Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE GARAGE - BDR160007 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 16 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 08, 2016 Jason Kersley [au]workshop, llc 405 Linden St Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Poudre Garage - Preliminary Design Review, PDR150026, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, , moverton@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The roof of the addition must include design elements that create a recognizable top to the building (i.e. cornice treatment, stepped parapet) on all walls facing streets or connecting walkways. Please refer to LUC 3.5.3(E)(6)(b) and 3.10.5(B). We are showing top rails at terraces and the tower pieces at the mezzanine are in line with the intent of 3.10.5(B) Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: In your submittal, please specify the materials that will be used for the building. LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) requires that the dominant material of ¿existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure¿ be used as the primary material for new construction. However, we anticipate most of the design submittal and discussion will happen through the Landmark Preservation Commission. We have provided building elevation drawings and material board sheets. We have had a first round hearing with the LPC and received positive comments related to material selection. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Bicycle parking - refer to LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) for bicycle parking requirements. In your submittal, please indicate the number of bicycle parking spaces for each use (retail, commercial, residential) and the proportion of those spaces that will be enclosed bike parking. Shown on Site Plan drawing. Page 2 of 16 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/08/2016: Another option perhaps would be to maintain the entire 37' lot for ground floor garage parking which would provide 15' deep parking stalls and 22' wide drive aisle. This way would provide much more parking spaces but would eliminate some of the back of house program. 01/05/2016: Parking Strategy - Because of the limited parking options on-site, the developer proposes to employ various demand mitigation strategies and/or alternative compliance to reduce the overall parking requirements. Please note that the maximum reduction in required parking spaces is 50% for both residential and non-residential uses, regardless of the combination of mitigation strategies used. If you do pursue demand mitigation, please be sure that your submittal clearly shows which strategies are being used to reduce parking requirements. Please also see LUC 3.2.2(K)(3) for an explanation of the procedures and criteria for alternative compliance. A parking impact study and/or a traffic impact study may be required. Based on updated survey information the lot size is 36’ which makes the above suggestion infeasible. We have provided parking stall calculations and our mitigation strategies on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: One handicap/van accessible space should be provided in the garage parking lot as required in LUC 3.2.2(K)(5)(d). Providing a van accessible space will reduce the parking count from 4 to 3 residential spaces. There are no accessible residential units in the development. There is no demand for prescribed accessible stall. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please refer to LUC 3.2.1 for landscaping standards and planting guidelines. A landscape plan will be required with your submittal. See additional comments from Environmental Planning. A landscape plan is included with our submittal. Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Please provide a parking matrix that shows the various land uses, parking requirements, and amount provided. We have the requested matrix as part of our submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Required fees will be paid at the time of submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Page 3 of 16 Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. The existing driveway will need to be evaluated to determine if the slopes and width will meet ADA requirements or if they need to be reconstructed so that they do. Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Noted. Utility plans have been provided with submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Noted. DCP is described in development review guide Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. Utility coordination meetings if requested are typically scheduled after the preliminary submittal of the project, but can be scheduled prior to submittal upon request. Please provide a site plan with preliminary utility layout for routing with the meeting notice. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact the development review engineer for scheduling. Noted. We have had and will continue to have coordination meetings with the various utilities. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending on parking design. Noted Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit. Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to Engineering Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the Site Plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance. These include planters, bollards, ramps and outdoor seating areas. City Code requires the downtown to have at least a 7' clearance. The encroachments have been removed from the site plan. Any proposed encroachments will follow permitting procedures described. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the development/ site storm runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street flows – the design standards for these are still in development. Noted Page 4 of 16 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Doors and gates are not allowed to open out into the right-of-way. Please verify that the gate shown on the north of the building does not swing into the right-of-way. Gate will not swing into right-of-way Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. Noted Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Pervious grass pavers are not allowed in the public right-of-way. Please remove them from the driveway. Will remove from right-of-way Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: An existing vault in the parkway on Oak Street to the north may need to be relocated to reconstruct the driveway access. Noted. We will revise the drive access to avoid the need to relocate the existing vault Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The maximum driveway width for multifamily or commercial uses is 36¿. Wider driveways shall be divided with a median not less than 6¿' wide. Noted. Driveway is currently less than 36’. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: As proposed, engineering sees an issue with the parking configuration. There is a safety concern with vehicles backing out of the garage with a limited sight distance to pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk and the overall width of the driveway. Consider moving garage spaces 3 and 4 further back. As proposed, engineering would not support the configuration. More disucussion will be needed with other City departments to determine a new layout/configuration for the parking areas. Proposed safety measures have been demonstrated on the site plan. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Drainge across any public sidewalks, including downspouts, will not be allowed. Drainage must be directed under sidewalk chases. Please refer to LCUASS Drawing D-10 for details. Noted. The proposed design has no surface storm drainage. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/05/2016: The driveway/sidewalk will need to be reconstructed to meet City standards. Please refer to LCUASS Drawing 706.1 for more details. Noted Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/05/2016: In regards to construction of this site, the public right-of-way shall not be used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development, nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel working for or hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary Staging and/or parking needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of the Development Construction Permit application. We will be requesting that permission be granted to utilize portions of the ROW along with use of off site areas for storage, staging and parking. Precedent of this Page 5 of 16 use on other constrained sites in the city exists. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(3), requires that you use low-water-use plants and grasses in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native landscaping is encouraged to the extent possible, as well. Noted. Use of native and low water use plants will be utilized in the landscape design. Furthermore, to attract pollinators and birds, some recommended choices for your tree species include Bur and Chinkapin Oaks and Flowering Crabapple, such as the Sargent cultivar. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan, that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5) enhances the pedestrian environment". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Noted. All existing trees on the site are in the right-of-way and are currently intended to remain. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens and has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit your project. Of particular interest may be the: 1. ClimateWise program: fcgov.com/climatewise/ 2. Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP): fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com 3. Green Building Program: fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com 4. Solar Energy: www.fcgov.com/solar, contact Norm Weaver at 970-416-2312 or nweaver@fcgov.com 5. Integrated Design Assistance Program: fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or gschroeder@fcgov.com 6. Nature in the City Strategic Plan: fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/? key=advanceplanning/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com Please consider the City’s sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage with these efforts, and let me know if I can help connect you to these programs. Noted Page 6 of 16 Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: This proposal will require review under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code for proposed alterations to the Poudre Garage, a designated local landmark, and review under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code for the effect of the new construction on adjacent historic properties. Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code requires a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for proposed work that includes alteration, reconstruction, or an addition to the exterior of landmark buildings. In order to obtain a report of acceptability, the applicant shall submit the application for a building permit, including sketches and plans. Such plans shall include, without limitation, a plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to any historic resources on or adjacent to the site, and other documents as required by the Commission, to the Commission through the Director. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: All such applications shall be reviewed by the Commission in two (2) phases to determine compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Conceptual review is an opportunity for the applicant to discuss requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to landmarks. The Commission may proceed directly to final review only if it determines there is an absence of a significant impact on the landmark. During final review, the Commission shall consider the application and any changes made by the applicant since conceptual review. Please note that many projects require more than one round of conceptual review before proceeding to a final review hearing. The LPC will first review the effect of the proposal on the designated property. If the Commission issues a report of acceptability for the addition to a landmark building, they will then proceed to make a recommendation to the Decision Maker regarding compatibility with historic properties in the area of adjacency based on LUC 3.4.7. You may combine the conceptual review processes with the LPC for Chapter 14 and LUC 3.4.7 with the understanding that these are two independent decisions that will follow this logical sequence. Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Section 14-48(b) requires the Commission to consider the following criteria in determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability: 1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark; 2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the landmark; 3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics of the structure upon which such work is to be done; 4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark; 5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The LPC will require more detailed information in order to consider the required criteria listed above. Staff recommends particular attention to the following: “Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and Page 7 of 16 will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” The reflection of axial symmetry, the articulation of the addition, and the setbacks of upper stories are recognized as design choices meant to address the intention of Standard 9. The most challenging aspects of Standard 9 relate to the effect on the landmark’s historic integrity due to the overall size, scale, and proportion of the addition. This observation is based generally on the four-story design and its imposition on the original scale and spatial relationship of the building to its site and adjacent parcels. This concern is also valid when considering Standard 2, which states that “The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.” More detailed discussion and feedback will be possible with the future provision of specific dimensions and illustrations that provide a thorough understanding of the addition’s scale and proportion relative to the historic building. While the narrative in the preliminary design review packet mentions the selection of “complimentary but differentiated” building materials, details about those proposed materials are insufficient to allow for review comments at this time. Page 12 of the packet includes mention of “new operable glazed garage doors or storefront (six total) on the ground level of the front façade of the existing designated building. Because the divided light, fixed windows on the façade are character-defining features of the landmark, this proposed detail requires careful scrutiny. Please provide more details on this proposed alteration. These items were addressed at the LPC meeting on Feb 10, 2016. Responses from the LPC were very positive. One committee member commented that the submittal was an example of ‘how it should be done’. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: “Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” How will the new addition be constructed to prevent damage or destruction of historic materials on the adjoining surfaces and to ensure that the original building could be saved in the future if the addition were removed? This standard should be addressed in detail in the Plan of Protection. The Plan of Protection should also cover the proposed addition of a gate to the northwest corner of the façade. This feature should be sensitive to both architectural character and preservation of historic fabric on the landmark building. Please contact Historic Preservation staff for the latest Plan of Protection template, which must accompany your renderings and site plans for the final review. It is best to have this in place prior to conceptual review. These items were addressed at the LPC meeting on Feb 10, 2016. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Area of Adjacency: This project is located adjacent to and near properties within one-half block in each direction that are Landmark properties or have the potential to be individually eligible for Landmark designation, which requires review for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. The following properties do not have current determinations of eligibility. These will need to be done before LPC review: 133 Remington, 206 Remington, 142 Remington, 143 Remington, 208 Remington, 133 Mathews, 137 Mathews, 143 Mathews, 207 Mathews, 210 E. Oak, 215 E. Oak, 216 E. Oak, 217 E. Oak, 145 Page 8 of 16 Mountain. To determine the eligibility of these properties, staff will need to receive from the applicant good quality photographs of all elevations (and partial elevations) visible from public rights of way, including alleys. Staff will also need photos of the properties a minimum of two deep on either side, and behind the project, for context. Staff notes that the abutting parcels at 210 Oak and 142 Remington will require the highest level of scrutiny for compatibility. Additionally, please note that 202 Remington, the McHugh-Andrews House, is a designated local landmark and is just across the street to the south. LUC 3.4.7 will apply to this property, along with any others determined eligible for local landmark designation. Photos of adjacent buildings listed have been provided to the LPC. Photos sent to LPC on Jan 14 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object that is [designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible: Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Please note that the conceptual review process is designed to help the applicant understand and achieve compliance with 3.4.7 to the maximum extent feasible. The next step in this process should be determinations of eligibility for the properties listed above and confirmation from the LPC on February 10 that they constitute the area of adjacency. Noted Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states that the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Commission unless the CDNS Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code." Staff has scheduled the first conceptual review with the LPC on February10, 2016. Deadline for materials is February 1, 2016. Noted Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The applicant should be aware that properties that are designated as Fort Collins Landmarks or on the National and State Registers may receive financial incentives. Financial programs include 25% State Tax Credits, $7,500 yearly no-interest rehabilitation loans, Historic Structure Assessment grants, State Historic Fund grants, and, for income producing properties an additional 20% Federal Tax Credit. Any work, both interior and exterior, which protects or promotes a building’s historic character by meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can qualify. For more details on financial incentives, please contact Historic Preservation staff. Page 9 of 16 Noted Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects should call 416-2748 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Pre-submittal meeting with Russ Hovland occurred on Jan 7. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com/building web page to view them. Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Noted Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/24/2015 12/24/2015: Light & Power currently has an existing composite vault located along the East edge of the current drive entrance on Oak St. Also, electric facilities are located in the alley and along the S. side of Oak St. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/24/2015 12/24/2015: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will incur Page 10 of 16 system modification charges. Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/24/2015 12/24/2015: Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. Transformer location needs to be within 10’ of an asphalt surface accessible by a line truck. A minimum clearance of 8’ must be maintained in front of the transformer doors and a minimum of 3’ on the sides and back. Certain building materials and or building design may require more clearance. Please click on the following link for Electric Construction, Policies, Practices and Procedures. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms -guidelines-regulations We have met with Rob Irish with Light & Power and we have worked with the city to find a feasible location for the transformer. We are pursuing two options. The first is upgrading an existing transformer located in the alley to the east. This option will require running secondary line down the alley, into the ROW and onto the site. The second option is to use a submersible transformer. This option may allow for the transformer to be located on or near the property. Light & Power is working to finalize vault size and clearance requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/24/2015 12/24/2015: A C-1 Form and a One-line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. Please click on the following link for the C-1 Form. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms -guidelines-regulations Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/24/2015 12/24/2015: Electric Capacity Fee and Building Site charges will apply to this development. Please click on the following link for Estimated Light & Power charges and the Light & Power Fee calculator. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-de velopment-fees Noted Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM This building will require an automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: ROOF ACCESS > IFC 504.3: New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. Met with Jim Lynxwiler on Jan 7. As classifying the addition as a 3 story building with a mezzanine the main stair will be rated and a roof hatch will allow access to the 3rd floor roof in addition to aerial apparatus access along Oak St. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM Page 12 of 16 Ø IFC Sections 905 and 913: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2012 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. Buildings equipped with standpipes are required to have a hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection. Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS Ø IFC 507.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where approved by the fire code official. Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS FOR STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one entire side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. Code language provided below. Per our conversation with Jim L. this requirement should be met along Oak St. PROXIMITY TO BUILDING > IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Per our conversation with Jim L. this requirement should be met along Oak St. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 Noted Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2016 01/03/2016: EXITING Exiting from the rear of the structure and between two buildings as proposed will require the project team to demonstrate that requirements of IBC & IFC Chapter 10 have been met; especially as it pertains to egress accessibility, continuity, sizing and adequate fire separation. A protected path shall be continuous until the means of egress connects with the Public Way. The means of egress cannot pass through a more hazardous area such as one containing open trash or recycling containers. Further discussion is needed. Exiting from the rear of the building not required. This will not be an egress path. Page 13 of 16 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: The narrative mentions that the existing building surface drains to the open area behind (to the east) of the building where the proposed new building will be situated. There is also a planted area shown in the northeast corner of the lot. How do you propose to drain the existing building and the planted area to the street or adjacent storm pipe? Please be sure that the planted area does not create an isolated low spot behind the building that isn’t able to drain out. See utility plan included in BDR package. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 1000 square feet a drainage report, erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. If there is less than 1,000 square feet of new impervious area on an existing development, a drainage letter along with a grading plan should be sufficient to document the existing and proposed drainage patterns. If there is less than 1,000 but more than 350 square feet of new impervious area; a site grading and erosion control plan is required instead of a complete construction plan set. Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: When improvements are being added to an existing developed site onsite detention is only required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2-year historic release rate for water quantity. Noted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Noted. An exhibit will be provided showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: The 2016 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $8,217/acre for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-de velopment-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Page 14 of 16 Noted Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: Water quality treatment for 50% of the site is provided for in the Udall Natural Area water treatment facility. However additional onsite water quality treatment is encouraged as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3-Best Management Practices (BMPs). Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development- form s-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Noted Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-impac t-development Noted Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) effective August 5, 2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins and bio-retention cells. Noted Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The grass pavers are shown for the driveway approaches to the parking garages off of Oak Street. Please note that LID systems are not allowed to be placed within the public right-of-way. Pavers may be placed behind the ROW for the driveway approaches; however, grass pavers are typically meant for low traffic areas and since this is potentially a high pedestrian traffic zone, especially during summer months, staff is likely going to require that you use a permeable paver instead of the grass paver system. Noted. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: What is the total area of disturbance? Submitted materials did not allow for accurate understanding of the total disturbed area. Please include a map showing all on and off site disturbance marked with a total area calculation. If the site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any Page 15 of 16 questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Noted. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The anticipated change in traffic volume is not expected to rise to the threshold of needing a TIS. Based on section 4.2.3.D of LCUASS, the typical Traffic Impact Study requirements can be waived. We will need to work with you on traffic related details such as cars backing out of driveway, crosswalks, etc. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Typically, bike parking to be counted towards your requirements aren't allowed in the ROW. Noted Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: There are existing 6-inch water mains in Remington and Oak Streets with a ¾-inch commercial water service to the building on the Remington side. Separate water taps will be required for commercial and residential uses. The existing tap may be used for one of those uses if it is sufficiently sized, however, if this project requires water taps larger than ¾”, then the existing water tap must be abandoned at the main. Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in the alley to the east. Separate sewer taps will be required for the commercial and residential uses. If this project requires a sewer service that is larger than the existing service then it must be abandoned at the main. Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2016 01/04/2016: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Page 16 of 16 Noted Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: LUC section 4.16(D)(6)(e) requires auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. With two garage doors side by side along Remington it is not clear that the auto/pedestrian conflicts are being minimized. Strategies to mitigate auto/pedestrian conflicts, including an automated pedestrian alert system have been shown on the site plan sheet. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: On the third level will ther be a structue to subdivide the patio area. If so please show on the plans. Defined areas of the rooftop patios have been shown on plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Will there be additional mechanical equipment on other roof levels? If so how will this be screened? Mechanical on higher roofs will be small and will not be seen from ground level. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: When providing any off-street parking there is a minimal number that are required to be handicap. Noted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The new portions of the building are required to provide a "recognizable" top Elevations and perspectives in BDR submittal show the addition has a “recognizable” top. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Structures over 40ft in height require a shadow analysis. Noted. Shadow analysis has been provided in BDR submittal.