2.1).
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
10/20/2015: Please complete variance request for 6" of freeboard (rather than 12")
and include this request in the drainage report.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please expand on the LID Summary Table provided to include a
breakdown of the area that is treated by each LID feature. Please show for each
paver section and rain garden.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: If the parking garage alternative is approved and the proposed parking
lot is not built, how will the proposed hotel meet the LID requirements?
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please eliminate Appendix C.1 to avoid any potential confusion
between details shown in the report and the plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Page 8 of 11
10/20/2015: Please show that the pipe from the proposed inlet to the existing
infrastructure has sufficient capacity for the proposed flow.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Easements
10/20/2015: Please provide drainage easements for the proposed rain gardens.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: General
10/20/2015: Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/22/2015: Removing the crown from Chestnut in front of the entrance will
increase the stormwater flows across the street to the SE curb and gutter on
Chestnut. Please show that curb and gutter has adequate conveyance to handle
the proposed flow and the downstream inlet can also handle the flow.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2015
Topic: Site Plan
10/20/2015: The site plan currently shows an "asphalt pavement" parking lot.
Please update the plan to show features such as permeable pavers and rain
gardens.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
10/05/2015: 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. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (Not
Submitted in the Utilities Plans as required for the final plans), Erosion Control
Report (Not Submitted), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Not Submitted). 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
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/05/2015
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
10/20/2015: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 9 of 11
10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Lighting Plan
10/20/2015: No comments.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Plat
10/20/2015: The permanent Plat name will need to be decided on before mylar. It
needs to be chosen by the next round of review. We will need to approve the name,
before the mylars can be produced.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please change "Parcel" to "Lot", and remove the "Parcel 3" label. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please increase text sizes for the street names & dedication
information. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Topic: Site Plan
10/20/2015: Please add sheet LS503 to the sheet index. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please add a legal description for the project property. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/07/2015: redlines provided to engineering.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2015
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/15/2015: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City
of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If
you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 10 of 11
10/20/2015: Please show that the proposed grease trap is connected to sewer
service.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/20/2015: Please show slope on the proposed sewer service.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
10/22/2015: Please add a call out to the existing manhole west of the alley that is
said to have sewer, water and stormwater running thru it. The City is unsure of the
status of these lines and would like to have coordination at time of construction with
Water Field Operations at 970-221-6700.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2015
Topic: Landscape Plans
10/20/2015: The landscape plans do list separation requirements; however, it
appears that these requirements are not met in all locations. Please review to be
sure that proper separations are provided.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015
Page 11 of 11