The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWILLOW AND PINE MULTI-FAMILY - PDP - PDP180006 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview May 11, 2018 Eduardo Illanes OZ Architecture 3003 Larimer St. Denver, CO 80205 RE: Willow & Pine Multi-family, PDP180006, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: There is work being proposed on two different Schrader properties. This will require a temporary construction easement between the property owners. A letter of intent will be needed before the hearing. Response: Understood Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Is the new sanitary sewer that is going through the two Schrader properties in an easement? Response: A sanitary sewer easement will be created and recorded at the County by separate document at the time of Final Design. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: In what sequence will the vacation of the existing utility easements that still have infrastructure in them occur? Response: All existing easements not shown on the Final Plat will be vacated per note on the Plat at the time of recordation. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Was this fence put up by the property owner or the railroad? A letter of intent should be received from the railroad acknowledging that the fence 2 is being removed if they built and paid for the fence to be put up Response: The fence along the railroad is being maintained in place. Sections of the fence on other areas of the property not adjacent to the railroad are being proposed to be removed. Per the email from the Great Western Railway we are waiting on their internal review and comments. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The cast in concrete benches along Willow need to be a minimum of 2' setback from the sidewalk as well as any other structure near the sidewalk. Response: The plaza area within our project has been redesigned. All design within the Willow Street Plaza will be coordinated with the City of Fort Collins Capital Improvements Departments and shown within the Willow Street Capital Improvement Plans. Any site features will be compliant with city standards and are to be determined. Please see the updated plans for clarification. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The sanitary sewer manhole at the eastern driveway appears to be in the wheel path of vehicles turning left onto Willow. Manholes are not allowed in the wheel path of vehicles. Response: To avoid the sanitary sewer diversion structure, we had to shift the drive to the east. This shift pushes the manhole towards the edge of the drive approach. To do everything possible to get the diversion structure within a landscape island and maintain the existing manhole, the location seems fixed. Let me know if we need further discussions. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please provide more slope and spot elevations for the curb ramps along Willow to show that they will meet ADA requirements. Response: Additional spots and slopes have been added to the grading plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: How does the water drain out of the concrete structures in the curb returns? Response: The concrete structures have been removed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please provide the site distance triangles for the driveways on the site plan. The concrete structures on the corners may be in the line of site. Response: The concrete structures have been removed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please provide LCUASS details in the utility plan set. Response: Details will be provided at Final Design. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: I do not see the cast in place concrete structures on the elevations. Response: The plaza area within our project has been redesigned. All design within the Willow Street Plaza will be coordinated with the City of Fort Collins Capital Improvements Departments and shown within the Willow Street Capital Improvement Plans. Any site features will be compliant with city standards and are to be determined. Please see the updated plans for clarification. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please see redlines for additional/minor comments. Response: Please see revised plans. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General 3 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Land Use Code section 4.17(D)(4)(a) specifies that: "The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced, using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements." This standard is not met, as it does not appear that any locally native plant species have been selected. In order to meet this standard, a substantial portion of plant material on the site should be selected from the City of Fort Collins Native Plant List, with an emphasis on species native to the Poudre River corridor: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf Please contact me if you need assistance selecting appropriate shrub, grass and perennial species for this site. RMS Response: The landscape schedule has been updated to reflect more plant species from the native plants list. We are now incorporating plants from the native plants list that are a good addition to the overall design aesthetic of this project. Let RMS know if the landscape schedule will not work and we can collaborate on this more. Specifically, along the railroad tracks is a good opportunity to add in larger areas of native plants. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/09/2018 05/09/2018: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN: Please clarify whether the vapor barrier and sub-slab ventilation is planned for both buildings, not just Build A. Response: See attached letter prepared by Joe Aiken from National Inspection Services Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/09/2018 05/09/2018: ENVRIONMENTAL COMPLAINCE PLAN: For item "g" under Excavation, please elaborate on how this requirement will be met. Response: See attached letter prepared by Joe Aiken from National Inspection Services Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/09/2018 05/09/2018: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN: For item "f" under Monitoring, please provide a response for how this requirement will be met. Response: See attached letter prepared by Joe Aiken from National Inspection Services Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/09/2018 05/09/2018: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN: Additional comments pending from 3rd party reviewer (TRC). Response: See attached letter prepared by Joe Aiken from National Inspection Services Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 5/7/2018: If there will be any impacts to existing trees on-site, please contact Molly Roche (mroche@fcgov.com) to Schedule an on-site meeting to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. Response: Resolved 5-7-18 RMS has been in contact with Molly Comment Number: 2 5/7/2018: Please coordinate with City Forestry throughout the review proe 4 Response: Resolved 5-7-18 RMS has been in contact with Molly Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 5/7/2018: Explore the feasibility of transplanting trees #4, 6, 7, and 8 on or off-site. If this is possible, please indicate these trees as transplants, show their transplanted location on the plans, and add the following note: Transplanting trees #4, 6, 7, and 8 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE, shall follow the recommendations of a qualified tree transplanting contractor in terms of size, staking, mulching, and irrigation. Additionally, please display this transplant with a bolded, capital “T” on the landscape plans and in the Tree Inventory table. Response: The team is considering transplanting trees #4, 6 ,7, and 8. We will transplant these trees if possible but is not guaranteeing this approach. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 5/7/2018: Please explore upsizing 5 street trees as the mitigation trees. Response: See landscape plan and schedule for mitigation trees. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please include a plant list/legend for reference on sheet L-101. Response: Tree schedule and legend is now included on sheet L-101. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: City Forestry is not familiar with Gladiator Crabapple. Is this species readily available at local nurseries? Please provide more information about this species for approval. Response: RMS has been in contact with Molly about this tree. We will coordinate further throughout this process. For now, we are continuing to specify Gladiator Crabapple. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please clarify where the General Landscape Notes on sheets L-001 and L-101 originate from? These are not the standard City of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes. Response: We are providing our own general landscape notes and the standard City notes. See sheet L-001 for clarification on these. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: On sheet L-002, please provide species quantity in the legend. On the same sheet, provide Maximum Species Diversity percentages based on total on-site tree quantity. Response: Species quantities and percentages are now included in the landscape legend. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The Honeylocust located just west of the bike racks are spaced 15 feet apart. At minimum, please provide at least 25 feet spacing between these trees, or incorporate a fastigiate deciduous species as an alternative (Crimson Spire Oak, Regal Prince Oak, Prairie Sentinel Hackberry are good choices). Fastigiate species will need to be spaced, at minimum, 20 feet apart. 5 The applicant stated that they preferred this close spacing to create a better canopy. Positioning the trees this close will cause significant additional maintenance. Spacing the trees at 25 feet will allow the site to achieve the same desired canopy effect, but allow the trees to grow healthier. RMS Response: RMS has been in contact with Molly about this. We recognize the need for adequate spacing for plant success and minimize future maintenance. We have adjusted the spacing for the proposed trees on site for what we see fit for these factors, as well as, design intent. We will continue to coordinate with Molly on this. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The Crabapples at the north end of the property are spaced 5 feet apart. At minimum, please provide at minimum 20 feet spacing between these trees. The applicant stated that they preferred this close spacing to create a corridor/entrance affect. The maximum width of these trees is 9 feet. The 5 feet spacing will not work in terms of the trees' canopies growing sufficiently. If this corridor/entrance affect is a priority, consider planting a more fastigiate ornamental variety that is intended to grow close together. Response: RMS has been in contact with Molly about this. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please consider incorporating coniferous trees on this site. Since several decent evergreens are planned to be removed from the site, it would be nice to incorporate some year-round greenery around the perimeter. If larger conifer species are not realistic or the existing Spruce trees are unable to be transplanted, consider incorporating fastigiate evergreens such as Taylor Juniper, Woodward Juniper, Iseli Fastigiate Norway Spruce, or others. Response: Because of the space constraints, we cannot incorporate large evergreen trees. We will be incorporating evergeen shrubs and will consider some fastigate species. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Lindens typically do not survive or thrive well in parking lot islands and peninsulas. Please evaluate changing Lindens in these locations for better adapted shade trees, such as Kentucky Coffeetree or Bur Oak. Response: Please see updated landscape plans for proposed tree locations. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: A Willow Street Improvements project coordination meeting between City Engineering and City Forestry is scheduled to occur the week of May 7th, 2018. At this meeting, Forestry will discuss preferred street trees in this area. If the street trees in front of this development were to match the Willow Street design, it would provide a cohesive corridor. Please stay tuned as future modification to street tree species on this project might occur. Response: Noted Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct symbol. Space trees if needed as follows. Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign 6 Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees Response: The street lights will be coordinated with the Willow St design team. Street trees will be appropriately placed to avoid any traffic or utility conflicts. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please provide a tree grate detail on the landscape plans. City Forestry prefers larger tree grates such as 5’x8’ if possible. A Willow Street Improvements project coordination meeting between City Engineering and City Forestry is scheduled to occur the week of May 7th, 2018. At this meeting, Forestry will discuss preferred street tree grates sizes and styles. Please stay tuned as future modification to street tree grates on this project might occur. Response: RMS will coordinate with the Willow St design team/will work with their proposal to make sure the streetscape is cohesive. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please consider incorporating additional trees in the parking lot. There appears to be additional planting space throughout the site. Fastigiate varieties should be considered in these tight areas. Response: We are proposing as many trees as possible. There are lot of utility conflicts on this site. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: 3.4.7 (F) (1) provides a standard for creating similar height, setback, and width of new structures to the historic buildings in the area of adjacency, which include Ginger & Baker, Bas Bleu Theatre, and 200 Jefferson Street. Comments provided on these standards related to height, setback, and width in the Current Planning section will improve the ability for this project to harmonize more successfully with the three adjacent historic buildings. The Landmark Preservation Commission would like to see a design that shows a more significant stepback as well as modulation of the width of the buildings along Willow to better relate to the Bas Bleu building across the street. The historic building at 200 Jefferson Street is at the rear of this property but is a highly sensitive resource--this project will provide an unimpeded backdrop for that building that will have a direct visual relationship despite the fact that the properties are separated by the rail corridor. Massing and height considerations should therefore be equally applied to the rear/south portion of the project in addition to the Willow side. Response: The proposed design revisions address all these comments. Along Willow Street much of the brick that was previously only shown on levels 2 and 3 has been extended down to grade, giving the project a strong base and enhancing the base, middle, top methodology and eliminating the floating horizontal mass shown in previous iterations of the design. Near the middle of Building A the design has been revised to include a portion of metal panel that extends down to level 1 splitting the extents of brick and vertical compositions and therefore reducing the horizontal appearance of the building. A similar vertical articulation has also been included on the Willow street façade of building B. The remaining wall lengths of brick are compatible with traditional building widths in the neighborhood. 7 Along Willow Street the proposed buildings design includes a substantial step back at levels 4 and 5 per the land use code requirements and consistent with other projects in the River District. At the corners of the building at levels 4 and 5 the building steps back even further to add hierarchy to the corner. With this gesture the height of the first 3 levels respects the Bas Blue Theater. Additionally, along the train track side of the project, Building B includes a substantial step back at level 5 in a gesture to respect the Union Pacific Depot building. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Section 3.4.7 (F)(2) calls for a design that is in character with existing historic structures through visual ties such as alignment of horizontal elements and windows and repetition of window patterns. As noted in the Current Planning comments, improvement of the fenestration design and detailing will contribute towards satisfying this section of the code. The LPC mentioned adjusting window proportions to increase their verticality, as a reference to the historic window pattern. They also want to see the relationship of the windows to the rainscreen system to understand how they will be expressed and detailed. Response: The proposed design revisions include lintels above windows and an infill panel below windows to increase the vertical nature of the window pattern. Please refer to sheets A8 and A9. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Section 3.4.7 (F)(3) states that the dominant building material (in this case, brick) of the adjacent historic structures shall be the primary material for new construction and that variety of materials is appropriate if it maintains the existing distribution of materials. The Landmark Preservation Commission discussed this aspect of the code at the conceptual review of this project and noted that the project falls short of using brick as the predominant material. The LPC also noted that the use of brick over the recessed ground level creates "an uncomfortable floating mass" that disrupts the historic pattern of going to grade with the brick. They also noted that materiality of the south elevation, due to its proximity to 200 Jefferson, needs attention and should reference the depot. Scaling of materials, e.g. the cement board, can be addressed in order to reference the scale of a traditional masonry unit. Response: Please see attached letter from CA Ventures. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The creation of a visual and pedestrian connection from Willow to the Union Pacific building along the Pine Street corridor demonstrates a successful solution to meet section 3.4.7 (F)(4), which calls for preserving or enhancing such connections. Response: Acknowledged Department: Internal Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/24/2018 04/24/2018: 8 1. Prior to hearing, the following information must be provided with the project plans for review and approval: a. Trash and recycling enclosure details are required and must be incorporated into the project plan set. Trash enclosure details must show each trash and recycling enclosures proposed, in plan view and elevation view. Enclosure elevations must be provided for all exterior sides of enclosures. Response: Provided in this resubmittal, please see sheet A9 b. Trash enclosure plan and elevation details must be drawn separately from the site plan, at a scale that is sufficient to provide clear and complete information that is easily understandable as a reference document for the public hearing. Typically a separate plan detail and elevation detail at an enlarged architectural scale is necessary to provide sufficient information and to emphasize the design intent and requirements prominently in the plans. It is recommended that these details be grouped together in the planning set along with other site details. Response: Provided in this resubmittal, please see sheet A9 c. Plan details shall include direct labeling, dimensions and notations that illustrate sufficient access, circulation and function of the enclosures for both residents/employees and service providers. Plan details shall label and dimension the overall enclosure area, widths of service gates, size of interior circulation areas to be provided for interior access, required pedestrian entrance, overall size of all proposed trash and recycling containers and their capacity. Response: Provided in this resubmittal, please see sheet A9 d. Elevations and plan details shall graphically show materials and textures, and directly label all design components and shall clarify all materials, patterns, colors, textures and general specifications as well as all functional components such as drains, bollards, curbs and ramps. Elevations shall also describe wall and door construction including recessed and projected material patterns, base and top treatments and other design features. Include labeling, detail enlargements and cross sections if needed to adequately describe the depth of materials and construction intent. Response: Provided in this resubmittal, please see sheet A9 2. Prior to final plan approval, additional plan, elevation and capacity information may be required with Final Plan review to clarify the adequate function, construction and final design intent of the trash and recycling areas. Response: Provided in this resubmittal, please see sheet A9 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/24/2018 04/24/2018: The Community Recycling Ordinance (No. 109 2016) requires that all new business and multifamily complexes subscribe to recycling service that is at minimum 1/3 of their overall service capacity(total bin capacity x number of weekly pickups, include both trash and recycling when calculating overall service capacity). In general recycling containers must be at least 50% the size of proposed trash containers to meet this requirement. Please make sure proposed containers meet this requirement and that adequate space is provided in all enclosures. Response: Each trash room will have two 2yrd compactor cans and one 3yrd loose recycling cans. Book will be services 2x per week, satisficing the 1/3 min capacity for recycling. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/24/2018 9 04/24/2018: The service gates on the more northern trash and recycling enclosure need to provide unobstructed access and cannot be blocked by parking spaces. Response: In the current design there are no unobstructed doors. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/24/2018 04/24/2018: All trash and recycling enclosures are required to have a pedestrian entrance that is separate from the main service gates. Please provide a pedestrian entrance for the more southern enclosure. Consider moving the pedestrian entrances closer to the stairwell entrances to provide more efficient access. Response: Separate pedestrian access is provided. Based on the current design we feel the doors are located in the best location for tenants and building facilities staff. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/24/2018 04/24/2018: The location of the more southern trash and recycling enclosure is not conducive to efficient servicing and will require the hauler to back in to service it. Additionally ~25ft of overhead clearance is required to service most dumpster types which will mean in its proposed location that the hauler will need to roll the dumpster out from under the building in order to service. Consider moving the enclosure to the north or west of the adjacent stairwell so that it could be serviced from the same location as the other enclosure. Response: Please refer to the statement of planning objectives. We are working with Carol Steams from Veritas Waste to design the trash and recycling approach for this project. The proposed project is designed with trash chutes on floors 2-5 that collect in trash rooms below the podium level of the building. Adjacent to the trash chute on floors 2-5 is a cart for recycling items. The property facilities manager will transport the carts of recycling items to the trash and recycling rooms. The rooms are located near the southern stairs of both buildings A and B. The rooms are shown on the architectural site plan, elevations, and enlarged plans / elevations have been provided. Collection trucks never need to drive under the buildings. At the time of collection, the property facility manager will assist with a waster caddy to pull dumpsters out roll up doors to drive isle. The two parking stalls within the path of the caddy will be assigned to employees of the building and will be moved at the time of pick up. Both trash room accommodate a trash compactor, two 3yrd compactor cans, and one 3yrd loose can. The proposed collection is twice a week. The trash and recycling rooms are not visible from Willow Street and constructed of materials used on the building. Department: Light And Power Contact: Clint Reetz, 970-221-6326, creetz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or electric infrastructure will initiate electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light and Power Engineering. Response: Acknowledged Power requirements have been and will continue to be coordinated with City of Fort Collins Light and Power Engineering. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. 10 Response: Final transformer locations to be coordinated with Light and Power. Refer to sheet A1 for latest location. Transformer locations will be 10 feet from a paved surface and 3 feet clear in the rear of the transformer. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: Please issue load requirements to Light and Power Engineering ElectricProjectEngineering@fcgov.com using a C-1 form and a one-line diagram. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: Preliminary C-1 form and One-Line Diagram have been sent to Light and Power Engineering, finalized C-1 form and One-Line diagram to be sent upon completion of design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Thank you Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE Approved signs, red curbing, and/or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Fire lane sign locations are to be added to the plans along with sign details. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Response: Signage and/or striping will be added to the plans at the time of Final along with all associated LCUASS Standard Details. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: REQUIRED FIRE ACCESS PERIMETER ACCESS: > Building A is fully compliant with regard to perimeter fire access requirements. > Building B does not fully comply with perimeter fire access requirements. The updated Site Plan indicates Bldg. B is out of access by approximately 125 feet. Dependent upon final resolution of aerial apparatus access requirements, this out of access distance may be considered acceptable. Response: Due to design changes presented in these drawings the design team will prepare an alternate compliance plan and set up a separate meeting with PFA to review. AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS: > Neither Buildings A nor B meet minimum requirements for aerial fire apparatus access as defined by IFC Appendix D105. In order to approve the Site Plan as currently proposed, the applicant will need to provide a written plan to the fire marshal which details the project's intent to meet the intent of the 2015 International Fire Code via alternative means and methods. Based upon similar, 11 past projects in the area, such a plan is likely to include building requirements consistent with high rise construction. Further offline discussion will be needed. Response: Due to design changes presented in these drawings the design team will prepare an alternate compliance plan and set up a separate meeting with PFA to review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: FDC LOCATION Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The proposed FDC located on the east side of Bldg. A is 130' from the hydrant on Willow when a maximum allowable distance of 100' is specified by code. The deficiency can be resolved by moving the FDC to the Willow Street side, at the east end of Bldg. A. Alternatively, the proposed FDC location may be approved in conjunction with the plan for meeting code intent via alternative means and methods. Response: The Fire Department Connection has been moved to face Willow Street off of Building A. The proposed location is less than 100’ from the hydrant. Please refer to A1. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SERVED BY ONE FIRE PUMP Should a single fire line/fire pump be proposed to serve multiple buildings, the configuration will need to be shown on the Utility Plans. The plan shall be approved by Water Utilities Engineering and a covenant agreement will be required. The applicant shall coordinate fire line locations with Water Utilities. Please contact Water Utilities Engineering for further details at (970)221-6700 or WaterUtilitiesEng@fcgov.com. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: FIRE ALARM & DETECTION SYSTEMS Group R-2 occupancies shall comply with IFC Section 907.2.9 and Sections 907.3-Fire Safety Functions, 907.4-Initiating Devices, 907.5-Occupant Notification and/or other areas of this code resulting from alternative means of code compliance. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: TIVOLI LIGHTING > The code requirement to provide for aerial apparatus access has not yet been resolved. Tivoli lighting across the fire lane will be approved in conjunction with a plan for meeting minimum fire code requirements via alternative means and methods. > If approved, the installation of Tivoli lights shall account for droop. All portions across the fire lane shall exceed 14' in height at all times. Response: Tivoli lighting will not hang any lower than the required 14’ above finished grade. Lights shall also be designed to comply with NEC sections 411.6 if the lighting is low voltage, or 225.6 for conductor size and support and 225.18 for ground clearances if lighting is line voltage. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 12 05/08/2018: MISCELLANEOUS > All areas of the fire lane shall be engineered to support 40 tons. This will also include the area served by the underground storm chambers. This will also include the area engineered with pavers. Response: Acknowledged. > Please detail what fire apparatus dimensions were used in the Autoturn study. Autoturn should be using 52' ladder truck template. Response: An AutoTurn Study has been performed and submitted within the overall package. Exhibits have been included that illustrate the dimensions used within the analysis. > The EAE should be updated to reflect required inside turning radii for fire apparatus at the apex of the 90 degree leg internal to the site. Response: The Emergency Access Easement has been revised > The fire lane shall be identified on the Plat as an "Emergency Access Easement" (and other plan sets as an EAE) and not a "Fire Access Easement" as currently indicated. Response: The Plat has been updated. > In order to serve the 3rd floor roof amenity, standpipe fire hose connections will be required interior to the courtyard access doors. Response: Note the 3rd floor roof amenity is no longer proposed in the scope of work, however a 2nd floor amenity space on Building A and a 5th floor amenity space on Building B are proposed. > Correction to prior fire department comment: Fire pits and grills fueled by natural gas shall have a 10' separation to combustible construction and/or vegetation (NOT 5' AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED). Response: Acknowledged. Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Response to Planning Services comments 1 – 30: Please see attached letter from CA Ventures. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 All comments provided here must be satisfied prior to scheduling the Land Use Hearing. Division 4.17 - River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R) (A) Purpose. The River Downtown Redevelopment District is intended to reestablish the linkage between Old Town and the River through redevelopment in the Cache la Poudre River (the River) corridor. This District offers opportunities for more intensive redevelopment of housing, businesses and workplaces to complement Downtown. Improvements should highlight the historic origin of Fort Collins and the unique relationship of the waterway and railways to the urban environment as well as expand cultural opportunities in the Downtown area. Any significant redevelopment should be designed as part of a master plan for the applicable group of contiguous properties. Redevelopment will extend the positive characteristics of Downtown such as the pattern of blocks, pedestrian-oriented streetfronts and lively outdoor spaces. Staff comments: Project design not consistent with purpose statement. Issues: 13 extending positive characteristics of Downtown; block patterns; pedestrian oriented streetfronts and outdoor spaces. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D) Development Standards. (2) Street and Walkways. (a) Streets. Redevelopment shall maintain the existing block grid system of streets and alleys. To the extent reasonably feasible, the system shall be augmented with additional connections, such as new streets, alleys, walkway spines, mid-block passages, courtyards and plazas, in order to promote a fine-grained pedestrian circulation network that supplements public sidewalks. Staff comments: Standard not met. In order to meet this requirement, staff is recommending to P&Z that the project incorporate an east/west connection into the proposed parking area from the alley. Include raised crossings with special paving, planters, planting islands and sidewalk widths to accommodate bike and ped. flow. Please also reference LUC 3.2.2.(C)(5) for detail. A north/south pedestrian alley or walkway is also recommended from Willow Street, between the proposed building and Mill House. Along this pedestrian alley/walkway and along Willow Street, provide traditional entrance doors, entry stoops, canopies and/or porches to reinforce the pedestrian scale. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3) Buildings. (b) Programming, Massing and Placement. 1. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted, provided that massing is terraced back from the River and from streets so that multiple story buildings are stepped down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage and are stepped down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. Such terraced massing shall be a significant and integral aspect of the building design. Where new buildings are placed next to existing shorter buildings that are expected to remain, the new buildings must be stepped down in such a manner as to minimize their impact on the shorter buildings. Staff comments: Standard not met. Significant massing step-backs are recommended. The current plan provides only a four-foot recess which is achieved by projecting the building forward. In addition, step-backs are needed along the south portion of the building to reference the depot building height. The terraced massing proposed is not integral or significant. Of the entire building footprint, staff recommends that the stepbacks be revised to represent a significant portion of the total building footprint. Staff recommends that stepbacks be significant. Current downtown code changes recommend a 14 stepback of not less than 10 feet along the street frontages. Additionally, significant step-backs are recommended to reduce the apparent mass of the building when viewed from the south and west from College Avenue and Jefferson Street. Step-backs in the 10 to 20-foot range are typical in downtown areas where height transitions are provided to reflect historic resources. The building projection provided with the 2-story brick element has the opposite massing effect from what was intended with the RDR guidelines and standards. The brick element contributes to an uncomfortable street transition and provides a dominant, looming horizonal element that significantly adds to the overall apparent building mass, rather than contributing to a reduction in mass and appropriate reinforcement of human-scaled proportions. Instead of providing a projecting element that emphasizes the mass and horizontal length of the building, staff recommends a series of storefront modules be provided, with distinctive durable materials and details applied to the modules in a base, middle and top pattern. The Elizabeth Hotel is a recent example of this massing and material approach. Staff recommends that Major Facade Plane Changes be provided (defined as the portion of the building below any required upper-story step-backs). A Major Facade Plane Change should be provided not to exceed 50 foot intervals, and must be a minimum of 2 feet deep and shall be related to entrances, the integral structure and/or the organization of interior spaces and activities and not merely for cosmetic effect. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(b) 5. Outdoor spaces and amenities. To the extent reasonably feasible, all development shall provide on-site outdoor space such as courtyard, plaza, patio or other pedestrian-oriented outdoor space. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be visible from the street and shall be visually or physically connected with any outdoor spaces on adjacent properties. Staff comments: Standard partially met. The project does carve out some plaza space at the main entrance. Approx. 300 SF with two small seating areas. More attention is needed to provide greater building and site detail for outdoor pedestrian network and space within the site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) Character and Image. New buildings shall be designed to demonstrate compatibility with the historical agricultural/industrial characteristics of the District in order to promote visual cohesiveness and emphasize positive historical attributes. Such characteristics include simple rectilinear building shapes, simple rooflines, juxtaposed building masses that directly express interior volumes/functions, visible structural components and joinery, details formed by brickwork, sandstone, sills, lintels, headers and foundations and details formed by joinery of structural materials. Staff comments: Standard not met. Staff recommends that the building be redesigned to provide massing and details including: sills, lintels, foundation material base, cornice details, and articulation of entrances, all in manner that is commensurate with the detail and articulation patterns seen in the downtown 15 area. A taller first floor ceiling height may also be helpful in articulating the street level. An additional staff recommendation is to design the two buildings to be distinctively different. Overall, the building has a ubiquitous character with materials, colors and patterns that are commonly repeated in other municipalities and zone districts. Staff is concerned that the overall building design – including the massing variation, detailing, materials and color selection does not demonstrate the intended RDR character and image. The intent of the standards is to achieve buildings that are distinctive and unique to the Fort Collins RDR district. The use of juxtaposed building masses is not done in a way that provides a distinctive RDR character. The River District Block One is a recent example that satisfies this standard. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 1. Outdoor spaces. Buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form architectural outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards. Staff comments: Standard is not met. Outdoor space provided is too minimal. Balconies are not deep enough to be functional or to provide detail, massing and articulation that is a unique or distinctive contribution the RDR District. Pedestrian alleyway connections with direct residential entrances into each ground unit can also be used to satisfy this requirement and provide a Pedestrian Friendly Edge in accordance with the RDR guidelines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 2. Windows. Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed so as to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Windows shall be placed in a symmetrical pattern relative to the wall and massing. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominant style of fenestration for buildings in this District. This requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features used as embellishments to the principal building. Staff comments: Standard not met. Staff recommends that all windows be designed to provide depth and with details formed by joinery of structural materials. Vinyl windows typically do not reinforce the rich structural detail that should be found in a downtown area. Additionally, a grey color change is proposed with the surrounding materials to make the window openings seem larger. The combination proposed is busy and reduces the overall cohesiveness of the building design. 16 The window design and placement does not provide a positive contribution to the RDR district. Specific window details have not been provided with the plans. No inset appears to be proposed with the upper stories. Windows appear to be “tacked on” in a similar way that was provided at Old Town Flats. The window treatment does not meet a downtown standard and the window design contributes to the ubiquitous character of the building. The drawing implies that window HVAC units are proposed at some window bases, and the units are not labelled. These detract from the overall expected RDR quality and character of the building and are more commonly associated with suburban hotels. Staff recommends that the window units be removed or screened by architectural features integrated into the building design. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 3. Roof forms. Flat, shed and gable roof forms corresponding to massing and interior volumes/functions shall be the dominant roof forms. Flat-roofed masonry buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment integral with masonry on all walls facing streets, the River or connecting walkways. Additional decorative shaped cornices in wood (or other material indistinguishable from wood) shall be permitted in addition to the top masonry cornice treatment. Sloped metal roofs are allowed. Barrel roofs may be used as an accent feature but must be subordinate to the dominant roof. Specialized or unusual roof forms, including mansards and A-frames, are prohibited. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings except as part of a design style that emulates nearby landmarks (or structures eligible for landmark designation). Staff comments: Standard not met. While flat roofs are permitted, the forms and material treatments proposed don’t work in tandem to ensure a distinctive RDR building. The roof form proposed reinforces the ubiquitous nature of the building. See River District Block One example. Staff recommends that a cornice detail be provided at major step-backs, such as those that can be provided by brick coursing, and an additional cornice detail be provided at the top of the building. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 4. Materials. Building materials shall contribute to visual continuity within the District. Textured materials with native and historic characteristics, such as brick, stone, wood, architectural cast stone and synthetic stone in historically compatible sandstone patterns only, architectural metals and materials with similar characteristics and proportions shall be used in a repeating pattern as integral parts of the exterior building fabric. Masonry units must wrap around the corners of walls so as to not appear as an applied surface treatment. Other exterior materials, if any, shall be used as integral parts of the overall building fabric, in repeating modules, proportioned both horizontally and vertically to relate to human scale, and with enough depth at joints between architectural elements to cast shadows, in order to better ensure that the character and image of new buildings are visually related to the Downtown and River context. Lapped aluminum siding, vinyl siding, smooth-face concrete masonry units, synthetic stucco coatings and imitation brick are prohibited. 17 Staff comments: Standard not met. There are several issues with the material design. Portions of the building facades that are not street facing rely to heavily on the cement panel system, and not “textured materials with native characteristics”. The cement panel pattern proposed is too expansive, monolithic, and not of an appropriate scale. This makes the building seem more massive and does not provide a rich, textural detail pattern. The ground-face texture masonry application at the ground level does not provide sufficient detail and visual interest. Generally, this material is too commonly used in building design and does not positively reinforce the RDR District. Overall the appearance is too utilitarian and it is also used for the penthouse elevator cores on the roof. The white and grey combination currently seems overused in multifamily urban design; in particular, the white material makes the building seem more influenced by national design trends and less of a response to reinforcing a unique character area such as RDR. Please consider other material combinations, patterns and textures. The use of raw concrete panels with textures might be a potential option, such as provided by TAKTL http://www.taktl-llc.com/Textures No significant character-defining materials, material combinations or embellishments are provided that provide unique visual interest or help break down the scale or the building. The downtown hotel is a good example where filigree and other material provisions were provided to reinforce the positive character of the building and provide unique visual interest. No material examples were provided. Example pictures were provided that don’t relate well to what is proposed. Round concrete columns are proposed without textural detail. Consider wider columns, or more integrated in into the façade, or possibly another shape/material. Mill House – square. The brick coursing surrounding the windows shown is confusing. The horizontal material indentations between windows and surrounding the windows seem out of place and don’t relate well to the patterns in the rest of the building levels. Where smaller windows are proposed within larger openings, typically more detail is provided. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 5. Primary entrance. The primary entrance must be clearly identified and must be oriented to a major street, pedestrian way, place, courtyard and/or other key public space. The primary entrance must feature a sheltering element such as a canopy or be defined by a recess or a simple surround. 18 Staff comments: Standard not met. Side entrance design is not noticeable or distinctive. Staff recommends that the entrances be redesigned to face Willow Street or be chamfered to be at the corners of the two buildings. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 6. Accent features. Accent features, where used, must complement and not dominate the overall composition and design of the building and may include secondary entrances, loading docks, garage bays, balconies, canopies, cupolas, vertical elevator/stair shafts and other similar features. Staff comments: Standard not met. Downtown hotel is a good recent example that integrates accent features into the material design. Integration of complementary accent features may be helpful. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(3)(c) 7. Awnings and canopies. Awnings and canopies must complement the character of the building and must be subordinate to the facade. Colors must be solid or two (2) color stripes for simplicity. Staff comments: Standard not met. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(4)(b) Walls, Fences and Planters. Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. Staff comments: Standard may not be met. Only concrete seat walls are provided. Please consider this standard when addressing revisions. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(4)(c) Street Edge. A well-defined street edge must be established and shall be compatible with the streetscape in the public realm. Components may include any of the following: planted areas, decorative paving, public art, street furnishing with ornamental lighting and iron and metal work that reflect on the agricultural/industrial heritage of the district. Staff comments: Standard may be met. Planting areas are provided along Willow Street, no planting plan provided. Benches and planters appear to be proposed. Unclear whether decorative features are proposed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(4)(e) Parking. Where parking lots are highly visible from streets or pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces, a visual buffer must be provided. Such buffering may consist of any of the following singularly or in combination: a low solid screen wall, a semi-opaque screen or a living green wall consisting of plant material sufficient to provide a minimum of seventy-five-percent opacity year-round or other screening device that is sensitive to pedestrian activity. Staff comments: Concrete bench walls are proposed which partially screen the parking. 19 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(4)(e) Parking. Where parking lots are highly visible from streets or pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces, a visual buffer must be provided. Such buffering may consist of any of the following singularly or in combination: a low solid screen wall, a semi-opaque screen or a living green wall consisting of plant material sufficient to provide a minimum of seventy-five-percent opacity year-round or other screening device that is sensitive to pedestrian activity. Staff comments: Concrete bench walls are proposed which partially screen the parking, however the walls and plaza area may be an area where more accent detail should be provided. TBD with resubmittal. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 4.17(D)(4)(E) Design Guidelines. See also the Fort Collins R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines, which are intended to assist applicants in the preparation of development plans within the zone district. RDR - summary of guidelines and compliance notes: 1. Guidelines consider the neighborhood, site and building. Vision of the RDR zone district is intended to respect and be sensitive to the ag-industrial character. 2. Key Principals: Excellence in Design; promote creativity; design with authenticity; design with consistency; design for durability; design for sustainability; enhance public realm; enhance ped. experience; provide signature open spaces; keep parking subordinate. Staff comments: Guideline key principles not met. Staff recommends the following: -step-back and massing reductions around the perimeter of the building (see detailed comments). -More appropriate predominant materials including full dimension brick and stone masonry. Faux or simulated materials, including composite wood grain materials, imitation wood siding or stone should not be used. Use materials that reinforce the continuity and integrity of the overall Downtown district. The design and materials should be durable, classic, and elegant. -Maintain the rhythm established by the repetition of the traditional facade by changing the materials, patterns, reveals. 3. Variation in bldg. setbacks along streets and river encouraged Guideline not met. 4. Open space amenities encouraged, not too large, appropriately sized, often street oriented Guideline is minimally met, see detailed comments. 20 5. Neighborhood - each project - promote a rich diversity, perceived as its own district, relate well to other properties. Important subjects: connectivity, establish and reinforce mid-block connections. Guideline not met, see detailed comments. 6. Site Design - pedestrian oriented entries, windows facing street, small public spaces linked to sidewalk, urban streetscape design, street furniture, public art. Enhance character of district. Open space amenities encouraged; could be part of a detention area. Guideline is minimally met. 7. Building Design - Draw upon the building traditions of the RD at large as inspiration for new, creative designs. Character: draw upon agricultural industrial & commercial architecture of the past; do not imitate historic styles; contemporary interpretations of building forms, materials and details encouraged. 8. Simple geometric forms and shapes & juxta positioning of simple forms/materials encouraged. 9. Diversity of building forms encouraged. Guideline not met. 10. 4th story always steps back. Guideline not met. 4th story step-back is not sufficient. Juxta-position of forms is not adequate. 11. Wall lengths should be in scale with those seen traditionally in the area. Guideline not met. Horizontal articulation of wall forms not sufficiently provided. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 12. Primary building forms should appear similar to those seen traditionally. Guideline not met. Horizontal articulation of wall forms not sufficiently provided. 13. Façade to appear predominantly as flat; decorative elements and projecting/recessed elements subordinate to the dominant form; Guideline not met. Dominant form is the projection band. 14. New building to reflect traditional range of building widths in the district; 15. When exceeding width, use changes in design features so that the building reads as separate modules that reflect the traditional widths and massing. 21 Guideline not met. Horizontal articulation of wall forms not sufficiently provided. 16. Avoid use of highly complex forms; too much variation is inappropriate; attention to the design transition between modules is important. Guideline met but with issues. 17. Relate to human scale. Guideline not met. The projecting massing, materials and colors are issues as well as lack of a significant and varied step-back. 18. Solid to Void ratio: use similar ratio to existing. Guideline not met. Horizontal articulation of wall forms not sufficiently provided. 19. Roofs: 3d cornice treatment with flat roofs Guideline not met. No 3d cornice treatment provided. 20. Durable materials -- masonry and metals, windows. Design with authenticity. Guideline not met. Durability not apparent or consistent throughout design. 21.Building features -- exposed structural elements, simple detailing, clearly defined entrances. Guideline not met. 22. Well defined windows with frames, sills and lintels; Guideline not met. 23. Accent features -- Accent features should be used to complement overall composition and context; awning canopies, structural features. Guideline not met. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 Grading plan, Sheet C-4. What is the grading transition proposed along the east boundary? There is not enough labeling on the grading plan to determine this. Spot elevations shown, are these top or bottom of curb? This is not clear on the plans. East side of podium parking, a hatch pattern is shown but it's not clear what this represents, is this a trench drain? Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 Landscape plan -- there are a few discrepancies with planting vs/paving areas shown on the civil plans. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility 22 (A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an additional use. (B) General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent with the purposes of this Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. Staff comments: Standard not met, similar compatibility is not achieved. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(C) 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.) Staff comments: Standard not met. Buildings are too massive. New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood through repetition of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of characteristic entry features. Staff comments: Standard not met per LPC comments. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(E) Building Materials. (1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity 23 exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. Staff comments: Standard not met. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(E)(2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the potential for glare from such materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in terms of vehicular safety, outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such materials shall not be permitted. Staff comments: Standard not met. White color selection is too dominant and does not blend well with neighborhood. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(E)(3) Windows. (a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited. (b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors. Staff comments: Provide notation/specification with the plans indicating compliance. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(E)(3)(c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Staff comments: Standard not met. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff comments: Standard not met. White color selection is too dominant and does not blend well with neighborhood. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review. (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers. All buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be subject to special review 24 pursuant to this subsection (G). (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: 1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building shape. Staff comments: No significant shadowing issues observed. 2. Privacy. Development plans with buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed to address privacy impacts on adjacent property by providing landscaping, fencing, open space, window size, window height and window placement, orientation of balconies, and orientation of buildings away from adjacent residential development, or other effective techniques. Staff comments: No apparent privacy issues. 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. Staff comments: Standard not met, see detailed comments. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.1(I)(2) Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage (including storage containers), utility meters, HVAC and other mechanical equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and the landscape so that the architectural design is continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences and equipment, and no attention is attracted to the functions by use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. These areas shall be located and screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Staff comments: HVAC locations are an issue. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards 25 (D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. 3.5.2(D)(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: Staff comments: Standard only partially met, also see ground floor unit comments. Response to Planning Services comments 1 – 30: Please see attached letter from CA Ventures. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/01/2018 05/01/2018: Based upon the EEC, LLC report and Nation Inspection Services Information Request Response some specific pollutant sources will need to be addressed as part of the Erosion Control Report, specifically; 1) pumped ground water from each pier hole, 2) Benzine, Naphthalene, Chlorinated solvent, and PCE contaminated soil, and 3) suspected asbestos containing debris. Please identify in the Erosion Control Report, What will be done with these prior mentioned pollutant sources? How will these materials be managed as to prevent a commingling with stormwater and potential discharge of this material to the storm drainage while waiting for material to be characterized for disposal? Please specify control measures being implemented and eventual disposal method of the pollutant contained materials from the site if and when encountered. These are in addition to the PDR review comments. Response: See attached letter prepared by Joe Aiken from National Inspection Services Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The City is requesting that the detention and LID chambers include an impermeable liner to ensure no infiltration of storm water into the soils. Response: An impermeable liner will be included within the details at Final Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The City is advising no utility excavation be below the groundwater level. Additional permits and remediation would be required if excavation exposed any groundwater. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: There is a conflict with the southeast electrical transformer and the public storm sewer. Separation distance of 10 feet is required. Response: Minimum separation has been provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 26 05/08/2018: Additional separation is needed between the public storm sewer and the west storm water chambers. Moving the chambers two feet to the east will meet the separation requirements. Response: Chambers have been adjusted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please label plug and grout manhole opening for the storm sewer manhole east of the property where the storm line is being abandoned. Response: This label has been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: There are two locations where a conflict exists between the public storm sewer and trees. 10 feet of separation is the criteria. Response: Minimum separation has been provided. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Additional separation is needed between the public storm sewer and the electrical line. Response: Acknowledged Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please remove the address from the title blocks of all sheets. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: The address has been removed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: All text has been masked for legibility Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please revise the Benchmark Statement as marked. See redlines. Response: Benchmark Statement has been revised. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. Response: Benchmark Statement has been revised. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Sheet C-001 has an incorrect sheet name. Response: Sheet name has been revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Base maps have been revised. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: 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 27 Subdivision Plat. Response: Base maps have been revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: PARKING PLAN: Please remove the address from the title block. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: The address has been removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: STREET PLAN: If these plans are going to be filed, please make changes as shown. See redlines. Response: These sheets will not be submitted in the PDP, however they will be part of the LPC presentation resubmittal. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please revise the title on all sheets as marked. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please remove the address from the title blocks of all sheets. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: The address has been removed. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please remove the address from the title blocks of all sheets. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: The address has been removed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: This has been corrected and redline responses have been provided. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 05/10/2018: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2018 28 05/10/2018: Please remove the address from the title blocks of all sheets. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: The address has been removed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: The Trip Generation in Table 2 is based on 226 Bedrooms however the Site Plan shows 234 bedrooms. Please submit a memo that clarifies the number of bedrooms. The results of the study are not likely to change but please confirm in the memo. Response: Please see the memo from Delich Associates attached. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: PARKING. Your project is proposing 174 parking spaces for 193 units (234 bds), will this adequately accommodate the parking demand? Please keep in mind that the on-street public parking spaces may become 2-hour time limited spaces as the River District develops. Thus, there is no parking spaces in the area to absorb spillover from your project. Response: Acknowledged Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2018 05/07/2018: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: The proposed sewer main along the eastern edge of the property does not meet separation requirements. The City will also require it to be a service which feeds the one customer. Please revise the utility plan to a sewer service in this location. Response: He feed will be a private service. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 29 05/08/2018: A 30 foot utility easement is required on the property to the west for the new alignment of the sanitary sewer main. Response: A 30’ utility easement will be provided by separate document. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Coordination is required with the Willow Street Capital Project to ensure all water, wastewater, storm water and site improvements have been accounted for. Response: Coordination will be on going thing throughout the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Some conflicts exist between the pavers and sewer main and with the water meter vault. Coordination is needed to determine where and if the pavers are necessary. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: A conflict exists with the eastern water meter vault and the crab apple trees. Response: Acknowledged Department: Zoning Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Pedestrian connectivity from Linden to building via alley-way is lacking. Directness and Continuity . Walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not provide such direct pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. Such walkways shall be raised or enhanced with a paved surface not less than six (6) feet in width. Drive aisles leading to main entrances shall have walkways on both sides of the drive aisle. Response: Please see attached letter from CA Ventures. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 3.2.2(M) At least 6% of interior space of parking lot should be landscaped & irrigated. - Shade trees provided in each landscape island in a parking lot - Perimeters of parking lots should screen headlights and have trees planted at 40 foot intervals. (Review of modification request discussed). At least 6 more trees plus landscaping should line the parking lot on the railroad side. Response: We cannot have any more trees along the railroad side due to utility conflicts. We haveadded trees in all areas possible to avoid utility conflicts. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 4.17(D)(3) & (4) Criteria of building design in the R-D-R 30 district does not seem to be met. Please refer to Planning and Historic comments for more detail. Specifically referring to Character and Image – Roof Forms, Primary Entrances and Site design – River Landscape Response: Please see attached letter from CA Ventures. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 3.2.4 Does the wall sconce direct the wash light upwards? A temperature of 3000K or less is preferable, one of the fixtures, D-Series wall luminaire does not specify. Response: The exterior wall sconce ‘EW5’ is full cutoff and directs light downwards. All light fixtures are full cutoff except the ‘Potential Amenity Ground Level Decorative Sconce’. This fixture is not full cutoff and would have some light in all directions however it provides more of a glow than functional illuminance and is under the building overhang so no light would go upward beyond the building above. It is “potential” for approval (or rejection) by the PDP. All light fixtures are to be 3000K including the D-series wall fixture. Please refer to the ‘Exterior Lighting Fixture Schedule’ color temperature column on sheet E2. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 3.5.1(I)(6) All rooftop mechanical equipment & ground equipment shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into building and roof design to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be painted to match surrounding building surfaces. Please note locations of equipment on site plan and elevations. Response: No rooftop equipment will be visible. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: LUC 3.2.5 All development shall provide adequately sized conveniently located, accessible trash and recycling enclosures with both service and pedestrian access. Please provide details of trash enclosure on elevation plans. Response: Please refer to Sheet A9 provided Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/08/2018 05/08/2018: Please provide detail of bike racks. Please note on plans how many bikes each rack location will hold. Response: The bike rack strategy has been revisited and includes multiple bike rack options andlocations. See the detail sheets for exact bike rack capacity. Environmental TRC and PDP Review Comments – Prepared by J. Aiken Introduction Environmental comments were received by CA Ventures from two sources: 1) TRC’s review of the PDP documents, and 2) the City of Fort Collins review of the PDP documents. 31 TRC is the City of Fort Collins environmental consultant and they concluded that the preliminary plans for the Willow and Pine Multifamily Project are in general compliance with the applicable environmental requirements for the project and are being developed in a manner which will provide adequate protection to future occupants, construction workers, the general public, and the environment. The comments/questions provided by TRC were intended to request additional information which can be incorporated into future submittals that will provide further assurance that applicable environmental requirements are met. The City comments also requested clarifications. Our Responses to the TRC comments, followed by the City comments, are outlined below: TRC Environmental Comments •TRC Comment 1: TRC concurs with statements that additional characterization of the site is not required. If there are any unknown conditions that are present at the site, the Soil Management Plan is appropriate to identify and manage these instances. Response: No Response Required •TRC Comment 2: The discussions in the submittal documents regarding existing project understanding mention a former municipal landfill, provide a map that shows the location of this relative to the subject property for informational purposes to better understand site conditions. Response: The maps in the Final Soils Management Plan will include an area-wide map that depict the landfill. The limits of the former municipal landfill are not on the project Site, but the landfill does impact properties to the north of the site. •TRC Comment 3: Clarify that “trained Oversight Personnel (OP)” will be onsite during all intrusive activities to screen for the presence of impacted materials (soil, groundwater, debris, and asbestos) to be protective of site workers and the public. For instance, Section 4.1 of the DRAFT Soils Management Plan mentions “CA Ventures will provide trained Oversight Personnel (OP) as needed during intrusive activities …”. Response: Historical environmental studies that were performed on the Site provide a good delineation of subsurface conditions. During the planned construction project, trained Oversight Personnel (OP) will be present for intrusive activities such as the installation of piers/caissons, the installation of utilities, and excavations for the building foundation and slab in the site areas that are known to be in or near known environmental issues. The OP will also be present on an intermittent basis for these activities in areas of the site that do not have known environmental conditions. Once this initial construction has been accomplished, the OP will not perform oversight of follow-up intrusive activities such as the installation of curbs and gutters, landscaping, and lighting unless the OP determines that such activities require oversight. The OP will also provide training to the excavation contractors on the correct implementation of Soils Management Plan (SMP) (awareness training) and will be on call (prepared to be at the site) if any environmental or unusual conditions are encountered during intrusive activities into areas of the Site where the current data indicates that here are no environmental conditions. •TRC Comment 4: Has the infiltration of storm water at the West Pond Stormtech Chambers been considered relative to potential alteration of groundwater flow in the area which could affect the movement of contaminant mass? Provide discussion and/or figures to address this potential concern. Response: The potential for infiltration of storm water in the West Pond Stormtech Chambers has been considered and it is not expected to cause an issue for the alteration of groundwater flow or the 32 movement of the contaminant mass. The Stormtech Chambers are designed to capture the initial storm water flow in a filtration layer (gravel bed) for water quality purposes and then the remaining storm water flows off the site to the storm sewer in a flow-through fashion. The gravel layer is about 6 inches deep and the total footprint of the Stormtech system is 2800 square feet. If we assume that all of the precipitation that impinges on the 2-acre site will flow through the Stormtech system and that a conservative amount of 10% of this flow will be available for infiltration, the annual amount of infiltration is estimated to be about 85,000 gallons. A more conservative estimate would be based on the number of rainfall events (36 days of rainfall annually for Fort Collins) with the full volume of the filtration layer infiltrating into the subsurface. This calculation would result in about 150,000 gallons available for infiltration. Both estimates assume an average annual rainfall of 16 inches and include the fact that infiltration will be limited by the ability of the soil to accept infiltrating water. If we look at the impact of this amount of infiltration on the groundwater over a radius area of 2- acres from the infiltration point, the 85,000 to 150,000 gallons represents about 4% to 8% of the volume of the groundwater present in the aquifer over the 2-acre area. Since the infiltration will be impacting an aquifer that is much larger than 2 acres (the overall downgradient area and the Poudre River plume area are estimated to be greater than 10 acres), and the fact that only a portion of the aquifer in the 2-acre radius from the infiltration point is impacted, the impact to the direction of flow and the potential movement of contaminants within the aquifer will likely be negligible. In addition, the Stormtech system will be placed on the eastern portion of the Site, away from the subsurface contamination. The known groundwater flow direction in that area of the Site will be to the north-northeast, towards the Poudre river and not in the direction of the subsurface impacts. Again, it is expected that the impact on the current groundwater regime and on the existing flow of contaminants within the system will be minimal. •TRC Comment 5: Show on a figure where the low concentrations of TCE and PCE in groundwater are located. Response: The 2018 groundwater sampling event performed by National Inspection Services (NIS) did not find TCE or PCE at in groundwater at concentrations that exceeded the Colorado Basic Groundwater Standards. NIS did find low levels of PCE and TCE in soils in two test pit locations in the center of the Site (TP-7 and TP-8), but these concentrations (29.5 µ/l and 23.4 µ/l, respectively) were well below the US EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for PCE for residential soils (24,000 µ/l). The 2016 groundwater sampling that was performed by Paragon did not find PCE or TCE in the 18 groundwater samples taken from soil borings at the site, with the exception of a detection of TCE that was above the Colorado Basic Groundwater Standards in a groundwater sample at one location (29.1 µ/l TCE in SB- 12). The soil sample from SB-12 did not contain PCE or TCE at concentrations that were above the US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soils. Since there were 18 borings placed on the 2-acre property, the data indicates that the presence of TCE represents a limited impact at the Site and TCE is not expected to cause issues during or after construction. In addition, the SB-12 boring is not in an area where intrusive activities that will encounter groundwater are planned. The location of this groundwater detection will be placed on the overall site data map in the Final Soils Management Plan to alert the OP and contractors about the possible presence of this compound and PID screening will be performed if excavation occurs in this area of the site. •TRC Comment 6: Will caissons be drilled in these areas? Will this water be managed as impacted? Will saturated soil from these caissons be screened for impacts and managed accordingly? Response: The planned buildings at the site be constructed on a foundation of approximately 80 piers. The holes for the piers will be drilled using a 24-inch diameter auger, and caissons may be used to hold the boreholes open during construction. It is not expected that boreholes/caissons will be drilled in the 33 area where levels of PCE that are above the US EPA RSLs are located. All groundwater and soil from the area of known impact at the site will be managed as impacted regardless on whether the constituent of concern is benzene, naphthalene, or other compound. The soils and groundwater from the impacted area will be collected, containerized or staged on plastic containment areas, and properly handled, characterized and disposed of off-site. •TRC Comment 7: For impacted soil that will be field screened for VOCs using a photoionization detector (PID), action levels and associated response to action levels should be provided in the Soil Management Plan. These response actions should include both material management and worker health and safety. Response: The Final Soils Management Plan will include PID action levels as well as other pertinent soil and groundwater management criteria. These response actions will include both material management and worker health and safety levels. •TMRC Comment 8: How will groundwater removed from caissons in areas from the site that are not impacted be managed? Response: Boreholes for piers and caissons at the site will be constructed by drilling 24-inch diameter core holes to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Following the drilling, reinforcing materials will be placed into the holes and the boreholes will be filled with concrete. The concrete will likely be placed into the boreholes using a tremie pipe. Groundwater encountered in caissons in areas of the site where environmental conditions do not exist will be discharged to the ground surface for infiltration. It is not expected that the water from each caisson will be pumped prior to concrete placement into the caisson, and it is expected that approximately 150 gallons of clean groundwater will be forced to the surface as a result of the placement of concrete into the caissons in the clean area of the site. In areas of the site that are in or near the area of impact, the water within the caisson will be pumped or sucked out of the boreholes into a pump truck prior to the introduction of concrete into the caisson. The impacted groundwater will be characterized and transported off-site for proper disposal. •TRC Comment 9: Verify that all buildings onsite will have vapor mitigation systems and not just buildings where the building footprint is in the area of documented soil and groundwater impacts. Response: A vapor mitigation barrier, as required by the Fort Collins City Code for Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC), will be provided in all buildings to be placed on the site. Fort Collins adopted RRNC requirements for single family units in 2005 and extended RRNC requirements to multi- family dwellings in 2008. All new single and multi-family dwellings must include a passive system. See section 5-27 (45) of the Fort Collins Municipal Code for multi-family requirements. The RRNC codes are designed to prevent vapor intrusion from radon, and the protections will prevent other vapors from entering the buildings. For the buildings that are planned for the area of documented soil and groundwater impacts, the vapor mitigation system will include an additional active vapor mitigation approach in combination with the vapor mitigation barrier. This active system will include the full vapor barrier required as part of RRNC and will include slotted piping in the sub-slab gravel layer and blowers to actively remove the vapors from beneath the slab. •TRC Comment 10: Provide an assessment for the potential vapors removed at this site which could create an explosive atmosphere requiring an appropriate area classification for electrical equipment associated with an active sub-slab ventilation system. Response: Based on the site data and a preliminary assessment by NIS, an explosive atmosphere will not be present at the Site due to the mass of benzene and naphthalene found the subsurface beneath the building footprint. The historical data indicates that the average concentration of benzene in 34 groundwater beneath the building footprint will likely be less than 100 µ/l and the average concentration of naphthalene in groundwater beneath the building footprint will be less than 5000 µ/l. Since the explosive level of these constituents is in the percent range, it is likely that there is not enough source mass to accumulate to an explosive level in the sub-slab soil. The lower explosive limit (LEL) for benzene is 1.3 percent by volume and naphthalene is 0.9 percent by volume. This would mean that each cubic meter of air/benzene mixture would contain 1.3% of benzene and 0.9% of naphthalene by volume. NIS used the Johnson-Ettinger Indoor Air Screening tool to develop an understanding of the predicted sub-slab soil vapor concentrations at the site given the range of groundwater concentrations that were found under the building footprint. The screening tool results indicate that, at very conservative groundwater concentrations, the sub-slab concentrations are projected to be well below the concentration that would cause an explosive condition. Since the concentration of a gas above a liquid is dependent on the concentration of the of the gas in the liquid, and the volatilization of the target constituents is subject to the soil type and conditions, it is not expected that conditions at the Site will result in explosive levels in the sub-slab soil gas. In addition, the active vapor mitigation system that is planned in the area of impact will draw air from a gravel layer beneath the building. The vapor removed from the gravel will include the sub-slab soil vapors as well as fresh air that is pulled into the gravel by the negative pressure that will be induced by the blowers. The air that is drawn in by the system will further dilute the soil gas concentrations, assuring that the vapors passing through the vapor mitigation system will be well below the LEL. Further assessment of this issue will be made during the design of the vapor mitigation system. •TRC Comment 11: Provide details of quality assurance testing to verify that the vapor intrusion mitigation system will be installed to meet applicable requirements. Response:CA Ventures plans to install the vapor intrusion mitigation system under a Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) that is administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). As part of the VCP, CDPHE will require that the design and installation of the system be reviewed and approved by a qualified third-party. •TRC Comment 12: Assess the potential for impacted vapor migration through utility trenches from areas of the site to off-site areas and if potential exists, how it will be mitigated. Response: Vapor migration through utility trenches from areas of the site to off-site areas is not expected to be an issue for this project for three main reasons. First, the placement of major utilities on the Site have been designated in the clean portion of the Site based in the environmental data. The design of the utilities strongly considered the location of subsurface impacts and efforts were taken to minimize the intrusive activities in the impacted area of the Site. Secondly, the active vapor mitigation system that will be placed in the building that is over the impacted area of the Site is expected to capture and mitigate subsurface vapors and will likely limit the migration of any vapors in the subsurface. Lastly, the existing off-site utilities are currently impacted by the environmental conditions associated with the Poudre River Site, including vapor migration. The utility corridor that is in Willow Street, for example, cuts across the highly impacted area that is to the north west of the Site. In addition, existing storm water and sanitary utilities on the Site currently intersect contaminated areas. It is not expected that the project on the Site will exacerbate conditions that area associated with vapor migration and the project is likely to improve the conditions. Additional City of Fort Collins Environmental Comments City of Fort Collins Comment 2: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN: Please clarify whether the vapor barrier and sub-slab ventilation is planned for both buildings, not just Build A. 35 Response: See Response to TMRC Comment 9. City of Fort Collins Comment 3: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINCE PLAN: For item "g" under Excavation, please elaborate on how this requirement will be met. Response: Item “g” requirement in the Environmental Compliance Plan is as follows: Where practicable and consistent with good engineering practices, incorporate into new or replacement utility improvements design measures, such as protective sleeving, choice of materials and other features intended to minimize the need for future replacement or repair due to effects of subsurface contaminants. Based on a conversation with Northern Engineering (the utility design team for the Site) the above elements will be considered by the design team in an effort to meet all of Fort Collins requirements for the utilities that will be installed. City of Fort Collins Comment 4: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN: For item "f" under Monitoring, please provide a response for how this requirement will be met. Response: Item “f” requirement in the Environmental Compliance Plan is as follows: Where practicable and consistent with good engineering practices, adopt as a preference for sewer line maintenance and repair the application of an in-situ liner as opposed to removing and replacing the sewer line Based on a conversation with Northern Engineering, the Site plans minimize the removal of existing utilities. There will be a realignment of an existing sewer that currently crosses the property and a new sewer will be installed to service the new buildings. The realignment will occur on a property to the west of the subject property and will be in an area that is determined to not be impacted by MGP waste. The new sewer that will be placed on the Property will be on the eastern portion of the property in an area that has been determined to be clean to the depth of excavation through extensive site testing. Based on the conversation with Northern Engineering the above elements will be considered by the design team in an effort to meet all of Fort Collins requirements for the utilities that will be installed. Jason Holland, Project Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Willow & Pine Multi-family, PDP 180006 Jason: I am writing this letter to express our concern regarding the nature of Staff’s continued critique of our proposed development at 223 Willow. As Executive Vice President of CA Residential, I have been monitoring the development review process for the Willow & Pine Multi-family project at 223 Willow Street (the “Project”) and realized the need to deal with this issue now. In October 2017, before CA Residential’s involvement with the property, a prior contract purchaser went through a PDR process for the property proposing a single multi-family building designed by OZ Architecture. Staff’s primary comments about this earlier proposal dealt with bulk, mass and articulation and requested that the single building be divided into two buildings to address those concerns and also for the purpose of opening up connections through the property between the River and the Union Pacific depot. This project did not go forward. Consequently, our firm entered into a contract to purchase the same property and hired OZ as our Architect. OZ redesigned the Project for us as two buildings and we met with Staff on February 2, 2018 to get preliminary feedback. The redesign was so well received that we were encouraged to submit our PDP instead of either a concept review or another PDR application. After a neighborhood meeting on March 8th, where comments were limited to parking concerns, we submitted the PDP on April 2nd with a two-building layout and a design we believe complies with the development standards of the RDR zone and meets the intent of the River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines. We were surprised to then receive the Round 1 Staff review comments from Planning Services: 13 pages and 30 separate comments to the effect that neither the zone district standards nor the Design Guidelines had been met (see attached copy). We scheduled a session with Staff to work through the comments however very little progress was made because it was clear that the people making these comments were not in the room. OZ went back to the drawing board for us and made a number of significant changes to the design – changes which are, frankly, very difficult to do from a cost standpoint – and we submitted them informally to Jason Holland on June 9th (see attached copy) in advance of our next resubmittal. Jason’s June 18th response from the planning staff (see attached copy), while expressing appreciation for the design and material changes, includes a number of further requests that we believe are (i) the Staff’s design preferences as opposed to Land Use Code requirements; (ii) for a level of detail not required at this stage of the process; and (iii) financially infeasible. The cumulative result of several rounds of Staff comments and requests is significant additional costs and a reduced rentable area of the Project. We believe we have the right to design our building in a thoughtful and holistic way to make the Project a reality. We feel strongly that we have complied with the applicable design codes, standards and guidelines for the River District and are being unfairly subjected to personal opinions on design and architecture. We hope to gain Staff support but cannot afford to continue to down the path of fulfilling what the Staff might prefer but which we believe are not required by the Land Use Code. Timing and costs are significant hurdles we must overcome to make this investment a reality. We respectfully ask the City to consider the significant steps we have made to date in the review process. Below is a high-level list of the efforts previously made by the developer and design team. (1) Currently the property is a brownfield dirt parking lot for utility vehicles. The design for the Project brings people and activation to this portion of Willow Street and the River District addressing the purpose of the RDR District [LUC Sec. 4.17 (A)] and offering an opportunity for more intensive redevelopment of housing and a connection from downtown to the Poudre River. (2) The design for this Project includes two separate buildings and the appearance of the continuation of Pine Street. Because we are proposing 2 building each building will need its own elevators, stairs, fire and life safety systems, electrical and mechanical systems, trash chutes and rooms, etc. By duplicating all these elements in the project, as opposed to a single building, the redevelopment incurs substantial cost. The previously proposed development included 1 large building with only a recess (both horizontal and vertically) in massing to gesture the Pine Street across instead of a physical separation of buildings. The current plan proposed by CA Residential includes two separate buildings; this design addresses LUC Sections (D)(2)(a) and 3.4.7 (F)(4), and the RDR guidelines which encourage the continuation of the existing block grid system, a view corridor and respectful nod to the Union Pacific building, with reduced building scale as traditionally seen in the area. (3) The two buildings have been further revised from the initial design to fit well within in the RDR guidelines and contributing to a reduction in mass and improved human scale. • The brick volume previously shown on the 2nd and 3rd floor has been brought down to level 1 as a strong base for the Project and to accentuate the base, middle, and top methodology. • At portions of the Willow Street elevations, metal panels extend to level 1. This breaks up the brick and adds vertical composition to break up the horizontal nature of the building. The remaining wall lengths of brick are compatible with traditional building widths in the neighborhood. • Level 1 is taller to help articulate the street level. • The step back on the 4th and 5th floors on Willow Street have been increased from approximately 4’-6” to 7’- 0”, increasing further to 9’-0” at the ends of the building to accentuate the corner elements. The approximately 7’ (and 9’) step backs will provide substantial mass relief from Willow Street and maintain a functional unit size for those occupants. This design consideration addresses LUC Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(b)(1) as a significant and integral aspect of the building design. • The southwest elevation of Building B has been revised to show approximately a 12’ step back on level 5 as a gesture to [reduce the high of the building as it relates to] the Union Pacific Depot building across the railroad tracks. Although LUC Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(b)(1) only requires step backs along the street frontage, we have also incorporated step backs on the building sides that face the Union Pacific Depot to address LUC Sec. 3.4.7 (F)(1). This revision, resulted in the loss of four beds to the proposed project which is a significant concession considering proposed Building A is approximately 90' and Building B is approximately 120’ away from the Union Pacific Depot and separated by the Great Western Railway. (4) The design for the Project includes the type of materials and proportion of materials being using on projects in the River District and provide distinctive RDR character. They are genuine and durable. For example, (i) Block One has fiber cement panels and lap siding; (ii) (ii) many projects including the Millhouse Apartments have brick; and (iii) the Confluence project is proposing metal similar to our proposed materials. These design considerations address LUC Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4). (5) The main Building entries has been moved to face Willow Street to give the entrance more street presence. This design consideration addresses LUC Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(5) making the entrance clearly identifiable. (6) The design for this Project provides an enhanced pedestrian experience including a well-defined street edge along Willow Street encouraging activation with storefront windows to amenity spaces, entry courtyards, planting, benches, and residential porches. The ground floor units have been revised to provide a consistent rhythm of porches including an entrance off Willow Street with awnings to enhance the pedestrian experience. These design considerations address LUC Sections 4.17(D)(3)(b) 5, 4.17(D)(3)(c 1., and 4.17(D)(4)(c ). (7) Additional articulation has been added to the design to give the Project unique RDR character addressing LUC Sections 4.17(D)(3)(c, 4.17(D)(3)(c 2, and 4.17(D)(3)(c 6. including: • More hierarchy has been given to the corners by increasing the width of the corner element, steps in the parapet height and inset balconies. • The window pattern is a symmetrical pattern and vertical in nature as a nod to the historical context with detailing similar to Block One with a header lintel and sill infill panel below the windows. • Cornices been added to strategic locations at the top of the building. • Brick patterning has been included in select areas to provide more texture. • Accent features include canopies, hung balconies, factory style divided lite windows on the ground floor, brick texture and patterning. In addition to the changes that have already been made, the design team intends to further accentuate the Willow Street entrance and awnings as a defining feature that provides a unique RDR detail in the upcoming PDP resubmittal, as suggested by Staff in it’s informal email comments of June 18th. The items above have resulted in significant increases in the Project’s scope and cost and, although we remain committed to the Project and look forward to contributing to the ongoing success of the downtown Fort Collins community, we cannot accommodate the Staff’s request to provide the canopies they sketched onto the plans we submitted on June 9th as they will require a significant amount of steel and structure to support, which is financially infeasible. Thank you in advance for your attention in this manner. We intend to resubmit the Project on July 2nd for LPC consideration and recommendation and to resubmit the PDP on July 17th. We would appreciate your cooperation to provide staff support to keep this Project on track. Sincerely, Matt Booma Executive Vice President, CA Residential Attachments Pc: Todd Sullivan, Development Review Coordinator Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Tom Leeson, CDNS Director Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney