Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout801 SOUTH SHIELDS STREET DELTA ZETA - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2015-09-09F6Coilinsrt FINAL PLAN REVISION 281 For N. College Ave. Fort COMMENT SHEET Collins, CO 80524 Fax 970-224-6134 DATE: June 18, 2014 TO: Development Review Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Holland FDP130053 Plum & Shields Extra Occupancy Housing 4th Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: July 30, 2014 If you do not have access to the Accela program, please send your comments via email to:jholland@fcgov.com Note Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or Accela) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _Other. Utility _Redline Utility Landscape 4W. 03/07/2014: What is the surface material under the handicap parking space? It should be asphalt or concrete in order to safely accommodate people with canes, walkers, etc. If it isn't asphalt or concrete, consider moving it to an asphalt or concrete location. RESPONSE: The pavers that were previously proposed to be under the HC spaces has been relocated. For future reference, the pavers that are proposed are fully ADA compliant. Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 27, 2014 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Plum & Shields Greek Housing, FDP130053, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224- 6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov,com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: A modification to the minimum parking required would need to be submitted for review, if the parking ratio cannot be met. RESPONSE: We have the parking worked out. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: A modification to the TOD Character and Image standards is required to be reviewed prior to hearing. This is for 3.10.5(C)(1)(2)and(5) below: 3.10.5(C) Materials and Colors. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. (1) Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt —up concrete systems. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. (2) All building facades shall incorporate stone, stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood andlor equivalent accent material in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or the base and top of the building. An all —brick building does not need to incorporate an accent material, though soldier courses and banding or other brick, stone or metal detailing are encouraged in order to subdivide masses and establish human scale. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. (3) Predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high —intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. (4) Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, and black, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. (5) Exterior building materials shall not include smooth —faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted tilt —up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels. RESPONSE: As discussed, this may not be necessary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Please see redlines for comments on formatting and additional content needed for sheet information, dimensions, and land use table. Overall, it is difficult to read existing vs. proposed, and the existing tree symbols are difficult to read and have no trunk marking. RESPONSE: Everything is fixed per suggestions. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingedch fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Sheet C200 proposes the pervious pavers to extend south of the Property line. Does this project have an access easement or legal right to construct on the adjacent property. If not than a letter of intent will be required by the adjacent property stating that they will grant such easement during final compliance of this project. RESPONSE: The pervious pavers are now proposed at the NW corner of the new parking area. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: A sidewalk connection is required to be provided to the west property line of this project. The existing tree that exists on the northwest corner or this property is currently blocking the preferred alignment of the sidewalk. Pending an independent evaluation from a licensed arborist on the trees health and condition the sidewalk alignment may need to be further evaluated for interim and ultimate conditions. RESPONSE: Based on several on -site meetings and coordination, we think we have a solution that will accommodate both the sidewalk and the tree. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: The right of way along Plum Street shall be dedicated by separate document such that it matches with the back of the proposed sidewalk. A utility easement should be provided on the back of the right of way but the actual width of easement can be negotiated since most utilities already exist within the existing and proposed right of way. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This is shown on revised plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: The driveway access on the Plum should be a 2—way access with a minimum of 28' in width per LCUASS. Not only should this width be provided per standard but it will also allow this site to take full access off of Plum Street allowing vehicles to make full use of the signalized intersection at Plum and Shields instead of directing all vehicles to SB Shields. This driveway will need to be constructed per City standard details. RESPONSE: The drive aisle is now 22', with a 20' driveway at the Plum Street access. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01122/2014: Does this project currently have an access easement on the adjacent property to allow vehicles to exit through the southbound driveway? RESPONSE: As discussed, we will leave the access open, but will add a speed bump. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: The proposed street trees and grates appear to be directly on top of existing fiber optic lines. Please coordinate with the protection or relocation of these fiber optic lines and coordinated with any requirements from Forestry. RESPONSE: The fiber optic lines are owned by CenturyLink, and we are currently investigating whether or not the street trees will be allowed. Early indications are that they will be allowed, so long as the street trees are hand dug in the planting process. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Greater than 750 square feet of runoff is draining out of the existing driveway onto Plum Street. Depending on the determination on the tree, sidewalk and driveway this will need to be mitigated by a chase, inlet, etc. RESPONSE: As you have noted, there is currently 1314 sf of paving that will drain across the proposed flush sidewalk. Due to the sidewalk being flush, and the proximity to the existing tree, there are no mitigation techniques proposed at this time. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: It appears that the existing curb and gutter along Plum Street will need to be removed and replaced to the standard vertical curb and gutter section. RESPONSE: The curb and gutter along Plum is now shown as new 30" vertical curb and gutter. Please note that this stretch of curb is located along a crest in the road, and as such, the proposed flowline grades are extremely flat. It should also be noted that the existing asphalt actually slopes away from the existing curb and gutter. The combination of these two factors lead us to believe that the flat slopes that currently exist, and that we propose to match, will have little to no adverse impact. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Right of way dedication, easement dedication and vacation will need to be processed by separate document. It is $250 for each dedication and $400 for easement vacation. RESPONSE: A right-of-way dedication exhibit and easement vacation will provided once the extents of the improvements have been finalized. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lexa—fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: No comments. RESPONSE: Thank you. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tuchanan _fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: A complete tree inventory will need to be provided. All existing trees will need to be shown on the plan and labeled by number. For each existing tree the species, size, condition, intent to remove or retain and mitigation will need to be identified. This information will need to be placed in a table. Contact the City Forester for an on —site meeting to review existing trees and obtain information for the tree inventory. RESPONSE: An on -site meeting was held with the City Forester and a complete tree inventory prepared by Jordan's has been provided as well. Information on tree species, size, condition, intent to remove or retain and mitigation has been identified on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 2 01/22/2014: Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 Include all of the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G 1-7 including the table associated with number 7. Be sure all in the information in 1-7 is included. Additional information is ok. RESPONSE: All of the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G 1-7, including the table have been added to the Tree Protection Notes on the Landscape Notes sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Two of the existing trees will need to have aerial evaluation performed by a qualified and certified private arborist. The aerial evaluation is different from general information provided by the City Forester in the on -site meeting. A written report should be provided by the private arborist on the suitability of these two trees for retention including a recommendation to retain or remove. The two trees include the following. 1. Cottonwood at the NW corner of the project along Plum Street 2. American Linden located along the north wall of the existing building a little to the east of the current entry to the parking lot off of Plum Street. An aerial evaluation should include and examination of the complete tree for health and primarily structure. Aerial evaluations are conducted with a bucket truck and climbers where necessary. The purpose is to closely evaluate the structural strength and integrity of the trunk and branches of the trees in much more detail than can be accomplished from the ground. This information can then be used in making• decisions about the suitability of these trees for retention. Existing significant trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. The Linden has some noticeable cavities in the trunk. Comprehensive information is needed on the cottonwood to further evaluate the sidewalk design options. Forestry staff requests to be contacted when aerial evaluations are performed. Forestry can provide a reference for qualified and certified provide arborists to perform the aerial evaluation. RESPONSE: An aerial evaluation and report, completed by Jordan's, was submitted to the City Forester. Comment Number: 4 01/22/2014: Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 If it is not advisable from the private arborist report to retain the American Linden along Plum Street on the north side of the building then please incorporate a third street tree along Plum Street. RESPONSE: A third street tree along Plum Street has been provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Tree is sidewalk grates typically need to be 3 inch caliper. Please specify trees in tree grates at 3 inch caliper. RESPONSE: The trees species that are shown in sidewalk grates have been noted as 3" caliper in the plant list. Comment Number: 6 01/22/2014: Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 Label on the landscape plan that tree grates to City Standards will be installed for trees in the sidewalk. Specify type of grate. Contact Tracy Dyer in Engineering to obtain information on standard grates. RESPONSE: A note has been added to the Landscape Notes (#23) with the type of grate and requirement that tree grates meet City Standards. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Landscape note number 1 includes information about tree separation between trees and electric and phone lines. There is not a LUC separation standard between trees and these utilities. Please edit the note accordingly. RESPONSE: The note has been revised accordingly, Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Please remove Landscape note number 30 as it pertains to residential street trees. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Move new shrubs and perennials away from existing trees enough to prevent excavation for planting holes very close to tree trunks. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Please provide larger symbols for plants in the plant schedule to make it easier to read. RESPONSE: Line weight and types for plant symbols have been revised to improve legibility. The scale has not been revised as they symbols are drawn to scale in order to provide accurate plant counts and layout. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Evaluate adding a couple of canopy trees along the east boundary to add additional separation. RESPONSE: An additional canopy tree has been added along the eastern boundary. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/26/2013 12/26/2013: Records indicate the existing electric service is one meter at 1200 amps of 120/240 volt single phase. Please coordinate any changes to the electric service and/or the electric utility system with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, Ilynxvvile[@Doudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 , Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION Be advised, the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins are currently in the process of reviewing the 2012 International Fire Code in preparation for its adoption in 2014. 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. Changes to fire sprinkler system requirements for commercial use properties is anticipated and at such time a full NFPA13 system will be required rather than a 13R system currently allowed for R2 residential occupancies. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant is having the existing sprinkler system evaluated and will upgrade as necessary. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM This building is currently sprinklered however, current code standards may require upgrades to the existing system. The sprinkler system shall be reviewed and approved under a separate permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant is having the existing sprinkler system evaluated and will upgrade as necessary KEY BOXES REQUIRED 061FC 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 approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. Update keys as needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 01/20/2014: FIRE LANES Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 Redesigning the site plan to allow fire access will create significant impacts to the site and result in the loss of 6 —7 parking spaces. Upgrading the current sprinkler system to a full NFPA13 system will negate the EAE drive through currently proposed on the west and south sides of the building. RESPONSE: As discussed, since the fire sprinkler system will be upgraded, fire access is not an issue. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: PLANS SCALE The 1 "=40' scale labeling on the Site Plan, Sheet 1 appears to be in error. RESPONSE: This has been fixed. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: Please provide no more than 2 times the area draining into the porous pavement area. This is to ensure the pavement system is not overburdened and will function as intended over time. RESPONSE: The paver area has been moved to the NW corner of the new parking spaces. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: Please provide a detail for the proposed planter bed. RESPONSE: A detail is now provided on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/24/2014 01/24/2014: Please provide a cleanout for the underdrain that enters the porous pavement section. RESPONSE: There is no longer a pipe entering the porous pavement. Details have been provided for the various cleanouts and drain basins. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyMcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: Are the building elevations changing? RESPONSE: No. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: Please add "NGVD 1929 Datum Unadjusted" to the elevations. RESPONSE: A reference to the vertical datum was provided in Note 3 of the notes on Sheet C300. Reference to the datum is now provided for the city benchmarks as well. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet C100. See redlines. RESPONSE: The line over text issues have been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: Please mask the text in the dark gray hatching on sheet C200. See redlines. RESPONSE: The text is using a background mask that matches the color of the hatch. The hatch color has been lightened to provide additional contrast. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 01/20/2014: No comments. RESPONSE: Thank you. Topic: Site Plan Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: We have a Site Plan on file. Is the Site Plan being amended? RESPONSE: Yes, the existing recorded site plan is being amended. This has to go through a full PDP/FP review since the building has been vacant for more than 1 year and the site needs to be brought up to standards to the extent reasonably feasible. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford fcgov,com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Traffic Op's would like to see 2-way traffic movement ability at the Plum access. Traffic does recognize the large existing tree impacts that significantly. If the tree has to stay Traffic would like to explore the possibility of some agreement or D.A. language requiring the Plum driveway to be widened for two-way traffic when the tree is removed. RESPONSE: Resolved. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/21/2014: Traffic would like to see the southeast access between the lots reconstructed to create a 90 degree drive lane between the lots, parallel to Shields. This would promote the one-way movement onsite as well as better control of exiting traffic onto Shields St. Another option to the reconstructing the access could be speed bumps. RESPONSE: Resolved. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 01/22/2014: Please provide verification that the access easement at your southeast access to the church property extends to Shields. If it does not an access easement will be needed to maintain the access to Shields. RESPONSE: Resolved: Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington .fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 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 March 24, 2014 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Plum & Shields Greek Housing, FDP130053, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summa Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224.6126, ihollandt@-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 0311712014: Several modifications of standard are required to be reviewed with the project, including: reducing the drive isle width from 22' to +/-18 feet, reduction of parking lot interior landscaping from 6%, reduction of south parking setback form 5' minimum to +/-1 foot, reducing compact parallel space width from 7.5 feet to +/- 7 feet. RESPONSE: We provided a Modification and it was approved at our hearing. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: With the parking table, please add the formula for required minimum parking for the greek housing use. RESPONSE: Formula added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: With the land use table, please show a breakdown of habitable living space that totals to 12,508 total SF for the existing building. Show the SF for the bedroom units. RESPONSE: Data added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: The maximum 20 tenant scenario for the EORH uses does not seem logical since each dwelling space has two bedrooms. This tenant maximum would be 40. RESPONSE: Data and justification added to plans. 01/21/2014: Will the building have a commercial kitchen or will it be more like a multi —family building with kitchens in each separate unit? If there is a commercial kitchen, a grease interceptor will be required. RESPONSE: No new kitchen at this time. Comment Number: 2 01/21/2014: Will a fire line be needed? RESPONSE: The existing fire line will be utilized. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes(Mcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: The Land Use Statistics table on the site plan states that the use is a group home. That needs to be changed to 'fraternity'. It would also be advised to include in the table information about number of occupants. i.e. does 21 bedrooms mean 21 occupants, or will there be more than 1 bed per bedroom? RESPONSE: Potential uses have been added to the Land Use Table, Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: The drive aisle widths are less than required. Per Sec. 3.2.2(L), the drive aisle widths are less than required. The one—way drive on the west side needs to be at least 12' wide, and the drive aisle on the south side needs to be 20' wide. RESPONSE: The agreed -upon drive aisle widths are shown on the revised plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Per Sec. 3.2.2(L), not more than 40% of the parking spaces can be compact. 50% of the proposed spaces are compact (This use is not included in the uses that are exempt from this requirement). RESPONSE: There are no compact spaces proposed with the revised plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: The maximum fence height allowed in the front yard (the east side) is 4 ft. The proposed height is 6'. The elevation drawings show a 4' high fence but the site plan shows 6' RESPONSE: The fence is reduced to 4'. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Please show the trash enclosure dimensions and include a detail drawing (height, materials). RESPONSE: Done, Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Add a note indicating that building— and pole —mounted light fixtures will be shielded and down directional. RESPONSE: Note added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Show lot dimensions on site plan. RESPONSE: Dimensions added. A> Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: Landscape Plan- see sheets for redlines. Generally the plans and plant symbols are difficult to read. Would suggest a mulch diagram. RESPONSE: Landscape Plan revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/17/2014 03/17/2014: Would suggest moving the south fence to be along the property line so that parked cars have more room to enter/exit the vehicle. RESPONSE: Fence remains as discussed, since it helped with the justification for the modification. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 Comment from GIS: Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. RESPONSE:Acknowledged. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. 03/19/2014: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970.221.6603, agingerich _fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 03/19/2014: Has there been a root evaluation? I have not seen any additional information. As discussed previously with Andy Reese we will request that the sidewalk be built off of a vertical curb. 01 /2212014: A sidewalk connection is required to be provided to the west property line of this project. The existing tree that exists on the northwest comer or this property is currently blocking the preferred alignment of the sidewalk. Pending an independent evaluation from a licensed arborist on the trees health and condition the sidewalk alignment may need to be further evaluated for interim and ultimate conditions. RESPONSE: Per our discussions, an attached 5' sidewalk is now provided along with a full height curb and access ramp. The sidewalk will terminate at the property line. Construction of the sidewalk will be done in a manner that provides maximum protection for the tree roots, and will be coordinated with city forestry staff as needed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 03/19/2014: Please provide legal description and exhibits of this right of way for review. 01/22/2014: The right of way along Plum Street shall be dedicated by separate document such that it matches with the back of the proposed sidewalk. A utility easement should be provided on the back of the right of way but the actual width of easement can be negotiated since most utilities already exist within the existing and proposed right of way. RESPONSE: A right-of-way dedication exhibit has been provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 03/19/2014: Let's discuss further options that have been looked at and if no reasonable solution can be found I will request a variance. 01/22/2014: Greater than 750 square feet of runoff is draining out of the existing driveway onto Plum Street. Depending on the determination on the tree, sidewalk and driveway this will need to be mitigated by a chase, inlet, etc. RESPONSE: Per our discussions, permeable pavers have been added at the entrance which will intercept all drainage before the sidewalk, and drain it back towards Shields Street via a PVC storm drain. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: As discussed let's look at the flowline on Plum in more detail as well as the bike lane and see if any creative solutions can be reached before replacing back to existing. We may look to do an 18" inflow curb and gutter to allow additional asphalt bike lane. RESPONSE: The curb and gutter along Plum is now shown as 18" vertical inflow curb and gutter as requested. As we have discussed, this portion of curb/gutter is located at the crest of a vertical curve, and as such, the existing flowline grades are very flat. Our ability to improve this situation is hampered by the existing cross- section of Plum, which is atypical, and drains from the south curb to the north curb. This prevents any significant warping of asphalt to occur which might help with the flowline grades. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, Iex(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan(&fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01 /22/2014: A complete tree inventory will need to be provided. All existing trees will need to be shown on the plan and labeled by number. For each existing tree the species, size, condition, intent to remove or retain and mitigation will need to be identified. This information will need to be placed in a table. Contact the City Forester for an on -site meeting to review existing trees and obtain information for the tree inventory. RESPONSE: An on -site meeting was held with the City Forester and a complete tree inventory prepared by Jordan's has been provided as well. Information on tree species, size, condition, intent to remove or retain and mitigation has been identified on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Include all of the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G 1-7 including the table associated with number 7. Be sure all in the information in 1-7 is included. Additional information is ok. RESPONSE: All of the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G 1-7, including the table have been added to the Tree Protection Notes on the Landscape Notes sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Two of the existing trees will need to have aerial evaluation performed by a qualified and certified private arborist. The aerial evaluation is different from general information provided by the City Forester in the on -site meeting. A written report should be provided by the private arborist on the suitability of these two trees for retention including a recommendation to retain or remove. The two trees include the following. 1. Cottonwood at the NW comer of the project along Plum Street 2. American Linden located along the north wall of the existing building a little to the east of the current entry to the parking lot off of Plum Street. An aerial evaluation should include and examination of the complete tree for health and primarily structure. Aerial evaluations are conducted with a bucket truck and climbers where necessary. The purpose is to closely evaluate the structural strength and integrity of the trunk and branches of the trees in much more detail than can be accomplished from the ground. This information can then be used in making decisions about the suitability of these trees for retention. Existing significant trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. The Linden has some noticeable cavities in the trunk. Comprehensive information is needed on the cottonwood to further evaluate the sidewalk design options. Forestry staff requests to be contacted when aerial evaluations are performed. Forestry can provide a reference for qualified and certified provide arborists to perform the aerial evaluation. RESPONSE: An aerial evaluation and report, completed by Jordan's, was submitted to the City Forester. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: If it is not advisable from the private arborist report to retain the American Linden along Plum Street on the north side of the building then please incorporate a third street tree along Plum Street. RESPONSE: A third street tree along Plum Street has been provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Tree is sidewalk grates typically need to be 3 inch caliper. Please specify trees in tree grates at 3 inch caliper. RESPONSE: The trees species that are shown in sidewalk grates have been noted as 3" caliper in the plant list. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Label on the landscape plan that tree grates to City Standards will be installed for trees in the sidewalk. Specify type of grate. Contact Tracy Dyer in Engineering to obtain information on standard grates. RESPONSE: A note has been added to the Landscape Notes (#23) with the type of grate and requirement that tree grates meet City Standards. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Landscape note number 1 includes information about tree separation between trees and electric and phone lines. There is not a LUC separation standard between trees and these utilities. Please edit the note accordingly. RESPONSE: The note has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Please remove Landscape note number 30 as it pertains to residential street trees. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01 /22/2014: Move new shrubs and perennials away from existing trees enough to prevent excavation for planting holes very close to tree trunks. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Please provide larger symbols for plants in the plant schedule to make it easier to read. RESPONSE: Line weight and types for plant symbols have been revised to improve legibility. The scale has not been revised as they symbols are drawn to scale in order to provide accurate plant counts and layout. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014 01/22/2014: Evaluate adding a couple of canopy trees along the east boundary to add additional separation. RESPONSE: An additional canopy tree has been added along the eastern boundary. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: The Forestry Division would prefer to have Skyline Honeylocust used as the street tree along Plum in place of Shademaster Honeylocust. RESPONSE: Tree species changed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Plant List: Two honeylocust and three Redmond Lindens are listed in the plant schedule. It appears that on the plan that three honeylocsut and one Redmond linden are shown. Please review and reconcile difference. Listing the three honeylocsut as 3 inch caliper would be needed for trees in grates. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, plans revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Label the two off site trees just to the south of the project to be saved and protected. RESPONSE: Trees labeled. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Provide a sidewalk design detail for the walk that passes the large cottonwood. This detail should show all of the design dimensions and materials for the walk. It should clearly show maximum depth of any excavation. This detail should be placed on both the landscape plan and utility plans. Also include the tree protection specifications on the utility plans by this detail. RESPONSE: Design information for the sidewalk along Plum Street has been provided. In general, the sidewalk will be built per standard city details. However, the contractor will coordinate construction of the sidewalk with City Forestry staff to ensure that construction is done in a manner that protects the roots to the greatest extent possible. The detail shall include this note: A qualified and certified private arborist shall monitor and review the sidewalk installation by this tree. The arborist shall be notified prior to installation and make regular inspections of the actual sidewalk installation. Direction shall be provided to the contractor and owner on interpretation of tree protection specifications. The City Forester shall also be notified before sidewalk installation and informed of the construction schedule. RESPONSE: The note has been added to sheet C300 of the plan set. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartine fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/26/2013 12/26/2013: Records indicate the existing electric service is one meter at 1200 amps of 120/240 volt single phase. Please coordinate any changes to the electric service and/or the electric utility system with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700). RESPONSE: No changes are proposed at this time. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416.2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General ' Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION Be advised, the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins are currently in the process of reviewing the 2012 International Fire Code in preparation for its adoption in 2014. 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. Changes to fire sprinkler system requirements for commercial use properties is anticipated and at such time a full NFPA13 system will be required rather than a 13R system currently allowed for R2 residential occupancies. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM This building is currently sprinklered, however, current code standards may require upgrades to the existing system. The sprinkler system shall be reviewed and approved under a separate permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. KEY BOXES REQUIRED 061FC 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 approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. Update keys as needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: FIRE LANES Redesigning the site plan to allow fire access will create significant impacts to the site and result in the loss of 6 -7 parking spaces. Upgrading the current sprinkler system to a full NFPA13 system will negate the EAE drive through currently proposed on the west and south sides of the building. RESPONSE: The existing EAE will be vacated and has been replaced by a new 20' easement. The new easement will be dedicated by a separate document. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 01/20/2014: PLANS SCALE The 1 "=40' scale labeling on the Site Plan, Sheet 1 appears to be in error. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamaraue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/14/2014 03/14/2014: For PDPs, the LID requirement is for BMP treatment on all impervious area, not just new impervious areas. For existing sites, the City will work with the applicant to achieve the most possible LID treatment reasonably feasible. Additional porous pavers are possible to achive the 25% of all private drive and parking areas. RESPONSE: Additional pavers have been added and we believe the site is now in full conformance with the LID requirements. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icoun!y@f&gov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 03/19/2014: No comments. 01/20/2014: No comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 03/19/2014: There is a line over text issue on sheet 1 of 3. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, fixed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford(&fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Originated: 01/20/2014 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Traffic staff would request the speed bump be keyed into the pavement to prevent the bump from being knocked free of the pavement. RESPONSE: The speed bump detail now shows the speed bump keyed into the existing pavement as requested. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(Mcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 03/17/2014: Is there a central kitchen for the facility or does each unit have a kitchen? If there is a central kitchen, a grease interceptor will be required. RESPONSE: There is a central kitchen that will have all commercial appliances removed and replaced with standard residential appliances. 01/21/2014: Will the building have a commercial kitchen or will it be more like a multi -family building with kitchens in each separate unit? If there is a commercial kitchen, a grease interceptor will be required. RESPONSE: There is no commercial kitchen proposed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2014 03/17/2014: The existing 2" water service is a combination domestic service and fire line. PFA ' has indicated that the fire sprinkler system may need to be upgraded. This should be evaluated now to determine if a larger, separate fire line is needed. This may also change the current plan to move the water meter location to a meter pit outside the building. RESPONSE: Further discussions with PFA have determined that an upgrade to the existing sprinkler system will not be required. As such, the proposed external water meter pit has also been removed, per our discussions. 01/21/2014: Will a fire line be needed? RESPONSE: A new fire line will not be required at this time. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416.2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 03/07/2014: The width of the south aisle is less than what it was on the original submittal (19' vs 18.8'). The response letter states that "the agreed -upon drive aisle widths are shown...". Who agreed that the 18.8' width is ok? Additionally, the original plan showed the drive aisle as one-way, which allowed a 20' wide drive aisle. The revision no longer shows it as one-way, which means that the minimum drive aisle width requirement is 24'. RESPONSE: We requested a Modification and it was approved at our hearing. 12/31/2013: The drive aisle widths are less than required. Per Sec. 3.2.2(L), the drive aisle widths are less than required. The one-way drive on the west side needs to be at least 12' wide, and the drive aisle on the south side needs to be 20' wide. RESPONSE: We requested a Modification and it was approved at our hearing. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 03107/2014: The response letter states that there are no compact spaces proposed. However, all 4 of the parallel spaces along the south lot line are compact spaces based on their size of 7.8' x 19'. The normal size for parallel spaces is a minimum of 8' x 23'. Therefore, those spaces need to be labeled as compact. RESPONSE: Compact spaces are labeled. 12/31/2013: Per Sec. 3.2.2(L), not more than 40% of the parking spaces can be compact. 50% of the proposed spaces are compact (This use is not included in the uses that are exempt from this requirement). RESPONSE: Not sure what do to with this since we have over 50% compact now. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 03/07/2014: Thank you for showing the dimensions and the detail. The height of the enclosure is proposed to be 8'. Anything over 6' requires a building permit and needs to be engineered. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A 6' tall enclosure is acceptable if the applicant wants to reconsider the height. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 12/31/2013: Please show the trash enclosure dimensions and include a detail drawing (height, materials). RESPONSE: See detail on Landscape Sheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 03/07/2014: The response letter states that the note was added. What sheet was it added to? I couldn't find it. RESPONSE: 12/31/2013: Add a note indicating that building- and pole -mounted light fixtures will be shielded and down directional. RESPONSE: No new light fixtures will be added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 03107/2014: The response letter states that the dimensions have been added, but I don't see them on the site plan. RESPONSE: 12/31/2013: Show lot dimensions on site plan. RESPONSE: Lot dimensions were added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/07/2014