Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - PDP - PDP150013 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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 August 10, 2015 Cathy Mathis TB GROUP 444 MOUNTAIN AVE Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Uncommon (310 S College), PDP150013, 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. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Building Materials Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(e) requires that "All street-facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre- cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not exceed either five (5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear expression of a joint. For the purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall mean metal panel systems that are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with expressed seams; metal framing systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal panels. Architectural metals shall not include ribbed or corrugated metal panel systems." The proposed facade includes use of Stucco and Fiber Cement Siding which are not permitted. A Modification of Standard will need to be requested. Additionally, please explain what material is proposed along the ground floor of the east side. RESPONSE: Indeed, the materials for the exterior of the buildings have been selected based on the contextual nature of the downtown with the goal of continuing, on this transition site, the pedestrian nature of the street fronts with the use of elegant and timeless materials in accordance with the requirements of the City. We are proposing the use of brick as the predominant material used on the street facades, with different brick colors for the three primary masses along College and Olive so as to differentiate these three elements with similar proportions of other buildings facing College. The retail base along these two street fronts is articulated with the use of brick, stone, masonry, large storefronts and steel columns. “Lighter” materials such as hard-coat stucco, and horizontal siding are used at upper recessed levels and along the alley façade, again following the design modulations and materiality of other great buildings in the core of downtown. The use of these lighter materials will help these uppers floors, which are set back from the street facade, to visually recede even further to form a backdrop for the elegant brick elements helping define the retail base and the main body of the buildings up to four stories. A modification of standard will be sought for the use of stucco and horizontal siding, which are employed to further help compositionally minimize building mass. Architectural metals (steel wide flange beams) are proposed along the street facades below the storefront. At the alley, exposed concrete is proposed for durability. See the elevations for more detail. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Prior to the PDP submittal, the proposed project has had multiple revisions and four separate meetings between staff and the applicant to discuss its size and mass in the context of downtown (2 PDR Staff Review meetings, 2 additional charrette-style design meetings). Staff's comments have remained consistent that a building of this size, in terms of bulk and mass, is out of scale with downtown and incompatible with the existing context. Response: Since the PDR submittal in May, the project has been reduced from 270 beds to 248 (8% reduction) and from 167,700 sf to 150,300 sf (10% reduction). In addition, other measures have been taken to reduce the apparent height and mass – set-back at level 5 and level 6, removal of “connectors” between wings, and differentiation of the three major masses (these are discussed in greater detail later). All these contribute to a very significant modification of the proposed project as a result of discussions with staff. We also assert that the project is consistent with the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) for sites within the Infill/Transition Area. In fact, the subject property is specifically identified as a “redevelopment parcel” (Figure 3.56). The DSP supports buildings taller than 3 stories and acknowledges that “redevelopment will likely require buildings that are larger than the majority of existing buildings in the area” (2.2.1.a.) and that “this area is THE primary place to allow a dynamic, mixed urban environment with building of widely varied sizes and functions” (2.2.1.b., emphasis ours). The DSP goes on to say “Carefully locate and shape taller buildings (4-12 stories) in the west side Infill/Transition Area to respond to defining characteristics of the surrounding context” (3.2.2.). Techniques noted to mass include “Base” (3.2.2.b.1.) and “Step Back” (3.2.2.b.2.), both of which we are doing. It also discusses “Maximum Height” (3.2.2.b.4.), noting that the Maximum Heights Map (Figure 2.6 and reproduced in the Land Use Code) “represent a compromise among various interests”. 3.2.2.c. notes that “Various interest groups generally agree that building ups to about 6-1/2 stories (about 80’) can be acceptable throughout the area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing structures taller than that. Standards should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly straightforward review based on the general agreement on key parameters” (3.2.2.c., emphasis ours). The proposed building is 240' in length and 134' wide and greater than 70' in height for the majority of the east side's 240' length, making it much larger than any buildings downtown (150,200 SF, FAR 4.29, 148 DU/AC). Specifically, it does not meet the following standards: Response: The current vision for the Downtown Sub-Districts (as illustrated in the Land Use Code Building Heights Map, Figure 18.5) anticipates a crescendo of heights from a maximum of 4 stories/45’ in the Old City Center Sub-District, to a maximum of 6 stories/85’ on the transitional block along College in the Canyon Avenue Sub-district (where this project is located). Just a block south, within the same Sub-district, a maximum height of 9 stories/115’ is allowed. The City vision for this crescendo in building height as one progresses out from the Old City Center, allows a maximum height of 12 stories/150’ just one block from this site to the northwest. The current city vison, as is outline in the Land Use Code, anticipates new development with the parameters documented above. Within the Downtown District, there are numerous large and tall buildings, some of which are larger and taller than the proposed project. Some examples are: the DMA Plaza (just 1 block away from the subject property), which is eleven stories and estimated to be over 100’ tall, the Larimer County Justice Center is five tall stories and estimated to be at least 60’ tall, the Larimer County Courthouse Offices Building (2 blocks away) is six stories and estimated to be 120,000 s.f. and 70’ tall, the First National Bank building (2 blocks away) is 12 stories and estimated to be 130’ tall, the Key Bank building (3 blocks away) is 11 stories and estimated to be 105,000 s.f. and over 130’ tall, and the Civic Center Garage is approximately 390’ long, 185’ wide and 250,000 s.f. in area. Clearly, the proposed building is neither the tallest, nor the largest building in the downtown. Regarding the proposed length of the building facades along College Avenue, the design, based on staff input, has evolved to express the historical modulation, proportion and scale of the retail fronts along the pedestrian streets of the city core. Following the approximately 25’ width of the old platted parcels, the retail base articulates this rhythm in three different masses that communicate three different buildings with distinctly (and differently) detailed facades along a new highly-detailed street front. A defined building base of approximately 18’ (from the sidewalk to the top of the first floor) matches the datum (water mark) established by other buildings in the neighborhood. Building area, FAR, and DU/acre are not listed as criteria toward compatibility. Additionally, the density (DU/acre) has been purposefully set by the decision to provide smaller, more compact units in an effort to keep rents at a reasonable level. The discussion of density and affordability in the city core has been a focus of several visioning sessions organized by the City with input from the neighbors and city experts. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.) RESPONSE: As the project sits on a larger site than any other in the immediate neighborhood (with the exception of the new proposal for the Bohemian Hotel) and in response to the dialogue with staff, the mass of the building along College Avenue has been subdivided into three major elements that sit over a retail base (as illustrated in the previous response). The purpose of this is to break the façade along College into three distinct buildings and to reduce the perceived scale from the street up to 4 stories. This revision of the previous design, which had a continuing façade along College, was accomplished by removing the connecting elements between the three masses, further separating these three building elements, reducing the apparent mass of the building, and opening the second story courtyards to the west. These three masses have been differentiated in detail, character, and color (by the use of different brick materials) to further emphasize each as an individual component and give the impression of three separate buildings similar to other existing buildings within the downtown. The first floor storefront of the building is also reinforced by a strong cornice with the building set back above, which aligns with the single-story buildings along College Avenue and the storefront portion of the Armstrong, emphasizing the pedestrian scale. This strong datum “water mark” also meets the requirement of 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. (G) Building Height Review. (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. (a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40) feet in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria: 3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale. As noted above, by articulating the building into 3 masses, the building is compatible with the scale of the neighborhood in terms of height to mass and length to mass. As to the relative height, the DMA Plaza apartment building (just 1 block away) is over 100’ tall, which is at least 25’ taller than the proposed building. Furthermore, the building height is mitigated by placing the tallest portion of the building away from street frontages, thus reducing the visual impact. The project is compatible to the human scale of the neighborhood by the creation of a storefront band at the ground level that varies along College Avenue and Olive Street. The set back at level 4 further reduces the apparent mass and scale of the building and is enhanced by a change to lighter materials (horizontal siding and stucco). The set-back has been set at 35-degree angle above the roofline as required for the fourth floor in the Old City Center Sub-district (Figure 19 of the Land Use Code). While the project is not located in the Old City Center Sub-district, we felt that the condition and objective are similar and that use of this standard is an appropriate method of compliance. See sheet PDP 10 for demonstration of our application of this standard. DIVISION 4.16 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) (E) Site Design Standards. (1) Site Design. (c) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Plazas. For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub-districts that are four (4) stories or taller, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made. RESPONSE: We have removed a portion of the building and added a plaza at the south end of the property, which is the portal of activity at mid-block along College Avenue and is the connection to the Paseo that serves as the pedestrian link connecting College with the alley. This neighborhood amenity is open to the public, promotes a sense of pedestrian scale and is in line for the vison of the city to allow connectivity as it links College with the alley and neighboring properties. This amenity is born from the urban fabric of Fort Collins and meets this requirement. The Paseo and plaza have high visibility from College Avenue and provide relief from the street frontage, which extends virtually unbroken from the property north all the way to Walnut Street. This “pocket plaza” is envisioned as more of an urban space with landscaping as accents, providing a place to eat lunch, read, study, or just hang out. The plaza will be activated by apartment residents entering and exiting the building. The Paseo also provides a connection for building residents and the public to the alley. This alley would be a logical extension of the alley improvement program, and in fact, is identified in the Downtown Alleys Masterplan Report as a possible future connection to the alley north of Olive Street. In addition to the Paseo, the storefront along College Avenue is recessed by 5-1/2’ at the center portion. A portion of this area will be used for bike racks, but is also available for outdoor dining, seating, and passive contemplation of city life. And, Forestry comment #4 regarding stepping back the building to provide space for the street tree canopy. In order to comply with the above standards, the proposal needs to provide additional "ground floor open space" for public access and to break up the building mass to promote a "comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment". Based on the proposed building height, mass and bulk, it appears that the overall mass of the building must be reduced significantly to be "compatible with the scale of the neighborhood (defined as "other structures on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection") in which [it is] situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale" and to be RESPONSE: The building facades along the street fronts have been carefully coordinated with the City Forester to ensure that the existing tree canopies are respected to promote their long life. Additional street trees are also proposed to provide shade for future generations. The facade of the building along College Avenue has been set back two feet from the property line so as to offer additional open space for public use. The new Plaza brings a public space under the building similar to the Wells Fargo building across the street, creating a protected space for public use. The building mass in the middle of College increases the width of the sidewalk as the building is set back from the property line, again creating additional comfortable human space to enjoy the storefronts or have the ability to have café style seating along the sidewalk within the property line. If the project's constraints will not permit such a reduction in size to meet the requirements of the code, staff is willing to bring the project to the Planning and Zoning Board, with a recommendation of denial, as soon as other reviewing agencies are comfortable. RESPONSE: We believe the concessions made to date meet the standards laid out in the City’s Land Use Code, to the maximum extent feasible. We would ask the planning staff to consider submitted responses and design revisions in hope that our understanding of the Land Use Code can be confirmed, and therefore supported by the planning staff. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Photometric Plan Please provide a photometric plan that shows lighting levels in foot-candle measurements. The Light Loss Factor (LLF) should be set at 1.0. Please see standards in Section 3.2.4 for permitted levels and design details. The photometric plan needs to show light levels up to 20 feet beyond the property line. RESPONSE: A photometric plan is included in the resubmittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Bicycle Parking The total on the site plan reads 256 spaces (186 secured); but the subtotals add up to 262, please revise. Please show floor plans indicating where the enclosed bike parking is located. The bike parking shall meet the definitions as follows (the utility plans show bike parking at 3.5 s.f. per space; the code requires 6 s.f. per space): Bicycle parking, enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building, including, without limitation, a shed or carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access. RESPONSE: Current bike parking count is 209 in the secured indoor storage room, 24 in the garage, and 28 at the exterior, for a total of 261. The table has been updated accordingly. The site plan indicates location of all racks. With such a large number of bikes stored indoors, a vertical storage system is proposed to make the facility more efficient. For this system, the manufacturer recommends allowing 16”x40” for each bike (4.4 s.f.) with a 36” aisle. We have provided 16” x 40” with a 4’-8” (minimum) aisle. If this is acceptable, a formal variance will be submitted. Bicycle parking, fixed shall mean bicycle parking that allows the bicycle frame and both wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5½) feet in length, with additional back-out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet. RESPONSE: Spacing of fixed U-racks at the exterior and garage has been based on LCUASS standards, which indicate a spacing of 2.5’ (drawing 1703). 5.5’ in length will be allowed for bikes with at least a 5’ aisle. Since each rack accommodates two bikes, this yields a width of 1.25’ for each bike. Please clarify which standard is to be applied. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Vehicle Parking In order to receive the transit pass 10% reduction for parking, you will need to purchase 250 transit passes on an annual basis to provide for tenants. We can make it a condition of approval that can happen prior to C.O. RESPONSE: Every tenant who does not already possess, or require due to age, a MAX Pass, would be provided one as part of their lease agreement and have it issued in conjunction with their move in. Please see attached Management Plan. As stated in TDO Overlay Zone District - Section 3.2.2K(1)(a)1.a. in the Demand Mitigation Strategy table, “All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement…” Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2015 08/07/2015: The proposed plan does not provide outdoor spaces as required per Sec. 3.10.3(C): "Outdoor Spaces. To the extent reasonably feasible, buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plazas, arcades, terraces, balconies and decks for residents' and workers' use and interaction, and to integrate the development with the adjacent physical context. To the extent reasonably feasible, a continuous walkway system linking such outdoor spaces shall be developed, and shall include coordinated linkages between separate developments." RESPONSE: The Plaza at grade south of the building, the connecting Paseo, and the level 2 roof top courtyards meet this requirement. These courtyards were not shown clearly in the previous submittal as the building façade along College blocked their view. As the previous concept has evolved to illustrate three buildings facing west, the courtyards are now open to view and create the ability to bring landscape over the retails fronts as well as relief from the buildings above. A plan has now been included. These spaces provide ample opportunities for resident passive use and interaction. The Paseo also provides a link from College Avenue and the alley, which will improve pedestrian connectivity in this part of the downtown core as part of the Downtown Alleys Masterplan. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Show all proposed easements on the Utility Plan. 10' Public Access, Drainage and Utility Easement to the south and a 5' Access, Emergency Access, Drainage and Utility Easement to the east. RESPONSE: The requested easements are now shown and labeled on all sheets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Show ROW lines along South College Avenue and Olive Street. RESPONSE: The existing ROW lines are better shown and labeled on all sheets. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Please coordinate with CDOT for the required permits needed to remove the existing concrete driveway. RESPONSE: When the project is approved by the City of Fort Collins, the owners will prepare the necessary Access Permit Modification and proceed with the closure of the driveway onto U287 (College Avenue). Preliminary discussions with CDOT Region IV have already occurred regarding the access permit. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: The driveway off of Olive Street to the alley does not meet standards. The slope from the front of walk to the flowline is 1" per LF. What is being proposed is about 3" greater than the maximum. Please refer to LCUASS drawing 803 for Alley Intersection details. There are details for an alley with side drainage or with center drainage. RESPONSE: The preliminary design for this intersection has been revised. Additional design detail will come during Final Plan to ensure requirements for ADA accessibility, fire truck ridability, and nuisance drainage are met. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: ADA ramps/truncated domes are required on either side of the alley access off of Olive Street. Please see LCUASS drawing 803 for Alley Intersection details. RESPONSE: ADA ramps and truncated domes are now shown on the plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Based on the elevations, it appears that there are a number of doors that line the building along College Avenue and Olive Street. Please be aware that doors can't swing into the public ROW. It they do, the building will need to be inset in these areas. RESPONSE: Doors will be inset sufficiently so as to not swing over the property line. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: If planters/pots with pads or benches (not used as retaining walls) are desired in the existing parkway, approval from CDOT will be required. Arevocable encroachment permit will also be required for any items in the public ROW. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: 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/ • 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 Tony Raeker at 970-416- 4238 or traeker@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: There is a currently a meeting scheduled for September 8th to discuss the Nature in the City Strategic Plan and how we might be able to incorporate components into this development. In addition, our project team has reached out to the Environmental Planning Department regarding the current city requirements and future concerns. We support all of the mentioned programs and are currently investigating, via research and interviews with Environmental planning department, which items are the best fit for our project. Suzie Gordon has been of particular help in our understanding of the current waste and refuse strategies, and discussing Fort Collins strategic environmental planning goals. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Use the newly developed landscape and project notes on the plans. These notes are available from the projects City Planner. Although, in place of the Land Use Code tree protection specifications use the more comprehensive City Forestry Divisions tree protection specifications since all trees to be protected are City trees. RESPONSE: The notes have been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Provide for 9 upsized mitigation trees on the project or planted off-site LUC 3.2.1 F. In situations where all mitigation trees cannot be placed on a project an option that some developments have chosen is to pay the City Forestry Division to plant the mitigation trees off -site. If the development chooses to use this option then a note needs to be placed on the tree inventory and mitigation plan describing that payment for off-site mitigation trees is to occur. Mitigation Tree Sizes: Canopy Shade Trees: 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height RESPONSE: Three mitigation trees have been provided on-site. The remainder of the mitigation requirement will be mitigated via fee-in-lieu for off-site mitigation. A note has been added to the plans regarding off-site mitigation (landscape sheet 2/note 1). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Add additional street trees: Along College Avenue add a street tree in the parkway between existing trees 9 and 8 which is generally in the area where the current driveway is located. Along Olive street use two street trees in the open area between existing tree number 2 and 3.Currently only one street tree is shown in this area. RESPONSE: These trees have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Fill material is shown over some of the root system of existing trees in the parkway. Explore all options to minimize fill as this is a detrimental factor to tree growth. Any fill should be a lighter soil mix and placed away from the tree trunks as far as possible. A root aeriation system would be required. Provide a cross section detail of the parkway where fill is to occur. This detail should provide the design of the aeriation system, specified fill material, placement of structural soil under the sidewalk, other recommendations by the project arborist and all information pertaining to the re-sodding and irrigation of the parkway. Included with the detail should be a street tree management plan that identifies specific maintenance steps that will be taken over a 5 year period to help mitigate the impact of fill over tree root systems. The management plan should be prepared by a qualified and certified private arborist. The development would be responsible for following the street tree management plan and providing the City Forester annual written updates on the maintenance steps performed. The detail and street tree management plan should be submitted to the City Forester. The severity of the impact to the street trees from the fill material will be further evaluated once the detail and management plan are provided. RESPONSE: Fill material within the tree lawn has been minimized to the greatest extent possible in order to minimize any detrimental impacts to the existing trees. We have been working with Jordan’s Tree Service to determine the appropriate types of soil. It has been recommended that a standard topsoil that is loosely compacted is appropriate for this area. Structural soil is proposed only under the sidewalk. Information on the structural soil has been included with this submittal. In addition, a conceptual cross section of the parkway has been provided which illustrates the amount of fill in each area. A revised cross section will be provided at a later date based on the discussion during the work session with City Forestry, Jordan’s Tree Service and the design team that was held Wednesday morning September 2nd. A schematic layout of the aeration system within the right-of-way tree lawn will be provided at a later date. A meeting was held Wednesday morning (September 2nd) with City Forestry to determine the design requirements. A preliminary street tree management plan has been prepared by Jordan’s Tree Service. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: To significantly reduce the pruning impact to the canopy of existing tree number 9 (American elm - 41 inch diameter) the building should be set back at approximately the 39 feet height level. This set back should occur by the part of the tree canopy where the furthest extension of limbs to the east occurs. Stepping the building back approximately 13 feet where the primary conflicts occur provides for a relative low tree impact from pruning. Radical pruning of this mature tree that has decades of life remaining would not be consistent with City of Fort Collins Tree Management Standards and Best Management Practices that are authorized by the Code and have been approved by the City Manager. These standards pertain to pruning and removal of City property trees. If the building is not set back approximately 13 feet at the conflict locations then the pruning impact to the tree will be significantly greater. Standard 1.2 in Section A states - Pruning recommendations and actual pruning work shall always regard tree health and the tree’s structural integrity. The Land Use Code provides in 3.2.1 F 3 that all existing street trees that are located on City rights-of-way abutting the development shall be accurately identified by species, size, location and condition on required landscape plans, and shall be preserved and protected in accordance with the standards of subsection G. LUC 3.2.1 G 2 – All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Standards. RESPONSE: At tree #9, the building is set back 10’ from a height of 18’ to 39’ and set back 14’ from a height of 39’ and up. These strategies have been developed with a city certified arborist, and in conjunction with the City of Fort Collin’s Forestry Department personnel. Landscape notes will include any required pruning notes per City Forester. Pruning requirements will also be included in the tree management plan. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for its compliance with the standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. RESPONSE: Applicant agrees that the project need to be reviewed against LUC Section 3.4.7. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: LUC 3.4.7(A)(2) Purpose, states: "This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: "... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood." Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard. RESPONSE: The cited LUC subsection is a purpose statement. Later subsections implement the purpose statement by providing specific guidance and requirements which must be met to achieve the purpose of this section. While a purpose statement is useful in helping to interpret other LUC sections (e.g. whether a project meets the definition of “no detriment to public good” test for a modification) it cannot override specific LUC provisions in the same section which articulate the requirements for a project pursuant to this Section. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states that, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies as potentially individual eligible for designation or is an officially designated property. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard. RESPONSE: The phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” does not apply to LUC Section 3.4.7 (B)(b), although it does apply to LUC Section 3.4.7 (B)(1), (2) and (3), the former subsection dealing with a project adjacent to historic sites and structures, and the latter subsection applying to such sites and structures which are located on the project site. Pursuant to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) (b), the project shall “protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property” [as defined in (1), (2) and (3) of LUC Section 3.4.7(B)] adjacent to the project and shall be “compatible with the historic character of any such historic property.” The title of this subsection is “General Standards,” meaning it contains a general statement, consistent with, and expounding upon, the purpose statement, but which does not provide specific requirements as to what a project must consider and comply with in order to achieve such compatibility. See discussion below in “Additional Applicant Responses. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015: LUC 5.1 states, "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." The current plans have not made all possible efforts to comply with the regulations, and so have not met this Standard. RESPONSE: This is simply a recitation of the LUC definition of the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible.” If the staff comment that the project has not “met this Standard” means that the project has not met those provisions of LUC Section 3.4.7 which contain this phrase, they should have detailed those sections and explained why the project did not meet such sections. In the absence of any meaningful information in staff Comment Number 4, the following are subsections of LUC Section 3.4.7 which use this phrase and applicant’s response thereto: (1) LUC Section 3.4.7(A): this is the purpose statement (see response above regarding purpose statement); (2) LUC Section 3.4.7(B)(1), (2) and (3): these subsections apply only to historic properties within a project site; (3) LUC Section 3.4.7(F): this lengthy subsection (which contains all of the specific requirements for new construction regarding height, setback and width from existing historic structures, as well as how new buildings should be designed to be in character with such historic structures) is discussed below in “Additional Applicant Responses.” (4) LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(5): this subsection relates to preserving certain landscaping features, and applicant will do so. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties [which] are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission ." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to begin to schedule the reviews before the Landmark Preservation Commission. RESPONSE: The Staff does not even acknowledge that the project could be eligible under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6) for a Director determination, which applicant believes it is, given the provisions of LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1) and (2). However, given project time constraints, applicant will proceed with LPC review. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2015 08/10/2015: A map, showing historic properties adjacent to this project, has been provided to the applicants. This map identifies designated historic Landmarks, designated historic districts, and properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. Many additional properties 50 years and older are located adjacent to this project, whose eligibility has not been evaluated; several of these may also be individually eligible for designation. RESPONSE: The map provided by historical preservation staff to show historic properties “adjacent” to this project is essentially all of Downtown Fort Collins. Please compare this with LUC Section 3.4.7(F) (1). The last sentence of the staff response references additional properties 50 years or older “adjacent” to the project whose “eligibility has not been evaluated.” Please see LUC 3.4.7(C), which makes clear that the determination of “potential individual eligibility” will be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 or a Director determination of the same. In other words, an LUC-approved process must have resulted in a determination of “potential individual eligibility” and would not encompass every building over 50 years old which might someday be determined to be potentially eligible. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2015 08/10/2015: A few of the relevant City Plan Principles and Policies relevant to the compatibility of this project are: Policy LIV15.2 – Seek Compatibility with Surrounding Development: Design commercial buildings to contribute to the positive character of the area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to street and sidewalks will contribute to a distinctive local district, corridor, or neighborhood. Policy LIV16.4 – Utilize Planning and Regulations: Recognize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through ongoing planning efforts and enforcement regulations. Policy LIV 17.1 – Preserve Historic Buildings: Preserve historically significant buildings, sites and structures throughout Downtown and the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and architectural character of the surrounding district by using compatible building materials, colors, scale, mass, and design detailing of structures. Policy LIV32.7 – Allow various Building Heights: Allow taller buildings (over 3 stories) Downtown to support market vitality and reinforce Downtown as the primary focal point of the community. Carefully locate and shape taller buildings to respond to the surrounding context. Utilize standards for height, mass, and design in order to maintain a human scale and reflect defining historic characteristics in the different sub-districts. RESPONSE: We contend that the proposed project meets all these criteria. The building will positively contribute to the character of the area and has a positive relationship with the street and sidewalk and is certainly an improvement over the current parking lot and former Perkins restaurant. The building will be a positive contribution to quality of life in Fort Collins by providing housing in the downtown where residents can walk, bike, or take a bus/BRT to work, shopping, and entertainment. The building respects the neighborhood, including the historic Armstrong Hotel, in use of material and massing. Certainly the building is one of the taller buildings in the neighborhood, but is not the tallest. The height of the building has been mitigated by stepping uppers levels back. The prominent cornice and building step at level 2 will greatly reduce the visual impact from the predominant way people will perceive the building, which is driving or walking along College Avenue. We contend that the building height is appropriate for the area and has been reasonably mitigated. While we appreciate the citations to relevant City principles and policies, these are guidelines and there are very specific standards in 3.4.7(F) which implement these guidelines. A development project needs to be assessed based on its compliance with specific applicable LUC requirements. Additional Applicant Responses: 1. It is simply inexplicable to the applicant why the staff would cite a purpose statement, a general standard and City Plan principles and policies, but fail to even mention the very lengthy and specific LUC subsections of 3.4.7(F) which dictate what a project consisting of new construction must assess and then comply with to meet the purpose and general standard of LUC Section 3.4.7. • LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(1): o 3.4.7 (F)(1) describes how a project, consisting of new construction, needs to relate to historic properties as to height, setback and width, and specifically limits the applicable historic structures to be considered to those on any block face on which the new structure is located (there are none) and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which a new building is located (there are none). o 3.4.7(F)(1)(b) does not apply because blocks do exist; building setbacks can be maintained and taller portions of structures are located interior to the site. • LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(2) o 3.4.7 (F)(2) mandates that new construction be in character with those historic structures referenced in 3.4.7(F)(1) and describes specific techniques for doing so. o This does not apply because this subsection references “such existing historic structures” referenced in (1) above and there are none (emphasis added). • LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(3) o This subsection also references “such existing historic structures” (emphasis added), again referencing those structures defined in LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1). There are none. • LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(6) o This subsection does not provide any new LUC provisions, but does provide a process for either LPC or Director action on certain projects. Since there are no historic properties within the project site and since the historic properties adjacent to the project have been defined in LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1), this project should qualify for a Director determination. 2. Notwithstanding the legal analysis above, the applicant has taken every reasonable step to go above and beyond the specific LUC standards referenced above: • The project relates to, and is compatible with, the Armstrong Hotel - the nearest significant historic property – to the maximum extent feasible in terms of materials and massing. Brick is the predominant material of the Armstrong Hotel and is the predominant material of the project. The project is broken into 3 distinct masses to be compatible with the mass and size of the Armstrong Hotel. The Armstrong Hotel has a strong one-story retail storefront band at the ground floor. This is also mimicked in the project. • The building will positively contribute to the character of the area and has a positive relationship with the street and sidewalk. The non-contributing current parking lot and former Perkins restaurant have been removed. The building will be a positive contribution to quality of life in Fort Collins by providing housing in the downtown area where residents can walk, bike or take a bus or BRT to work, shopping, and entertainment. The building is one of the taller buildings in the neighborhood, but is not the tallest. The height of the building has been mitigated by stepping upper levels back. The prominent cornice and building step at level 2 will greatly reduce the visual impact from the predominant way people will perceive the building, which is driving or walking along College Avenue. The building height is appropriate for the area and has been reasonably mitigated. Revised comments of the Historic Preservation Department were received by Applicant late afternoon on August 31st and are included as an attachment, along with an Addendum to Responses to Historic Preservation Staff Comments Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required. A new code amendment effective in 2014 will require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system. 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. 5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. 7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. 9. Low VOC interior finishes. 10. Egress windows can't exit onto the building roof below without approval from the Building Official. 11. To achieve 6 stories with wood construction a platform and fire-treated ext wood walls is required. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 RESPONSE: A pre-submittal meeting will be requested in the near future. All other comments are acknowledged and understood. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There is a 50 ft 1000 watt streetlight roughly in the middle of the site along College Ave. This could pose an issue for tenants on the higher floors. RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this out. The design team will review options for minimizing impact to its residents. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: The proposed transformer location on your site looks good; it is within 10¿ of a drive able surface. Another idea would be to upsize the existing transformer feeding 330 S. College. This would eliminate the transformer on your site. An easement may have to be obtained from the neighbor to the south (330 S College), and the voltage would have to be the same, which is 120/208. This is just something to consider. RESPONSE: The existing transformer currently feeding the building at 330 S. College (and formerly feeding the Perkin’s restaurant at 310 S. College) is actually located on the subject property in an existing 6’ wide power easement. The current proposal is to upgrade this transformer and dedicate a new 10’ public access, drainage, and utility easement, in which the transformer would reside. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system modification charges will apply. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and developers RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please contact Luke Unruh at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416-2724. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Please coordinate the ally work with light and power. As of now it seems to be where we will route our electric lines. RESPONSE: Duly noted. The project team will maintain close communications with Light & Power throughout the process. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS A hydrant is required within 100' of the FDC per code language below. The nearest possible hydrant on the SW corner of Olive and Remington is approximately 210' from the closest possible portion of the proposed building. As such, a hydrant will be required on Olive, as close to the intersection with College Ave as possible and as approved by the fire code official. It is understood that existing trees and other utilities may complicate hydrant location. PFA will work with the project team to determine best, reasonable hydrant location. RESPONSE: A new fire hydrant is now shown off the main in Olive Street, near the intersection of College Ave. The location is intended to provide adequate fire protection, while also minimizing damage to existing tree roots. > IFC 507.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where approved by the fire code official. RESPONSE: The new fire hydrant is believed to satisfy this requirement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2015 07/31/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE PFA and the project team have met off line to discuss the site specific challenges related to aerial fire access code requirements. At this point, the project team intends to study the problem and present a plan to the fire marshal which meets the intent of the code through alternative means of compliance. RESPONSE: That is correct. We will present our proposed alternate methods at some time in the future. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please utilize the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklistfor 50% Development Review Submittals to ensure that all of the Floodplain requirements have been addressed. The checklist is available on our website at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp-checklist50.pdf RESPONSE: A completed checklist is attached. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please refer to the floodplain requirements meeting minutes from July 9, 2015 for guidance concerning the BFE that should be used, the ability to separate buildings in order to use different BFE’s, and flood gate or elevation requirements for the parking garage. RESPONSE: A meeting was held on August 13, 2015 to discuss flood requirements and strategies. As a result of that meeting, we have modified our proposed flood-proofing strategy. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please schedule a meeting with the architect and the engineer to discuss specific requirements once a design for the building and garage layout has been chosen. RESPONSE: As noted above, this meeting has occurred. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Note that all drawings should utilize the NAVD 88 datum. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Utilize the following FEMA Technical Bulletins (links available on our website), in the design of the site: Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements, Floodproofing Non- Residential Buildings, Non-Residential Floodproofing – Requirements and Certification, Below Grade Parking Requirements, and Elevator Installation. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms- documents RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Per Section 10-38 (1) b. of the Fort Collins Code, in order to floodproof the structure “the flood depth surrounding the structure must not exceed three (3) feet.” The current design and elevations shown do not appear to meet this criterion. RESPONSE: As discussed in the 8/13 meeting, flood elevation is 4995.6’ which means that the flood protection elevation is 4997.1’ (18” freeboard). Flood protection system height shall be 3’ or less unless manufacturer’ documentation allows for greater height. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Upon preliminary review of the Flood Protection Plan conceptual drawing dated 7/24/15 the following concerns/questions will need to be addressed. Flood panels may be a viable option for commercial spaces because an operating procedure can be in place requiring the panels to be installed each night at closing. Flood panels are not a viable option for the residential or parking area because access is required 24 hours per day. Are the commercial spaces separated with flood resistant materials? The concern with human intervention methods such as planks is that if one tenant did not install them as required the entire building and parking area are connected and could be subject to flooding. RESPONSE: We are proposing to use flood-proof doors except for two locations: the garage entry and the main residents’ entry off College Avenue. The garage entry will utilize a manual swing gate, which the applicant believes to be more reliable than an automated solution. The residents’ entry will use a plank system, which will allow residents and staff to ingress and egress through this door while maintaining the flood-proofing. These two openings will be manually closed by apartment management staff, who are on site 24 hours a day. The applicant believes that it is reasonable for staff to accomplish these two tasks quickly. See site plan for clarification. More detailed information will be submitted (including an operation/management plan) for review prior to submitting the Floodplain Use Permit application. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2015 7/21/2015: Repeat : 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 does not meet requirements. 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. Detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Materials will be submitted with FDP. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: More design and spot elevations will be needed in the alley adjacent to the building. The drainage design for this site will also need to include a study of local runoff from minor storms to ensure the building has adequate protection from these storm events. RESPONSE: Additional spot elevations have been provided, and the drainage report touches on local runoff. Further design details will be provided with FDP. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: UDALL does not provide LID treatment and can not be counted as satisfying the LID requirement for this development. In addition, mechanical separators are not considered LID BMPs. There can be some leeway granted in the form of alternative compliance since this is an infill site but the Engineer will need to provide adequate justification and documentation for the alternative compliance in the Drainage Report that documents why the criteria can not be met. RESPONSE: A meeting was held with Stormwater Staff on August 20th to discuss LID tactics. Filtering runoff through planter areas was the preferred alternative, and is the concept depicted on the revised PDP submittal documents. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please see Redlines for additional minor comments. RESPONSE: Minor redline comments have been addressed. Redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Additional drainage detail will be needed as the design progresses and a drainage letter will be needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Some of the additional detail has been provided with the revised PDP package, and the rest will come with FDP. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please change the address to "310 South College Avenue" on all plan sheets. RESPONSE: Item corrected. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Item corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Item corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please remove the marked portion of the sub-title on sheet C001. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: 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 benchmark statement has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets. RESPONSE: Benchmark statements match on all sheets. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There are spelling issues with some text. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There are some sheet numbering issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This has been corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines. RESPONSE: Labels have been added, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. RESPONSE: Information has been added, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please change "Area" to "Lot 1". See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: What is RPC & OPC? Please define in the legend. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please change the address to "310 South College Avenue" on all plan sheets. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please change the legal description as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. RESPONSE: All items have been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Is there a connection to Remington from the Alley through a different property? That may get a lot of use. RESPONSE: There is indeed a connection to the east from the alley through a private parking lot to Remington. The analysis performed in the TIS did not assume that any vehicles would enter or exit through the lot. There is a probability that some of the tenants may use this access as a “short-cut”. However, determining the number of tenants who use the access cannot be determined. It is likely that if the use of the access becomes problematic for the property owner, they will close it off at the alley. The amount of traffic that would possibly use the access will not significantly affect the capacity analysis that was performed for the project. Sight triangles are now shown at the parking garage entrance to the alley, as well as the west side of the alley and the back of walk along Olive. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: We'll need to see some sight triangles - especially at the alley access to Olive and Magnolia. RESPONSE: Assuming a design speed of 30 mph, the stopping sight distance from the alley to Magnolia and to Olive is 200 feet. In the downtown area, the diagonal parking along the curbside creates a sight distance issue from nearly every driveway and alley in the area. Sight triangle can be added to the plan set. However, if full sight distance is required, a loss of parking spaces will need to occur. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: The parking on College can be extended with the closure of the driveway. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. On-street parking is now shown on College with the closed curb cut. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015 08/05/2015: Is a 7 ft sidewalk enough along College? That is the minimum clear distance so no furniture, signs, etc (encroachment permits) will be allowed. RESPONSE: Sidewalk is actually a little wider since the building is set back from the property line. A full 7-ft unobstructed sidewalk width is provided within the public right-of-way along the entire College frontage. An additional 2’ (minimum) sidewalk width is provided between the right-of-way and the outermost building face. Another 4.5-ft paved recess is provided beyond that at each commercial doorway. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: 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: An irrigation plan will be provided with the building permit submittal. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: More detail will be needed on the Utility Plan as the design progresses. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Some of the additional detail has been provided with the revised PDP package, and the rest will come with FDP. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please see additional minor comments in the Redlines. RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned. Revised Historic Preservation Comments Received by Applicant the Afternoon of August 31st: Comment Number: 1 8/4/2015: General This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for its compliance with the standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. Comment Number: 2 8/4/2015: General LUC 3.4.7(A)(2) Purpose, states: "This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: ... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood." Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard. 8/26/2015: Staff does not believe that the current plans will fulfill the intent of Section 3.4.7. In design meetings with the applicant, several alternatives were suggested that would enhance the building’s compatibility with its context, enabling it to better “respect the historic character of…historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood.” These, or other feasible options, have not been incorporated into the design. Comment Number: 3 8/4/2015: General LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states that, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies as potentially individual eligible for designation or is an officially designated property. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard. 8/26/2015: This comment has been revised to reflect the applicable language of the General Standard. LUC 3.4.7 (B) states: “The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is…located on property adjacent to the development site…. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” The “maximum extent feasible” standard does not apply to this part of 3.4.7(B); instead the standard is stated as “shall” and “must”, which mean mandatory compliance. Additional compatibility standards for ensuring that new construction is in character with historic structures are contained in 3.4.7(F), and these will also need to be met. Based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project in light of the definition of “adjacent” in LUC Section 5.1.2, property adjacent to this project has been established as being located one-half block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed. This area of adjacency takes into account the officially designated National, State and Fort Collins landmark properties contained within this area, and to which the above portion of 3.4.7(B) applies: the 3-story Armstrong Hotel (259 South College and 100 - 104 Olive Street); the First Baptist (currently Mountain View) Church at 328 Remington Street; the 1-story Bode Property (220 Remington), as well as the one- and two-story dwellings in the 400 block of Remington Street. Additional properties within this area of adjacency have been officially determined to be eligible for landmark recognition, but have not been officially designated. The proposed building’s height, mass, scale, bulk, and width are not compatible with the historic character of the adjacent historic properties. Adjacent historic buildings are all 1- to 3-stories tall, and contain substantially less mass and bulk. Compatibility with the character of the historic properties may, in part, be achieved through the reduction in height and overall bulk and massing; through additional articulation and step-backs; and through step-downs. Comment Number: 4 8/4/2015: General LUC 5.1 states, "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." The current plans have not made all possible efforts to comply with the regulations, and so have not met this Standard. Comment Number: 5 8/4/2015: General LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties [which] are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to begin to schedule the reviews before the Landmark Preservation Commission. 8/26/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6) does allow for an exception to this requirement, provided that the Director issue a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the eligibility or potential eligibility of the historic structures. The Director has determined that the project should proceed to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a recommendation. Comment Number: 6 8/10/2015: General A map, showing historic properties adjacent to this project, has been provided to the applicants. This map identifies designated historic Landmarks, designated historic districts, and properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. Many additional properties 50 years and older are located adjacent to this project, whose eligibility has not been evaluated; several of these may also be individually eligible for designation. Comment Number: 7 8/10/2015: General A few of the relevant City Plan Principles and Policies relevant to the compatibility of this project are: … Addendum to Responses to Historic Preservation Staff Comments Late afternoon on Monday, August 31, 2015, the Applicant received revised comments from Historic Preservation staff, clearly a consequence of a meeting on August 25th requested by Applicant with City staff to discuss concerns with Historic Preservation comments dated August 10th. Applicant was advised at that time that it would have one additional day to file required documents for the Landmark Preservation Commission (“LPC”) work session set for September 9th. Since that was not sufficient time for the Applicant’s team to review, discuss and prepare responses to the revised August 31st comments, Applicant intended to only submit its already-prepared responses to the August 10th staff comments, along with a brief overall statement about the revisions, planning to address them in detail at the September 9th LPC work session. On September 1st, Applicant was advised that the September 9th LPC work session was no longer available and the project would be rescheduled for a September 23rd work session, with submittal documents due on September 14th. The Applicant’s team is working on the detailed responses to the August 31st revised staff comments and will submit those on or before September 14th for review and evaluation by the Historic Preservation staff. In the meantime, Applicant offers some general responses relevant to the revised staff comments. At the outset of the August 25th meeting, Applicant’s representatives stated that the Historic Preservation staff comments gave little to no information as to how staff was interpreting applicable Land Use Code (“LUC”) provisions or guidance about how to achieve compliance with those provisions. Ms. Karen McWilliams had a number of responses. First, she said the reason was that her staff had been in meetings with the Applicant and had provided detail at those meetings. Applicant representatives recall that her staff from the very beginning only stated the general conclusion that the project did not meet LUC 3.4.7. When more detail was requested, a map of the entire downtown was provided and comments were made about stepping down the building mass back and center towards the alley. Ms. McWilliams then said that there really are no “metrics” in this area by which to judge a project and that every project is a “case-by-case” analysis. Not only does the Land Use Code have very specific “metrics” for evaluating new construction in the context of historic preservation [see LUC 3.4.7(F)], these comments would seem to be the very definition of arbitrariness. Finally, Ms. McWilliams stated that the staff comments were so vague because they don’t want to comment with any detail until the Landmark Preservation Commission weighs in. Apparently now that position is suddenly altered with new direction included in the August 31st revised Historic Preservation staff comments, never before articulated, and which we believe is contrary to the provisions of LUC 3.4.7. The Applicant will address the revised comments in detail in its September 14th submittal for the September 23rd Landmark Preservation Commission work session, but in general the Applicant believes that its original responses to Historic Preservation staff’s comments remain the same.