Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - PDP - PDP120031 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - (3)CDN#2594A-009 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 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FEBRUARY 27, 2013 December 28, 2012 Michael Chalona Neenan 2607 Midpoint Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Landmark Apartments Expansion, PDP120031, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Please show and label the 25' building setback along the east and west property lines on the plan. The setback is for single and two-family dwellings, isn't the adjacent 929 E. Prospect property (to the west) a two-family dwelling? If so, building 1 would need to be set back 25 feet. Also please note that the rear setback at building 6 is 8 feet. Response: We will submit for a modification to allow for a distance of 13’-3” as shown on Site Plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Per Section 3.5.2(C)(2), buildings 1 and 2 are required to face a street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on street parking, and at least one entrance for each building is required to have a front façade facing a CDN#2594A-009 Connecting Walkway or Major Walkway Spine. For buildings 1 and 2, two front facades face each other internally and at 15 feet apart. Please provide an explanation as to the intent and concept here and whether these sides of the buildings are intended to be the fronts. The intent of the MMN standard 4.6(D)(d) and 3.5.2(C)(2) is to have an entrance facing a non-arterial street or that has on- street parking. Please provide an explanation as to how this is satisfied for buildings 1 and 2 or why this standard cannot be satisfied due to the project requirements. The entrances for these buildings are too hidden and do not meet the intent of the noted code sections discussed. Response: See Site Plan for new building and parking layout for meeting the standards listed above. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Connecting Walkways and Major Walkway Spines need to be designed to provide a direct logical route from street sidewalks to a front entrance directly facing the Connecting Walkway and /or Major Walkway Spine, per the LUC definitions, 3.5.2(C). If a Major Walkway Spine is used, all parts of the spine need to be in an outdoor space at least 35 feet wide with all parts visible from a public street. Buildings 3 and 4 could be rotated 180 to front on a spine. The portion of the spine that leads from Hobbit Street through the southwest parking lot does not meet the definition of a Connecting Walkway or Major Walkway Spine. Response: See Site Plan for new building and parking layout for meeting the standards listed above. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Connecting Walkways and Major Walkway Spines need to be 8 feet in width in all areas on order to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use, please refer to section 3.2.2(C)(1) (b). Response: See Site Plan for walkways indicating the 8’ walkway requirements. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 More discussion is needed regarding buildings 1 through 5 not having primary access from a local street system and whether this meets the intent of Division 3.6. Response: See Site Plan for new walkway and building entrance layouts that are serviced by a main walkway spine. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Please provide an explanation as to how 4.6(E)(1)(a) and (b) related to block size and block structure are addressed with the plan concept. Extending a street north from the end of Hobbit Street, ending in a cul-de-sac, would be an example of a more typical Fort Collins Development pattern. Response: See Site Plan for new building and parking layout for meeting a emergency through street. Due to the unique shape and landlocked scenario of this particular property a ‘typical’ solution is not available. A street ending in a cul de sac is not economically responsible or viable for any project with similar density CDN#2594A-009 and creates an undue hardship on the drainage channel. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 A more direct and cohesive sidewalk system is needed. A stronger and more direct pedestrian / bicycle connection should link the Prospect Street connection to the south edge of Hobbit Street and provide a stub into the adjacent NC zone to the south. One way this might be accomplished is to widen the existing drive isle crossing to accommodate a street-like private drive with 8' sidewalks, incorporating the pedestrian bridge into the wider street-like crossing. Response: See Site Plan for new building layouts to provide walkway spine, and through drive access, as well as new location for connecting bridge to all new buildings. A stronger north south pedestrian circulation pattern has been designed into the site plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 The parking lot design in the southwest corner does not meet the minimum drive isle width for some of the parking spaces. Response: See Site Plan for new drive widths that meet the requirement listed above. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Landscape islands at the stall ends in the center parking area in the northeast lot are tight with sharp curb transitions. Please consider eliminating a parking space in this area and shifting stalls to provide a more attractive, cleaner center island. Response: See Site Plan with new parking layout to allow from smoother transitions at parking and drive areas. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Please provide the remaining required charts, tables, and notations listed in the detailed PDP checklist for site and landscape plans with the next submittal. Response: See cover sheet for added information as listed above. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Identify all existing required tree information for trees that may be affected by utility and grading that may require mitigation. Response: See Landscape Plan and Details for existing tree information. Show the area offsite to the south including the curved portion of Wallenberg so that the potential connections / easements can be further refined. Show the property line north of the existing northern Landmark building. Response: See Sheet L1.02 to show Wallenberg and existing Landmark Apartments to show the connections. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Given the fact that bicycle and pedestrians will be sharing the 8’ walkways, please consider making the sidewalk curve transitions more gentle south of buildings 3, 4 and 5. Response: See Site Plan for revised walkway paths to accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Provide additional sidewalk connections to the existing Landmark facilities and show locations of existing sidewalks in Landmark and how they connect with directness to the new development pattern. Response: See Site Plan for new walkway paths to provide connection to the existing Landmark facilities. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Neighbors and staff have raised concerns that the proposed development needs to provide adequate buffering and transition that is proportionate to the proposed intensity of the development. Please consider methods to make more gradual and significant vertical and horizontal transitions and/or provide more open space buffering. An additional meeting with neighbors is suggested. Response: See Site sections & building elevations for additional information on distance and landscape buffering areas. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 Please see the attached comment letter from Russ Hovland with Building Services. Response: Building separation has occurred that addressed comments. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 Please provide further plan information and explanation as to how section 4.6(D)(3) access to a park, central feature or gathering space is met. Response: See added Sheet L1.02 that identifies gathering spaces and access to central use areas. As an expansion the existing site contains large turf areas, a swimming pool, volleyball court and a fitness center that can accommodate the additional residents. The proposed project provides some active space, as well as an 8’ recreation trail that connects to spring creek city trail. The trail provides additional recreational uses for exercising and travel. The spring creek trail also connects to Rolland Moore Park, which is the neighborhood park for this older section of town. The City owned Spring Creek Gardens is also very near right off the spring creek trail. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 One concern that needs clarification with this student housing development is whether adequate on- site amenities are provided that are proportionate to the number of residents using the amenities. Because the existing amenities were sized for the existing Landmark development, are additional amenities proposed or an expansion of the existing amenities? Please provide a more expanded and detailed explanation of the specific size and program of the existing amenities and whether they are sufficient based on established criteria. This could be part of an additional site plan sheet that shows the existing Landmark site, describing the location and dimensions of the amenities, proposed sidewalk connections, notes, and any potential new amenities -- an amenity and circulation plan. Response: See added Sheet L1.02 that identifies gathering spaces and access to central use areas. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 The site plan design is not cohesive, unified, and well organized. Sidewalk circulation and directness need to be a first priority and key element, designed in tandem with a more inviting building, parking, and street layout. The scattered, indirect pattern of sidewalks does not meet the intent of the Land Use Code. Response: See revised site layout that creates stronger pedestrian connections both east – west and north-south. The plans also shows walk connections to the existing landmark apartments system. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 The architecture is not compatible and does not provide an adequate transition with the adjacent single-family neighborhood. The mass, bulk, size, height, scale and detail of the buildings need to be further articulated and subdivided in a substantial manner. The project plan does not meet the intent of Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code. Please address this issue. Staff would like to see 3D views of the buildings as seen from various points on adjacent properties in order to further evaluate conformance with the standards. Staff is available to coordinate this, answer questions and provide additional feedback. Response: See architectural response that is attached. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 Staff also recommends that the project plans be presented again to the LPC for discussion and feedback prior to hearing. Response: We have worked directly with historic preservation staff in the building revisions.. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Access to the northern portion of the site is proposed from the existing Landmark PUD. An access (and likely emergency access) easement through existing drive aisles from the tie-in out to Shields Street will need to be obtained from the owner of Landmark PUD. A letter of intent from that property owner will need to be provided prior to a public hearing for the project. Response: See Site Plan for new building and parking layout to allow for emergency access to Prospect Road. The landmark ownership has already submitted a letter with the original submittal indicating that they will provide access and communal use of all facilities. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: The appropriate City department (Stormwater?) that owns the property bisecting the two segments of the development should provide comment akin to a letter of intent not objecting to the project moving forward to public hearing with the infrastructure proposed by the developer within the City property. Response: OK, we will request a letter. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Hobbit Street is platted through the property, terminating into a cul-de-sac bulb. With the project proposal, Hobbit Street would need to be vacated through the property. The project at a public hearing, will need to have a conditional approval, subject to City Council approval of the right-of-way vacation. Response: The ROW will be vacated after the FDP is approved. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Hobbit Street is required to be built by the development with a physically terminated turnaround cul-de-sac in order to discern where the public portion of Hobbit Street ends (and vehicles can turnaround within right-of-way without needing to enter the private property). The Landscape Plan shows a "turnaround for public" indication but it does not meet the requirement in 3.6.2(C) of the Land Use Code: "Except as provided in Subsection (B) above for cul-de-sacs, no dead-end streets shall be permitted except in cases where such streets are designed to connect with future streets on abutting land, in which case a temporary turnaround easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least one hundred (100) feet must be dedicated and constructed. Such turnaround easement shall not be required if no lots in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access." Response: We are showing a temporary turnaround on the plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: The site plan shows "future trail extension" in two locations south of the development boundary. Why aren't these connections being made at this time? What ensures that the these connections will be made in the future? Does the project meet level of service standards for pedestrians with the project not extending these future trail extensions at this time? Response: We have revised the plans to show only 1 trail extension. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: There appears to be an existing access ramp along the sidewalk on College. The construction plans should specifically indicating this and whether the proposed trail into the site off of Prospect Road ties into this access ramp. Response: The emergency access drive will align with the existing curb cut. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Has addressing of the units been verified with PFA and GIS? It's unclear to me how the units will be addressed since only one building (Building 6) appears to gain vehicular access from a public street. The remaining buildings are accessed through an existing apartment complex without identifiable relation to a street. public or private. Response: See Site Plan for indication of Buildings by Letters, this ties in with the addressing of the existing Landmark Apartments. The address will be the same as the existing Landmark Apartments, as indicated on all plan documents. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: The plat title should be changed to Landmark Apartments Expansion in order for the title to be consistent with the other documents. Response: Will do. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: The plat needs to add the attorney certification approval block to the signature section. Response: Will add Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: I am having quite a bit of trouble distinguishing the wetland boundary and the 50' wetland setback on the plan set provided. Please change the lineweight or determine a different way to distinguish these lines so they are clearer. Please also label the setback as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. These lines should be included in the legend. Please note that parking is not an allowable use within the buffer zone. If the project is proposing to use the qualitative (performance) standards outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) to achieve compliance with the buffer zone standards, then all subsections (a-i) must be complied with. Please provide a calculation of the acreage of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone that would have been provided via the 50' buffer vs. what is proposed with the performance standards. Response: See Site Plan for clearer indication of buffer along the wetland boundary. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: An Ecological Characterization Study was provided for the project on November 7, 2012. The ECS indicates the firm has not had a chance to review the proposed plans and so has not commented on whether the proposed buffer is adequate to protect the value of the wetlands. In addition, the ECS should discuss not just the current value of the site, but also how the site's value will change, if at all, as the buffer standards, e.g., vegetation restoration, are implemented. Response: We will provide a separate letter to discuss this. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: All proposed landscaping in the buffer zone will need to be established prior to hearing and in coordination with floodplain staff, to ensure compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1) (g). The landscaping proposed does not currently meet this standard. If restored using native trees and shrubs, the detention ponds adjacent to the buffer could be included in the buffer zone. Also, it would be helpful to have the floodway line illustrated on the plan set. Response: OK, will establish call out plantings prior to hearing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: Where are the existing Siberian elm trees? Note that a Land Use Code change is currently proposed that if the Siberian elms were found to have ecological value, then their value would need to be mitigated for in accordance with Section 3.4.1(2)(b) of the Land Use Code. If they are found to have value, then plantings in accordance with replacing this value and the plantings needed to achieve compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g) (see above) shall be coordinated. Response: There are 4 isolated small elms along the south property line. They do not form any habitat and are ragged in appearance. They will be removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: In accordance with my conceptual review comments back in March, no lighting can spill over into the buffer zone. 03/05/12: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Response: See new Photometrics Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: If the project gains approval, then a signature for the Environmental Planner will need to be added to the Utility Plans. A note shall also be added to the site, landscape and utility plans that reads as follows: See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. The area established as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone must also be added onto the Utility Plans. Response: See Utility Plan. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 12/12/2012: 1. Are there any significant trees that will be impacted on site? If so please schedule a site meeting with the City Forester to review. Response: See Landscape Plan and General notes on the Cover Sheet. We are saving the only tree, a honey locust, that is on the site. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 12/12/2012: 2. Are there any opportunities to add street trees behind the walk along Prospect. Response: See Landscape Plan, added along ultimate ROW line. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Response: See separate attachment for all Historic Preservation Comments. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: The residential neighborhood adjacent to the east of the proposed project is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District and thus this project is required to be compliant with all applicable subsections of LUC 3.4.7. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 3.4.7 (A) states: Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site. (B) General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. The proposed plans do not meet (A)(2) or (B)(3)(a) of this LUC Section as the overall height, massing, and design of the buildings are not compatible with that of the adjacent Landmark District. See more detailed comments below. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 3.4.7 (F)(1) states: To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new building is located unless, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and/or width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Structures at the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to structures in the adjoining blocks. The historic district is comprised of one story Ranch style residences, some with walk-out basements. The height and scale of the proposed buildings are not compatible with that of the historic district. Transitioning from one and two story apartment buildings, at points closest to the historic district and then to three stories moving west, would ensure compliance with this subsection. Additionally, the proposed project should utilize landscaping features such as open space, wildlife areas, and mature trees, which is typified in the adjacent historic district, to both define the edge of the site while at the same time maintaining continuity with the overall character of the historic district. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 3.4.7 (F)(2) states: New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. Characteristic of Ranch style architecture, roof planes in the historic district - which are major character-defining features of the homes - have low slopes with broad overhangs that often cantilever and have clearstories. To strengthen visual ties among the new construction and buildings within the historic district, roof forms of the apartment buildings should better relate to those of the neighboring Ranch style residences through the use of clearstories and/or steps in ridges at various elevations to help visually decrease the length of the overall ridge. Furthermore, the majority of roofs in the historic district feature intersecting and cross gable elements with flat or shed roof that define entry ways. Adding such elements to the proposed apartment buildings would help strengthen visual ties to the adjacent historic district. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: The architecture of the historic district was designed to create a relationship between the indoors and outdoors through the use of awnings and other shading devices, glass sliding doors, groupings of windows, and corner windows. The proposed apartment buildings appear to lack this relationship between indoors and outdoors. Design elements such as window expanses, canopies and roof overhangs will strengthen this relation between buildings and their site, which is an important character-defining feature of the historic district. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Like the previous comments (in relation to LUC 3.4.7(F)(2), windows and window patterns are a major character-defining feature of buildings in the historic district. Window sized and spacing in the historic district is often irregular - corner windows are common, along with floor-to-ceiling windows. Multiple door and door-sized windows are combined to form glass walls. Casement type windows are most common in the historic district. Repetition of such variable window sizing and irregular window patterning (particularly the use of casements and iconic floor-to-ceiling windows) in the proposed apartment buildings would strengthen the visual ties between the new construction and the buildings of the historic district. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 3.4.7 (F)(3) states: The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. The building materials of the historic district consist of board and batten siding, glass blocks, lap siding, stucco, native sandstone and other decorative masonry. Stucco appears to be the predominant material on the proposed apartment buildings, rather than the varied materials that are dominant in the adjacent historic district. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: An off-site easement on the existing Landmark Apartments site may be required. Response: OK Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: Light & Power will need to install an underground power line across the wetland area. Response: OK Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: Some Water and Sewer main locations will need to be adjusted to provide space for power lines and transformers. A utility coordination meeting is highly recommended. Please contact Doug Martine in Light & Power Engineering (970-224-6152) with any questions. Response: OK, see civil plans. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS Fire lanes are required. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width (except where 30 foot is required) & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. > Required turning radii for fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D Response: OK, proposing a compacted road base with gravel topping, see landscape plan for material call out. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: BUILDINGS THREE OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT For structures three stories or more in height; required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. The fire lane shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D > As such, proposed buildings 1 & 2 are currently out of access. Fire lane access to buildings 3, 4, & 5 shall be increased to 30 foot width. Response: Building eave height is less than 30’. So the fire lanes stayed 24’ wide. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM Required automatic fire sprinkler systems are reviewed under a separate permit. Response: OK Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 Response: OK Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION An addressing plan shall be provided to PFA for review and approval. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Response: OK. The address will be the same as the existing landmark apartments, 1050 Hobbit Street. The buildings will continue the numbering system of landmark. A monument sign with a site map calling out the buildings letters will be located at the end of Hobbit Street Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 12/21/2012: 1. Please address all the red line comments on the plat, site plan, and construction drawings. and the preliminary drainage report. 2. A pedestrian bridge is shown in the landscape plan, but not on the grading or drainage plan. The bridge needs to either pass the entire 100-year flow under the bridge, or it needs to be a breakaway bridge. Document the flows and the capacity under the bridge, provide the 100-year water levels in a profile view of the bridge, provide detail drawings showing the location of footings, the 100-year floodway and floodplain boundaries, provide details of how it will breakaway (if that option is chosen). 3. In the drainage report, please note that the site is in the Canal Importation Basin, and the channel which crosses the site contains a City-regulated 100-year floodway and flood fringe. In addition, the same channel is within a FEMA regulatory flood fringe in the Spring Creek Basin. 4. Use the check list provided in the City’s Floodplain Review Checklist – 100% Development Review Submittals, under Drainage Report to guide you in what needs to be included in the final drainage report. The checklist can be found on the City’s website at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents. Response: OK, bridge will be shown and designed to meet 100 year flood elevations. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012 12/21/2012: In order for this Development to not include quantity detention, the Developer needs to prove that the drainage from the site is in fact beating the peak of the regional flows. The analyses needs to evaluate any downstream storage and conveyance elements to ensure that the storage and outflows are not affected by the additional developed condition runoff . Also, any Master Plan downstream facilities would also need to be evaluated due to the assumption in the Master Plans that all upstream properties have 2-year existing condition detention. Response: OK Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Please correct the sheet numbering in this plan set. Response: OK Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Response: OK Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet L2.01. Response: OK Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Is all of the text needed? It really makes the plan busy. Response: OK, will eliminate some text Topic: Plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: The boundaries & legal descriptions closes. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: There are bearings & delta angles in the legal description and line & curve tables that do not match the Young's Creek Plat. Either change to match, or show record & measured. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Please add the Subdivision Plat name to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add "by" and "as" to the Owner signature block. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add the Lienholders signature block. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add a note listing the proposed usage & ownership and who will maintain Tracts A, B & C. (Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(e)) Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add a note vacating the easements and building envelopes shown on Young's Creek. (Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(i)) Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please provide current monument records for the public land corners shown. (Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(v)) Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please change the bearing directions to be consistently clockwise or counter-clockwise for the boundary. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add an access easement is needed along the west side of the property. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add a pedestrian easement across the 90' drainage easement. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: The vacation of the Hobbit Street right of way will need to take place prior to recording of the plat by Council action. Response: OK. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please change the Note Regarding Hobbit Street Right Of Way, to include the additional language as marked. See redlines. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. (Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(q)) Response: OK, no new ROWs. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please double-check the acreage for the parcels. Response: OK. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/24/2012 12/24/2012: Please change the sheet numbering to 1 of 1. Response: OK, will update. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: Please add a legal description of the property. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012 12/19/2012: There are line over text issues. Response: OK, will update. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: The capacity of the 6" sewer to the point of connection to the 18" trunk line will be evaluated to determine if there is capacity for an additional 84 units. It may be necessary to utilize the 8" sewer in Hobbit. Response: OK. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: The 1" water services are not adequate for 12-unit buildings. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: Add an overall utility plan which shows the entire site on one sheet. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: The water main needs to be looped; however, the location to the east of Bldg 5 is problematic from the standpoint of maintenance and the proximity to the detention or water quality pond. In addition, the water main will preclude trees from being placed to the east of Bldg 5. Response: OK, will update. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012 12/18/2012: Make the water/sewer lines more visible on the landscape plan and adjust plantings to provide the minimum separation distances. Response: OK, will update.