Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOTEL (DOWNTOWN HOTEL) - PDP - PDP150008 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSPage 1 of 12 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 July 10, 2015 Stu Macmillan Bohemian Companies 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Fort Collins Hotel (Downtown Hotel), PDP150008, Round Number 1 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. *Note: Updated architectural elevations for both the hotel and parking structure have been submitted and printed but the civil, site and landscape plans for the parking structure have not progressed (see notes below in the responses). The previous plans are on the CD with this submittal but in order to save paper we did not print the plan sets but if preferred we can provide additional paper copies. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/06/2015 07/06/2015: As noted in the PDR comments, please consider moving the cornice line down to the third floor to help reduce the perceived height of the building. Response: In our last meeting with the LPC, the current cornice line was discussed and deemed appropriate as it approximates the stepback of the Mitchell Building across Walnut Street. A Modification of Standard has been submitted on this item. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide elevations for the parking structure. It should take cues from the hotel. Response: Elevations for the structure have been submitted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Have you considered sills and lintells with the windows (especially those in the brick facade)? Response: All windows in masonry walls are designed to be terminated with a metal c- channel lintel that coordinates with the brick banding. Depending on the condition, the sills will be comprised of rowlock brick (consistent with Old Town masonry buildings) or metal Page 2 of 12 when the wall below the sill transitions to metal panel. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Additional review material. Please provide the following additional material for review: - color perspective renderings of buildings and streetscapes - the 3D model to input into our downtown model - detail cut sheets of materials and a material board (especially for the metal screening) Response: Color perspective renderings may be provided at a future date. Currently, they do not match the elevations presented. Additional study of the materials is underway and will be fully presented by way of materials boards at a later date. The SketchUp file was provided via our Newforma website. Topic: Landscape Plans Page 3 of 15 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please remove the zoning map from the landscape and site plans. Without color it does not add value. Response: The zoning map has been removed from both the site and landscape plan cover sheets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: A tree mitigation plan is required for all trees that are proposed to be removed. Response: A tree mitigation plan will be submitted for the second PDP submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The existing trees to remain are barely readable. Please thicken the lines and figure out another way to contrast against newly proposed trees. Response: The existing trees have been darkened to help with legibility. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide calculation for interior and perimeter landscaping for the surface parking option. Please see section 3.2.1(E)(4) of the Land Use Code. Response: An interior and perimeter landscape table has been added to the LP101 sheet. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: What is the concrete space between the surface lot and the alley? Response: The space between the alley and parking lot is turf grass as shown on the LP101 sheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide details of the proposed wall for buffering the surface parking lot. Response: See sheet LS501 for detail of wall – this will be used as the screen wall detail and the lower seatwall detail along Jefferson Street. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide photometric plans with foot candle calculations that comply with LUC Sec. 3.2.4. Response: The photometric calculations have been added to the LL101 sheet. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The lighting plan for the parking structure (LL101A) does not show any lights on the top deck. Please provide updated plans. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure as an agreement to progress design past 50% SD has not been agreed upon by the City and Bohemian. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Page 4 of 15 Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/06/2015 07/06/2015: General Modification Comment: Please address the requested Modification of Standards as outlined in Sec. 2.8 of the code. The decision maker must find that 1) granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and 2) one of the following four criteria is met: (1)the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2)the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3)by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4)the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Please use the language in the Code to justify your requests. Also, please provide exhibits detailing each request for modification. Response: Please see attached Alternative Compliance and Modification requests. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/06/2015 07/06/2015: The request for a modification to the parking lot location standard reads "this streetscape condition coupled with the landscape buffer is equal to or better than a building frontage in terms of activating the overall streetscape condition and providing a buffer from the parking along the arterial." How is this so? Please use the Land Use Code to justify your request. Response: Please see attached Alternative Compliance and Modification requests. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/06/2015 07/06/2015: The request for a modification to the parking lot buffer eludes to the "requisite number of parking spaces" being difficult to meet. Please expand on what the Page 5 of 15 requirement is and where you are constrained. Also please see the first two modification comments for general composition of the request. Response: Please see attached Alternative Compliance and Modification requests. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Parking and Square Footage Square footage of each use should be shown separately and its accompanying vehicle and bike parking requirement and amount of spaces provided. For example, the hotel is one use which has a requirement per room (0.5 min; 1.0 max); the conference space is another with a requirement of 1 space per 1,000 square feet; restaurant (5 per 1,000 s.f. min; 10 per 1,000 max); and retail both in the hotel and the parking structure (2 per 1,000 s.f. min; 4 per 1,000 s.f. max). Function and circulation of hotel parking should be shown on the site plans. I.e. how/where will the public and private parking be separated? How will the valet parking work? Will all the hotel parking be valet as eluded to in the narrative? What about hotel employees? Response: At this time, the decision has not been made if the lot will be valet only or self-park or a combination of both. When the hotel operator decides the applicant will update staff and respond accordingly. Bicycle parking should be accomodated for each use outlined above and also be shown in the "land use data" section of the site plan according to Sec. 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Land Use Code. Alternative compliance is a possibility especially for the hotel use. Response: The land use table has been revised to show uses and parking requirements and proposed parking for the project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Any street sidewalk that is being replaced with concrete should use Sandscape Concrete. It is the same as the City is using for replacement projects. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Pavers are being proposed in the ROW in several locations. How are you deciding where pavers are located versus concrete? Also, please provide details (including color) of the pavers. Response: See detail sheet LS501 for paver section detail. The paver colors will compliment the existing Old Firehouse pavers. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Is a pedestrian walkway or perhaps an improved alley being proposed along the northwest edge of the parking structure? If so, please provide details. Response: At this time nothing is being proposed above and beyond the existing condition. The applicant will repair and/or replace any damage to the concrete/asphalt during construction. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: No retail or non-parking uses are being shown in the parking structure. Please show Page 6 of 15 these spaces. Response: The parking structure design/layout from the 50% SD pricing set has been updated and provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: What is the height of the tivoli lights? Delivery trucks will have to drive underneath. Response: A section has been provided on sheet LS501 to illustrate the minimum height distance of 14’ below the tivoli lights is achieved. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Repeat comment from PDR: “This site is adjacent to a CDOT roadway and all access off of Jefferson is subject to CDOT approval. CDOT has identified that access to Chestnut Street will need to be limited to right-in right-out movements and these movements will need to be controlled by a physical barrier (construction of a median in Jefferson or a pork chop). The project will be responsible for the design and construction of this improvement. A pork chop maybe the easiest to implement as a median in Jefferson will require some other extensive improvements and coordination since room does not currently exist in the roadway in which a median can be constructed. Both solutions will impact existing parking – likely on both streets. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the applicant will need to obtain an access permit from CDOT for Chestnut and the service connection.” Response: A “pork chop” island was added at the intersection of Jefferson and Chestnut Streets to limit access to right turn in and out only. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Turning templates are needed to evaluate the design of the new Walnut/Chestnut/Mountain Ave intersection. Also, please provide a turning template for the Hotel entrance/drop off circle to ensure vehicles can negotiate the turn and head northeast to the parking area. Response: Turning movements are included as part of this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Further conversation is needed to determine if the Hotel entrance/drop off area can be located within public right-of-way. A lease agreement or special agreement may need to be executed to locate a private amenity to this extent within the public right-of-way. Response: Acknowledged and applicant is waiting for further information from the City. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Please provide a signing and striping plan that identifies a plan to control access into and out of the site. Response: A signage and striping plan is located on Sheet C200. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 Page 7 of 15 07/08/2015: By narrowing the Chestnut travel lanes to 24ft in width south of the Old Firehouse alley, please provide a centerline profile of Chestnut St to evaluate the offset in centerline from travel width of 37ft north of the alley to 24ft travel width south of the alley. Response: A centerline profile will be provided during FDP submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Encroachment permit(s) will need to be obtained for the decorative improvements placed within the right-of-way. This includes the planter boxes in the Old Firehouse alley and all planters and seat walls. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Please submit a variance request for the paver plaza, paver sidewalk, and paver alley. The variance request should include a cross section and construction details. Response: See revised site plan. At this time we have removed the paver sidewalk and paver plaza and replaced it with colored concrete. We will keep the paver’s in the alley to match the existing precedent set for alley’s in Downtown. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Have any agreements been reached on future maintenance of the decorative improvements within the right-of-way (paver plaza, alley pavers, sidewalk pavers, seat walls, planters)? Typically, any decorative features located within the right-of-way will need to be installed and maintained by the property owner. Response: At this time, no agreement has been reached as conversations are still ongoing. The applicant wishes to keep this open as more details are finalized through the various conversations. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: A few locations along the public sidewalk do not meet minimum ADA cross slope requirements. As design moves forward, please ensure that all sidewalks and pedestrian facilities meet ADA requirements. Response: Cross slopes on sidewalks will be adjusted to meet minimum ADA requirements as part of FDP Submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: All handicap ramp locations will need truncated domes to be installed to meet ADA requirements. This includes all alley, driveway and road crossings. See redlines Response: Truncated domes will be included at alleys, driveways, and road crossings during FDP Submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Pease revise the west planting area/bump out along Walnut St. As proposed, this will be difficult to maintain (sweeping, snow removal). See redlines. Response: The west planting area/bump out along Walnut Street was revised to accommodate minimum radii provided by City Staff for a street sweeper. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Additional grading details are needed for the proposed paver plaza Page 8 of 15 area. It appears that there is a low point at the south corner of the site (right turn onto Walnut St) that is collecting water without an inlet. Response: Additional grading details will be provided during FDP Submittal. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Is the existing driveway off of Jefferson being utilized as part of this project? Response: Conversations are still ongoing with the surrounding property owners and City staff on the best solution. Applicant requests to work with staff offline on this issue. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens and has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit your project. Of particular interest may be the: • ClimateWise program: http://www.fcgov.com/climatewise/, contact Melissa Hovey at 970-221-6813 or mhovey@fcgov.com • Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP): http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com • Green Building and the Climate Action Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Melissa Hovey at 970-221- 6813 or mhovey@fcgov.com • Nature in the City Strategic Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/? key=advanceplanning/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com Please consider the City’s sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage with these efforts. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: This project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session held on June 10, 2015. The Commission member's did not identify any significant concerns, and the Commission appears to be very supportive of the design presented. Page 9 of 15 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: At the June 10, 2014 work session, the Commission requested additional details about both the hotel and parking lot/parking structure's design, along both sides of Old Firehouse Alley, from Jefferson Street; and from the Old Town Historic District and Linden Street. Commission members stressed the importance of activating both the alley and Jefferson street through storefronts. Response: The applicant will be going back to LPC on 8/12 with updated designs to address these comments. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Commission members did not appear to have significant concerns regarding the proposal that the building height exceed the 4 story or 56 foot limit. The contextual comparison with the Mitchell Building was very helpful. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6) directs that, at the time the plans are finally submitted, the Landmark Preservation Commission shall provide the decision maker with a recommendation. This will need to occur at a Regular Hearing. Please plan accordingly. LPC Regular Hearings are held on the 2nd Wednesdays of each month. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Light & Power has 3-phase electric facilities in this area for both of the existing addresses. System modification and capacity charges may apply. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Continue to work with Light & Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations. It is understood that the current proposed transformer location may not meet the 3 ft. from the back clearance standards. More information will be available when the transformer size can be determined. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: 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 Page 10 of 15 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: 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. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: FIREHOUSE ALLEY The fire marshal has concerns regarding any design elements which impact the 20' alley width. If a parking garage is built with businesses fronting the alley, the full width of the alley needs to be preserved in order to meet minimum fire access requirements. Further review and discussion may be warranted as the site design becomes more defined. Response: At this time the applicant is proceeding with the surface parking lot design until the City and Bohemian reach a public/private partnership agreement on the parking structure and the City gets approval from Council on funding. In the meantime, the applicant is in discussions with the City, PFA and DDA and will work closely with all three groups as more details are defined. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/09/2015 07/09/2015: ALLEY LIGHTS Hanging lights in alley need to be elevated above 14' in height. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/09/2015 07/09/2015: LANDSCAPE PLAN Take a look at Landscape plan to ensure that tree canopy flanking the alley entrance off Chestnut will not interfere with large vehicle access over time, as trees mature. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/09/2015 07/09/2015: TURNING RADIUS Verify that alley connection with Chestnut St. will allow fire apparatus full turning movements into the alley entrance, from either direction of travel. Response: Turning movements are included as part of this submittal. > IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide additional detail on utility plan for drainage Page 11 of 15 improvements. Response: Please see revised utility plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: For pavers, 3:1 maximum run-on ratio is allowed. Please clarify impervious areas being treated by the paver sections and include addtional sub-basins if necessary. Response: Please see revised LID table. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please see redlined drainage report. Response: Report redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Additional comments may be forthcoming as additional details are provided with future submittals. Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Repeat from PDR : 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, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text over text issues were corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING GARAGE: Please add the following notes to the Benchmark Statements. See redlines. PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX'. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 Page 12 of 15 07/07/2015: PARKING GARAGE: All Basis Of Bearings statements need to match on all sheets, and should match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. Response: The Basis of Bearing was adjusted to match the plat. Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING GARAGE: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text over text issues were corrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING GARAGE: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text issues were corrected. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING LOT: Please add the following notes to the Benchmark Statements. See redlines. PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX'. Response: The above note was added to Sheets C000 and C001. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING LOT: All Basis Of Bearings statements need to match on all sheets, and should match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. Response: The Basis of Bearing was adjusted to match the plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING LOT: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text over text issues were corrected. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PARKING LOT: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text issues were corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the numbers on the marked sheets. See redlines. Response: The cover sheet has been updated to reflect the correct sheet names. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: The plan has been updated to resolve the line over text issues. Page 13 of 15 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: The sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the numbers on the marked sheets. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: The linework has been darkened to help with legibility. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: The linework has been darkened to help with legibility. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please add a name to the Plat. Fort Collins Hotel is an available name. Response: A name for the Plat will be selected during FDP Submittal. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please make changes to the sub-title & legal description as shown. See redlines. Response: The sub-title and legal description were revised per the redlines. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please add "Name" & "Title" to the signature blocks as marked. See redlines. Response: The signature blocks were updated. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please make changes to the vicinity map as shown. See redlines. Response: The vicinity map was corrected. Page 14 of 15 Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please add title policy information in note #3. See redlines. Response: Note #3 was updated to show the Surveyor has not received a Title Commitment at this time. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. Response: Dedication information was added per the redlines. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please show the reception number of the 20' Access & Utility Easement on Lot 2. See redlines. Response: The reception number for the 20’ Access & Utility easement will be added during FDP Submittal. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There is text that is masking out a symbol. See redlines. Response: The text masking was corrected. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. See redlines. Response: Right-of-way lines on opposite side of adjacent streets are included. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please make sure that all Lots are labeled. See redlines. Response: Lots are labeled per the redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines. Response: Bearings and Distances are included per the redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: The plan has been updated to resolve the line over text issues. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: The plan has been updated to resolve the line over text issues. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: The plan has been updated to resolve the line over text issues. Page 15 of 15 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: The plan has been updated to resolve the line over text issues. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: PLAN A: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. Response: At this time the applicant has not progressed the design of the structure past the 50% SD set that was submitted to the City for pricing as an agreement has not been agreed upon by both parties to move past 50% SD. Once such agreement has been reached and the City gets approval from Council, design will progress and details will be provided. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: We'll need a signing and striping plan as we move forward in the process. Response: A signage and striping plan is located on Sheet C200. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The following comment was made at PDR: "The plans and submittal will need to show vehicular turning templates for the various turns into / out of the hotel area. This includes the U-turn from the hotel drop off back towards the Page 16 of 15 parking lot entrance." The comment response is "plans submitted", but I didn't see anything in my review package that shows turning templates. This comments remains. Response: Turning movements are included as part of this submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: There is some concern that Chestnut will not feel like an open, public street for through traffic (vehicular and pedestrian). Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: If the alley access to Jefferson is to move, we need to have that shown on the plans. Response: Acknowledged and will update as conversations progress with Staff and surrounding property owners. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The Chestnut access to Jefferson needs to be right-in, right-out. This inlcudes an exagerated pork-chop. The eastbound approach from Jefferson to Chestnut warrants a right turn lane, and can be fully implemented with the road diet when it is built in the future. In the meantime, the plans should reflect a flare for turning traffic and identify parking to be removed to make this happen. Response: A “pork chop” island was added at the intersection of Jefferson and Chestnut Streets to limit access to right turn in and out only. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: The TIS needs to be refined to acknowledge that Jefferson and College are State Highways, and discuss the warrant for a right turn lane on Jefferson. This has been previously scoped with the applicant's traffic engineer. Response: At this time, we have not updated the TIS to reflect the parking structure as an agreement to progress design past 50% SD has not been agreed upon by the City and Bohemian. Once such agreement has been reached we will work with Staff to update the TIS to reflect the parking structure. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: We need an addendum to the TIS that provides information on the proposed traffic impacts of the parking structure. This has been previously scoped with the applicant's traffic engineer. Response: At this time, we have not updated the TIS to reflect the parking structure as an agreement to progress design past 50% SD has not been agreed upon by the City and Bohemian. Once such agreement has been reached we will work with Staff to update the TIS to reflect the parking structure Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/09/2015 Page 17 of 15 7/09/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Please provide additional detail for water and sewer connections on the utility plans. Response: More detail for water and sewer connections are included on Sheet C300. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: Additional comments may be forthcoming as additional details are provided with future submittals. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2015 07/08/2015: Please see Planning comments about parking and bicycle parking needing greater detail. There should be a mix of enclosed and exposed bicycle parking even if you are going the way of alternative compliance. Response: Please see site plan and alternative compliance letter.