Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAX FLATS - PDP - PDP120034 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry Response to PDP Comments 1/30/2013 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 01/04/2013: Staff is looking forward to meeting with the applicant to ensure compliance with the standards pertaining to the architectural elevations. 12/28/2012: The ground level is required to provide a clear base element (3.5.3(D)6), 50% of which is required to be "retail and other uses" (3.10.4(D). A request for a modifcation of standards is required if the standards cannot be met. Staff recommends higher quality material such as brick or stone with pilasters to provide a pedestrian scale base element. Applicant believes that by differentiating the first floor with masonry, a base is clearly defined. By our calculations, 52% of the ground floor is retail and other uses, such as residential entries and bike racks. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: The building does not appear to be providing adequate articulation (3.5.3 (C & D), please provide a plan view or section of the building that illustrates the proposed articulation. Staff recommends that the building be broken up with more horizontal articulation and less repetition, it is almost a mirror image when cut down the center of the east elevation. Also, the balconies contribute to the building's articulation, visual interest, activity and reduction of mass; the elevations will not be approved with the note suggesting that the balconies are optional. In fact, staff recommends expanding the size of the balconies to meet the building articulation requirement. Comment has been addressed in a meeting held with city staff. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Buildings over 40' are required to have an additional height review. Please provide a shadow analysis (Winter Solstice and 1.5 months before and after) and a view analysis per 3.5.1(G). Shadow and view analyses are provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please provide a further explanation of proposed material with a material board. Again, staff recommends more traditional high quality material such as brick and stone for the base element. A material and color board is included in the resubmittal. The first floor of the building is predominately masonry. Brick is used against a background of ground-face block to focus attention on elements with the greatest interest – the retail and resident’s entry. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: The color elevations may be misleading but the colors do not appear to be consistent with the colors that exist in the neighborhood (3.5.1(F). There is quite a variety of existing colors in the neighborhood. These include tan, brown, green, white, yellow, orange, red, and gray. The proposed colors include earth-tone masonry and stucco, light green and gray cement siding, and gray metal trim, which are consistent with materials and colors found in the neighborhood. Attached are representative photos within two blocks of the intersection of Mason and Mulberry for verification. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: The faux window and door elements made of metal screen panel on the base level are insufficient to meet the standards found in 3.5.3(D). Please utilize architectural features such as "columns, ribs or pilasters, piers, fenestration patterns," seat walls, and planter boxes. The corten metal panels have been changed to a series of openings infilled with wood slats on a steel support frame. This pattern of fenestration will be more in scale with traditional windows and allow the pilasters to read more prominently. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Parking along the north property line should provide additional landscaping to the equivilent that the parking spaces encroach on the 5 foot setback. There is less than 5’ along the west property line. We will be providing a Modification to this Standard with the re-submittal Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: I cannot read the specs from the fixture cut sheets to confirm compliance with LUC 3.2.4. Please provide readable cut sheets. New cuts sheets are provided. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please provide an average foot candle level for the site. Average foot candle level provided on sheet. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 01/04/2013: The parking space closest to Mason Street will have to be removed per Engineering and the electric transformer will have to be moved per Light and Power, which provides the opportunity to move the bicycle parking onto the site. Please revise. 12/28/2012: Bicycle parking required for this project is 60 enclosed spaces that are proposed to be provided within the units. Please provide floor plans that show how and where they will exist. 42 fixed bicycle parking spaces are required and only 40 are provided. We may need to work something out regarding the bike parking in the ROW. [Calculations: Req. 1 sp / bedroom = 100 spaces at 40% fixed and 60% enclosed + 1 space per 1,000 s.f. of restaurant (1,500 s.f.) = 1.5 spaces] A typical unit plan is provided showing where bike racks will be located within units. We have removed bike parking along Mulberry and added spaces along Mason. We have also added 11 spaces at the west end of the building. This will yield a total of 42 exterior spaces (106 for the project including the 64 in units). Since 10 of the spaces are in the Mason Street R.O.W., we are formally requesting a variance to allow this. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/30/2013: A modification of standard is required. Although there is no minimum parking requirement, proposed parking must meet the standards set forth for parking. 01/04/2013: Staff will be discussing the provision requiring a maximum of 40% compact parking stalls in the TOD which does not have a minimum parking requirement at Planning Coordination on Tuesday, Jan. 8. More information following. A Modification Request is being submitted with the revised plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C200 - The sidewalk on this sheet is only scaling to be 6' wide and the hatching doesn't appear to show the full 8' width as intended. This sheet has been revised to indicate an 8’ clear width within the ROW. Note, the sidewalk is 6’ wide in one location where 2’ wide at-grade planter cutouts are provided for the green screen vines to grow. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C200 - Label bike parking that is shown in the right of way. Bike parking in the Right of Way will need to comply with City of Fort Collins Standards and will be subject to removal and replacement at City's discretion. Conversations should be had between applicant and planning to discuss if moving bicycle parking out of Right of Way will affect the validity of the site plan. Bike parking within the Mulberry ROW has been removed. Bike parking within the Mason ROW is now labeled. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C200 - Sidewalk in the right of way is being labeled as "concrete flatwork" and "light duty paving" on this sheet. All sidewalk within the right of way will need to conform to City of Fort Collins sidewalk standards. Concrete paving has been revised for clarity. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C300 - The building appears to be overhanging into the utility easement at the southwest corner and west edge. Please revise the easement accordingly. This has been corrected to ensure the building does not encroach into the easement. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C300 - The balconies shown along Mason Street appear to be overhanging into the Right of Way on this sheet. Any balconies that are proposed to overhang into Right of Way will need to be approved by a separate revocable right of way permit and should be called out on the plans as such. The second floor balconies along Mason Street are within the property line. The balconies at 3rd – 5th floors encroach about 8” and are approximately 21’ above ground. By the building code (IBC 3202.3.3), encroachments above 15’ are allowed without limit. There are several other elements that also extend into the R.O.W. These include: 1. A roof/canopy element at the residents’ entry which is approximately 14.5’ above grade extending 3’ into the R.O.W. By IBC 3202.3.1, these types of element are allowed to extend up to 2/3 the width of the sidewalk. Since the sidewalk is 8’, the allowed encroachment is 5.3’. 2. A roof/canopy over the residents’ door near the south stair. This roof is approximately 9’-3” above grade and will encroach about 1.5’, which is well within the allowable 5.3’. 3. A trellis-type structure over the bike racks along Mason Street. These are a minimum of 9’-3” above grade and project 1’-1/2” into the R.O.W.. This is within the allowed projection of 1” per each inch of height above 8’-0” per IBC 3202.3.2. 4. A wall and roof element at the two stair towers that encroaches about 8” and is approximately 10’-6” above grade, which is well within the allowance of IBC 3202.3.2. These encroachments are noted on the site plan. A revocable permit will be sought for these. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C300 - There is some concern about the constructability and desire to have the proposed storm sewer line underneath the MAX Bus Station as shown on the Utility Plan. Storm sewer outfall from project site needs to be routed in a different location than underneath the MAX/BRT bus station. Consider angling it to the northeast and running underneath corner patio and out to existing inlet. The storm sewer alignment has been revised to avoid the MAX BRT station. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C300 - This sheet is showing the tables and concrete squares in the right of way at the North Side of the building. These cannot be shown in the right of way on these plans or the site plan. Please remove them from the plans. A separate right of way encroachment permit is required for review in order to place these in the right of way. These items have been removed from the plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C301 - Please add street cut limits note to this sheet. Street cut limits note has been added to this sheet. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C400 - This sheet may need to include additional information on emergency access fire lane and loading zone along Mason Street along with appropriate signage and striping. The City’s MAX contract already covers “no parking” signs from the intersection of Mulberry and Mason south up to the 2nd existing private access to the King’s Auto site. The MAX Flats project we will extend the no parking another ±65LF to the south up to the proposed access into the site off Mason. This will provide both a 100’ bus pullout distance as well as fire lane access for PFA to respond to emergencies without blocking Mason traffic. A formal “loading and unloading” zone will not be designated along the Mason frontage of this property; however, the area adjacent to the southern stair tower could be utilized as such on a limited basis. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C400 - How much drainage is leaving the site through the private driveway? It appears that it is greater than 750 square feet of drainage. Please revise or provide additional information to show that it is less than 750 square feet of drainage. Additional information has been added to ensure less than 750 SF sheet flows across the sidewalk. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Sheet C600 - Note 6 may apply to the bicycle storage along Mulberry Street and the vertical curb construction to abandon the driveway along Mulberry Street. Please check with Floodplain and Stormwater. Bike racks have been removed from the Mulberry frontage. The driveway abandonment and curb replacement is subject to Chapter 10 requirements. There is a relatively common procedure for obtaining Floodplain Use Permits for this type of work. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Erika Keeton with MAX/BRT Project has requested that construction be coordinated with the MAX/BRT project and bus station. The MAX bus station is slightly elevated with a 14" curb along Mason, this needs to be accounted for in how it interfaces with the proposed building and sidewalk along Mason. Additional items to discuss during coordination meeting is building construction cannot effect operation of bus station, proximity of building foundation and construction to bus station. These items were discussed with Ditesco during a 01/07/2013 meeting. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Is the easement shown on the Plat for Utilities an existing or proposed utility easement? These are new easements. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The site plan shows a "Future R.O.W. Line". This needs to be changed to proposed r.o.w. line since additional right of way is being proposed with this project and this will become the new property line. “Future R.O.W. Line” has been changed to “Proposed R.O.W. Line”. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The site plan shows Emergency Services Access and Loading Zone shown along Mason Street. How will these be striped, signed, curbs painted or designated? Additional information should be added to the Civil Plans and site plan. The station will need to have red curb striped on the curb to allow buses to pull out. The Emergency access lane will need to have red curb painted on the curb and should be called out on the plans. The area between the red curbs can be reserved for a "loading zone" but will need to be signed as no parking as this can still be used for temporary loading and unloading. At city direction, the loading zone has been removed. The entire length of Mason Street will be signed “no parking”. Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Engineering has reviewed the variance request to modify the requirement from LCUASS 19.3.1 from 75' to 24'. The variance request as proposed has been denied by Engineering. Transportation staff have discussed the request and are recommending the parking setback be 34' offset from the Mason flowline. Please revise the variance request and resubmit. Parking has been adjusted to be 34’ from the Mason Street flowline. The variance request will be revised during the Final Plan phase. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No comments. Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Existing significant trees to be removed should be marked as to species, diameter, condition and number of mitigation trees. This information will be added to the landscape plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The Sterling Silver Linden is not on the street tree list. Please select another species from the City Street tree list. Consider the use of Redmond Linden as a substitution. We have replaced the Sterling Silver Linden with a Redmond Linden. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The City Forester recommends the use of Chanticleer Pear in place of Autumn Blaze Pear for better disease resistance and a more upright growth form. The Autumn Blaze Pears have been replaced with Chanticleer Pears. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: For the north most street tree to be protected in the parkway along Mason evaluate if the lawn area can be extended a little further to the north of this tree to keep the new sidewalk further to the north of the trunk of this mature flowering crabapple tree. We met on-site with the City Forester to discuss. Now that the MAX BRT station has shifted to the south, we’ll need to coordinate how this is going to work. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: For Parking lot perimeter landscape areas on the south and west perimeters provide trees at an average spacing of 40 feet. Trees can be spaced informally or in uniform spacing (LUC 3.2.1 E 4 a). Evaluate is some deciduous trees may also be used in these areas. See revised landscape plans – trees have been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Evaluate if it is possible to add an additional street tree between the sidewalk and curb along Mulberry approximately 25 feet east of the existing mature tree. Evaluate the 6 foot sewer/water service line separtion standard and visibility of the intersection. TBG met on-site with the City Forester on January 30, 2013 and discussed the conflicts between the proposed utilities and the existing trees. It was determined that no additional street trees would be required in this location due to sight distance conflicts with the railroad crossing. It was agreed upon that the ornamental pear tree would change to a Honeylocust to help satisfy the street tree requirement. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please consider changing the flowering pear in the planting bed just to the north of the plaza along Mulberry to a canopy shade tree since having a street tree between the sidealk and curb is not feasible at this location. A narrow crown form of Linden might be a possible tree to consider. Tree has been changed to a Honeylocust. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please add a sentence in Landscape note 8. "Do not cultivate soil within the drip line of existing trees to retain". Added to the Landscape Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: On the Overall Utility Plan sheet C300 the two significant and mature City street trees located in the parkway along Mulberry have various notes about the water line, the sewer line and proposed fire service line within their root zone area. These trees are prominent and mature. The East tree is a rare specimen of Horse Chestnut. Forestry has the following questions related to proposed utility work around these trees. Will any of these lines involve new work in the root system of these trees? If so please explain what that work is and schedule an on-site meeting with the City Forester to review tree impact from any proposed utility work. The proposed fire service line appears to be quite close to the trees. Can this line be moved to a different location? Both trees along Mulberry will be protected. Utility Drawings will show bored water and fire services per City Forestry’s request as an effort to save both trees. If proposed utility work will be near to the existing trees and could cause root damage then review the tree protection specification for boring under root systems in LUC 3.2.1 G 7 for inclusion on the plans of this project. It’s very important to provide adequate protection for these City of Fort Collins street trees through the construction process. The new water and fire services will be bored, using the cited code Section as guidance.. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: The location shown for the electric transformer on the utility and landscape plans does not place it within the required 10 feet of an area accessible to a utility line truck. At a meeting with Doug Martine, it was determined that the proposed location is best. Grass pavers will be added to allow a utility line truck to get within 10’. The existing tree will be protected. Forestry and Mark Smith discussed options for access. It was determined that Light and Power can easily place or replace the transformer even with the ash tree remaining in place on Mulberry. There is plenty of room for the large or smaller boom truck. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: Building Department: Russ Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. A meeting was held on January 30th with Russ Hovland to review building code issues. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2009 International Building Code (IBC) 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. MAX Flats – project specific concerns: 1. Building code requires a 1-hour building if constructed with wood. 2. Fire-sprinkler required. 3. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. 4. IBC chap 11 and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units per that code. 5. New Green Code requires: a. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. b. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. c. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. e. Low VOC interior finishes. f. See Green Code compliance guide for additional requirmements. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 01/01/2013 01/01/2013: All previous comments pertaining to this project have been appropriately addressed. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 01/01/2013 01/01/2013: HYDRANT & FDC Proposed locations for the fire department connection and new hydrant are not identified on the plans. Hydrant and FDC are indicated on the site plan. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 01/01/2013 01/01/2013: BALCONIES AND DECKS Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. 2006 International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1 Balconies will be sprinklered per IFC 903.3.2.1 and NFPA 13. Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Proposed emergency assess parking on Mason Street and how it is to integrate with the Max transit stop is still under review by the city. Emergency access parking shall be marked as required by IFC 503.3. At city direction, the loading zone has been removed. The entire length of Mason Street will be signed “no parking”. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Acknowledged. A comprehensive Erosion Control Plan and Report will be provided during Final Plan, commensurate with other recent projects similar in nature. Contact: Mark Taylor, , mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: Please address the red-lined comments on the Plat, the Site Plan, the Construction Drawings and the Drainage Letter. Any redlines supplied to the Applicant have been addressed. No redlined Drainage Letter was supplied. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: Please refer to the 100% Development Review Checklist included with the red-lined comments. Acknowledged. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/07/2013 01/07/2013: In the plan set, document that the elevator design meets the guidelines in FEMA Technical Bulletin 4, showing what type of elevator is being proposed (hydraulic, lift), how the shaft/enclosure and equipment are being protected from water, etc. Flood provisions are noted on the site plan. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: Stormwater is ready for a hearing except for the floodplain department. They will be reviewing the plans soon and will advise if the PDP is ready for a hearing. Comment Acknowledged Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please describe a line & add a bearing for the Basis Of Bearings on sheet C000. This has been updated, as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet C300. These issues have been corrected, per the redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP 6. We have corrected this. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please label the properties to the north & east with the subdivision name, lot, block, etc. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please show found or set monument for the northwest block corner with a bearing & distance to the boundary. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please show record bearings & distances for all boundary lines. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please note that the vacated alley is reserved as a 20' utility easement, per Ordinance 36, 1979 at Book 1943 Page 447. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The last digit of the LS number is missing at the southwest boundary corner. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please include a note about the alley vacation. This information has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please include a note addressing(what we see as) an apparent error in Harrison's Addition. According to the Harrison's Addition plat, block 105 has an east line of 380' and a west line of 400'. The original Town of Fort Collins plat shows the block as 400' square. This item has been discussed with Technical Services staff. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please label the major streets on the vicinity map on sheet PDP 1. Streets have been labeled on the vicinity map. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP 3. Line over text issues have been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 12/23/2012: Please include on Sheet 300, Overall Utlity Plan, the west BNSF barrier curb on Mason along the frontage of your development with curb face to curb face dimensions. This information has added, as requested. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 12/23/2012: In light of the new BNSF barrier curb on Mason handling emergency calls may become a problem for traffic flow on Mason. The City recognizes that in the case of property fires, fire trucks and support vehicles have unobstructed access to any roadways and travel lanes necessary. Non-fire emergency's though and the vehicles that may accompany them in non-life threatening circumstances are an aspect that should be discussed and plans determined for handling such emergencies that don't necessary require blocking Mason. Ambulance and Paramedic vehicles can probably park in the parking and bike lanes well enough not to block Mason traffic, but many times non-fire dispatches are accompanied by larger fire vehicles. The possible greater frequency of those types of non-life threatening dispatches do raise concern for blockage of Mason. Traffic Op's would like to see the developement conduct discussions with Poudre Fire Authority on possible plans of how the non-fire emergencies might be handled to minimize blockage of Mason. This will not be an issue for just this development but along much of the new Mason corridor and the discussions will need to take place for all new developments along the corridor until more definitive processes can be determined and implemented. Please see response to Engineering Comment Number 13, above. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 12/23/2012: Please add the following to the Landscape Notes: "All landscape plantings installed within the public street right-of-way shall conform to the current Sight Distance and intersection Sight Triangle standards in Chapters 7 through 9 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Tree canopies should not obstruct visibility of traffic related Regulatory signage." Note has been added. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 12/23/2012: The City recognizes the difficulty in deriving north and south bound traffic volumes on the recently converted to 2-way traffic Mason Street and that traffic has not fully returned due to the on-going roadway construction. The TIS states the 2% adjustment as still being too small of an adjustment and the City agrees after reviewing the past and present counts. Please provide discussion of method and factors used in determining the provided Recent Adjusted Peak Hour Turning Movements (Fig. 3, page 4). After the counts were taken as part of the study, it was determined that construction activity along the Mason corridor had effected much more than originally suspected. Using the City counts from April of 2012, I determined that northbound traffic really shouldn't have changed and that they were a realistic approximation of today's traffic. The southbound traffic was significantly low in the count. The 2% increase as agreed to with the city would not have been a realistic approximation of today's traffic. I decided to "mirror" the southbound traffic to the reasonable northbound traffic. In my professional opinion, this presented a highly conservative estimate of traffic at the intersection of Mulberry/Mason which in turn created a conservative analysis. – Eric Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E., ELB Engineering. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Show/label the curb stops on the existing water services that will be utilized for the proposed development. The requested information has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Provide water service sizing calculations for the residential portion of the building. A 2" service is typically not adequate for 64 units. It's important to determine this now as the vault required for a 3" meter may impact the site plan. Water pressure in this area is approximately 85 psi. The water calculation has been provided. A 3” water service is required and a water meter vault is shown on the plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Add note to coordinate abandonment of the 6" sewer in Mason and the 3/4" water service in Mulberry with Water Utilities crews (221-6700). The requested note has been added. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.2(C)(4) Required bicycle parking spaces shall not be located in the ROW with a revocable permit this type of permit does not ensure that standards will be met into the future. A Modification Request for a reduced bicycle parking count is being requested. As part of the request, Spaces in the ROW are being cited as a justification for the variance. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: LUC 3.2.2(L)(2) Compact vehicle spaces are only allowed in long term parking areas. Even though no parking is required for the project when any parking is provided only 40% of the long term parking is allowed to be compact. If applicant is seeking to go over the 40% this section of the code requires a modification. Also the compact stalls shall be designated with a sign that such spaces are reserved for employees and residents. Please provide a detail of the sign and locations. A Modification Request for an increase in the compact car ratio is being requested. The parking lot will have signage indicating that it is for the exclusive use of residents and employees. Sign is located on PDP Site Plan (sheet PDP3). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: LUC 3.2.4 The lighting plan should include the foot-candles for the entire parking area including that underneath the building. Also did not see on the lighting plan the average foot candle for the parking area on the site. The lighting plan has been revised to include footcandles for the area under the building and an Average footcandle level for the site. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: Please indicate the specie of the existing trees that are being protected. See revised landscape plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: LUC 3.2.2(M) If there is not a curb along the parking stalls that are along the West and South property lines then each of these stalls do require a wheel stop. Wheel stops have been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: LUC 3.2.2(J) Parking stalls along an arterial are required to be setback 15' for the ROW. The first stall along the south property is proposed to be setback only 8ft, this will need to be corrected. The first parking stall is now 34’ from the flowline of Mason, in accordance with the revised variance request to be provided during the Final Plan phase. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: LUC 3.2.1(E) Parking lot screening requires trees every 40ft along the perimeter landscaping that is along a side lot line. The West and South side lot line is not meeting this standard. See revised landscape plans – trees have been added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: A note on the plans indicated 6% of parking lot interior landscaping being proposed is 527 sq ft, however the plans are only showing approx 300 sq ft of interior landscaping. Both are less then the required 6%, this will neet to be corrected. The revised landscape plans indicate 555 s.f. required and 586 s.f. is provided, so we meet that standard. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: The note on the elevations, stating the balconies are optional, needs to be removed. If the applicant does not want to include balconies at a later date this will need to be processed by Minor Amendment. The applicant has elected to keep full balconies on the two street facades and eliminate them on the other facades. The note regarding balconies has been removed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: 3.5.1(I) The elevations did not include the mechanical/utility equipment (vents, flues, conduit, meters, HVAC, RTU etc...) locations. This needs to be include with notes on how such equipment is screened/painted. We have added meters, rooftop mechanical units, vents and louvers to the elevations. Note that rooftop mechanical equipment is fairly small and located toward the center of the roof. The roof parapet will provide adequate screening from street view. See view analysis for verification. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: Signs and Locations are not approved through PDP/FP process. Please add a note to sheets that show signs, that signs shown on plans are for reference and will be permitted through a separate sign permit. A note has been added to the elevation sheets acknowledging that signage is approved via a separate process.