Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP120036 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (5)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 September 18, 2012 Bruce Mclennan SEM Architects 98 Spruce Street Denver, CO 80230 RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment - Preliminary Design Review (Conceptual Review) Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the Foothills Redevelopment project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or clevingston@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Land Use Code standards emphasize pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicles. The next version of a plan should indicate a complete framework of pedestrian connections and pedestrian frontages along buildings to form the setting for buildings and parking. Such a framework is required to be efficient and convenient, and in addition it is an opportunity to transform the attractiveness of the whole place. The framework must tie directly to streets. The Fort Collins Design Manual has examples and explanations of the City¿s Land Use Code standards. See section 3.2.2 pp. 5-19 for pictures and explanations of site planning for pedestrians and parking. The manual is online at: http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/designmanual.php Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 Per the Land Use Code build-to standards, the building on the northwest side of East Foothills Parkway should be placed at the corner with parking behind. The standard's intent in this application is to reinforce the corner as a focal point, rather than the parking. This would also serve to complement the buildings on the east side of the corner. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 The Remington Street connection is an opportunity for prominent sidewalk leading to the north edge of the project and then connecting to the Swallow/College intersection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 There appears to be a difficult question of pedestrian access across Foothills Parkway, between the strip retail buildings north and south of Foothills Parkway with their backs along College Avenue. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 Access to the East Lawn and theatre from the east is particularly circuitous, and the pedestrian framework should be as simple and clear as possible to link the mall to the residential units and to Stanford Road. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 Section 3.5.4 are the standards related to Large Retail Establishments defined as any retail building, or combination of buildings, including movie theaters and indoor recreation, containing more than 25,000 gross square feet of floor area. This section is to be considered in conjunction with Section 3.8.20 which defines expansion of existing large retail establishments such as Macy’s. In the case of Macy’s, where it is proposed to be attached to a new building that would exceed 63,880 square feet (50% of 127,760 square feet), the new combined building would be defined as a Large Retail Establishment. As noted in the definition, the movie theater would also be defined as a Large Retail Establishment. The proposed site plan demonstrates that the redevelopment accomplishes two key design principles for Large Retail Establishments. By featuring multiple entrances and distributed parking, the mass and scale are mitigated thus enhancing the pedestrian experience. The remaining standards that bear close attention deal with facades and exterior walls, detail features, roofs, materials and colors, entryways and pedestrian circulation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 There are long exposures of perimeter parking along Foothills Parkway and Monroe Drive. These parking lot edges need mitigation. As with other large parking lots, mitigation can take the form of additional landscaping, berming, low screen walls and other features. One recent solution in our community includes a south-facing shade structure topped with solar panels. The judicious use of other screening devices and trellises, sculptures, monuments and the like that would distinguish this project from others are encouraged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 Please indicate on the site plan the extent of parking within the parking structure that will be set aside for multi-family residents. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 A recent addition to the Land Use Code requires a minimum amount of bicycle parking for commercial and residential uses. For example, one bike parking space is required per multi-family bedroom and 60% of these spaces must be enclosed (such as within the parking structure). Please include bike rack detail on the elevations (LUC 3.2.2). Bike parking design recommendations are available online at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/bike_design_guidelines.pdf Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 Please note that where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or internal roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian access and safety. The material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as it crosses the driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way. The pedestrian crossings must be well-marked using pavement treatments, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping. Please see 3.2.2 (C) - (F). These sections apply and the project will be required to meet these standards. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code provide for private drives to be used in some instances known as "a street-like private drive". Street-like private drives are allowed as primary access to facing buildings or to parcels internal to a larger, cohesive development plan, or for the purposes of meeting other requirements for streets. Street-like private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street parking, tree-lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s) and crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped medians, corner plazas and pedestrian lighting may be provided to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the context of the development plan. Please see LUC 3.6.2(L) for additional details. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 Please note that for the benefit of the multi-family residents, conditions may be imposed upon the non-residential land uses to ensure compatibility. The Land Use Code defines compatibility in Section 5.1.2 as, "... the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development." Such conditions that may be imposed on the commercial development to insure compatibility with the residential component may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on hours of operations and deliveries; location of activities that generate potential adverse impacts such as noise and glare; placement of trash receptacles, location of loading and delivery zones; light intensity and full illumination; placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines. Please see LUC 3.5.1(J) for code language regarding these conditions that may be imposed to ensure compatibility. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 The proposed multi-family development shall comply with LUC Section 4.6(E). This section is found in the MMN zone district standards and is currently being moved to Article 3 to apply to all multi-family development. Please note the variation among repeating buildings provision. Parking along the north property line, bordering single-family dwellings shall be at least 25’ setback per 4.6(E)(3)(a). Please look at another configuration and consider landscape buffering between uses. Please explain the pedestrian circulation plan for the multi-family development. How do tenants of the northern most buildings access the clubhouse and pool amenities? Is there any park space, non-programmed open space, or gathering space being proposed with the multi-family development? The multi-family buildings will need to meet the connectivity standards of 3.5.2(C). The primary entrances need to face Stanford Street as well as have a directly connecting walkway. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2012 City staff would like to encourage the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing Youth Activity Center and/or to see the Youth Activity Center remain onsite. Currently, the facility averages about 60,000 users annually with a strong emphasis on early childhood programs and is the southern most City recreational facility. Please continue coordination with City Staff and Bob Adams, Recreation Director (badams@fcgov.com) at 970-221-6354. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/27/2012 As the plans are further developed, attention needs to be paid to developing a strong overall theme in the form of standards and plan templates for the treatment of landscape, sidewalks, site furniture and other hardscape elements, in particular along the outside street edges of the property. The streetscape edges of the project need to have a strong visual impact and character theme and reinforce the project as an urban node. Spacing of trees and sidewalk elements with a new-urbanist theme could be one option to establish a strong pattern. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 In terms of tree planting standards, please refer LUC 3.2.1(D). “Full tree stocking” is required in all landscaped areas within 50 feet of a building. Full tree stocking means any formal or informal grouping of trees. Canopy trees must be at least 50 percent of all tree plantings per the code. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 There is a minimum tree species diversity requirement in the code in section 3.2.1(D)(3). On the landscape plans, please provide a table how many of each species is provided on the landscape plan. Please detail on the landscape plan the corresponding species. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 Please look at the landscape buffering standards in LUC 3.2.1(E) as it relates to the northern site boundary and existing single family residences. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 On the landscape plans, please provide a table that identifies all applicable hydrozones and a water budge chart that shows the total annual water use to not exceed 15 gallons a square foot over the site (LUC 3.2.1E(3)(b)). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 Please make sure to include the following landscape notes: The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2012 09/10/2012: The Lighting Plan will need to provide foot-candle metrics assuming a light loss factor of 1.00. Please call this out as a note on the plan. Be sure to include all light sources including building-mounted lighting and landscape lighting. Staff recommends that parking lot illumination be no more than three to five times higher than the surrounding roadway lighting. For the residential area, note that public roadway lighting along Stanford is lower than along South College Avenue. For the mall parking lot between the residential and the commercial buildings, fixture location should be considered that minimizes excessive illumination onto the apartment buildings. Consideration should be given to dimming such fixtures after a certain hour. Foot-candles should not exceed 0.1 (one-tenth) as measured 20 feet beyond property line. Please be aware of the Illumination Prohibition of Section 3.5.3(D)(9). Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Construction plans will be required. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: A Development Agreement is required and will be recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) (or multiple DCPs) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: As the site design of the proposal evolves from the PDR review, the design of Foothills Parkway through the property may evolve such that there may be discussion on whether the status of Foothills Parkway should change. It may be that options are explored such as vacating Foothills Parkway and making it private, or conversely, dedicating additional street right-of-way to have Foothills Parkway as a public street out to Stanford Road. Engineering does not have a position on the status of Foothills Parkway at this time, but would offer some thoughts on the scenarios of Foothills Parkway being a public street and Foothills Parkway being a private roadway: 1) If Foothills Parkway remains as-is with right-of-way from College Avenue to Matthews Street: a) The use of rain gardens in right-of-way would need further Engineering review for potential impacts to the public right-of-way. A variance request to our street design standards would be among the items needed for evaluation, along with a design and maintenance plan that would likely include subdrains and a subdrain report. b) The north side of Foothills Parkway presently lacks sidewalk abutting the street. A 5 foot wide sidewalk detached 6 feet from the flowline of Foothills Parkway should be provided in accordance with the City's Commercial Local Street standard (Figure 7-6F of the Larimer County urban Area Street Standards). Right-of-way should then be dedicated to coincide with the back of the new walk. c) Engineering would not necessarily require that the existing attached sidewalk along the south side of Foothills Parkway be widened or removed and detached, however there may be additional concerns about the existing attached sidewalk that may present itself in conjunction with the pedestrian level of service analysis in the traffic study. In addition, there may be some general concerns with the grades abutting the sidewalk in front of Block 7. d) Figure 16-1 of LCUASS specifies clearances from public street sidewalk. There may be some concerns with the retaining wall proposed along Block 8 should the separation from the sidewalk to the wall be less than 2 feet. e) Access ramps on in accordance with current City/ADA standards are required at the Foothills Parkway/Matthews Street street turn. f) The rebuilt street portion of Foothills Parkway will need to be in accordance with our City street standards with a pavement subgrade approved through a pavement design report. g) The continuation of Foothills Parkway from its public to private designation should have some sort of indication that helps denote where the public side ends and the private side begins (such as a concrete crosspan, change in pavement type, etc. A sign should be placed at both ends of the private portion of Foothills parkway indicating "Foothills Parkway, privately maintained". (Council Tree Avenue in Front Range Village has examples of this). h) Figure 19-6 of LCUASS species a minimum parking stall setback from public streets. Off of the first driveway east of College Avenue along the south side of Foothills Parkway, this standard may require the removal of a parking space(s) along the main drive aisle. i) There may need to be additional right-of-way dedicated (or right-of-way considered to be vacated) to coincide with the reconfiguring of Foothills Parkway/Mathews Street roadway alignment. j) Special pavement features not identified in our street standards, signage in the median (or other locations in right-of-way) would not be allowed. k) If Mathews Street remains right-of-way, the introduction of the use of diagonal parking would need further discussion and review with a variance request as diagonal parking is not part of the typical street cross-section uses in our street standards. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Continuing from ID#9: 2) If Foothills Parkway is desired to be vacated: a) Such a vacation would ideally also include Matthews Street as leaving short stubs of public right-of-way in place (without the typical termination of a public street right-of-way that allows a public turnaround) is awkward. Given that the east side of Matthews Street is not controlled by the project, having this property owner inheriting additional land and maintenance responsibilities associated with this roadway being private may be problematic. b) Easements retained for access, utilities, emergency access, and drainage would be required. c) City Council would be the final authority on a proposal to vacate the right-of-way. The applicant would need to provide a legal description, an $800 application fee, and recordation costs. d) Signage, structures and other appurtenances would not be under the jurisdiction for regulation by Engineering, although signage along Foothills Parkway at the intersections of College Avenue and Stanford Road would need to be provided indicating that Foothills Parkway is privately maintained. (Council Tree Avenue in Front Range Village has examples of this). Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The portion of Foothills Parkway east of Mathews Street to Stanford Road that is currently private may through the site planning of the development be required to appear more "street-like". In its present design, Engineering does not envision that this private portion of Foothills Parkway could be a public street due to street design requirements. The City's Land Use Code does prescribe a manner in which streets can be "street-like private drives" that accomplish achieving the appearance of a street that may be required here (especially with the residential component and our Land Use Code wanting to have residential units with identifiable street frontage) while still remaining private. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The proposal to utilize rain gardens behind the curb and gutter along Mathews Street abutting property that's not a part of this development is awkward from a couple of perspectives: 1) City Code places maintenance responsibilities of the area behind the curb and gutter with the abutting property owner. It would seem that this property owner would have to provide consent for the use of rain gardens since that property owner would be responsible. 2) Under the scenario that Mathews Street remains a public street, this portion of Mathews Street lacks sidewalk and the addition of rain gardens at this time abutting the property should really then provide for improving gaps in the roadway network as well, such as sidewalk. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Monroe Drive lack sidewalk along the majority of the north side of the roadway and should be provided with the project, which for the collector roadway designation for Monroe Drive should be a 5 foot wide sidewalk detached 8 feet from the flowline of the street. Right-of-way dedication should be provided to coincide with the back of walk. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: College Avenue has existing gaps in the sidewalk network. The provided drawings show a continuous sidewalk system along the entire property frontage (with perhaps a little ambiguity towards the northern end of the project that should be clarified) which is both appreciated and required with the project. Our standard for this roadway classification is a 7 foot wide sidewalk with a 10 foot wide parkway (minimum ) detached from the flowline of College Avenue. Right-of-way dedication should be provided to ensure the back of sidewalk coincides with the right-of-way. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Remington Street is a public street that terminates into the development. There are existing sidewalks that terminate into the development. The site planning should be incorporating the sidewalk system into the development, especially with Remington Street's extension into the property but with the sidewalk system not continuing onto the property. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The City has a street oversizing program whereupon the City provides for reimbursement of the construction of certain roadways beyond the "local street portion" that are identified as collector or arterial roadways on the City Master Street Plan. The roadways that are identified in the Master Street Plan which pertain to the property are College Avenue (6 lane arterial), Monroe Drive (collector from College to JFK Parkway) and Stanford Road (collector). Please be aware that under the City's Street Oversizing Reimbursement Program reimbursement rights for sidewalks along College Avenue and Monroe Drive only pertain to areas where sidewalk along these two streets did not already exist. As there are existing sidewalks for both College Avenue and Monroe Drive, these areas won't be eligible for reimbursement even though they may be removed and replaced with new sidewalk. Additionally, should College Avenue and/or Monroe Drive be built with sidewalk that is wider than the standards (7 foot and 5 foot respectively), the City will not reimburse for providing a wider width than what the standard provides. Stanford Drive will not be eligible for any sidewalk reimbursement with the sidewalk showing to remain (and even if the sidewalk were to be removed and replaced with a detached sidewalk in accordance with collector standards, the fact that it exists today as attached would prohibit reimbursement rights being extended with a detachment of the walk. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: With the proposed development, access ramps along public streets that traverse across driveways and public streets will need to be brought up to conformance with City/ADA access ramp designs. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The City's Transportation staff met with Gloria Hice-Idler with CDOT last week and received the following input as CDOT's position: a) CDOT would likely not object to one driveway access point to College Avenue between Foothills Parkway and Monroe Drive as CDOT can see a justification being made with an existing driveway access in place today between Corner Bakery Cafe and Tres Margaritas. An additional driveway access point beyond one (two is shown on the drawings) would not be supported. b) The addition of a driveway access point north of Foothills Parkway is a CDOT waiver and would not be supported by CDOT unless such an access would result in the closure of the driveway access for the existing gas station directly north of the property along College Avenue. c) CDOT did not appear interested in entertaining a realignment of the ditch that would be situated within CDOT frontage road right-of-way unless CDOT were able to give up the frontage road in general to the City. d) Access permits will be required with the proposal. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The phasing plan specifies 10 DCPs. The City's acronym for DCP is a development construction permit, which is required prior to construction of a development, or if phased, required prior to construction of a particular phase. If this is intended to be 10 DCPs, it may not be necessary to have this many DCPs for the project. Additional discussion may be of benefit on this topic. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Depending on the results (and review by the City's Traffic Engineer) of the TIS, the City may see the need for a dedicated right turn lane with storage being built for northbound College Avenue onto eastbound Foothills Parkway. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: In general the TIS may identify that levels of service for vehicles and/or pedestrians may indicate a need for improvements to existing infrastructure not identified on the plans at this time, whether on-site of off-site. Additional comments/concerns may result from identifying any additional infrastructure needed with the project that isn't known at this time. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: No comments were provided specific to the discussion of realigning of the ditch since no definitive details were provided at this time. Please note however that the Ditch Company would need to provide sign off on the drawings for any proposed realignment. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: It is suggested that with a potential replat of the project that building envelopes not be shown within the plat, as should building size increase, expanding outside of prescribed building envelopes, procedurally the only manner in which a building envelope can be expanded is to replat. It is perhaps more typical to see easements defined on the plat instead of building envelopes with blanket easements outside of building envelopes. Vacating easements due to expansion/reconfiguration of buildings can be done administratively and is more simplistic than replating to change building envelopes given the two options. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The area on the ALTA that is called out as "Exception to Parcel III" at the Foothills Parkway/Mathews Street street turn, is this right-of-way? Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The Larimer Canal No. 2 runs through a portion of this site and is being actively restored by other developments as a wildlife corridor. An ecological consultant should be engaged to determine how the canal can contribute to the wildlife habitat in the vicinity. A memo-based Ecological Characterization Study should be provided prior to submittal; please contact me for more information. See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for more information. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Based on the discussion in staff review on September 5, the approach to address the site's ecological value is recommended as follows: 1. Do not bury the canal and instead, enhance the value of the site as a wildlife corridor (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g). 2. If the canal must be piped, then enhance the value of the corridor to a similar level that would have been available for species had the canal been left above ground, e.g., create a continuous tree canopy for wildlife species and a mix of vertical structures, e.g., grasses, shrubs, and trees. 3. If neither of these options can be made to work, then off-site mitigation, e.g., at a nearby park or Natural Area can be discussed to replace the value lost from the site (3.4.1(E)(2)(b). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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 any trees on 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 as the result of development impacts. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: 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 turf as much as possible. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The City's Green Building program has many programs that may benefit your project. Resources are available at the Green Building web page: http://www.fcgov.com/greenbuilding/. Of particular interest may be the Integrated Design Assistance Program, which offers financial incentives and free technical support to those interested in delivering high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements for energy performance. Gary Schroeder (970-221-6395) is the contact person for this program. This is the direct link to the web page for this program: http://www.fcgov.com/conservation/biz-idap.php. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: The landscape plan should accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees each labeled showing the applicants intent to either remove, transplant or protect (3.2.1 (F). Trees that will be removed need to be mitigated as required in 3.2.1 (F). Please place tree protection specification in 3.2.1 (G) on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Provide new trees in landscape areas (see 3.2.1). Tree selection should be from the City of Fort Collins Plant List which includes the Front Range Tree Recommendation List and the City Street Tree List. Follow minimum species diversity and minimum sizes in 3.2.1. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Please contact the City Forester for a general on-site review of the anticipated impact to Existing trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Some of the trees are near the upper threshold size to transplant successfully. The risk of survival decreases with increased size. Consult with a local tree-transplanting contractor in an onsite inspection of the trees to verify feasibility of transplanting trees that will be shown on the tree mitigation plan to be moved. Provide the contractor's evaluation and recommendation for tree spade size to be used for each of the trees to be transplanted. Incorporate the contractor's tree spade size recommendations in to the tree mitigation notes or table. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Provide a tree planting detail for the transplanted trees on the tree mitigation plan sheets. Typically a water basin is constructed around large trees to facilitate irrigation. Consider adding this in the detail. The area over the ball should be mulched. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Provide an irrigation schedule (frequency) for the transplanted trees for the first growing season or two as recommended by the transplant contractor. Also include the schedule for winter irrigation. Indicate the recommended gallons of water per tree to be applied during each irrigation. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Please add these notes to the tree mitigation plan: An ISA Certified Arborist shall inspect all transplanted trees at a regular interval over the first two years. Recommendations on care shall be provided to the owner. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: Major modifications to the electric utility system will be necessary (at the developer's expense). Assuming the northerly portion of the existing mall area will remain open during construction, temporary modifications to the electric system may also be necessary. Please note that electrical transformers must be screened from public view. The developer needs to coordinate electric utility requirements and locations with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6727) before demolition commences. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-416-2864, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: This covered mall shall have a lease plan submitted for review and approval by PFA, kept current, maintained on site and reviewed annually. 06iIFC408.11.1--.3 Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: Emergency power is to be provided for exit signs and for means of egress illumination. 06IFC604.2.3 & .4 Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: This covered mall shall be provided with standby power capable of operating the emergency voice/evac communication system. This emergency voice/alarm communication system for the mall shall be accessible to the fire dept. The operation of any fire detection device shall automatically sound an alert tone followed by voice instructions giving approved information and directions for an evacuation. Speakers shall be provided throughout the building by paging zones. 06IFC907.2.12.2 & 907.2.20 Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: A bi-directional antenna (BDA) will be required if fire dept communications are problematic. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: Occupant load signs will be required within all confirmed rooms of assembly. Since the signage is provided by the Fire Marshal's Office, please submit calculations to ascertain and confirm occupant loads. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: All Type I restaurant kitchen hoods are required to have fire protection appropriate for the hazard meeting UL 300 Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: A full NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system is required throughout and beyond to the perimeter satellite buildings. 06IFC914.2 Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: All hydrants shall be within 300 ft of the mall. The water supply shall be 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: Fire lanes shall be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements. They shall be flat and level. The minimum width is 20 ft wide, unless the mall approaches 30 ft in hieghth or 3-stories, and then a 30 ft wide fire lane is required. The fire lanes shall be visible through signage. Comment Number: 10. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: A manual fire alarm system is required in covered mall buildings. Comment Number: 11. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: This mall shall be equipped throughout with a standpipe system. Comment Number: 12. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: Rooms or areas containing controls for HVAC, fire extinguishing systems, or other suppression or control elements shall be identified for fire dept use. 06IFC914.2 Comment Number: 13. Comment Originated: 08/28/2012 08/28/2012: The number of required exits and exit widths shall not be diminished or reduced during periods of construction with the public having mall access. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 Comments from Stormwater Master Planning division: - The Master Plan Update assumes 100% treatment coverage for this basin. I would encourage that the entire basin be treated, as there is little to no capacity for additional stormwater treatment at the downstream Southmoor Pond. - Lack of treatment on the plan is mainly attributed to the inability of storm sewers to daylight to proposed water quality treatment basins. I would propose that in-line vault or Stormceptor type treatments be investigated for these areas. - Water quality details should conform to City of Fort Collins Stormwater criteria. - Underground detention is discouraged per City Criteria. Developer needs to make a good case as to why it is necessary. If you have question concerning these comments please contact Mark Kempton, P.E., CFM, Stormwater Master Planning Manager, (970) 416-2233. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Comments from the Stormwater Water Quality division: I believe this is an opportunity to use multiple treatment techniques and showcase them for the community since this is a highly visible project that will be an asset to the community for years to come. The City should show flexibility as to what devices or technology is used as long as the whole redeveloped site is treated at 100 percent of the Water Quality Capture Volume. Different treatment devices should be used depending on the outfall elevations, cost considerations and specific site conditions. It is suggested that a tour of the NREL building that was recently completed in Golden be done in order to look at all the alternative storm water treatment devices that were used at this site. That site was developed and is touted as a model for new storm water treatment methods where a number of waste stream technologies were used. I have talked to the design engineer on that site at STORMCON and he has gracefully agreed to take us on a tour provided we give him a list of names for prior approval by the DOE. (the NREL building is owned by the DOE) I will arrange for a field trip in late September. Please let me know if you are interested in the tour and I will add your name to the list of participants that needs to be cleared with the DOE. I will contact the engineer with Martin and Martin (Matt Schlageter) and arrange for the visit/tour. If you have questions concerning these comments please contact Basil Hamdan, P.E., CFM, Stormwater Water Quality Engineer, (970)224-6035. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Since most of the site is already impervious there may not be any Stormwater fees for some of the building permits. It will be necessary to define the areas of increased impervious area and which building permit the fees will be associated with them. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete. The construction erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: This comment has been discussed in previous meetings and is mentioned above as well. However this is the official standard comment. Water quality treatment is also required for 100% of redeveloping sites as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 – Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual_volIII.htm) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. It would also be helpful if the existing storm drain system was shown on the Water Quality Exhibit and how the various water quality features tie into the system. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Water quantity detention is not required for the existing impervious areas. Most of the detention for this site is provided for in the Southmoor Pond downstream. There is some onsite detention that already exists so that needs to be maintained or replaced if site changes eliminate it. Please identify those existing water quantity areas in the drainage study and on the drainage exhibit. Any new impervious areas need to be detained using the 100 year developed inflow rate and released at the 2 year historic rate. This would include any flows that presently drain into the irrigation ditch if it is enclosed in a pipe. (Runoff into irrigation ditches is prohibited and is encouraged to be eliminated if some of the site presently drains into the irrigation ditch). The Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan SWMM is available to model any site changes that alter the existing drainage basins. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: The contacts for the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company are John Moen, Superintendent, 482-3309, 218-5231 Cell. The President is John L. Strachan, 640 Heather Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525, 223-5231. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development- fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Amy Lewin, 970-416-2040, alewin@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Provide clear bicycle and pedestrian circulation routes on the site plan. Applicant should look at LUC Sections 3.2.2(C)(5) - (7), 3.2.2(D)(1), 3.2.2(E)(1) and (5) which all address pedestrian, bicycle and automobile circulation, separation, and design (including bike parking req- uirements). Staff recommends providing stronger bicycle and pedestrian spines and connections so that: - Mall visitors arriving by car can park once and access multiple destinations easily. - Circulating on bike or foot is convenient and pleasant. - Residents have the connections they need to visit the mall without getting in a car. The pedestrian plan can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/pedplan.php Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Per the Capital Improvement Plan, a bicycle/pedestrian underpass is identified on College Avenue in the vicinity of Foothills Parkway; this crossing should be reflected in the site plan. The Capital Improvement Plan can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/cip.php Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Make bicycle facilities more prominent (e.g., convenient, safe parking near main entrances) per LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4). Note that LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4) was recently amended regarding minimum bicycle parking requirements; please refer to Ordinance (051, 2012) provided by Staff at PDR. There should be generous bicycle parking near the entrance of the movie theater. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Consider allotting space for future potential bike share station locations (in addition to standard bike parking). Offering stations, in addition to supportive bicycle facilities, could help support bicycle trips to and from MAX and the neighborhoods and showcase Foothills as a bicycle-friendly development. Department: TransFort Transit Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2012 08/31/2012: As stated in the email dated August 23, 2012, Transfort has identified our preferred bus stop locations as follows. On Foothills: 1. The 2 bus bay pullout is tied to having a roundabout at the mall entrance so buses can come in off College and exit the site quickly at a signalized intersection (College and Foothills). * If this is not acceptable to all parties, then we will need to look at another alternative solution. 2. We expect to have either 4 or 5 routes with 5 to 7 buses per hour utilizing this stop (differentiation depends on funding levels for 2014). 3. Please see LCUASS detail 711 for standard bus bay pullout details. ** These standards are very conservative, we are open to variances specifically in regards to the lead in and lead out lengths, the central length needs to accommodate 2 ‘ 40” buses approximately 90 feet. 4. An attached sidewalk is necessary adjacent to the bus pullout, at a minimum 2 pads of at least 12 feet by 18 feet shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk for bus shelters (we provide the shelter after you install the pad), depending on the sidewalk width, some of the 12’ can be accommodated in that sidewalk width. This is the minimum requirement, I would prefer to see a higher quality pedestrian area around the bus stop to integrate into the west lawn shopping area. On Stanford: 1. A 2 bus bay pullout should be located just north of the driveway closest to the cinema entrance. If your design does not affect the current street design on Stanford, we can utilize the existing parking space west of the bike lane for our pullout. 2. We expect to have 2 or 3 routes with 3 to 5 buses per hour utilizing this stop (differentiation depends on funding levels for 2014). 3. An attached sidewalk is necessary adjacent to the pullout. One shelter pad shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk of at least 12' x 18'. We provide the shelter after you install the pad. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2012 08/31/2012: Accessible pedestrian connections shall connect bus stops into the shopping center. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2012 08/31/2012: According to LUC section 3.6.5, "new development [shall] adequately accommodate existing and planned transit service by integrating facilities designed and located appropriately for transit into the development plan." Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: The City no longer uses 10-inch water main; therefore, at the locations where the existing 10 inch main is being rerouted, install 12-inch water main. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Place water and sanitary sewer mains in hardscaped areas (streets, drives, parking lots) wherever possible and practical to avoid conflicts with landscaping. Provide 5 feet (minimum) separation from main to face of curb. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Move the 8-inch water main that is north of Foothills Parkway and adjacent to College Avenue to the north/south drive east of the proposed buildings along College. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Provide 10 feet of separation between water/sewer mains and all other utilities. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Water/sewer services not used must be abandoned at the main. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Provide the following minimum widths for utility easements: Water – 20 feet (10 feet each side), Sewer – 30 feet (15 feet each side). Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: For water main material, use PVC unless the section of main is relatively short. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Include grease interceptors for each restaurant on the site. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Landscape separation requirements are as follows: Water/sewer mains – Trees 10 feet, Shrubs 4 feet; Water/sewer services – Trees 6 feet, Shrubs 4 feet. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: Development fees and water rights will be due in conjunction with building permits. Credits will be allowed for the existing, established water/sewer accounts on the present site. Discussions will be needed to determine how the credits are to be applied on the project. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/04/2012 09/04/2012: What are the plans for the re-location of the irrigation ditch? This will have impacts on existing water and sewer mains and will need to be evaluated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: Please provide an electronic drawing (AutoCAD or PDF) of the overall utility plan for review to evaluate water and sanitary sewer routings. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 4.21(D) The maximum building height shall be 4 stories. Extending past this may require a Modification. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 4.21(E)(2) Requires Pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces at next to activity areas that generate the users (such as street corners). The retention area on the corner of Stanford and Monroe should be landscape and designed for a Pedestrian oriented outdoor space. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.10.3(C) Requires outdoor spaces to be provided and a continuous walkway system linking such outdoor spaces within the development and linking to surrounding developments. LUC 3.10.4(D)(3) Requirements for Parking structures do apply (see section for details). LUC 3.10.5 This section deals with Character and Image of the buildings (see section for details). Note it speaks to the following; Articulation, Rooflines, Materials and Colors, Store-fronts, Walls/Fences/Planters, Building-height Minimum, Windows, Display-windows). Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.5.4(C) Does apply to Large Retail buildings. LUC 3.5.4(C)(4) and (5) Sidewalks at least 8ft in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut public streets. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, not less than 8ft in width shall be provided from public sidewalk or right of way to the principal customer entrance of all large retail establishments on site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points. LUC3.5.4(C)(5) Central Features and Community space, There shall be at least two locations and these locations shall have direct access to the public sidewalk network. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.2.2(K) The non-residential uses have parking maximums. Shopping center must not exceed five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Provide a table illustrating that the site is in compliance with this requirement. LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) This section for required bicycle spaces have changed recently email staff for those changes. LUC 3.2.2(L) This section is the parking stall dimensions (see section for details). Provide the necessary measurements on the plans illustrating compliance with this section. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.2.5 Trash/Recycling and trash compacting enclosures such enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate both trash and recycling. Such enclosures shall be located on a concrete pad, at least 20ft from a public sidewalk, and designed with walk-in access without having to open the main service gate. These enclosures need dimensions labeled on plans and included in elevation drawings at time of submittal. Please call out on plans that the trash enclosure is on a concrete pad. If residential trash enclosure will be different in nature than commercial, please detail out each on the elevations (calling out all materials). Recycling enclosure design considerations can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/trash_enclosure_design_guidelines.pdf Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.5.1(I) Mechanical/Utility Equipment (conduit, meters, vents, flues, HVAC units¿) shall be screened. Plans (site, landscape, and elevations) shall include locations of such equipment and notes on how it is screened/painted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.8.13 This section does apply in regards to relocating the Wireless Telecommunications equipment on site (see section for details). Please provide detail on elevations if relocting on site. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.5.1(G) This section applies if the development includes any building or structure over 40ft in height (see section for details). Plan on submitting a shadow analysis for each structure over 40 feet in height as well as a separate visual analysis regarding views of the foothills. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/29/2012 08/29/2012: LUC 3.2.1 This section requires a Landscaping Plan, this also includes a tree mitigation plan approved by a City Forester (see section for other details). These plans will be recorded with the site plan and elevations. Street tree selection should be from the City Street Tree List. The City's Plant List will help you with preparing your Landscape Plans. This Plant List was developed to meet the provisions of the Land Use Code Section 3.2.1. This list can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/forestry/plant_list.pdf Additionally, please take a look at the Front Range Tree Recommendation List. This can be found at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/treereclist.pdf Street trees should be spaced away from street lights. Shade trees 40 feet; ornamental trees 15 feet Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/05/2012 09/05/2012: A Minor Amendment to the existing PUD or FDP is required for any changes to the site that will occur prior to the approval of the new OPD/FDP. The minor amendment application and additional information can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/minor-amend-editable.pdf Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: The 'Vision Book' contains a number of pages that illustrate a possible signage program. Signs are not part of the PDP or Final Plan review and approval processes, so these comments are informational. All signs must comply with Sec. 3.8.7 of the LUC and will be reviewed for compliance as part of the sign permit process. It will be very difficult to obtain variances to the regulations. i.e., the primary project monument ID sign on page 36 is proposed to be 30' tall. The code limits the height of monument signs to 12' and pole signs to 18', with a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. Page 32 of the vision book contains a sign location plan. The code limits the number of freestanding signs to one per lot per street frontage. So when platting the property, the applicant may want to consider the sign locations to determine how many lots should be provided and where the lot lines should be placed. The seperate sign permit application can be found online at http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/sign-app.nl.pdf Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: Because the development is in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) (LUC 3.10), the normally required minimum number of parking spaces for residential isn't required to be met. If this weren't in the TOD, then a minimum number of spaces would be required based on bedrooms as follows (you might want to use this as a guideline when planning for your parking needs): one bedroom unit = 1.5 spaces two bedroom unit = 1.75 spaces three bedroom unit = 2 spaces four bedroom and above = 2.5 spaces. Note: code changes for multi-family dwellings might be adopted by City Council in the near future. Those code changes could affect parking and building design standards. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: The property is in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD). The standards in Sec. 3.10 of the LUC will apply in addition to the zone district standards of the CG zone in Sec. 4.21. The project will need to be processed as a Type 2 review (Planning & Zoning Board). Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: Parking bays can't extend more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree or landscape island (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code (LUC). It appears that are numerous parking bays/aisles that don't comply. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: Make sure that large parking areas are broken up into smaller sections that contain less than 200 parking spaces, and that they are divided by landscape areas per Sec. 3.2.2(E) (6)(a). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: The site plan submitted for the PDP must show the following: 1) lot lines labeled 2) building envelope or footprint dimensions and distances to lot lines, 3) parking stall and drive aisle dimensions, 4) parking lot light pole locations, 5) all bike rack locations, 6) trash enclosures, 7) a land use table similar to what's on sheet SP-L. For your formal submittal, please include the gross and net residential density in table format on the site plans. Please see LUC 3.8.18 for additional details on how to calculate. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/23/2012 08/23/2012: Handicap parking spaces are required in the amount specified in Sec. 3.2.2(K)(5). Note that Handicap parking spaces are required to be signed. Please have a note on the sight plan mentioning this.