Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE STANDARD AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP160035 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW 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 September 01, 2016 Linda Ripley Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: The Standard - Preliminary Design Review, PDR160011, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. RESPONSES 10/19/16 Civil- Northern Engineering Planning- Ripley Design Architecture- Dwell Design Studio Traffic- Delich Associates Lighting- APS Developer – Landmark Properties Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please 2 see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Fee has been submitted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary or required by the City for this project. Most easements to be dedicated need to be public easements dedicated to the City. This shall including the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind the right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all other street classifications). Prospect road is considered an arterial roadway. Information on the dedication process can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php. Response: Twenty-One feet of additional ROW is proposed to be dedicated along Prospect Road. It is also proposed to provide a 15’ Utility Easement along Prospect Road and a 9’ Utility Easement along Lake. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: In accordance with Section 24-95 of the City Code, the Developer is responsible for constructing the local portion of public streets adjacent to the Property prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Per the West Central Area Plan, 10’ detached shared bike/ped walk will be required along the north of Prospect Road and an 8’ attached walk will be required along the south of Lake Street. Please see the following link to the West Central Area Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/west-area-plan.php Response: A 10’ sidewalk is proposed along Prospect Road and an 8’ sidewalk is proposed along Lake Street Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Street trees along Prospect Road will need to be planted in the ultimate location. The West Central Area Plan calls for the curb line on the north side of Prospect Road to move north. The plan calls for 6’ parkways. At the moment, there is no timeline for the full implementation of Prospect Road to 3 move the curb line. A payment in lieu will be collected for the local street portion along Prospect Road. Response: Street trees are now shown centered in the ultimate parkway area. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: The access shown on Prospect Road does not meet minimum driveway spacing requirements. If an access on Prospect Road is desired, this development will need to coordinate with the project to the east, known as the Slab Property. The access will need to be consolidated on either this site or on the Slab Property site. Offsite access easements will need to be obtained if an offsite access is desired. A full movement access will not be allowed onto Prospect Road. Response: The access drives from Propsect Road are proposed as Emergency Access only. There are currently no public vehicular access points from Prospect Road proposed with this project. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: The roadway connecting Prospect Road and Lake Street will need to be private and will not be owned or maintain by the City. No public alleys will be allowed with this project. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Civil construction plans will be required. A Development Agreement will be required recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: As of January 1, 2015 all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design work. Response: Plans have been prepared using the NAVD88 vertical Datum and is shown on the Cover Sheet. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: We are aware of required permitting and will be applying for all necessary permits. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. Utility coordination meetings if requested are typically scheduled after the preliminary submittal of the project, but can be scheduled prior to submittal upon request. Please provide a site plan with preliminary utility layout for routing with the meeting notice. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact the development review engineer for scheduling. Response: Utility Coordination is planned to occur through the entirety of the project. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending on parking design. Response: Currently there is no open air parking proposed with this project. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit. 4 Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to Engineering Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the development/ site storm runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street flows – the design standards for these are still in development. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. Response: Noted, no bike parking is shown within the right-of-way. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: In regards to construction of this site, the public right-of-way shall not be used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development, nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel working for or hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary Staging and/or parking needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of the Development Construction Permit application. Response: We agree with the importance of minimizing impact to public spaces and will adhere to this policy, providing off-site staging as required. Proper notification will be provided to the City. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Note Land Use Code Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)requires that to the extent reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water conservation materials and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use plants and grasses in landscaping or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native plants and wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators; songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are also encouraged. A landscape plan that includes both common and scientific names of included species is required. Plantings should include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical structure. Refer to the Fort Collins Native Plants document available online and published by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department for guidance on plants native to our CO Foothills ecotype; the link is: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf. Response: Noted. A detailed landscape plan identifying species will be provided at the time of the Final Compliance Plan submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 5 08/19/2016: Thank you for proactively meeting with City Forestry Staff on-site and submitting a tree mitigation plan. Continue working with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361) to determine mitigation requirements resulting from the proposed development. LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat;” a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. City Staff highly recommends keeping healthy, mature growth trees in place, as our urban tree canopy helps reduce energy costs in summer months, mitigates heat island effects, adds to the pedestrian environment, and provides habitat for local wildlife including songbirds and pollinators. Maintaining and enhancing the urban tree canopy aligns with City of Fort Collins Nature in the City, Climate Action Plan and City Plan goals. Response: A tree mitigation plan was provided with this submittal. All trees removed are planned to be mitigated on-site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Add the following note to the landscape plans: "All tree removal shown shall be completed outside of the songbird nesting season (Feb 1 - July 31) or a survey will be conducted prior to tree removal to ensure that no active nests are present.” Response: Added. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Please be aware that the creation or enforcement of covenants that prohibit or limit xeriscape or drought-tolerant landscapes, or that require primarily turf-grass, are prohibited by both the State of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins. Response: Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Regarding site lighting: cooler light color temperatures are harsher at night and cause disruption to circadian (biological) rhythms for both humans and wildlife. The American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) both recommend using lighting that has a corrected color temperature (CCT) of no more than 3000 degrees Kelvin in order to limit the amount of blue light in the night environment. Blue light brightens the night sky and creates more glare than any other color of light. Both LED and metal halide fixtures contain large amounts of blue light in their spectrum and exposure to blue light at night has been shown to harm human health and endanger wildlife. Use of warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for light fixtures is preferred in addition to fixtures with dimming capabilities. For further information regarding health effects please see: http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from-leds/ Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens now and generations from now. Thus, the City of Fort Collins has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit this project. Of particular interest may be the: 6 1) ClimateWise program: fcgov.com/climatewise/ 2) Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP): fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com 3) Green Building Program: fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com 4) Solar Energy: www.fcgov.com/solar, contact Norm Weaver at 970-416-2312 or nweaver@fcgov.com 5) Integrated Design Assistance Program: fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or gschroeder@fcgov.com 6) Nature in the City Strategic Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com Please consider City sustainability goals and ways this development can engage with these efforts. Let me know if I can help connect you to these programs. Response: Landmark Properties considers itself a sustainable developer and most buildings are designed to LEED standards. We are interested in pursuing the above-mentioned programs and would appreciate being connected to each of these groups to explore ways we can incorporate them into our project, to the extent feasible. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: According to LUC 3.4.7 (F)(6), depending on the details and extent of the proposed work, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services may issue a determination that the plans would not have significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of historic structures or districts. After consideration of all eligible and designated properties in the immediate vicinity, the Director has determined that the overall mass and scale of the proposed buildings and their proximity to eligible and designated properties will require further evaluation for compliance with LUC 3.4.7 by the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3.4.7(F)(6) requires the LPC to issue a recommendation of approval or denial to the decision maker. Response: The design team for The Standard made a preliminary presentation to the LPC on September 28th to present the intent and basis of this design and how it relates to properties in the vicinity including the Emma Brown/Susan Winter Home located at 720 W. Prospect Road as well as the structures located at 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive, and 730, 916 and 920 W. Prospect. At this time the properties to be considered are under review. As soon as this determination of the neighboring historic buildings that are to be specifically considered is made, the design team will meet with the LPC to further discuss compliance with LUC 3.4.7(F). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: The CDNS Director and Historic Preservation staff concur that the appropriate area of adjacency to propose for LPC consideration includes the 7 two designated properties that are directly across from the proposed Building A on W. Prospect Road in the Sheely Drive Historic District (1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive); the individually eligible Plymouth Congregational Church and associated parsonage at 916 W. Prospect Road and 920 W. Prospect Road directly west of the proposed Building A; and the individually eligible residence at 730 W. Prospect Road and the designated residence at 720 W. Prospect Road that occupy the parcel immediately southeast of the proposed five-story parking structure. After discussing the proposed properties for an area of adjacency, the LPC will formally approve the area of adjacency to which it will apply comments regarding compliance with LUC 3.4.7 only after a formal development proposal is on file and brought forth for consideration by the LPC. Response: The applicant’s investigation indicates that there is only one structure to be considered in the evaluation of The Standard’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7(F): the Emma Brown/Susan Winter Home located at 720 W. Prospect Road. This structure qualifies for consideration pursuant to LUC 3.4.7(F)(1) because it is located on the same block face as The Standard and because it has been officially designated as a local landmark. The applicant respectfully suggests that the remaining five structures listed by Historic Preservation staff do not fall within the provisions of 3.4.7(F)(1). The structures located at 730, 916 and 920 W. Prospect, while on the same block face as The Standard, do not qualify as historic structures because they are not located in an historic district, are not designated as landmarks and have not been determined to be either eligible or potentially eligible for landmark designation in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code as required by LUC Section 3.4.7 (C). The structures located at 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive qualify as historic structures because they are both officially designated as local landmarks, however, they are not “across a local or collector street” from the block face on which The Standard is located as required by LUC 3.4.7(F)(1), but are instead across a four lane arterial street from The Standard. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: Several other buildings were evaluated and eliminated from staff recommendation for the area of adjacency. The site of this proposed project contains buildings that are 50 years old or older, which required evaluation of the impact of the development on any designated or eligible properties. The buildings located at 820, 828, 832, 836, and 900 West Prospect Road were reviewed by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair. None are already designated as landmarks and none were determined to be individually eligible for designation and therefore they are not part of the area of adjacency. There are two additional properties 50 years old or older on W. Prospect Road directly across from Building A, 817 and 819 W. Prospect Road, that are not part of the Sheely Drive Historic District. Both were determined not to be eligible for individual designation and this will not be part of the area of adjacency. Finally, the nine properties in the Sheely Drive Historic District that are not directly across from Building A on W. Prospect Road are not part of staff recommendation for the area of adjacency. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: The applicant is currently on the agenda for the September 28 and October 26, 2016 meetings of the LPC. The LPC will provide a written recommendation only after the applicant has a formal application on file with the 8 City and the details of the proposal are unlikely to change significantly in terms of architectural design and site plan. Because the LPC’s recommendation of approval or denial to the decision maker is a recommendation based on the expertise of the commission rather than a decision, it is not subject to appeal. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: Materials for the September 28 conceptual discussion with LPC are due by close of business on Monday, September 19. In general, the applicant should include an updated site plan, building elevations and perspective drawings that accurately reflect the relative scale of the buildings to the proposed area of adjacency and other existing and proposed structures in the immediate vicinity. Building dimensions should be included on elevations. Early presentation of material and product details, including sample boards and cut sheets, contribute to a productive process and are typically requested before final recommendation. Applicants are encouraged to make direct reference to compliance with LUC 3.4.7 and the West Central Area Plan in the presentation. Presentation slides that include detailed illustrations of building elements, design choices, and material considerations are important enhancements that will facilitate the discussion with the LPC. Response: The design team provided the suggested presentation material and the LPC considered the project at a work session on September 28th. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/26/2016 08/26/2016: Historic Preservation staff recognizes that the applicant has already made initial changes to the proposed building design such as the low sloping roof lines and palette alterations that acknowledge the importance of the character and design of adjacent eligible or designated midcentury buildings and the application of LUC 3.4.7(F) requirements. When the applicant provides the presentation materials required for the September 28 hearing, staff will prepare comments for the LPC staff report regarding how the proposal as of that date complies with 3.4.7(F) and will provide suggestions for increasing compatibility as appropriate to guide the discussion with the LPC. This staff report will be included in the LPC agenda packet, which will be posted on the City’s website on Friday, September 23. Response: The Staff Report was received. Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new 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. Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com 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, 9 square footage and type of construction being proposed. Response: On July 28, 2016, The Standard design team had a preliminary meeting with Russ Hovland, Plans Examiner, to discuss the schematic building plans, design intent and review applicable codes/building standards for the project. It was at this meeting that Russ informed our team that this meeting would serve as the Pre-Submittal meeting for the project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: Adoption of the 2015 I-Codes is anticipated for January 2017. Be advised that permit applications submitted after the code adoption date will be subject to the new codes and standards, as amended. For more information, contact Sarah Carter, Plans Examiner at 970-416-2748 or scarter@fcgov.com. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 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/building 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. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. The project will be permitted after January 1, 2017 and we anticipate complying with the 2015 I-Codes as amended, once they are adopted. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Light & Power has single phase available along the north side of Prospect Rd. 3-phase primary is available along Lake St. Response: Acknowledged. 10 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will initiate electric system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light and Power Engineering at 221-6700. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: Multi family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: The design team understands and has reviewed the C1 form. We will fill out this form and provide to the Light & Power Engineer prior to the next submission. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: As your project begins to move forward please contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the streetlight, transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. It is preferred to have gas meters and electric meters on opposite sides of buildings. Gang meters shall be ganged. Transformers shall be 10' from a paved surface and must have a minimum of 3' clearance around the back and sides and a minimum of an 8' clearance from the front. Response: A meeting will be held once preliminary locations have been proposed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/19/2016 08/19/2016: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_17June2016.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: 2015 IFC CODE ADOPTION The project team acknowledges that Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins are in the process of adopting the 2015 International Fire Code. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/26/2016: FIRE MARSHAL CONCERNS The project was introduced to Fire Marshal Bob Poncelow, following the city 11 staff review meeting on 08/24/2016. The fire marshal has considered the overall size and scope of the proposed project and believes there remain unsolved issues arising from the complexity of this dense, multi-family project and overall lack of accessibility, not just in terms of aerial apparatus access to 5-story buildings but also general perimeter access to all portions of the building exteriors. He noted the lack of connectivity within this site and between the adjoining properties currently being developed and is asking the project team to rethink their plan. The following fire department comments reflect his concerns and further discussion will be required. Response: The design team has met with Jim Lynxwiler to review and respond to the Fire Marshal’s concerns (see responses to items below). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS At least two fire lanes meeting minimum specifications will be required for this development. Code language provided below. > IFC D106.2: Multiple-family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS Where required, a fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. > Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. > Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height. Refer to Appendix D of the 2012 IFC or contact PFA for details. International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. 12 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: FIRE ACCESS GENERAL SITE ACCESS: General site access is currently proposed from Lake St only, with a secondary "Emergency Access Only" drive connection to Prospect. The primary access route is intended to always be available. Otherwise, the secondary point of access needs to be designed to an equal or better standard as the primary access point. The fire marshal would like to know if there have been any discussions with CSU to determine just how Lake Street will be blocked or otherwise access controlled during game day traffic to stadium events? This has potential to create a large impact on the ability to provide emergency services to the complex in a timely and effective manner during those times. > The fire marshal would like the project team to further explore options for increased connectivity with the adjoining developments surrounding "The Standard." One or more E/W connections seem possible and could likely be beneficial to all adjoining sites, project developers, and end users. Connecting the proposed fire lane on the west side of "The Standard" with the hammerhead to the north (at Lake St Apts) and connecting the E/W fire lane stub on the north side of "The Standard" with the dead-end fire lane to the west (at Lake St Apts) are two suggestions. A connection to the east with "The Slab" is also highly recommended. > The fire lane on the north side of "The Standard" appears to be in conflict with a proposed loading zone. The two uses should not functionally overlap and a solution to the problem will need to be flushed out during the development review process. > As Building A is essentially landlocked, except for the proposed "Emergency Access Only" connection onto Prospect Rd, Building A will need to provide for a common use, off-street staging area for fire apparatus, ambulance, or PD responding to typical emergency calls at this location without causing further congestion at this site. At this time, it is unclear if this same need at Building B can be met on Lake Street or if a similar staging area shall be provided off-street for this location as well. Response: The design team is currently reviewing the controlled access plans as designed by CSU for game days. Once the final intent is determined, we will review how this plan affects our site. We are in discussions with Lake Street Apartments regarding the N/S and E/W connections into their site as recommended by the fire marshal. Also, we are looking into a 30’ shared fire access with Lake Street Apartments that would be located east of their building and west of our Building B. This shared access has the potential of allowing for aerial apparatus access to 5-story portions of both projects. The design team has decided not to pursue an agreement with The Slab, as that project is further in the design approval process, and this would create a hardship for that development. The current plan reflects the relocated loading zone of moving the loading zone so it does not occur at the same location as Emergency Access or obstruct fire truck maneuvering on site. PERIMETER FIRE ACCESS: The proposed plan does not provide perimeter access to all portions of either Buildings A or B. While credit is given for sprinklered buildings (IFC 503.1.1), portions of Building A remain approximately 240 feet out of access while 13 Building B remains approximately 270 feet out of access. The fire marshal feels that neither condition is acceptable, especially given that no portion of either building currently provides aerial apparatus access at any point. See also, next comment on Aerial Fire Apparatus Access. Response: The design team has provided fire access lanes along the East, West, and North corner of Building A. Fire access lanes have also been provided along the North and West sides of Building B, with the city designated fire access lane that neighbors Building B to the East. Each lane is designed to allow for a 150’ pull distance to reach other portions of the building. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: The project team has acknowledged the current site plan does not provide for aerial fire apparatus access as specified by Appendix D105 of the 2015 IFC. Per the fire marshal, some means of aerial apparatus access shall be made available at an approved location for each building. This may require widening the central N/S drive to 26' in width with approved setbacks. As the site will not meet aerial apparatus access via the prescriptive measure of the code, a plan for meeting the intent of the code via alternative means of compliance will be expected. The project team has provided a preliminary proposal however further discussions on this point are warranted. See also, next comment regarding Alternative Means of Compliance. Response: Due to the lack of aerial apparatus access, the design team has decided to proceed with the alternative means of compliance in lieu of the required fire apparatus access. Both buildings will be designed to meet High-Rise requirements, by definition of the IBC-Section 403. We are proposing to implement the following: We will provide a fire control room in both buildings All stairs will go to the roof and they will be equipped with a stand pipe All stairs to be designed to accommodate an area of refuge All stairs and elevators will be pressurized All courtyards will be equipped with wall hydrants Finally, we are proposing additional emergency systems. The detection, alarm and emergency systems will be designed to comply with IBC Sections 403.4.1 through 403.4.4, from Section 403: High Rise Buildings of the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). The Building Smoke Detection System will be designed in accordance with Section 907.2.13.1. The Fire alarm system will be designed in accordance with Section 907.2.13. The building will be designed with a standpipe system in accordance with Section 905.3. The Emergency voice/alarm communication system will be designed in accordance with Section 907.5.2.2. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE Due to lack of aerial apparatus access, the project team has proposed a preliminary concept for meeting the intent of the fire code via alternative means of compliance. This proposal provides a good starting point for discussion, but as it is likely that the site plan may be revised in conjunction with these and other city comments, it may be appropriate to tie this discussion to the overall site plan at a later date. Feel free to contact me to discuss this further or schedule a consultation. Code language provided below to assist with site planning. Response: The design team has decided to proceed with the alternative means of compliance in lieu of the required fire apparatus access. Both buildings will be designed to meet High-Rise requirements, by definition of the IBC-Section 403. We are proposing to implement the following: We will provide a fire control room in both buildings 14 All stairs will go to the roof and they will be equipped with a stand pipe All stairs to be designed to accommodate an area of refuge All stairs and elevators will be pressurized All courtyards will be equipped with wall hydrants Finally, we are proposing additional emergency systems. The detection, alarm and emergency systems will be designed to comply with IBC Sections 403.4.1 through 403.4.4, from Section 403: High Rise Buildings of the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). The Building Smoke Detection System will be designed in accordance with Section 907.2.13.1. The Fire alarm system will be designed in accordance with Section 907.2.13. The building will be designed with a standpipe system in accordance with Section 905.3. The Emergency voice/alarm communication system will be designed in accordance with Section 907.5.2.2. WHERE REQUIRED > IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. WIDTH > IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Due to the lack of aerial apparatus access, the design team has decided to proceed with the alternative means of compliance and therefore are designing both buildings to meet High-Rise requirements, by definition of the IBC-Section 403. PROXIMITY TO BUILDING > IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Due to the lack of aerial apparatus access, the design team has decided to proceed with the alternative means of compliance and therefore are designing both buildings to meet High-Rise requirements, by definition of the IBC-Section 403. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: ROOF ACCESS In order to partially offset lack of vertical accessibility to these buildings, all stair towers may be required to extend to the roof. Response: The design team has identified stairs that extend and provide access to the roof. These stairs are indicated on the updated plans. > IFC 504.3: New buildings four or more stories above grade plane, shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.13. See also IFC 1009.16. Such stairways shall be 15 marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway Response: The design team has identified stairs that extend and provide access to the roof. These stairs are indicated on the updated plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM Both buildings will require a full NFPA-13 automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. In addition, both parking garages will require a sprinkler system (located under other occupancy groups) as will decks and balconies. Further coordination is required to locate FDC's. Code references provided below. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS > IFC 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. An automatic sprinkler system will be provided in the parking garage. BALCONIES AND DECKS > IFC 903.3.1.2.1: Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. Response: The buildings are designed to be Type III construction. FDC > IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. FDC locations will need to be carefully considered for this project as no FDC will be allowed on the south side of Building A (arterial road). Response: The design team understands and has no objections. We will place a FDC along the east and west of Building A. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM Where standpipes are located in conjunction with required roof access, the standpipe shall be extended to the roof or top, intermediate landing to assist with fire-ground operations at rooftop. > IFC Sections 905 and 913: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2012 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable 16 of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Standpipes will be provided in all stair shafts throughout both buildings. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS A hydrant will be required internal to the site to enable adequate water supply to the FDC on building A. It may be possible to locate the FDC on Building B within 100' of an existing hydrant on Lake Street; however as access to the site is already limited by one primary drive aisle, a 5" hose across Lake Street may otherwise restrict access to other responding vehicles. Further consideration of this point will be needed. Code language provided below. > IFC 507.5.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where approved by the fire code official. > IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: SECURITY GATES For planning purposes, obstruction of a fire lane with bollards, removable or otherwise is typically not allowed. Proposed gating of any fire lane shall be reviewed and approved via design plans submitted to the fire department on a case-by-case basis. Any approved gating shall be reviewed against the following criteria: > IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. > IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location. 17 7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST > IFC 510: New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - GENERAL STANDARD Details of pool chemistry, material quantities (both stored or in use) will be required at time of building permit. Code language provided below. > FCLU 3.4.5(B): If any use on the development site may entail the use or storage of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site, the project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes for the use and storage of the hazardous materials involved. Adequate precautions shall be taken to protect against negative off-site impacts of a hazardous materials release, using the best available technology. Response: Landmark is aware of the applicable compliance regulations and has prepared a Hazardous Materials Impact Statement that will be provided at the PDP. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: 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. Connections shall have hard pipe, not flex pipe. Fire pits and grills shall have a 10' separation to combustible construction and/or vegetation. This distance is measured both horizontally and vertically from the fire source. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/25/2016 08/25/2016: MISCELLANEOUS > No plan for valet trash service will be approved for either building which includes unprotected trash bags or containers to accumulate in corridors or along approved paths of egress travel. > Fire extinguishers may be allowed within individual rental units in lieu of hallway extinguishers in student housing complexes. > 1 fire pump may serve both buildings if pump and hydraulics are properly accounted for. 18 > Fire lanes shall remain unobstructed over time. Tree landscaping should be designed so as not to encroach into the fire lane and a maintenance agreement should be established to maintain the tree canopy at a minimum of 14' in height and 20' wide where it may impact the fire lane in perpetuity. < As applicable, rooftop gardens and landscaped roofs shall be shown to comply with IFC 317. < Rooftop Assembly Occupancy requirements have not been fully considered with this preliminary review and further consideration will be needed prior to final plan approval. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Trash chutes will be located in both buildings Fire extinguishers will be located within the corridors There will be 1 Fire Pump located in Building A Trees will be placed as to not obstruct the fire lanes The rooftop amenity areas and landscape roofs over the parking structure will be designed to comply with IFC 317. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: The purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans. [(Section 1.2.2(A)]. In this case, the applicable sub-area plan is the West Central Area Plan adopted in March of 2015. Response: The developer acknowledges the applicability of the West Central Area Plan and has consolidated a number of under-utilized parcels to create a higher density multi-family development, oriented to CSU students, as intended for the HMN zone and as envisioned by Land Use & Neighborhood Character chapter of the West Central Area Plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Per the West Central Area Plan: “This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While five-story buildings are allowed, the height, mass and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed-use buildings and campus-related uses as well.” Response: Also per the West Central Area Plan, the very limited HMN, which was created as a result of an earlier version of the West Central Area Plan, is expected to redevelop with a change in intensity and in accordance with the HMN zone that encourages up to five (5) story buildings to promote the efficient utilization of land and the use of alternative modes of travel. Policy 1.9 suggests Land Use Code updates to clarify compatibility requirements. Figure 7 then depicts examples of potential lot consolidations to accommodate the new development and address access, parking, setback and design strategies to assist with breaking up the overall mass of structures. Figure 7 specifically describes and depicts those strategies as “providing larger south facing courtyards and/or upper story setback” to “create a perception of a series 19 of smaller structures to improve compatibility.” Building A, Building B and the Parking structure of The Standard have been designed in accordance with the H-M-N Zone purpose as well as the specific suggestions of the West Central Area Plan. The development, although larger than others in the immediate vicinity, is located on more acreage than the adjacent developments. It is not significantly taller or denser (as measured in residential units per acre) than the surrounding proposed developments. Significant measures, derived directly from the West Central Area Plan, have been employed to break down the scale of the development. These include separating the two buildings on the site, and providing massing breaks and courtyards on W. Lake Street and W. Prospect Drive. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: The project does not include any mixed-use component. Has the design team explored options to offer ground floor space to any other use that may offer conveniences or services that may be of interest to students? The project is emblematic of urban, mid-rise, off-campus living and yet in other cities such housing is accompanied by a variety of uses. The design team is reminded that combined The Slab (70), and Lake Street Apartments (388), and The Standard (730) total of 1,188 bedrooms are proposed. Response: Approximately 1,500 sf of space that can be used as commercial space will be designated adjacent to the leasing and amenities on the ground floor of Building B along West Lake Street. Plan changes to address this comment are forthcoming per meeting with City staff on 10-18-16. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Per the West Central Area Plan: “Land Use Policy 1.9 - Neighborhood Character: The height, mass and scale of new development in the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district…should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area.” Response: The adjacent development and area context includes numerous existing and recently approved higher density student-oriented housing projects along W. Prospect Road and W. Lake Street, and the larger buildings, dormitories and stadium on the CSU Campus. Other adjacent development includes existing small and under-utilized parcels which are envisioned for significant redevelopment at HMN densities and heights, and existing neighborhoods across the 4-lane Prospect Corridor, for which compatibility and sensitivity are achieved in accordance with Figure 7. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: The project will also be reviewed by the land use and standards of the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N) zone district. The applicant is reminded that the permitted uses allowed under Article Four are to be reviewed in conjunction with not only the H-M-N zone specific standards, but also with General Development Standards of Article Three. Further, the Land Use Codes states that: “The provisions of this Land Use Code are the minimum standards necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code. (Section 1.2.4.)” “The General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the District Standards contained in Article 4 are hereby established and are declared to be minimum standards. (Section 1.3.3.)” Response: The developer acknowledges these statements in the Land Use Code. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: While the H-M-N zone allows for a maximum allowable height of five stories, and that there is no maximum residential density, the proposed project takes on an aspect of height, mass, bulk and scale that is not otherwise 20 found in either the zone district or surrounding residential area. Response: The proposed height, mass and scale of The Standard is comparable to the recently approved multi-family developments in the vicinity and existing and new construction on the CSU Campus. Taller, denser development is appropriate in this area that was purposefully zoned HMN in order to provide opportunities for student housing in close proximity to CSU. The growth trends at CSU, the market demand for more appropriate housing, and the strong local economy are all contributing to the fulfillment of City’s vision and goal for higher density development in this very limited HMN zone. These factors have not ever all been present at the same time, which explains why these types of projects are only now coming to fruition in the HMN zone district. Finally, projects of this size are not found in other nearby residential areas because such areas are zoned for other types of residential uses. The size of The Standard’s buildings is also a result of the fact that the project provides structured parking. Structured parking is the preferred method, as opposed to large surface lots, particularly in the TOD and the HMN zone, where both the efficient utilization of land and higher density development is encouraged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Based on this, staff is concerned about overall size of Building A relative to the surrounding area. In particular, staff finds portions of the south elevation lack the articulation and detail to effectively break down the mass facing Prospect Road and the larger neighborhood. The first three floors are the sides of the building featuring large blank walls that are setback only 15 feet from the property line (after dedication of right-of-way). These walls convey a fenestration pattern and overall impression of an institutional building versus a residential apartment building. The result is a hard edge that will become the face of the project as it attempts to relate to the neighborhood. The design team is strongly encouraged to explore solutions that soften Prospect Road facing elevations. Revised Building A south elevations were received after the initial P.D.R. submittal. These elevations show a greater degree of articulation and fenestration facing Prospect Road. Staff remains concerned, however, about overall mass, height, bulk and scale in relationship to Prospect Road and the residential neighborhood to the south. Response: The applicant believes that the overall mass, height, bulk and scale of Building A, with the revisions made after the initial PDR submittal, does relate well to Prospect Road (a 4-lane arterial designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor) as it has been designed in accordance with the West Central Area Plan strategies for achieving compatibility (See Figure 7). The residential neighborhood to the south is separated from The Standard by the Prospect Corridor, diminishing the impact of Building A’s height, mass and scale. In addition, please note that the residences in the Sheely neighborhood are not oriented to the north; the homes are either oriented toward Sheely Drive with views to the south and west, or are so far removed from W. Prospect is completely out of sight. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Section 3.5.1 addresses Building and Project Compatibility. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. The standard goes on to state that 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. [(Section 3.5.1(B).] Response: The Design team has developed the design for the development based on the HMN Zoning District Requirements and the specific requirements outlined the West Central Area Plan. We have also incorporated the requirements of section 3.4.7. We have attached some photos of the adjacent 21 surrounding structures and described the character defining features that have been incorporated into the design. We have made a preliminary presentation to the LPC, outlining in detail how the design team has incorporated these features from the Sheely Addition, as well as Plymouth Church and 720 and 730 W. Prospect into the exterior design of The Standard. Also attached is a birds-eye view showing the relationship of this project to surrounding buildings including Lake Street Apartments, the CSU stadium, The Slab, Plymouth Church and the Sheely neighborhood. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Section 3.5.1(C) addresses building, size, height, bulk, mass and scale and states that buildings shall be either 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. Response: Building A and Building B are larger than some other buildings on the same block face, adjacent to the project or on the opposing block face, however, they are also similar in size to other structures, e.g. The Slab and the Lake Street Apartments, and much smaller than the new stadium. To address the differences in size and height, the design team has incorporated articulation and subdivision of the buildings’ mass proportional to other structures. Section 3.5.1(C) must also be considered in the context of the design strategies contained in the West Central Area Plan, which were crafted specifically for redevelopment of multi-parcel lot consolidations in the HMN zone adjacent to W. Prospect Road and W. Lake Street. The 3-story step back along the south façade of Building A is similar in height to The Slab which is directly to the east and the scale of both Building A and Building B provide an edge to the HMN zone and a transition between the Sheely neighborhood and the CSU Campus as envisioned by the West Central Area Plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: In general, staff is concerned that the project, with two buildings and a parking structure, when evaluated in the context of the surrounding area, is challenged to comply with the broad parameters of the aforementioned standards. Response: The developer recognizes staff’s concerns and has worked to design a project that fulfills the City’s vision for the HMN zone and the West Central Area Plan. Attached is a birds-eye view showing the relationship of this project to surrounding buildings including Lake Street Apartments, the CSU stadium, The Slab, Plymouth Church and the Sheely neighborhood. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Given the mass of Building A, staff is surprised at the inclusion of the mezzanine level that is added to the five story building. Adding a mezzanine over the five story building height in this location is out of scale and an inappropriate response to the achieving compatibility with the neighborhood. Response: The mezzanines will be removed from Buildings A and B. Plan changes to address this comment are forthcoming per meeting with City staff on 10-18-16. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: To help break down the height, mass, bulk and scale of the Building A, landscaping along Prospect will be required to include not only street trees within the parkway but also an alternating row of street trees behind the sidewalk. A double row of street trees will help promote a pedestrian scale and minimize the effect of the building looming over the sidewalk. Response: A double row of street trees is now shown on the landscape plan. 22 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Regarding Building B and the parking garage, the applicant should be aware that immediately to the east is a structure that is designated as having historic significance and a structure that is eligible for historic designation. These two houses are considered adjacent for purposes of requiring compliance with Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources. Response: The applicant does not agree that the structure at 730 W. Prospect is has been determined eligible, nevertheless, the design is intended to comply with the requirements of 3.4.7, with respect to both 720 and 730 W. Prospect. The parking structure will be screened, and complementary exterior materials and screening will be incorporated at the lower level of the parking structure. This treatment is indicated on the updated building elevations. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: The project adjoins two recently approved student-oriented multi-family apartments. All three projects must include inter-connectivity without having to rely on using the perimeter public sidewalks. Consequently, Building A, must include a bike and pedestrian connection to Lake Street Apartments which was approved with a matching connection and east to The Slab where feasible. So too must Building B connect to The Slab which was approved with a matching connection. These connections must be open and inviting, not gated, secured, or otherwise designed to impede cross access. Response: A sidewalk connection has now been made from this project to the stubs provided on the adjacent properties. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: For Building A, is fencing proposed along the west property line? If so, such fence must be of high quality and not simply a six-foot high solid-wood fence. A building of this size will need a fence that features matching masonry material and will also need to include columns, uniformly spaced, or other features, to mitigate and soften the impact of a stockade appearance. Response: A solid wall is proposed along the west property line adjacent to Plymouth Congregational Church. A perspective of the wall is shown on the site plan sheet. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Tree removal appears significant. Every effort should be made to ensure that mitigation trees can be planted within the project and not exported off-site. Response: All mitigation trees are proposed to be planted within this project. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Will the project provide for a common car(s) and or van to be shared among residents? If so, please indicate the designated parking space. (If this space is under the structure, please state with a note.) Response: There is not anticipated to be a common car/van at this time, however the project will provide 4 electric car charging stations. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Is there an off-site car storage area if the number of cars brought to the project exceeds the number of parking spaces? Response: There is not an off-site car storage area. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: The minimum required parking ratio does not comply. With only 23 544 spaces, at the ratio of .75 spaces per bedroom, yields a maximum 725 units yet the plan shows 730. Given the context of the surrounding area, a request for Modification to this standard, even with demand mitigation strategies, will not likely be supported. Response: The project now meets the .75 space per bedroom parking requirement. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Staff is concerned about the mass, height, bulk and scale of Building B and its relationship to Lake Street. As was done with Lake Street Apartments to the west, the street-facing ground floor units of Building B should feature front doors to individual units facing the street. These front doors must include a stoop, portico or other entry feature. As designed, the units at the ground level along Lake Street feature back patio sliders. Multiple front door entrances along a public street, however, will significantly enhance the streetscape and promote the pedestrian scale. Response: The ground floor units on W. Lake Street and W. Prospect will have entry doors and stoops. The updated plans, building elevations and streetscape perspectives reflect this revision. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: At the time of submittal, staff will need to see a detail of the courtyards to ensure that there is sufficient provision of amenities, gathering areas, and landscaping. Since the active recreation is limited to the upper floor of Building B, it falls upon the Building A courtyards to provide an outdoor respite from mid-rise living. Staff is concerned that the project includes well-designed outdoor areas for informal, casual opportunities to stroll, take a break from studies or otherwise randomly relax on a spontaneous basis. Response: Additional detail has been added to the courtyards. These courtyards contain ample amenities, gathering areas and landscaping (see site plan). Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 08/24/2016: Will pets be allowed? If so, then an area will need to be designated for walking and a pet waste station must be provided. Response: Yes, pets are allowed. It is anticipated that most dogs will be walked on public sidewalks and to nearby parks and green spaces. In addition, each courtyard in building a features a turf area and pet waste stations. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: A drainage report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 24 09/01/2016: When improvements are being added to an existing developed site, onsite detention is required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2-year historic release rate for water quantity. Response: Over 5000 sq ft of impervious area is being proposed, therefore on-site detention will be provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: Stormwater outfall options for this site are consistent with what is shown on the Utility and Drainage Concept that was submitted (i.e. Building B area stormwater should be released into Lake Street at the 2-year historic rate and Building A area stormwater should be released into Prospect Road at the 2-year historic rate.) Response: Through discussion with the City, it was determined that there is currently a drainage issue along Lake Street. To help the current situation, the majority of the stormwater is proposed to drain into Prospect Road. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: The “under-building” detention vault that is proposed for Building A will not be allowed because of concerns related to access, proper maintenance and the ability to readily identify and fix any performance issues that may occur over time. The “under-building” detention vault that is proposed for the parking garage area of Building B will be allowed as long as the vault itself is not underground and can be seen and accessed from the side of the vault, much like the District project detention vault was configured. Further discussions on this are welcome an expected. Response: There is proposed detention within the garage structure of Building B. There is underground detention currently proposed under the court yard areas surrounding building A. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: Fifty percent of the site runoff is required to be treated using the standard water quality treatment as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3-Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment with one of the two following options: a. 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. b. 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: The submittal application indicated the following LID systems 25 proposed for this site: Permeable Pavers, Stormtech underground detention and Sand Filters. The application narrative also seemed to indicate “landscaping” as an LID system. Please note that “landscaping” is not a recognized form of LID so if this is your intent, we need to discuss the details of this concept further. Also, we should discuss the use of Sand Filters within the detention vaults as a form of LID. This system would allow for filtration but not infiltration so we want to understand if there are opportunities to provide your LID systems outside of the building footprint. If there are planning requirements that create a hardship on this site we need to talk through those issues. If there are not planning requirements that create a hardship for stormwater quality, then we want to see as much of the LID systems placed outside of the building footprint as possible. Response: Currently all LID treated is being proposed outside of the buildings. The sand filter is only being used for regular water quality. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Response: The existing imperviousnesss has been documented and is shown in the drainage report. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: There will be a final site inspection of the stormwater facilities when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-going maintenance of all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact-development Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) effective August 5, 2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/01/2016 09/01/2016: The 2016 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $8,217/acre for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development 26 Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/15/2016 08/15/2016: 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 do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for storm water will be required since the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: An Erosion Control Report will be provided at final. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/16/2016 08/16/2016: As of January 1, 2015 all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design work. Response: Plans have been prepared using the NAVD88 vertical Datum and is shown on the Cover Sheet. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2016 08/29/2016: The anticipated traffic volume from this development meets the threshold for needing a Traffic Impact Study. Your traffic engineer has contacted me to scope the study. A full TIS is required. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2016 08/29/2016: The lack of connectivity through this site coupled with the proposed density could be an issue. A shared right in right out access with The Slab project off of Prospect could help to dissipate the traffic flows. Response: Acknowledged, an agreement could not be reached for a shared access with The Slab Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont@fcgov.com 27 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/15/2016 08/15/2016: A type 3 (shelter) bus stop shall be accommodated on Prospect Road for a planned route that will serve Prospect Road. It needs to be within public ROW and/or a Transit Easement. For design, please see the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards document here: http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard s.pdf. The patron amenities are to be provided by the development, this includes the shelter, bike racks and trash/recycling receptacles for the stop. Please contact me and I can provide you with estimates for these amenities. Response: A type 3 bus stop is accommodated for along Prospect. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: There is an existing 6-inch water main in Prospect on the northerly side of the roadway and an existing 4-inch main located on the south side of the road. There is an existing 12-inch water main in Lake Street. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: There is an existing 4-inch water service to the Blue Ridge Apartments at 775 W. Lake Street, an existing ¾-inch water service to 801 W. Lake Street, and ¾-inch water services to 820, 828, 832, 836 and 900 W. Prospect Road addresses. The water services on Prospect Road all originate at the 4-inch main. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 09/01/2016: A looped connection to the 6-inch main in Prospect and connection to the 12-inch main in Lake is proposed through the project site. As part of standard development requirements for new developments that front an arterial roadway, complete installation or extension of a 12-inch sized water main is typical. For this project, we are not going to require a 12-inch main, but are going to require that an 8-inch main is extended from the existing 6-inch main across the entire frontage of the project on Prospect. We would also like to request that this new 8-inch main is extended a little further to the west to connect to the other 6-inch main. This extension beyond the project frontage would be paid for through a developer repay process. Response: A looped system is proposed between Lake Street and Prospect Road. An 8-inch water line within Prospect Road is being proposed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: There is an existing 6-inch sanitary sewer main in Prospect and an existing 10 and 12-inch main in Lake Street. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: A public sewer main is proposed to be extended from Lake 28 Street. Please note that the following minimum easement widths will apply: 20 feet (10 feet each side) for water mains, 30 feet (15 feet each side) for sewer mains and 35 foot easement width for combined water and sewer main easements. Response: Appropriate easement have been provided and are shown on the plat. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Any existing water or sewer services not utilized in the redevelopment of this site will be required to be abandoned at the main during the time of construction. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/23/2016 08/23/2016: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Department: Zoning Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 All developments need to submit a landscaping and tree protection plan, with the intent to establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, parking lots, and in all landscaped areas in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy as per 3.2.1 . Response: These were submitted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 Due to the high density of the development all auto entrances into and out of the parking structures shall be designed to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts such as setting back the access ramps and the entries be separated by low planters or walls as per 3.10.4(D). Response: These low walls to separate the pedestrian entrances to the parking structure from the vehicular entrances have been incorporated in the updated site plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 The minimum amount of bicycle parking for this development is 1 per bedroom for the multi-family residential units for a total of 730 spaces, with 60% enclosed and 40% fixed . Location of bicycle parking will need to be provided at submittal. Response: Locations shown. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 The total parking spaces shown are 544, which would require a modification, unless the total parking can be brought up to the minimum amount of parking required in multi-family dwellings. The minimum amount within the T.O.D is 0.75 per dwelling unit for a total allotment of 548 as per 3.2.2(K)1. Where is the 29 parking for the leasing office? Is there designated guest parking? Response: The parking provided in the parking structure on the current plans has been increased to meet the 75% per bedroom requirement. This parking will include designated leasing parking and guest parking outside the security points on the first level of the parking structure. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 All parking lots and structures shall provide a minimum amount of handicap parking. The minimum amount of handicap parking necessary for this development is 11 spaces or at least 2% of the total parking spaces provided. At least one such space per lot shall be designated, van-accessible and must be a minimum 8’ wide and adjoin a minimum 8’ wide access aisle. Response: The parking provided in the parking structure on the current plans meets the accessible parking as well as the van parking space requirements. These accessible parking spaces are indicated on the drawings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 All developments shall provide adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible trash and recycling enclosures each in an enclosure and screened from public view. Each enclosed area shall be designed to have a separate walk-in access as per 3.2.5. If trash/recycling chutes are to be used, the chutes shall need to be designed to have a large enough capacity to accommodate cardboard recycling. Cardboard cannot be disposed of as trash and is illegal within the city of Fort Collins. If assistance with appropriate sizing and design of trash enclosures is needed please contact Caroline Mitchell #970-221-6288. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 All mechanical equipment, meters, conduit, vents and RTU’s shall be screened from public view both from above and below by integrating it into the building and roof design as per 3.5.1(I)(6). Will there be a mechanical deck on the roof or will all equipment be on the ground? Response: The mechanical equipment will be located on the roof of the residential buildings. It will be screened from public view in accordance with 3.5.1(I)(6). Electrical Meters will be primarily located in rooms within the building, and any exterior building-mounted gas meters will be screened from public view. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 The setbacks and development standards shall meet L.U.C. 3.8.30 for the multi-family dwellings. Minimum setbacks for building A shall be 15’ from an arterial and building B shall be 9’ from a non-arterial. Due to the building heights being over 35’ an additional 1’ must be added for every 2’ or fraction thereof that exceeds the 35’ . Response: The design team understands and has no objections. The required setbacks and step-backs will be clearly indicated on the site plans and building sections. Comment Number: 9 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2016 Site lighting shall be provided as per 3.2.4 (C). A lighting plan is required, including photometrics and fixture cut sheets. The illuminance plan must use a light loss factor of 1.00. In order to reduce the harsh glare associated with LED in residential settings, the Kelvin temperature must not exceed 3,000 degrees. Also, using the Department of Energy Lighting Facts, Backlight, Uplight and Glare rating must be B-1, U-0, G-1. Response: The design team understands and has no objections. We will provide a photometric plan along with fixture cut sheets with our submission. 30 720 W. Prospect - Gable roof form with deep overhangs. Simple Bracket detail at eaves. 720 W. Prospect - Deep overhang at porch, Simple trim details at windows and doors. Low slope roof at dormer. Horizontal Material break. 730 W. Prospect - Pitched Roof form with Asphalt Shingles and Deep Overhang. Light Color, Stucco veneer. Simple trim details at windows and doors. Sheely Addition – Horizontal Siding and Stone Veneer. Large, vertical Window forms. Low Sloped pitched roof – Asphalt Shingles with Deep Overhangs Sheely Addition - Low Sloped pitched roof form – Deep overhangs. A variety of window types and shapes. Combination of siding and Masonry veneer. CSU Housing - Pitched Roof – Asphalt Shingles. Deep overhangs, Upper Attic Story. Color and Massing Changes break up building massing. Contemporary mix of Masonry and Stucco. Job Name, Field Report #, Date Page 2 of 3 Plymouth Congregational Church - Pitched Roof form, stone and masonry veneer, Vertical windows with contemporary detailing.