HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT STATION - PDP - PDP130004 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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
March 08, 2013
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Prospect Station, PDP130004, 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, Seth Lorson, at 970 224 6189 or
slorson@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970 224 6189, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013
03/01/2013: The north elevation along the parking structure, without the 60% glazing, is required to mitigate
with "ample, enhanced architectural features such as a change in massing or materials, enhanced
landscaping, trellises, archades or shallow display window cases." (Sec. 3.10.5(G) It appears that this
standards may be met with the proposal but it is difficult to tell how the landscaping will integrate with the
building. Will trellises be included with the accent architecture?
RESPONSE: Enhanced architectural features have been included in the design with changes in materials
and massing including two colors of stucco, two colors of brick with banding details, and painted siding. Steel
trellises have been included to designate areas for future public art opportunities and added depth to the
facade. A public plaza is designed to extend the full length of the north elevation that integrates landscaping
and public space with the enhanced architectural features as depicted in the visual analysis on sheet 'A7'.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013
03/01/2013: The south elevation is required to carry the brick base element around this side. Additionally, the
upper floors have large expanses of blank stucco walls. This building face is prominent along the Mason Trail.
Is there a reason for not having windows and/or balconies along the sunniest side of the building? Would it be
desirable to move the building to the north to allow room for windows on the south side? Please provide
greater architectural detail and articulation.
RESPONSE: The brick base has been extended along the south facade and windows that comply with
building code requirements have been included.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013
03/01/2013: Bicycle parking is meeting the standards. However the chart on pg A2 and the corresponding
narrative are incorrect. The chart shows 9 2 bedroom units but there are actually 10. The narrative shows 59
total bedrooms but there are actually 69. Please correct for revisions. FYI The most recent bicycle
standards can be found at 3.2.2(C)(4).
RESPONSE: The chart on page A2 and the Building and Land Use Data Tables now match.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013
03/01/2013: Planter boxes or some landscaping at the entrance/exit to the parking garage is required per
3.10.4(D)(c).
RESPONSE: Low walls were located on each side of the entry to indicate a vehicle crossing. Walls have been
adjusted according to the adjusted proximity to the easement.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013
03/01/2013: The proximity to the Mason Trail is a little too close to accommodate the through traffic for the
trail. Please provide a bit more space with a combination of hard and soft scape to allow for the activity from
the live work units and the retail. This comment should correspond to engineering's comment regarding
vacating the easement.
RESPONSE: The building has been shifted to be located approximately 6 feet off of the trail. We also added
a landing from the one live-work unit to provide a safe refuge area.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970 221 6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Sheet 2 Please add additional callouts to what utilities are being removed, replaced and
relocated to add some clarity to the plan.
RESPONSE: Additional notes have been added to the plan regarding utilities.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Sheet 3 Letter of intent will be required from the adjacent property owner prior to hearing for
emergency access easement, parking lot improvements, fire line, grading, etc. This letter will need to be
recorded to reference the property or in lieu of a letter we would accept a temporary construction easement.
RESPONSE: Noted – this letter is not yet available but will be prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Sheet 3 Please include easement on the plat and plans for the Transfort Bus pad that exists
behind the right of way.
RESPONSE: Transit Easement has been added.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Sheet 3 Bike parking is not allowed within the public right of way. Please remove the bicycle
parking from this sheet.
RESPONSE: This has been moved closer to the bus stop, but still in the ROW. Can we get an encroachment
permit for this?
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Sheet 4 Discussions with Transportation Staff and planning has raised concerns with the
buildings close proximity to the Mason Trail for safety and maintenance. Furthermore, staff did not support the
public trail to be used as the access to the private property along this frontage.
RESPONSE: The building has been moved west and less easement proposed to be vacated. We also added
a landing from the one live-work unit to provide a safe refuge area.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: The Mason Trail Easement vacation is cited within the easement and deed agreement for Rec. #
20090061268. City of Fort Collins would like to proceed with the Modification of easement as per paragraph
10 of this agreement, however in order to achieve the "purpose and use" of the easement to install, operate,
maintain, repair, reconstruct, replace, inspect and remove the trail we will need to reserve a 6' portion of the
easement on the west side of the trail.
RESPONSE: The building has been moved west and less easement proposed to be vacated.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013
03/05/2013: Sheet 3 Some consideration should be taken into vacating portions of the existing easement
on lot 1. Specifically the Access and emergency access easement portions that will now have the parking and
sidewalk improvements included inside of them.
RESPONSE: It is now noted that we will propose to vacate the access portion of this easement (west edge).
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013
03/05/2013: Sheet 4 Provide a note at the trail crossing onto Prospect that the site contractor will need to
tie to and match existing. This is due to construction occurring currently on MAX and some grades may not
reflect in the field what is shown on these plans.
RESPONSE: The note has been added to the grading plan.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
02/28/2013: A letter of understanding will be required from the property owners to the south stating that they
are aware of the proposed portion of Tamasag easement vacation and do not take issue to the impact on their
property.
RESPONSE: Noted – this letter is not yet available but will be prior to hearing.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013
03/05/2013: The Mason Trail Easement vacation is cited within the easement and deed agreement for Rec. #
20090061268. City of Fort Collins would like to proceed with the Modification of easement as per paragraph
10 of this agreement, however in order to achieve the "purpose and use" of the easement to install, operate,
maintain, repair, reconstruct, replace, inspect and remove the trail we will need to reserve a 6' portion of the
easement on the west side of the trail.
RESPONSE: The building has been moved west and less easement proposed to be vacated.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013
03/05/2013: Easement should be included for the Max Bus Station. This will be a transit easement and
specific language may need to be added to the plat for what is included in a transit easement.
RESPONSE: Transit Easement has been added.
Topic: Reports Soils, Subdrain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
02/28/2013: Please contact Tom Knostman for additional information, 970 221 6576. Please supply a
pavement design for the bus stop in Public Right of Way on Prospect. Please provide a copy of oils/pavement
design report on next submittal to Tom Knostman.
RESPONSE: We have a call to Tom to discuss whether or not the 10” section on the detail would be
adequate.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Street trees along Prospect need to be located so that they will work with in the "future" parkway.
A note or callout may need to be added to the landscape drawings to delineate their location and ensure they
won't need to be removed when prospect is widened.
RESPONSE: Existing trees along Prospect will be protected. No new Street trees are proposed.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970 224 6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/21/2013
02/21/2013: No comments.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970 221 6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Contact the City Forester for an on site meeting to review existing trees and any need to provide
mitigation and the need to provide identification, condition assessment and size.
RESPONSE: Existing trees are indentified numerically with Flag Notes. These reference a schedule on the
landscape plan. A site visit with the City Forester will be scheduled to review existing trees
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013:
Existing trees to retain along Prospect need to be labeled as to species. The curb for the proposed Transfort
pull out appears to be close to an existing tree and may impact the root system. Review the curbs placement
with City Forester at the on site meeting.
RESPONSE: A site visit with the City Forester will be scheduled to review existing street trees
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970 221 6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2013
The proposed plans appear to not have an adverse impact on the adjacent building, 303 West Prospect, that
has been determined individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. The open parking areas
to the west and south serve as a buffer between the proposed project and the historic building, which
maintains a historic view corridor, and preserves the spatial relationships and character of the historic building
and surrounding area, thus ensuring compliance with LUC 3.4.7.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970 224 6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013
02/19/2013: The building height of 4 stories typically triggers the need for a fire buster pump, which will likely
need 3 phase power. Please coordinate power and special metering requirements with Light & Power
Engineering (970)221 6700.
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013
02/19/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and transformer location with Light &
Power Engineering. The electric transformer pad must be a minimum of 2 feet from any sidewalk. A
Commercial Service Information (C 1) form will be needed for all non residential services.
RESPONSE: Noted
02/19/2013: After the plans are final, a 1 line diagram of the electric service(s) will need to be provided to
Light & Power Engineering.
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013
02/19/2013: An off site utility easement adjacent to Prospect Rd. along the front of the adjacent property to
the west may be required to bring 3 phase power to the site.
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013
02/19/2013: After the plans are final, an Autocad drawing (version 2008) of the utility plan will need to be sent
to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
RESPONSE: Noted
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970 416 2869, jlynxwiler@poudre fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: GROUP S 2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS An automatic sprinkler
system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S 2 occupancy)
in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages
located beneath Group R3 occupancies. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: 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
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM - Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and
structures in accordance with Section 905 or the 2006 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems
shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet
above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located
more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be
capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approve fire pump may be required
to achieve this minimum pressure. 2006 International Fire Code Sections 905 and 913
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: FDC - Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire
department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the
street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire
department. 2006 International Fire Code 912.2
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: ROOF ACCESS - New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway
to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be
marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. 2006
International Fire Code 504.3
RESPONSE: Noted, the east stair extends to the mechanical well on the roof.
Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: 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: Noted
Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 02/20/2013
02/20/2013: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION - New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. 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: Noted
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970 218 2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: 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
RESPONSE: Noted – we will prepare at final.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970 416 2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: The site is not meeting the City's water quality mitigation requirements as proposed. Please add
a bio retention facility to treat as much drainage as physically possible per our phone conversation on
March 7, 2013. This treatment in addition to the snouts in both inlets will be acceptable treatment for this site.
Please add a variance request in the drainage report stating the site will not be meeting the full water quality
volume requirement, but is doing these methods in lieu.
RESPONSE: We have regraded the site so that all of the pavement will get to a new rain garden. We have a
second rain garden to pick up as much roof drainage as possible. We have changed the drainage scheme,
and now only have a single “SNOUT” inlet in the junction manhole.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: The storm sewer hydraulic model submitted to illustrate the storm sewer outfall can
accommodate this sites drainage has been approved.
RESPONSE: Noted
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970 221 6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Add an "s" to the title of sheets A3 & A5 to be consistent with the index on the Site Plan.
RESPONSE: Titles have been updated.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 4.
RESPONSE: This has been resolved.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet L2.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The 15' utility & drainage easement does not match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat shows this
easement as a 20'.
RESPONSE: The easement should be 15’ on all sheets.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please add a north arrow to sheet E1.
RESPONSE: North arrow added
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The boundary and legal description close.
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please change "person" to "persons" in the Statement Of Ownership And
Subdivision.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add the current lienholder signature block.
RESPONSE: There are no lienholders at this time.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Do you want to add a newer title commitment?
RESPONSE: Not at this time.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please show the platted and unplatted parcels on the north side of Prospect Road.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please provide current monument records for the public land corners shown for control.
RESPONSE: These will be submitted directly to Jeff and John.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on this sheet.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please provide the reception numbers for the easements shown to be vacated by separate
document.
RESPONSE: This will be done after the documents are created and recorded – not prior to PDP.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: There is a partial symbol along the south boundary. What is it? See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The 15' utility & drainage easement does not match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat shows this
easement as a 20'.
RESPONSE: The label has been changed to 20’.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970 221 6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: Traffic Op's has concerns with the proximity of some of the buildings rear accesses and bike
racks to the Mason Trail. Traffic also has concerns with the lack of a separate walkway serving the buildings
rear accesses. For best safety and quality of use the Trail should have clear space along its edges just as
streets are designed to have clear space and sidewalks have setbacks to fences and other objects. Traffic
believes there needs to be more separation between the Trail and the proposed facilities on the project.
RESPONSE: The building has been shifted to be located approximately 6 feet off of the trail. We also added
a landing from the one live-work unit to provide a safe refuge area.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/07/2013: It was requested that a right turn lane analysis be performed. A short range analysis or discussion
of a short range analysis is not found. It is seen that the short term geometry does not include an east bound
right turn lane which implies that an analysis was conducted. Please provide an addendum providing that
short range right turn lane analysis.
RESPONSE: An addendum was prepared and emailed to Ward on March 9. We have provided additional
hard copies with the resubmittal.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970 224 6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Thank you for including a pullout as we discussed in the conceptual review for this project. The
size looks to be as we discussed. Can you please do one final verification by testing the pullout size with a
turning template for a 40' bus at the speed of Prospect at this location? Please contact myself and/or Ward
Stanford for questions on this.
RESPONSE: The turn can be made easily, but autoturn does not calculate stopping distance.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013
03/04/2013: Please include the crosswalk across Prospect for the trail on your site plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed cross walk has been added.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Aaron Iverson, aiverson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The TIS for Prospect Station concludes that the Pedestrian LOS cannot be achieved for two
criteria. We will need to have more information about the specific reasons the Ped LOS cannot be achieved,
and what would be needed to meet the standard. The way it is left in the TIS provides no recommendations or
mitigation. We need more information so that we can decide whether or not this project needs to make off
site improvements to meet the LOS standard.
RESPONSE: For the continuity standard, we are meeting this along our property frontage with a new 6’
detached sidewalk. The existing sidewalk along Prospect is attached. It is not possible to improve property
we don’t’ own to construct detached sidewalks. In addition, we are not meeting the LOS standard for
accessing the residential neighborhood to the east because you have a cross 8 lanes at College Avenue. The
median is too narrow to provide a pedestrian refuge area.
Department: Water Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970 221 6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/07/2013: The first submittal looks generally good. With the effort to stub utilities out of Prospect during the
road closure and with the shifting of the building to the west, detailed comments will be provided with the
"interim" utility plans and with the second round of review.
RESPONSE: Noted
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970 416 2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/27/2013
02/27/2013: The bicyclist on the building are considered signage. Signage is a not approved through the
PDP/FP process. Signs and their locations are approved through separate sign permits. Please remove
these from the elevations plans.
RESPONSE: Noted, locations have been identified as public art.
At this time it cannot be determined if the Clock on the building is considered a sign. Please provided greater
detail of the clock face. If it is considered a sign the above statement applies to the clock also.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/27/2013
02/27/2013: LUC 3.5.1(I) Mechanical/utility equipment (vents, flues, rtu, meters, boxes, conduit...) locations
need to be identified on the plans with notes on how such equipment is screen/painted.
RESPONSE: Mechanical well on the roof has been dashed on elevations per keynote #13. Note added to for
all penetrations, meters, conduit, boxes, flues and vents to be painted to match roof material.
How is the transformer screened? Can the transformer be located closer to the building behind a wall or
screening fence?
RESPONSE: Transformer has been shifted south as far as possible based on adjacent utilities.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/27/2013
02/27/2013: The bicycle parking located in the public ROW can not be used to comply with required bicycle
parking spaces.
RESPONSE: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2013
02/27/2013: LUC 3.2.2(L) Compact spaces are only allowed in Long term parking areas and are limited to
40% of the total spaces of such area. The proposed plans exceed this 40% and will require a modification to
the standard. In addition the compact spaces will need to be designated by a sign that they are reserved only
for residents or employees.
RESPONSE: On the previous site plan, we had accidently labeled some standard spaces as compact. The
revised site plan has 11 compact spaces, which do not exceed the 40% maximum.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
02/28/2013: LUC 3.8.30(C) At least 90% of the dwellings shall be located within 1320 ft. of a public park or a
private park that is 10,000 sq. ft. in size and publicly accessed. Please Identify on the plans how this being
met, there seems to be two public parks near by, High School Park and Creek Side Park, applicant will need
to verify if they meet the standard.
RESPONSE: The proposed building is located within 1320 feet of High School Park and 1530 feet of
Creekside Park so it looks like we are meeting the standard
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
02/28/2013: Light fixtures labeled CC and FF are uplighting. It is unclear why the same desired effect could
not be achieved with downlighting. This may require alternative compliance for section 3.2.4
RESPONSE: Fixture CC is a full cut-off downlight fixture without upward distribution. Fixture FF is installed on
the underside of steel canopies and will be used for a downward wall wash at public art locations.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
02/28/2013: LUC 3.5.1(G) All structures over 40ft in height require a special height review that requires both a
shadow and visual analysis (see section for details).
RESPONSE: Noted, Sheet A6 'Shadow Analysis' and sheet A7 'Visual Analysis' have been added to the set.