Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHICKORY COMMONS - PDP - PDP110005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSa detail of materials and size. Label lot lines and show /at line dimensions. Label street on site plan. Show the depth of the compact parking stalls on the. site plan. Response: The elevations for building 2 are representative of the character of all the proposed buildings. It is our understanding that only character elevations are required. We have added building footprint dimensions for all other buildings. Requested note added regarding compact parking. See new note number 18 regarding each unit having Indlvldual curb side trash service. The fact that all the units will have curb side trash service, we didn't provide a common dumpster. Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 O4/17/2012: On plat and construction drawings, adjust utility easement to extend 10' west of water main and 15' east of sanitary sewer. 0411212011 l(renoty easemenrs &0 odo,hawosioos. Minunln i sewer (I did not receive a copy of the plat.) Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/1212011 04/17/2012: Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 04/17/2012: Response: Acknowledged_ Comment Number:9 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 04117/2012: Move south stone intake to the center of the drive to maintain the same alignment in the center of the drive. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04117/2012: Move the south section of sanitary sewer west to maintain the same alignment as the north end (5' off face of curb of the landscape areas). ,il;ed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Correct the easement dimensions on the utility plans (after the adjustments noted in Comment 3 above). Re.uonse: Ackn0w1c0. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: D4/17/2012 04/17/2012: Move 8" gate valve as noted on the redlined utility plans. Response: Reclined plans were not providr Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: See redllned utility plans for other comments. Response: Reclined plans were no? Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/18/2012 04/1812012: A utility coordination meeting is STRONGLY encouraged. There doesn't appear to be enough space for the dry utilities. Response: A utility coordination meeting will be scheduled in the near tuturr Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/31/2011 04/0612012: Building footprint/elevation dimensions are show only for Building 2. Add a note to general notes stating that a raised, "compact car parking only" sign will be posted at the head of each compact space. Didn't answer the question about trash enclosures. Are there any? and if so, show location and provide a detail. label lot line on site plan. _,e envelope d;mermon noi.a. Ear -,Pa.:_ i 1 m.-s' to re coc pucl only..:ag ° al the head of each space. A handicap parking space is required. Are there going to be trash enclosures? If so. please show location and provide Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 04/17/2012. No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 04/1712012: The boundary and legal close. 04/12/2011: The boundary and legal close. Response: Acknowiodgrd Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: There is a typo in Surveyor's Note # 1. Please remove the "a". Response: Revised. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04117/2012: Please correct the sheet number on sheet 1 & 2. Response: R, - Comment Number g Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04117/2012: Please correct the sheet index on sheet 1. Response: Revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: The easements on sheet 2 are incorrectly labelled. Response: Revised. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Matt Wempe, 970-016-2040, mwempe@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/05/2011 04/05/2011: The Individual unit sidewalk connections to the Hickory Trail spur will not be allowed. However, the two group connections (in between Buildings 3 and 4 and on the south side of Building 4) are ideal. Response: Revised with previous round of review. Does Matt Wempe still work for the City? We discussed our revision on this issue with Craig Forman, and he is satisfied with our solution. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/05/2011 04105/2011: Where will bicycle parking be located, and how much will be provided? The idea location is a hard surface, well -lit, near business entrances, secure, and protected from the elements. Response: See bicycle parking on the east side of the drive aisle near Hickory Street. There are 6 bicycle parking spaces as described on sheet 1 of 1 parkmp Innpunpe. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/05/2011 04/05/2011. Hickory Street is classified as a collector on the Master Street Plan. Right-of-way and design must follow the collector standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Recnnnse'. Arknowl,dg.d Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 0411712012 04/17/2012: The detention pond does not meet our Detention Pond Landscape Standards with the large retaining wall surrounding 3 sides of the pond. This needs to be revised as well. Response: The pond has been revised substantially, and now meet, the landscape standards for detention ponds. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/20/2012 04/2012012: The detention calculations show more detention than is required. I calculate .543 ac-ft of quantity detention plus the water quality volume for a total of .601 ac-ft of volume required. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/20/2012 04/2012012: If a lower outfall was provided for this site, the detention and grading difficulties would be greatly improved. Coordinating an oulfall with the Natural Resources department is suggested. Response: A new storm drain outfall is proposed down Hemlock towards the west. This alignment is contained In the exunng ROW and does not cross Natural Areas property. No L01 is required. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04@0/2012 0412012012: Grading along the eastern side of the property shows that Bows will be directed to the property to the east and not into the detention pond. These flows need to be directed to the detention pond. Response: Ti- _.lorg the west side of the traii tc tna strc,,r Department: Technical services Contact: Jeff County, 9701 jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04117/2012: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: There is a typo in the basis of bearings statement on sheet C2. Please remove the "a", Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04117/2012 04/17/2012: Please change the right of way width of Hickory Street to "varies' on all sheets. Response: Acknowlcdr,^' Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 04117/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C4 & C6. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 04/1712012: The detail on sheet C8 is a little small. The small text will not scan or reproduce well. Response: This detail has been enlarged. Topic: landscape plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 04/17/2012: No comments. U4A1.. ,"'l i Response: Acknowledged 04/1112011: Please get together with me to discuss FIRE LANE - NO PARKING sign template and placement along the Emergency Access Easement. Thanks for addressing all previous concerns. Response: Meeting conducted. Sign template included. Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, ronzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the building. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated.' 041172012 04/1712012: A fire hydrant shall be within 300 feet of all buildings. Response: Two new fire hydrants are proposed within the site, which will provide the required coverage. Comment Number:4 Comment Originated: 04/18/2012 04118/2012: The hammerhead turnaround is subject to being flooded. This must be elevated so that a depth not to exceed 6 inches is underwater at any one time. also, it must be paved a hard deck. compacted road base is not acceptable. Response: We are no longer proposing a hammer head, and the maximum depth in the emergency access easement is less than 6 inches during the 100-year event. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/18I2012 04/18/2012: This facility is out of access and is required to be fire sprinklered with a fulll NFPA 13 sprinkler system, not a 13R. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04118/2012 04/18/2012: There shall be no grilling, with either wood or gas without the balconies being sprinklered. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 0411712012: Need to see easement. 0411212011 The olt srle ease+ncn! ,n iw, , N9tur al Area wa.s forjusl Rre property's drainage to the east This development will need to obtain theirown permission and easement Please contact Daylan Figgs at 416-2814 for more information. Response: A new storm drain outfall is proposed down Hemlock towards the west. This alignment is contained in the existing ROW and does not cross Natural Areas property. No LOI is required. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 04/20/2012: This can be finalized during the final compliance stage. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04113/2011 04/2012012: Off -site water from the west needs to pass through the site. The sidewalk right on the property line does not allow for this. Conveyance needs to be provided along this property line directly these flows to the south. The off -site flows need to be quantified as well. 04113/2011: Please include more detailed grading of the lots to the west of the site in order to make sure the fill for this site will not block existing off -site drainage and describe how these lots drain in the text of the drainage report. Response: A storm pipe has been ^ul)lwd to this property for future connection Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 0411712012: Detention in parking lots or driving lanes are allowed up to one foot of depth. This detention pond is proposing depths much greater. The detention area as proposed does not meet this important criteria Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04107/2011 04/1112012: Please provide a copy of the letter of intent from Natural Areas. ng with Dayian F1ggs w- Response: We arc no longer proposing to cross the natural area with our outfall. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number:1 Comment Originated: 04115/2011 04/1512011: Landscape note number 11 should clarify that the native seed would receive temporary irrigation but the trees and other plants that are in the native seed area will permanent automatic irrigation such as drip or bubler. Response: Revised. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 0411812012 04/18/2012: Autumn Blaze maple is not adapted to Fort Collins Soils. The City Forester recommends that another more suited shade tree species be selected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/18/2012 0411812012: Please add these landscape notes. "A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy." Department: Ught And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/29/2011 03129/2011: It is difficult to locate the electric (and gas) meters on the buildings, especially Bldg. #2. It is also unknown how "LiveMork Unit" impacts the electric service needs. In order to design the electric utility system, a utility coordination meeting is necessary. Depending on the power requirements to each building, other facilities such as water meter locations may need to be adjusted. Response: A utility coordination meeting will be scheduled in the near future Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Water service stop boxes need to be 2' away from the back of the easement line. Also, the water meters need to be on the property side of the easement line in order to provide space for electric facilities. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Cade Dann, 970-219-5337, CDANN@poudre-fire.org Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: I Comment Originated: G411112011 Response: Because the existing ROW is wider than required, we propose to locate dry utilities within the "excess" 11.5' feet of ROW and not provide additional casement. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Revise note 4 of Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan to reference correct sheet. Resoonse: Acknowledgec Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 G4117/2012: It is unclear at this level of detail but it should be noted that proposed handicap parking must maintain 2% in all directions. Response: Acknowledgeo. If additional detail is needed it will be provide during final engineering. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/1712012: On the Grading, Hickory Street P&P and Cross section sheets include an interim design to show how proposed street improvements will tie to existing 337 Hickory Street Frontage in case there improvements are not completed prior to construction of this project. You may want to add a note that dictates the timing of these projects related to the applicable improvements. Response. Acknowiedged. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Easement and Proposed linework/X-Reference appear to have been turned off for the Hickory Commons site on Sheet C5. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 0411712012: On sheet C5 Signing and Striping Plan it is unclear what the intent is for removing and replacing the Type 3 barricade. Response: The labeling has been revised to clarify. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Note 1 of Sheet C7 may need to be revised to address the current state of 337 Hickory improvements. This note speaks to both projects being under construction at the same time. It may be better served to note that contractor shall review 337 plans to ensure improvements are constructed in conjunction with each other. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 0411812012 04118/2012: The grading contours tie into existing on the adjacent trail parcel to the east. Please discuss with Parks department in regards to grading on their parcel and/or obtaining an easement or agreement and specific language may need to be added to the development agreement. Response: We are currently coordinating with Parks on this. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04117/2012: Site Plan - Please include the top of wall elevation and height of wall callouts along the retaining wall on the site plan. The building department may require a building permit and need to review the design of the wall depending on the proposed height of the wall. Response: We are no longer proposing a retanung wall around the detention pond. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/17/2012: Site Plan - The handicap parking spaces shown on the site plan are labeled as standard parking spaces instead of handicap parking spaces. Response: Revised. Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/1712012: The variance request for the 50' parking setback from Hickory Street has been reviewed and accepted. Engineering finds that the distance as proposed from Hickory Street to the first driveway Is acceptable. Please include reference to this variance request in note 48 of the general notes on your next submittal. Response: A DVD of pi of the submittal drawings has been provided with this resubmirtal Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: D4/12/2011 4/17/2012: Still Applicable; Contours along the southwesterly property line do not appear to tie to existing and offsite contours are not shown. Response: Topographic information for this area is shown on the plans. This area is very flat so there are not many contours to show. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 4/17/2012: Still Applicable, Label Right of Way on Site Plan and Hemlock Street P&P. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/12/2011 4/1712012; Still Applicable; Sidewalks in this location should be detached, please reference "Type 1" in detail callout on Sheet C4 and show sidewalk detached along frontage. Response: As per our recent conversations, the sidewalk along Hickory has not been changed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: D4/12/2011 411712012: Still Applicable; Hemlock has been preliminarily designed as a part of this submittal, however a local street portion estimate will still need to be prepared by the City for the future frontage improvements and that amount will need to be provided in a Bond, LOC, or Cash. frontages of both Hickory and Hemlock. Currently, there are no plans to improve Hemlock Street and due to its existing condition: the City will not require any frontage improvements at this time. However. this project will still be required to preliminarily design Hemlock Street along its frontage as well as 500 feet of ire in either direction. Also. a local street portion estimate will be prepared by the City for the future frontage improvements. and their amount will need to be provided in a Bond. LOC, or Cash. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 04/15/2011 4/1712012: Still Applicable; it is unclear where this statement is shown on C4, it is recommended that it be added to note 16 of the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. -tense prowao the 7oGowma sfe(ernenl on the Grading snee(. "The top of touna,§non elaveuons snouvn ere the mrwmum ,luired for protection honi the 100-year storm." Response: Acknowledged. This has been added as note 10. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 0411512011 4117/2012: Still Applicable; Include street cut note to utility sheet and provide reference to street cut note on both utility and grading sheets. 411512011: Please show the approximate limits of any proposed street cuts. Also, please add the following note to the Utility Sheet. 'Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be detem, the field by the City Engineering Inspector All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards." Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/1712012 04/1712012: Typical for all sheets; please address textmask and line over text conflicts. Response. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 04/1712012: Show utility easement along Hemlock right of way on utility sheet. The retaining wall appears to be located within proposed utility easement. Utility companies may need to be re-routed plans for any comments associated with retaining wall and fill within utility easement. Response to Comments Hickory Commons PDP 8/1/2012 Department: Current planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/25/2012 04/25/2012: On the 1 st page, the list of potential uses are listed. While these are all permitted uses in the Service Commercial Zone, they need to be re-examined due to incompatibility with site layout. LUC 3.2.2(F) talks about parking vis a vis user needs. With the proposed uses, this is not accommodated. Response: At your request, we analyzed the previously proposed list of commercial uses for incompatibility of site layout and also regarding parking user needs and have removed enclosed mmistorage and limited indoor recreation. For all the remaining uses, user parking needs can vary greatly, so we feel there are many scenarios of all the remaining uses that would be compatible with the site layout and would adequately accommodate user parking needs. Because the ultimate users have not yet be determined, a full understanding of compatibility is somewhat speculative. Please let us know if there are any specific uses you are uncomfortable with regarding the extent to which you perceive mcomp:albd,ty. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/25/2012 042512012: LUC 3.2.1 speaks to full tree stocking and there is question as to if this proposal satisfies this code section. Response: As you pointed out, section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) "full tree stocking' of the LUC applies to this project. This standard requires that landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any building or structure. The buildings are designed in such a way as they have both a commercial and a residential entrance facing and opening onto the interior drive aisle facing the parking, Additionally, the buildings have a second residential entry facing the opposite direction. This second residential entry faces a connecting walkway, but 6 likely to be used infrequently as compaired to the side of the building that faces the intenor drive aisle. The question on the table is which of the sides of the building are high use or high visibility areas, which can be summanzed as follows: The east side of the easterly buildings is a low use (not high use) side of the buildings, however it is high visibility because of the adjacent regional bicycle trail, full tree stocking is therefore required in this location; The sides of the buildings facing the parking and dine aisle are high use sides of the buildings, therefore full tree stocking is required in this location as well; The west side of the westerly buildings is a low use (not high use) side of the buildings, and is also, because of the screening wall/fencing along the west property line, a low visibility side of the building. This side of the buildings is not high use, nor high visibility, therefore full tree stocking does not apply to the west side of the westerly buildings. Please see the revised plans where you can see that we are satisfying this standard in all applicable locations Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 041172012 04117/2012: Per LUC 3.2.4(D)(8), please show lighting levels 20 feet beyond property boundaries. This appears to only be an issue on the east and west side of the property. Response: Revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/17/2012 D41172012: Per LUC 3.2.4(C), there are some locations where the lighting level is inadequate for the sidewalk along Hickory Street and the parking areas. The parking areas should equal a minimum of one foolcandle. Response: To solve this, :i've upgraded the walipack lighting fixture to a brighter fixture and also added some wallpacks to the north end of the buildings facing Hickory Street. Please also note, the photometric plan just shows our private lighting levels, and the public street lights are not shown, per code. If you account for this public street lights, the Hickory sidewalk will also get some of that light spillage too, so the actual light levels at the location where the street sidewalk crosses the drive aisle should actually meet that 0.5 foot candle minimum. Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221.6197, emwrdle@fcgcv.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/13/2011 0411312011: In addition to the paper routings, please provide electronic versions of the resubmittal.