Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAK 140 - FDP200022 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 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 August 12, 2020 Katy Thompson Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Oak 140, PDP200009, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Oak 140. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 970-224-6119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Ripley Design, Shopworks, JVA, Housing Catalyst, Delich Associates, I-kota Construction Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970-416-2283, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: FOR FINAL: The change from colored concrete to a gray pattern helps address some of staff's long-term maintenance concerns. As we move forward to the Development Agreement and FDP for this project, staff may want to revisit the maintenance responsibilities for the sidewalk to ensure that the design intent of the street frontage can be maintained over the long term, particularly in the event of any utility repairs in the right-of-way. Response: Our team is happy to discuss the maintenance responsibilities that will be required for the sidewalk during the FDP process. 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Thank you for your efforts to create an inviting, pedestrian-oriented streetscape for this project. We would like to have more information about the proposed colors/patterning on the public sidewalks along Oak and Remington. Staff suggests revising the approach to the hardscape design for ease of maintenance and overall continuity of the look/feel of the 2 Downtown sidewalk system. Some suggestions to consider: different textures/finishes rather than different colors, highlighting main entrances to buildings rather than patterning around the entire building. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR FINAL: Please see comments from Engineering about requirements for encroachment permits. The pedestrian-level amenities are a welcome addition to the site design; they will just need to be coordinated with Engineering and Utilities to ensure that all of the elements fit together well. Response: Understood regarding the need for an encroachment permit and coordination with utilities. We have also added a note on the cover sheet indicated that these additions will be subject to an encroachment permit. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR FINAL: The detail added to the building design is a significant improvement from the conceptual plans. In particular, the revisions to window sizes and surrounds on the brick facades, banding of masonry and metal, metal panel detailing, and masonry detail are welcome additions. Staff will likely request more detail about how the A/C units are integrated into the building design and how the material transitions are being handled (for example, finishing of metal at 3-5 stories) at Final Plan. Responses: Detail drawings at A/C units (PTAC) is included in submittals. A/C unit exhaust grilles to have matching color finish to adjacent architectural metal panels. The “Drip” edge will be provided between the different metal profiles. Reveal trim will be provide between the brick to stucco transitions. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/10/2020 08/10/2020: PDF CHECK OK: Planning is ready for hearing pending the resolution of comments to show the bulb-out on the site plan. A review of changes via PDF is acceptable and another full round of review is not necessary. The project is scheduled for P&Z Hearing on September 3, 2020. Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The site plan has been revised to include a note indicating that the bulb-out will be a future infrastructure project to be designed and built by others. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Response: Maren, please let us know if we can provide any additional information for your review or answer any questions during the FDP process! Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Compliance with the height and stepback standards for the Historic Core of the Downtown as well as 3.4.7 is significantly improved with the design update that the incorporation of the 143 Remington site affords. The building form without the corner notch at the northeast corner allows for the building to meet the street and integrate with the established context in a much more compatible and elegant fashion. For the LPC hearing, please plan to provide updated renderings showing the building in context from the same vantage points as the previous set. Those renderings should include the rooftop stair access elements, and architectural plans should be updated to include dimensions for those as well (both height and width, as viewed from each elevation). 3 For LPC hearing, staff will provide documentation regarding the status of "not eligible" for 143 Remington, to clarify any remaining questions regarding the property's proposed demolition. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Regarding building width and modularity, the building shows good articulation/breaking up of wall planes on the Remington and Oak elevations. Previously, we noted that the biggest concern with the requirement for breaking up the massing to reflect traditional building widths was focused on the alley side. I would like to hear more about how your proposed design addresses this concern and whether there are still opportunities to further meet this standard in the alley. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Staff and LPC have previously noted the successful use of a masonry base with punched openings. Other comments included concern about disparate use of materials overall. Now that the design problem has been simplified somewhat with the elimination of the northeast corner problem, this may present additional opportunity to simplify the overall material palette with creative solutions for the treatment of the stucco. A strong and highly visible treatment on all currently indicated locations for the mural/Hundertwasser treatment would make it more important to come to some resolution or set of limited options prior to LPC hearing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Improvements to fenestration pattern and detailing in the masonry are noted and seem to be in keeping with both staff and LPC feedback on previous design. Dimensions to indicate and better understand window depth, horizontal window mulls, the horizonal banding elements you've added to the metal panel portion of the building, and shadow lines throughout the building design should be indicated on LPC submittal documents. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Regarding 3.4.7 Table 1 standard 6, "use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements such as rooflines, cornices, and belt courses to relate the new construction to historic resources." This code section is meant to suggest but not limit opportunities to create synergistic design nods to surrounding historic architecture as well as additional ways to create a sense of articulation for the largest building in its immediate surroundings. For the LPC hearing, please enumerate how your design meets this standard in detail and consider LPC comments regarding improvements to the design in this regard. That will help guide the discussion and ensure that this subtle, but important, aspect of 3.4.7 gets its due consideration in this phase of the design evolution. Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: To help finalize our understanding of the building modulation, materials, and design features along the Remington, Oak, and Montezuma Fuller Alley elevations, please provide realistic renderings of the closeup pedestrian-level experience. 4 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: To echo other's comments regarding the proposed sidewalk design, I would agree that you should consider the existing streetscape infrastructure and sidewalks, as much as possible, as a "blank canvas" that provides connections through the Downtown without making competing design statements with other elements, primarily buildings. Because there is no need to indicate a special use along the building frontage through a different paving treatment, and because it would help to anchor the building into its existing context, a simplified and more traditional treatment of the sidewalk is preferable in terms of compatibility with historic resources. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: before hearing: The response indicated a 5 foot utility easement along the alley for Light & Power would be dedicated, but it is not indicated on the plans (and would need to be defined with a height limit, given the 2nd floor encroachment.) Ideally we'd have verification from all the utility providers that their needs are OK as designed prior to hearing. I'm not sure if this has been achieved. 07/21/2020: before hearing: Utility easements are not being dedicated abutting Remington, Oak, and the alley. It is understood that with the context of the surrounding area with buildings to the property line along Oak and Remington that it would not seem to add value as an overall corridor. That said, the understanding of how utility services are able to accommodate the site proposal and not be in potential conflict with existing and future utilities should be fully understood and a variance request to not meet utility easement requirements along Oak and Remington, as well as the alley should be part of the review and consideration. Along the alley there appears to be the potential to implement a 5 foot utility easement below the second story. Would that benefit the utility providers? Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The easement note indicated on C2.0 is shown and now describes the easement below the second floor. Tenae is coordinating referrals with utility providers for acceptance. Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The 5’ utility easement has been labeled on the Site and Landscape Plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: information only: Carried over comment as a suggestion to coordinate with Jason Martin after hearing. I'm suggesting also that Note #14 on the site plan be amended slightly just to discern that sidewalk, planter beds, and trees aren't part of the encroachment permit: URBAN AMENITY ITEMS IN RIGHT-OF-WAY (RAISED PLANTERS, BIKE RACKS, SEATING AREAS, AND LIGHTING) DEPICTED ON THE PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPROVAL AND ARE REVOCABLE UNDER THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT. PROJECT MEETS CITY REQUIREMENTS OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AMENITIES ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND CITY REQUIREMENTS.) 5 Response: Note has been adjusted. 07/21/2020: information only: The plans are showing items in right-of-way (planters, benches, bike racks, lighting spanning the alley) that appear to be private infrastructure and would require a revocable encroachment permit issuance for their placement. It appears that these items are "above and beyond" minimums and would be important to distinguish as part of the reason to justify an encroachment permit issuance as their potential for revocation would not result in the project being considered out of compliance. A note on the cover sheet of the site and civil set should indicate that the items in right-of-way depicted on the plans are subject to an encroachment permit approval and are revocable under the encroachment permit requirements. Jason Martin would the person to coordinate the review and approval of the encroachment permit. (Note that if the outcome of the water meter location is ultimately in right-of-way this would also be an encroachment permit.) Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: information only: Carried over as I'll look to coordinate at time of final whether this would need to be addressed or referenced in the development agreement. Response: We are happy to discuss further during FDP what the City would require for maintenance within the right of way and whether this needs to be referenced in the development agreement. 07/21/2020: information only: Along with the encroachment permit for the appurtenances in right-of-way, aspects regarding the materials/construction specifications would need to be reviewed through the encroachment permit process. The development agreement and/or encroachment permit would need to indicate maintenance responsibilities whether they are that of the abutting property owner (and if there is intent towards limiting the public use of these facilities under the private maintenance) or if these appurtenances are intended to be turned over to the City for overall maintenance? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: before hearing: I'm understanding that the GID has set aside funding for this in 2021. This aspect needs to be coordinated in some manner and reflected on the plans and approvals. Will the project be building it and then be reimbursed by the GID? Will the GID build it independently with the project construction? 07/21/2020: before hearing: The Traffic Study indicates the implementation of pedestrian bulbs to reduce the crossing length across Remington Street. These were not implemented in the submittal, and looking to verify the intention on addressing the recommendation in the traffic study. Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The site plan has been revised to include a note indicating that the bulb-out will be a future infrastructure project to be designed and built by others. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: information only: Carried over for discussion with PFA to know if this is a pre-hearing concern? 07/21/2020: information only: There appears to be a purposeful intent in having the project name match the 6 existing address of the overall parcel. If by the title, the applicant is intending to maintain the 140 East Oak Street address for all of the uses, this should be vetted with GIS and PFA/emergency services for verification. To the extent that Oak Street isn't technically a through street out to Remington Street (where PFA would presumably arrive from), I don't know if there's value in maintaining a Remington address? Response: Our team has reached out to PFA and GIS to discuss addressing and have received the following response: “The situation here mirrors the project at Meldrum and Maple and is defined by the entrances facing either Oak or Remington. The residential units entered from the main door on Remington would have a Remington address. There would also be a single Oak address with suite numbers for any commercial tenants entering from Oak.” The project is planned to remain as “Oak 140”. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/11/2020 08/11/2020: information only: Sidewalk grades and cross slopes meeting City and ADA compliance will be reviewed in more detail at time of final. Note information referenced in an email on 7/30 to help at time of final for review. Response: Noted, detailed information on spot elevations and slopes has been provided in grading plans. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2020 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING The TIS memo was scoped to focus more on pedestrian mobility rather than vehicular Level of Service at intersections. This is typical in the downtown area. The memo indicates that pedestrian bulb outs at the immediately adjacent intersection of Remington and Oak street are warranted, that this proposal adds to the pedestrian load at that location, and bulbouts would improve the pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) from E/F to C. The TIS does not recommend a flashing light (Rectangular Flashing Beacon). City staff would recommend the bulbouts to meet standards. If the proposal chooses to not make the bulb out improvements, please provide a variance request. 8/10/2020: FOR HEARING-UPDATE: In light of the agreement for the GID to fund the bulb-outs at this intersection, we would like the site plan to reflect these with a note detailing this will be funded within the 2021 GID projects. Coordination with our Engineering staff will need to take place in order to document this agreement within the scope of this development. Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The site plan has been revised to include a note indicating that the bulb-out will be a future infrastructure project to be designed and built by others. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: NOT FOR HEARING - FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL Comments from PFA remain largely unchanged from the last round of review. As previously identified, the project does not meet aerial fire apparatus access 7 requirements as per IFC Appendix D105. In order to proceed, the project will need to meet the intent of the code via alternative methods and means. It is recommended this discussion begin during the PDP process. A final plan shall be submitted to the fire marshal for review and approval before approval of the FDP. Response: Thank you for the email response received on 10/20. We would like to continue to discuss final details of the required high-rise provision prior to building permit submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/11/2020 08/11/2020: NOT FOR HEARING - FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT While the project is currently titled as Oak 140, PFA does not support that moniker as being the actual project address. As the project fronts onto Remington, a Remington Street address shall be assigned. Please contact City GIS for details. Response: Our team has reached out to PFA and GIS to discuss addressing and have received the following response: “The situation here mirrors the project at Meldrum and Maple and is defined by the entrances facing either Oak or Remington. The residential units entered from the main door on Remington would have a Remington address. There would also be a single Oak address with suite numbers for any commercial tenants entering from Oak.” The project is planned to remain as “Oak 140”. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued Thank you for including the Species Diversity Percentage chart. The note above the chart is not an accurate statement. Species Diversity Percentages are based off of the number of trees proposed on-site and do not include existing, surveyed trees. Please update the chart to reflect only proposed species and ensure compliance is met. Response: Species diversity was added to the plant list and percentages were determined from installed trees. 7/20/2020: FOR HEARING Please include the Species Diversity Percentages in the plant list. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: The applicant’s response to this comment was that 2” caliper size trees have been maintained for all B&B trees. However, in the plant list Shademaster Honeylocust is shown as 15 gallon container tree and the Buckley Oak is shown as B&B with no caliper assigned. Please update both of these species to be 2” caliper B&B as previously shown on the plans. Response: Shademaster Honeylocust and Buckley Oak caliper assignments were corrected. 7/20/20: FOR HEARING Since this is an affordable housing project, please note that the applicant is allowed to specify the following trees sizes: Canopy Shade Tree: 1.0” caliper 8 Ornamental Tree: 1.0” caliper Evergreen Tre: 4.0 ft height The Land Use Code states that container trees are acceptable as well, however Forestry has experienced higher mortality with container trees if they are not properly planted. Trees grown in containers are more susceptible to girdling, or circling roots, which can cause trees to die. In addition, one inch caliper trees may have a more difficult time establishing in Old Town tree grates due to high pedestrian traffic. We have experienced that smaller trees tend to be vandalized or break easier in Old Town. We kindly ask the applicant to follow our recommendation to plant two inch caliper B&B trees on this site due to location. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Thank you for changing the tree grates along Remington to planting beds. Please add a note to each of the beds that there will be a raised curb. Please also provide a detail of the tree pit in terms of depth, width, and curb height Response: A detail of the tree well opening was provided on the site plan sheet 2 of 6 and on landscape plan sheet 5 of 6. 7/20/20: FOR HEARING Thank you for showing tree grates along Remington. Please provide a tree grate detail for our review. If feasible, Forestry recommends the applicant to consider increasing the square footage of the tree grates to improve growing conditions and provide additional permeable space for the tree. More room equals more success! Response: All tree grates have been removed from the ROW adjacent to the site and the trees will be located within landscape beds. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: The critical root zones as they are displayed on the plans are very difficult to see. Please either darken the CRZ line work or add another sheet to the plans that clearly shows these dimensions. Response: The CRZ linework was intensified. 7/20/20: FOR HEARING Please show the Critical Root Zones (CRZ) for all existing trees on-site. This is a fairly new code requirement, so please reach out to Forestry if you need clarification (LUC 3.2.1(G)(7)) Critical root zones are as followed: Tree #1 Bigtooth Maple: outer CRZ 7-ft, inner CRZ 3.5-ft Tree #2 Honeylocust: outer CRZ 18-ft, inner CRZ 9-ft Tree #3 Honeylocust: outer CRZ 19-ft, inner CRZ 9.5-ft Tree #4 Green Ash: outer CRZ 14-ft, inner CRZ 7-ft Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: 9 Thank you for adding the note below. Please also add it into the demolition notes box on sheet C0.4. Response: Note has been added to C0.4. 7/20/20: FOR HEARING On the Utility Plans it shows the sidewalk along Remington to be removed. Please add a note to the Utility Plans that states the following: AN ON-SITE VISIT WITH CITY FORESTRY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SIDEWALK REMOVAL. Forestry will want to ensure that the contractor removing the sidewalk does not impact any roots of the existing trees to be preserved. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR HEARING Continued: Thank you for informing us that you will be trenching. How wide and how deep will the trench be? How far from the edge of trunk with the edge of trench be? Please add a note to the Utility Plans that states the following: AN ON-SITE VISIT WITH CITY FORESTRY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRENCH WORK. 7/20/20: FOR HEARING On the Utility Plans it shows the removal of an existing water meter/meter pit and to cap existing water service at the main. How is this work going to be done – boring/trenching? Please advise and Forestry will provide further direction regarding tree protection. A note may be required on the Utility Plans in future rounds. Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: The trenching is estimated to be approximately 2’ wide by 5’ deep. We will coordinate prior to excavation around the trees. It is anticipated that we will cap the existing services at the main, and abandon the remainder to keep clear of the trees. The note has been added to the cover sheet, demo sheet and utility sheet. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: INFORMATION ONLY Continued Forestry prefers a double drip ring for all street trees. Response: This was added to the General Landscape Notes (sheet 6 of 6, #18). 7/21/2020: FOR HEARING Since the sidewalk is being removed and replaced, we see a good opportunity to get drip irrigation supplied to the existing trees in the parkway. Please ensure that the newly installed trees area also on drip irrigation and all of them are on their own zone Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: The Honey locust that is currently placed in rock cobble should have a wood mulch ring placed around it to lessen the impacts of heat island effect. Please show the location of the existing streetlight – it appears to be missing from the plans. Response: Wood mulch is shown at all tree locations. The streetlight is now showing up on the plans. 7/21/2020: FOR HEARING There is an existing streetlight near the proposed Honeylocust (behind the 10 walk). Is the streetlight staying in place? If so, the tree must be placed 40 feet from the light. If this spacing is not achievable, an ornamental tree may need to be used. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 8/10/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED Continued: Thank you for acknowledging that you will follow tree protection guidelines and stating that you will coordinate the work with City Forestry prior to work being performed. The intent of this comment is for the applicant to begin thinking about construction access, location and placement of scaffolding, cranes, etc. in relation to the existing trees now and not at the time of construction as it may be too late to make critical changes to the plans. Forestry is requiring the applicant to submit a preliminary construction access plan that provides these details prior to hearing. Prior to hearing, please schedule an on-site meeting with Forestry, Ripley Design, and I-KOTA (contractor) to further discuss tree protection and construction access. 7/21/2020: FOR HEARING Please provide a construction access plan and detail how the applicant intends to protect the two large mature street trees during building construction. Forestry wants to ensure that these trees are protected through construction, especially when the foundation is set, during any crane work, and while scaffolding is erected. It appears that the building is set back slightly more than the rest of the building especially around these trees. How far is the building face to the trunks of the trees? Response from Pre-Hearing Check Set: Attached is a draft plan for construction access during construction. If a crane is needed it would be placed on the Southern edge of the jobsite site. There are also telescopic handlers that reach up that 65’ that could be used on this building in lieu of a crane. Selection of the hoisting equipment will depend on the final selection of construction materials and coordination with specialty contractors. On the East elevation of the building scaffolding will extend out from the building approximately 5’ where there are trees. The use of narrow frame scaffolding, which is about 3’ wide, is our preferred method of access around the trees to avoid conflict with the canopy. Typical scaffolding would extend approximately 10’ from the building. The type of scaffolding will vary between tower/frame scaffolding and crank-up scaffolding. All can be built to avoid the trees as much as possible along Remington Street however there will inevitably be some conflicts. Should trimming, the last resort, be necessary on the West canopy of the trees we would work closely with Forestry and a certified arborist to ensure only minimal trimming is done. The trees will have fencing around them throughout the duration of construction to protect them from construction activities. No equipment will be operated under the canopy of the trees unless absolutely necessary and if it is necessary we will review it with a certified arborist and maintain proper distance from the trunks. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL - UPDATED: I generally understand that all building runoff is being routed to the rain garden for WQ/LID treatment and that overflow will be routed to the storm sewer in Oak 11 via internal plumbing. There are some plan details that need to be clarified for final - for example, overflow from the rain garden and the combo roof drain & overflow connection (see redlines). Response: See updated detail. Please also clarify with narrative in the drainage report. 07/20/2020: Please clarify how the proposed runoff to be treated is routed to the rain garden, overflow path, etc. Please see redlines for additional detail. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL - UNADDRESSED: No updated drainage report was received with PDP2 submittal. Please see PDP1 redlines and address with next submittal. Response: See updated Drainage Report. 07/20/2020: Please see redlines. I encourage you to reach out with any questions or to review potential revisions, and I’d be happy to set up a meeting or conference call to do so. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL: 07/20/2020: Please show proposed landscaping in the rain garden. Response: Proposed landscaping is being shown in the rain garden. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: Repeat Comment, to be addressed at Final. 07/20/2020: For Final: Erosion Control Escrow Calculation was not found please provide for review. Prior Review comment: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Response: Erosion Control Escrow has been added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: Repeat Comment to be addressed at Final. 07/20/2020: For Final: Erosion Control plans do not meet criteria. Please see the returned redlines for site specifics. Response: See updated erosion control plans with redlines addressed. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/03/2020: INFORMATION: It is understood from discussions that proposed commercial uses in this 12 building will not require a grease interceptor either now or in the future, and one is not proposed. Response: Noted, proposed uses for the building now, or in the future, will not require a grease interceptor. 07/20/2020: Is a grease interceptor proposed for the commercial sanitary service? This may be required depending on use in the building, and it is encouraged to plan for this now as space is limited. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL - UPDATED: Please see updated redlines. Response: Redlines have been addressed. See updated plans. 07/20/2020: Please see redlines. I encourage you to reach out with any questions or to review potential revisions, and I’d be happy to set up a meeting or conference call to do so. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL: 07/20/2020: The water service and meter for this project site will need to be sized based on the AWWA M22 manual design procedure. A sizing justification letter that includes demand calculations for maximum flows and estimated continuous flows will need to be provided as a part of the final submittal package for this project. If larger-than-currently-shown water services are ultimately needed, this may impact the size of the meter vault required; therefore, it is encouraged to provide sizing justification as soon as available. Response: Please see included sizing calculations provided by plumbing engineer. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL: Please provide separation from the proposed fire service to proposed landscaping. Response: We currently show a minimum distance of approximately 18’ from the fire line to the proposed landscape bed to the south. The circular planters shown on the plans will be subject to the approval of a future encroachment permit; however, the intent is that these planters will all be above grade and moveable and will not conflict with the fire service line. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2020 08/10/2020: FOR FINAL: 8" sewer services are required to connect at a manhole; please update connection and see redlines. Response: Connection is updated. See updated plans. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 13 07/21/2020: FOR FINAL: Thank you for submitting a preliminary C-1 form and one-line diagram. There are minor discrepancies between the two documents, but they can be resolved in FDP. For example, the C-1 form indicates that there will be a 2000 amp meter, but that is not reflected on the one-line diagram. Please reach out to me so we can clear up these small issues. Response: We have revised the C-1 form based on our latest design and attached it to this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: INFORMATION: Light and Power would like to remind you that all of our facilities must have a ten foot clearance away from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We also require a three foot clearance away from all other utilities with the exception of communication lines. Response: Noted, see updated plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: INFORMATION: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: INFORMATION: You may contact Austin Kreager, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 224-6152. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.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.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/11/2020: FOR FINAL: Let's plan on working together during final review to see if the electric line on the east side of the building will need to be pushed further to the east to accommodate the new building to ensure that we can access our line in the future. Response: This has been potholed and found to be over 3’ away from building. There was a preliminary meeting on 10/14 that discussed options for construction around the electric line. We will continue to coordinate with the City. 07/21/2020: FOR HEARING: I have serious concerns about the constructability of the Remington side of the building with the electric line being approximately 18" off of the building face. For the overdig to construct the building, it would be very likely that our electric line would be exposed. This electric line would likely need to be moved closer to 14 Remington at the project's expense which would be in conflict with the proposed water meters. Please show all of the electric line on Remington on your next submittal. It appears to be missing from halfway up the building to the vault north of the property. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2020 08/10/2020: No further comments until more detail is provided in FDP regarding landscaping, species selection, and exterior lighting. Response: Landscaping, species selection and exterior lighting have been provided with this submittal. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY UPDATE 8.12.2020: Thank you for labeling the irrigation backflow to the southeast of the building. That backflow is for the Remington Parking lot and also belongs to the city. Please leave this backflow labeled. Please show and add irrigation infrastructure to the Demo plans too. There is a second irrigation backflow and additional infrastructure located in the landscape bed to the southwest of the building. Please label this irrigation infrastructure ‘To Remain and be protected in place’, and show and label on Demo and Site Plans. Response: This note has been added to the Site Plan (sheet 2 of 6) This project site is immediately adjacent to Montezuma Fuller Alley, a Parks maintained facility. Please be aware that Parks has active irrigation within the alley that feeds the wall mounted planters, planter pots throughout the alley, and perennial plantings throughout the alley. Please clearly show and label the P.O.C., backflow and controller in the landscaped bed immediately south of the project site. Please coordinate with Parks if there is to be any disruption in irrigation service to the alley. Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com, 970-416-2062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner (aawagner@fcgov.com) 970-416-8083, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest. Response: Notes have been added to Demo plan. See updated plans. Response: Existing irrigation equipment has been labelled on the Site Plan. A complete irrigation plan will be submitted prior to issuance of building permits (separate from FDP process). Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 15 07/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY UPDATE 8.12.2020: Thank you for acknowledging – this comment will remain ‘Active’ through Final Plan Review for coordination purposes. Please be advised there is an irrigation controller immediately adjacent to the trash enclosure. We understand the trash enclosure is to be relocated. Please coordinate with Parks for relocation of the irrigation controller and the disruption of irrigation service to the alley. If service is going to be disrupted please let us know: a. The dates of disruption, b. Anticipated length of time for the disruption c. Any impacts to the irrigation infrastructure (i.e. main line cut, valve box removal, controller disconnection etc.) Response: Understood re: coordination required during construction. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 07/22/2020 07/22/2020: FOR INFORMATION UPDATE 8.12.2020: Thank you for acknowledging – this comment will remain ‘Active’ through Final Plan Review for coordination purposes. Please label the proposed landscape areas as private or publicly maintained. If the landscape is to be publicly maintained, please coordinate with Parks on the potential hand off of those areas in regards to the irrigation, maintenance, and timing. If the landscape is to be privately maintained, Parks anticipates that new irrigation infrastructure will be required. Please coordinate with the Parks Department on the location of these new irrigation system components to minimize conflicts with the existing system. Response: We would like to discuss the City’s maintenance requirements further during the FDP process. Department: Building Services Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 07/20/2020: INFORMATIONAL: Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes and local amendments for building permit submittal: https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php https://www.fcgov.com/building/energycode Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 07/20/2020: IFORMATIONAL: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) Response: Acknowledged. We have marked 10% EV-ready parking spaces on our drawings. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 07/20/2020: If a trash chute is provided, a recycle chute must also be provided Response: Acknowledged. 16 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 08/10/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Understood. 07/21/2020: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, 970-567-0245, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020 8/11/2020: -Comcast tie point is from the north west corner of this project. -4” chase way provided by the developer from 1st floor data room out to NW corner of building -Comcast will need a 4”chase way from floor to floor in the data room. -Internal wiring can only be 150 feet from the unit to the data room, placed by their low voltage person. -Comcast will need a 4’X4’ piece of plywood in each data room to mount its facility along with a #6 ground bus bar. -Need ROE from developer / owner -Need to know how many units are on each floor along with amenities. (For Design team). -Need addressing and unit numbers. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide a 4’x4’ plywood at each data room. There are 79 total units, (4) units on lv1, (22) units on lv3, (27) units on lv4, (26) units on lv5, and amenity is located on lv3. We are working on ROE as well as addressing. 8/3/2020: Please pass my information on to the developer / owner regarding Comcast right of entry to the property. Don Kapperman Construction Specialist Cell : 970-567-0245 Don_kapperman@comcast.com Response: Acknowledged. 07/16/2020: Comcast does not have any issues at this time. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2020 17 07/30/2020: 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@fcgov.com Response: Understood.