The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMVG - MORNINGSTAR ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2015-09-14Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax kgov.com/developmenfreview September 06, 2013 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care, PDP130024, 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, iholland .fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Staff would like to see additional context shown with or in addition to the west elevation -- showing the tapered retaining wall, fencing and landscaping. This could be an elevation view or perspective. RESPONSE: We are providing an elevation of the retaining wall with the resbubmittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Staff needs more detailed information about the "assisted living" portion of the project. The LUC does not define assisted living, and this part of the project program needs to be defined as either independent living, multi -family, or intermediate health care. Staffs understanding at conceptual was that all of the units would fall under the definition of intermediate health care. The main issue is whether the residents will have cars and need additional parking. Please provide a note and clarification on the plan that explains what will comprise "studios, single and doubles" and how these assisted living units comply with the Long Term Care LUC definition: RESPONSE: A note has been placed on the Site Plan stating the following: Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please change the index on sheet 1 to read "Drainage & Erosion Control Plan" for the sheet 4. See redlines. RESPONSE: The sheet index has been corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets UT (2 of 4), GR (3 of 4) & DR (4 of 4). See redlines. RESPONSE: Plans have been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please rotate the street names marked on sheet DR (4 of 4)180 degrees to read from the right side of the plan sheet. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plans have been updated. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Why is there not a Subdivision Plat included for this project? This project is on an unplatted piece of property. RESPONSE: A Plat is being provided with the resubmittal. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. RESPONSE: Issue resolved. The line over text issues have been revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please mask all text that is within hatched areas on sheet 2. See redlines. RESPONSE: All text within hatched areas has been removed. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please add a north arrow & scale to sheet PTP1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and updated on resubmittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please rotate the street names marked on sheet 1 180 degrees to read from the right side of the plan sheet. See redlines. RESPONSE: Fixed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Fixed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford(a.fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The north access should align with the northern access of the daycare center, per LCUASS requirements. RESPONSE: Access has been moved to line up with daycare access.. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: TIS is accepted. RESPONSE: Thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: A west bound right turn lane is needed in the existing condition per Figure 8-4, LCUASS, and this project adds traffic to that right turn. As such this project has a responsibility to construct a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth at Lochwood. Traffic staff recognizes the addition of such turn lane would also cause the removal of numerous large existing trees and therefore would suggest the applicant submit a variance request to remove the responsibility of constructing the right turn lane. RESPONSE: A variance request is being submitted for your consideration. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffingtonaftgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Label sewer service clean -outs in paved areas "traffic -rated". RESPONSE: Clean -outs have been labeled as requested. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Showllabel curb stop on the 2" water service. RESPONSE: The curb stop is now labeled. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Adjust plantings to provide the required separation distances from water/sewer lines. RESPONSE: The plans have been adjusted to provide the required separation distances from water/sewer lines. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970416-2355, pbarnes COCgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 08/20/2013: Need further clarification of the use. If the units have kitchens, and if they aren't classified as an 'independent living facility' per the definition of Long Term Care Facility in Article 5 of the Land Use Code, then the building is considered a multi -family dwelling. The parking requirements for multi -family are much greater. i.e. if all 78 units are studios or one bedroom, then a minimum of 117 parking spaces are required. RESPONSE: A note has been placed on the Site Plan stating the following: " No dwelling units are permitted with this project. This plan provides (23) Memory Care units that are designated as Nursing Care Facility, and 55 Assisted Living units that are designated as Intermediate Health Care Facility." Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 08/20/2013: Handicap parking stalls shouldn't be parallel parking spaces. If the HC person is on the drivers side and needs to remove a wheel chair from the back seat, the driver's side doors will be open into the drive aisle for a longer than normal period of time. That would create an unsafe condition. RESPONSE: Parking stalls have been relocated across the drive aisle. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 08/20/2013: Provide a detail drawing of the trash enclosure. RESPONSE: Provided with resubmittal Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 08120/2013: Show some building dimensions on the site plan. RESPONSE: Dimensions added. '` 7. Fort Collins Curren Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 - fax DATE: August 16, 2013 PROJECT COMMENT TO: Development Review Engineering SHEET PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Holland PDP130024 MVG-Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP — Type II Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: September 4, 2013 Note - Please identify vour 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 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 October 18, 2013 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care, PDP130024, 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 Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Elevations— Please provide color paint samples on the detail sheet for the siding scheme and clarify whether the shingle siding is stained or painted and specify the color with a graphic sample. Please also clarify the site wall material, color and pattern. RESPONSE: The elevation sheets have been revised and incorporate the color palate for the proposed elevations. As discussed with city staff, the final colors may vary slightly based upon final Owner and Architect approval at time of construction. The colors proposed will coordinate with final selection of the stone, shingles and metal roofing selections. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Elevations— The base course required with the building design is very low to the ground, and in some areas the base is a siding material adjacent to siding above at the wall plane. Please clarify with the materials information that the base siding will be a different color from the siding on the wall plane above. Staff recommends that the stone base and/or corresponding siding base course be raised and wrap around the base of the windows, so that the base is more prominent. The code requirement is for the base to be "recognizable" and raising the stone base and the siding base, up higher on the wall plane will make the base more recognizable, similar to what is shown in the material example photographs submitted. RESPONSE: The revised elevations have incorporated a larger and more pronounced base at both the locations where stone is indicated and with the larger siding base. This change is indicate on all exterior elevations of the building. Please see revised sheets EL-1 and EL-2. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Utility Plans --A note shows that a portion of the existing sidewalk to the north will be removed. Is this correct? Also, the existing topo is difficult to read, can this be a darker tone. RESPONSE: The walk will remain and will be within a 12' Public Access Easement. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Utility Plans-- a railing is noted for the top of the retaining wall, is this needed for the 30" wall? RESPONSE: A railing is no longer needed with the stepped wall and has been removed from the detail. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Site Plans --The wood fence needs to be extended north and south to extend the view corridor looking towards the service area, for additional privacy. Please provide a detail for the fence on sheet 2. Label and describe the memory care fence and west privacy fence on the plan. Move building dimension that is on top of section line. Please verify that the fixed bike racks can accommodate a total of 11 bikes and specify on the plan where the 3 covered spaces are located. Label site walls. RESPONSE: The fence has been extended and a detail has been added to Sheet 2. The memory care fence has been labeled. The dimension line has been moved. The fixed and covered bike racks are labeled. Site walls are labeled. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Site Details --The trash enclosure detail does not match the site plan: On the site plan, it does not appear that the interior of the enclosure is big enough to provide access through to the recycling bins. RESPONSE: The detail has been revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 The trash pick up time note needs to be updated to include deliveries and specific hours need to be listed. RESPONSE: The note has been adjusted to add hours of operation for deliveries and pick-up times. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Landscape Plan --The plan is very difficult to read, ground cover and mulch patterns, line weights, scale of drawing, and line tones. Difficult to see existing trees and proposed utilities. Plan appears to have several utility conflicts and light pole conflicts. Resolution of tables and charts is poor and difficult to read. RESPONSE: The following changes have been made to resolve the legibility issues: 1. The landscape plans have been changed to 1 "=20' scale 2. The hatches have been lightened and moved to the back of other line work. 3. Some plant symbols have been revised to make them lighter. 4. Existing trees and proposed utilities have been darkened. All utility, light pole conflicts and table/chart issues have been resolved. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 Landscape Plan-- Show existing neighborhood sidewalk as solid line. Turf is shown on top of the walk as well as an austrian pine. Consider more native hybrid ornamental variety in areas where serviceberry is used. Consider use of additional small evergreen trees in addition to tannebaum species. Staff is advocating for small evergreen tree groupings in appropriate areas along building foundations, as many past developments have relied too heavily on deciduous material. RESPONSE: The existing sidewalk line work has added to the plans. The turf has been revised so as not to cover the sidewalk. The Amur Maple and Skyrocket Juniper have been added to the plan in order to provide additional ornamental and evergreen variety. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 Landscape Plan-- Some of the shrub massings in the open areas seem a little too segmented and could be clustered together to simplify maintenance/mowing. Shrub massings such as snowberry would look better grouped with other plant types and not a single massing. Along the west wall, plants could be grouped tighter against the wall but still be informally arranged so that there's a distinct shrub bed vs. grass area, for easier maintenance. For plants in the northwest corner, please spread out evergreen material to maximize layered screening from different vantage points of existing homes. RESPONSE: The shrub massings have been grouped and moved into defined shrub beds to simplify maintenance/mowing. Evergreen material has also been spread out. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 Landscape Plan --along the north boundary, screen the parking stalls and soften the view from the residence adjacent to the north. RESPONSE: Additional planting has been added to screen the parking stalls and soften the view from adjacent residences. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/16/2013 In order to maintain the established connection from Calabasis Court and Lochwood, the existing sidewalk will need to remain and be within a public access easement. If the sidewalk is proposed to be removed, the existing connection will need to be recreated with the site design. The connection is required to be established per LUC 3.2.2(C)(6) which states that "Direct On -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. The on -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must be designed to provide, or allow for, direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations including, but not limited to, parks, schools, Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Commercial Districts and transit stops that are located either within the development or adjacent to the development as required, to the maximum extent feasible. The on -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must also provide, or allow for, on -site connections to existing or planned off -site pedestrian and bicycle facilities at points necessary to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle travel from the development to major pedestrian destinations located within the neighborhood. In order to provide direct pedestrian connections to these destinations, additional sidewalks or walkways not associated with a street, or the extension of a sidewalk from the end of a cul-de-sac to another street or walkway, may be required" RESPONSE: As agreed, the walk will remain and will be within a 12' Public Access Easement. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/18/2013 With the fencing detail, consider further embellishment of the wood fence design by providing a center trim piece and trim wrap (see redlines) so that this fencing, adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the west, is further articulated and further reduced to a human scale through more detailed articulation. RESPONSE: The fence detail has been revised as requested. Please see Detail, Sheet 2 of 3. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/18/2013 With the trash enclosure detail, please add a top screen such as a wood arbor trellis detail over the top of the enclosure so that the view of the trash is screened from above as well as the sides. This is intended to address comments from the neighborhood meeting. RESPONSE: Detail has been updated as requested on Sheet 2 of 3. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/18/2013 Please provide a material detail and specification for the retaining wall. Because the retaining wall is a prominent feature needed to accommodate the placement of the proposed use and proposed building footprint, staff recommends that the wall material be designed with a patterned modular wall system with a field stone appearance similar to the main building, as opposed to a more utilitarian running bond pattern typically seen in commercial developments. RESPONSE: Included with the resubmittal is a cut sheet indicating the wall type and color. In addition, the following note has been placed on the site plan, wall elevations and utility Plans: "Retaining wall to be Keystone Half Century Ashlar or approved equal utilizing Half Century and Century units in Colorado Blend color." Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 The landscape plan needs to be reformatted. Plants are not readable at 1:30. Tree labels at tree centers are not readable and are awkward at 90 degrees. The smaller plant list symbols are not readable. The evergreen tree key code is too small to be readable. The shade tree key code at the center of the symbol makes the plans difficult to read and there is no center trunk demarcation. 10-15 2013 -While some issues have been resolved, the landscape plan is still very difficult to read. RESPONSE: The landscape plans have been reformatted to 1 "=20' scale. While plant symbols have been revised and lightened to be more legible the scale has not been changed in order to maintain an accurate representation of the scale of the plant in relation to its surroundings. This allows us to depict the appropriate number of plans required for any given space. Hatches have also been revised to make the plans more clear. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Please show materials, color and design details for the retaining wall. Coordinate with the utility plans and label approximate height of the wall at various locations for informational purposes. Material and color still needs to be resolved, please see comment 24 for more detail. RESPONSE: See Response to Comment Number 24. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 10/15/2013: Response noted. Will look to additional information provided in a final geotech report. RESPONSE: A supplemental memorandum from the Geotechnical Engineer has been provided to address the items noted below. A building perimeter drain system is not needed due to the drilled pier structural design. However, underdrains are recommended for the porous paver due to the anticipated low soil percolation rates and these underdrains are noted on the drawings. 09/04/2013: To the extent that the geotech report indicates the presence and concern of high groundwater, are the proposed LID measures going to implement underdrain systems beneath them? It seems that the drainage report and geotech report don't cross reference each other with regards to their findings and recommendations. Shouldn't the geotech report provide some analysis on the site's proposed use of LID measures for example and whether the porous pavers are able to infiltrate without interference from groundwater? " No dwelling units are permitted with this project. This plan provides (23) Memory Care units that are designated as Nursing Care Facility, and 55 Assisted Living units that are designated as Intermediate Health Care Facility." Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Please provide more detailed context surrounding the site showing existing buildings, parking and trees, and with line hierarchy that make the elements more understandable. Refer to civil plan format. We recommend showing the overall site plan at 1:40 to show more context and a detail sheet of the west portion of the property showing plan enlargement of wall, fence, landscaping, sections and details. RESPONSE: As discussed, we will keep the Site plan at 1"=30' scale and expand the viewport to better show the context of the area surrounding the site. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Please explore ways to further articulate the fence and wall combination both horizontally and vertically, and make it more clear on the plans where the fence is going. Make sure the fencing plan matches between he civil and site plan sheets. RESPONSE: We have included a detail sheet indicating the wall elevation, section and plan view. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 The landscape plan needs to be reformatted. Plants are not readable at 1:30. Tree labels at tree centers are not readable and are awkard at 90 degrees. The smaller plant list symbols are not readable. The evergreen tree key code is too small to be readable. The shade tree key code at the center of the symbol makes the plans difficult to read and there is no center trunk demarcation. RESPONSE: The landscape symbols have been revised to read better. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 More evergreen trees need to be incorporated into the foundation planting around the building as well as along the top and bottom of the retaining wall. See redlines for minor comments. RESPONSE: We have added the evergreen trees per your redlines. In addition, we have relocated and added additional Spruce evergreen trees adjacent to the retention pond on the west as discussed in neighborhood meeting on September 23, 2013. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Label existing trees and add/or add them to the legend. Show approximate location of RESPONSE: As discussed, this will be addressed at Final. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 10/15/2013: The following was added to the comment below but apparently was added after the final letter was sent. "In checking with the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer, the striping for Lochwood and the current indication of where parking is allowed is going to remain. The amount of patching south of the start of the no parking along Lochwood is required to be half a lane width. For the area north where parking is allowed, a two foot patch is allowed." Note that the street patching note is still needed and the information can be shown at time of final, but the patching should follow the additional information shown above. RESPONSE: The standard street patching note is shown on the drawings and the limits of the sawcut relative to the no parking zones has been indicated. 09/04/2013: The construction plans should be showing the removal of the existing attached sidewalk/hollywood curb where detached sidewalk is being installed and show proposed patching along Lochwood Drive for the installation of the new (presumably vertical) curb and gutter. In checking with the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer, the striping for Lochwood and the current indication of where parking is allowed is going to remain. The amount of patching south of the start of the no parking along Lochwood is required to be half a lane width. For the area north where parking is allowed, a two foot patch is allowed. Add the City's standard note regarding limits of street repair: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. RESPONSE: A Demolition Plan has been added to the set that indicates the existing curb and sidewalk along Lochwood to be removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 10/15/2013: The submitted variance request was approved on 10/15 after review and consultation with Traffic Operations. Please indicate the approval of the variance on the construction plan set notes. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The variance approval has been added to the General Notes. 09/06/2013: A variance request to the requirement of constructing a right turn lane from Horsetooth to Lochwood is required. Staff has indicated preliminary support in granting the variance, however. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Engineering has no pre -hearing issues remaining. Additional review and comment will occur with review after hearing. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: At time of final plan submittal, please include a detailed species description of the Arkansas Valley seed mix, including the rates of seed mix to be applied. RESPONSE: A detailed species description of the Arkansas Valley seed mix has been provided on the `Landscape Notes, Schedules and Details' sheet. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: If there will be any street lights then show locations on landscape plan and provide tree separation of 40 feet for shade trees or 15 feet for ornamental trees. RESPONSE: Street light locations are shown on the plans. A 40' separation has been provided for all shade trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: If there are any existing trees on the site schedule an meeting with The City Forester to review and inventory. RESPONSE: An on -site meeting was held with the City Forester on September 19, 2013. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Will any off -site trees be impacted by proposed construction? RESPONSE: Per the City Forester, proposed construction should not impact off - site trees. This was determined at our on -site meeting held on September 19, 2013. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Tree protection note # 7 does not seem to apply and may not be needed. RESPONSE: Tree protection note #7 has been removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Consider using lanceleaf cottonwood or plains cottonwood in place of the narrowleaf cottonwood. The narrowleaf cottonwood produces and abundance of root suckers that can causes maintenance problems. RESPONSE: Narrowleaf Cottonwood has been replaced with Lanceleaf Cottonwood. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Update Landscape note number 1 to include these distances found in LUC3.2.1 K. 40 feet from street lights for canopy shade trees 15 feet from street lights for ornamental trees 10 feet from water and sewer mains 6 feet from water and sewer service lines 8 feet from driveways 20 feet from signs and traffic control devices RESPONSE: Landscape Note #1 has been revised to include the information provided above. Check street tree locations for compliance with these separations. A proposed street tree along Lockwood appears to be closer than 40 feet from the light. RESPONSE: Street tree locations have been checked for compliance with required separations. Any revisions that were necessary have been made. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: The street tree just to the north of the north of the curb cut off Lockwood is very close to the intersection. Review for deletion of this tree. RESPONSE: There are no proposed trees to the north of the curb cut off Lockwood. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Please add these street tree notes: Street trees shall be installed by the developer at time of CO, unless time of year limits tree planting, in which case street trees shall be planted within than 6 months of CO .The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting unit final inspection and acceptance for maintenance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be established, an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utilities separation between trees, street signs and street light. Street trees to be centered in the middle of the lot to the extent feasible. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. RESPONSE: The information provided has been added to the Landscape Notes (#28, #29 and #30). Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970416-2869, ilynxwiler@poudre4ire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. FYI - Information on the BDA evaluation is being provided at this time so as to properly notify and prepare the applicant for this eventual requirement. Although PFA will be present as witness, at time of testing, the BDA test is not performed by PFA personnel. When it is appropriate to do so, you may contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Ron Gonzales at 970.416 2864 for a list of qualified local contractors who are authorized to perform this evaluation. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: FIRE ACCESS FOR STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT In order to accommodate aerial fire apparatus access (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-0 This code requirement is not currently being met with the current site plan and further discussion is required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A 30' EAE has been indicated along the north side of the building and a 28' EAE along the east side of the building. These easements are reflected on the Final Plat. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: HYDRANT PLACEMENT The relocation of the hydrant on the SE corner of the building, shall be reviewed in future plans submittals. One additional hydrant on the west side of the building is also needed. RESPONSE: The existing fire hydrant at the SE corner of the building has been shown to be relocated slightly to the west in order to provide standard clearance from the back of the sidewalk. An additional hydrant has been added in the northern parking lot as previously discussed. Further discussion is required on the proposed hydrant location on the north side of the building. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: EMERGENCY GENERATOR The storage and use of diesel fuel or propane, for the purposes of supplying an emergency generator, shall comply with any applicable sections of Chapter 34 of the International Fire Code on Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Any building, structure, or shelter housing the generator shall be properly signed and labeled. A separate permit is required if the fuel source is provided by an AST. Spill control may be required; TBD at time of building permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: SEPARATE PERMITS FYI only - Separate permits are required for fire sprinkler and alarms systems. Separate permits are also required for kitchen hood systems, Above -ground Storage Tanks and BDA antenna if required. These are all deferred submittals, which can be applied for, if applicable, after the building permit is issued. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/27/2013 10/07/2013: Repeat RESPONSE: An Erosion Control Plan and separate Erosion Control Report has been added for this submittal. 08/27/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970 218 2932 or email @ ischlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-4162418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 10/15/2013: Please provide spillway cross -sections and detailed grading at final compliance. RESPONSE: Detailed grading and spillway cross sections have been added. 09/03/2013: Both detention ponds need to have spillways directed to the major swale. RESPONSE: Spillways are noted on the plans and detailed calculations provided in the report. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 10/15/2013: Area is defined as 50% of site area, not impervious area. Please revise. RESPONSE: The minimum LID coverage area is shown to be 50% of the new impervious area. Per discussions with Basil Hamdan, a larger area of LID coverage has been provided in lieu of meeting the full 50% porous pavement design criteria. 09/03/2013: Please document on an exhibit what land area is being treated by a LID technique. RESPONSE: See updated LID Exhibit in the Final Drainage Report. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 10/15/2013: Please add a note on the site and grading plan. RESPONSE: Note has been added to Final Utility Plans as requested. 09/03/2013: The retaining wall will require a building permit. RESPONSE: See above. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 10/15/2013: Reminder for final compliance review. RESPONSE: The maintenance of the western channel has been noted in the Final Drainage Report. MVG will be responsible for their half of the channel maintenance starting at the common property line. 09/04/2013: Please provide a maintenance agreement for the swale that is shared by the two properties. If an agreement can not be formalized, please provide a maintenance obligation within the drainage report that lays out the responsibilities of the Developer. RESPONSE: See response above Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please label all slopes min. 4:1. RESPONSE: Slopes have been noted as being 4:1 min. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970 221-6588, icounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: No comments. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please correct the spelling of "Southwest" in the sub -title on sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Spelling corrected Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please change the Township number from "6" to 7" in the sub -title on sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Township corrected Comment Number: 14 , Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark 8-94. See redlines. RESPONSE: Benchmark corrected Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: No comments. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/14/2013 10/14/2013: No comments. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please remove the P.U.D. from the title of this plat. RESPONSE: PUD removed Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please correct the section number in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. RESPONSE: Section number corrected Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please make the Datum consistent between the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision and the Basis Of Bearings Statement. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Are there any Lienholders? If so, or if you are not certain, please add a signature block. This can be removed later if necessary. If not, please add a note stating that there are no Lienholders. RESPONSE: There are no known Lienholders at this time. Prior to the final submittal a lienholder signature block or a note stating that there are no Lienholders will be added. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please add a space between "December" and "13" in the Title Commitment Note. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrrected Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please update the title commitment as new issues come out. RESPONSE: Understood Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Is the found #4 rebar with a yellow plastic cap stamped LS 14833 in the legend, supposed to be LS 14823? See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please move the Point Of Commencement & Point Of Beginning as shown on the boundary. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please change the direction of the Basis Of Bearings shown along the section line, to match the Basis Of Bearings Statement. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please change the cure/line tables so the data reads the same direction as in the legal description. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please make note to the effect that all easements shown outside of the boundary of the plat are existing easements. If that is not the case, then "to be dedicated by separate document, Reception No. " should be added to the text identifying the easement. RESPONSE: All easements shown outside of the boundary of the plat are existing Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please label the dashed lines shown at the northeast corner of the property. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please add a arrow to the 5' utility easement shown at the northeast corner of the property. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please check the width of the Emergency Access Easement where marked. It is labeled as 25, but it scales 28'. See redlines. RESPONSE: The EAE is intended to be 28 feet Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please correct the sheet numbering. See redlines. RESPONSE: Plat corrected Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 10/14/2013: This has been addressed, but there is new text to be rotated. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been rotated. 09/03/2013: Please rotate the street names marked on sheet 1 180 degrees to read from the right side of the plan sheet. See redlines. RESPONSE: Street names have been rotated Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 10/14/2013: There are new line over text issues on sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Fixed. 09/03/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Fixed. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please move the legal description to sheet 1. See redlines. RESPONSE: Legal description placed on Sheet 1 but was hard to fit the entire legal, so we abbreviated if that is acceptable. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please increase the text size of the dimensions in the Trash existing trees to the west and north for context, it appears that there are more than what is shown. RESPONSE: The existing trees have been put on a legend and the additional existing trees are now shown on the plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Please show materials, color and design details for the retaining wall. Coordinate with the utility plans and label approximate height of the wall at various locations for informational purposes. RESPONSE: We have included a detail sheet indicating the wall elevation, section and plan view. All of the spot elevations and wall height labels are indicated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 Dash in on the building footprint areas that are one story vs. two story. Also show the demarcation between memory care and the rest of the building. RESPONSE: Added. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The northernmost driveway out to Lochwood Drive needs to lineup with the driveway across the street. RESPONSE: Drive has been moved back north as requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The geotech report indicated the presence of high groundwater and the need to dewater the site along with the installation of an underdrain system. The implementation of an underdrain system should indicate an outfall design for the underdrain system on the construction plan set. There is a concern that if the outfall for the underdrain system is not specified at this time and designed for, the outfall may discharge in manner that's of negative impact such as spilling onto public sidewalk, or creating a landscape area that's saturated with water. RESPONSE: The Preliminary Geotechnical Report was not based on the final site design and grading concept. The need for an underdrain system shall be confirmed prior to final construction documents. In the interim, the Grading Plan now reflect the approximate location of the underdrain outfalls, if needed. Enclosure Detail on sheet 2. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text size increased. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Please mask the text marked on sheet 3. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been masked. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2013 09/09/2013: Thank you for providing the bus stop as I requested in the Conceptual Review. Please make a change to it for me though, the stop needs to be connected to the curb with a 5' wide path, please add a 5' path from the curb to the sidewalk on the rear of the bus stop to accommodate this. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. RESPONSE: 5' path has been added as requested. Department: Water Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970 221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/15/2013 10/15/2013: Fire hydrant must be in a utility easement. RESPONSE: The utility easement has been adjusted based on the revised hydrant location and is shown on the Plat Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Adjust plantings to provide the required separation distances from water/sewer lines. RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been adjusted to provide the required separation distances from utility lines. City of Fort Collins REVISION Current Planning COMMENT SHEET PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522�0580 Far: 970-224-6134 DATE: October 4, 2013 TO: Development Review Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Holland PDP130024 Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP — Type II 2nd Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 16, 2013 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) ' Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other. Utility Redline Utility Landscape Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax kgov.com January 30, 2013 Carolyn Powell MUG —MS LLC PO Box 18970 Denver, CO 80218 Re: Horsetooth & Lochwood — Morning Star Assisted Living Description of project: This is a request to construct 72 assisted living and memory care residence apartments at the northwest comer of Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive (Parcel # 87303-00-003). The site is in the Low Density Mixed —Use Neighborhood (L—M—N) Zone District. Multifamily dwellings containing more than 8 units per building are subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) review in the L—M—N Zone District. Please see the following summary of comments regarding the project request referenced above. The comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, 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: Zoning Contact: GaryLopez, 970-416-2338, glopez fcgov.com 1. What is the percentage breakdown between apartments and asst. living components? Min. parking is dictated by that. (LUC 3.2.2[K][1]&[2] and 5.1.2 (Long —Term care facility definition) RESPONSE: There will be 93 beds and 20 employees, which equates to 45 parking spaces. We have 49 spaces shown on the plans. 2. Related above — What is the breakdown of apartment units bedroom numbers. x number of 1 bedroom, x number of 2 bedroom. RESPONSE: For the memory care, there are 15 studios and 8 singles with a total of 23 units. For the assisted living, There will be 19 studios, 21 singles,15 doubles for a total of 55 units. There is a total of 78 units in all. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, rbuffington .fcgov.com 1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include a 20-inch water main on the south side of Horsetooth, an 8-inch water main in Lochwood and an 8-inch sewer in an easement to the northwest in Collindale 3rd Filing. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 2. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include a 20-inch water main on the south side of Horsetooth, an 8-inch water main in Lochwood and an 8-inch sewer in an easement to the northwest in Collindale 3rd Filing. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, rbuffington@fcgov.com 3. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: htto://www.fcgov.com/standards RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 4. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: hftp:llwww.fcaov.com/standards RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 6. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 7. A grease interceptor will be required. RESPONSE: A grease interceptor is provided on the utility plans. 8. A grease interceptor will be required. RESPONSE: A grease interceptor is provided on the utility plans. Department: Transfort Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardlebfcgov.com 1. Transfort's Strategic Operating Plan identifies a route on Horsetooth adjacent to this site and Section 3.6.5 of the LUC requires developments accommodate existing and future transit infrastructure as needed. For this site, a bus stop pad should be located on the southwest corner of your site near the cross walk at Lemay and Horsetooth. A bus stop pad is typically 12' deep by 18' wide, although a update to this standard is currently underway. This pad should be located adjacent to the sidewalk and curb. Please contact me if you have any questions. RESPONSE: The PDP submittal reflects a 12' x 18' concrete pad for a future bus shelter. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com 1. 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 and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or ischlam anfcgov.com. RESPONSE: A preliminary drainage report has been submitted. The erosion control portion of the report will be provided during final compliance as requested by Jesse S. 2. When improvements are proposed to an existing developed site and there is an increase in impervious area greater than 1000 square feet, onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as long as it is not deeper than one foot. RESPONSE: Onsite detention has been provided 3. Water q u ality 'treatment is also required as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 — Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_ critmanual_vollll.htm) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. RESPONSE: There are two (2) extended detention basins proposed along with a rain garden to provide the required BMPs Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschluetera)fcgov.com 4. The Stormwater Utility anticipates that City Council will be approving new Low Impact Development (LID) requirements that will go into effect March 1, 2013. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. The present draft requires that 50% of the new impervious area must be treated by an LID method and 25% of new parking lots must be pervious. RESPONSE: The site design incorporates a series of lid's and 25% of the new parking areas are shown to be pervious pavement. 5. The drainage outfall for the site is either Lockwood Dr. or possibly the drainage swale along the west side of the property. That swale with a low flow pan was installed in the early 1980s for Collindale 2nd and 3rd Filings. It was built before the Stormwater Department existed so there is no drainage report to refer to for information on the sizing of the swale. The design engineer would have to verify capacity of the swale. The bigger issue is that the swale appears to be on the Collindale developments and they have been responsible for the maintenance of it. If this project were to use it the maintenance would need to be shared with their HOA. RESPONSE: The drainage outfalls for the site will be to the existing drainage swale along the western boundary. Capacity calculations are provided in the preliminary drainage report and maintenance of the swale is noted to be shared 6. The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00lacre ($0.14671sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.—ft., and there is a $1,045.001acre ($0.0241sq.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 hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders —and — developers/plant—investment— 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 Design Criteria. RESPONSE:Acknowledged. 7. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Fire Authority Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwileranpoudre—fire.org 1. PUBLIC —SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. 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: Acknowledged. 2. FIRE LANES Fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building 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, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire -sprinkler system. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1 RESPONSE: Fire lanes are provided per conversations with PFA. The final location of the emergency access easements will be verified and shown on future submittal documents Fire lanes shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. RESPONSE: Understood, See above. Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Fire Authority Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, 'lynxwiler rpoudre-f1re.orq 1. Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 2. Be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Signage and striping will be provided at Final. 3. DEAD-END FIRE LANES Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; International Fire Code 503.2.5 and Appendix D RESPONSE: A modified hammerhead is provided at the end of the service drive along the west side of the building. Final geometry shall be reviewed and approved by PFA. 4. FIRE LANE TURNING RADII The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Local Amendments RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5. FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS (Group 1) A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in Group I occupancies. An electrically supervised, automatic smoke detection system shall be provided in accordance with Section 907.2.6.2, with exceptions. 2006 International Fire Code 907.2.6; International Building Code 407.2 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 6. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings with a Group I fire area. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 shall be allowed in Group 1-1 facilities. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A full system will be installed. 7. WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. 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. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 8. KEY BOXES REQUIRED 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. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Lock boxes for fire department access will be provided at all primary entrances as dictated By PFA. 9. COMMERCIAL KITCHEN HOODS A Type I hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking appliances and domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes that produce grease vapors. 2006 International Fire Code 609.2 RESPONSE: Kitchen hoods will be installed as required. 10. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six—inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 RESPONSE: Building signage will be installed. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex .fcgov.com Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com 1. 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. Reveille Bluegrass is one option for having bluegrass lawns and using less water. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com 1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev—review.php RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 3. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 4. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. RESPONSE: A TIS is provided with the submittal. 5. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.o[g/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 6. The existing sidewalk along Lochwood Drive abutting the property may not be considered compliant in meeting minimum ADA widths. If the case, the sidewalk (and curb and gutter) would need to be removed and replaced with vertical curb and a 5' wide sidewalk detached 8' from the curb, in accordance with our collector standards. RESPONSE: A new 5 foot wide detached sidewalk is shown along Lochwood 7. This project is responsible for dedicating any right—of—way and easements that are necessary for this project. If per the previous comment, sidewalk needs to be moved and replaced as detached, additional right—of—way would need to be dedicated to coincide with the back of walk. A 15' utility easement along Horsetooth Road is required behind the right—of—way and a 9' utility easement is requires along Lochwood Drive is required behind the right—of—way, unless agreed to otherwise by the utility providers. RESPONSE: Proposed utility easements and right of way along lochwood is noted on the drawings 8. Driveway access onto Lochwood Drive will be reviewed against access spacing requirements along a collector roadway in accordance with Table 7-3 of LCUASS. RESPONSE: Two proposed driveway locations are shown off of Lochwood 9. Construction plans will be required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 10. A Development Agreement will be required and recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 11. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, 'holland@.fcqov.com 1. The proposed use is designated as a Long Term Care Facility, which is subject to a neighborhood meeting and review 1 approval by the Planning and Zoning Board in the L—M—N zone district. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A neighborhood meeting was held February 25, 2013 and a follow-up meeting will be held at the end of the month. 2. The building footprint is limited to a maximum size of 20,000 square feet. This is described in Section 4.5(E)(2). A proposed larger footprint will need to function better on the site than a smaller building footprint that meets the standard, with the impacts of the larger footprint mitigated. RESPONSE: A Modification of Standards request is included with the PDP. 3. Minimum front yard setback of all buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet in order to provide a landscaped front yard consistent with the residential character of the L—M—N zone district. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 4. The proposed project is subject to Building and Project Compatibility standards, Section 3.5.1, and Institutional Building standards in Section 3.5.3. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5. Per Section 3.5.3(B), parking is not permitted between the street and the building. If this is requested, please provide an "equal to or better than" design justification. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 6. Per Section 3.5.3(D), standardized prototype design shall be modified and is required to be unique. It appears that this building design has been used in a number of other locations and needs to be modified so that it is unique to Fort Collins. It is also recommended that the eave and roof mass be lowered and integrated into the second floor living space so that the overall height of the building is lower; please refer Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: To the extent that the geotech report indicates the presence and concern of high groundwater, are the proposed LID measures going to implement underdrain systems beneath them? It seems that the drainage report and geotech report don't cross reference each other with regards to their findings and recommendations. Shouldn't the geotech report provide some analysis on the site's proposed use of LID measures for example and whether the porous pavers are able to infiltrate without interference from groundwater? RESPONSE: The final geotechnical report will provide additional guidance relative to the LID measures. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09104/2013: A plat was not found in my submittal documents for review. Was one submitted? RESPONSE: A preliminary plat is provided with this resubmittal Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The plans should be specifying the amount of parkway strip being proposed along Lochwood Drive. RESPONSE: The parkway strip has been dimensioned. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The construction plans in addition to specifying the amount of parkway strip along Lochwood Drive, should be providing a typical cross-section along Lochwood Drive to indicate curb and gutter type, parkway measured from the face of curb, and detached sidewalk width. RESPONSE: Atypical section has been added as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The construction plans should be showing the removal of the existing attached sidewalk/hollywood curb where detached sidewalk is being installed and show proposed patching along Lochwood Drive for the installation of the new (presumably vertical) curb and gutter. Add the City's standard note regarding limits of street repair: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Comment Number: 9 RESPONSE: The typical section reflects the approximate location of the sawcut and the standard City note has been added. The final plans will include a Demolition Plan to more clearly show the limits of all removals Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: The access ramp at the corner of Lochwood Drive and Horsetooth Road leads to the middle and isn't directional. With the removal of the hollywood curb and gutter to section 4.5(E)(2)(d). RESPONSE: See Planning Objectives. 7. Parking requirements for Long —Term Care Facilities are .33 spaces per bed plus one space per two employees on major shift. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. There will be 93 beds and 20 employees, which equates to 45 parking spaces. We have 49 spaces shown on the plans. 8. Please provide a summary description of the program operations and building program including amount and type of staffing, common rooms / amenities, types of private rooms and features of the rooms provided. RESPONSE: See Planning Objectives. 9.The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review and public hearing. The applicant for this development request is required to hold a neighborhood information meeting prior to formal submittal of the proposal. Neighborhood meetings offer an informal way to get feedback from your surrounding neighbors and discover any potential hiccups prior to the formal hearing. Please contact me, at 221-6750, to assist you in setting a date, time, and location. I and possibly other City staff, would be present to facilitate the meeting. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A neighborhood meeting was held February 25, 2013 and a follow-up meeting will be held at the end of the month. 10. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide includes links to just about every resource you need during development review. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 11. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 12. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 13. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at: htto://www.fcqov.com/developmentreview/applications.php. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 14. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 15. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with Community Development and Neighborhood Services at (970)221-6750. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, Pre -Submittal Meetings for Building Permits Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2009 International Building Code (IBC) 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICCIANSI A117.1-2003. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF I Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load:100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Enemy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes, 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chapter 4 2. Multi —family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi —family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 �of t Collins Current Planning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fax: 970-224-6134 FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 30, 2013 TO: Development Review Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Holland FDP130055 Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: January 22, 2014 Note -.Please idendfv 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 needing to be brought to the access ramp, the access ramp should be rebuilt to be directional (facing east) meeting City standards. RESPONSE: The existing curb return and handicap are noted to be removed and replaced with a direction ramp as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: Please correct the spelling of Lochwood Drive on the site plan, and provide street name labels on the landscape plan. RESPONSE: Lochwood has been corrected. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergerMcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08119/2013: The project owes and additional $122.50 for the TDRF for PDP. The site acreage was miscalculated. This can be paid at the time of final payment after hearing. RESPONSE: We will provide the additional fee, plus what we owe now that we have a plat. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex &-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: At time of final plan submittal, please include a detailed species description of the Arkansas Valley seed mix, including the rates of seed mix to be applied. RESPONSE: We have added to plan as requested. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/0612013 09/06/2013: If there will be any street lights then show locations on landscape plan and provide tree separation of 40 feet for shade trees or 15 feet for ornamental trees. RESPONSE: Street lights have been added per Light and Power on the west side of Lochwood in two locations. Trees are within the required 40 foot separation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: If there are any existing trees on the site schedule an meeting with The City Forester to review and inventory. RESPONSE: We had a meeting with the City Forester on 9.19.13. We have provided a summary of the meeting to the City Planner and the Forrester. There are no existing trees within the project boundary. Specific trees adjacent to the northern property boundary were discussed (condition and protection). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Will any off -site trees be impacted by proposed construction? RESPONSE: It was determined the demolition of the existing sidewalk or the construction of the driveway will not impact the existing off -site trees. In addition, a note was added to the landscape notes that states that over excavation will not be permitted during the removal of the existing sidewalk per the City Forester. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Tree protection note # 7 does not seem to apply and may not be needed. RESPONSE: Tree protection note #7 has been revised per direction from the City Forester that states the following: "Pruning of any off -site trees that have canopy that extends over the project shall only occur based on an evaluation and recommendation of a private ISA certified arborist and with the approval of the adjacent property owner or their designated representative. Tree pruning shall be by a business that holds a current City of Fort Follins arborist license." Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/06/2013 09/06/2013: Consider using lanceleaf cottonwood or plains cottonwood in place of the narrowleaf cottonwood. The narrowleaf cottonwood produces and abundance of root suckers that can causes maintenance problems. RESPONSE: Narrowleaf Cottonwood has been replaced with Lanceleaf Cottonwood. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(&-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08/19/2013: The electric transformer will likely be 84" wide x 73" deep. In addition, a minimum of 3 feet unobstructed clearance is required on the back and two sides, and 8 feet in front of the transformer. It is not clear on the utility plan if there is adequate space for the transformer. RESPONSE: We have verified that the required clearances are available on all sides of the transformer. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08/19/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and electric development charges with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08/19/2013: After plans are final, please send an AutoCad (version 2008) of the sitelutility plan to Terry Cox at TCOX(,FCGOV.COM. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08/19/2013: A landscape plan showing planned streetlights was sent to the landscape architect on Aug.19, 2013. These lights need to be shown on the landscape plan and street tree locations adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 feet between trees and lights (15 feet if tree is an ornamental type). RESPONSE: Street lights added per redline. Trees are within the required 40 foot separation. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970416-2869,llynxwiler _poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/0312013: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 RESPONSE: We acknowledge and will schedule an on -site inspection with PFA at the time of core/shell rough -in. If the test determines that a communication system is not satisfactory to PFA, an amplification system shall be designed and installed per PFA requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09103/2013: FIRE ACCESS FOR STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT In order to accommodate aerial fire apparatus access (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5 This code requirement is not currently being met with the current site plan and further discussion is needed. RESPONSE: As discussed, a 30 foot wide fire lane has been provided on the north side of the building and on the east side we were able to provide a 28 foot wide fire lane. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: HYDRANT PLACEMENT The relocation of the hydrant on the SE corner of the building, shall be reviewed in future plans submittals. One additional hydrant on the west side of the building is also needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A new fire hydrant has been added to the north side of the building. This location is to the east of the building and is to be verified by PFA. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: FDC 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. 2006 International Fire Code 912.2 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/0312013: 2012 IFC CODE ADOPTION Please 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. RESPONSE: Acknowledged, Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam(afcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/27/2013 08/27/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3, Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam .fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, Wamaraue Mcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Please provide quantity and quality detention calculations in the drainage report to verify capacities. RESPONSE: Quantity and Quality calculations are now reflected in the drainage report. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: Both detention ponds need to have spillways directed to the major swale. RESPONSE: Spillways have been indicated on the plans as requested. Detailed calculations will be provided with the Final Drainage Report. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 0910312013: Please document on an exhibit what land area is being treated by a LID technique. RESPONSE: An exhibit has been added to the Preliminary Drainage Report reflecting the areas being treated by each LID. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09103/2013: The site is quite high. Lowering the site a foot or two would be desired. RESPONSE: The site grades are dictated by the existing grades at the south entrance off of Lochwood Drive. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: The retaining wall will require a building permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2013 09/04/2013: Please provide a maintenance agreement for the swale that is shared by the two properties. If an agreement cannot be formalized, please provide a maintenance obligation within the drainage report that lays out the responsibilities of the Developer. RESPONSE: The Developer is in discussions with the adjacent HOA and will formalize any required maintenance obligation pursuant to the terms of the recorded drainage easement. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountv(Mcuov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2013 09/03/2013: There is a line over text issue on sheet EL-1. See redlines. RESPONSE: This item has been corrected on the enclosed new sheet EL-1.