HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-09-07City of
F6rt CoRins
February 13, 2015
RE: 310 College, PDR150002, Round Number 1
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/deve/opmentreview
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.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, jlgMgl3 Ggov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/04/2015
02/04/2015: Building Height:
The height limit for this property is 5-6 stories, +/- 85 feet per Sec. 4.16 (D)(2)(b). However, there
are multiple sections in the Land Use Code that modify the permitted height in terms of breaking
up the massing with articulation and stepbacks, and compatibility with the surrounding context.
Sec. 4.16 (D)(4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over 3 stories) - requires that
the building have a clearly defined base of one or two stories and upper floors stepped back
to reduce the perceived size of the building.
Sec. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (C)Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale
requires that new buildings be similar in size and height as other structures in the area. If
larger, it should be divided into massing modules that reflect the area. Retail modules should
be approximately 25' feet wide.
The building height as designed currently follows the city's regulations by the use of: one and
two story articulation of the building base; diminished perceived height by upper story
setbacks; vertical planar articulation resembling existing retail modules and continuing rhythm
along the College Avenue corridor.
Page 1 of 21
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
02/09/2015 02/09/2015:
There is concern regarding the relationship and compatibility of the proposed
building to the historic residential district (Laurel School National Register Historic
District) just to the east of the project site. Also, there is concern regarding the
proposed building's other three elevations and their relationship to the street and the
historic character of College Avenue to the north. To address these concerns,
massing needs to be broken up with articulation and modulation that picks up on the
traditional one and two story nature of the surrounding context. Upper stories, above
the first and second story, should be substantially stepped back to emphasize a
strong base element. The base element should be modulated in a way that picks up
on the retail context of the blockface, including elements like awnings, recessed
storefronts, glazing, etc. Additionally, dominant building material choices shall be
derived from the surrounding historic context — brick, stone, etc. Furthermore, while
the project is not located within the Old Town Historic District, many of the principles
for compatible new construction contained in the Design Standards for the District
will be helpful in designing a project for this location:
hftp://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/ftc—oldtown—finaUuly20l4 — low.pdf
Also, see LUC 3.4.7 (F) for specific language regarding compatible new
construction.
Concern Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
02/09/2015
02/09/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties
containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-
mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of
Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially
designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall
receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission unless the 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." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review
before the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Commission meets the second
Wednesday of each month for Regular Meetings where recommendations can be
given, and the fourth Wednesday of each month where design review sessions are
available.
Comment Acknowledged.
Page 10 of 21
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, Iunruh fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
02/03/2015
02/03/2015: The options for tapping into our electrical system for this site are
limited. One option would be to cut in an electric vault next to one of the two on the
north side of the building along Olive St. Out of the new oval vault we would be able
to provide power. System modification charges will apply at the owner's expense.
We anticipate cutting a new electric vault in the Olive St. parkway, just west of the alley.
From there, a new 3-phase transformer will be set on -site to serve the building. We would
like to further discuss options for upper -story overhangs into the clear space provided
around the transformer at the ground level.
Comment Number: 2
02/03/2015
Comment Originated:
02/03/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer
and electric meter locations and show the locations on the utility plans.
Comment Number: 3
02/03/2015
Comment Originated:
02/03/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer
and electric meter locations and show the locations on the utility plans.
Comment Number: 4
02/03/2015
Comment Originated:
02/03/2015: 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
Contact with Light and power forthcoming.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwolaC o ug dre-
fire.ora Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
02/13/2015
02/13/2015: HIGH RISE
The building will be defined as a high rise if the highest occupied floor is located
more than 75' above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.
The highest occupied floor plate is currently designed at, or below 75' and therefore does
not automatically fall into high rise design compliance. Alternative measures of building
safety have been discussed with Poudre fire and will continue to be evaluated as the
building design proceeds through the City of Fort Collins development process.
Comment Number: 2
02/13/2015
Comment Originated:
02/13/2015: 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION
The Poudre Fire Authority and City of Fort Collins have adopted the 2012
International Fire Code. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version
of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application.
Page 11 of 21
Comment Number: 3
02/13/2015
Comment Originated:
02/13/2015: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
This mixed -use building will require an NFPA 13 automatic fire sprinkler system
under a separate permit.
GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
> IFC 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided
throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy)
in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception:
Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3
BALCONIES AND DECKS
> IFC 903.3.1.2.1: Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies,
decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V
construction.
Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related
questions at 970-416-2868.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
02/13/2015
02/13/2015: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM
> IFC Sections 905 and 913: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings
and structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2006 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.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: FDC
> IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with
NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of
buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire
department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire
department.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: FIRE LANES
Fire Access shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building. Fire
access cannot be measured from an arterial road. If fire access is provided by a
private road/drive, it shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement and
meet minimum specifications. Fire access limits can be extended when the building
is equipped with a fire sprinkler system but sprinklering does not eliminate all
access requirements. Buildings exceeding 30' in height have additional access
width requirements. At this time, PFA would like to discuss alley improvements to
enable better building access. If access cannot be improved, alternative means of
compliance with the fire code may be obtained through building design and/or
systems upgrade. Further. review is needed. Code language provided below.
Page 12 of 21
> IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction.
The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section
and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the
exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the building or facility. When any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150
feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code official is authorized to increase the
dimension if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic
fire -sprinkler system.
> AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED
1012 IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the
highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads
shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be
determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the
roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater.
> AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH
2012 IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire
apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet,
exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof.
> AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING
2012 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.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: 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.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. Should a flow test be needed, one can be scheduled by going to our
website at www.pfafireprevention.org.
Click on the "For Contractors" tab at the top of the page and select "Request a Fire
Hydrant Flow Test'. This will take you to an application which can be filled out and
submitted electronically. Fire Protection Technician Garnet England will then contact
your designate to set up a date and time for the test. You may contact her directly
with questions at 970-219-8651.
> IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide
1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the
building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
Page 13 of 21
> 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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
New buildings or building additions that cause the building to be greater than 50,000
square feet will 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
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
> IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: Poudre Fire Authority
requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an approved, exterior
location (or locations) on every new or existing building equipped with a required fire
sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall be positioned 3 to 7 feet above finished
floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or closest door to the fire alarm panel.
Exception can be made by the PFA if it is more logical to have the box located
somewhere else on the structure.
Knox Box size and location will be reviewed and approved at time of building permit.
All new or existing Knox Boxes must contain the following keys as they apply to the
building:
> Exterior Master
> Riser room
> Fire panel
> Elevator key if equipped with an elevator
The number of floors determines the number of sets of keys needed. Each set will
be placed on their own key ring.
> Single story buildings must have 1 of each key
> 2-3 story buildings must have 2 of each key
> 4+ story buildings must have 3 of each key
For further details or to determine the size of Knox Box required, contact the Poudre
Fire Authority Division of Community Safety Services.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated:
02/13/2015
02/13/2015: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
Premise identification and addressing will be reviewed and approved at time of
building permit. Numerical sizing may be needed to be up -sized based on
circumstances of the site. Code language is provided below.
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly
legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a
minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by
means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a
monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure.
Page 14 of 21
Response to 2-11
Comment Acknowledged. Design will be in compliance of the 2012 IFC code, FCLU,
Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy, and Division of Community Safety Services
and will be used with respect to the design of the site and building life safety and fire
protection standards. We will also make work with the Poudre Valley Fire authority to
provide any preferential design alternatives possible, per discussion with Jim Lynxwiler on
3/30/2105 these may include but are not limited to: sprinkler system; roof access for fire
fighters; areas of refuge in stairwell; 2 hour protected and possible pressurized stairwell;
fire separation between portions of the building as required by code. The design team will
strive to maintain a dynamic engagement with the Poudre Valley fire authority throughout
the approval process.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932,
jschlam fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated:
02/11 /2015
02/11/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. 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
this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Comment acknowledged, and materials will be submitted at time of FDP.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494,
mtaylor fcaov.com Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The western edge of this property is located within the City -regulatory
Old Town 100-year flood fringe. Development must conform to all safety
requirements of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Residential and mixed use structures are allowed in the 100-year flood
fringe, as long as the lowest finished floor, all duct work, heating, air conditioning,
ventilation, electrical and mechanical systems, plumbing, etc. are elevated a
minimum of 18-inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This elevation is
known as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). RFPE = BFE +
18-inches.
Comment acknowledged. At this point it appears that flood proofing may be pursued as
an alternate to elevating, but is still in design process as it relates to excavation depth
relative to groundwater elevation.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: After construction, a FEMA Elevation Certificate must be submitted to
and approved by the City before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued.
Comment acknowledged.
Page 15 of 21
Comment Number: 11
02/10/2015
Comment Originated:
02/10/2015: Critical Facilities are not allowed in the 100-year flood fringe.
Comment acknowledged. No Critical Facilities are proposed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: A parking garage may be constructed below the RFPE, provided that all
residential use is above the RFPE, and the garage (and all entrances into the
garage) is floodproofed up to the RFPE. The floodproofing requirements of Section
10-38 of City Code must be met. A FEMA Floodproofing Certificate will be required
before construction begins, and again after construction is complete (prior to issuing
a Certificate of Occupancy). Please see the following FEMA publications related to
the parking garage floodproofing: 1) FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08, "Flood -Resistant
Materials Requirements" 2) FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93, "Non -Residential
Floodproofing Requirements and Certification" 3) FEMA P-396, "Floodproofing
Non -Residential Buildings" 4) FEMA 6-93 "Below -Grade Parking Requirements".
Comment acknowledged. The entrance into the garage is expected to be floodproofed to
City/FEMA requirements. Please note, once within the floodproofed structure, the garage
will ramp down to one level of below -grade parking, which will reside below both the
RFPE and BFE (similar to Cortina).
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: All elevators must comply with FEMA Technical Bulletin 4-93, "Elevator
Installation".
Comment acknowledged. The same team that did Max Flats will be working on this
project and provided the necessary documentation.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Any construction activities in the 100-year flood fringe (e.g. grading,
building construction, parking areas, driveways, fences, utility work, landscaping,
etc.), must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit, the appropriate
permit application fees, and approved plans.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: In addition to obtaining an approved Floodplain Use Permit, any
development in the floodway (utility work, landscaping, paving, sidewalks, etc.) must
be preceded by a No -Rise Certification. The No -Rise Certification must be prepared
by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Development review checklists for floodplain requirements as well as
all forms and publications mentioned above can also be obtained
http://www.fcgov. com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents.
Please contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at
banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work as required per the floodplain
development review check list.
Comment acknowledged.
Page 16 of 21
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Please contact Mark Taylor, 970.416.2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com with any questions.
Comment acknowledged.
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339,
sbovle(&fcgov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 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.
Comment acknowledged. We intend to fully grandfather all existing impervious areas.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 5,000 square feet
a drainage and 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. Standard
operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by
the drainage engineer. If there is less than 5,000 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 5,000 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.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: When there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square
feet on an existing development, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic
release rate for water quantity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as
long as it is not deeper than one foot. If there is less than 5000 but more than 350
square feet of new impervious area; a grading and erosion control plan is required
instead of a complete construction plan set.
Comment acknowledged. Quantity detention is not anticipated.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 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 4 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-g uideli nes-reg ulations/stormwater-criteria)
Comment acknowledged
Page 17 of 21
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 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 new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious.
For more information please refer to the City's website where additional information
and links can be found at:
http://www.fcgov. comlutilitiestwhat-we-do/stormwaterlstormwater-quality/low-impac
t-development
Comment acknowledged. Alternates to the 25% permeable paving need to be pursued
due to the absence of exposed at -grade parking.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre
($0.1795 sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a
$1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.-ft.) 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 on the City's web site at
http://www.fcgov. com/utilities/business/bu ilders-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.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 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 Manual.
Comment acknowledged.
Page 18 of 21
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6688, jgountli lcuov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015
02/09/2015: No comments.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinsonr&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The access on College is problematic - especially the double access.
It would be best to plan on taking access of the alley.
Per redesign, our intent is to access the resident parking from ally only to preserve the
continuation of the pedestrian experience from College Avenue north of Olive St.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: A traffic study will be needed. Please contact me to scope the study.
Traffic study by ELB Engineering LLC was completed, and will be included as part of
this PDP submittal package for review.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sbovle=Ggov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Existing water mains in the area include a 4" main in College, an 8"
main in Olive, and a 6" main in Remington. Sanitary sewers in this area include a 6"
main in the alley to the east of the site.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: There is an existing 4" fire line tapped off the 4" main in College with a
2" water service tapped off the fire line. Existing sewer service is from the main in
the alley. These services will need to be reused with the proposed development or
abandoned at the main.
The existing 4" tap at College will be reused, if possible. Can a 3" meter be set on the
existing 4" line? If said water service cannot be reused, it will be abandoned at the main.
The existing sewer service is inadequate and will be abandoned at the main.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Separate water and sewer services will be required for the residential
and non-residential portions of the building. Grease interceptors will be required for
any restaurants in the project.
Comment acknowledged. At present tenants are not identified, but all concessions for
the possibility of any tenant with commercial food prep will be designed to code with
consideration to grease interceptors and any Dept of health regulations necessary.
Page 19 of 21
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/04/2015.
02/04/2015: Building Materials:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(e) requires that "All street -facing facades shall be constructed of high
quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with the
exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-
cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any
combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not exceed either five
(5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear expression of a joint. For
the purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall mean metal panel systems that
are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with expressed seams; metal framing
systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental
metal panels. Architectural metals shall not include ribbed or corrugated metal panel
systems."
Also, Sec. 3.5.1 (E) requires that materials be similar to those already being used in the
area.
Downtown is characterized by brick and local sandstone. These should be the
predominant material used. It is important to reiterate that high quality materials shall be
used for the entire height of the building and all sides.
Petitioner acknowledges the need/ desire to integrate into existing context, and sees the
value of the local and regional vernacular as it pertains to this site and its reflection of
surroundings. While exact material are still being developed, the placement, proportion
will be carefully considered pursuant to sections Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(e) and Sec. 3.5.1 (E) of
local codes
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015
02/04/2015: Multi -family dwellings with greater than 50 units are subject to review
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Type 2 projects are required
to have a neighborhood meeting at least two weeks prior to submitting the Project
Development Plan (PDP).
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/04/2015
02/04/2015: At PDP submittal please provide the following additional information:
- Color perspective renderings
- Contextual elevations and sections (we can discuss what sections are necessary)
- Shadow study
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 02/05/2015
02/05/2015: Parking:
The proposed project has 264 bedrooms. As a student housing project, it appears you
will be using a rent -by -the -bedroom model, thus the requirement is 0.75 parking spaces
per bedroom equalling a minimum parking requirement of 196 parking spaces.
Reductions to this minimum requirement will have to very thoughtfully vetted.
If more parking (or storage) is needed, the applicant is encouraged to contact the owner
of the underground parking at the Safeway shopping center, located one block to the
south.
Page 2 of 21
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Given that this development is tying into a 6" sewer main, sewer
modeling using peak flows from the development should be completed to ascertain
whether the sewer has adequate capacity for this scale of development. The City
can help with this modeling as the demands for the building become known. Any
upsizing of the existing sewer main due to impacts from this development will be at
the cost of the developer and will need to be included as part of this development.
Comment acknowledged. What is the capacity/feasibility of tying into the sewer manhole
in the alley on the north side of Olive?
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015:
It is questionable whether sufficient water service for this site can be provided from
the 4" main in College. Likely, water service from the 8° main in Olive and/or
multiple taps to serve the development would be a better scenario.
Comment acknowledged. While reuse of the existing 4" tap will be explored, we
anticipate a strong likelihood that new water services from Olive will be necessary.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will
apply. Information on these requirements can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/standards
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit.
Comment acknowledged.
Department: Zoning
Contact: All van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekomjQfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/10/2015: LUC 3.2.5 All development shall provide adequately sized conveniently
located, accessible trash and recycling enclosures. How will trash be handled?
The design team has employed the services of a refuse consultant to provide adequate
design feedback for best practices regarding refuse removal. Current configuration
employs trash chutes designated to the specific refuse collection (e.g. general or
recycling). These will collect refuse in 2 cubic yard roll off containers, to be stored and
secured internal of building envelope. Removal/ haul -off shall be collected in the alley on
designated pick-up days by local hauler.
Page 20 of 21
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) The four bedroom units will require that the
occupancy limit be increased. The decision maker (Planning and Zoning Board)
may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all
applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase the number of
unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker
shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided
sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the activities
associated with multi -family residential development, to adequately serve the
occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such
amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on -site
management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited
mixed -use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle
services or other facilities and services.
Comment acknowledged
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 256 bedrooms requires 192 parking spaces. Tandem parking stalls are
not counted as two spaces therefore you are only showing 136 spaces. Without a
modification this would not be allowed.
No tandem parking is utilized in the current submission.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: 192 parking spaces requires 6 handicap spaces. One of these needs to
be a van -accessible space.
Comment acknowledged
Comment Number: 3
02/10/2015: LUC 3.2.2(L) Table A and B
Standard 90 degree parking stall is 19'x 9'
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
Up to 40% of the parking can be for compact vehicles: 90 degree parking stall is 15'
x 8'
Comment acknowledged
Page 21 of 21
Fbrt°Coluns
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave.
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: 310 S. College - Second Preliminary Design Review, PDR150012, 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.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189,
slorson anfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
06/16/2015
Comment Originated:
06/16/2015:
Building Height:
The height limit for this property is 5-6 stories, +/- 85 feet per Sec. 4.16
(D)(2)(b). However, there are multiple sections in the Land Use Code that
modify the permitted height in terms of breaking up the massing with
articulation and stepbacks, and compatibility with the surrounding context.
RESPONSE: Noted.
The building height has been reviewed in several meetings with the
neighbors and staff to evaluate all mitigating concerns regarding
building bulk & mass. Since the initial submittal for PDR which
illustrated a six story building with a height of 75'; the building bulk and
mass has been reduced to articulate and synthetize the comments
from staff to reduce the building height to 4 stories along the public
streets (College and Olive). Then, interpreting the requirements for
the Old City Center Sub -District to set back the upper floors, following
a 35 degree imaginary line, we have moved the upper floors from the
street side from 12 feet up to 30 feet. These setbacks have permitted
a building front that is more compatible with the context of buildings
within the guidelines of the neighboring Old City Center Sub -District.
Page 1 of 14
Following the advice of staff we have also reduced the floor to floor
heights for the retail base and the typical residential floors; bringing the
buHr4linn n�ry roll h�irr h} ii ,n} hvin�er 7� fnn}
., . ,y �.. y, ., �u.. .. , .
Sec. 4.16 (13)(4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over 3
stories) - requires that the building have a clearly defined base of one
or two stories and upper floors stepped back to reduce the perceived
size of the building.
RESPONSE:
Indeed, the proposed development follows the guidelines of the
Canyon Avenue Sub -District articulating an obviously defined building
retail base which follows the historical "water -line" datum created by
the retail base along College Avenue to the north. With stepped -back
residential upper floors (level 2 to level 4), then over the 4t1 level,
setting the building back 12 feet at the 5t" level and 30 feet at the 6tn
level back from the property line.
The elegantly crafted retail base, built with masonry, metal columns,
glass and appropriate signage, is highly articulated by an energized,
welcoming and transparent retail storefront that reveals the activities
inside. The upper three floors, respecting the maximum height
allowed for the Old City Center Sub -District immediate to the north
along College, express a residential brick fagade with proportioned
punched windows surrounded by highly articulated window trim, and a
projected cornice to cap the street front of the building wings. The
intent of the proposed materials, features, openings and expression
lines is to ensure similarity to the experienced context of downtown
and provide a visual cap to further limit the expression of height.
The pedestrian nature of the four stories above -grade hides the
allowed upper floors that step back to the sky allowing residential
terraces. These penthouse levels will be clad with simply articulated
cement stucco or cement boards with larger windows to provide a
lighter feel to the top of the building.
Sec. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (C) Building Size,
Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale -
requires that new buildings be similar in size and height as other
structures in the area. If larger, it should be divided into massing
modules that reflect the area. Retail modules should be approximately
25' feet wide.
RESPONSE:
The mixed -used development proposed for this site conveys the
traditional size of the historical downtown to the north, respecting the
retail modules of the 25' originally platted lots. The retail base
Page 2 of 14
continues the height and modularity of the great buildings in the old
downtown. As we progress along College, south of Olive, the building
base is separated into three differently articulated retail bases that
allow a more dynamic and interesting progression; which also relates
to the different articulation of the three stories apartment masses
cladded with textured brick patterns above.
The maximum proposed building height at 71 feet above grade is well
within the 85 feet maximum allowed for the Sub -District. Appreciating
we are at the edge of the Sub -District, and after careful review with
staff and neighbors, we have reduced the height and mass of the
buildings along the public streets relating to the maximum height
allowed for the Old City Center Sub -District of 4 stories or 56 feet. The
additional height of the building is pulled back to minimize the impact
to the pedestrian and to the vehicles entering the City Center.
To soften the perception of mass immediately adjacent to the
pedestrian side walk, the building volume above the retail base, along
College, has been subdivided into three buildings elements, viewed as
three different building masses. The facades have also been layers
horizontally to provide setbacks and stepbacks that minimize the
impact of the facade to the pedestrian and the automobile traffic. The
articulation of these three building elements utilize similar materials
(masonry and glass) in different colors and patterns - still, the
repetition of similar features allow a cohesive street experience.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Building Materials:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(e) requires that "All street -facing facades shall be constructed of
high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with
the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta,
architectural pre -cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural
metals or any combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not
exceed either five (5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear
expression of a joint. For the purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall
mean metal panel systems that are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with
expressed seams; metal framing systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal
panels. Architectural metals shall not include ribbed or corrugated metal panel
systems."
RESPONSE:
Noted.
As illustrated in the responses above and the attached elevations, the exterior
materials used for the proposed project are compatible with the vocabulary of
Downtown. The goal of the project is to create a timeless elegant presence that
continues the flavor of the Old City Center south of Olive along College.
Also, Sec. 3.5.1 (E) requires that materials be similar to those already being used in
the area.
Page 3 of 14
RESPONSE:
Noted, see attached elevations.
Downtown is characterized by brick and local sandstone. These should be the
predominant material used. It is important to reiterate that high quality materials shall
be used for the entire height of the building and all sides.
RESPONSE:
The street elevations are characterized by the use of natural stone/masonry as an
anchoring base and brick as the main building material. Metal columns and panels
articulate more transparent part of the building base as well as separating the
vertical building masses. Above the fourth level simpler lighter materials are
introduced to reduce the perceived mass of the building, similarly to many other new
buildings in downtown. The degree of diversity seen in the proposed elevations
create a sense of scale experienced in the context of downtown and the allowed
building heights establish for the Downtown Sub Districts.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015 06/16/2015:
Multi -family dwellings with greater than 50 units are subject to review
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Type 2 projects are
required to have a neighborhood meeting at least two weeks prior to submitting the
Project Development Plan (PDP).
RESPONSE:
Noted.
The project has been presented to the immediate neighbors as well as an advertised
public neighborhood meeting on 8.22.2015.
Comment Number: 2
06/16/2015
Comment Originated:
06/16/2015:
At PDP submittal please provide the following additional information:
- Color perspective renderings
- Contextual elevations and sections (we can discuss what sections are necessary)
- Shadow study
Also, please provide us with the 3D model of your proposal so we can input it into
the downtown model we are creating for use with the Downtown Plan. This will help
tremendously with evaluating context and compatibility.
RESPONSE:
See attached drawings.
Page 4 of 14
A revised 3D model will be sent to your office for inclusion in your Downtown Plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Parking:
The proposed project has 270 bedrooms. As a student housing project, it appears
you will be using a rent -by -the -bedroom model, thus the requirement is 0.75 parking
spaces per bedroom equalling a minimum parking requirement of 203 parking
spaces. Reductions to this minimum requirement will have to very thoughtfully
vetted.
RESPONSE:
In response to the comments from staff, and to the public meeting on 8.22.2015, the
petitioner has adjusted the decade old business model by eliminating our marketing
strategy for a student shared environment and concentrate on market driven rentals.
This has: reduced the overall program of the development, eliminated all 4 bedroom
units; and revised the leasing model to rental by unit vs. by bed. These reductions
are reflected in revised minimum parking requirements (please refer to the attached
drawings).
The retail component is required to provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet and a maximum of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
RESPONSE:
Noted, all parking requirements will be met.
If more parking (or storage) is needed, the applicant is encouraged to contact the
owner of the underground parking at the Safeway shopping center, located one
block to the south.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 4
06/16/2015
Comment Originated:
06/16/2015:
Bicycle Parking:
Sec. 3.2.2 (C)(4) requires multi -family project to provide bike parking at one space
per bedroom in the form of 60% enclosed and 40% fixed. Please see Sec. 5.1 for the
defintions of enclosed and fixed bicycle parking. It is fine to exceed the enclosed bike
parking percentage but fixed spaces will need to be provided for retail and near the
residential entrances.
RESPONSE:
Noted, all bike parking requirements will be met.
Page 5 of 14
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Regarding Engineering's comment about not staging construction
materials and equipment in the public right-of-way, there is an area across the street
on the south side of Clock Tower Office building that could be used. Or, contact
McWhinney/Wells Fargo about staging in front of Sports Authority.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 6
06/16/2015
Comment Originated:
06/16/2015:
02/13/2015: Fort Collins only permits 3 unrelated people living in a dwelling unit. Sec.
3.8.16(E)(2) provides additional requirement if you propose to have 4 bedroom units:
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
RESPONSE:
In response to the comments from staff, and to the public meeting on 8.22.2015, the
petitioner has adjusted the decade old business model by eliminating our marketing
strategy for a student shared environment and concentrate on market driven rentals.
This has: reduced the overall program of the development, eliminated all 4 bedroom
units; and revised the leasing model to rental by unit vs. by bed.
(2) With respect to multiple -family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the
type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the
applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been
satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual
dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied
that the applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private,
to sustain the activities associated with multi -family residential development, to
adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent
neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space,
buffer yards, on -site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor
cafes, limited mixed -use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus
shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services.
RESPONSE:
Per response above, the removal of the four bedroom units was based on our desire
to adjust to community and staff comment. However, we will maintain our high
standard of built environment by the integration of amenities such as: on -site
management, business center, recreational areas, private outdoor courtyards and
recreational areas, first floor commercial mixed -use, increased sidewalks widths,
Pocket park at residential entry.
Comment Number: 7
06/16/2015
Comment Originated:
Page 6 of 14
06/16/2015:
In addition to the Downtown District standards, please review Sec.
3.5.3 (D & E) of the Land Use Code which provides additional requirements that will
help with breaking up the massing of the building and other facade treatments.
Noted
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(1) requires that "landscaping shall be designed as an
integral part of the development plan." In order to incorporate landscaping into
the design, you may have to setback portions of the ground floor. Also, it is important to
retain all existing trees.
RESPONSE:
The applicant team has participated in several site walks with the Department of
Forestry to evaluate the trees in relation to the building elevation. Adjustments to the
building are anticipated per those discussions. (See submitted "tree report" memo from
David Jordan, ISA certified arborist).
All existing right -of way trees are marked as 'to be protected/remain'. There are four
small trees located within the property boundary adjacent to the existing Perkins
building. These trees have been discussed with Forestry and are noted as 'to be
removed' as they are centrally located on -site and conflict with the building.
The site has been evaluated and designed to provide a cohesive landscape/hardscape
plan which is consistent with the downtown area. Inclusive of maintain the tree lawn
along the sidewalks.
The character of the street frontage is going to be determined by how you address the
floodplain. Flood proofing the building will allow for a more consistent grade and
streetscape. If you propose to raise the building entrances out of the floodplain, it will
require a very thoughtful design that will still engage the building with the public realm.
RESPONSE: In careful response to the existing context and continuation of College
Avenue, the building/sidewalk interface has been designed in a manner which allows for
direct access from the walks to building doors without the need for stairs or elevated
entrances. The design team will provide adequate flood control measures necessary to
mitigate risk and provide a seamless transition and continuation of the walkable
downtown.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number:
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(b) & (E)(1)(c) require the inclusion of plaza space for
active and passive public use. This also provides an opportunity to incorporate more
Page 7of14
landscaping into the design.
RESPONSE:
A pocket park/plaza is provided on the south side of the building near the entry
adjacent to a paseo which will provide pedestrian connections from College Avenue to
the alley. We noted this feature to be appreciated by some citizens in the neighborhood
meeting, and feel an opportunity to provide massing relief to the street front and our
neighbors to the South. The connectivity that this pocket park and east/west paseo,
coming to College Avenue, provide to the neighborhood was seen as a welcoming
amenity becomes as well as a great benefit to future development to the south.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015:
The current sidewalk is an inadequate width for the amount of activity
that the proposed use will generate. But, the planting strip is in good shape and the
trees are healthy. The sidewalk should be widened onto the development site and
incorporated into plaza spaces as noted in Site Plan comment #1.
RESPONSE:
The walk has been widened and meets the requirements per the Land Use Code. The
'tree lawn edge' of the walk has been maintained.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slanaenberger0ftgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Marc Ragasa mragasa@fcgov.com or 221-603 will be the Engineer
assigned to this project. Please contact him if you have further questions regarding the
engineering comments or requirements.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at
the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any
questions.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the
time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see:
Page 8 of 14
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/05/2015
02/05/2015: Bicycle Parking:
Sec. 3.2.2 (C)(4) requires multi -family project to provide bike parking at one space per
bedroom in the form of 60% enclosed and 40% fixed. Please see Sec. 5.1 for the
definitions of enclosed and fixed bicycle parking. It is fine to exceed the enclosed bike
parking percentage but fixed spaces will need to be provided for retail and near the
residential entrances.
Response to 1-5
Our typical proposals rely on the value of stakeholder input from all levels. In pursuit of this
we would like to engage with the city's required neighborhood meetings as quickly as
allowed, and provide a forum for additional neighbor and business association input as early
in the process as possible. Additional requested exhibits will be provided for viewing at the
staff and neighborhood stakeholder levels.
Parking as provided reflects all of our required stalls. Contact with neighbor is part of our
next steps to gather meaningful feedback from all local stakeholders. We will explore any
available options for parking any discovered overages encountered through design process.
Our conceived strategies in many markets are in alignment with the city's downtown
guidelines by utilizing alternative trasnportation strategies. Furthermore, we anticipate
meeting or exceeding the minimum bicycle parking requirements of 60% enclosed and 40%
fixed for tenants.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: Regarding Engineering's comment about not staging construction materials
and equipment in the public right-of-way, there is an area across the street on the south
side of Clock Tower Office building that could be used. Or, contact McWhinney/Wells
Fargo about staging in front of Sports Authority.
The need for adequate and unobtrusive construction staging is evident in this location. We
have reached out to our neighbor immediately to the South, and will continue to engage other
neighbors mentioned in this report to remain efficient while maintaining public safety and
convenience.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: Fort Collins only permits 3 unrelated people living in a dwelling unit. Sec.
3.8.16(E)(2) provides additional requirement if you propose to have 4 bedroom units:
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple -family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type
of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant
and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase
the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The
decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has
provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the activities
associated with multi -family residential development, to adequately serve the occupants
of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may
include, without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on -site management,
recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed -use restaurants,
parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and
services..
Page 3 of 21
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. It should be noted that this project proposes to reconstruct the
sidewalk ramps at the southeast corner of College and Olive to mitigate existing
adverse drainage conditions, thereby improving functionality for pedestrians of all
abilities as well as enhancing the quality and aesthetics of the hardscape along the
street fronts.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06117/2015: 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
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements
that are necessary for this project.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. In October of 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 — 0 to
approve the Belle Claire Project Development Plan (PDP# 26-05) for this site. The
current subdivision plat proposal is in general conformance with the previously
approved plan, which did not contemplate any additional right-of-way or easement
dedication. The exception is that the new development proposal will dedicate
additional on -site public access, emergency access, drainage and utility easements
along the south and east property lines.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be
recorded once the project is finalized.
Page 9 of 14
RESPONSE:
Arknn�nrlarinar'I
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway and all access to the site is
governed by CDOT. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the
applicant will need to obtain access permits from CDOT for any access changes
(closure and/or change of use or change in construction). The proposed side by side
access shown on the plans will not be allowed or approved by the City or CDOT.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. This development proposes to abandon the existing curb cut on
College, replacing it with parallel parking spaces. This should be viewed favorably from
a CDOT access management perspective.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: We actually recommend that the access be taken off of the alley. This will
allow for additional parallel parking to exist on College where the driveway goes away.
RESPONSE: The College access was removed between the February 2015 and the
May 2015 PDR submittals.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: With the proposed zero setback the building will need to be setback so
that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk before pulling out across the
sidewalk. This setback can be less when the access enters onto the alley as there is
not an adjacent sidewalk.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. An additional 5-ft public access, emergency access, drainage, and
utility easement will be dedicated along the west side of the alley, which will serve to
mitigate potential conflicts. The access points into the garage off the alley are
separated from major pedestrian crossing locations, which will further improve the
situation.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The alley adjacent to the site will need to be improved. In particular the
alley/ olive intersection grades need to be improved so that emergency vehicles and
other vehicles can safely and easily utilize this access point.
V*i90I614
Acknowledged. These public improvements will be made as part of the development.
Page 10 of 14
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to
starting any work on the site.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Really need to think through the design and construction of the basement
for this building. Tie backs into the right-of-way will not be allowed. The foundation
needs to be constructed in such a way that it doesn't encroach into the ROW.
RESPONSE: Noted. We are exploring a variety of shoring/ foundation systems that
are absent of tie -backs and do not require any excavation into the ROW.
This exploration is advantageous for two reasons; one is separation and preservation
from the roots of the trees in the ROW and two; to keep the equipment mast from
damaging the tree canopy.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
RESPONSE:
Noted. We contemplate having local, but remote contractor parking that would
consider either public or shuttle transportation to the site. Any and all ROW requests
will be sought in the interest of public safety vs. construction storage, loading or
staging.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. At this point, no encroachments are contemplated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The public right-of-way should be free of any encroachment of
Page 11 of 14
structures such as steps and patios. Doors shall not swing out into public right-
of-way and will either need to be recessed, or swing inward (into private
property). Underground detention systems, LID/PLD measures should similarly be
located out of public right-of-way. Above ground transformers are not allowed within the
right-of-way or parkway and will need to be accommodated on site.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. At this point, no encroachments are contemplated.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be
followed depending on parking design.
I MM21611MA
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The sidewalk adjacent to this site is narrower than the standard downtown
sidewalk, but has worked since it is adjacent to a parking lot and not adjacent to a
building. With a building being placed at 0 setback or adjacent to the ROW the
sidewalk does need to be widened. The minimum clear sidewalk requirement for
downtown is 7 feet. Additional discussions with Engineering and planning are needed
to determine what the frontage is going to look like how the sidewalk needs can be met
and achieved.
RESPONSE:
The sidewalks along College and Olive will be reconstructed to a minimum width of 7-ft.
The building will be setback a minimum distance of 2-ft from the College ROW. The
setback area will be paved, thereby serving as an extension of the sidewalk system
and providing an effective clear width of 9-ft. Furthermore, the building entrances will
be setback another 4-ft, providing additional pedestrian relief at the ground level.
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Baseline storm water treatment for this site is already provided in the
Udall Natural Area. Any rain gardens proposed in the ROW would be above
minimum code requirements, such that this development will remain compliant should
any rain gardens be removed or modified in the future.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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
Page 12 of 14
bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Any potential bike parking in the ROW would be added at a later
date via an encroachment permit, and would be above and beyond any code
minimum requirements for bike parking.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimnleMcgQycorn
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: Same comments as 2/10/2015 - with respect to landscaping and design,
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use
native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass
lawns as much as possible
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. The planting design for this site will conform with the Land Use Code.
Existing bluegrass tree lawns (tree lawns located in the right -of way) shall remain but
new bluegrass lawns are not proposed.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinbergC8fcao^om
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
This project is located near several properties that are either potentially eligible for
designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, eligible for designation as Fort Collins
Landmarks, or that have been designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. For this reason,
the project will be reviewed for compliance with LUC 3.4.7
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum
extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated
into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the
characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect
the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the
historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding
neighborhood
RESPONSE:
Noted. Please clarify, as this comment recites (1) and (2), but description would
suggest only (2) is applicable.
Page 13 of 14
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
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.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any
historic property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and
qualifies [as an individual landmark]. New structures must be compatible with the
historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or
adjacent thereto.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
There is concern regarding the relationship and compatibility of the proposed building to
the historic residential district (Laurel School National Register Historic District) just to
the east of the project site. Also, there is concern regarding the proposed building's
other three elevations and their relationship to the street and the historic character of
College Avenue to the north. To address these concerns, massing needs to be broken
up with articulation and modulation that picks up on the traditional one and two story
nature of the surrounding context. Upper stories, above the first and second story,
should be substantially stepped back to emphasize a strong base element. The base
element should be modulated in a way that picks up on the retail context of the
blockface, including elements like awnings, recessed storefronts, glazing, etc.
Additionally, dominant building material choices shall be derived from the surrounding
historic context 6 brick, stone, etc. Furthermore, while the project is not located within
the Old Town Historic District, many of the principles for compatible new construction
contained in the Design Standards for the District will be helpful in designing a project
for this location: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/ftc oldtown_finalJuly2014_low.pdf
Also, see LUC 3.4.7 (F) for specific language regarding compatible new construction.
RESPONSE:
Noted
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties
Page 14 of 14
containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-
mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of
Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially
designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall
receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission unless the 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."
Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark
Preservation Commission. The Commission meets the second Wednesday of each
month for Regular Meetings where recommendations can be given, and the fourth
Wednesday of each month where design review sessions are available.
RESPONSE:
Noted.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoffMcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 3-Phase power is available along Olive St. There is also an existing
3-phase service to the existing building along the alley way on the S.E. corner of the
property. There may be options to re -purpose portions of that service to serve the new
building.
RESPONSE:
The existing 3-phase transformer near the southeast property comer will be upgraded to
serve the new development. This will require careful coordination with Light & Power
and the property owner to the south to minimize any disruption of service.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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:
Acknowledged. This will be provided during the Final Plan portion of the development review
process.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Page 15 of 14
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged, thank you. Our team will be in -touch throughout the process.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwilerQnoudre-fire.ora
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM
> 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 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.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Design will be in compliance of the 2012 IFC.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FDC
> IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA
standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings,
fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle
access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department.
RESPONSE:
The FDC will be located at the northeast corner of the building, facing Olive St.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS
> 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Hydrant numbers and locations will be confirmed once Comments 4 &
5, below, are resolved.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
The site plan does not provide for minimum fire access for aerial apparatus required by
code. The PFA will be working with the project team to meet the intent of the fire code
through alternative means of compliance. PFA advises the project team to consider high
rise provisions in future discussions. Should the highest occupied floor exceed 75' in
Page 16 of 14
height, all high rise provisions shall apply.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Design will be in compliance of the 2012 IFC, FCLU, Poudre Fire Authority Bureau
Admin Policy, and Division of Community Safety Services and will be used with respect to the
design of the site and building life safety and fire protection standards. We will also make
work with the Poudre Valley Fire authority to provide any preferential design alternatives
possible, per discussion with Jim Lynxwiler on 3/30/2105 these may include but are not
limited to: sprinkler system; roof access for fire fighters; areas of refuge in stairwell; 2 hour
protected and possible pressurized stairwell; fire separation between portions of the building
as required by code. The design team will strive to maintain a dynamic engagement with the
Poudre Valley fire authority throughout the approval process.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/19/2015
06/19/2015: Prior comments from earlier PDR remain active.
RESPONSE:
Noted. We intend to address specific alternative measures with Jim at Poudre Valley Fire
Authority, as the DRT proceeds.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sbovleftfcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. This is included with the preliminary drainage report.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 5,000 square feet a
drainage and 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. Standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage
engineer. If there is less than 5,000 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 5,000 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.
RESPONSE:
Page 17 of 14
Acknowledged. See the preliminary drainage report for additional information.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: When there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square
feet on an existing development, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic
release rate for water quantity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as
long as it is not deeper than one foot. If there is less than 5000 but more than 350
square feet of new impervious area; a grading and erosion control plan is required
instead of a complete construction plan set.
RESPONSE:
The increase in impervious area is less than 5,000 sq.ft.; therefore, on -site detention is
not required.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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)
RESPONSE:
While the minimum code requirements for water quality treatment are already provided
in the Udall Natural Area, additional on -site BMPs are being explored. Items such as
in -line filters on the roof drains, a mechanical separator for the parking structure, and
permeable pavers in the pocket park/paseo will be further evaluated, but are not
required.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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 new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. For more
information please refer to the City's website where additional information and links can
be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-impac t-
development
RESPONSE:
Since the parking structure is entirely covered by rooftops and other uses, it is exempt
from the 25% permeable pavement metric. The other components of the LID
regulations are satisfied in the Udall Natural Area. Additional measures will be
explored through the systems described in the response to Comment #4, above.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre ($0.1795
Page 18 of 14
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: In addition to the Downtown District standards, please review Sec.
3.5.3 (D & E) of the Land Use Code which provides additional requirements that will help
with breaking up the massing of the building and other facade treatments.
Response to 7-8
We intend for the development to meet or exceed the criteria listed in Sec. 3.8.16(E)(2),
by the integration of such design elements as: on -site management, business center,
indoor and outdoor recreational areas, outdoor street level and above grade courtyards,
first floor commercial mixed -use, increased sidewalks, Pocket park at residential entry.
We would be open to discuss the city's desires for R.O.W elements mentioned (e.g. bus
shelters, etc.).
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/04/2015
02/04/2015: Sec. 4.16 (13)(1) requires that "landscaping shall be designed as an integral
part of the development plan." Some of the renderings show landscaping on the 3rd floor
but the floor plans do not match. In order to incorporate landscaping into the design, you
may have to setback portions of the ground floor. Also, it is important to retail all existing
trees.
The character of the street frontage is going to be determined by how you address the
floodplain. Flood proofing the building will allow for a more consistent grade and
streetscape. If you propose to raise the building entrances out of the floodplain, it will
require a very thoughtful design that will still engage the building with the public realm.
Numerous challenges face this site in regards to the landscape design, and at this time are
not developed more than conceptual stage. Based on the existing preservation request by
city, and the building coverage and orientation, the landscape design will be carefully vetted in
terms of species placement and regional year round appeal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/05/2015
02/05/2015: Sec. 4.16 (D)(5)(b) & (E)(1)(c) require the inclusion of plaza space for active
and passive public use. This also provides an opportunity to incorporate more
landscaping into the design.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The current sidewalk is an inadequate width for the amount of activity that
the proposed use will generate. But, the planting strip is in good shape and the trees are
healthy. The sidewalk should be widened onto the development site and incorporated into
plaza spaces as noted in Site Plan comment #1.
Response to 1, 3
Site circulation utilizes existing entrance points for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The
mid -block curb cut along College Avenue will be abandoned, a landscape strip will be added,
and two parking spaces will be gained along College. Access from Olive Street to the Alley
will be the only full movement vehicular access to serve as the primary access for all vehicles
entering the building proposed garage which access form the Alley.
Page 4 of 21
sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a
$1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.-ft.) 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 on the City's web site 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.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 06/17/2015
06/17/2015: 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 Manual.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. See the preliminary drainage report for additional information.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty `goy._
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
06/15/2015: No comments.
Comment Originated: 06/15/2015
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinsoni-fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: We may have more comments once the TIS is received and reviewed.
RESPONSE:
Noted. Please see submitted TIS performed by ELB engineering, LLC for your review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: The alley will see pretty significant traffic volumes with this
development, so we'll want to make sure that alley circulation is good, that alley access to
Olive and Magnolia works well, and we'll need to ensure sight distance along and into the
alley is adequate.
RESPONSE:
The design will be compliant with all required sight clearances necessary for the safe
navigation into and out of the alley as a way to ensure pedestrian safety. Please see the
Page 19 of 14
submitted TIS for calculated volumes.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/16/2015
06/16/2015: Be thinking about bike storage in the garage, such as cages, etc.
RESPONSE:
All required on -site bike storage shall be secured, and have at grade access from the
garage, common are circulation and the ROW. This is to ease the cross traffic concerns
with vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyleOfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Existing water mains in the area include a 4" main in College, an 8"
main in Olive, and a 6" main in Remington. Sanitary sewers in this area include a 6"
main in the alley to the east of the site.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
06/17/2015
Comment Originated:
06/17/2015: There is an existing 4" fire line tapped off the 4" main in College with a
2" water service tapped off the fire line. Existing sewer service is from the main in
the alley. These services will need to be reused with the proposed development or
abandoned at the main.
RESPONSE:
The existing 4" water line from College will be abandoned at the main. The existing
sewer service will be further evaluated for re -use, but will likely be abandoned at the
main.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Separate water and sewer services will be required for the residential
and non-residential portions of the building. Grease interceptors will be required for
any restaurants in the project.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged. Separate services and a grease interceptor will be provided.
Page 20 of 14
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: Given that this development is tying into a 6" sewer main, sewer
modeling using peak flows from the development should be completed to ascertain
whether the sewer has adequate capacity for this scale of development. The City
can help with this modeling as the demands for the building become known. Any
upsizing of the existing sewer main due to impacts from this development will be at
the cost of the developer and will need to be included as part of this development.
RESPONSE:
The current proposal includes boring/bursting a new 8" sanitary sewer line under
Olive to the north, which will connect into an existing 8" public sewer main. The
Applicant's design team will continue to work with Fort Collins Utilities as the project
evolves to ensure wastewater is properly designed and coordinated.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
06/17/2015
06/17/2015: It is questionable whether sufficient water service for this site can be
provided from the 4" main in College. Likely, water service from the 8" main in Olive
and/or multiple taps to serve the development would be a better scenario.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. The existing 4" line from College will be abandoned at the main. New
water taps will be made on the existing 8" main in Olive near the alley.
Comment Number: 6
06/17/2015
Comment Originated:
06/17/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will
apply. Information on these requirements can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/standards
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated:
06/17/2015 06/17/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building
permit.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. It is kindly requested that Staff provides the
corresponding credits available for the existing water and sewer services already
provided to the property.
Department: Zoning
Contact: GaryLopez, 970-416-2338, alone cao` v.com
Page 21 of 14
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
06/03/2015
Comment Originated:
06/03/2015: 1 came up with 193 spaces in which one would be a van accessible
space & the number might include 2 regular handicap spaces (on Level M and 01) if
indeed these will be such. If so that still leaves 4 he spaces unaccounted for the
minimum required.
RESPONSE:
Please refer the attached drawings which illustrate the specific parking provided for
all uses. Note that the number of apartments as well as the area of commercial
space provided for rent has been reduced considerably.
Page 22 of 14
Community Developmentand
Neighborhood Services
281 North CollegeAvenue PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
kgov.corn/devekpmentreview
August 10, 2015
Cathy Mathis
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Uncommon (310 S College), PDP150013, 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: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, . ,
slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
08/04/2015
Comment Originated:
08/04/2015: Building Materials
Sec. 4.16 (13)(5)(e) requires that "All street -facing facades shall be constructed of high
quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with the
exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-
cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any
combination thereof. Except for windows, material modules shall not exceed either five
(5) feet horizontally or three (3) feet vertically without the clear expression of a joint. For
the purposes of this provision, architectural metalsshall mean metal panel systems that
are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with expressed seams; metal framing
systems; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal panels. Architectural metals shall not
include ribbed or corrugated metal panel systems."
The proposed facade includes use of Stucco and Fiber Cement Siding which are not
permitted. A Modification of Standard will need to be requested.
Additionally, please explain what material is proposed along the ground floor of the east
side.
RESPONSE: Indeed, the materials for the exterior of the buildings have been selected based on the
contextual nature of the downtown with the goal of continuing, on this transition site, the pedestrian
nature of the street fronts with the use of elegant and timeless materials in accordance with the
requirements of the City. We are proposing the use of brick as the predominant material used on the
street facades, with different brick colors for the three primary masses along College and Olive so as
to differentiate these three elements with similar proportions of other buildings facing College. The
retail base along these two street fronts is articulated with the use of brick, stone, masonry, large
__ a,. ,.:-1_ I_ I__ A a a.... ,. .r 4. ,,. ,.,a_1 '_l:._,,.
S WI GII UIILJ Qi IU JIGGI CVIUIIIIIS. LIy11LGi I1IQlG11QIJ SUCI1 QJ IIQI U-L,VQL OLUCCV, QI iU IICI ILVIILGI Jf V11 IlJ. a1G
used at upper recessed levels and along the alley facade, again following the design modulations and
materiality of other great buildings in the core of downtown. The use of these lighter materials will help
these uppers floors, which are set back from the street facade, to visually recede even further to form
a backdrop for the elegant brick elements helping define the retail base and the main body of the
buildings up to four stories. A modification of standard will be sought for the use of stucco and
horizontal siding, which are employed to further help compositionally minimize building mass.
Architectural metals (steel wide flange beams) are proposed along the street facades below the
storefront. At the alley, exposed concrete is proposed for durability. See the elevations for more
detail.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Prior to the PDP submittal, the proposed project has had multiple revisions and four
separate meetings between staff and the applicant to discuss its size and mass in the context
of downtown (2 PDR Staff Review meetings, 2 additional charrette-style design meetings).
Staffs comments have remained consistent that a building of this size, in terms of bulk and
mass, is out of scale with downtown and incompatible with the existing context.
Response: Since the PDR submittal in May, the project has been reduced from 270 beds to
248 (8% reduction) and from 167,700 sf to 150,300 sf (10% reduction). In addition, other
measures have been taken to reduce the apparent height and mass — set -back at level 5 and
level 6, removal of "connectors" between wings, and differentiation of the three major masses
(these are discussed in greater detail later). All these contribute to a very significant
modification of the proposed project as a result of discussions with staff.
We also assert that the project is consistent with the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) for sites
within the Infill/Transition Area. In fact, the subject property is specifically identified as a
"redevelopment parcel" (Figure 3.56). The DSP supports buildings taller than 3 stories and
acknowledges that "redevelopment will likely require buildings that are larger than the majority
of existing buildings in the area" (2.2.1.a.) and that "this area is THE primary place to allow a
dynamic, mixed urban environment with building of widely varied sizes and functions"
(2.2.1.b., emphasis ours).
The DSP goes on to say "Carefully locate and shape taller buildings (4-12 stories) in the west
side Infill/Transition Area to respond to defining characteristics of the surrounding context"
(3.2.2.). Techniques noted to mass include "Base" (3.2.2.b.1.) and "Step Back" (3.2.2.b.2.),
both of which we are doing. It also discusses "Maximum Height' (3.2.2.b.4.), noting that the
Maximum Heights Map (Figure 2.6 and reproduced in the Land Use Code) "represent a
compromise among various interests". 3.2.2.c. notes that "Various interest groups generally
agree that building ups to about 6-1/2 stories (about 80') can be acceptable throughout the
area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing structures taller than that. Standards
should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly straightforward review based
on the general agreement on key parameters" (3.2.2.c., emphasis ours).
The proposed building is 240' in length and 134' wide and greater than 70' in height for the
majority of the east side's 240' length, making it much larger than any buildings downtown
(150,200 SF, FAR 4.29, 148 DU/AC). Specifically, it does not meet the following standards:
Response: The current vision for the Downtown Sub -Districts (as illustrated in the Land Use
Code Building Heights Map, Figure 18.5) anticipates a crescendo of heights from a maximum
of 4 stories/45' in the Old City Center Sub -District, to a maximum of 6 stories/85' on the
transitional block along College in the Canyon Avenue Sub -district (where this project is
located). Just a block south, within the same Sub -district, a maximum height of 9 stories/115'
is allowed. The City vision for this crescendo in building height as one progresses out from
the Old City Center, allows a maximum height of 12 stories/150' just one block from this site
to the northwest. The current city vison, as is outline in the Land Use Code, anticipates new
development with the parameters documented above.
Within the Downtown District, there are numerous large and tall buildings, some of which are
larger and taller than the proposed project. Some examples are: the DMA Plaza Oust 1 block
away from the subject property), which is eleven stories and estimated to be over 100' tall, the
Larimer County Justice Center is five tall stories and estimated to be at least 60' tall, the
Larimer County Courthouse Offices Building (2 blocks away) is six stories and estimated to be
120,000 s.f. and 70' tall, the First National Bank building (2 blocks away) is 12 stories and
estimated to be 130' tall, the Key Bank building (3 blocks away) is 11 stories and estimated to
be 105,000 s.f. and over 130' tall, and the Civic Center Garage is approximately 390' long,
185' wide and 250,000 s.f. in area. Clearly, the proposed building is neither the tallest, nor
the largest building in the downtown.
Regarding the proposed length of the building facades along College Avenue, the design,
based on staff input, has evolved to express the historical modulation, proportion and scale of
the retail fronts along the pedestrian streets of the city core. Following the approximately 25'
width of the old platted parcels, the retail base articulates this rhythm in three different masses
that communicate three different buildings with distinctly (and differently) detailed facades
along a new highly -detailed street front. A defined building base of approximately 18' (from
the sidewalk to the top of the first floor) matches the datum (water mark) established by other
buildings in the neighborhood.
Building area, FAR, and DU/acre are not listed as criteria toward compatibility. Additionally, the
density (DU/acre) has been purposefully set by the decision to provide smaller, more compact
units in an effort to keep rents at a reasonable level. The discussion of density and
affordability in the city core has been a focus of several visioning sessions organized by the City
with input from the neighbors and city experts.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height,
or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and
scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject
property, opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See
Figures 7a and 7b.)
RESPONSE: As the project sits on a larger site than any other in the immediate
neighborhood (with the exception of the new proposal for the Bohemian Hotel) and in
response to the dialogue with staff, the mass of the building along College Avenue has been
subdivided into three major elements that sit over a retail base (as illustrated in the previous
response). The purpose of this is to break the facade along College into three distinct
buildings and to reduce the perceived scale from the street up to 4 stories. This revision of the
previous design, which had a continuing facade along College, was accomplished by
removing the connecting elements between the three masses, further separating these three
building elements, reducing the apparent mass of the building, and opening the second story
courtyards to the west. These three masses have been differentiated in detail, character, and
color (by the use of different brick materials) to further emphasize each as an individual
component and give the impression of three separate buildings similar to other existing
buildings within the downtown. The first floor storefront of the building is also reinforced by a
strong cornice with the building set back above, which aligns with the single -story buildings
along College Avenue and the storefront portion of the Armstrong, emphasizing the
pedestrian scale. This strong datum "water mark" also meets the requirement of
4.16(D)(4)(b)2.
(G) Building Height Review.
(1) Special Height Review/Modifications.
(a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greaterthan forty (40) feet
in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria:
3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative
height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale.
As noted above, by articulating the building into 3 masses, the building is compatible with the
scale of the neighborhood in terms of height to mass and length to mass. As to the relative
height, the DMA Plaza apartment building (just 1 block away) is over 100' tall, which is at least
25' taller than the proposed building. Furthermore, the building height is mitigated by placing
the tallest portion of the building away from street frontages, thus reducing the visual impact.
The project is compatible to the human scale of the neighborhood by the creation of a
storefront band at the ground level that varies along College Avenue and Olive Street.
The set back at level 4 further reduces the apparent mass and scale of the building and is
enhanced by a change to lighter materials (horizontal siding and stucco). The set -back has
been set at 35-degree angle above the roofline as required for the fourth floor in the Old City
Center Sub -district (Figure 19 of the Land Use Code). While the project is not located in the
Old City Center Sub -district, we felt that the condition and objective are similar and that use of
this standard is an appropriate method of compliance. See sheet PDP 10 for demonstration
of our application of this standard.
DIVISION 4.16 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT(D)
(E) Site Design Standards.
(1) Site Design.
(c) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Plazas. For buildings located within the Canyon
Avenue and Civic Center sub -districts that are four (4) stories or taller, ground floor open
space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive
activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to
the public and must include featuresthat express and promote a comfortable human sense
of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made.
RESPONSE: We have removed a portion of the building and added a plaza at the south end
of the property, which is the portal of activity at mid -block along College Avenue and is the
connection to the Paseo that serves as the pedestrian link connecting College with the alley.
This neighborhood amenity is open to the public, promotes a sense of pedestrian scale and is
in line for the vison of the city to allow connectivity as it links College with the alley and
neighboring properties. This amenity is born from the urban fabric of Fort Collins and meets
this requirement.
The Paseo and plaza have high visibility from College Avenue and provide relief from the
street frontage, which extends virtually unbroken from the property north all the way to Walnut
Street. This "pocket plaza" is envisioned as more of an urban space with landscaping as
accents, providing a place to eat lunch, read, study, or just hang out. The plaza will be
activated by apartment residents entering and exiting the building. The Paseo also provides a
connection for building residents and the public to the alley. This alley would be a logical
extension of the alley improvement program, and in fact, is identified in the Downtown Alleys
Masterplan Report as a possible future connection to the alley north of Olive Street. In
addition to the Paseo, the storefront along College Avenue is recessed by 5-1/2' at the center
portion. A portion of this area will be used for bike racks, but is also available for outdoor
dining, seating, and passive contemplation of city life.
And, Forestry comment #4 regarding stepping back the building to provide space for the street
tree canopy.
In order to comply with the above standards, the proposal needs to provide additional "ground
floor open space" for public access and to break up the building mass to promote a
"comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment".
Based on the proposed building height, mass and bulk, it appears that the overall mass of the
building must be reduced significantlyto be "compatible with the scale of the neighborhood
(defined as "other structures on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject
property, opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection") in which
[it is] situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or
structure scale to human scale" and to be
RESPONSE: The building facades along the street fronts have been carefully coordinated with the
City Forester to ensure that the existing tree canopies are respected to promote their long life.
Additional street trees are also proposed to provide shade for future generations. The facade of the
building along College Avenue has been set back two feet from the property line so as to offer additional
open space for public use. The new Plaza brings a public space under the building similar to the Wells
Fargo building across the street, creating a protected space for public use. The building mass in the
middle of College increases the width of the sidewalk as the building is set back from the property line,
again creating additional comfortable human space to enjoy the storefronts or have the ability to have
cafe style seating along the sidewalk within the property line.
If the project's constraints will not permit such a reduction in size to meet the requirements of the
code, staff is willing to bring the project to the Planning and Zoning Board, with a recommendation
of denial, as soon as other reviewing agencies are comfortable.
RESPONSE: We believe the concessions made to date meet the standards laid out in the City's Land
Use Code, to the maximum extent feasible. We would ask the planning staff to consider submitted
responses and design revisions in hope that our understanding of the Land Use Code can be
confirmed, and therefore supported by the planning staff.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Photometric Plan
Please provide a photometric plan that shows lighting levels in foot-candle
measurements. The Light Loss Factor (LLF) should be set at 1.0. Please see
standards in Section 3.2.4 for permitted levels and design details. The photometric
plan needs to show light levels up to 20 feet beyond the property line.
RESPONSE: A photometric plan is included in the resubmittal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Bicycle Parking
The total on the site plan reads 256 spaces (186 secured); but the subtotals add up to
262, please revise. Please show floor plans indicating where the enclosed bike parking
is located. The bike parking shall meet the definitions as follows (theutility plans show
bike parking at 3.5 s.f. per space; the code requires 6 s.f. per space):
Bicycle parking, enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space
within a parking structure or other building, including, without limitation, a shed or
carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances
and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space
shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not
impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access.
RESPONSE: Current bike parking count is 209 in the secured indoor storage room, 24 in the
garage, and 28 at the exterior, for a total of 261. The table has been updated accordingly.
The site plan indicates location of all racks. With such a large number of bikes stored
indoors, a vertical storage system is proposed to make the facility more efficient. For this
system, the manufacturer recommends allowing 16"x40" for each bike (4.4 s.f.) with a 36"
aisle. We have provided 16" x 40" with a 4'-8" (minimum) aisle. If this is acceptable, a formal
variance will be submitted.
Bicycle parking, fixed shall mean bicycle parking that allows the bicycle frame and both
wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent
construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the
pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least two (2) feet in width
and five and one-half (5'/2) feet in length, with additional back -out or maneuvering space of at
least five (5)feet.
RESPONSE: Spacing of fixed U-racks at the exterior and garage has been based on
LCUASS standards, which indicate a spacing of 2.5' (drawing 1703). 5.5' in length will be
allowed for bikes with at least a 5' aisle. Since each rack accommodates two bikes, this yields
a width of 1.25' for each bike. Please clarify which standard is to be applied.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated:
08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Vehicle Parking
In order to receive the transit pass 10% reduction for parking, you will need to purchase 250
transit passes on an annual basis to provide for tenants. We can make it a condition of
approval that can happen prior to C.O.
RESPONSE: Every tenant who does not already possess, or require due to age, a MAX Pass,
would be provided one as part of their lease agreement and have it issued in conjunction with
their move in. Please see attached Management Plan. As stated in TDO Overlay Zone District -
Section 3.2.2K(1)(a)1.a. in the Demand Mitigation Strategy table, "All demand mitigation
strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement..."
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated:
08/07/2015 08/07/2015:
The proposed plan does not provide outdoor spaces as required per Sec. 3.10.3(C):
"Outdoor Spaces. To the extent reasonably feasible, buildings and extensions of buildings
shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plazas, arcades, terraces,
balconies and decks for residents' and workers' use and interaction, and to integrate the
Pedestrian circulation along the ROW will be enhanced to follow the character of College; we
plan to maintain the existing landscaped median and will widen the sidewalk in front of the
building. The corner of College and Olive will create an ironing fagade, on top, with a carefully
articulate hard and soft landscaped corner at the street level.
Along College, at the south end, we are envisioning a Pocket Park, approximately 20 by 40
feet in size, which will allow the main entry to the residential lobby. We are also considering a
pedestrian Paseo walk (east -west) to connect College to the Alley along the southern most
property line. This significant park would create a condition for people to gather in and
potentially private businesses to extend into as a patio.
The alleyway is a north -south access that will allow pedestrians to link to other Old Town
alleys, conforming to the Alley Enhancement Master Plan that highlights such linkages.
The Olive Street right of way will be improved to create an urban streetscape condition that
supports activating the ground floors of the potential retail level on the corner of College
Avenue and Olive Street. This streetscape will allow for safe passage of pedestrians east -
west. The improvements to the streetscape could allow the moving of the angled parking in so
that the building is only 30 feet away from the parked cars; this proposal shall be reviewed in
more detail with all parties.
The development coordinates with and enhances the existing neighborhood by utilizing the
existing alleyway, reducing driveway access from College Avenue, and improves movement
to, through and around the site from all locations.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6673, slangenbergerQfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due
at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any
questions.
Comment acknowledged. We have reached out to Matt Baker to determine the amount and
discuss the timing associated with payment.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the
time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see:
hftp:/twww.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: 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.
This is standard operating procedure for any of our developments, and reparations of any
ROW damage done by construction efforts will be remedied at the cost of the owner.
Page 5 of 21
development with the adjacent physical context. To the extent reasonably feasible, a
continuous walkway system linking such outdoor spaces shall be developed, and shall
include coordinated linkages between separate developments."
RESPONSE: The Plaza at grade south of the building, the connecting Paseo, and the level 2
roof top courtyards meet this requirement. These courtyards were not shown clearly in the
previous submittal as the building fagade along College blocked their view. As the previous
concept has evolved to illustrate three buildings facing west, the courtyards are now open to
view and create the ability to bring landscape over the retails fronts as well as relief from the
buildings above. A plan has now been included. These spaces provide ample opportunities for
resident passive use and interaction. The Paseo also provides a link from College Avenue and
the alley, which will improve pedestrian connectivity in this part of the downtown core as part of
the Downtown Alleys Masterplan.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.66Q3,,ragasa@fpgov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Show all proposed easements on the Utility Plan. 10' Public Access,
Drainage and Utility Easement to the south and a 5' Access, Emergency Access,
X Drainage and Utility Easement to the east.
/ RESPONSE: The requested easements are now shown and labeled on all sheets.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Show ROW lines along South College Avenue and Olive Street.
RESPONSE: The existing ROW lines are better shown and labeled on all sheets.
Comment Number: 3
08/05/2015:
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
Please coordinate with CDOT for the required permits needed to remove the existing
concrete driveway.
ESPONSE: When the project is approved by the City of Fort Collins, the owners will
repare the necessary Access Permit Modification and proceed with the closure of the
driveway onto U287 (College Avenue). Preliminary discussions with CDOT Region IV
have already occurred regarding the access permit.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: The driveway off of Olive Street to the alley does not meetstandards. The
slope from the front of walk to the flowline is 1" per LF. What is being proposed is about
3" greater than the maximum. Please refer to LCUASS drawing 803 for Alley
Intersection details. There are details for an alley with side drainage orwith center
drainage.
RESPONSE: The preliminary design for this intersection has been revised. Additional
design detail will come during Final Plan to ensure requirements for ADA accessibility, fire
truck ridability, and nuisance drainage are met.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08/05/2015: ADA ramps/truncated domes are required on either side of
the alley access off of Olive Street. Please see LCUASS drawing 803 for Alley
Intersection details.
RESPONSE: HUH ramps and truncatea domes are now shown on the pians.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Based on the elevations, it appears that there are a number of doors that
line the building along College Avenue and Olive Street. Please be aware that doors
can't swing into the public ROW. It they do, the building will need to be inset in these
areas.
RESPONSE: Doors will be inset sufficiently so as to not swing over the property line.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: If planters/pots with pads or benches (not used as retaining walls) are
desired in the existing parkway, approval from CDOT will be required. Arevocable
encroachment permit will also be required for any items in the public ROW.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, hkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: 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:
• ClimateWise program: http://www.fcgov.com/climatewise/
• Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program
(WRAP): http:/www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/ 20120404 WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf,
contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com
• Green Building and the Climate Action Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-
building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416- 4238 or traeker@fcgov.com
• Nature in the City Strategic Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/?
key=advanceplanning/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or
jcharton@fcgov.com
Please consider the City's sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage
with these efforts.
RESPONSE: There is a currently a meeting scheduled for September 8th to discuss the
Nature in the City Strategic Plan and how we might be able to incorporate components into
this development.
In addition, our project team has reached out to the Environmental Planning Department
regarding the current city requirements and future concerns. We support all of the
mentioned programs and are currently investigating, via research and interviews with
Environmental planning department, which items are the best fit for our project.
Suzie Gordon has been of particular help in our understanding of the current waste and
refuse strategies, and discussing Fort Collins strategic environmental planning goals.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-63Q1, jbuchapan@fggov.com Topic:
Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015:
Use the newly developed landscape and project notes on the plans. These notes are
available from the projects City Planner. Although, in place of the Land Use Code tree
protection specifications use the more comprehensive City Forestry Divisions tree
protection specifications since all trees to be protected are Citytrees.
RESPONSE: The notes have been updated.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08/0512015:
Provide for 9 upsized mitigation trees on the project or planted off -site LUC 3.2.1 F. In
situations where all mitigation trees cannot be placed on a project an option that some
developments have chosen is to pay the City Forestry Division to plant the mitigation
trees off -site. If the development chooses to use this option then a note needs to be
placed on the tree inventory and mitigation plan describing that payment for off -site
mitigation trees is to occur.
Mitigation Tree Sizes:
Canopy Shade Trees: 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees
2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height
RESPONSE: Three mitigation trees have been provided on -site. The remainder of the
mitigation requirement will be mitigated via fee -in -lieu for off -site mitigation. A note has
been added to the plans regarding off -site mitigation (landscape sheet 2/note 1).
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08105/2015:
Add additional street trees:
Along College Avenue add a street tree in the parkway between existing trees 9 and 8
which is generally in the area where the current driveway is located.
Along Olive street use two street trees in the open area between existing tree number 2
and 3.Currently only one street tree is shown in this area.
RESPONSE: These trees have been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08/05/2015:
Fill material is shown over some of the root system of existing trees in the parkway.
Explore all options to minimize fill as this is a detrimental factor to tree growth. Any fill
should be a lighter soil mix and placed away from the tree trunks as far as possible. A
root aeriation system would be required. Provide a cross section detail of the parkway
where fill is to occur. This detail should provide the design of the aeriation system,
specified fill material, placement of structural soil under the sidewalk, other
recommendations by the project arborist and all information pertaining to the re -sodding
and irrigation of the parkway. Included with the detail should be a street tree
management plan that identifies specific maintenance steps that will be taken over a 5
year period to help mitigate the impact of fill over tree root systems. The management
plan should be prepared by a qualified and certified private arborist. The development
would be responsible for following the street tree management plan and providing the
City Forester annual written updates on the maintenance steps performed. The detail
and street tree management plan should be submitted to the City Forester.
The severity of the impact to the street trees from the fill material will be further
evaluated once the detail and management plan are provided.
RESPONSE: Fill material within the tree lawn has been minimized to the greatest extent
possible in order to minimize any detrimental impacts to the existing trees. We have been
working with Jordan's Tree Service to determine the appropriate types of soil. It has been
recommended that a standard topsoil that is loosely compacted is appropriate for this area.
Structural soil is proposed only under the sidewalk. Information on the structural soil has
been included with this submittal. In addition, a conceptual cross section of the parkway has
been provided which illustrates the amount of fill in each area. A revised cross section will
be provided at a later date based on the discussion during the work session with City
Forestry, Jordan's Tree Service and the design team that was held Wednesday morning
September 2"d
A schematic layout of the aeration system within the right-of-way tree lawn will be provided
at a later date. A meeting was held Wednesday morning (September 2"d) with City Forestry
to determine the design requirements.
A preliminary street tree management plan has been prepared by Jordan's Tree Service.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08/05/2015:
To significantly reduce the pruning impact to the canopy of existing tree number 9
(American elm - 41 inch diameter) the building should be set back atapproximately the
39 feet height level. This set back should occur by the part of the tree canopy where the
furthest extension of limbs to the east occurs. Stepping the building back approximately
13 feet where the primary conflicts occur provides for a relative low tree impact from
pruning. Radical pruning of this mature tree that has decades of life remaining would not
be consistent with City of Fort Collins Tree Management Standards and Best
Management Practices that are authorized by the Code and have been approved by the
City Manager. These standards pertain to pruning and removal of City property trees. If
the building is not set back approximately 13 feet at the conflict locations then the
pruning impact to the tree will be significantly greater. Standard 1.2 in Section A states -
Pruning recommendations and actual pruning work shall always regard tree health and
the tree's structural integrity. The Land Use Code provides in 3.2.1 F 3 that all existing
street trees that are located on City rights -of -way abutting the development shall be
accurately identified byspecies, size, location and condition on required landscape plans,
and shall be preserved and protected in accordance with the standards of subsection G.
LUC 3.2.1 G 2—All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins
Forestry Standards.
RESPONSE: At tree #9, the building is set back 10' from a height of 18' to 39' and set back
14' from a height of 39' and up. These strategies have been developed with a city certified
arborist, and in conjunction with the City of Fort Collin's Forestry Department personnel.
Landscape notes will include any required pruning notes per City Forester. Pruning
requirements will also be included in the tree management plan.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, hmcwilligms@fggov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the
National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as
Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District,
as well asindividual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for
its compliance with the standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources.
RESPONSE: Applicant agrees that the project need to be reviewed against LUC Section 3.4.7.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: LUC 3.4.7(A)(2) Purpose, states: "This section is intended to ensure that, to the
maximum extent feasible: "... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the
site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood." Staff does not believe that the
current plans have met this Standard.
RESPONSE: The cited LUC subsection is a purpose statement. Later subsections implement the
purpose statement by providing specific guidance and requirements which must be met to achieve the
purpose of this section. While a purpose statement is useful in helping to interpret other LUC sections
(e.g. whether a project meets the definition of "no detriment to public good" test for a modification) it
cannot override specific LUC provisions in the same section which articulate the requirements for a
project pursuant to this Section.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states that, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic
property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies as potentially
individual eligible for designation or is an officially designated property. New structures must be
compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development
site or adjacent thereto. Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard.
RESPONSE: The phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" does not apply to LUC Section 3.4.7 (B)(b),
although it does apply to LUC Section 3.4.7 (13)(1), (2) and (3), the former subsection dealing with a
project adjacent to historic sites and structures, and the latter subsection applying to such sites and
structures which are located on the project site.
Pursuant to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) (b), the project shall "protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic property" [as defined in (1), (2) and (3) of LUC Section 3.4.7(B)]
adjacent to the project and shall be "compatible with the historic character of any such historic
property"
The title of this subsection is "General Standards," meaning it contains a general statement, consistent
with, and expounding upon, the purpose statement, but which does not provide specific requirements
as to what a project must consider and comply with in order to achieve such compatibility. See
discussion below in "Additional Applicant Responses.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015:
LUC 5.1 states, "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists,
and ALL possible efforts to comply with the regulation orminimize potential harm or adverse impacts
have been undertaken." The current plans have not made all possible efforts to comply with the
regulations, and so have not met this Standard.
RESPONSE: This is simply a recitation of the LUC definition of the phrase "to the maximum extent
feasibie." ii the siari comment that the project has not "met this Standard" means that the project has
not met those provisions of LUC Section 3.4.7 which contain this phrase, they should have detailed
those sections and explained why the project did not meet such sections.
In the absence of any meaningful information in staff Comment Number 4, the following are
subsections of LUC Section 3.4.7 which use this phrase and applicant's response thereto:
(1) LUC Section 3.4.7(A): this is the purpose statement (see response above regarding purpose
statement);
(2) LUC Section 3.4.7(13)(1), (2) and (3): these subsections apply only to historic properties within a
project site;
(3) LUC Section 3.4.7(F): this lengthy subsection (which contains all of the specific requirements for
new construction regarding height, setback and width from existing historic structures, as well as
how new buildings should be designed to be in character with such historic structures) is
discussed below in "Additional Applicant Responses."
(4) LUC Section 3.4.7(17)(5): this subsection relates to preserving certain landscaping features, and
applicant will do so.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans forproperties [which] are
located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision
maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission ." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to begin to schedule the reviews before
the Landmark Preservation Commission.
RESPONSE: The Staff does not even acknowledge that the project could be eligible under LUC
Section 3.4.7(F)(6) for a Director determination, which applicant believes it is, given the provisions of
LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1) and (2). However, given project time constraints, applicant will proceed with
LPC review.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2015
08/10/2015: A map, showing historic properties adjacent to this project, has been provided to the
applicants. This map identifies designated historic Landmarks, designated historic districts, and
properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation.
Many additional properties 50 years and older are located adjacent to this project, whose eligibility
has not been evaluated; several of these may also be individually eligible for designation.
RESPONSE: The map provided by historical preservation staff to show historic properties "adjacent" to
this project is essentially all of Downtown Fort Collins. Please compare this with LUC Section 3.4.7(F)
(1)•
The last sentence of the staff response references additional properties 50 years or older "adjacent" to
the project whose "eligibility has not been evaluated." Please see LUC 3.4.7(C), which makes clear
that the determination of "potential individual eligibility" will be made in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Chapter 14 or a Director determination of the same. In other words, an LUC-approved
process must have resulted in a determination of "potential individual eligibility" and would not
encompass every building over 50 years old which might someday be determined to be potentially
eligible.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 08/10/2015
08/10/2015:
A few of the relevant City Plan Principles and Policies relevant to the compatibility of this project are:
Policy LIV15.2 — Seek Compatibility with Surrounding Development:
Design commercial buildings to contribute to the positive character of the area. Building
materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to street
and sidewalks will contribute to a distinctive local district, corridor, or neighborhood.
Policy LIV16.4 — Utilize Planning and Regulations:
Recognize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins
through ongoing planning efforts and enforcement regulations.
Policy LIV 17.1 — Preserve Historic Buildings:
Preserve historically significant buildings, sites and structures throughout Downtown
and the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and
architectural character of the surrounding district by using compatible building
materials, colors, scale, mass, and design detailing of structures.
Policy LIV32.7 — Allow various Building Heights:
Allow taller buildings (over 3 stories) Downtown to support market vitality and reinforce
Downtown as the primary focal point of the community. Carefully locate and shape taller
buildings to respond to the surrounding context. Utilize standards for height, mass, and
design in order to maintain a human scale and reflect defining historic characteristics in
the different sub -districts.
RESPONSE: We contend that the proposed project meets all these criteria. The building will positively
contribute to the character of the area and has a positive relationship with the street and sidewalk and
is certainly an improvement over the current parking lot and former Perkins restaurant. The building
will be a positive contribution to quality of life in Fort Collins by providing housing in the downtown
where residents can walk, bike, or take a bus/BRT to work, shopping, and entertainment. The
building respects the neighborhood, including the historic Armstrong Hotel, in use of material
and massing. Certainly the building is one of the taller buildings in the neighborhood, but is not
the tallest. The height of the building has been mitigated by stepping uppers levels back. The
prominent cornice and building step at level 2 will greatly reduce the visual impact from the
predominant way people will perceive the building, which is driving or walking along College
Avenue. We contend that the building height is appropriate for the area and has been
reasonably mitigated.
While we appreciate the citations to relevant City principles and policies, these are guidelines
and there are very specific standards in 3.4.7(F) which implement these guidelines. A
development project needs to be assessed based on its compliance with specific applicable
LUC requirements.
Additional Applicant Responses:
1. It is simply inexplicable to the applicant why the staff would cite a purpose statement, a
general standard and City Plan principles and policies, but fail to even mention the very
ier►gihy ai id specific; LUO subsec6ur►6 of 3.4.7( ) wi ► 6 ► 6uiaie wi ►ai a p► ujeci cut ►sisiii 19
of new construction must assess and then comply with to meet the purpose and general
standard of LUC Section 3.4.7.
LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(1):
0 3.4.7 (F)(1) describes how a project, consisting of new construction, needs to
relate to historic properties as to height, setback and width, and specifically limits the
applicable historic structures to be considered to those on any block face on which the
new structure is located (there are none) and on any portion of a block face across a local
or collector street from the block face on which a new building is located (there are none).
0 3.4.7(F)(1)(b) does not apply because blocks do exist; building setbacks can be
maintained and taller portions of structures are located interior to the site.
LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(2)
0 3.4.7 (17)(2) mandates that new construction be in character with those historic
structures referenced in 3.4.7(F)(1) and describes specific techniques for doing so.
o This does not apply because this subsection references "such existing historic
structures" referenced in (1) above and there are none (emphasis added).
LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(3)
o This subsection also references "such existing historic structures" (emphasis
added), again referencing those structures defined in LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1). There are
none.
LUC Subsection 3.4.7(F)(6)
0 This subsection does not provide any new LUC provisions, but does provide a
process for either LPC or Director action on certain projects. Since there are no historic
properties within the project site and since the historic properties adjacent to the project
have been defined in LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(1), this project should qualify for a Director
determination.
2. Notwithstanding the legal analysis above, the applicant has taken every reasonable step
to go above and beyond the.specific LUC standards referenced above:
• The project relates to, and is compatible with, the Armstrong Hotel - the nearest
significant historic property — to the maximum extent feasible in terms of materials and
massing. Brick is the predominant material of the Armstrong Hotel and is the
predominant material of the project. The project is broken into 3 distinct masses to be
compatible with the mass and size of the Armstrong Hotel. The Armstrong Hotel has a
strong one-story retail storefront band at the ground floor. This is also mimicked in the
project.
• The building will positively contribute to the character of the area and has a
positive relationship with the street and sidewalk. The non-contributing current parking lot
and former Perkins restaurant have been removed. The building will be a positive
contribution to quality of life in Fort Collins by providing housing in the downtown area
where residents can walk, bike or take a bus or BRT to work, shopping, and
entertainment. The building is one of the taller buildings in the neighborhood, but is not
the tallest. The height of the building has been mitigated by stepping upper levels back.
The prominent cornice and building step at level 2 will greatly reduce the visual impact
from the predominant way people will perceive the building, which is driving or walking
along College Avenue. The building height is appropriate for the area and has been
reasonably mitigated.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, Lhpvlpnd@fggov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015:
Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting:
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to 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
earlyto mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the
Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family
projects are advised to call 416-2341 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 typeof construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012
International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (I RC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012
International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code ([PC) 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 thefcgov.com web
page to view them.
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.
Project specific concerns:
1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required. A new code amendment effective in 2014will
require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system.
2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler.
3. All windows above the 1 st floor require minimum sill height of 24"
4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units.
5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if
building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
7. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
9. Low VOC interior finishes.
10. Egress windows can't exit onto the building roof below without approval from the Building
Official.
11. To achieve 6 stories with wood construction a platform and fire -treated ext wood walls is
required.
City of Fort Collins Building
Services Plan Review
416-2341
RESPONSE: A pre -submittal meeting will be requested in the near future. All other
comments are acknowledged and understood.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 970416.2724, jurlruh@fggov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There is a 50 ft 1000 watt streetlight roughly in the middle of the site along
College Ave. This could pose an issue for tenants on the higherfloors.
RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this out. The design team will review options for
minimizing impact to its residents.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The proposed transformer location on your site looks good; it iswithin 104 of
a drive able surface. Another idea would be to upsize the existing transformer feeding
330 S. College. This would eliminate the transformer on your site. An easement may
have to be obtained from the neighbor to the south (330 S College), and the voltage
would have to be the same, which is 120/208. This is just something to consider.
RESPONSE: The existing transformer currently feeding the building at 330 S. College (and
formerly feeding the Perkin's restaurant at 310 S. College) is actually located on the subject
property in an existing 6' wide power easement. The current proposal is to upgrade this
transformer and dedicate a new 10' public access, drainage, and utility easement, in which
the transformer would reside.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and anynecessary system
modification charges will apply. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and
Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link:
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: 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.
Comment acknowledged. Code compliance is a contractual part of the design team's
purview and will be further assisted by the implementation of a peer review during the final
stages of design development.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: 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.ladmer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Per LCUASS criteria the vehicular access from the ally to the back of sidewalk on Olive St.
(Designated local St.) exceeds the minimum 40' distance required.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements
that are necessary for this project.
Currently have an understanding about the alley side requested dedication from Poudre
Valley fire authority. Do not understand if the city is requesting the Collage Avenue side as a
�l formal dedication or R.O.W. improvements. If maintained by the city, the latter would be
assumed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be
recorded once the project is finalized.
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway and all access to the site is
governed by CDOT. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review and approval and the
applicant will need to obtain access permits from CDOT for any access changes
(closure and/or change of use or change in construction). The proposed side by side
access shown on the plans will not be allowed or approved by the City or CDOT.
Comment acknowledged. We anticipate going through the Region 4 Access Permit process
to formally abandon the curb cut on College and remove the access.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: We actually recommend that the access be taken off of the alley. This will
allow for additional parallel parking to exist on College where the driveway goes away.
We agree with this direction and have reflected that on our submission. Per our plan, this is
desired to maintain the development's vision of a continuing urban streetscape in keeping
with the existing context of College Avenue North of Olive St.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: With the proposed zero setback the building will need to be setback so
that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk before pulling out across the
sidewalk. This setback can be less when the access enters onto the alley as there is
not an adjacent sidewalk.
All required vision clearances will be accounted for at the entrance/ exit of the alley along
the Eastern side of the site as a way to ensure pedestrian safety.
Page 6 of 21
http://www.fc-ov.com/utilities/business/builders-and developers
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please contact Luke Unruh at Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 970.416-2724.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Please coordinate the ally work with light and power. As of nowit seems to
be where we will route our electric lines.
RESPONSE: Duly noted. The project team will maintain close communications with Light &
Power throughout the process.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-4869, ilynxwilp(@poudre-ftre.org Topic:
General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
07/31/2015: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS
A hydrant is required within 100' of the FDC per code language below. The nearest
possible hydrant on the SW comer of Olive and Remington is approximately210' from
the closest possible portion of the proposed building. As such, a hydrant will be required
on Olive, as close to the intersection with College Ave as possible and as approved by
the fire code official. It is understood that existing trees and other utilities may complicate
hydrant location. PFA will work with the project team to determine best, reasonable
hydrant location.
RESPONSE: A new fire hydrant is now shown off the main in Olive Street, near the
intersection of College Ave. The location is intended to provide adequate fire protection,
while also minimizing damage to existing tree roots.
> 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
RESPONSE: The new fire hydrant is believed to satisfy this requirement.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 07/31/2015
07/31/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
PFA and the project team have met off line to discuss the site specific challenges related
to aerial fire access code requirements. At this point, the project team intends to study
the problem and present a plan to the fire marshal which meets the intent of the code
through alternative means of compliance.
RESPONSE: That is correct. We will present our proposed alternate methods at some time
in the future.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heidi Hansen, Llhanspn@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please utilize the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklistfor
50% Development Review Submittals to ensure that all of the Floodplain
requirements have been addressed. The checklist is available on our website at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/i mg/site—specific/uploads/fp-checklist50. pdf
RESPONSE: A completed checklist is attached.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please refer to the floodplain requirements meeting minutes from July 9,
2015 for guidance concerning the BFE that should be used, the ability to separate
buildings in order to use different BFE's, and flood gate or elevation requirementsfor the
parking garage.
RESPONSE: A meeting was held on August 13, 2015 to discuss flood requirements and
strategies. As a result of that meeting, we have modified our proposed flood -proofing
strategy.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please schedule a meeting with the architect and the engineer to discuss
specific requirements once a design for the building and garage layouthas been
chosen.
RESPONSE: As noted above, this meeting has occurred.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Note that all drawings should utilize the NAVD 88datum.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Utilize the following FEMA Technical Bulletins (links available on our website),
in the design of the site: Flood -Resistant Materials Requirements, Floodproofing Non -
Residential Buildings, Non -Residential Floodproofing — Requirements and Certification,
Below Grade Parking Requirements, and Elevator Installation.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flood ing/forms-
documents
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Per Section 10-38 (1) b. of the Fort Collins Code, in order tofloodproof
the structure "the flood depth surrounding the structure must not exceed three (3)
feet." The current design and elevations shown do not appear to meet this criterion.
RESPONSE: As discussed in the 8/13 meeting, flood elevation is 4995.6' which means that
the flood protection elevation is 4997.1' (18" freeboard). Flood protection system height
shall be 3' or less unless manufacturer documentation allows for greater height.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Upon preliminary review of the Flood Protection Plan conceptual drawing
dated 7/24/15 the following concerns/questions will need to be addressed. Flood panels
may be a viable option for commercial spaces because an operating procedure can be
in place requiring the panels to be installed each night atclosing. Flood panels are not a
viable option for the residential or parking area because access is required 24 hours
per day.
Are the commercial spaces separated with flood resistant materials? The concern
with human intervention methods such as planks is that if one tenant did not install
them as required the entire building and parking area are connected and could be
subject to flooding.
RESPONSE: We are proposing to use flood -proof doors except for two locations: the
garage entry and the main residents' entry off College Avenue. The garage entry will utilize
a manual swing gate, which the applicant believes to be more reliable than an automated
solution. The residents' entry will use a plank system, which will allow residents and staff to
ingress and egress through this door while maintaining the flood -proofing. These two
openings will be manually closed by apartment management staff, who are on site 24 hours
a day. The applicant believes that it is reasonable for staff to accomplish these two tasks
quickly. See site plan for clarification. More detailed information will be submitted
(including an operation/management plan) for review prior to submitting the Floodplain Use
Permit application.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, iscljam@fggov.com Topic:
Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2015
7/21/2015: Repeat:
The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control
Materials need to be submitted for FDP. 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 this section, or if there are
any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Materials will be
submitted with FDP.
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-§449,,, $bgyle@frgov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: More design and spot elevations will be needed in the alley adjacent to the
building. The drainage design for this site will also need to include a studyof local runoff
from minor storms to ensure the building has adequate protection from these storm
events.
RESPONSE: Additional spot elevations have been provided, and the drainage report
touches on local runoff. Further design details will be provided with FDP.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: UDALL does not provide LID treatment and can not be counted as
satisfying the LID requirement for this development. In addition, mechanical separators
are not considered LID BMPs. There can be some leeway granted in the form of
alternative compliance since this is an infill site but the Engineer will need to provide
adequate justification and documentation for the alternative compliance in the Drainage
Report that documents why the criteria can not be met.
RESPONSE: A meeting was held with Stormwater Staff on August 20th to discuss LID
tactics. Filtering runoff through planter areas was the preferred alternative, and is the
concept depicted on the revised PDP submittal documents.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please see Redlines for additional minorcomments.
RESPONSE: Minor redline comments have been addressed. Redlines have been
returned.
Comment Number: 5
08/04/2015:
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
Additional drainage detail will be needed as the design progresses and a drainage
letter will be needed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Some of the additional detail has been provided with the
revised PDP package, and the rest will come with FDP.
Department:
Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-65$8, jaoynty@fggov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please change the address to "310 South College Avenue" on all
plan sheets.
RESPONSE: Item corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are line over text
issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Item corrected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues. Seeredlines.
RESPONSE: Item corrected.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask
all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please remove the marked portion of the sub -title on sheet C001.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the
EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR
VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING
EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88
- X.XX'.
RESPONSE: The benchmark statement has been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Benchmark statements match on all sheets.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There are spelling issues with some text. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
There are text over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Topic:
Landscape
Plans
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
There are some sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not
scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This has been corrected.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" orthe
subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated:
08/04/2015 08/04/2015: Please add dedication information for all street
rights of way. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Information has been added, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
Please change "Area" to "Lot 1". See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
What is RPC & OPC? Please define in the legend. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated:
08/04/2015 08/0412015: Please change the address to "310 South College
Avenue" on all plan sheets.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
Please change the legal description as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not
scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines.
RESPONSE: All items have been corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, MWilkinpon@fggov.com
Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Is there a connection to Remington from the Alley through a different
property? That may get a lot of use.
RESPONSE: There is indeed a connection to the east from the alley through a private
parking lot to Remington. The analysis performed in the TIS did not assume that any
vehicles would enter or exit through the lot. There is a probability that some of the tenants
may use this access as a "short-cut". However, determining the number of tenants who use
the access cannot be determined. It is likely that if the use of the access becomes
problematic for the property owner, they will close it off at the alley. The amount of traffic that
would possibly use the access will not significantly affect the capacity analysis that was
performed for the project. Sight triangles are now shown at the parking garage entrance to
the alley, as well as the west side of the alley and the back of walk along Olive.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: We'll need to see some sight triangles - especially at the alleyaccess to
Olive and Magnolia.
RESPONSE: Assuming a design speed of 30 mph, the stopping sight distance from the alley
to Magnolia and to Olive is 200 feet. In the downtown area, the diagonal parking along the
curbside creates a sight distance issue from nearly every driveway and alley in the area.
Sight triangle can be added to the plan set. However, if full sight distance is required, a loss
of parking spaces will need to occur.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
08/05/2015 08/05/2015: The parking on College can be extended with
the closure ofthe driveway.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. On -street parking is now shown on College with the closed
curb cut.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015: Is a 7 ft sidewalk enough along College? That is the minimum clear distance
so no furniture, signs, etc (encroachment permits) will be allowed.
RESPONSE: Sidewalk is actually a little wider since the building is set back from the
property line. A full 7-ft unobstructed sidewalk width is provided within the public right-of-way
along the entire College frontage. An additional 2' (minimum) sidewalk width is provided
between the right-of-way and the outermost building face. Another 4.5-ft paved recess is
provided beyond that at each commercial doorway.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-C704, golson@fcgov.com Topic:
General Comment Number: 1 Comment
Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: 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 oreolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: An irrigation plan will be provided with the building permit submittal.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-Q4l9i .abpyle@fcgov.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: More detail will be needed on the Utility Plan as the design progresses.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Some of the additional detail has been provided with the revised
PDP package, and the rest will come with FDP.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015 08/04/2015:
Please see additional minor comments in the Redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrections have been made, and redlines have been returned.
Revised Historic Preservation Comments Received by Applicant the Afternoon of Auoust 318t:
Comment Number: 1
8/4/2015: General
This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National
Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort
Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District, as
well as individual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for its
compliance with the standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources.
Comment Number: 2
8/4/2015: General
LUC 3.4.7(A)(2) Purpose, states: "This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent
feasible:... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic
properties in the surrounding neighborhood." Staff does not believe that the current plans have met
this Standard. 8/26/2015: Staff does not believe that the current plans will fulfill the intent of Section
3.4.7. In design meetings with the applicant, several alternatives were suggested that would
enhance the building's compatibility with its context, enabling it to better "respect the historic
character of ... historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood." These, or other feasible options,
have not been incorporated into the design.
Comment Number: 3
8/4/2015: General
LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) states that, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic
property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies as potentially
individual eligible for designation or is an officially designated property. New structures must be
compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site
or adjacent thereto. Staff does not believe that the current plans have met this Standard. 8/26/2015:
This comment has been revised to reflect the applicable language of the General Standard. LUC
3.4.7 (B) states: "The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical
and architectural value of any historic property that is ... located on property adjacent to the
development site.... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such
historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." The "maximum extent
feasible" standard does not apply to this part of 3.4.7(B); instead the standard is stated as "shall" and
"must", which mean mandatory compliance. Additional compatibility standards for ensuring that new
construction is in character with historic structures are contained in 3.4.7(F), and these will also need
to be met. Based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project in light
of the definition of "adjacent" in LUC Section 5.1.2, property adjacent to this project has been
established as being located one-half block in each direction from the block upon which this building
is proposed. This area of adjacency takes into account the officially designated National, State and
Fort Collins landmark properties contained within this area, and to which the above portion of
3.4.7(B) applies: the 3-story Armstrong Hotel (259 South College and 100 - 104 Olive Street); the
First Baptist (currently Mountain View) Church at 328 Remington Street; the 1-story Bode Property
(220 Remington), as well as the one- and two-story dwellings in the 400 block of Remington Street.
Additional properties within this area of adjacency have been officially determined to be eligible for
landmark recognition, but have not been officially designated.
The proposed building's height, mass, scale, bulk, and width are not compatible with the
historic character of the adjacent historic properties. Adjacent historic buildings are all 1- to 3-stories
tall, and contain substantially less mass and bulk. Compatibility with the character of the historic
properties may, in part, be achieved through the reduction in height and overall bulk and massing;
through additional articulation and step -backs; and through step-downs.
Comment Number: 4
8/4/2015: General
LUC 5.1 states, "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." The current plans have not made all possible efforts to comply with the
regulations, and so have not met this Standard.
Comment Number: 5
8/4/2015: General
LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties [which] are
located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision
maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to begin to schedule the reviews before the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
8/26/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6) does allow for an exception to this requirement, provided that the
Director issue a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the
eligibility or potential eligibility of the historic structures. The Director has determined that the project
should proceed to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a recommendation.
Comment Number: 6
8/10/2015: General
A map, showing historic properties adjacent to this project, has been provided to the applicants. This
map identifies designated historic Landmarks, designated historic districts, and properties that have
been officially determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. Many additional
properties 50 years and older are located adjacent to this project, whose eligibility has not been
evaluated; several of these may also be individually eligible for designation.
Comment Number: 7
8/10/2015: General
A few of the relevant City Plan Principles and Policies relevant to the compatibility of this project are:
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: The alley adjacent to the site will need to be improved. In particular the
alley/ olive intersection grades need to be improved so that emergency vehicles and
other vehicles can safely and easily utilize this access point.
Per discussion with Poudre Valley Fire district and additional 5' has been setback from the
existing R.O.W. to provide adequate emergency maneuvering needs.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior
to starting any work on the site.
Comment Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: Really need to think through the design and construction of the basement
for this building. Tie backs into the right-of-way will not be allowed. The foundation
needs to be constructed in such a way that it doesn't encroach into the ROW.
Discussion regarding construction easements and mitigation of neighboring property issues
has just begun. We would anticipate the use of alternative shoring methods to tie -backs on
the East, West and North sides.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: 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.
Comment Acknowledged. See comment response 6 in "Planning Services" and 13 in
"Engineering development review".
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: In regards to encroachments in the right-of-way. I will provide you with a
copy of the draft policy based on the City Code language. All encroachments if
permitted are revocable, so proposed encroachments are not typically shown on the
project development plans since they are not permitted until after all the infrastructure
improvements are built and verification that they can fit, meet criteria and meet
sidewalk clearance requirement and since if they are not permitted or the permission is
revoked then the plan is not in non-compliance.
The public right-of-way should be free of any encroachment of structures such as steps
and patios. Doors shall not swing out into public right-of-way and will either need to be
recessed, or swing inward (into private property). Underground detention systems,
LID/PLD measures should similarly be located out of public right-of-way.
Above ground transformers are not allowed within the right-of-way or parkway and will
need to be accommodated on site.
Comment Acknowledged. Submitted and revised designs of this project will take into
consideration all R.O.W. requirements and proceed with the understanding that any
permission will remain revocable.
Page 7 of 21
Addendum to Responses to Historic Preservation Staff Comments
Late afternoon on Monday, August 31, 2015, the Applicant received revised comments from
Historic Preservation staff, clearly a consequence of a meeting on August 251 requested by
Applicant with City staff to discuss concerns with Historic Preservation comments dated August 101n
Applicant was advised at that time that it would have one additional day to file required documents
for the Landmark Preservation Commission ("LPC") work session set for September 9tn. Since that
was not sufficient time for the Applicant's team to review, discuss and prepare responses to the
revised August 31st comments, Applicant intended to only submit its already -prepared responses to
the August 101n staff comments, along with a brief overall statement about the revisions, planning to
address them in detail at the September 9tn LPC work session. On September 1 st, Applicant was
advised that the September 9tn LPC work session was no longer available and the project would be
rescheduled for a September 23ro work session, with submittal documents due on September 14tn
The Applicant's team is working on the detailed responses to the August 31st revised staff comments
and will submit those on or before September 14tn for review and evaluation by the Historic
Preservation staff.
In the meantime, Applicant offers some general responses relevant to the revised staff
comments.
At the outset of the August 25tn meeting, Applicant's representatives stated that the Historic
Preservation staff comments gave little to no information as to how staff was interpreting applicable
Land Use Code ("LUC") provisions or guidance about how to achieve compliance with those
provisions. Ms. Karen McWilliams had a number of responses.
First, she said the reason was that her staff had been in meetings with the Applicant and had
provided detail at those meetings. Applicant representatives recall that her staff from the very
beginning only stated the general conclusion that the project did not meet LUC 3.4.7. When more
detail was requested, a map of the entire downtown was provided and comments were made about
stepping down the building mass back and center towards the alley.
Ms. McWilliams then said that there really are no "metrics" in this area by which to judge a
project and that every project is a "case -by -case" analysis. Not only does the Land Use Code have
very specific "metrics" for evaluating new construction in the context of historic preservation [see
LUC 3.4.7(F)], these comments would seem to be the very definition of arbitrariness.
Finally, Ms. McWilliams stated that the staff comments were so vague because they don't
want to comment with any detail until the Landmark Preservation Commission weighs in. Apparently
now that position is suddenly altered with new direction included in the August 31st revised Historic
Preservation staff comments, never before articulated, and which we believe is contrary to the
provisions of LUC 3.4.7.
The Applicant will address the revised comments in detail in its September 14tn submittal for
the September 23rd Landmark Preservation Commission work session, but in general the Applicant
believes that its original responses to Historic Preservation staffs comments remain the same.
C Of
Cottins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
kgov. com/developmentreview
September 21, 2015
Cathy Mathis
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Uncommon (310 S College), PDP150013, Round Number 2
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 970-224-6189orslorson@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
09/15/2015: Carried forward from 08/04/2015: Prior to the PDP submittal, the
proposed project has had multiple revisions and four meetings between staff
and the applicant to discuss its size and mass in the context of downtown. The
current plan incorporates a number of measures to mitigate the mass, bulk and
scale of the building in response to previous comments, and those measures
are acknowledged. However, staff continues to find that a building of this size,
in terms of bulk and mass, is out of scale and thus incompatible with the
sensitive downtown context.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
If the project's constraints will not permit a reduction in size to address staff's
findings to date with respect to code standards, the applicants are welcome to
bring the project to the Planning and Zoning Board for hearing with a staff
recommendation of denial.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
09/15/2015
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
Specifically, staff's findings regarding building size, mass, bulk and scale
involve the following standards:
Downtown District Zoning Standards:
Subsection 4.16 (D)(4)(b)2, Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings:
Upper portions of taller building must be further set back above the base "in
such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design.
Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale
in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of
nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and
preservation of views in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic context and
scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual
character of the City."
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Subsection 4.16 (E)(1)(c), Plazas: For taller buildings located in the Canyon
Avenue subdistrict, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized
and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general
public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public
and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human
sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether
natural or man-made.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Staff finds that the plaza is not open space due to its degree of enclosure in the
building structure with floor area above. This negates the effect of the open
space in mitigating and offsetting the mass of the building. As shown, the plaza
is very positive feature of the building, but it looks and feels like a part of the
building and its private space; and it is not really open space.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
General Development Standards for All Development Citywide:
3.5.1(B) General Standard states:
"New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a
design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural
character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of
this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced
standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof
lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces,
similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the
3
use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those
existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and
stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other
materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building
height) shall be derived from the neighboring context.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale requires buildings to "either
be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on
the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing
block face, or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection.
(See Figures 7a and 7b.)
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3. Special Height ReviewStandards, Neighborhood Scale,
requires buildings greater than forty (40) feet in height to be compatible with the
scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height,
height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015:
09/15/2015: Charm and detail along the base portion is crucial to success in
the required pedestrian oriented development. The plan reflects this, but if the
project goes forward, further fine grain detail will be important to clarify in final
plans. E.g., details such as a pattern in transom windows, pattern detail in the
stone masonry and metal joinery, and similar detail designed at a larger scale.
RESPONSE: We concur with this comment. Additional detail will be incorporated as the project
progresses. See enlarged storefront elevations for updated detailing.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: To be more compatible with and complementary to the hotel, could
the top overhanging eave feature at the NW corner be replaced with a cornice
formed with brick courses? If a covering awning effect is desired over the
windows, smaller awning features (not necessarily fabric awnings per se) could
bring down the scale of that portion of the building and complement the scale of
the hotel which has individual fabric awnings over windows.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: From Excel: max gas pressure is 14" WC.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa§fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Can the inlet move to the center alley as depicted in LCUASS
Drawing 803. This will prevent the inlet from being in the wheel path of vehicles.
RESPONSE: The sanitary sewer main is centered in the alley, thus preventing the storm inlet from being
centered as well.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please work with Floodplain staff to determine if the proposed
doors to the parking garage are adequate. Please work with Traffic Operations
to determine if the sight distance triangle will be affected by the flood gates in
the open position. Will vehicles in the parking garage be able to view on coming
traffic in the alley? Please verify.
RESPONSE: The additional 5' multi -purpose easement along the west side of the alley will serve to
mitigate sight distance concerns. Additional information was provided to Traffic Operations prior to the
PDP hearing.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Include the portion of the sight distance easement in the utility
easement.
RESPONSE: Due to limitations imposed by the underground parking structure, the "utility" portion of these
easements has been revised.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416.2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: The response to comments mentions a meeting to discuss Nature
in the City that previously occurred, as well as conversations with the
Environmental Services department about various programs. What were the
outcomes of those conversations? Do you anticipate making any changes to
the project based on those discussions?
RESPONSE: A brainstorming session was held in October. While the urban landscape features do have
some synergies with Nature in the City (NIC) objectives, there is no formal NIC component to this
development.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Will the "planting zones" include shurbs, flowering plants, and/or
grasses? Details on species selected and seed mixes will be required at the
time of Final Plan.
RESPONSE: Yes. Shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses will be included in planting zones.
Specific species have been identified and located as part of this FDP submittal.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Additional detail and specifications for the light fixtures will be
requried at the time of Final Plan.
RESPONSE: Cut sheets for the light fixtures as well as an updated photometric that includes lighting
at the level 2 courtyards are attached.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/16/2015: CONTINUED
The requested information and schematic layout in a final format as described
in the original 8-5-15 comment still needs to be provided and included on the
plans. Submit the requested information and diagrams to the City Forester.
Contact Ralph Zentz for a review of the five year management plan. Additional
information for the management plan plan needs to be included The severity of
the impact to the street trees from the fill material will be further evaluated once
the detail and management plan in a final format are provided.
RESPONSE: A 5 year management plan, aeration plan, product specification and cross sections have
been provided. These documents have been revised and include the latest direction per a meeting with
Forestry on October 12, 2015.
08/05/2015:
Fill material is shown over some of the root system of existing trees in the
parkway. Explore all options to minimize fill as this is a detrimental factor to tree
growth. Any fill should be a lighter soil mix and placed away from the tree trunks
as far as possible. A root aeriation system would be required. Provide a cross
section detail of the parkway where fill is to occur. This detail should provide the
design of the aeriation system, specified fill material, placement of structural soil
under the sidewalk, other recommendations by the project arborist and all
information pertaining to the re -sodding and irrigation of the parkway. Included
with the detail should be a street tree management plan that identifies specific
maintenance steps that will be taken over a 5 year period to help mitigate the
impact of fill over tree root systems. The management plan should be prepared
by a qualified and certified private arborist. The development would be
responsible for following the street tree management plan and providing the City
Forester annual written updates on the maintenance steps performed. The
detail and street tree management plan should be submitted to the City
Forester. The severity of the impact to the street trees from the fill material will
be further evaluated once the detail and management plan are provided.
RESPONSE: A 5 year management plan, aeration plan, product specification and cross sections have
been provided. These documents have been revised and include the latest direction per a meeting with
Forestry on October 12, 2015.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/16/2015: CONTINUED
To evaluate the how the building has been set back by existing tree number 9
provide a vertical profile of the edge of the building by tree number 9. Show the
back of the walk and property line for reference and the scaled distance of the
building set back at different building heights by the tree. Include in this
illustration how far to the north and south of tree number 9 the building set back
as described in the narrative will occur. Submit to the City Forester.
RESPONSE: ALAN??
08/05/2015:
To significantly reduce the pruning impact to the canopy of existing tree number
9 (American elm - 41 inch diameter) the building should be set back at
[.1
approximately the 39 feet height level. This set back should occur by the part of
the tree canopy where the furthest extension of limbs to the east occurs.
Stepping the building back approximately 13 feet where the primary conflicts
occur provides for a relative low tree impact from pruning. Radical pruning of
this mature tree that has decades of life remaining would not be consistent with
City of Fort Collins Tree Management Standards and Best Management
Practices that are authorized by the Code and have been approved by the City
Manager. These standards pertain to pruning and removal of City property
trees. If the building is not set back approximately 13 feet at the conflict
locations then the pruning impact to the tree will be significantly greater.
Standard 1.2 in Section A states - Pruning recommendations and actual
pruning work shall always regard tree health and the treets structural integrity.
The Land Use Code provides in 3.2.1 F 3 that all existing street trees that are
located on City rights -of -way abutting the development shall be accurately
identified by species, size, location and condition on required landscape plans,
and shall be preserved and protected in accordance with the standards of
subsection G. LUC 3.2.1 G 2 6 All protected existing trees shall be pruned to
the City of Fort Collins Forestry Standards.
Comment Number: 6
09/16/2015:
Street tree species recommendation:
Along College - Shumard Oak
Along Olive — Catalpa
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 7
09/16/2015:
Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
Note number one under the existing tree schedule should include the dollar
amount per tree. Contact Ralph Zentz in the City Forestry Division to obtain this
number and include in the note.
RESPONSE: The plan has been revised to include the dollar amount per tree.
Comment Number: 8
09/16/2015:
Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
Add this information to tree protection note number 18.
Irrigation renovation/installation in the parkway area must take all due care to
not damage the root systems of existing trees. Trenching near parkway trees in
their critical root zone will not be allowed. Any trenching for irrigation in the
parkway must be evaluated by the City Forester prior to work.
RESPONSE: This information has been added to the notes. Reference Tree Protection Notes #18.
Comment Number: 9
09/16/2015:
Comment Originated: 09/16/2015
For each tree to be removed provide a statement explaining the reason for
removal by the information provided for each existing tree shown to be removed
on sheet 2.
RESPONSE: This information has been added to the Existing Tree Schedule.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224.6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/21 /2015:
Comment Originated:
This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on
the National Register of Historic Places, on the Colorado Register of Historic
Properties, and as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the
Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins
Landmark properties. Therefore the project would need to comply with the
applicable standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural
Resources.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 2
09/21 /2015:
Comment Originated:
LUC 3.4.7 (B) states in part: New structures must be compatible with the
historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site
or adjacent thereto. The standard is stated as "must", which requires
mandatory compliance.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
In light of the definition of "adjacent" in LUC Section 5.1.2, and based upon the
height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project, property
adjacent to this project has been established by staff as being located one-half
block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed. This
area of adjacency takes into account the officially designated National, State
and Fort Collins landmark properties contained within this area, and to which
the above portion of 3.4.7(B) applies: the 3-story Armstrong Hotel (259 South
College and 100 -104 Olive Street); the First Baptist (currently Mountain View)
Church at 328 Remington Street; the 1-story Bode Property (220 Remington),
as well as the one- and two-story dwellings in the 400 block of Remington
Street. Additional properties within this area of adjacency have been officially
determined to be eligible for Landmark recognition, but have not been officially
designated.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
Comment Number: 3
09/21 /2015:
Comment Originated:
The proposed building's height, mass, scale, and bulk are not compatible with
the historic character of adjacent historic properties. This is evident in the
discrepancy and incongruity of the proposed building's large footprint of 30,000
square feet; the extent of building mass at the upper levels; and the size of the
east wall, which is 240' in length and over 70' in height for 200 feet of that length,
far exceeding the height and length of any of the adjacent historic structures.
The adjacent buildings are all 1- to 3-stories in height, with substantially less
mass and bulk. Compatibility with the character of the historic buildings would
require substantial reduction in overall bulk and massing.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing.
09/21 /2015
09/21 /2015
09/21 /2015
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/21/2015
E:10
09/21 /2015:
Additional compatibility standards for ensuring that new construction is in
character with historic structures are contained in 3.4.7(F). Applicable
standards are (F)(3), pertaining to using the dominant building material of
historic structures as the primary material; (17)(4), which pertains to maintaining
visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal
points, such as a park, school or church; and (F)(5), pertaining to landscaping.
Staff finds that these standards have been met.
RESPONSE: Not applicable based on P&Z hearing
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
08/05/2015:
Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting:
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to 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 and is typically scheduled after the
Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family
projects are advised to call 416-2341 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.
RESPONSE: A presubmittal meeting will be scheduled in the near future.
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 web page to view them.
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.
Project specific concerns:
1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required. A new code amendment effective in
2014 will require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system.
2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler.
3. All windows above the 1 st floor require minimum sill height of 24"
4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units.
5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min.
if building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
7. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
9. Low VOC interior finishes.
10. Egress windows can't exit onto the building roof below without approval from
the Building Official.
11. To achieve 6 stories with wood construction a platform and fire -treated ext
wood walls is required.
RESPONSE: Comments noted.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869,nlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
09/10/2015: Prior comment carried forward:
Comment Originated: 07/31/2015
07/31/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
COMPLIANCE
PFA and the project team have met off line to discuss the site specific
challenges related to aerial fire access code requirements. At this point, the
project team intends to study the problem and present a plan to the fire marshal
which meets the intent of the code through alternative means of compliance.
RESPONSE: A meeting will be scheduled in the near future to present the proposed alternate
methods of compliance.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065,
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 17
09/14/2015:
hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
Page 5 indicates that a preliminary flood protection plan prepared by Oz was to
be provided. It doesn't appear that this plan was submitted. Please provide.
RESPONSE: A PDF of an early draft (dated 07.24.15) was supplied to City Staff. The Site Plan by OZ
also contains flood door locations. The flood protection plan will be further coordinated with Floodplain
Staff during Final Plan.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 02/08/2015
02/08/2015: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed
depending on parking design.
Based LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) and Olive classification of a "Local' we
show a minimum distance of 40' required from back of sidewalk along South side of
Olive. Our submitted design currently exceeds this criteria.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: The sidewalk adjacent to this site is narrower than the standard downtown
sidewalk, but has worked since it is adjacent to a parking lot and not adjacent to a
building. With a building being placed at 0 setback or adjacent to the ROW the sidewalk
does need to be widened. The minimum clear sidewalk requirement for downtown is 7
feet. Additional discussions with Engineering and planning are needed to determine
what the frontage is going to look like how the sidewalk needs can be met and
achieved.
Per initial PDR meeting, it is understood that the city is requesting an additional 2' from the
property to maintain the sidewalk width carried over from the portion of College avenue
North of Olive Street. This would bring the overall sidewalk width to a total of 7'.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiakQfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your
landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible.
Comment acknowledged. See comment response 1 in "Landscape plans" section.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberglQfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/09/2015
02/09/2015:
This project is located near several properties that are either potentially eligible for
designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, eligible for designation as Fort Collins
Landmarks, or that have been designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. For this reason,
the project will be reviewed for compliance with LUC 3.4.7
Comment acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/09/2015
02/09/2015:
LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum
extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated
into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the
characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the
historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood.
Comment acknowledged.
Page 8 of 21
in
Page 7 first paragraph looks to reference a different project "District at Campus
West". Please revise the text.
RESPONSE: This reference has been corrected with the Final Plan narrative.
Page 9 indicates "Preliminary locations of paver fields are noted on the
drainage exhibit". The plans don't indicate pavers anywhere. Please coordinate.
RESPONSE: There will be no paver fields associated with this project. The Final Plan narrative has been
corrected accordingly.
Page 9 indicates that a Standard Operating Procedure Manual will be provided
to the City. The City will actually provide the SOP Manual now. Please reword
this section.
RESPONSE: This section has been reworded with the Final Plan submittal.
Appendix A.1 Runoff Coefficient Calculations — it looks like you're calculating
imperviousness for basins 3 and OS1 assuming pavers. I think this needs to be
revised because I don't think there are pavers proposed on this project.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Appendix A.3 LID Compliance Computations (can be addressed at Final)
o On the Flow -Through Stormwater Planter detail please provide details on
where (at what elevation) the downspout enters the planter relative to the
plantings and/or sand media. Keep in mind snow/ice build-up in the planter box
during the winter.
RESPONSE: Refer to detail sheet in the plans. The Architect and MEP Engineer will further evaluate
the need for icing prevention.
o Please provide a minimum of 18" bioretention sand media depth (24" is
preferred)
RESPONSE: A 12" BSM depth is proposed (consistent with City Detail D-53) as a tradeoff to provide
more surface ponding depth while maintaining a reasonable overall planter height.
o Please show the flow path of the 100-year storm from the planter boxes onto
and through the upper deck patio. What is the flow depth? Where is the area
inlet and pipe that will bring the stormwater down to the ground plane? Perhaps
this can be shown on the grading plan or some other more appropriate plan
sheet.
RESPONSE: Some of these details have been provided with the Final Plan package. However, since
the courtyard drainage is essentially a roof drainage system, final design details and documentation will be
provided with the Architectural and MEP Drawings during Building Permit. Presently, the courtyards are
proposed to have a permeable elevated decking system, and the drainage will be managed below with
sloping roof materials and drains.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C200: Paving Plan
Note 6 indicates that Site and Landscape Plans include additional information
related to decorative paving, hardscapes, etc. but those plans don't include
callouts or details on decorative paving or hardscapes. Please either modify the
note on this page or include the pertinent information on decorative paving on
the site and landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Additional callouts for decorative paving and hardscape are shown on OZ's Site Plan.
11
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
Sheet C400: Grading Plan
• The vertical difference between the adjacent FFE and the flowline of the inlet
is only about 4". Please provide the ponding depth at the area inlet in the alley.
• Provide additional spot elevation information along the alley side of the
building. It is hard to tell what is happening at the garage entry locations and the
loading area.
09/14/2015:
RESPONSE: Approximately 2" of ponding depth is provided at this inlet prior to flows continuing north into
Olive Street. There is roughly 6" of vertical separation between the FFE of the water entry room and the
inlet grate.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C600: Drainage Exhibit
Proposed storm drain inlet is indicated as "private" but cannot be private
because it is accepting drainage from the public alley. Please revise the note.
RESPONSE: This label has been corrected.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C601: Floodplain Exhibit
BFE's in the table doesn't match those shown on the exhibit. Please revise.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Contact: Heidi Hansen, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: Utilize the following FEMA Technical Bulletins (links available on
our website), in the design of the site: Flood -Resistant Materials Requirements,
Floodproofing Non -Residential Buildings, Non -Residential Floodproofing —
Requirements and Certification, Below Grade Parking Requirements, and
Elevator Installation.
http://www.fcciov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/floodina/forms-documents
RESPONSE: We are aware of these bulletins and will comply. See site plan for flood -proof
compliance notes.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please utilize an automatic float up flood gate for the parking area.
With the manual floodgates, if the gates were to not be closed in time the entire
structure would be compromised including individual commercial tenant
spaces.
RESPONSE: We are now calling for an automatic -rising gate at the parking garage entry.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: Please provide additional clarification on the general types of
floodproofing that will be used for the structure (i.e. sealant on the walls or
membrane).
RESPONSE: Exterior walls will be flood -proofed by membrane waterproofing behind cladding.
A note has been added clarifying this.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
121,
09/15/2015: Please provide floodpoof doors for the main residential lobby
entry. Flood planks across the main building entry pose a safety concern for
egress.
RESPONSE: We have solicited input from Poudre Fire and the building department regrading egress
ai ihis door, bui have yei is receive a respunse. Shuui6 i.i ley duuepi i'r w piai tics ui a Pal "ei, ii its is wi lai
we would prefer to do.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218.2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 07/21/2015
09/09/2015: Repeat Comment - Saw acknowledgment
7/21/2015: Repeat: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore
Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. 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 this section, or if there are any questions
please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: This information has been provided with the Final Plan submittal.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounly@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are still line over text
issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Line over text issues have been corrected.
08/04/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are still line over text issues. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: This sheet has been removed from the set.
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: The legend for the zoning map. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This sheet has been removed from the set.
08/04/2015: SITE DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask
all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
13
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs to be
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Text has been masked.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS: There is text that needs the
size increased. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Text has been masked.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please contact Jeff about this comment.
08/04/2015: Please remove the marked portion of the sub -title on sheet C001.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been discussed with Jeff. The original town lot and block references have been
added back to the plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See
redlines.
08/04/2015: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark
Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See
redlines.
08/04/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
08/04/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
1 ,4`
areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Both masking and hatching have been revised, where appropriate.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines.
08/04/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/15/2015: No comments.
08/04/2015: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
09/14/2015: The owner information is not necessary, and can be removed if
you choose.
08/04/2015: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the
subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been addressed.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please review Note #6. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Note the presence of below ground parking structure and upper floor overhangs.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please correct the typo in the Benchmark Statement. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Please label the Floodway as the hatched area. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This label has been added with the Final Plan submittal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 09/15/2015
09/15/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted
sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE:
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221.6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2015
09/15/2015: It is acknowledged that in the downtown area there are a number
of alley locations with limited sight distance. Since this will be a higher volume
alley, please work with your engineer/traffic engineer in using engineering
judgement on a reasonable about of sight distance (probably not 30 mph) -
show that on an exhibit. The typical question is 'will this work?' It would be
helpful to have an exhibit that shows how it will work.
08/05/2015: We'll need to see some sight triangles - especially at the alley
access to Olive and Magnolia.
.0
RESPONSE: An exhibit was supplied prior to PDP hearing.
15
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
09/15/2015: In the final plans we'll need to see some signage plans (such as
pedestrian crossing signs at the alley entrances).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The Applicant will coordinate such with City Staff.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221.6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number:
09/15/2015
Comment Originated: 08/04/2015
08/04/2015: 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:
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C002: Notes sheet
Note EA. last sentence indicates the curb stop shall be covered with a metal
box and tracer wire test lid per city water detail 25. Please indicate that lid to be
stamped with "Water" as per detail 11 A instead of "CP Test Station" that is
shown on detail 25. (Can be addressed at final)
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C100: Ex. Conditions & Demo Plan
Existing sanitary sewer service doesn't appear to be shown. Please indicate
existing sewer service and modify Note 9 to say something like "Contractor
shall coordinate with Fort Collins Utilities Field Operations Department at (970)
221-6700 for water and sewer service abandonment."
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet C300: Utility Plan
• Please provide the estimated size for the residential sewer service and for
the fire service.
• The floodproofing gates for the parking garage look like they swing into the
public alleyway. Coordinate with engineering to see if this is allowed.
• See redlines for other comments that can be addressed at Final.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015
09/14/2015: Sheet 1: Please correct acreage under Statement of Ownership
and Subdivision section.
RESPONSE: Corrected.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/09/2015
02/09/2015:
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 3.4.7(B)(b) states, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any
historic property that is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies
[as an individual landmark]. New structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent
thereto.
Located in the Canyon Downtown Sub -district, the architectural design shall be in context of
its surroundings and be compatible with the established architectural character of Downtown
Fort Collins. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof
lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window pattern, use of materials
that have similarity on color shade and texture.
The E shaped 5 story structure sitting over a retail plinth has been positioned to provide a
strong urban edge along College Avenue and Olive Street. The ground level retail front fagade
will intertwine retail entries, some bicycle parking, outdoor plazas and commercial uses to
create a dynamic urban street edge. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be
incorporated to enhance the street -level experience and scale the facades to be compatible
with the surrounding context.
The 5 stories of residential units above the retail base will include articulated facades (this has
not been illustrated yet) with large glazed areas at the living rooms, flanked by inset and
partially cantilevered balconies. A combination of regional materials will be incorporated to
provide detail and interest and richen the design aesthetic. The nature of the building form "E"
allow the incorporation of landscape courtyards on the second level over the retail base. This
second level will also incorporate the amenities for the resident, activating the terraces
created over the College pedestrian promenade below.
The site design aims to provide a strong urban streetscape experience for residents, visitors,
and workers. The goal is to create a four sided block that enhances the streetscape and
creates a rich environment that supports urban living and business growth where possible.
Attention is given to each corner with specific emphasis on the Olive/College Ave corner. This
significant corner would create a condition for people to gather in and potentially private
businesses to extend into as a patio. Where feasible, corners will be created as bulb -outs to
offer more space for pedestrians.
The internal site would offer planted gardens, potential bio-swales or rain gardens in the
courtyards.
Page 9 of 21