Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS JEEP - FDP - FDP170035 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONS15 negotiations fora possible park-n-ride use. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: How many spaces can Transfort procure in order to provide a park-n-ride? It appears that the westernmost parcel could stripe parking spaces on both sides with an adequate sized drive aisle. Ideally, 50-100 spaces would provide the needed accommodation. Response: There are no improvements planned for the west site at this time. The owner and City are in negotiations for a possible park-n-ride use. What landscape considerations are you interested in? 04/11/2017: The City of fort Collins is interested in public parking at this location to support the MAX BRT line as a park-n-ride. The parking does not necessarily have to be on the development site but could possibly be on the narrow parcel west of the railroad tracks. Please contact us to discuss further arrangements. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please label "with wet tap" for the 1 1 /2 inch water service. Response: Plan revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: There is a conflict with a tree and the 1 1/2 inch water service. Separation needs to be at least 6 feet. Response: Plan revised accordingly. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: At final compliance, please provide all applicable City of Fort Collins water and sewer details. Response: Details added. Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416.2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please remove signage from elevations. Response: A note has been added to elevations stating that all signage is to be approved under a separate permit. 14 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-68209 nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/08/2017: The updated plans show a shared through right, 8' bikelane and left turn lane. As mentioned previously there will need to be a right lane, bike lane, through lane, and left turn lane. At most intersections this is accomplished by limiting the parkway and attaching the walk. 04/06/2017: Please provide a signing and striping sheet with your next submittal. The minimum width for the proposed right turn lane at Mason and Harmony is 10' of pavement in addition to the pan. The plans show an 8' turn lane. Response: Comments addressed in previous submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please provide a pedestrian connection to Mason. All internal pedestrian connections need to be ADA compliant. 9/26/2017: The 5' wide walk shown has 6' chain link fence on either side. Has the project team considered maintenance of this walk in terms of snow removal? Response: Sidewalk and fence removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/26/2017 09/26/2017: The traffic signal pole is shown very close to the radii, and in the pedestrian curb ramp. The signal pole will need to be relocated. Please see redlines for recommended location. Response: Signal pole moved. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: Please see original comment. 04/11 /2017: Please add the MAX Harmony Station and guideway details to your site plan so we can evaluate the relationship of proposed improvements to existing conditions. Response: There are no improvements planned for the west site at this time. The owner and City are in 13 04/13/2017: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. Response: Revised Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Revised Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. 08/08/2017: All but 2 of the 4/12/17 comments HAVE NOT been addressed. Please see the 4/12/17 redlines for comments. 04/13/2017: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: Revised Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Please revise the title as marked. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are spelling issues in the legal description. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 4 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. Response: Revised Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 12 Response: Revised Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are spelling issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 Response: Revised Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX'6. Comment Number: 13 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 14 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Comment Number: 15 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 11 is included with this submittal also. 08/08/2017: Please revise the hydrology calculations to the City's data and methods. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 09/27/2017: No drainage report submitted to verify. Response: The drainage report was submitted, don't know why you were not copied. Drainage report is included with this submittal also. 08/08/2017: The maximum depth for bio-retention cells is 1 foot. 1.2 feet has been proposed with this submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please clarify the storm line at the existing inlet. The inlet should be replaced with a manhole. Response: The inlet has been replaced with a manhole as requested. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The storm pipe after the new inlet needs to be a 15-inch, not 6-inch. Response: The storm pipe diameter has been revised as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017: Trees cannot be within a bio-retention cell. One tree is located at the northern bio-retention cell. Please remove. Response: The tree has been removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017: There is a conflict with the existing conifer tree and the storm line at the southeast corner of the site. Discussion needs to take place on if the tree can be saved and the storm pipe routed differently. Response: The storm pipe has been rerouted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017: The maximum c-factor is 1.00. Please revise drainage summary table on the Drainage Plan. Response: The drainage plan and rational calculations have been revised. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, (county@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 8 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 09/28/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Please revise the title as marked. See redlines. 09/27/2017 09/27/2017 09/27/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 10 prototype design be mitigated in order to contribute to the uniqueness of our community. This issue needs to be resolved in order to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing without the need for a condition of approval. Response: The building elevations and finishes have been resolved and approved by P&Z. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-29329 jschiam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2017 09/25/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. a copy of the erosion control requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/eroison. The Erosion Control Materials will need to be submitted at time of the first round of FDP. Please resubmit an Erosion Control Plans as the recently received materials have comments and redlines that needed to be addressed to meet City Criteria. Erosion Control Report on this project was reviewed and found acceptable to City Erosion Control Criteria. Please resubmit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation as the recently received materials has comments and redlines, that needed to be addressed to meet City Criteria and as a result have changed the Erosion Control Plans and would require a recalculation of the Escrow. The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. Erosion Control Materials will need to be produced, reviewed, and accepted to meet City Erosion Control Criteria before Development Agreement Language can be drafted. If you need clarification concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact myself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com 08/07/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan (Based upon returned redlines), an Erosion Control Report (Based upon returned comments), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Revised based upon plan changes). If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam@fcgov.com Response: Escrow calculation and erosion control plans revised per comments. Erosion Control Materials are to be resubmitted. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 09/27/2017: At final compliance 08/08/2017: Please use the City's standard details, cross -sections, and specifications for the proposed bio-retention cells. Response: Updated as requested Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 09/27/2017: No drainage report submitted to verify. Response: The drainage report was submitted, don't know why you were not copied. Drainage report l7 clarity. Also, please label whether or not the connection to the public sidewalk is a ramp or stairs. Response: Labeled as requested. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: On the Site Plan, the 5-foot wide concrete walk west of the perimeter fence that connects to the MAX station is labeled as Existing. Please label this walk as Proposed. Response: Sidewalk removed per Planning Commission comments. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: On the Site Plan, along Harmony, the graphic for the public sidewalk is not consistently shown and I'm not sure what is referred to by the label "comms." Also along Harmony, please indicate that the existing bus stop is to be relocated. Response: "comms" is an abbreviation for an existing communications box. A leader has been Added to the label on the existing conditions plan. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please re -label the Trash Enclosure (Site Plan) and Dumpster Enclosure (Landscape Plan) to Trash and Recycling Enclosure. The Site Plan does not indicate a non -gated person access but the Landscape Plan seems to. If the containers are located where indicated on the Landscape Plan, it is very likely that the haulers will have difficulty gaining access with their equipment. Prior to submittal for Final Plan, staff will setup a meeting with Jonathon Nagel, environmental compliance inspector, to assist the design team in properly sizing the containers, and thus the enclosure, and ensuring practical access for the hauler. (Please note that is illegal to dispose of cardboard into the waste stream.) Response: Labeled as requested. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please move the electrical transformer off the Mason Street frontage and replace this area with landscaping. Staff recommends moving the transformer back closer to the building near the area of the new 8-foot wide landscape bed. Response: If the new building design load requires a new transformer, we will locate the new transformer closer to the building. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please call out the westerly fence on the Landscape Plan. Also, please check the quantities listed in the Landscape Legend for the Linden, Pinon Pine , and the Blue Point, Medora and Woodward Junipers. Response: The fence has been noted along the west property line. Plant quantities have been reviewed and confirmed on the plan and schedule. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Prior to submittal for Final Plan, we will provide our standard General Notes and proper signature blocks for the Cover Sheet (sheet 1) of the planning set. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Staff and the design team need to continue our dialogue regarding compliance with Section 3.5.3 fl(1) which requires that a standardized 1.1 Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 09/27/2017: Carried over. The plat should include this area until such time as negotiations with Transfort regarding a conveyance is resolved. 08/09/2017: The plat does not include the area west of the railroad tracks. Since this area is part of the Project Development Plan, it needs to be part of the Plat as well. This area could be referred to as Lot Two. Response: The west property is currently under negotiations for use as a park-n-ride. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 09/27/2017: Carried over for further discussion. 08/09/2017: Please indicate on the plans the maximum height of the Jeep Hill vehicle display. Response: The revised Jeep Hill is level and located 6" above adjacent walk. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: On the Site Plan, please add a note stating that the area west of the B.N.S.F. right-of-way is for overstock, inventory storage, not open to the public and is not intended to be improved with this phase and that any future improvement or additional use of this area will be subject to the requirements of a Plan Amendment. Response: Note added. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017:Along Mason Street, the Site Plan calls out a Landscape Wall which is demarcated by a heavy black line. This wall needs to also be called out on the Landscape Plan as well. A detail needs to be provided on the Landscape Plan, Sheet L2. Please describe the height of this wall and the materials. Staff recommends that this wall be constructed of one of the two c.m.u.'s from the Exterior Finish Material Schedule, Sheet A200. The wall cannot be simply poured concrete. Response: A detail for the landscape wall has been added to Sheet L-2. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Regarding the Landscape Wall along Mason, wouldn't this wall preclude the need for bollards? Response: Yes, these have been deleted at the wall locations. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017: On the Site Plan, there are six customer parking spaces including three handicap spaces. This arrangement is not indicated on the Landscape Plan. Please rectify. Also, on the Site Plan, the graphic depicting side loading for the handicap spaces indicates that there are really only five, not six spaces. Again, the graphics and parking count do not match the Landscape Plan. Response: Parking configuration in this area now match the site plan. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017: On both the Site and Landscape Plan, east -west, 8-foot connecting walkway that links the building entry to Mason Street is not labeled. On the Site Plan, move the label for the 15-foot Utility Easement out of this walkway for 09/27/2017 09/27/2017 7 Plan Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshegard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 09/27/2017: Staff and the design team need to continue our dialogue regarding compliance with Section 3.5.3(E)(1) which requires that a standardized prototype design be mitigated in order to contribute to the uniqueness of our community. This issue needs to be resolved in order to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing without the need for a condition of approval. 08/09/2017: The recent e-mail from the project manager indicates that achieving compliance for a new commercial building to feature a distinctive top [Section 3.5.3(E)(6)] will not be approved by the corporate design team. If this is indeed the case, then Staff is interested in pursuing other architectural mitigation features in order for Section 3.5.3(1) to be achieved without requiring a Modification of Standard. As you will recall, this standard requires that a standardized prototype be designed so that our community retains a sense of place that is not duplicated within the region. 04/12/2017: Also per Section 3.5.3(E) and 3.10.5, a commercial building in the T.O.D. must feature a recognizable top. There are a variety of architectural treatments that would lead to compliance with these standards. Of the various options, staff recommends that three-dimensional cornice be considered as the most appropriate for the style of the building. If a cornice is selected, please provide a dimensioned detail on sheet A-200. Response: The building elevations and finishes have been resolved and approved by P&Z. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 09/27/2017: For immediate purposes for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, please add a General Note stating that the exterior light fixtures will be dimmed after hours of operation. We can work on a dimming schedule prior to submittal for Final Plan. 08/09/2017:On the Lighting Plan, please add a note that explains the extent of the dimming features. This note should indicate the time frame for the lower levels and the amount of illumination that will be dimmed. 04/12/2017: Has the applicant and lighting designer considered adding dimming controls to the light fixtures? Significant energy savings could be attained if lighting were dimmed after hours, especially late evening and early morning hours. Response: The note for dimming capabilities and a schedule of times has been added to the Photometric Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 09/27/2017: This is can be resolved at the time of submittal for Final Plan. 08/09/2017: Staff is concerned that the Backlight and Glare ratings for most of fixtures exceed one. With the modern technology available in today's fixtures, these ratings are surprisingly high. Perhaps we should discuss with the lighting designer as to why these two ratings cannot be lower. 04/12/2017: At Conceptual Review, we asked for Department of Energy Ratings for Backlight, Uplight and Glare. Please provide. Response: We can have our lighting engineer contact you direct to discuss these ratings. 511 Response: This has been changed on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: Please use the most current version of the City of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes (revised November 2015), which are available from Molly Roche (mroche@fcgov.coml. Response: We have included latest notes provided by Molly Roche. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2017 08/08/2017: 04/10/2017: If the applicant anticipates any change or increase to the existing electrical service, a C-1 Form and a One -line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all proposed commercial buildings and multi -family (commercial) buildings larger than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/bu ilders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: We will submit all appropriate forms when our engineer has completed the final building design. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: 04/11 /2017: Once the plans are approved please submit an electronic copy (CAD) of the Utility Plan and Site Plan to Light & Power Engineering. Response: Noted Department: PFA Contact: Cal Sheesley, 970-416-2599, csheeslev@goudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS Poudre Fire Authority prefers to use fire lane signs parallel to the fire lane they are identifying in this scenario, where the fire lane meanders through a parking lot and vehicles maintain low speeds. "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE" verbiage with directional arrows below are the detail we require. As the submitted plans do not reflect this sign orientation, this can be resolved via pdf and will not hold the project up. Response: The signs have been oriented parallel to the direction of travel as requested. 5 pruning — our suggestion is 5-10' east of the dripline. I would be happy to provide a sketch of the proposed location, if need be. Seth Lorson in Transportation Planning and a City Forestry member will meet on -site during installation to stake the location of the shelter. Response: The bus shelter has been moved east and a note has been added to the site plan to field verify the final location with City staff. 8/9/2017: Continued: 06/07/2017: Following an on -site meeting with Chief Planner, Ted Shepard, City Forestry would like to propose the new bus shelter be shifted further to the east so as to avoid conflict with the existing significant crabapple tree and possibly the mature spruce as well. Forestry can provide a preferred separation distance to the east from the crabapple tree. 04/14/2017: The new bus shelter appears to be quite close to an existing mature crabapple tree. Also, significant grade changes may need to occur for the bus shelter. Forestry will want to evaluate the impact the bus shelter will have to this tree at the on -site meeting. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2017 9/25/2017: 1 only counted 10 upsized mitigation trees on the landscape plans and 8 mitigation trees on the landscape legend. Please show the required 11 mitigation trees in both locations. Response: The 10 upsized mitigation trees are highlighted on the Landscape Plan. 08/10/2017: 11 upsized mitigation trees are required to be planted. Please confirm that 11 trees have been upsized (ornamentals at 2.5", canopy shade trees at 3", evergreen trees at 8' height) and mark these trees with a bolded "M" on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: Newport Plums tend to have higher early mortality and decline problems. Forestry recommends using an alternate species, such as Red Barron Crabapple, in place of these trees. Response: The Newport Plums have been changed out for Red Barron Crabapple, typical. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: It appears as though PPC (Perfect Purple Crabapple) is still show on the landscape plans in some places. Please remove these from the plans and label the appropriate species. n 03/23/2017: The project owes an additional $6,034.75 for TDRFees. This is based on a building square footage of 34,752 sq feet as identified on the site plan and the platting of 4.479 acres. Response: The additional fee of $6,034.75 was delivered to the City with the previous planning submittal. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-4164290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/20/2017 09/20/2017: Need to see final lighting plans including luminaire schedule and manufacture cut sheets by Final Plan stage. Response: The final lighting plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets were included with the previous submittal. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 09/26/2017: Continued: After some conversation with Cal Sheesley with PFA, it was confirmed that PFA does not require ornamental over canopy trees. Canopy shade trees will be much easier to maintain at 14 heights for the Emergency Access Easement. Suggested species to incorporate in parking lot islands include Kentucky Coffeetree, Catalpa, or Honeylocust. Response: The trees in the landscape islands have been changed to canopy type. 8/9/2017: Continued: It appears that ornamental species are still shown in parking lot islands. Please use canopy shade trees, unless otherwise directed by Chief Planner, Ted Shepard. 04/14/2017: The code generally directs canopy shade trees in parking lot islands. Ornamentals are used in several islands. Please review this standard with Chief Planner, Ted Shepard. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 9/26/2017: City Forestry and Planning would like to establish the bus shelter location as this stage. The shifted location should be somewhere between 20 and 25 feet from the current spot (measuring from the west side of the shelter). Currently, the back of the shelter is T from the trunk of the crabapple. We would like it to be clear out from underneath the dripline of the tree to avoid any unnecessary 3 on the plans. If it is part of this project, add it to the plat and all other project development plans. Response: The west parcel is shown at Ted Shepard's direction. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The landscape wall is too tall to be in a utility easement. No structures that require a building permit are permitted to be in a utility easement. The exception for building permits for a retaining wall listed in the IBC Section 105.2.4 "Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219mm) in height measured from the low side grade to the top of the wall unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or IIIA liquids. The horizontal distance to the next uphill retaining wall shall be at least equal to the total height of the lower retaining wall" Response: The Oft wall was due to a grading model error and has been corrected. The wall at This location is a little over2ft. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The bollards by the wall on the east side do not meet the 2' set back requirement from the sidewalk. Response: The bollards have been relocated or removed in some cases. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The maximum grade break for a roadway is 0.4%, the grade breaks near the storm sewer are too great. Response: These grade breaks are dictated by existing street geometry at the inlet. As stated in the comment review meeting, we can find no way around it. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The curb ramp has traffic signal control boxes located in it as well as the traffic signal pole in the flare of the curb ramp. Response: The traffic light pole and controllers have been relocated outside the ramp.. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: How does the Mason St expansion tie into the existing roadway in terms of slopes? Response: The profile view on Sheet C-8 has been extended to show to show that the slope matches the existing street slope. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: ADA ramp at station 4+69 has a slope greater than 2.0% Response: The grading has been revised to 2% cross slope. Comment Number: 57 Comment Oriqinated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The flares for the curb ramps on the driveway off of Harmony need to be in an access easement or in the public right-of-way. Response: An easement has been added for the ramp flares Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/23/2017 O8/11/2017: The fees were calculated based off of the foot notes on the TDRFee application. In the foot notes, it states, "when a development project involves a change of use for a building, the change per square foot shall apply to the portion of the overall building size for which the change of use is proposed". E Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 09/26/2017: The grading plans show the cross -slopes where the sidewalk crosses the driveway over 2.0%. Response: The grading has been revised to 2.0%. 08/08/2017: The slopes across the driveways need to be a maximum of 2% to meet ADA requirements. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 09/28/2017: We are looking into the storm inlet in more detail, and I will send you a response, but as it is currently shown, does not meet our design standards. Response: Additional design options being investigated with engineering. 09/26/2017: The storm inlet by the traffic light seems to be right in the wheel path in the right -turn lane. Response: The inlet has been changed to a manhole but it must connect to the existing outfall pipe and therefore cannot be relocated. 08/08/2017: Where are the manholes for the utilities located in Mason SO They need to be out of the wheel path Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please add month and year until the title on the cover sheet of the utility plans. Response: The month and year have been added to the cover sheet title. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: Please retain the numbers on the general notes. General Note #47 was deleted, so General Note #48 should remain as 48 and not 47. Response: The original note #48 has been revised to #48 as requested. Topic: General Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: The "Pedestrian Access Easement" should just be an "Access easement'. Response: The access easement has been removed per Planning Commission comments. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: What are the excepted parcels along Harmony Rd for? The label for this are found on the PDP set sheet 7. Response: The label was added by mistake and has been removed. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017 09/27/2017: If the west parcel is not part of this project, please do not show it 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 kgov. com/developmentreview September 29, 2017 Commercial Building Services 7661 E Grant St A-4 Littleton, CO 80122 RE: Fort Collins Jeep, PDP170013, Round Number 3 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 ortshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 04/06/2017: The roadway design for Mason Street needs some work. The minimum flowline grades is 0.5%. No single point grade break shall exceed 0.40 percent. This will have a direct impact on the cross slopes as well. The proposed cross slopes can be up to 3-4%. The cross slope would need to be designed in such a way that the existing pavement, when overlaid, will result in a straight line cross slope grade that meets the standards. The minimum cross slope would be 1.5%. Response: Additional design options being investigated with engineering. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 04/13/2017: More discussion is going to be needed for the ultimate cross section of Mason Street. A striping plan will be needed to see how a right turn lane is going to be striped. Please contact traffic operations (Nicole Hahn) to begin discussions. We will most likely need to either modify the sidewalk or parkway to achieve the minimum widths of a left, thru, bike and right turn lane at Harmony Road. Response: Modified as requested.