HomeMy WebLinkAboutHICKORY COMMONS - PDP - PDP110005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (6)Response id Comments
doable. Specifically, all of the animal -related uses are required to be conducted entirely
within a soundproof building. That may not be possible to achieve. Also, a medical
marijuana dispensary on this property doesn't appear to be able to meet the locational
requirements from some uses, specifially the LMN zone directly to the north, and the open
land/park to the south- The MMD use should be removed from the list. It's suggested that
the animal uses also be deleted since these are mixed -use buildings containing
residential.
Response: We have removed the animal related uses and the MMD use from the list of uses in note 16.
Please see the revised site data sheet.
Topic: Plat
Number: 3 Created: 03/31/2011
03/31/2011: It's not a good idea to plat the building envelopes. Also, it appears the steps
of the building will encroach outside the envelopes and into an easement. Stairways can't
encroach into easement per Sec. 3.8.19.
Response. We have removed the building envelopes from the plat and have ensured that stairs are not in
easements. Please see revised plat and site plan.
Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 2 Created: 03/31/2011
03/31/2011: The building footprints should be dimensioned, or a building envelope drawn
in addition to the footprints, with the envelope dimensions shown. Each compact parking
space will need to be identified by a raised "compact only" sign at 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 a detail of materials and size. Label lot lines and show
lot line dimensions. Label street on site plan. Show the depth of the compact parking
stalls on the site plan.
Response See revised site plan,
Response i o Comments
04/12/2011: Label sewer service clean -outs as traffic rated.
Response. See the revised utility plan set
Number: 3 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Identify easements and add dimensions. Minimum easement widths are 20
feet for water and 30 feet for sanitary sewer. (I did not receive a copy of the plat.)
Response See the revised utility plan sei
Number: 4 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: At final, provide profile of sanitary sewer.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Construction Drawings
Number: 5 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Move the south F Hyd as noted on red -lined plans.
Response: See the revised utility plan set
Number: 6 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Show all water valves.
Response: See the revised utility plan se:
Number: 7 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Add the following standard details: 3/4" and 1" meter pits, 1-1/2" and 2" meter
pits (side view), PVC tracer wire, locator stations
Respcnse. See the revised utility plan sc
Number: 8 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: See redlined plans for additional comments.
Response- See the revised utility Dian se".
Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Building Elevations
Number: 4 Created: 04/01/2011
04/01/2011: Indicate the building height on the drawings. Also, the dimensions shown on
both elevation sheets for the east and south facade are upside down.
Response. Please see the revised building elevations.
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 03/31/2011
03/31/2011: Some of the uses listed in General Note #16 will be problematic or not
Response , o Comments
Topic: Plat
Number: 1 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: The boundary and legal close.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 2 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: There is a typo in Surveyor's Note #6.
Response: See revised plat.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 3 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: No comments.
Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Matt Wempe
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 1 Created: 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: See the revised site plan
Number: 2 Created: 04/05/2011
04/05/2011: 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 the revised site plan.
Number: 3 Created: 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.
R:,cr=-r. g..^e the evised utility oho se
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Construction Drawings
Number: 1 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Move curb stops out of pavement into landscaped area.
Response: See the revised utility plan set
Number: 2 Created: 04/12/2011
Response i o Comments
04112/2011: The off -site easement in the Natural Area was for just the property's drainage
to the east. This development will need to obtain their own permission and easement.
Please contact Daylan Figgs at 416-2814 for more information.
Response: We have a letter of intent from the Natural Resources Department.
Number: 2 Created: 0411212011
04/12/2011: The slopes for the detention pond are 2.5 to 1. These are too steep. Please
provide slopes of 4 to 1. There is a portion of these slopes that are located within the
R.O.W.
Response. Please see the revised grading plE
Number: 3 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Please provide a drainage easement for the northernmost stretch of storm
sewer.
Response: See revised Utility Plan set and revised plat.
Number: 4 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Please show drainage sub -basins on the drainage plan as well as a basin
and pond summary table.
Response. See revised drainage report
Number: 5 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: The detention requirement needs to include half of Hickory Street along the
frontage of the site.
Response: See the revised drainage report.
Number: 6 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: 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. See the revised drainage report.
Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Construction Drawings
Number: 5 Created: 04/12/2011
04112/2011: No plans were routed to us this round. We would like to review them next
round.
Response: Please route plans to Technical Services. This is out of our control.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Number: 4 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: No comments.
Response i o Comments
Response The Peking Cotoneasters on the south side of the East building have been replaced with
native snecies.
Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 04/1512011
04/15/2011: 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: Landscape note #1 1 has been revised as requested
Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Easements
Number: 1 Created: 03/29/2011
03/29/2011: The Drainage Easement (on BOTH sides of the Emergency Access,
Access, Utility and Drainage easement) must also be a Utility Easement.
Response: Please see revised plat.
Topic: General
Number: 2 Created: 03/29/2011
03/29/2011: It is difficult to locate the electric (and gas) meters on the buildings, especially
Bldg. #2. It is also unknown how "Live/Work 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 Acknowledgec
Department: PFA Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 1 Created: 04/11/2011
04/11/2011: 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 Met with Carie and discussed
Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 04/12/2011
Response to Comments
Number: 11 Created: 04/15/2011
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 determined in the field by the
City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair
standards."
Response. See revised Utility Plan set
Number: 12 Created: 04/15/2011
The plans have only been reviewed for items required prior to public hearing, therefore,
after hearing or in subsequent rounds of review, additional comments may be made.
Response. Acknowledges
Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 04/07/2011
04/07/2011: As per Dana Leavitt's comment during conceptual review, a meeting with
Daylan Figgs needs to be held to determine how the stormwater will or will not flow across
the Salyer Natural Area.
Response v've f:ave a letter of intent from the Natura, Resources department.
Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex
Topic: Landscape Plans
Number: 2 Created: 04/07/2011
04/07/2011: Asper Dana Leavitt's comment regarding compliance with Section 3.4.1(L)
of the land use code regarding "Compatibility with Public Natural Areas of Conserved
Land," staff appreciates the use of native grass seed on the southern half and throughout
the perimeter of the site. However, the use of compatible plant materials should also
extend vertically with the shrub and trees species selected for the site, especially on the
southern half. For example, the hackberry species selected is not native to this area and
has little wildlife value: replacing this species with a Prunus spp. (e.g.. American Plum or
Chokecherry) will greatly increase the compatibility with the Natural Area to the south. Note
that Prunus spp. are considered ornamental trees and would require a 20' (preferred) to
30' spacing along the roadway.
Response: The Landscape plans have been revised to include compatible plants in the
southern portion of the site as requested
Number: Created: 04/07/2011
04/07/2011: With a mature height of approximiately 10', do the Peking Cotoneasters on
the easterly buildings south facades block out the window? You might want to reconsider
planting the area underneath this window with a shorter species, and, given your
adjacency with the Salyer Natural Area, consider replacing the cotoneaster spp. with a
native species.
Response i o Comments
ResncnsP Sea the nwised .,*ii tv Cl2" ss
Number: 4 Created: 04/12/2011
Please show the location of Hemlock Street on the Vicinity Map on the Utility Plan cover
sheet.
Response: See revised Utility Plan set
Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Carney
Topic: General
Number: 5 Created: 04/12/2011
As mentioned in Conceptual Review, this project is responsible for improving the 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 offsite in either direction. Also, a local street portion
estimate will be prepared by the City for the future frontage improvements, and that
amount will need to be provided in a Bond, LOC, or Cash.
Response See Hemlock design in the revised Utility Plan set
Number: 6 Created: 04/12/2011
Although construction of Hemlock Street is not required at this time, the construction of a
sidewalk along Hickory may be required.
Response See revised Utility Plan set.
Number: 7 Created: 04/12/2011
The preliminary design of Hickory Street must be carried 500 feet in each direction from
the property lines.
Response See revised UPTfv °Ian set
Number: 8 Created: 04/12/2011
The proposed grading within the Hemlock Street ROW must be moved within the property
lines.
Response. See revised Utility Plan s,_
Number: 9 Created: 04/15/2011
A 9 foot utility easement will need to be dedicated behind the ROW line on Hemlock Street.
Response. See revised plat
Number: 10 Created: 04/15/2011
Please provide the following statement on the Grading sheet.
"The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum elevations required for
protection from the 100-year storm."
Response. See the revised grading sheet
Response ► o Comments
Department: Current Planning Contact: Emma McArdle
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 2 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: Please provide context around the site, with at least 150' feet shown beyond
the site boundaries, per the submittal requirements.
Response We have now included a context diagram in the resubmittal.
Number: 3 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: This proposal does not meet Standards 3.5.2(C)(1) and (2). These
standards require every residential unit entry be no more than 200' from a street walkway.
If the project has a Major Pedestrian Spine (35' in width) then that number is extended to
350'. The other standard requires at least one unit in each building facing the street to
have an entry opening on to the street. Staff will not likely support a modification of
standard to these because we do not see how any of the criteria can be met, this seems
to be too intense of a program for the site. We recommend a redesign looking at drive
aisles along the east and west sides and a major pedestrian spine through the middle of
the site. This will give each unit access to a green space central to the site.
Response: As discussed in follow-up meetings with Clark Mapes, Steve Dush, and Emma McArdle, the
buildings are mixed -use buildings, and therefore 3.5.2 does not apply.
Number: 4 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: On the site plan:
- please do not show grading or utility information. This is appropriate on a landscape plan
but not site plan;
- darken site boundary,
- take PDP off the title block;
- label street ROW widths adjacent to site, parkway, sidewalk, drive aisles, parking width
(at least one typical),
Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Carney
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 04/12/2011
Grading contours must extend a minimum of 50 feet offsite.
Response The contours are now shown a minimum of 50 feet offsit
Number: 2 Created: 04/12/2011
Please label and dimension the current ROW width on both Hickory and Hemlock streets.
Response: Done.
Number: 3 Created: 04/12/2011
Where the sidewalk along Hickory crosses the proposed drive entrance, the ramps must
be directional ADA ramps.
Response ► o Comments
Department: Current Planning Contact: Emma McArdle
Topic: General
Number: 5 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: Please submit your electronic submittal.
ke.sponse_ Please see the submrted CD of elect:oi"sic ties ,ncluded with this re -submittal
Number: 8 Created: 04/18/2011
04/18/2011: Based on the expectation that the plan will be changing due to it not meeting
the pedestrian connection requirements, I did not fully review the plans. A design charrette
is scheduled for April 25th at 10:30 a.m. to discuss how the plan can be modified to
address this and other concerns.
Response. As discussed, on April 25 we have worked out a scenario where we do satisfy the applicable
orientot,nn fo a connecting walkway standards for mixed -use buildings. Please see the revised site plan.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Number: 6 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: Provide percentages for all trees that meets minimum species diversity
requirements. Off site trees may not be allowed (to be discussed at design charrette).
Make sure all species are on the approved Plant List.
Response The percentages of tree species now appear on the plant list
Topic: Lighting Plan
Number: 7 Created: 04/13/2011
04/13/2011: 1 don't see a LLF (Light Loss Factor) on the plan, this should be equal to 1. 1
can't review the plan without knowing what the LLF is.
Response. Please see the revised lighting plan. The Luminare Schedule now clarifies the LLF as 1.0.
Topic: Planning Objectives
Number: 1 Created: 04/12/2011
04/12/2011: The planning objectives don't say what is being proposed, they only pull lines
from City Plan, this is great to have but with no summary of the project it doesn't tell me
much. Its extremely difficult to review a project without information like where commercial
is vs residential. I assume residential above, commercial below, but you need to tell me
that so I'm not assuming the details of the project. Is this a 50/50 square footage, 50%
work, 50% live. Who is the development targeted to? What is the bedroom count? I need
more information then what is provided.
Response We have now included a project description in the resubmittai
Topic: Site Plan