The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOAK PARK PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-09-13Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fart Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax kgov.com/developmentreview October 13, 2015 Greg Fisher Greg D. Fisher, Architect, PLLC 3115 Clyde St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 215 Mathews Office Building - Preliminary Design Review, PDR150005, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343ortshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshe-pard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 3.2.2(J) — minimum required parking lot setbacks, we will not apply this standard as the parking area is considered to be within a structure and not a surface parking lot. All setbacks from property lines will be focused on the building itself, including structural columns, and not the under -structure parking as if it were a separate component. The proposed vine trellis "green wall" is supported by staff as a positive design response to the north condition. Response: Understood. Comment Originated: 04109/2015 Comment Number: 2. 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(1) — maximum floor -to -area ratio -entire lot, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification but there may need to be additional design mitigation. The Townhomes at Library Park also needed a Modification but the additional floor -to -area ratio was found to be justified based on the amount of brick on the street -facing elevations as well as overall building articulation. The requirement for a brick emphasis was based on proximity to Park View Apartments. For 215 Mathews, the masonry emphasis is also based on proximity to Park View Apartments. recognized that the proposed building envelope exceeds this maximum distance, however as the building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, that distance may be extended in this case. The building is therefore considered to have met tier 1 conditions for general fire access. Tier 2 access requirements pertain to buildings over 30' in height, as defined by 2012 IFC, Appendix D105.1. Response: Understood. To allow roof access and rescue operations from upper floors, buildings over 30' in height require a 30' wide fire lane to be positioned within 30' feet of the building. As only a small portion of the building will front on Mathews St, the majority of the building is considered out of aerial truck access. I have discussed the project with the fire marshal and his recommendation follows. In order to meet minimum aerial access requirements, the east building envelope is expected to be within 30' of Mathews Street. In addition, the west stairwell will need to be: 1) 2 hr rated, 2) Have firefighter access at ground level, 3) Have appropriate roof access, 4) Be equipped with a standpipe in the stairwell with a hose connection on the roof. Because the building is only three stories in height and there are no R-group occupancies involved, the stairwell does not need "areas of refuge," pressurization, or smoke removal systems. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Code language provided below to assist with your design. Response: The building height has been reduced substantially to respond to comments made by the Landmark Preservation Commission and to bring the roof eaves to 30' in height above grade. As such, the rear stair has been revised to an exterior stair and it is not anticipated to need to provide roof access. GENERAL FIRE ACCESS > 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. Response: Understood. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED > IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access W] 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. Response: The height of the roof eave has been revised to 30'. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH > 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 > 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. Response: The building will be located at approximately 25' from Mathews Street. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 Response: Understood. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: What is the total area of disturbance please include a map showing all off site disturbance as well? If the site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlamCc�tcaov.com Response: The total amount of disturbance is less than 10,000 sf (approximately 8,500 so as shown in the Utility Plans. The erosion control measures are shown on sheet C400. The escrow security calculation will be submitted with Final Compliance. 11 Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: Existing and proposed impervious areas have been calculated in tables included within the Utility Plans and Drainage Summary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: The total increase of impervious area is less than 5,000 sf (approximately 3,400 sf). A drainage letter is provided with this PDP submittal. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/1412015: When improvements are being added to an existing developed site onsite detention is only required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. Response: The total increase of impervious area is less than 5,000 sf (approximately 3,400 sf); therefore, no onsite detention is being proposed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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:llwww.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Response: Raised bioretention planter boxes are being proposed to provide the additional water quality treatment and is documented in the drainage summary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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 12 areas must be pervious. Existing stormwater infrastructure is in place at the intersections of Oak and Matthews and Oak and Olive that could be used for connection of any LID outfalls if needed. Both systems are less than 2504 from the site. 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-im pact -development Response: Raised bioretention planter boxes are being proposed for the additional water quality treatment. Due to the small amount of pavement not covered by the building (approximately 850 so, and per communication with City staff, no permeable pavers are being proposed with the development. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: As noted in the application, existing site drainage flows to both the alley and Matthews Street rights -of -way. Based on the notoriously poor stormwater conditions in the alleys in Old Town, an increase to the runoff into the alley will not be allowed unless an analysis is submitted by the Civil Engineer showing that the alley has adequate capacity to safely handle the additional runoff. The storm sewer system in Oak Street could be used to handle any additional runoff that is being conveyed to the alley if no other solution is feasible. Response: The site is graded to drain towards Matthews Street, therefore draining less area towards the alley. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,8171acre ($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:/hvww.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-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: Understood. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: 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: Understood. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, jcountyWcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 04/06/2015: No comments. Comment Originated: 04/06/2015 13 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The anticipated change in traffic volume (from single family dwelling to 9k office) is not expected to rise to the threshold of needing an official TIS. Based on section 4.2.3.D of LCUASS, the Traffic Impact Study requirement can be waived. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: Parking along Mathews will need to be moved with the relocation of the driveway. Response: Understood. New striping to add 4 new parking spaces including a van accessible space has been illustrated within the proposed plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: We'll need to ensure that there is adequate sight distance at the driveway entrance (and especially) the exit onto the alley. Response: Understood. Sight distance triangles have been indicated on the site plan to demonstrate proper visual ability. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: Is there bike parking with this proposal? Response: 4 bike parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building and 1 interior space is proposed inside the fire riser and electric room via the door directly off of the parking area. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: There site is served by an 8" sewer main in the alley and a 4" water main in Matthews. There are existing sewer and water services that will either need to be reused as part of this development or abandoned at the main. Response: Understood. The development is currently proposing to reuse the existing sanitary service and remove the existing water service to the main. Proposed water services (fire and domestic) are being proposed south of the existing service. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fegov.com/standards Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Response: Understood. Department: Zoning 14 Contact: Ar van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Signs will need to be approved through a separate sign permit application but please note: this property is in the residential sign district. LUC 3.8.7(E) Response: Understood. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: LUC 3.2.2(C)(b) General Office has a minimum bicycle parking requirement based on the square footage of 1/4,000 SQFT, minimum of 4 spaces, 800/6 fixed racks 20% enclosed spaces. Response: 4 bike parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building and 1 interior space is proposed inside the fire riser and electric room via the door directly off of the parking area. 15 CCWlhl 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/developmentreview November 13, 2015 Greg Fisher Greg D. Fisher, Architect, PLLC 3115 Clyde Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 215 Mathews Office Building, PDP150020, Round Number 1 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343ortshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: Please indicate the species and size of the new mitigation street tree. Response: Bur Oak - Quercus Macrocarpa 3" Caliper for mitigation. See LP103 for more information. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: All exterior lighting, if LED, must be specified to have a Kelvin temperature of 3,000 or less to minimize harsh glare. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: Please describe the materials of the trash enclosure. Response: Plea a refer to the west elevation where materials have been indicated as stucco walls With a cornice o'? brick and stone. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: On the vicinity map, please replace Howes Street with Smith Street. Response: The vicinity map has been revised. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: It appears that the retaining wall is directly on the south property line. Please consider obtaining the permission of the owner of the property to the south to gain access so that this wall can be constructed. Response: The retaining wall has been relocated 1' off of the property line to ease the transition to the existing masonry gateway at the front end of the southern property. Offsite temporary construction access easements are also being secured from the neighboring property. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: For further discussion as to providing the handicap parking space in the public right-of-way, please contact Jamie Moyer in Parking Services, 416-2036. Response: Such suggestion was taken leading to further conversations with other City departments. Ultimately a meeting was orchestrated by Ted that led to agreement on the handicap parking space being located to the street. A Modification of Standards was also submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: Easements Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: A 9' Utility Easement is needed along Mathews Street, not a 5' easement as previously discussed. Engineering would not support a reduced easement width due to the demand for future utilities. Response: The plans currently provide a 9' utility easement minus the minor protrusion of a footing below grade. A 44OUD Dft-*'2D ou'n►.Sl��v�F B.T�z-I�E�`sC--� Comment Number: 4 S «L— 0-A-e-� Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: The bioretention planter boxes need to be in drainage easements. The easement along Mathews Street can be a Utility and Drainage easement for these portions. Response: Drainage easements have been included to encompass the planter boxes and are shown on sheet C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: The building overhangs the proposed biotention planter boxes. These areas typically are required to be in drainage easements, however easements are not allowed under building overhangs. With the easement dedication process, a height can be given to account for the building overhang. Response: Each drainage easement has a height associated with the easement and are shown on sheet C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved. Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: LCUASS standards require street cut patches less than 75' to be one continuous patch. See redlines. Response: The patch area has been revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Scored and colored concrete are not allowed in the Public ROW. Language in the development agreement can be drafted to state this area shall be maintained by the Developer. 2 Response: It is desired that the minimal amount of scored and colored concrete shown within the public ROW be allowed under the condition that the property owners maintain it. It would look odd to have this small area be different than the rest of the entry plaza and it would downgrade the project to reduce the quality of the entry plaza to conventional concrete. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Please see LCUASS detail D-10B for a sidewalk culvert. A depressed gutter is required for the tree lawn ares, not a swale. See redlines. Response: Response: The site has been revised to show the sidewalk chase and sidewalk culvert per the detail D-10B. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/0912015: An offsite easement maybe required to install the landscape retaining walls along the south of the property. Response: A temporary construction easement is shown on the plans for the wall and offsite grading that has been negotiated with the owner of the property to the south. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Per the Plat, the parcel of land contains 7,500 SF, not 7,000 SF. Response: The original Town Plat shows lot dimensions of 140'x50' which is equal to 7,000 SF. Furthermore, the dimension of 150' as shown in the Oakpark Plat has a scaled dimension of 140' matching the Town plat. Therefore, it has been concluded by the design team that the dimension of 150' on the Oakpark Plat is incorrect. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Under Building Data, the gross building areas need to be shifted down a line. See redlines. Response: Text has been shifted as requested. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcaov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Using Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry in place of the Shadblow Serviceberry at the front of the building might provide better uniformity with the use of this named cultivar. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: On the south side of the building in the general locations where 3 Mexico Privet and 3 Black Chokecherry are used consider use of these shade tolerant upright trees in their place. Crimson Sentry Norway Maple Columnar Norway Spruce Picea abies cupressiana Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 11/13/2015: Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 3 Mitigation tree required are 9.5. The project should provide 10 upsized mitigation trees. Response: Refer to LP101 for updated table, the new mitigation quantity is 8 due to a tree being protected. Comment Number: 4 11/13/2015: Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 Please add these additional standard notes: TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1— JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. Response: Acknowledged Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliamsC&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: Asper the process outlined in Section 14-72(b) of the Municipal Code, the demolition of the building located at 215 Mathews was determined to not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the National and State Register District. Therefore, other than the required Plan of Protection, there will be no further review of its demolition by the Historic Preservation Division. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(1) states: To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is locatedt. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Staff believes that the height, setback and width of the new structure are similar to the existing historic structures along Mathews Street, i.e., the Park View Apartments and the Carnegie Library. Response: Acknowledged. Please note that the setback has been further increased at the front to accommodate a 9' utility easement requested by the Engineering Department. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) states in part: New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. 4 Response: Understood. The front facade of the building is proposed to be entirely of brick and pre -cast concrete veneer and the side and rear facades are proposed to have significant brick veneer and pre -cast concrete bases. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 Comment Number: 3. 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(5) — maximum floor -to -area ratio -rear -one-half of lot, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification based on the surrounding context. Response: Understood, Comment Originated: 0410912015 Comment Number: 4. 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(6)(b) - minimum required front yard setback along Mathews Street, staff is willing to consider supporting this Modification subject to a full discussion regarding not taking access off Mathews Street (see comment number 6). As with Townhomes at Library Park, there would need to be a demonstrable amount of building articulation, combined with landscaping, in such a manner that promotes a quality streetscape experience for the pedestrian. The building mass at the proposed setback must be sufficiently mitigated in order for the building not to loom over the public right-of-way. Response: After receiving input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. After receiving input from LPC in addition to staff comments, the front setback has been increased to 5'-8' at the main entry and to 8' for the more dominant portion of the fagade. While there is still significant building articulation remaining the now proposed fagade has less undulation to respond to LPC comments to make the building massing simpler and more like the Park View Apartments. Comment Originated: 04109I2015 Comment Number: 5. 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) — minimum required sideyard setback, staff is willing to consider supporting the element of the Modification between 18 and 37 feet of wall height where the building would not be stepped back at the ratio required by the standard. Staff will evaluate the amount of wall articulation, fenestration, quality building materials and shadowing (along the north) in order to assess the impact. The shadow analysis must be in conformance with Section 3.5.1(G). As with the relationship to Mathews Street, the building mass must be mitigated. The context of the area will also be considered. Note that the north elevation of Park View Apartments may be more sensitive with all its windows whereas the south elevation of Library Park Apartments contains a windowless two-story wall. Response Understood. The building is proposed to be less than 40' in height and thus would not require a shadow analysis per Section 3.5.1(G) Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding Section 4.9(E)(6) — Access - staff does not support the Modification that would place the driveway access on Mathews Street. The narrative explains how this particular block face is bordered by the alley which also forms the zone district boundary between the Downtown (Old City Center) zone district and the N-C-B. The narrative goes on to state how this block face is more accurately characterized as being more Downtown -like versus N-C-B-like. Staff agrees with this assessment which then leads us to call attention to the rhythm, pattern and urban character of Mathews Street for this entire block face. Preserving this Downtown -like character by not perpetuating the driveway, along with eliminating the wide gap in the building fagade, would 2 Staff appreciates the applicant's extensive use of brick on the building's facade. However, the brick, combined with the design, appear very reminiscent of a historic school building. This could be mitigated by the addition of another material. Staff notes that directly across the alley from this project are several eligible and designated properties, along Remington Street. These include the one-story Bode Property, a designated Fort Collins Landmark, which is located directly across the alley from this project, as well as the individually eligible property next to the Bode House, at 218 Remington. To achieve compatibility with these historic properties, the rear of the building should be articulated, possibly by a stepback, and enhanced with additional brick. Response: Revisions have been made to address these comments. Revisions include the reduction of brick and introduction of stucco on the front facade, reallocation of the brick and stucco on the north and south sides and more extensive use of brick on the rear facade. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) states in part: Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction... The window patterns on the south half of the facade match the historic window patterns, although they do not directly line up. However, the window patterns on the north half of the facade do not match historic window patterns, as required by this standard. Response: It is understood that staff is recommending that the window patterns on the north half of the front facade be realigned to match the pattern of the adjacent properties. However, we feel strongly that the proposed pattern is reminiscent of other historic facades where the window pattern expresses the stairway contained within. This adds visual interest and makes the windows functional from the interior. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) states, The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. This standard has been met. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(4) states, Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible. The focal point for this project would be the Carnegie Library Building and Library Park, as well as to Old Town. The visual and pedestrian connections to these have been maintained, and this standard has been met. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(5) states, To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street 5 tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. The plans call for retaining the existing tree; also, increasing the setback will enable the front strip to be planted in grass, which is the historic landscape material in this location. With these, staff feels that this standard has been met. Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Maren Bzdek, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015 10/28/2015: Staff recommends the following adjustments to application materials for the LPC hearing:1) Remove graphic depictions of trees from the front elevations to provide a more clear portrayal of building details; 2) Provide more context for the rear elevation, i.e. wider view that shows more of the buildings to the north and south; 3) Add building dimension notations to the elevations. Response: Trees have been removed from the PDP elevations and the west elevation has been broadened to include more of the Park View Apartments facade also in the PDP Elevations. Building height dimensions are shown on the east elevation and horizontal dimensions have been provided on the site plan. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 _ Comment Originated: 10/28/2015 10/28/2015: The property is located in the Laurel School National Register District, so the proposed project will be subject to compliance with the standards in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. 11/09/2015: The property is not located within the Laurel School National Register District, but is located adjacent to several designated and eligible properties. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015 10/28/2015: The LPC provided initial feedback in a work session on May 13, 2015 and will now need to provide a written recommendation to the Decision Maker, as required by LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), which 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 deter-mination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the indi-vidual 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 LPC review. The next two available opportunities are 12/9/15 and 1/13/16. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated 10/28/2015: In addition to the Laurel School Historic District, the LPC may consider compatibility with individually designated properties in the area of adjacency, according to 3.4.7(B). These include 220 Remington (Bode House) and 200 Mathews (Carnegie Library). Several adjacent properties have been evaluated in the past but do not have current determinations of eligibility for local landmark status, including: 217 E. Oak, 218 Remington, 221 Mathews (Park View Apartments), 207 Mathews (Library Park Apartments). 11/09/2015: Area of Adjacency: For the purposes of staffts review of the project, and based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project in light of the definition of jadjacenQ 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. Historic properties within this area of adjacency include the Carnegie Library/Museum/Community Creative Center, 200 Mathews Street; the Park View Apartments, 221 Mathews Street; the McHugh House/St. Peterts Fly Shop, 202 Remington Street; historic residential buildings at 218 and 230 Remington Street; and the Bode Property, 220 Remington Street. In its consideration of this project for a recommendation to the decision maker, the Landmark Preservation Commission may concur with, reject or modify this area of adjacency. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light and Power Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10/28/2015 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Please contact Todd Vedder at Light and Power, 221-6700, to determine the feasibility of bringing three-phase power to the site. If three-phase power is not in the near vicinity, you may have to consider an elevator that relies only on single phase. Response: Single phase power will be acceptable service to the property as an elevator was found that will accommodate. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ,Iynxwiler9Qoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: FIRE LANES The footprint places the building out of fire access by approximately 50'. As the building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, the out of access condition is acceptable as defined by IFC 503.1.1. Response: Acknowledged. 7 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: WATER SUPPLY A hydrant is required within 300' of the building. The closest hydrant is approximately 275' which meets the minimum requirement. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST PFA now waives DCA testing and system installation in all buildings less than 10,000 sq. f. and any Type V construction building less than 15,000 sq. ft. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/2015 11/10/2015: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING WIN HEIGHT Per staff meeting on 11/10/15, the project team will confirm the proposed building height against fire code requirements for aerial apparatus access, and provide updated information prior to the next review. Response: Please refer to email correspondence regarding this matter concluding on 12/3/15. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowellC&fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: - Appendix B — LID Calculations — please provide a table in this Appendix that shows that no less than 50% of newly added impervious area is routed to the bioretention planters. The information is discussed in the narrative, but it needs to also be provided in this LID Appendix. (final) - Appendix C - Cover Page indicates that a Standard Operating Procedure Manual will be provided to the City. The City will actually provide the SOP Manual now so you can eliminate this Appendix (final) - Swale cross-section calculations with 100-yr water surface elevations are required (final) Response: The requested revisions to the Drainage Report have been included. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: SheetC400: Grading Plan - The swale at the southwest side of the proposed building is routing through the bioretention planter. The underdrain pipe will need to be sized to incorporate the flow from this swale (Basin A1) and calculations will need to be provided. Alternatively, a second solid -wall pipe could be added to the bioretention planter to pass the Basin Al flow through. (final) - The proposed swales shown on this plan are labelled as "bioswales" on the Landscape Plans. I don't think it is your intent to make these bioswales but please verify and/or coordinate with the LA plans. (final) - Detailed Grading plans with additional spot elevations, slope labels, finished grade elevations adjacent to the building will be required at final. Response: Hydraulics for the underdrain pipe and swales have been included within the drainage report and swale sections are also included on the Drainage Plan. The term "bioswales" has been removed from 13 the Landscape Plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/0212015 11/02/2015: Sheet LP103 —The bioswales indicated on this sheet are simply shown as "swales" on the Civil plans. Please coordinate with the Civil plans. Response: Acknowledged - the term bioswale has been re -named Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: Sheet LP501—The bioswale detail does not meet the City of Fort Collins bioswale requirements so either change the name of the detail to something other than "bioswale" or you will need to revise the swale to meet the City of Fort Collins criteria. Response: Acknowledged - the term bioswale has been re -named Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,8171acre ($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 at: http:llwww.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015 11/12/2015: The bioretention planters area volume -based LID technique and as such drainage easements (3-dimensional easements may be warranted) will need to be dedicated for the area of the planters. If the planters are situated within the front lot utility easement, it is fine to have the drainage easement overlap the utility easement. Response: Drainage easements have been included to encompass the planter boxes and are shown on sheet C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved. A height of 25' has been proposed for each drainage easement due to the building overhang. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/26/2015 10/26/2015: After review of the map and calculating based on the scale of the map provided the statement that the site is under 10,000 sq-ft appears to be true. Please review redlines for verification that those are accurate measurements as no map showing the disturbed area was provided. Since site is less than 10,000 sq-ft no submittal of erosion control material is needed. However, the site still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times or BMPs will be required of the site. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: The site disturbance is approximately 8,910 SF. This area is noted on sheet C400 (note 6). Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountk@fcgov.com El Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 11/09/2015: No comments. Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015: Please change the title to "215 Mathews Offices", and "Tract 2" to "Tract Two". See redlines. Response: The title has been revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015: Please provide the following information 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 information as shown has been added. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: The sheet index has been revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets. Response: The benchmark statements have been revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated 11/09/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated 11/09/2015: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. Response: Property corner values have been added to each sheet. Topic: Landscape Plans 10 11/09/2015 11/09/2015 11/09/2015 11/09/2015 11/09/2015 11/09/2015 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Please change the legal description from "Tract 2" to "Tract Two". See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 1110912015 11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged - cover index has been updated Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 1110912015 11/09/2015: The titles do not match the index on sheet PDP-1. See redlines. Response: Titles on sheet PDP-1 revised. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Please change the legal description from "Tract 2" to "Tract Two". See redlines. Response: Revised. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Titles on sheet index revised. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Please remove the Utility Plans from the sheet index. These are not filed with the other plans. See redlines. Response: Removed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: How were the Utility Easements dedicated? The Oakpark plat did not dedicate any easements. See redlines. Response: All the easements shown will be dedicated by separate document. Easement exhibits will be prepared by a licensed survey and provided to the City after the locations have been approved. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Corrected. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Traffic study waived during PDR. "The anticipated change in traffic volume is not expected to rise to the threshold of needing a TIS. Based on section 4.21D of LCUASS, the Traffic Impact Study requirement can be 11 waived." Response: Acknowledged, Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11I0912015 11/09/2015: An earlier question about bike parking in the PDR was answered with 1 bike parking space inside the fire room. This doesn't seem terrible usable. Any chance something like wall racks could be added in the parking area? Response: It is preferred to continue the idea of using this room for employee bike parking. There is plenty of space inside this room beyond what is needed for the fire riser equipment and a key can be issued to any employee that would desire to secure their bike inside. There also isn't really a good place even to locate wall racks within the garage area as the dimensions are tight. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson0fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: 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(c-fcaov.com Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: Sheet COO 1: Notes Sheet —There is reference to FCLWD notes — please change the reference and notes to the appropriate City of Fort Collins notes. (final) Response: The notes have been revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/0212015 Sheet C100: Ex. Information and Removal Plan — clarify the extents of the sanitary sewer service removal. (final)11 /02/2015: Response: The extents have been clarified in the plan and note 11 has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015 11/02/2015: Sheet C300: Utility Plan —the water meter size will need to be provided and the curb stop location will need to be shown. (final) Response: The size and curb stop location have been added to the plans. 12 be a positive and important contribution to the urban context. Please note that the Townhomes at Library Park takes sole access from the alley. By deleting the driveway, and replacing it with sod, the pedestrian experience is enhanced and additional on -street parking spaces can be gained. Response: After receiving this input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: As with all considerations for Modifications of Standard, staff reserves the right to further evaluate all aspects of the project based on the nature of the input from surrounding affected property owners as a result of public outreach such as the neighborhood meeting. For example, based on public input gleaned from the neighborhood meetings, the Townhomes at Library Park was significantly revised over the course of the review process. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: The review will include an evaluation per Section 3.4.7 — Historical and Cultural Resources. In this case, the Park View Apartments to the south is a building that is potentially eligible to be designated as a local historic landmark. Compatibility with Park View Apartments must be considered. For example, has any consideration been given to selecting a brick color that matches, or is close to, the color tone of the brick of Park View Apartments? The color depiction provided indicates, at this point, that the brick color tone is very dark in contrast to the masonry of the building to the south. Response: Consideration has been given to selecting a brick that is similar in color to the Park View Apartments and the current illustrations reflect this. Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 7, staff is willing to support necking down the drive aisle width at the alley given the low number of parking spaces and that such spaces are private. It is more important to ensure that there is proper sight distance so that cars exiting can see traffic (all modes) in the alley. Response: Understood. Sight distances per City standards have been provided and the current site plan illustrates the sight distance triangles. Furthermore, the previously shown masonry piers near the alley access point have been removed. Comment Number: 10. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 10, has any consideration been given to not having a typical dumpster, recycle containers and enclosure? A dumpster requires a concrete surface. The enclosure must be sized to accommodate recycle containers. Why not simply rely on smaller containers that can stored in the under -structure parking area, and then be wheeled out on trash/recycle day? Response: The building owners prefer to have a designated trash enclosure to ensure that trash and recycle containers will be in the proper place when service vehicles come for pick-up. Comment Number: 11. Comment Originated: 04/09/2015 04/09/2015: Regarding question 12, be sure to properly size the electrical load to accommodate the power needed for the pump that pressurizes the fire sprinkler system for the upper parts of the building. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 12. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces are required. For the 3 space near the entrance, staff recommends considering placing the rack off to the side so as to have a minimal impact on the public right-of-way due to the building's close relationship to Mathews Street. Would there be space in the under -structure parking area for the other spaces? Since the rear stairwell may be sprinklered, perhaps this would be a suitable location for the enclosed bike spaces. Response: The current site plan illustrates our intention to provide two bike racks (for two bikes each) at the front of the building. Comment Number: 13. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: There is an existing street tree in the parkway. This tree appears to be an Oak and in very good shape. It should be protected to the same extent as the four protected trees at Townhomes at Library Park. Protection must be in place prior to demolition of the existing house. Please be sure to add the standard tree preservation notes to both the Demolition Permit and the Landscape Plan. Since the tree is in the public right-of-way, a free permit from the City Forester will be required before installing tree protection measures. Response: Understood and requested notes have been included. Comment Number: 14. Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The Demolition Permit is issued by the City but also includes an asbestos evaluation and abatement, if necessary, that is issued by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, Air Quality Division, Response: Understood. Comment Number: 15. Comment Originated 04/15/2015: Regarding reducing the parking lot drive aisle to 20 feet versus 24 feet, a Modification of Standard will be supported on the basis that there are only nine affected spaces and these spaces will be assigned to tenants and not available to the general public. Reducing this drive aisle also has the benefit of not needing a driveway off Mathews and thus enhancing the streetscape. Response: Understood. Please note drive aisle is now virtually 21'. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 04/15/2015 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.phi) Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, 4 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. Response: Understood. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: 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. Response: Understood. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Engineering is in agreement with planning in that access to this site shall be taken off of the alley. The existing driveway cut shall be removed, the curb line and sidewalk replaced as needed and striping added to the street for the diagonal parking. Response: After receiving this input from staff, the access off of Mathews Street has been eliminated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The public sidewalk will need to remain gray concrete. The enhancements shown on the plan are not permitted within the public sidewalk area. Response: Understood and site plan has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: The trash enclosure. Doors are not allowed to swing out into the alley. This can be addressed by providing sliding doors. Response: Understood and sliding doors are now proposed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: htta://www.ladmer.om/enaineerina/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Response: Understood. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary and required for this project. This includes an 8 foot utility easement along the alley and a 9 foot utility easement along Mathew Street. Whether these easements requirements can be reduced is up to the utility providers. Any request to reduce or eliminate these required easements would be routed out to the utility providers along with a copy of the proposed structure so they could identify if the easement will be needed now or in the future. Response: Understood. An 8' utility easement is proposed at the rear property line as requested. A 5' utility easement is proposed at the front property line even though a 9' easement was standardly requested. The reduction in size is based on the only utility provider comments we received when we requested a deletion of the easement. That utility provider was Comcast and their utility representative, Don Kapperman, indicated a 5' easement would be acceptable. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 5 04/10/2015: Any required water quality and/or detention shall be provided for on private property Response: Understood. Water quality is being treated by bio-retention planter boxes as shown in the utility plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/10/2015 04/10/2015: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The alley adjacent to this site is paved, but if there are any impacts or utility cuts into the alley for this project it will need to be reconstructed by this project. Response: Understood. No utility cuts are proposed with this project. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: 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: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review'of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221 6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. If tree mitigation is necessary, please include a note on the tree mitigation plan or landscape plan, as appropriate, that requires a tree removal to occur outside of the migratory songbird nesting season (February 1-July 31), or that a survey be conducted prior to removal to ensure no active nests in the area. Response: Understood. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: As per the process outlined in Section 14-72(b) of the Municipal Code, the demolition of the building located at 215 Mathews was determined to not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the National and State Register District. Therefore, other than the required Plan of Protection, there will be no further review of its demolition by the Historic Preservation Division. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: The property is located in the Laurel School National Register District, so the project will be subject to compliance with the standards in LUC Section 3.4.7., Historic and Cultural Resources. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: 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. LUC 3.4.7(B)(b) General Standard, 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 [is designated or qualifies for designation]. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/13/2015: 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... (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 this is not necessary. Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. Response: The project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission in a work session on May 13, 2015. There was much discussion among the commissioners but generally there was a recommendation to reduce the height of the building as much as possible, increase the front setback to match the Parkview Apartments, to the south, to make the building more "blocky" like the Parkview Apartments and to horizontally align windows. The comments made by the commissioners have been treated very seriously and significant revisions have been made to address the comments as much as reasonable. The height of the building has been reduced significantly to the extent that ceiling heights and mechanical plenum heights above those ceilings have been reduced to sub -standard relative to today's typical office building standards. The building setback has been increased by 5'-8" from 0' at the main entry and to 8' for the majority of the building front fagade. While the existing Parkview Apartments are setback approximately 11' the main entry of Parkview also protrudes further into this setback. In regards to making the building more "blocky", the front massing of the proposed building has been simplified to one primary front wall plane with a protruding entryway and roof overhangs. In order to still provide an 7 aesthetically pleasing front facade with some relief, the wall planes have been embellished with pre -cast concrete detailing in the form of arches, caps, bands and base treatment. Fenestration has also been revised to be similar in proportion and detail to that of the Parkview Apartments. While new window heights, other than the ground floor, cannot align with the Parkview heights, a uncK Soldier course nas been Introduced in the new buiiaing aligning witn top of the second hoor window lintels of Parkview to provide a horizontal connection to the existing building. Lastly, it proposed that the new brick be similar in color to the existing brick color of the Parkview Apartments to make further visual connection between the two buildings. Comment Number: 5. 04/14/2015: Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 In order to adequately review for compliance with LUC 3.4.7, please submit cross sections, perspectives (including from the street level), and contextual elevations, with measurements, showing the proposed building in relation to the other buildings on the same block face. Also, please provide color photographs of the two apartment buildings on either side of this property. Response: These documents were all provided to the Landmark Preservation Commission. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedderVcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: System modification charges and electrical capacity charges will for this commercial service. Right now the existing home is being fed with a single phase secondary conductor at a 150A service. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Transformer and meter location will have to be coordinated with Light & Power. Please contact us at 221-6700 to schedule this coordination. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: Will the service being provided to this commercial complex require single phase or three phase service? Right now the block is very congested so modifications will have to be done in order to provide any three phase service. Response: Three phase service is desired for this project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: A Commercial Service Information Form (C-1) will have to be filled out by the electrician as well as a one -line diagram will have to be submitted to ensure metering requirements are met by the City of Fort Collins. A link to a blank C-1 form is provided below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: Understood. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/14/2015 04/14/2015: The following information will need to be provided before any design can be finalized and construction can begin by Light & Power: Stamped E? plat and site plan, approved utility and landscape plan, C-1 form and one -line diagram and anything else determined by Light & Power during the design phase. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/15/2015 04/15/2015: The transformer will need to be located within 10ft of a driveable surface. The clearances for the transformer are as follows: 8ft in front, 3ft on sides and 3ft to the back. Response: Understood. The requested adjacencies and clearances have been provided with the current site plan. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869,lynxwiler@poudre-fire.ora Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Code requirements pertaining to fire hydrant locations, have been satisfied with the existing utility infrastructure available in the area. Code language provided below: > 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. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/07/2015 04/07/2015: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM The mixed use building will require an NFPA 13, automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. 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 occupancies. 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: Understood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/16/2015 04/16/2015: FIRE LANES All portions of the building are to be within 150' of a fire access road. It is E