HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT AND COLLEGE HOTEL - PDP190014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSFort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.corrdevelopmentreview
October 11, 2019
Stu Macmillan
MacMillan Development, LLC
1928 Linden Ridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Prospect and College Hotel, PDP190014, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Prospect and College Hotel. If you have questions about any
comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your
Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at
tsuilivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone
conversations. Thank you!
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
As part of your next submittal you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
Page 1 of 17
your parking lot from the north and west sides of the building to Prospect road
and to the Prospect MAX station. As currently proposed, guests will be
navigating to CSU and the MAX through the parking lot which is unsafe and
uncomfortable. I think it is unrealistic to believe that all hotel guests will leave
from the south side of the building to use the pedestrian connection created by
the residential development. Stronger and safer pedestrian connections from
the west and north sides of the building need to be included.
Please provide an additional exhibit showing CSU, MAX, and the commercial
buildings to the west as pedestrian destinations and pedestrian improvements
supporting these movements.
RIMS Response: A direct enhanced pedestrian access along the south portion of the site will allow for
pedestrian connections to the existing north south pedestrian access that connects to Prospect Road, and
south to the State. A sidewalk from the north entry will be provided to connect to College Ave. providing a
direct point of access to College Ave.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/24/2019
09/24/2019: BY HEARING:
Will await Erosion Control Plans, Report, and escrow calc. at final (FDP) per
comment response letter.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Will provide at FDP.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
The Water Quality and LID requirements for this site are not being met as
proposed. The site is required to have 75 percent of the site's impervious area
treated by a LID technique. Also, 100 percent of the site is required to have
water quality treatment with either LID or standard water quality. The regional
channel does not count as water quality or LID treatment.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Based on recent meetings with City Stormwater staff on
December 12, 2019 and February 20, 2020, a StormTech system will be constructed to meet the
requirements for LID treatment and is now shown on the plans and described in the Stormwater Report.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
All the storm sewers proposed for this development are to be built by the
Developer and are not being built by the City. Please revise.
The Development Agreement will have language outlining what the repay will be
for part of the storm sewer.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. This has been revised and will be included in the
Development Agreement. There will be a reimbursement agreement between the City of Fort Collins and
the developer relative to the new storm drain which will redirect flow previously collected in College
Avenue. Several meetings regarding this have been had with the Developer and the City including Shane
Boyle and Dan Evans.
Page 10 of 17
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
A drainage easement is required for the 36-inch storm sewer that is located off -site.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. A drainage easement is now shown on the plans and in
the easement exhibit. This easement has been discussed with the City and ownership along with other
existing easements for utilities that need to be cleaned up with plan review and approval. The Owner will be
pursuing the off -site storm easement through the property to the west and Dan Evans will be pursuing the
off -site storm easement for the outfall that crosses and discharges within the Choice Center property to the
south.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Please remove the proposed riprap at the outlet of the proposed storm sewer
and replace with an adequate erosion control mat.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The riprap has been removed. Per the meeting on February 20, 2020 with
City Stormwater staff, a flared end section and turf reinforcement mat (TRM) will be required at the outfall.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Please submit to the City water demand calculations to determine if the existing
water infrastructure is adequate and to verify the proposed water service size.
Sanderson Stewart Response: A fixture calculation has been included in the Preliminary Water Report
provided with this submittal.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Please show the water meter location on the utility plan and provide the required
spacing from all landscaping.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The water meter is now shown in the Overall Utility Plan (Northwestern
corner of building).
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
There is a potential conflict with the fire hydrant lateral and the storm sewer.
Please verify vertical spacing.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Currently there is approximately 1-foot of separation between the proposed
FH branch and storm pipe. Per recent conversation with Fort Collins Stormwater, we are calling out for
blueboard and polywrap between the two utilities on the plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Please label the water taps and appurtenances per utility plan redlines.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The domestic waterline has been revised to a 2-Inch service. Therefore, a
tapping saddle is proposed at the connection to the main. This and the other redline comments have been
addressed and labeled accordingly.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Utility easements are required for the portions of the water and sanitary sewer
Page 11 of 17
services that are located off -site.
Sanderson Stewart Response: These off -site easements are now shown in the Overall Utility Plan and
easement exhibit.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
There is a conflict with the proposed fire and water services and an existing
tree. The services will need to be relocated.
Sanderson Stewart Response: These services have been relocated and do not conflict with trees.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 10/09/2019
10/09/2019: On the Utility Plan, please locate and show the gas main that is
running through the property and ensure there is no conflicts with existing and
proposed wet utilities.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Acknowledged. This gas line is located along the south side of the property
and serves the west side of the existing Chuck E Cheese. We have reached out and are coordinating with
Stephanie Rich at Xcel on the relocation of this existing gas main to ensure there will be no conflicts. The
ultimate location as determined by Xcel will be shown in the Utility Plans upon their determination.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION:
Light and Power feeds the current building on the south west corner of the
building from a 300 kVA 120/208v transformer. Please show the existing
electric facilities on your utility plan. I am having difficulty knowing whether or not
the proposed storm line is in conflict with our switch cabinets.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The storm sewer has been relocated and doesn't appear to present a
conflict. The new transformer location is now shown at the northwest corner of the trash enclosure. Ultimate
routing of electrical lines shall be coordinated between FCL&P and the electrical engineer.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION:
As this project continues to move forward, please inform us as soon as possible
as to the power requirements of the new hotel as well as the meter placement. It
appears that the proposed plans will require Light and Power to move our
facilities that are currently near the existing building. All costs to modify the
system will be billed to the applicant.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Noted, this will be shown in FDP.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR FINAL REVIEW:
Please provide a one -line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering.
The C-1 form can be found at:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWikiMikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Sanderson Stewart Response: Noted, this will be shown in FDP.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION:
Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a
Minimum of an 8' clearance from the front side and a T clearance around the sides and rear.
(1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the sides and rear.)
Page 12 of 17
Sanderson Stewart Response: The transformer is now shown on the Overall Utility Plan with minimum
clearances provided.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION:
Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric
Meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The transformer is now shown on the Overall Utility Plan at the northwest
corner of the trash enclosure. Ultimate meter location and routing of electrical lines shall be coordinated
between FCL&P and the electrical engineer which will be shown on the utility plans once determined.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION:
You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions.
(970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power's Electric Service Standards at
http-Hwww.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar
ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
Fee estimator at http://www.fcqov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Sanderson Stewart Response: Acknowledged
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, Lynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
FIRE ACCESS FROM COLLEGE AVE: Site plan approval from PFA is based
upon the ability of the project to provide access into the site from north bound
emergency traffic on College Ave. Access may be approved for emergency
vehicles only, across a potential median at this location. An approved off -site
plan will be required prior to Site Plan approval.
Sanderson Stewart Response: This emergency access drive -over median is now shown on the Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: The perimeter measure of the building
approaches 560 linear feet. That portion of the building meeting Aerial Fire
Apparatus Access standards (refer to IFC D105.3) is limited to approximately
150'. It is the opinion of the fire marshal that Aerial access does not currently
meet the intent of the code. A possible solution would be to include the
dead-end leg of the drive aisle on the north side of the building. Further
discussion may be needed.
RMS Response: Access to the north side of the site has been provided. The dead-end leg of the north side
parking lot is now designated as part of the Emergency Access Lanes. Please refer to the Site Plan and
Fire Lane Plan provided with this submittal. The Emergency Access Easement will be dedicated by
separate document. An exhibit was provided for review via email.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT: Please extend proposed EAE to the
south property line (full width of the proposed drive) so as to connect with the
existing off -site 20' wide EAE on the adjacent property. Also extend proposed
Page 13 of 17
EAE west to the property line at the SW comer of the site.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The access easement is now connected to the south referenced off -site
easement. Please refer to the Site Plan and Fire Lane Plan provided with this submittal. The Emergency
Access Easement will be dedicated by separate document.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
FIRE LANE SIGNS: The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane
sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail
#1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional
arrows required on all signs.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Fire lane signage is now indicated on the Site Plan and Fire Lane Plan. The
referenced details are also provided in the Utility Plans.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10108/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Thank you for including a photometric plan. While it appears the lighting plan
complies with city standards, the data points are really difficult to read. At next
submittal please increase the spacing between data points by shrinking the font
size or modify spacing. Thank you.
RMS Response: The text and data points have been adjusted for clarity.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Thank you for including low-water landscaping materials. The Eco-Turf seems
like an excellent ground cover within the ROW, and most of the plant species
are low-water. The only concern is buffalo grass as it does not perform well
long-term in shady areas (under trees, alongside buildings, etc.).
RMS Response: Acknowledged, we are removing the buffalo grass from the project plans.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
Thank you for providing the tree inventory and mitigation plan and the feasibility
letter.
It appears that most of the trees at this site are slated to be removed. There are
several large honeylocust and pine trees (Trees #27-28, 31-32 and 18-20) that
are in fair condition and provide numerous benefits to the site, including critical
shade. Are there any options to reconfigure the parking lot and retain these trees?
RMS Response: Two trees are being considered to be protected due to parking lot redesign, there will
need to be a modification approval for these to be protected.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
Is Tree #24 off site? If so, please obtain and provide an approval letter from the
Page 14 of 17
adjacent property owner to indicate that removal would be permitted.
RMS Response: A letter will be provided prior to FDP/Mylars.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
There are several proposed parking lot islands that are approximately 3' wide
(please see redlines). These do not provide adequate space for canopy tree
growth. Please widen these islands to at least 6 feet.
RMS Response: The parking lot islands have been widened to a minimum 6' width.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
In the landscape schedule, please note the species diversity percentages
based on the total number of trees proposed on the site.
RMS Response: Acknowledged, the percentages have been provided.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please substitute either the choice city elm or the accolade elm for a different
genus of trees.
RMS Response: Acknowledged, the species have been updated.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please provide the following distances between trees and public water, sanitary
and storm sewer service lines:
10' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines
4' between gas lines and trees
Please refer to redlines.
RMS Response: Acknowledged, the plants have been updated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: FOR HEARING
Please include the Street Tree Permit Note on LP101.
RMS Response: Acknowledged, the note has been updated.
Department: Environmental Compliance
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
10/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: 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.
4240 Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
10/08/2019
10/08/2019
Page 15 of 17
10/08/2019: BY 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.
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.
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.
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.
4240 Response: RE sheet 8.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 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.
4240 Response: Noted
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: BY HEARING: 6 cubic yard dumpsters are stationary (they are not
on wheels) and require immediate drive up access for service vehicles which
will not work in the proposed location. Please relocate the trash and recycling
area or provide space for multiple smaller containers for the same capacity to
be provided.
4240 Response: RE sheet 8. Dumpsters changed to (6) 3 yard bins for both trash and recycling (to be
determined by operator).
Page 16 of 17
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All trash and recycling enclosures are
required to provide methods to protect the interior walls and in this case the
generator and transformer from being damaged by dumpsters. Common
methods include metal framing, bollards, and angle iron/curbing. Please label
protections in the plan enlargement for the enclosure and make sure they do not
interfere with needed access to the generator and transformer.
4240 Response: RE sheet 8. Dumpsters have been separated from Transformer by trash enclosure wall
and from generator by bollards.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 10/09/2019
10/09/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As you plan for the demolition of the
existing building be aware that all aggregates (concrete, asphalt, masonry) and
metal must be recycled and where possible wood and salvageable materials
such as cabinets/doors/appliances/fixtures/etc. Consider deconstruction
instead of demolition which will ensure the maximum amount of materials be
recycled or reused reducing the environmental impact.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Building Inspection Plan Review
Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BUILDING PERMIT:
Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes and local
amendments: https://www.fcqov.com/building/codes.php
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/24/2019
09/24/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
Response: Acknowledged
Page 17 of 17
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
been addressed, when applicable.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week.
Response: Noted
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/30/2019
09/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
This proposal does not require historic review of the existing structure on the
hotel site. The building was constructed in 1970 (Assessor's Office) and the
curtain wall facade has been significantly altered, which detracts from its ability
to convey its original historic character. By comparison, the earlier 1960s-era
Safeway building at 425 S College retains much greater historic integrity and
represents the only relatively unaltered "Marina" style Safeway store from that
era in Colorado.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/01/2019
10/01/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) provides design compatibility requirements
for new construction within 200 feet of historic resources. There are several
properties currently undergoing architectural survey by the staff surveyor on the
east side of S. College Avenue, based on an assessment that they may qualify
as historic resources (1610, 1618, 1630, and 1636). The purpose of that survey
is to provide proactive information for potential redevelopment. Because those
results are not yet complete, I will go ahead and provide comments based on
the assumption that they will be determined to be historic resources as a result
of the survey process. These buildings vary stylistically. All but three use some
mixture of masonry (stone or brick) and glass storefront as their primary building
materials. Because they are across an arterial and not abutting the
development site, only two of the required standards in Table 1 of this code
section are required in order to create some design relationship between the
existing historic context with 200 feet. Based on the architectural plans and
details document in your submittal packet, I am providing as a staff finding that
standards 3 and 4 (building materials standards) are both met based on the use
of durable materials, including brick and glass storefront. As a result, this code
requirement is satisfied and no further review by our division or the LPC is
required as long as the building materials do not change. I will stay on top of this
as the project evolves.
4240 Response: Noted. Exterior material palette to remain.
Page 2 of 17
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6047, kmcwilliams@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2019
10/11/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
When an application for a Demolition Permit is submitted for buildings or
structures on the property that are 50 years of age or older, the City will notify
the community of the proposed demolition, including posting the property, and
adding notice to our websites and newsletters. The notification is for a
two -week time period, during which time the demolition permit is on hold. This
is an opportunity for the public to provide the City with an application to protect
the building(s) through a non-consensual landmark designation. If no such
designation application is received, and if the building or structure is not subject
to any other historic preservation code review process, following the two -week
notification the demolition permit may be issued.
Response: Noted, demolition posting for this parcel ended on 12/9/2019 at 5pm no requests for additional
info or petitions for landmarking from members of the public.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Staff is concerned that the proposed PDP architectural design doesn't comply
with the Hearing Officer's first condition with the stand-alone Modification. There
is concern that the building lacks the distinctive presence, rooftop -level
architectural massing, rooftop step -backs and character defining elements
throughout the design that are conveyed in the Modification plan.
4240 Response: Please see proposed modifications to previous PDP submittal which illustrates revisions
to the top floor North and South Elevations. These revisions include adding a 6'-6" projecting "eyebrow"
and modifying the top (6th floor) exterior skin on the south face. Additionally, corner glass is proposed
above the main entry (extending from floors 2-6) to help lighten the south fagade. Alterations to the east
fapade include the addition of more storefront glazing along the ground floor. Subtle changes additionally
include the re -proportioning of opaque vs glazed window expression along upper floors. Along the north
fapade, the top (6t' floor) exterior skin at the stair tower has been revised to match the language of the
south face of the building.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Hearing Officer's Condition Two of the stand-alone Modification —staff is
concerned that the PDP does not comply with the condition or the design
guidelines in the Midtown Plan. With the Modification plan, the public courtyard
space provided was much more significant. The current design provides a more
ubiquitous hotel drop-off space and connecting sidewalk. Per the Midtown
Design Guidelines -- street elements and minor plaza space are
recommended. Please see staff's detailed comments / draft staff report
analysis for more information and comments related to the Midtown Plan.
RMS Response: The plaza has been redesigned to allow for a more open threshold along College Ave with
the integration of boulder seat walls and planter pots that complement the design elements character along
Prospect Road. The design also allows for some screening of College Ave. to provide some enclosure to
Page 3 of 17
the entry of the hotel and drop off area.
Please provide "Street Elements" per Section 3 of the Midtown Plan with inset
benches, planters, low masonry walls, and pedestrian lighting are
recommended along the public sidewalk consistent with the "Gardens Palette"
design theme provided in the Midtown Plan.
RMS Response: The streetscape along College Ave. is activated with Street Elements by using the
following features; boulder seat walls, planter pots and landscape planting that complement the Prospect
Road street elements.
A minor plaza space is recommended per Section 4 of the Midtown Plan. A
small terraced plaza space as an extension of the public sidewalk is
recommended -- with benches, public art, planters and trash/lighting features
located between the surface parking lot and the street north of the building. Low
walls could be provided to define the space, screen the parking area, enable
grade transition and provide a stair connection to the parking surface.
RMS Response: A secondary site access has been added to connect the north side of the project. Boulder
seat walls, planter pots, vine fence screening and evergreen landscape screening along the parking lot
edge are added to meet Section 4 of the Midtown Plan.
Hearing Officer's Condition Two: "When filed, the Project Development Plan
shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the building is activated in the form of
storefront windows, an entry plaza that faces South College Avenue and a
public courtyard or other similar features."
RMS Response: The plaza allows for a more open threshold along College Ave with the integration of
boulder seat walls and planter pots that complement the design elements character along Prospect Road.
The architectural treatments along College Ave. 4240 Response: Please see revisions to the ground floor
storefront treatment along the south and east elevations which illustrate a significant amount of tall glazing
along public uses within the building.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Parking is proposed in front of the street fagade along S. College. Modification
required. More discussion is needed on whether this is supportable, could be in
tandem with providing additional streetscape enhancements in this area. More
streetscape enhancements needed along the S. College Ave. frontage.
Streetscape enhancements and plaza space/hardscape transition at north side
of building could screen the parking and provide recommended streetscape
enhancements per code and Midtown subarea guidelines.
RMS Response: A modification request will be made to allow for parking to project in front of the street
fagade along College Ave. The design is proposing additional boulder seat walls, vine screen fencing,
evergreen screening, and planter pots to enhance the streetscape along the portion of the hammer head
parking lot.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Would like to see additional architectural measures taken to "enliven" the street
edge — could also be changes to the building facade along the ground level
such as bifold storefront windows. Unclear what the interior space programing
is along the street and whether window openings are appropriate. Material
patterns or other design detail could be provided along the first level of the
fagade along S. College to provide more human -scale visual interest and
Page 4 of 17
"enliven" this fagade treatment.
4240 Response: With the exception of 1-bay of admin offices (which will be provided with smaller glazing)
and a storage room (to be hidden from view by a shadow window box), all ground floor interior uses
programmed along the south and east elevations are public uses ranging from (lounge / lobby / meeting
rooms(s) / fitness). As such all of the public fronting glazing and provide visual access between indoor and
outdoor uses. Due to operational / safety concerns operable windows and/ or additional doors are not
proposed along these frontages.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Landscape Section 3.2.1 compliance issues:
a) Minimum interior landscape area not met;
b) canopy shade tree minimums within parking interior area;
c) parking island widths (8' minimum required);
d) Parking end islands (4 not provided);
e) parking bays that are more than 15 continuous spaces;
f) utility / tree separations.
RMS Response: A modification request will be made to request a reduction in parking stall widths to
preserve existing trees, and provide larger parking islands widths. 6' minimum parking lot islands are
proposed, as forestry has supported this dimension. Parking lot islands have been provided, parking bays
have been addressed to meet LUC requirements. Canopy shade tree minimums within parking interior
areas have been addressed. Minimum interior landscape area has been updated.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
3.2.2(D)(1) PedestrianNehicle Separation.
Staff comment: standard not met. More safety signage for existing/proposed
pedestrian spines needed. Would like to see warning signage at crossings, and
other design features as feasible at drive aisle crossings along the bike/ped
spines.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Island separation, colored concrete and/or appropriate striping for
pedestrian crossings have been added to the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Recommend that the rooftop show a location for future wireless communication
equipment (if feasible), which would be noted as an additional land use on the
site plan cover sheet.
Response: Noted, design will allocate a location for future wireless communication equipment in future
submittal
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
Need an overall shared parking plan exhibit. Show how west uses are
accounted for with the proposed shared parking. See detailed code comments.
Owner Response: A MOU has been provided.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
Need permission letter from adjacent property owner confirming that the hotel
project can make the design changes to the west property, and confirming the
shared parking.
Owner Response: A MOU has been provided.
Page 5 of 17
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
West fapade design details -- staff recommends adding architectural interest to
the first floor of the west side of the building, e.g. accent features or material
detail/patterns.
4240 Response: The ground floor of the west fapade is constrained by fire truck access & staging /
maintenance & equipment door access and trash/recycling uses. As such, the design intent is to
downplay the architectural prominence of this fapade and "fade into the background". Modest landscape
pockets are provided along west fapade to soften the ground floor fapade. Additionally, a convenience
guest access door has been provided at the west side of the North stair tower with a modest canopy and
storefront glazing.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
All plans — need more existing conditions linework shown surrounding the
development show intersection linework at exit to north. Show more existing
context to west. Show offsite trees and building footprints that are in proximity to
utilities.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Additional survey to the west was obtained on October 2019, prior to
receiving these PDP comments, and is now shown in the revised Utility Plans. This additional survey is also
necessary for offsite utility design related to work being completed in cooperation with City Stormwater.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/7/2019: BY HEARING:
See code compliance /draft staff report attached to this letter for additional
comments.
Response: Noted — the report was reviewed for code compliance.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Engineering looks forward to continuing the conversation about the College
access. Please note that a variance request for driveway spacing is required
and has not yet been submitted — Engineering understands that the developer is
likely waiting on feedback from CDOT and further feedback from City
departments before proceeding with the request.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. This is an existing access that is being relocated to the south end of the
property, increasing the distance from the College/Prospect Intersection. It also moves the access closer
to equal distance between the access to the north (Schraders) and south (strip mall). If necessary, a
variance will follow.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Please show existing vs new curb and gutter along College Avenue.
Sanderson Stewart Response: New curb and gutter at current access to be relocated is now shown in
Utility Plans.
Page 6 of 17
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Please show how the new College sidewalk/driveway crossing will connect to
the sidewalk to the south of this project.
Sanderson Stewart Response: The connection from proposed sidewalk to existing sidewalk at proposed
access along College Avenue is now shown in the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Offsite construction and/or utility easements required for the water lines, new
College access construction, and/or parking lot reconfiguration will require
letter(s) of intent to provide such easement from the property owner(s) prior to
hearing.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Letters of intent for permanent / construction easements
will be obtained by Owner through discussion with property owners.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
An easement and ROW exhibit showing existing and proposed easements and
public ROW would be helpful — at a minimum please clearly show existing and
proposed easements and ROW on the site plan set and construction plan set.
Sanderson Stewart Response: An Easement Exhibit has been provided with this submittal showing existing
and proposed easements and ROW.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Please provide and show 15' utility easements along College Avenue and
Prospect Road if none exist.
Sanderson Stewart Response: 12' of additional utility easement has been added to the 3' of existing utility
easement adjacent to the College Avenue ROW (for a total of 15').
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
At final plan we will need any necessary construction and striping plans for
changes to the center lane/median on College if applicable.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Will provide for Final Plan.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please include spot elevations for ramps and sidewalk to confirm ADA
compatibility.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Will provide for final plan.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
If the project is not replatting, please submit any dedication and vacation
exhibits for review with the first round of FDP submittal.
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Will provide for final plan.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
10/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
If the project dedicates/vacates ROW/easements by separate document, these
will need to be recorded prior to plan approval. Copies of offsite private
easements will also need to be provided prior to plan approval.
Page 7 of 17
Sanderson Stewart Response: Comment Noted. Will provide prior to final plan approval.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR HEARING:
The TIS has been received and reviewed. It is a DRAFT document and will
need to be refined as the project moves forward.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. A revised TIS is being submitted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR HEARING:
The TIS notes that the Pedestrian Level of Service is not met. It would be helpful
to understand how the project can support and enhance pedestrian levels of
service. A map / exhibit that shows where the level is not met and where the
project is enhancing ped service is needed.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. A revised TIS is being submitted and the pedestrian portion of the TIS
has been enhanced.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR HEARING:
Pedestrian connectivity between the hotel and the MAX / Mason Trail is not very
direct. We would anticipate with this layout that many guests will be cutting
across the parking lot. It's important for this proposal to support pedestrian
routes to the highest degree possible.
RMS Response: A direct enhanced pedestrian access along the south portion of the site will allow for
pedestrian connections to the existing north south pedestrian access that connects to Prospect Road, and
south to the State.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
10/08/2019: FOR HEARING:
Regarding the vehicle access to College:
- CDOT has provided comments regarding the proposed access location with a
new left turn in. They will need substantially more justification that what was
provided in the TIS to fully consider the proposal.
-The TIS provides a narrative about the access location. It would be very helpful
to have an exhibit to detail the options and challenges. A quick draft was
created by City staff. See redlines. Access options appear to be
1 - leave the proposed access as a right -in, right -out
2 - move the proposed access to the north as far as possible to create more
space between the hotel access and Parker Street.
3 - leave the proposed access a 3/4 turn with a much stronger justification for
why it's a good idea. CDOT will need to be convinced that at a minimum it is
not detrimental to the system.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. The revised TIS, has the existing right-in/right-out relocated to the south,
remaining right-in/right-out.
Page 8 of 17
Department: Colorado Department of Transportation
Contact: Tim Bilobran, 970.350.2163, timothy.bilobran@state.co.us
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
10/08/2019: The new access will be located approximately 350' from the
intersection of Prospect and College.
Delich Response: Approximately 450' (on -centers) Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
10/08/2019: The left turn lane at College/Prospect is probably going to be the
biggest concern. There currently is approximately 235' feet each of storage for
two (dual) northbound to westbound at Prospect and College. The taper length
is approximately 120'. Per the State Highway Access Code, College is a NR-B
at 35 mph, which requires storage plus taper. Long range traffic volumes at that
intersection is proposed to be 410 long range total. The dual length appears to
handle the proposed volume because the requested access is a 3/4 and the
taper will start on the other side of the 3/4.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. The revised TIS, has the existing right-in/right-out relocated to the
south, remaining right-in/right-out.
Comment Number: 3
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
Parker is located south of Prospect on College and currently has a left turn lane
that will conflict with the left turn for the new 3/4 access. CDOT requests a
striping plan from the applicant that shows how the lanes will interact prior to
giving further comment.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. The revised TIS, has the existing right-in/right-out relocated to the
south, remaining right-in/right-out.
Comment Number: 4
10/08/2019: The 3/4 access Site Generated traffic is showing only 13 vehicles
using it in the peak hour. This seems low to ask for another access. Please
refer to current conditions of Kensington and Harmony (southbound). Past
precedent with this site shows only a RI / RO. CDOT is very leery of granting a
3/4 access. If the developer is serious about continuing to pursue this, in
addition to the striping plan above, CDOT will require a narrative discussing
how the lefts in benefit the highway system.
Delich Response: Acknowledged. The revised TIS, has the existing right-in/right-out relocated to the
south, remaining right-in/right-out.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcqov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/10/2019
10/10/2019: Based on the proposed plans, site location, and parking allotment
it appears clear that many (if not most) of the hotel guests will not be driving to
their Fort Collins destinations - whether because they are going to CSU where
parking is expensive, Downtown, or they do not have a vehicle with them.
Because of this it is important to provide strong pedestrian connections through
Page 9 of 17