Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - PDP - PDP120015 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview April 06, 2012 RE: Legacy Senior Residences, PDR110005, Round Number 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: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Please note the standard in Section 3.5.1(I)(1) of the Code that does not allow any trash collection within 20' of any public street or public sidewalk. This will need to be addressed in the site plan. Response: The trash enclosure is located 20’ away from the public sidewalk on Pine Street. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Please see Zoning's comment regarding the need to step down the building to three stories along any public street. From internal discussions, we have agreed this building does not abut Linden Street, but it does abut Poudre Place and Pine Street. A modification will be required. Staff suggests considering the building elevation (articulation and massing), enhancing the 40' of yard between the building and the ROW to be more pedistrian scale, including street trees on 30' centers, sidewalks, and adding a connecting walkway from the end of the promenade. Additional ideas are encouraged. Response: Since it has been determined that the proposed building abuts Pine Street, a modification request for this standard is included with the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: As the building is over 40' in height, Section 3.5.1(G) 'Building Height Review" applies. Please note the submittal requirements associated with this Code standard. Response: A shadow analysis is included with the PDP submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: A modification will be required for Land Use Code Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) "Frequent view/access- as the building wall along the river is 180' in length, whereas the Code requires that the building not exceed 125'. In order to get as close to the "equal to or better than" standard, staff suggests the following: i. Roofline modifications to pull back the pitched roof from the recessed area (so the roof over the entire recessed area would only be flat). Staff also wanted to note that a metal roof is not a requirement in the code. Please see section 4.17(D)(3) for a discussion on the building requirements. staff appreciates the revised elevation that has removed the pitched roof from the recessed building area. Please note again that staff is not requiring a metal roof. One option that has been brought to our attention is a rusted corrugated metal roof or a composite shingle roof (though the rusted corrugated metal roof option would be less desirable if the dominant material in the building was stone). Again, we are flexible on which roof materials are chosen; we were more concerned with how the roof is articulated throughout the recessed area and the current design achieves what we discussed in our last meeting. ii. The landscaping in the recessed area (and extending out to the trail) should be significantly different than the rest of the building; staff suggested that a heavier massing in this area versus more clumping of landscaping outside of the recessed area as one option. Lindsay and Steve can discuss this further with the projects landscape architects, as needed. iii. Regarding the promenade, staff suggests that promenade does break off at the recessed area to reinforce the separation of these building areas. Response: A modification of this standard is included with the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Please note the Land Use Code requirements for the portions of the buildings that face streets (Linden Street and Poudre Street) and how they must have street-facing facades having at least one building entry or doorway (LUC 3.5.2(C)(2)); and, be oriented to a connecting walkway (LUC 3.5.2(C)(1)). Response: So noted. Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: In general staff is supportive of limiting the number of materials used on the building. In other words, using the same material on the first three levels of the building is preferred. a. One option that has been suggested is to use all brick (except for the cementitious siding on the top level), which would be more in character with the historic district. If this option were pursued, we would strongly recommend using a darker, cooler-colored, separate brick type in the recessed area, similar to what was originally proposed, to enhance the look of two separate buildings. b. As the applicant has suggested the use of veneer stone on the site, staff would like to note that we could be supportive of using stone on the first three levels of the building, depending on whether the right type of stone were selected. For example, real, native sandstone could be appropriate, and patterns and details would be important in the historic Downtown context. c. Note that if you simplify the materials, you may be able to simplify the number of lintel options currently proposed, which could save on project costs as well. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Please note Section 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Land Use Code requiring bicycle parking at the site. Response: We have provided a bike rack at the south end of the building, near Poudre Place. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: All site lighting shall be fully-shielded and down directional. Please see Section 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code regarding lighting standards. Response: See lighting plan submitted with PDP. Contact: Steve Olt, 970-221-6341, solt@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 08/30/2011: What is proposed for the area within the 75' setback from Linden Street? Response: This area will be sodded and irrigated with blue fescue in the interim until such time that the area is platted and/or developed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 08/30/2011: What is the status of Poudre Place? Is it a dedicated right-of-way for an alley or street? It appears that it may have to become the only means of access to this development. Response: Poudre Place is technically a platted street but the developer will be required to pave it to alley standards only. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 08/30/2011: There are numerous Development Standards in Section 4.17(D) of the River Downtown Redevelopment District in the Land Use Code that must be complied with, if applicable. They deal with: 1) Transition between the River and Developments; 2) Street Connections; 3) Buildings; and, 4) Site Design. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 08/30/2011: What is the base material for the first floor on the East Building Elevation, under the arcade canopy? Is it the "stone veneer"? Response: Yes, the first two floors have rock face stone veneer as the predominant material. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011 09/07/2011: The proposed multi-family residential project is a Type 1 land use in the RDR District and is subject to an Administrative Review. A required Project Development Plan will be evaluated against all applicable rules, regualtions and requirements set forth in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Ultimately the development request must go to a Public Hearing and the decision maker would be a Hearing Officer. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Susan Joy, 970-221-6603, sjoy@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. Response (The Birdsall Group): Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response : This is a 100% affordable housing project and is therefore not required to pay development review fees. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. Response: Per our traffic engineer’s scoping meeting with Ward Stanford, a traffic memo is included with the submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 This project is responsible for the design and construction of all street frontages including the alley. Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP Utility Plans have included the improvements to the public alley along with improvements adjacent to Pine Street. Improvements along Linden Street appear to be complete per the recently completed Linden Street project. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011 Mark Laken with Capital projects (970-416-2907), is currently installing improvements on Linden and a repay for this property will be due. The driveway is being installed 150’ center to center from the alley. The proposed driveway shown with this development is probably not meeting separation requirements from the alley and will need to be looked at. Suggest removing the driveway and taking all access off the alley instead. Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP submittal documents maintain the existing location of the driveway as constructed with the Linden Street project. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (Poudre River). The Environmental Assessment provided by the applicant does not include key elements required by the Land Use Code that would allow us to substitute this document for an ECS. While the City’s prescriptive buffer zone standards do not apply in the RDR Zone, code does require that "the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of the transition between development and the River" (See Division 4.17(D)(1) of the Land Use Code). Upon receipt and review of the Ecological Characterization Study, staff will work with the applicant to determine the width and nature of this continuous landscape buffer. Response: An ECS was submitted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: That said, staff recognizes the property is, at a minimum, 200' from the Poudre River and that surrounding land uses hinder this site¿s ability to serve as a high quality wildlife corridor. As an alternative, staff will accept a memo from a qualified consultant outlining habitat values and constraints of the site and recommended mitigation/enhancement strategies in lieu of an ECS for this site (please address the requirements in Section 3.4.1(D)1) of the Land Use Code). Through this memo and conversations with your designers and ecological consultants, staff is willing to consider working with your landscape architect to design this continuous buffer with extensive native plantings to maximize this sites habitat potential as redevelopment surrounding the site occurs. Please see the Citys Native Plant Guide at http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/native-plants.php. These plantings should correspond to the site design requirements outlined in Section 4.17(D) of the RDR District, specifically the clustering of buildings to form outdoor spaces that relate to the river. Response: The landscape treatment along the river buffer is in accordance with the ECS. Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: Within the determined buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Please ensure that your ECS memo discusses the existing vegetation and identifies potential restoration options. If it is determined to be insufficient, then restoration and mitigation measures will be required. Response: The landscape treatment along the river buffer is in accordance with the ECS. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: Also, please note that Section 3.4.1(I) requires that the overall design of the project take into consideration design and aesthetics in relationship to the Poudre River. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D) (6) requires that “natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources.” Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If trees within the site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221-6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Response: A site meeting was held with the City Forester and tree removal and mitigation is indicated on the landscape plan and the demolition plan provided by Northern Engineering. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Reveille Bluegrass is one option for having bluegrass lawns and using less water. Response: We are using a tall fescue blend, which use less water. Contact: Matt Zoccali, 970-416-2283, mzoccali Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: As per the letter dated September 6, 2010, it is important to note that excavation in this area may require notification to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and should be conducted using reasonable precautions to ascertain, identify and properly manage any regulated or hazardous materials encountered. Planning for management of hazardous materials and project safety is advisable and may be required, depending upon the condition of the property. Contact Matt Zoccali for more information at 970.224.6008 or mzoccali@fcgov.com Response: So noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: Work must be planned and completed in a manner that will ensure development project activities will not adversely impact the Removal Action Remedies on the site, or change and/or create any preferential pathway for the NAPL plume. Response: So noted. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: Air monitoring for methane and other airborne contaminates is strongly recommended during intrusive excavation and trenching activities for work on or adjacent to site. Response: So noted. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated as Fort Collins Landmarks, as well as on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object that is [designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible: Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 The applicant is encouraged to take advantage of a Complimentary Review with the Landmark Preservation Commission very early in the project. This may be arranged by contacting staff. Response: A complimentary review was held. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 The height, massing, (lack of) articulation and materials are all items that will affect the buildings' compatibility to their historic surroundings. Height will be an issue, as will massing. Response: See building elevations. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The City's Historic Preservation Office is in the process of reviewing and commenting on the Cultural Resources section of the EA, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The City's review is separate and independent of SHPO's review, and the conclusions may differ. Response: So noted. Department: PFA Contact: Carie Dann, 970-219-5337, CDANN@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 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@poudre-fire.org. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS An automatic sprinkler system installed in occupancies in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R (Residential) fire area. (Exceptions: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhomes) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress). 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.7 and 2006 International Building Code 101.2. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 of the 2006 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor; an approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. 2006 International Fire Code Sections 905 and 913 Response: So noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: FIRE LINE REQUIREMENT Buildings that are required to be fire sprinklered shall have a minimum 6-inch fire line unless hydraulic calculations can support a smaller fire line. NFPA 13 (2007) 23.1.3 Response (Northern Engineering): A 6-inch fire sprinkler line has been provided on the PDP Utility Plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box (“Knox Box”) to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped a required fire-sprinkler system or fire-alarm system. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1; PFA BUREAU POLICY 88-20 Response: So noted. Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION Fire department connections shall be installed remote from the buildings, and located on the street or fire lane side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. 2006 International Fire Code 912.2 and PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Policy Response (Northern Engineering): FDC locations will be provided with Final Compliance documents. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: • Commercial and multi-family residential structures with three or more units, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter • Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter • Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter Distance is measured as a hose would lay out from a fire engine, not necessarily in a direct line. A hydrant located across an arterial street cannot be “counted” unless the structure is equipped with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B Response (Northern Engineering): An additional fire hydrant has been added to the proposed site and is shown on the PDP Utility Plans per communications with Ron Gonzalez. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: REQUIRED ACCESS Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA’s jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: ¿ Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. ¿ Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. ¿ Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. ¿ Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structures is three or more stories in height). If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire-sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D Response (Northern Engineering): A fire lane and appropriate emergency access easement have been included within the PDP Utility Plans and Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: TURNING RADII The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Appendix D103.3 Response (Northern Engineering): Noted Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 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. Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: ADDRESSING: numerals must be visible from the street on which you front, with a minimum of 6 inch numerals. Response: So noted. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: No comments. Response: Thank you. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The north arrow on all Site, Landscape, Utility & Floor Plans is pointing in the wrong direction. Response: Corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The Site Landscape Plan has the same sheet number (C1.1) as the Site Layout Plan. Response: Corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The Site Plan will need to have a legal description of the property added. Response: Legal Description added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011 08/31/2011: The Site Layout Plan has the same sheet number (C1.1) as the Site Landscape Plan. Response: Corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011 09/07/2011: Traffic Operations would encourage the applicant to have both accesses come from Poudre Place instead of the south access coming from Linden St adjacent to Poudre Place. Response: The access to Linden ties into the existing curb cut recently constructed by the City with the Linden Street improvements. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Matt Wempe, 970-416-2040, mwempe@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011 09/07/2011: There are currently no pedestrian or bicycle connections to Linden Street, Pine Street, or the Poudre River Trail. The LOS analysis will likely show that all of these connections are required in a downtown atmosphere. These connections must be safe and direct, ideally linking into the streetscape. Response: The current site plan shows sidewalk connections to the Poudre Trail, Linden Street and Pine Street. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011 09/07/2011: Where will bike parking be located? This includes both short-term visitor and long-term resident bike parking. The ideal location is on a hard surface, well-lit, near the main entrance, protected from the elements, and secure. Both outdoor and indoor bike parking can be included. Please contact Aaron Iverson to discuss any specific questions or ideas you might have. Response: Bike racks are located at the south end of the building, near Poudre Place. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011 09/07/2011: A bicycle and pedestrian level of service analysis must be completed as part of the traffic impact study. Please call Aaron Iverson, 416.2643 or aiverson@fcgov.com for scoping. Response: Bike and peds are addressed in the traffic memo. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers include a 12-inch water main and an 8-inch sewer in Linden, a 6-inch water main and a 21-inch sewer in Pine and an 8-inch sewer in Poudre Street. Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP Utility Plans shows connection to the 12-inch water main in Linden Street for water and the 8-inch main in Poudre Street for sanitary sewer. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: Any water or sewer lines extending to the site must be used or abandoned at the main. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: Any connection(s) to the 21-inch sewer in Pine must be made at a manhole. Response (Northern Engineering): At this time a connection to the 21-inch main is not being proposed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: Hydrozones for landscape beds are indicated on the PDP Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011 08/29/2011: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Response (Northern Engineering): Noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: Proposed use is classified as multi-family. This use is subject to a Type 1 hearing officer review. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: This is in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. Therefore, there is no minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided. Response: So noted, 51 off-street parking spaces are provided. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: 6% of the interior of the parking lot must be landscape islands. The parking row along Poudre Place must have a minimum 10' landscape setback area from the street right of way line per Sec. 3.2.2(J) of the LUC. No parking lot setback dimension is shown on the plan, but it is less than a 10' setback. If Poudre Place is not a street, then the required landscape setback is 5' from the lot line. Response: So noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: Perimiter parking lot landscaping must comply with Sec. 3.2.1(E)(4). Response: So noted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: Buildings up to 5 stories are allowed, but per Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) of the Land Use Code, "buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to 3 stories or less abutting any street frontage". Portions of the building along Pine and Poudre Place need to step down to comply (assuming these are streets) The building is set back quite a distance from Linden street, so staff will need to determine if the building is actually "abutting" the street or not. If it is, then the modifications to the building would be necessary to comply with the massing and placement standard. Response: Since it has been determined that the proposed building abuts Pine Street, a modification request for this standard is included with the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: Parking is not allowed in front of the building per Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(2) of the LUC. The intent is that the parking can't be located closer to a street than the building setback from the street. Response: See PDP Site Plan; parking has been removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011 08/26/2011: No more than 15 parking spaces in a row are allowed without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the LUC. Response: Landscape island has been added.