Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE STANDARD AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP160035 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview November 14, 2016 Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave Ste 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: The Standard at Fort Collins, PDP160035, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. RESPONSES 11/23/2016 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: 3 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Street cuts along Prospect Road and Lake Street need to be perpendicular to the curb. Please adjust the street cuts Response: Street Cuts have been adjusted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Please be aware that the City is planning an overlay project along Lake Street and Prospect Road for the summer of 2017. Street cuts in roads less that 5 years will result in triple costs for the pavement impact fees. Response: Conversations have begun to try and coordinate the installation of utilities prior to the mill and 2 overlay of both W. Lake Street and W. Prospect Road. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Add the following note the Demolition Plan sheet: Limits of concrete curb removal shall be to the nearest joint. Sections less than 5' shall be completely replaced. Response: Note has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: The minimum driveway width for multi-family developments with more than 12 units is 28'. Driveway standards require a radius of 15' as well. Response: Site layout has been adjusted to meet these standards. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: There are chases on both Prospect Road and Lake Street that are in close proximity to one another. Please look at solutions to try and consolidate the chases or increase the distance between the chases. Response: The two chases on W. Prospect Road and W. Lake Street have been consolidated into a single chase. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: There is an emergency access and public access easement to the north of Building A. Should this easement go to the property line for continuity between both sites (Stadium Apartments Project)? Response: Easement now extends all the way to the property line for continuity Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: As part of the development for the Slab Property, they are installing a transition to the sidewalk along Prospect Road. This transition will need to be removed and the parkway will need to be extended. Please see redlines. Response: Transition has been removed and called out on the Demolition Plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Concrete ribbons will be needed along the edge of the pavers on the east and west of Building A between the public sidewalk and the pavers. Response: The pavers have been pulled back to the Utility Easements and therefore are the concrete ribbon is no longer a needed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: More information is needed on how the southeast chase along Prospect Road will be piped. Is there a pan? Pipes can't outlet directly into sidewalk chases. Response: Pipes are discharging through a headwall which conveys the flow to a sidewalk chase. Once in the chase the flow is then routed into W. Prospect Road. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: The emergency access points along Prospect Road will need to be modified. Please show limits of the rolled curb in each location. Driveways should not be used at these points to prevent motorists from thinking there is vehicle access. More treatment will be needed on the eastern access that serves as a public walkway. Perhaps bollards, grasscrete, etc. Response: A horizontal plan has been created to call out all signage associated with the emergency Access points. In addition to the signage, roll over curb and gutter is planned at the limits of the emergency access easement to further discourage through traffic. 3 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: The sidewalk chases along Prospect Road appear too close to the emergency access drive aisle. It appears the sidewalk chases will interfere with the turning radius for fire trucks. There may also be a conflict with the vertical curb to rolled curb transitions. Response: The sidewalk chase has been moved to the west. Turning exhibits have been provided to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicle to make this movement. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: It appears that more than the allowable 750 SF of runoff is draining across the driveway on Lake Street. Please verify high points on the grading plan to make sure this standard is met. Response: Inlets have been provided to limit the amount of runoff draining across the public walk to 750 sq. ft. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: There are a couple of slopes on the Grading Plan for the sidewalks along Prospect Road that are greater than 2%. Please verify that these areas will meet ADA standards of 2%. Response: The sidewalk slopes have been revised to be at 2 percent. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: All ponds/chambers need to be in Drainage Easements. Please adjust the plans as well as the plat to reflect this. Response: Plans have been adjusted to callout all the drainage easements associated with the ponds Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: The existing driveway to Plymouth Congregation Church will need to be modified on the east, where the new sidewalk ties into the driveway. The ramp and domes will need to be the width of the new walk Response: Ramp and domes have been adjusted to match width of the new walk. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: The Plat will need to reflect plats that have been filed surround the property. The plat for the Slab property to the south has been executed, while the plat for Stadium Apartments to the North/West should be executed prior to the recording of this plat. Show this with Final Plans. Response: The plat has been revised to show the surrounding areas. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Street trees along Prospect Road will need to be clearly shown in the ultimate location. The West Central Area Plan calls for the curb line to move north to create 6' parkways. Please dimension (3') the street trees along Prospect Road from the back of walk (ROW) to the center of trees. Response: Acknowledged. Tree setback line dimension taken from the ROW is now shown on the landscape plan. 4 Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2016 10/24/2016: An additional $140.75 is due for the PDP TDRFees. This is based on 240 mf du and 4.288 acres as identified on the site plan and the plat. Response: This has been resolved – no additional fee is necessary. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: At Staff Review meeting 11/9/16 let's discuss connection Landmark Properties to appropriate City Staff working on various programs. The City of Fort Collins has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit this project, especially regarding waste management. If interested in exploring opportunities with this project, please reach out directly to the City Staff listed below, and sooner rather than later in this development review process. 1) 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 2) Green Building Program: fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com 3) Integrated Design Assistance Program: http://fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or gschroeder@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. Landmark has already contacted WRAP to discuss the project and we are working to provide a 96-gallon or two 30-gallon recyclable bins on each floor per their recommendations. We are interested in pursuing the above-mentioned programs and look forward to being connected to each of these groups to explore ways we can incorporate them into our project, to the extent feasible. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: Currently on proposed plans approximately 20% of tree species are Quercus spp., including macrocarpa, robur, robur alba, and shumardii varieties. City Staff request a re-distribution of project tree species diversity through decrease in Quercus spp. (oak) and corresponding increase in other shade trees perhaps: G. dioica (Kentucky coffee tree), C. occidentalis (Hackberry) and/or T. cordata (Littleleaf linden). 5 There is a desire long-term to avoid over-reliance on any one species making up the urban forest tree canopy in anticipation of drastic reductions due to pest species or disease, for example losses expected in the next 2-5 years due to Emerald Ash Borer (currently ash trees make up 20% or more of total urban tree canopy in Fort Collins). See minimum tree species diversity requirements outlined in LUC 3.2.1(D)(3). Response: Acknowledged. Appropriate adjustments have been made to the tree species diversity. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 Detailed landscape plan identifying species by Final Plan is sufficient timing for this project. Response: Acknowledged. More details will be provided at Final. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: It appears 3,000K or less LED luminaires have been chosen for site lighting and down-directional shielded fixtures. Please confirm and let's discuss at Staff Review 11/9/16. Response: Response: The color temperature of the lamps are specified to be 3,000K for all exterior lighting fixtures. All of the exterior light fixtures specified are “cut-off” rated. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: The Tree Mitigation Summary shows 109 trees to be planted in place of the removal of 65 existing trees. Even though there are 109 trees displayed on the landscape plans, 3 trees are not labeled with their corresponding species. After counting the proposed species count of new trees, it seems as though 2 Hot Wing Maples and 1 Chanticleer Pear are missing from the map. Please label the remaining three trees on the northwest side of Building A. Response: Acknowledged. Landscape Plan updated accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Please provide a final landscape plan that addresses Land Use Code and 3.2.1 requirements. Be sure to show the following features • Locations of water and sewer service lines and proper 6’ tree separation • Street lights and street tree separation of 40’ for canopy trees, and 15’ for ornamentals. Show locations of street lights. • Intersections for visibility if applicable Response: Acknowledged. A final landscape plan will be provided at FDP. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Existing Tree Comments: 6 In addition to showing trees with existing conditions, please show existing trees with reference to proposed site plans (not including new trees) on a separate sheet. This helps the City Forester review the impact of the proposed improvements to existing trees. Take an additional look to see if feasible to retain trees 1, 2, 50, 57, and 58. Please provide reasons why trees are to be removed by adding a column to the Tree Mitigation legend labeled “Reason for Removal” Response: Noted. ‘Reason for Removal’ column added and reasons for removal addressed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Please provide a brief statement for Tree Protection Plan explaining why some trees cannot be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. Response: In the case of this project, trees cannot be retained to the extent reasonably feasible due to the site design and layout. The entire area of the proposed site will be affected by construction excavation. Trees are either located directly where buildings footprints and pavement have been proposed. In the instances where a few trees lie very close to the property lines, they will still be affected by excavation activity and site grading. We are proposing that all trees are to be mitigated on site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: If any existing trees end up being retained, please provide Tree Protections Notes. Response: No trees are to be retained. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Tree Species Selection: Deborah Norway Maple is not listed on the Street Tree list. Please select a suitable species from list. You may want to consider using Bur Oak as an adaptable street tree. Please consider using Iseli Fastigiate Spruce in place of Fat Albert Spruce due to the narrow planting space close to building. For the project’s consideration, Crimson Sentry Norway Maple has similar foliage color to Deborah Norway Maple, but has a narrower mature crown. This may be a better fit for some of the desired planting spaces. Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we will consider these tree species further at FDP submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Northern Catalpa should be listed at 3” caliper as it appears to be a mitigation tree. Response: Noted and corrected. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/10/2016 11/10/2016: Are street trees in the parkway along Lake and Prospect within City right of way? 7 Response: Yes, trees that appear in the ‘Future Plant Bed by Others’ along Lake Street will be in the City ROW. All of the street trees along Prospect Road will be within the dedicated city ROW. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Light & Power has single phase available along the north side of Prospect Rd. 3-phase primary is available along Lake St. Response: Acknowledged. Three-phase will be required for the proposed type of buildings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: 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: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: 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: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: 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: Acknowledged, please see the proposed locations on the Utility Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: 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: 11/07/2016 8 11/07/2016: MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SERVED BY ONE FIRE PUMP The applicant shall coordinate fire line locations with Water Utilities. If a single fire line/fire pump is to serve multiple buildings, the configuration will need to be shown on the Utility Plans to be approved by Water Utilities Engineering and a covenant agreement will be required. Please contact Water Utilities Engineering for further details at (970) 221-6700 or WaterUtilitiesEng@fcgov.com. Response: It is currently planned to engage into a covenant agreement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: GENERAL FIRE ACCESS The design team for the Stadium Apartment project has, in principal, agreed to provide cross-property emergency access connections in order to improve fire access and general circulation to both project sites. The Stadium project intends to extend the fire lane and Emergency Access Easement to the property line in two locations. The Standard Apartment design team will need to work with the Stadium Apt team in order to facilitate a connection on the west side of the Standard site and a second connection into the north-south drive (between Lake St. and Prospect Rd). Response: These connections have been provided at the northwest corner and middle of the project site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: FIRE LANE ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES Blocking or otherwise obstructing the fire lane with access control devices (such as bollards or gating) will require review and approval of the fire marshal. At this time, removable bollards will not be approved at this location. Gating of the fire lane, controlled by an Opticom activation device will be needed. Gate location(s) to be determined. Response: Acknowledged. Per our meeting, we are proposing the use of signage at both ends of each emergency access only routes. In addition to the signage, roll over curb and gutter is proposed. Both measures are shown on the Horizontal Plan and the exhibit provided at the meeting. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: FIRE LANE CONNECTIONS TO PROSPECT The two proposed fire lane connections to Prospect Rd. do not currently meet minimum required turning radii or allow effective fire apparatus movement into or out of the site. In addition, vertical curbing at these locations will not be approved however roll over curb may be incorporated at these two locations. Response: An AutoTurn Exhibit has been provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: PERIMETER ACCESS > BUILDING A: Perimeter fire access to building A will greatly improve with the fire lane connections to The Stadium Apts. Portions of the buildings south side and courtyards remain out of perimeter access. The central courtyard for example, is approximately 260' out of access. The project team is recommending that wall mounted hydrants be installed in each courtyard to offset the condition. Further review by the fire marshal is needed. > BUILDING B: Perimeter fire access deficiencies to Building B remains unchanged at approximately 240'. However, as this affects mainly the parking garage and the parking garage will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system and dry standpipes with hose connections in all stair towers, the out of access condition is considered acceptable. In addition, the project team is proposing 9 wall mounted hydrants in the enclosed courtyards. Wall hydrants in the enclosed courtyards would not likely be approved, however standpipe hose connections inside the building at the courtyard entry doors would be acceptable. Response: Building A has a wall mounted hydrant in the middle courtyard. Response: We have revised the drawings to remove the wall hydrants in the enclosed corridors and indicate the requested standpipe hose connections inside the building at the courtyard entry doors. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS The current site plan does not allow for aerial fire apparatus access anywhere on site as defined by code. The project team is aware of this deficiency and is currently working with PFA to meet the intent of the fire code via alternative means and measures. That discussion is ongoing. The applicant's comment response letter dated 9/1/16 has put forward a preliminary plan for meeting the intent of the code via certain high rise provisions of the fire code. The fire marshal is out of the office until Nov. 14 and has not had an opportunity to review or respond to the proposal. Ultimately, a formal letter will need to be submitted to the fire marshal for final approval. Response: Acknowledged. Response: As indicated each building 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 •Adjacent to all courtyard doors will be a standpipe hose connection •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. Once we receive notice of approval from the Fire Marshal, we will prepare and submit a formal letter for final approval. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: ADDITIONAL HYDRANT A hydrant will be needed in a TBD location internal to the site. A hydrant is required within 100' of a Fire Department Connection (FDC) for any building(s) equipped with a standpipe system. Response: There is a hydrant about 75’ North of Building A FDC Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: SPV ROOF UNITS Commercial rooftop mounted solar arrays require a separate plan review and permit from the Poudre Fire Authority. Refer to 2015 IFC 605.11 and local amendments for SPV massing, access and other SPV requirements. Response: The SPV Roof units will be submitted to the Poudre Fire Authority for approval during the building permit review process. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: DISCUSSION: TWO WATER MAINS TO BUILDING A 10 Are the two fire mains coming into Building A being provided with a High Rise package to offset the lack of aerial apparatus access? I will speak with the fire marshal to see how he interprets the code requirement. Response: The two proposed fire water mains will enter the building and be connected to the fire pump, in accordance with the 9/1/16 letter referenced in comment #6 and the formal letter to the fire marshal for final approval. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: At the northeast corner of Building A next to the Fire Access, there is supposed to be pedestrian connection to Stadium Apartments. Response: There is a pedestrian connection to Stadium Apartments at the northeast corner and Northwest corner Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: The site plan indicates that the three south-facing courtyards feature a fence and gate. Staff is concerned about the extent of this fence and its potential negative impact on establishing a neighborhood presence. Please provide a detail that describes the type. Response: We have provided a rendered image of what the metal fence will look like with ornamental grasses and colorful native shrubs planted in the raised planters that are located in front of the fence. The metal fence will not exceed four (4) feet in height and will serve only to help create a more intimate and safe outdoor space that is accessible for both studentsand visitor. Please see Appendix A for further clarification Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On the Landscape Plan, along the west edge that abuts the Plymouth Church, there is only 5’ 9” of planting area width for the proposed shade trees. This is too narrow. Please shift the 20’ EAE to the east to increase this planting area. After accommodating the 20-foot wide EAE, there is 17.5 feet that could be divided equally so there could be 8.75 feet of planting area along this edge. Response: We have increased this landscaped area to approximately 8’ and the EAE is now centered between the building and proposed wall. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: The proposed screen wall along the west property line abutting Plymouth Church does not indicate the frequency of the stone columns. If the frequency of the columns is not sufficient to provide proper relief, then the stucco field needs to feature either horizontal reveals or pilasters at frequent intervals. Response: The fence design features horizontal and vertical reveals to add to the aesthetic quality of the design. Stone columns are proposed at 24’ intervals. See Appendix B for further clarification. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: All buildings must comply with Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) which requires that for all setback standards, all building walls that abut property lines that exceed 35 feet in height, must be setback an additional one foot beyond the minimum required for each two feet (or fraction thereof) of wall height. This includes the north, east and west elevations of Building A, and the east and south elevations of the parking garage. Please note that this requires showing the relationship of the elevations to the property lines. When measuring height, 11 please begin at grade and call out the dimension of the total height of all buildings Response: See combined response to Comment Numbers: 5, 6 and 7 attached hereto. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: For example, I'm not seeing compliance with this standard for the south elevation of Building A. If the total height after the first 35 feet is 68.5 feet, then there needs to be a tapering or building setback that achieves a total of 16.75 feet (17 feet "or fraction thereof") of horizontal setback. I’m not seeing dimensions that demonstrate this. The scaled setback after 34.5 feet is only 12 feet and this is carried up to the top without any further tapering. The total setback appears to be short 5.0 feet. Again, it’s critical to establish the exact setbacks from all property lines for the first 35 feet so this standard can be properly evaluated. Response: See combined response to Comment Numbers: 5, 6 and 7 attached hereto. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: We’ve talked about the building setback standard and its importance in contributing to neighborhood compatibility. The first part of the standard describes the additional building setback required. The second part of the standard states: “Terracing or stepping back the mass of large buildings is encouraged.” Please note that while most of the attention is given to the first part of this standard, the second part establishes an additional criterion for large buildings. Staff interprets Building A to be a large building and thus subject to additional consideration for terracing or stepping back in addition to meeting minimum required building setbacks for the height over 35 feet Response: See combined response to Comment Numbers: 5, 6 and 7 attached hereto. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Staff is concerned about the exposure and visibility of the west elevation of Building A as viewed from the adjoining property and Prospect Road. As a result, the Stacked Ashlar Stone should be carried across the entire elevation and not stop as shown. Response: The West elevation of Building A has been revised to address this comment. Stone has been added to this portion of the building elevation. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On the west elevation of Building A, for floors three through five, the windows that do not have balconies appear very flat. Please consider adding trim to these windows in the form of sills, lintels, or other details. Response: The West elevation of Building A has been revised to address this comment. Window trim has been added to this portion of the building elevation. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On the north elevation of Building B, I’m not seeing a main doorway per Section 4.10(E)(1)(a). Response: The North elevation of Building B has been revised to address this comment. Main entry doors have been added to the corner residential lobby as well as the proposed retail space. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On the north elevation of Building B, along Lake Street, I see only 12 one front door with entry stoop. Per the PDR comments, there are supposed to be more, and these are to include entry features and not just back patio sliders. As discussed, height, mass, bulk and scale is mitigated at the street level with front doors and front entry features. Besides, the retail and office, I see only two per the site plan and only one per the architectural elevation. There needs to be additional front entrances along Lake Street. [Section 4.10(E)(1)(b).] Response: The North elevation of Building B has been revised to address this comment. Residential unit entry doors and stoops have been added. A detailed elevation of the proposed Building B residential unit entrances and stoops has been included in the re-submission. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Please note that Section 4.10(D)(2)(a) states that the maximum allowable height is five stories and yet Building B and the parking structure include a sixth floor. I did not see a Request for Modification in the submittal documents. Response: The parking structure is designed to be a maximum of five stories with a below-grade basement. The pool and outdoor amenities are planned on the roof of the parking structure, while the enclosed amenity spaces will be on the fifth level of the structure. Sections have been added to the submission with notes to clarify the parking structure levels. The Building B elevations have been revised to clarify this condition. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Is there a Shadow Study? Response: Yes, please refer to sheets 23, 24, 25, and 26 in the planning set. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Staff is concerned that a project of this scale does not include a car-sharing feature or an activity van. As noted, the nearest grocery store is one mile away. Section 3.8.16(E) was written in an era when more than three bedrooms per unit was the exception. It seems with 788 bedrooms, a car-sharing option addresses the large-scale nature of the project. Response: Landmark understands the need to provide residents with convenient transit options and is amendable to pursuing Zipcar or a similar service. In addition to providing the space needed to accommodate such a service, Landmark would also be open to including charging stations for electric vehicles. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On the Lighting Plan, please use a heavier line and labeling that demarcates the property line along Prospect Road and the west property line abutting Plymouth Church. Since Section 3.2.4(D)(8) calls for measuring foot-candles in relationship to the property line, the linework on the Photometric Plan needs to be adjusted accordingly so the plan can be more easily read in relationship to the standard. Response: Heavier lines have been used. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Section 3.2.4(D)(8) requires that light levels measured 20 feet beyond the property line must not exceed 0.1 foot-candle as a direct result of the on-site lighting. Along Prospect Road, there are foot-candles that consistently exceed the maximum beyond 20 feet. Per the plan, it is not until a distance of 34 feet beyond property line where the light levels are properly reduced to 0.1. Please note that in this particular case, there is public roadway lighting within the 20 feet allowable distance beyond property line that is designed to illuminate the sidewalk so the proposed illumination beyond the property line is redundant. It appears that there is an over-abundance of illumination caused by the A-2 fixture. Please consider deleting these fixtures 13 as it likely that safe and compliant illumination levels can be accomplished solely by the wall-mounted fixtures (WS), especially since the building is only 15 – 17 set back from the public right-of-way. The Lighting Plan needs to be adjusted to comply with this standard. Excessive illumination along Prospect Road runs the risk of non-compliance with neighborhood compatibility. Response: The plan has been adjusted so that all light point values are 0.1 foot-candles or less at 20-foot beyond the property line for the entire project. For clarity, a dashed line has been added to indicate 20’ beyond the property line. There are no existing public roadway lighting on the north side of Prospect (only the south), and it was confirmed with Light and Power that no additional streetlights are proposed. This existing streetlights on the south side of Prospect do not adequately illuminate this project’s property. The existing dark conditions create an unsafe environment for students and pedestrians that will be utilizing this project’s sidewalk. The “WS” fixtures are only 9-watt LED fixtures wall-mounted at 8’-0” AFG +/-. The walk way along Prospect cannot be effectively illuminated with only the “WS” wall mounted fixtures. Therefore, deleting the “A1” fixtures and only providing “WS” fixtures along prospect is not a viable solution for safety concerns. The A1 fixtures are mounted on a 12’ pole, are “cut-off” rated and provide an attractive aesthetic. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: On Sheet 11, the Photometric Plan, the Luminaire Scheduled must be clarified that no fixtures may exceed 3,000 degrees Kelvin. Response: A note has been added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: My plan set did not include perspective building elevations. Response: The building perspectives and vignettes are included in this submission. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016 11/07/2016: 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 Basil Hamdan 970-224-6035 or email @ bhamdan@fcgov.com Response: Erosion Control Report and Escrow will be submitted with FDP Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/07/2016: Please identify and protect the nearest outfall locations for any potential tracking on Lake Street and Prospect Road. The erosion and sediment control plan and details sheets are too cluttered and difficult to read 14 due to the scale used to fit all information on one page each. There is text that is cut off, missing flow arrows, illegible text, illegible lines. Property edge is currently protected with wattles with construction fence, no detail is provided for that combination, while a silt fence detail is provided which is not called for on plan. Plans should add notes as to how the permeable paver fields will be protected at the end of the construction sequence especially at the construction entrance location. Please see redlines for more detailed comments. Response: Outfall locations have been called out but due to proximity to site they are not shown. The scale was not adjusted at this time in the process, but some of the line work was removed to clarify the plans. Flow arrows have been added. Construction fence with rock sock has replaced the need for sediment fence. Further discussions can be held to better define how the permeable paver field will be protected and noted on the plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: The City normally does not allow outfalls that are in a sump condition. A meeting is suggested to discuss options for the outfall of the vault detention basin. Response: Per our meeting, this section of line will be privately owned and maintained. A dry well is proposed at the low point to drain the line storm events larger than the water quality event. It was also discussed that a perforated outlet pipe with drain rock bedding could also be used to drain this section of pipe. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. Response: These sheet numbering issues, resulting from a partial re-submission, have been addressed in the current submission. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Please change the sub-title to match the revised sub-title on the Subdivision Plat. Response: The sub-title has been revised. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. Response: Sheet numbering has been revised Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Line over text was resolved Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text was resolved Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 15 11/09/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text was resolved Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Easements have been updated Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines. Response: Text has been rotated 180 degrees. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and resolved. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: No comments. Response: No comments Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please include in the sub-title & legal description: A part thereof being a replat of Lots 5, 6 & 19, and portions of Lots 4, 7, 16, 17, 18 & 20, Block 2, College Heights. See redlines. Response: The sub-title has been revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please change the quarter section in the sub-title to "Southwest". See redlines. Response: This has been revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please label major streets on the vicinity map. See redlines. Response: The major streets have been included on the vicinity map. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please add the missing note "There shall be no private....of the City Code.". Response: The note has been added Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: If the Stadium Apartments plat is filed prior to this plat, please note changes in surrounding subdivisions. See redlines. Response: Please see the revised plat. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please add the Blocks to the surrounding College Heights plat notes. See redlines. Response: Blocks have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please verify the LS number for the southwest corner of section 14. See redlines. 16 Response: The LS numbers have been revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com Response: Current monument records have been provided. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please show right of way lines as a solid line. See redlines. Response: Right-of-Way lines have been revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please make the lot line text larger. See redlines. Response: Lot line text has been enlarged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please add another Lot 1 label in the eastern portion of the lot. See redlines. Response: Another Lot 1 label has been added. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines. Response: The surrounding properties have been labeled as “Unplatted.” Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please label "The Slab Property". See redlines. Response: The Slab Property has been labeled. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please add bearings & distances as marked. See redlines. Response: Missing bearings and distances have been added. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Please make changes to the legal description as shown. See redlines. Also revise the legal description to match the corrected legal description on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Acknowledged and corrected. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Noted, corrections made. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. Response: Noted, corrections made. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/08/2016 11/08/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Acknowledged. 17 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: The Traffic Impact Study has been received and reviewed. There are some geometric improvements that have been triggered by this project. The TIS indicates there are constraints prohibiting installation of these improvements, but does not offer alternative mitigation strategies. In the absence of a recommendation City Staff will determine what improvements will be required. Response: A revised TIS is being submitted with alternative mitigation strategies. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: 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: Landmark is aware of the irrigation plan requirements and time-sensitive nature. Our design process has placed a high degree of importance on ensuring our irrigation system adequately meets Land Use Code provisions. We are working on finalizing irrigation plans and will ensure that such plans are submitted concurrent with building permit. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016 11/09/2016: A covenant agreement is required for the fire services to be connected between the two buildings. The City will supply a standard form to process and file with the County. Response: It is currently planned to engage into a covenant agreement. Department: Zoning Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: The marked trash enclosures on the drawing need to include a detail showing how the enclosure area is designed to provide adequate, safe , and efficient accessibility for service vehicles, and the separate walk-in pedestrian access. Response: The proposed pedestrian access to the trash rooms have been added to the building floor plans. The building maintenance staff will move the trash from Building A to the compactor located in Building B. Trash will be picked up form Building B. A Truck Turning Diagram has be provided in this re-submission to show efficient accessibility for service vehicles. 18 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: The site plans show 473 enclosed bicycle spaces to be allocated for this development, where will these spaces be located? A detailed plan will need to be provided showing the location and spacing of the enclosures. Response: Detailed bike parking area information has been added to the building floor plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: A detailed floor plan of both parking garages need to be provided, including the layout of all the parking spaces and handicap spaces Contained within the garages. Response: All of the Building B parking level floor plans are included in the re-submission. (There is no longer any parking located in Building A) Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: A detail needs to be provided for the mechanical and other equipment, and how the equipment will be properly screened from public view as per 3.5.1(I)(6). Response: The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by the 42” minimum height parapets, as well as mansard and gable roof forms. The update building sections reflect the proposed rooftop equipment (HVAC units and fans) as well as the proposed screening Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: The landscape plans show 33,608 sq. ft. of shrub bed. A detail needs to be provided of the shrub beds and placement of the shrubs to be included in the aforementioned locations at the time of final submittal. Response: Acknowledged, detail will be provided at final. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: The HMN zone restricts the maximum building height to 5 stories, Building B with it's rooftop amenity is in violation of the height limit. The setbacks for both buildings do not meet the minimum required setbacks as per 4.10(D)(2)(b). The north elevation of building A is 68.6' which would require a 17' setback. The North elevation of building B is 74' which would require a 29' setback. The east elevation of building B is 72' which would require a 19' setback. The south elevation of building B is 13' at the wall and 19' at the corner tower. Terracing would be encouraged to meet these standards. Response: The building massing and elevations for both Buildings A and B have been revised to address this requirement. Dimensions have been added to the building sections to indicate the grade plane elevation and to identify the total height of the buildings as measured from the grade plane. The step back and terracing requirements are indicated on the building sections. The Standard at Fort Collins, PDP160035, Round Number 1 Combined response to Planning Services, Comment Numbers: 5, 6 and 7: The applicant acknowledges that the project is subject to LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). As you mentioned in your comments, it is necessary to clarify the methodology for evaluating compliance with the standard including, determining the minimum required setbacks for all sides of the buildings and the building heights from grade. Methodology • The LUC defines “setback” as the space “between the nearest projection of a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located.” The minimum required setback is measured from the property line and, therefore, is not measured from the utility easement, even if building is not allowed within the utility easement area. • Pursuant to Administrative Interpretation #2-16, a multi-family project in the TOD Overlay Zone is exempt from the general residential street setback requirements for arterials and non-arterials in LUC 3.5.2(E)(1) and (2), and exempt from the multi-family setback requirements for arterials and non-arterials in LUC 3.8.30(E)(3). The result is that there is no minimum required setback from Prospect Road or from West Lake Street. Therefore, the minimum required setback is zero for both the south side of Building A (adjacent to an arterial) and for the north side of Building B (adjacent to a non-arterial). A zero foot setback is the same as the property line, so the additional setback required by Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) is measured from the property line. • The minimum residential side yard setback is 5’ from the property line pursuant to LUC 3.5.2(E)(3), so the additional setback required by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b) is measured from the 5’ side yard setback line. • The minimum residential rear yard setback is 8’ from the property line pursuant to LUC 3.5.2(E)(3), so the additional setback required by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b) is measured from the 8’ rear yard setback line. • The area of the additional setback is determined by starting at the minimum required setback, extending up 35’ from grade, and then tapering back from the minimum required setback at a slope of 2:1. • This methodology is generally consistent with the illustration of setback compliance provided for the Stadium Apartments, which you referred to in the November 9th DRT meeting as the correct way to illustrate the setback except that, pursuant to the LUC definition of “setback” and Administrative Interpretation #2-16, the additional setback is being measured from the minimum required setback and not from the utility easement. • There are options for ensuring that no portions of the building encroach into the additional setback required by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b): (i) locate the entire building (without step backs) far enough behind the minimum required setback; or (ii) terrace or step back the upper floors of the building. • The statement at the end of LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b) that, “Terracing or stepping back the mass of large buildings is encouraged” does not seem to be a separate criterion, but rather an optional way to meet the very specific setback requirement which is the subject of this provision. If this statement was meant to be a separate additional criterion, it would be expected that it would be a separate development standard for the HMN zone district, rather than just the last sentence of the setback requirement. • In any event, we believe that we have complied with the intent of the language by employing the technique on the critical building elevations that make the most difference to the public and to pedestrian and bicycle traffic (i.e. Building A – South Elevation and Building B – North and East Elevations); in these locations, the stepping back of the building’s upper floors assists with mitigation of the building mass, particularly when combined with the architectural detailing, variation in materials, use of courtyards and activated streetscapes that include street trees, landscaping, and pedestrian-scale lighting. Compliance with the standard The applicant has evaluated all of The Standard’s building sides for compliance with LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b), and revised the building sections and prepared several schematic block diagrams to illustrate where the setback is measured from (relative to the minimum required setback: property line or side or rear yard setback), how the grade is determined, and how each building side complies with the standard. Please note that all of the illustrations of compliance with the standard are based on the current plans. Such plans may undergo slight modifications and refinements during the final development review process, however, the applicant acknowledges that with such modifications, the project will continue to be required to comply with the additional setback requirement. Building A – South Elevation The south elevation of Building A fronts on Prospect Road. As previously discussed, there is no building setback requirement along this arterial street, therefore, the additional required setback for this façade is measured from the right-of-way line. The Developer is dedicating 21’ width along Prospect for future widening of the street so the additional required setbacks have been measured from the future right-of-way rather than the existing right-of-way. For the south-facing Building A walls that extend out toward Prospect Road, the Developer has elected to keep the first three floors of the building closer to the property line to “promote the efficient utilization of the land,” a stated purpose of the HMN zone district, but far enough back (16-18’’ feet from property line) to accommodate the proposed 15’ utility easement. This also allows for the installation of landscaping enhancements, bicycle racks, and sidewalk connections to the building and courtyards along Prospect Road in order to prioritize the pedestrian amenities and ground level pedestrian experience In addition, the 4th and 5th stories are stepped back to a total of 25’-27’ from the future ROW (10’-12’ in excess of the 15’ required to provide an utility easement) in order to provide terracing of the building façade and mitigate the mass of the building as is encouraged by the language of Section 4.10(D)(2)(b). Note also that the south-facing Building A walls on the interior of the Prospect Road-facing western and center courtyards are set back approximately 128’ from the ROW. The south-facing wall in the eastern courtyard is setback approximately 116’ from the ROW. These distances far exceed the additional setback requirements and are, therefore, in compliance with Section 4.10(D)(2)(b). The updated buildings section drawing (Building A – Section 2 Looking East on page 11 of the PDP plans) illustrates that the south elevation of Building A complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). At 35’ above grade (based on the proposed elevation at the future ROW), the building setback line tapers back at a 2:1 slope. Building A – West Elevation The west elevation of Building A faces the Plymouth Congregational Church. The building is set back approximately 28’-38’ from the western property line. A proposed fence, landscaping, and emergency access alley/pedestrian corridor will be provided between the property line and the building. Using the required minimum side yard setback of 5’ and tapering back at a slope of 2:1 at 35’ above grade (based on the proposed elevation at the setback), none of the west elevation encroaches into the additional required setback. In addition to the generous setback, the applicant will be using a stone treatment at the base of Building A and installing a scored stucco fence with stone columns (to match the Church façade) along the property line to further mitigate the height and mass without upper floor terracing or setbacks for most of the western facade. Note that there will be some terracing effect provided at the southwest corner of the building due to the stepping back of the 4th and 5th floor for the South Elevation (as discussed in the section above). The updated buildings section drawing (Building A – Section 1 Looking North on page 11 of the PDP plans) illustrates that the west elevation of Building A complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). Building A - North Elevation The taller portions of Building A have been located on the interior/rear yard of the site [as required by LUC 3.4.7(F)(1)] allowing the applicant to give priority to large setbacks and the ground level pedestrian experience on the remaining three elevations. The applicant believes that terracing of the upper floors on this elevation would not be an efficient use of the property and that it would not provide much benefit. This elevation faces the recently approved Stadium Apartments, another 5-story student-oriented project. Between the two buildings and located on the Stadium Apartments site, there is a 55 foot wide parking lot and a 27 foot wide open space. The northern elevation of Building A is located approximately 18’-19’ from the property line (more than double the required 8’ rear yard setback). The parking lot and open space on the Stadium Apartments site and the proposed building setback on site creates a separation between the two buildings of approximately 100 feet. This distance adequately mitigates the mass of Building A without additional terracing or stepping back of the upper floors, particularly since there is no view of this elevation from the public streets. The building footprint has been modified in several locations to meet the requirements of the LUC. This is most notable on the northern elevation where the separation between the building and the property line was increased to comply with the required setback. In addition, the rooftop parapet walls have been replaced with a sloped roof to comply with the setback The western two-thirds of the northern building face is located approximately 18’-19’ from the property line. Using the required minimum rear yard setback of 8’ and tapering back at a slope of 2:1 at 35’ above grade (based on the proposed elevation at the setback), none of the northern building face encroaches into the additional required setback. There is some minor encroachment from the roof eave which is allowed by LUC 3.8.19(A)(6). Two section views are provided below to illustrate compliance with LUC 3.8.19(A)(6) for the western two-thirds of the building. At the east end of the northern building face, interior mechanical areas have been modified to allow the west-facing exterior wall to be shifted away from the property line. Using the 5’ side yard setback as the minimum required setback, and sloping the setback line back at an angle of 2:1 above 35’ (based on the proposed elevation at the setback), all of this portion of the building now fits within the additional required setback. The updated buildings section drawing (Building A – Section 2 Looking East on page 11 of the PDP plans) illustrates that the north elevation of Building A complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). In addition, three schematic block sections have been prepared to illustrate compliance: The first section is located at a point along Building A just prior to the jog to the north where the building face is closest to the northern property line. The second section is located on the western facing wall where the building jogs to the north. The third section is taken along the northeast corner of Building A. Building A – East Elevation This elevation of Building A faces the north-south pedestrian/bicycle way through the project and the three- story, student-oriented development known as The Slab which will soon begin construction. While the required side yard setback is only 5’ from the property line, the entire building is set back 42’-47’, This allows for installation of an activated north-south alley that provides access to the parking garage from Lake Street, emergency vehicle access through the site, and will function as a pedestrian/bicyclist connection between Prospect Road and Lake Street. The alley will include special paving, lighting, landscaping, bicycle racks, and other site amenity features intended to promote safety and visual interest at the pedestrian level. The western building wall of The Slab is located approximately 70’ from the property line to allow for the installation of a parking lot and outdoor plaza area with seating and bicycle racks on that site. The parking lot and amenity space on The Slab site and the proposed setback on The Standard site creates a separation between the two buildings of approximately 112’. This distance, combined with the activated ground level experience, adequately mitigates the mass of the east elevation of Building A without additional terracing or stepping back of the upper floors. Note, however, that there will be some terracing effect provided at the southeast corner of the building due to the setback of the 4th and 5th floor for the South Elevation (as discussed in that section). The updated buildings section drawing (Building A – Section 1 Looking North on page 11 of the PDP plans) illustrates that the east elevation of Building A complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). Building B – North Elevation The north elevation of Building B fronts on Lake Street. As previously discussed, there is no building setback requirement along this street, therefore, the additional required setback for this façade is measured from the right-of-way line. For the north-facing Building B wall, the Developer has elected to keep the first three floors of the building closer to the property line to “promote the efficient utilization of the land,” a stated purpose of the HMN zone district, but far enough back (approximately 14’ feet from property line) to accommodate the proposed 9’ utility easement. This also allows for the installation of landscaping, low retaining walls, and sidewalk connections to the building the along Lake Street in order to prioritize the pedestrian amenities and ground level pedestrian experience In addition, the 4th and 5th stories are stepped back approximately 21’ from the ROW (12’ in excess of the 9’ required to provide an utility easement) in order to provide terracing of the building façade and mitigate the mass of the building as is encouraged by the language of Section 4.10(D)(2)(b). The updated buildings section drawing (Building B – Section 2 Looking East and Section 3 Looking East on on page 18 of the PDP plans) illustrate that the North elevation of Building B complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). Building B - East Elevation The east elevation of Building B faces a large yard and the Colorado Farmhouse Fraternity on the adjacent property. The residential portion of Building B on the east elevation is set back approximately 12’-13’ from the eastern property line. In addition, the 4th and 5th stories are stepped back to approximately 19’-20’ from the property line in order to provide terracing of the building façade and mitigate the mass of the building as is encouraged by the language of Section 4.10(D)(2)(b). These setbacks are provided in excess of required 5’ side yard setback. The owners of the Colorado Farmhouse Fraternity property dedicated a 30’ public access and emergency access easement along this property line in 2007 to provide access through the block in connection with the Observatory Park Subdivision (a prior development proposal for The Slab property). This public access and emergency access easement together with the setback provided on site creates a minimum separation of 42’ between the proposed Building B and any future redevelopment of the Colorado Farmhouse Fraternity property. The east wall of the parking garage portion of Building B is located approximately 14’ from the eastern property line. The clubhouse located on the 5th floor of the parking garage has been stepped back an additional 5’ in order to comply with the setback line established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). Using the required minimum side yard setback of 5’ and tapering back at a slope of 2:1 at 35’ above grade (based on the proposed elevation at the setback), none of the east elevation encroaches into the additional required setback. The updated buildings section drawing (Building B – Section 1 Looking North on page 18 of the PDP plans) illustrates illustrate that the east elevation of Building A complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). In addition, two schematic block sections have been prepared to illustrate compliance: the first section is located at the southeast corner of the residential building where the property line is closest to the building; the second section is provided at the southeast corner of the parking garage. Building B - South Elevation This elevation faces the recently approved development known as The Slab, another student-oriented project and mostly consists of the proposed parking garage. Between the two builings and locate on The Slab site, there is a 120’ wide parking lot with parking spaces, drive aisles, and landscaped areas. The parking lot and open space on The Slab site and the proposed building setback on the site creates a separation between the buildings of approximately 140’. In addition, the amenity area on the 5th floor of the parking deck has been stepped back line and a sloped roof is to be provided over the residential portion to meet the building setback The updated buildings section drawing (Building B – Section 2 Looking East and Section 3 Looking East on on page 18 of the PDP plans) illustrate that the North elevation of Building B complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). Building B – West Elevation This elevation of Building B faces the north-south pedestrian/bicycle way through the project and the recently approved Stadium Apartments, another 5-story student-oriented development. While the required side yard setback is only 5’ from the property line, the entire building is set back 36’-38’ from the property line. This allows for installation of an activated north-south alley that provides access to the parking garage from Lake Street, emergency vehicle access through the site, and will function as a pedestrian/bicyclist connection between Prospect Road and Lake Street. The alley will include special paving, lighting, landscaping, bicycle racks, and other site amenity features intended to promote safety and visual interest at the pedestrian level. The eastern building wall of the Stadium Apartments building is located 20’ to 32’ from the property line. The setbacks on each development’s site create a separation between the two buildings of 58’ to 68’. This distance combined with the activated ground level experience adequately mitigates the mass of Building B without additional terracing or stepping back of the upper floors. The updated buildings section drawing (Building B – Section 1 Looking North on page 18 of the PDP plans) illustrates illustrate that the west elevation of Building B complies with the building setback line as established by LUC 4.10(D)(2)(b). 19 Appendix B: Courtyard Fence Exhibit 20 Appendix B: Shared Wall with Plymouth Church Exhibit Church materials and design elements that are reflected in the design of the wall – stone, stucco, and the horizontal and vertical reveal pattern.