Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - PDP - PDP120015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)building. All units are below top of roofline. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D) This section states the standards for Reduced Minimum Size of plantings for Affordable Housing Projects. TBG Response: The landscape plan shows reduced minimum sizes. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.5(B) and 1.5.1(1) Trash/Recycling enclosures shall be constructed on a concrete cement pad and designed with walk-in access without having to open the main service gate. Also the enclosure is to be setback 20ft from a public sidewalk. The proposed enclosure does not have a walk-in access. TBG Response: The trash enclosure design provides pedestrian access and is adequately sized for trash and recycling. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.4 The lighting plan is for the entire site and light levels twenty feet beyond property lines. Please adjust lighting plan to include the mentioned items and other standards found in the cited section. TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised. 05/15/2012: A 4" water service and an 8" sewer service seem large for the number of units included in the project. Provide hydraulic sizing calculations for review. If the 8" sewer service is really needed, add a manhole at the point that the 8" service connects to the City sewer. RWE Response: Mechanical Engineer is evaluating proposed sizes for both sanitary sewer and domestic water services and will provide calculations as necessary. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: At final, label all fittings valves, pipe lengths, etc. and include standard details. NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: See redlined plans for other comments. NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbealsC-ofcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 4.17(D)(3)(d)4. This section requires a minimum roof pitch of 8:12 for hipped and gable roofs. Please call out the roof pitches on the elevation drawings to verify compliance. RWE Response: We have labeled the roof pitches and overall building heights to the revised elevations. The roof lines shown on the architectural elevations are in conformance with design guidelines of Article 4, page 85 of 142. Since all of the roofs at the top of the four story building are hip roofs we are conforming to the 6/12 pitch stated in paragraph 4 entitled "Rooflines". Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: Please provide elevation drawings for all structures (Trash Enclosure and Utility Enclosure). Elevations drawings need indicate building height RWE Response: Enclosure Elevations are provided with the Final Plan set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5 When a landscaped area has vehicle overhang on two parallel sides then the landscaped area shall be at least 7 ft in width between those two sides. LUC 3.2.2(H) Vehicular use area shall be setback along a nonarterial street at least 10 ft and along a lot line 5ft. Along Poudre Street the proposed setback is not in compliance with the code. TBG Response: The modification for the 7' width was approved The setback on Poudre Street has been changed to 5' to meet Code. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.2(K)(5) Accessibility spaces are required to be identified also by a sign. NES Response: Signs have been,added. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012 05/10/2012: Mechanical/Utility equipment (vents, flues, RTU, ac units, conduit...) should be included on plans (site, landscaping, elevations) with notes on how such equipment will be screened/painted. RWE Response: All mechanical vents, flues, AC units, etc. are screened by hip roof parapet on the Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanfordofcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012 05/19/2012: Please place an R1-1 (Stop) sign on the alley intersections with Linden and Pine streets. NES Response: Stop sign has been added. Topic: General Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanfordCa)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012 05/19/2012: Seems that I recall some future plan for the alley to extend to the Azatlan Center. If that is true a sidewalk serving this section of the alley would be an asset. TBG Response: The alley is being paved with construction of this project. In addition there is a 6' continuous connecting walkway through the site from Linden Street to Pine Street. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012 05/19/2012: Please locate both Honey Locust trees at the alley access 3-4 feet further north than shown on sheet LS2. Reviewing the sight triangle here provides the possibility that the trunk could be in the line of sight of someone attempting to pull out into the alley. Granted its just one tree trunk but I would like to give cyclists and the senior residents as much unobstructed visibility of each other in that area as possible. TBG Response: The existing trees located on -site will be removed with construction of the alley. The existing street trees installed with the Linden Street Improvements will need further discussion among City staff. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardlePfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: Route 81 and 8 provide service on Linden Street adjacent to this site. Section 3.6.5 of the LUC states that all development proposals shall accommodate existing and planned transit facilities. Currently there is not an accessible southbound bus stop in the vicinity of this site, therefore the applicant shall provide a 12' x 18' accessible concrete pad for a bus stop, preferably in the ROW between the sidewalk and existing curbline, additional space may be necessary behind the sidewalk to accommodate the 12' depth. The location of the pad should be at least 50' south of the driveway proposed. Please let me know if you have questions. TBG Response: We have added a 12' x 18' pad as requested. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffingtoncDfcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyC�fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 05/16/2012: No comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet LS2. TBG Response: Fixed. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 05/16/2012: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 05/16/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholder's signature block. NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has not been determined. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Please add a note referencing development agreements & other documents affecting this property, per Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(u). NES Response: A note has been added to plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Please add missing lot numbers, ownership, and linework for the surrounding properties. See redlines. NES Response: Plat has been revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: All right of ways must reference how they were dedicated. NES Response: Plat has been revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Please add "Point of Beginning" to sheet 2. NES Response: Plat has been revised. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Please add a complete legal description. TBG Response: Legal description added. Department: Traffic Operation 2. Drainage Report P. 4 — Please include a FEMA FIRMette of the site area in the appendix. Please label or include a legend for the floodplain map on PA 3. Drainage Report P. 9 — Please discuss that the structure has been elevated to account for potential debris blockage at the Linden bridge. Compare the BFE to the floor level and the bridge deck and the ground elevation where water may spill around the bridge. 4. Drainage Report P. 9 — Discuss the floodplain issue for the outfall pipe and that a floodplain use permit and pre- and post -construction no -rise certification will be required. You can include your no -rise justification in the drainage report instead of a separate memo, if you prefer. Please document the tolerances for surveying for no -rise is 0.00 feet. 5. Please see comments on the plans related to the floodplain notes. 6. More detail will be required on the outfall pipe. NES Response: Drainage report and drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Please see redlined plans for other minor floodplain comments. NES Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: The outfall pipe for the site needs to be discussed regarding the best location on where to release the flows. In the field, the best location looked to be at the toe -of -slope near the bank of the river. This may be in the Poudre River Floodway where regulatory measures will need to be planned and executed by the Applicant. NES Response: The horizontal and vertical location for the proposed outfall pipe has been agreed upon per on -site meeting with City staff on 7/2/12. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: The design details for the off -site swale, the PLD in the parking lot, and the water quality pond can be determined during final compliance. NES Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Off -site drainage easements are required for the drainage swale and water quality pond outfall pipe. If the off -site property owner is the City of Fort Collins, drainage alignments will be required. A Letter of intent for these easements is required before a public hearing. NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: A reminder that Detention Pond Landscape Standards apply to the water quality pond. NES Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: A curb cut was missed to drain part of the parking lot into the PLD. NES Response: Curb cuts have been added. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyC�fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 05/16/2012: No comments. Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 I Response: The applicant would be happy to pay the $250 review fee, but we need to ask if the fees still apply if this is an affordable housing project? Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: 08/29/2011: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be installed in the following locations: 1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in size or addition(s) to an existing building that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 SF. For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. 2. All new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater than 50, regardless of the occupancy classification. 3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1 and 2 of this section undergoing alterations exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building. Public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority. PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Administrative Policy 07-01 Response: So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Addressing: The customer wishes to have the building addressed off of Linden. This will only be honored if all fire department panels and services can be provided in a room for fire dept use only, or the lobby. There must be a paved walk from the dedicated fire lane to said room or lobby. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: A full 13 fire sprinkler system is required to offset the lack of emergency access to the rear of the building. RWE Response: We will work with the fire department to see if 13R can be used in lieu of a 13 system. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Please do not lose sight of the associated Fire Pump requirement that accompanies the Standpipe System. RWE Response: Our mechanical engineer is working with fire and water/wastewater to determine if required PSI can be met without pump. If not, one will be included in the design. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: A remote fire dept connection is not necessarily required, but can be provided if already planned. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Because the fire lane is contiguous from Linden to Poudre St (alley), Poudre Street shall be improved to be a hard deck which is designed to support 40 ton. NES Response: Poudre Street will be improved with an asphalt pavement section Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, waamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 05/15/2012: Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 1. Drainage Report P. 4 — Please revise the FEMA Map date to be May 2, 2012. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012 05/07/2012: Electric utility facilities will need to be installed before the sidewalk. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012 05/07/2012: If any regulated or hazardous materials are encountered during Light & Power construction, removal or remediation will be at the developer's expense in addition to normal electric development and system modification charges. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012 05/07/2012: If a fire booster pump is required, please coordinate power requirements with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700. RWE Response: So noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012 05/07/2012: After plans are final, please send an AutCAD drawing (version 2008) of the site plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. Response: So noted. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Megan Harrity, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/0912012 05/09/2012: Five parcels are in ownership of; KIEFER BLAIR A FAMILY TRUST One parcel is in ownership of; KIEFER MARJORIE R Please include a signature block for all owners to sign the final plat. Please feel free to contact me if there are questions about the ownership. My number is 970.498.7065 and my email is mharrity@larimer.org NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has not been determined. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: Landscape plantings need to continue to be reviewed by Parks and Forestry for compatability with the City trail and the City will need to grant construction and maintenance easements. TBG Response: So noted. Council is in the process of approving the easement. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-416-2864, rgonzalesPRoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 08/29/2011: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Poudre Fire Authority charges a fee for submitted development review plans. Cost for this review is $250. For more information, contact Hayley Spurrier at hspurrier(cbpoudre-fire.org. J Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012:: Landscape notes that address tree separations could add these separation dimensions in LUC 3.2.1. Six feet between trees and water and sewer service lines. Street trees placed at least eight feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys. TBG Response: The notes have been added to the landscape plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: Discuss with the City Forester and Project Planner street tree placement and selection along Pine Street to achieve the canopy street tree standard. TBG Response: See landscape plan — trees have been changed to Honeylocust. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: Northern Red Oak does not thrive in Fort Collins soils often being deficient in iron. Texas Red Oak or Shumard Oak are similar and are much more tolerant of Fort Collins soils. Some designers prefer to use Tartarian Maple in place of Ginnala Maple. Both are on the Front Range Recommended Tree list with Tartarian receiving a higher rating due to its generally better adaptability to soil chemistry. TBG Response: The tree species has been changed to Shumard Oak. Department: Historic Preservation Planning Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliamsCilfcgov.com Topic: Site Plan The project has taken advantage of a complementary design review offered by the Landmark Preservation Commission, and has incorporated a few features and materials similar to those on the historic buildings in the downtown area, such as red brick, decorative lintels and brick arch details above the third story windows. Although there are concerns regarding the compatibility of a four-story building adjacent to single family homes that have been determined to be eligible for the national, state and local registers of historic properties, the applicant is addressing these concerns by placing restrictions on the parcels of land fronting Linden Street, to act as a buffer and maintain both the streetscape and historic character of Linden. These parcels will be restricted to ensure that they are developed to be in character with the adjacent historic buildings in size, scale, materials, and design, as determined by Historic Preservation staff. The restriction will be approved by the City's Historic Preservation Planner and City Attorney's Office and will be documented on the plat prior to recording. TBG Response: The building materials and colors are complimentary with the historic nature of the RDR district and the downtown area. The applicant acknowledges that future development on the parcel along Linden Street will be reviewed by the historic preservation staff. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartinegfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012 05/07/2012: Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700) will need a Commercial Service Information (C-1) form completed and a 1-line diagram of the electric service. Electric development and system modification charges will apply. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: The NE corner of Poudre Street and NW Corner of Pine Street should have a 10, x 10' triangle right of way or easement provided to ensure the corner is not obstructed in the future. Refer to details 7-11 F and 7-12F of the LCUASS standards. NES Response: Sight triangle easements have been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Utility easements need to be dedicated on the back of the right of way along Poudre Street and Linden Street. NES Response: A utility easement is being provided along Poudre Street. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: An offsite easement will be required for the drainage swale north of the project. Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with real estate services. NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lexca)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: ECS - - Conflict with the ECS, which suggests not regrading the entire site, with the site's grades, this is prohibitive, but the ECS should be updated to reflect the current proposal. For example, what management strategies are suggested to address the proposed conversion of the site from a non-native grass dominated area to a native grass/shrub/cottonwood landscape? - In addition, as the stormwater detention area is within the NHBZ, please have the ECS address this as well. Cedar Creek Response: We will be contacting Lindsay Ex to discuss ECS. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Fugitive Dust Control — A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from Larimer County Environmental Health for development involving: - Land clearing of 5-25 acres; - Land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or exceeding 6 months in duration. TBG Response: So noted. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: As with zoning and current planning comments, the lighting plan must extend into the buffer zone to ensure Section 3.2.4(D)(6) has been met. TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchananPfcgov.com 05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - It is unclear how portions of proposed drainage basin 4 will drain into area inlet in island of parking lot. NES Response: Spot elevations have been added to clarify grading/drainage. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - The minimum allowed cross slope is 1.5% and maximum is 4% for reconstruction. The cross slopes on Poudre street exceed 5%. Consider creating another low point and high point to minimize these cross slopes to less than 4%. NES Response: Cross slopes have been revised to meet city standards. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012 05/11/2012: Page 5 of the Drainage report makes reference to Drake Road. NES Response: Drainage Report has been revised. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012 05/11/2012: A repayment of $42,078.88 for the Linden Streets Streetscape will be due prior to issuance of building permit. NES Response: So noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: An easement and maintenance agreement will be required for the sidewalk connection, steps and railing north of the project on the adjacent project. Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with real estate services. NES Response: The drainage, access and landscape easement is currently being approved by Council. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 05/16/2012: No Comment Topic: Plat Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012 05/11/2012: From the County Assessor's website it appears that their are different ownerships for the numerous lots associated with this project. If this is the case than multiple signature blocks will need to be added to the plat corresponding to the different owner's. NES Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lienholder has not been determined. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: It is understood that the outlet pipe for the detention pond will require an easement by separate document. Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with real estate services. NES Response: The easement is currently being approved by Council. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C000 - A typical cross section of the Poudre Street (Alley) needs to be included on either the cover sheet, grading sheet or preliminary plan and profile sheet. NES Response: A typical cross section has been added to drawings. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting to hearing. The preliminary Plan and Profile is required prior to hearing for a number of reasons but in this case we are specifically concerned with the south edge of Poudre Street and how the design and construction will interact with the adjacent property owners. If a preliminary design profile can not prove that adjacent property owners will be affected then letters of intent will need to be gained by adjacent property owners agreeing to allow for construction or grading easements for construction. 05/16/2012: A preliminary plan and profile design of both flowlines will need to be provided for Poudre Street (Alley) prior to hearing. A design sheet may be submitted for review directly to engineering prior to hearing. NES Response: Adjacent property owners were notified by developer and Letters of Intent were provided prior to the public hearing. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Sheet C100 - Adjacent property owners will need to be notified and coordinated with regarding moving the fence along the south edge of Poudre Street out of the Right of Way. NES Response: Adjacent property owners were notified by developer and Letters of Intent were provided prior to the public hearing. Comment Number: 13 . Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Is there design considerations for the large radiuses of the returns on the south property access? Engineering would support a smaller radius for such a large access off of an Alley. NES Response: Curb returns are designed based of PFA truck turning movements. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Please provide a 2.5' concrete apron, 12" in depth across the south access of the project adjacent to the right of way line. This does not need to be a concrete pan but is required as a delineation and set grade for future maintenance and paving of Poudre Street. NES Response: A concrete collar has been added on the south side of Poudre Street along existing right -of way. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Sheet C300 - How is the swale crossing the poudre trail north of the project? A culvert is recommended by engineering. NES Response: Proposed drainage swale will widen out to disperse flows and terminate at existing low crossing along public trail. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 Is there any way to provide a low seating wall (retaining wall) so that this suggestion doesn't conflict with the site's grading plan? TBG Response: We have added a 4' wide crusher fines path following the 63' contour and tying into the crosswalk. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: All connecting walkways should be a minimum of 6' in width (Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)). TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6'. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Is there a drop-off area in the front of the building? See Section 3.2.2(F). TBG Response: The driveway width is 30', so there is room for a car to park in front, although PFA may require the curb to be striped red and signed no parking, fire lane. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: While only two ADA spaces are required (Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)), are the applicants sure that is sufficient for the proposed use? TBG Response: The applicant feels that 2 spaces are sufficient. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Standard stall depth requirement is 19' (See Section 3.2.2(L)) - see Zoning comments regarding overhangs and allowable depths. If this standard is not met, a modification is requierd. TBG Response: The modification request was approved. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Trash Enclosure- how is this plan meeting Section 3.2.5(B)(5) of the Land Use Code along Poudre Place? TBG Response: The trash enclosure design provides pedestrian access and is adequately sized for trash and recycling. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Note Section 3.5.1(C) of the Land Use Code that requires new buildings in historic areas to reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. Compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code is required. TBG Response: Regarding compliance with 3.5.1(C), the building materials and colors are complimentary with the historic nature of the RDR district and the downtown area.. Regarding 3.4.7, the applicant acknowledges that future development on the parcel along Linden Street will be reviewed by the historic preservation staff. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Continue the sidewalk in front of the trash enclosure (see Section 3.2.2.(C)(2) of the Land Use Code. TBG Response: See revised plans. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Building Height Review - Staff has received the shadow analysis and summary required by Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b) but not the visual analysis required. Please provide this analysis, including an elevation of what the view from Linden Street looks like (to meet both this standard and Section 3.52.(C)(2) regarding Street -Facing Facades. TBG Response: Done meet the 3' requirement. Please make a note on the landscape plans which trees are meeting the mitigation standard. TBG Response: Changed to 3" caliper. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Site Lighting - see Zoning's comments regarding the lighting plan. TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised. Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: The project has requested two modifications (1) Section 4.17(D)(c)(4) Frequent view/access and (2) Section 4.17(1))(3)(c)(1) Height/Mass. Both of the modifications are supported by Section 2.8.2(H)(2) because the project "substantially alleviates an existing, defined and described problem'of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the City." In addition, staff supports the justification for 'H eight/Mass' that the provision of a pedestrian scale environment meets this standard equally or better than the standard sets forth. TBG Response: The modification request was approved. Topic: Planning Objectives Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: In your statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies please also discuss the following: -Principle LIV 16 (Historic Preservation), e.g., how is this project addressing historic preservation planning and regulations (Policy LIV 16.4)? -Policy LIV 22.3 - Offer Multi -Family Building Variation -Any applicable Principles and Policies for the Downtown District Principle LIV 32, and the Poudre River Corridor Overlay (LIV 45), including Policy LIV 45.3(3). TBG Response: Done Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: In your statement regarding proposed open space, wetlands, please describe the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone this project is dedicating on the north side of the project. Please also address this in section (vii) of the statement. TBG Response: Done Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Can the bike rack be moved closer to the project entrance (see Section 3.2.2(C) (4)(b) of the Land Use Code? TBG Response: The bike rack has been relocated to the west side of the main entrance walkway. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing. The walkway on the north side of the project (the promenade) should connect to the walkway that extends out to Linden (Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) and Section 4.17(D)(1)(b). Another requirement is to continue the connecting walkway directly across the parking lot to have a more direct pedestrian connection. Based on Long -Range Planning comments, it would also be desired to have sidewalks on both side of the Linden Street Entrance to the project. 4. State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units per that code. 5. New Green Code requires: a. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. b. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. c. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. e. Low VOC interior finishes. TBG Response: So noted, passed along to architect Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lexc&fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Prior to hearing, please indicate how the current proposal meets the parking lot perimeter landscaping along Linden Street, specifically Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) that requires the following: - "Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened."? -Note that one option discussed during staff review was a 36" fence or wall to provide the screening and take up a minimal amount of space on the site. TBG Response: To keep costs at a minimum, we are providing landscape material to meet this standard. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: The stormwater detention pond that fronts on Linden Street is contrary to earlier discussions that indicated the Linden Street frontage would be preserved for commercial uses. Based on discussions at the staff review, lets continue to review (after the hearing) the ways in which this portion of the site can be enhanced. TBG Response: Resolved. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012 05/15/2012: Please see the landscape redlines, including the recommendation that street trees along Pine Street mimic the existing street trees (honey locust), that the currently proposed honey locust could be replaced with the proposed elm species, and that the landscape area in front of the building recessed area should be significantly different than the other landscaping on the north. Please also note Advanced Planning comments regarding the design along the front of the building. TBG Response: The street trees along Pine are now Honeylocust. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Please note that the two upsized trees (currently the boxelder trees) need to still 05/18/2012: A grouping of 3 Lanceleaf Cottonwoods should be placed around the sidewalk connection to the trail. The purpose is to reinforce the break in the building facade and highlight the sidewalk connection. TBG Response: Done. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: As discussed at the review meeting, the street trees lining both sides of the sidewalk along Pine Street could be reduced in number by two or three, and the effect would be greater if Honeylocust were used to match trees across the street, thus lining the street as an allee. Related to this, the elms could be used in the parking lot instead of Honeylocust. TBG Response: Done. Topic: Site Plan Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapesPfcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: The pedestrian framework is minimal and indirect. Alignments do not follow the logical routes for walking to and from the entrance. 4-foot attached sidewalks do not accommodate two people walking together and given the intensity of use, number of people living here, and location, the pedestrian framework should be more generous and direct. Walks along the front building faces should be 8 feet wide with 49 tree grates. TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6', the minimum required by Code. Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, IexCa)fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012 05/16/2012: Prior to Hearing: Please provide renderings prior to hearing illustrating the buildings, including the materials and their colors. The images provided for the Building Height Review may be sufficient for this requirement. Note that building colors and materials should reflect both the historic neighborhood characteristics and the Poudre River, as per the PDR comments. TBG Response: Done Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012 05/14/2012: Please also label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility plans. Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans, "Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." Finally, please call out the NHBZ in the Gross Acreage calculations as a separate area. TBG Response: Done Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: Please note the following comments from Building Services: 1. Building code requires a 1-hour building if constructed with wood. 2. Fire -sprinkler required. 3. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler. Fort Collins 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/developmentre view July 03, 2012 RE: Legacy Senior Residences, PDP120015, 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, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or lex@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapesefcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: A walk should extend straight out to Linden Street on the south side of the drive. This requires the removal of the one northernmost parking space to allow the walk to align and maintain a landscape area. TBG Response: The 6' walk has been added Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: The sidewalk that connects around the building to the west should be aligned to the simplest and most direct route possible as shown on the trace paper notes discussed at the review meeting. TBG Response: We have added a 4' wide crusher fines path following the 63' contour and tying into the crosswalk. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012 05/18/2012: The sidewalk connections to the trail on the north and to Pine Street on the west should be increased in width from 4 feet to 5 feet. TBG Response: The walk connecting to the trail on the north side is 5' wide. Due to cost reasons, the applicant would like to leave the walk to Pine Street 4' wide. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012