HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT AND COLLEGE HOTEL - PDP190014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - 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. com/developmentreview
March 24, 2020
Stu Macmillan
MacMillan Development, LLC
1928 Linden Ridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Prospect and College Hotel, PDP190014, Round Number 2
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
tsullivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsuilivan@fcgov.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: Comment 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
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
Page 1 of 12
Fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Comment Noted
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/18/2020
03/18/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please ensure that all electric facilities on the property are contained within a
utility easement. This includes both existing lines as well as new lines to be
installed. Thank you.
Response: Upon approval of proposed locations for the electrical facilities for
the PDP process, the required utility easements will be provided by separate
document for FDP.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/18/2020
03/18/2020: INFORMATION:
The approximate dimensions for the switch cabinet that will need to be
relocated is 97"x48". This facility will need to meet all utility separation
requirements and adhere to the same spacing requirements as our
transformers. This is to say that we need three feet of separation for every side
and 8 feet in front of the switch cabinet.
Response: Comment Noted. The existing switch cabinet is proposed to remain in
place with the required referenced separation.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
03/12/2020: BY HEARING: Letter of Intent needed before hearing.
10/08/2019: BY HEARING:
A drainage easement is required for the 36-inch storm sewer that is located
off -site.
Response: A 20' storm easement is shown around the off -site storm pipe.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
03/12/2020: Can be addressed at FDP.
10/08/2019:
Please remove the proposed riprap at the outlet of the proposed storm sewer
and replace with an adequate erosion control mat.
Response: The riprap has been removed and TRM specified around trickle
channel.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR FINAL:
The City is requesting that the concrete pan that is currently located in the
regional flood channel southwest of the property to be constructed all the way
north to the proposed head -wall and pipe outlet. This would be included in the
City reimbursement to the Developer.
Please Note: An updated exhibit would be helpful for negotiations with the
Choice Center owner as son as possible so the City can expedite negotiations
for construction of the proposed improvements.
Page 10 of 12
Response: We now show the referenced concrete pan from the proposed FES
outfall to the tie-in with the existing trickle channel to the south. The referenced
exhibit has also been provided to Dan Evans on March 3, 2020.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 10/09/2019
03/12/2020: BY HEARING: Reminder to include once information is obtained.
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.
Response: Per your email correspondence with John Tufte on 4/23/20 you had
stated this comment was resolved (Arrow #17 looked like it was pointing to a gas
line but it was actually a sign).
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR FINAL:
The City is requesting the fire hydrant lateral to be constructed with flow -fill 10
feet either side of the storm sewer due to the vertical clearance between these
two pipes less than the required 18-inch minimum.
Response: A note and callout has been added specifying flow -fill.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR FINAL:
Please show on the plans the existing water service to be abandoned per City
specifications and not as currently proposed. The City will not require a portion
of the water main to be removed.
Response: This callout has been revised on the demo plan and shown as
existing.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR FINAL:
Please revise all the proposed water service connections including the fire
hydrant lateral. The City does not want the sections of new water main installed
and requires a tapping saddle for all these new connections. Please coordinate
with City Utilities on the exact details if there are any questions.
Response: Call -outs addressing the referenced connections have been added. We
will coordinate with City Utilities on the exact details and will incorporate at Final Plan.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR HEARING: Please clearly label the light fixtures and their
locations on the photometric plan and ensure wall mounted fixtures and other
decorative lighting are accounted for on the plans.
Response: The light fixtures will be labeled and all other fixtures will be noted. Building mounted fixture are
still being selected and reviewed with architecture and development groups. Final fixtures will be selected
Page 11 of 12
during building permitting, all fixture will meet dark sky regulations, down directional, 3,000 K, fully shielded
LED fixtures will be provided.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2020
03/12/2020: FOR INFORMATION: While Light fixture C adheres to the Land
Use Code, a similar fixture was installed at the Emporium Hotel downtown,
which causes some glare. Staff encourages you to explore whether the light
fixture offers optics that could help reduce glare.
Response: The light fixtures are much more advanced than the one used at the Elizabeth hotel. The link
provided will provide some more technical documentation regarding the LED technology. A PDF will also
be submitted.
htt�s://imq.acuitybrands.com/public-
assets/catalog/980041/radean_brochure.pdf?abl_version=06%2f03%2f2020+06:43:52&DOC Type=Broch
ures
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilVnxwiler@poudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/14/2020
03/14/2020: NOT FOR HEARING - MINOR REVISION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL
TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE - The Fire Lane Plan which includes an
AutoTurn exhibit for a fire truck is using an outdated template. While I don't
anticipate a different outcome than currently shown, please revise the exhibit
using the current truck dimensions. The correct truck dimensions have been
provided in the city's redline folder.
Response: A revised Fire Lane Plan is provided with this submittal and uses
the updated template.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/02/2020
03/02/2020: 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@fcqov.com
Response: Comment Noted.
Page 12 of 12
been addressed, when applicable.
Response: Comment 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: Comment Noted
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Response: Comment Noted
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.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
Page 2 of 12
notification the demolition permit may be issued.
Response: Comment Noted
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, 'holland@fc ov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
03/16/2020: FOR HEARING: For the public sidewalk, please provide a wider
transition area where the sidewalks goes from attached to detached.
Response: The sidewalk has been adjusted to provide a wider transition.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
03/16/2020: FOR HEARING: Please provide an illustrative landscape plan for
the hearing which shows screening of the parking area along College.
Response: The illustrative plan rendering has been submitted with this round of review.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING: Two significant concerns were raised by staff that
are unresolved. The first is addressing LUC 3.2.2(C)(6) and whether additional
sidewalk connections internal to the site are warranted in order to "provide
direct and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel from the development to
major pedestrian destinations" to the "maximum extent feasible"
Response: During the meeting on March 271h the design team provided two exhibits describing the shared
parking demands, and pedestrian routes with distances for each route. The access from the north stair
tower is considered a secondary access as most guests will enter and exit from the main entry at the south
of the building. The site plan has been revised to address the outcomes of the meeting, which include
additional enhancements (raised pedestrian table crossings, wayfinding from the main entrance, and
planting pots along the landscape beds) along the south connection to the main pedestrian spine to the
west. Additional enhancements to provide additional planting to island for pedestrian separation were
included in the round 2 PDP submittal. A secondary 6 foot wide sidewalk was added connecting the north
stair tower to the north into the Schrader's site.
The second is a comment that the existing trees in the newly configured north
parking islands are not realistic to be saved with the current design.
Response: During the meeting on March 271h there was discussion regarding the options available to
preserve the two existing trees, it was noted that if the design team could enlarge the width of the planting
islands, and provide a larger area to protect the root zones. The revised plans show larger planting islands
on both sides of the existing trees. The north planting area is in line with the existing planting bed,
minimizing the root zone damage, and providing an average of 6 feet in additional width. The south planting
area provides planting area within the drip zone, and an additional 6 feet in width. The proposed islands
provide more soil volume and space than the existing 8 foot wide planting island.
Both of these comments will need additional discussion. It is suggested that the
applicant provide exhibits showing alternative layouts which would address both
comments showing one or more site/landscape plan alternatives which would
retain the trees and provide a 6' north/south sidewalk connection along the east
property line bordering the gas station, and with enhanced crossings. Once
those exhibits are provided, staff can schedule meetings to discuss the
comments with the applicant team. The exhibits could also include a pro/con
matrix.
Response: A meeting was conducted on March 271h, exhibits were produced to identify shared parking
demands, and pedestrian routes. The outcome highlighted the need to address the pedestrian connections
Page 3 of 12
without losing parking spaces, as staff is sensitive to the fact there are many constraints to the site limiting
the design.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Morgan Stroud, 970-221-6501, mstout@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
03/17/2020: BY HEARING - UPDATED:
Thank you for the draft Memorandum of Understanding with the adjacent
property. However, the City will need to see a letter of intent from the adjacent
property owner's (1611 College Ave) acknowledging and preliminarily
accepting of the work/easements that are shown on their property before going
to hearing.
Response: The signed MOU has been provided with this submittal
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.
Response: The signed MOU has been provided with this submittal
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
03/17/2020: BY HEARING - UPDATED:
Thank you for showing the additional width for the utility easement. However, an
additional 10 feet of right-of-way will need to be dedicated with this project to
keep the public sidewalk in right-of-way. The 15-foot utility easement should be
dedicated behind the new right-of-way.
Response: Per Engineering Dept responses to our emails and exhibit on 4/8/20 and 4/15/20, the revised
walk shape/alignment, the relocated ROW (10' to west) and 9' utility easement was deemed acceptable
and reflected on the revised plans.
10/07/2019: BY HEARING:
Please provide and show 15' utility easements along College Avenue and
Prospect Road if none exist.
Response: Per Engineering Dept responses to our emails and exhibit on 4/8/20 and 4/15/20, a 9' utility
easement was deemed acceptable and reflected on the revised plans.
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.
Response: Will provide at 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.
Response: Will provide at Final Plan
Page 4 of 12
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.
Response: Will provide at First round of 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.
Response: Comment Noted
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
This project will need to dedicate a minimum of 10 feet of right-of-way along the
College Avenue frontage to accommodate the proposed 10-foot-wide sidewalk.
As it is currently shown, the sidewalk for College is on private property.
Response: 10' additional ROW along College frontage will be dedicated and is shown on the revised plans.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please straighten out the proposed sidewalk along College Ave so it does not
meander.
Response: During the meeting on March 27th the decision was made that the walk could meander, with the
portion outside of the right of way be dedicated within an access easement.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please address my minor comments in my redlines with the next round of
review.
Response: The responses are in the plans in blue.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
03/17/2020: "For Hearing:
The proposed driveway along College Avenue does not meet our spacing
standards for a 6-lane arterial. The minimum distance between access
points/driveways is 660 feet. Please submit a variance request for this
driveway."
Response: A variance letter has been included with this submittal.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
It does not appear that any changes were made to the plan to address this
comment and support or enhance pedestrian connectivity. A previous
comment also asked for a map / exhibit to fully illustrate how the hotel is doing
Page 5 of 12
the best it can. We recognize that the hotel cannot make off -site pedestrian
connections on someone else's private property. But the hotel can ensure that
easy and direct ped access is provided. The area of remaining concern is for
guests leaving the west / north side of the hotel and headed to MAX or CSU.
How will they get there? Perhaps the compact parking spaces next to the gas
station could become parallel spaces and a direct ped connection to Prospect
provided?
Response: During the meeting on March 27th the design team provided two exhibits describing the shared
parking demands, and pedestrian routes with distances for each route. The access from the north stair
tower is considered a secondary access as most guests will enter and exit from the main entry at the south
of the building. The site plan has been revised to address the outcomes of the meeting, which include
additional enhancements (raised pedestrian table crossings, wayfinding from the main entrance, and
planting pots along the landscape beds) along the south connection to the main pedestrian spine to the
west. Additional enhancements to provide additional planting to island for pedestrian separation were
included in the round 2 PDP submittal. A secondary 6 foot wide sidewalk was added connecting the north
stair tower to the north into the Schrader's site.
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.
Response: During the meeting on March 27th the design team provided two exhibits describing the shared
parking demands, and pedestrian routes with distances for each route. The access from the north stair
tower is considered a secondary access as most guests will enter and exit from the main entry at the south
of the building. The site plan has been revised to address the outcomes of the meeting, which include
additional enhancements (raised pedestrian table crossings, wayfinding from the main entrance, and
planting pots along the landscape beds) along the south connection to the main pedestrian spine to the
west. Additional enhancements to provide additional planting to island for pedestrian separation were
included in the round 2 PDP submittal. A secondary 6 foot wide sidewalk was added connecting the north
stair tower to the north into the Schrader's site.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
03/16/2020: FOR INFORMATION
The revised TIS has been received and reviewed. The conclusions are
consistent with guidance provided by CDOT (letter indicating no 3/4 access
allowed added to project file). The report and its conclusions (right -in, right -out
access only and strengthened pedestrian facilities) are accepted.
Response: Comment Noted
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 97041643209 slorson@fcgov.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
your parking lot from the north and west sides of the building to Prospect road
Page 6 of 12
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. 1 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.
Response: During the meeting on March 271h the design team provided two exhibits describing the shared
parking demands, and pedestrian routes with distances for each route. The access from the north stair
tower is considered a secondary access as most guests will enter and exit from the main entry at the south
of the building. The site plan has been revised to address the outcomes of the meeting, which include
additional enhancements (raised pedestrian table crossings, wayfinding from the main entrance, and
planting pots along the landscape beds) along the south connection to the main pedestrian spine to the
west. Additional enhancements to provide additional planting to island for pedestrian separation were
included in the round 2 PDP submittal. A secondary 6 foot wide sidewalk was added connecting the north
stair tower to the north into the Schrader's site.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
03/16/2020: Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see the requested pedestrian
circulation exhibit. It seems that the pedestrian facilities have not changed from
the first round of review so the initial comment stands. We're happy to discuss
the site plan and the pedestrian connections that would help create safer and
more direct circulation.
Response: During the meeting on March 271h the design team provided two exhibits describing the shared
parking demands, and pedestrian routes with distances for each route. The access from the north stair
tower is considered a secondary access as most guests will enter and exit from the main entry at the south
of the building. The site plan has been revised to address the outcomes of the meeting, which include
additional enhancements (raised pedestrian table crossings, wayfinding from the main entrance, and
planting pots along the landscape beds) along the south connection to the main pedestrian spine to the
west. Additional enhancements to provide additional planting to island for pedestrian separation were
included in the round 2 PDP submittal. A secondary 6 foot wide sidewalk was added connecting the north
stair tower to the north into the Schrader's site.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
3/16/2020: FOR HEARING
The inventory information for tree #33 will be confirmed once Forestry staff is
able to revisit the site. Please note that the plant list will need to be updated
accordingly, to ensure all mitigation trees are accounted for.
Response: The plant list and mitigation plan will be updated once information is provided from Forestry.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
3/16/2020: FOR HEARING
Thank you for looking into retaining some of the trees in the northern parking
island. With the proposed reconfiguration of the existing north -south island to
two islands that run east -west, Forestry has concerns about the impact on tree
#27 and #32. For example, tree #32 is a 15" diameter honeylocust. The new
Page 7 of 12
curb is shown approximately 1.5' from the trunk of the tree, which will
significantly impact its root system. LUC 3.2.1 (F) requires that existing trees
are preserved to the extent reasonably feasibly. These trees should be
adequately protected throughout the construction process. Can Forestry's Tree
Protection Standards (#2 & #8) be followed with the proposed design?
Can this north parking island remain in its current configuration to protect the
existing trees? If not, Forestry is requesting an alternative exhibit/justification
that illustrates the impacts retaining the island along with the existing trees
would have on the overall site.
Response: During the meeting on March 27th there was discussion regarding the options available to
preserve the two existing trees, it was noted that if the design team could enlarge the width of the planting
islands, and provide a larger area to protect the root zones. The revised plans show larger planting islands
on both sides of the existing trees. The north planting area is in line with the existing planting bed,
minimizing the root zone damage, and providing an average of 6 feet in additional width. The south planting
area provides planting area within the drip zone, and an additional 6 feet in width. The proposed islands
provide more soil volume and space than the existing 8 foot wide planting island.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/16/2020
3/16/2020: FOR HEARING
Please see redlines.
Response: The redlines have been updated.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/17/2020
3/17/2020: FOR HEARING
This section of College is a 6-lane arterial. Is there a reason as to the why the
parkway width is proposed at 8 feet (and not 10 feet as required by LUCASS
standards)?
Response: The parkway is designed to meet the requirements of the Midtown in Motion plan.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/07/2019
3/16/2020: FOR HEARING -UNRESOLVED
Some of the parking islands do not meet the minimum 6' width, as required.
Please see redlines.
Response: The parking islands have been enlarged to minimum 6 foot in width.
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 to allow for root aeration
and growth (LUC3.2.1 (E.5)).
Response: The parking islands have been enlarged to minimum 6 foot in width.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
The existing switch cabinet on the property cannot be eliminated as part of this
project. Please coordinate with us to find an acceptable new location prior to
moving forward. Thank you.
Page 8 of 12
Response: Email correspondence and exhibits were shared; the site plan revision will allow for the switch
cabinet to remain in place and will not be relocated. A new transformer is proposed near the trash
enclosure meeting all separation requirements.
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.
Response: Storm lines do not conflict as shown on the Overall Utility Plan.
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.
Response: Comment Noted
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/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Response: Will be provided at FDP
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/08/2019
03/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
The proposed transformer location does not conform to these requirements. It
does not appear that it has a 3' separation from the wall for the trash enclosure.
Response: The transformer now has the required separation from the trash enclosure wall.
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 3' clearance around the sides and
rear. (1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the sides and rear.)
Response: The referenced location and spacing requirements are now met and shown as a
dashed line around the transformer.
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.
Response: Comment Noted. The transformer and electrical equipment/meter location are shown on the
Overall Utility Plan.
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
hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/EIectricServiceStandar
ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
Page 9 of 12