Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAX FLATS - PDP/FDP - FDP130008 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 08, 2013 Dave Derbes Brinkman Development, LLC 3003 E. Harmony Rd., Ste. 300 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Max Flats, PDP120034, Round Number 2 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: 12/28/2012 The elevation has been updated with added detail, including extending the ground-face masonry “wainscot” throughout the brick areas, addition of cast stone sills and steel lintels at windows, reintroduction of the green screen behind the MAX BRT stop, and addition of benches along the Mason Street façade. More recent revisions include changing the upper portion of the masonry elements on either side of the residents’ entry from ground-face masonry to brick and providing two colors of ground-face masonry at the stair towers. These changes will further enhance the wainscot effect along the Mason Street façade. 03/01/2013: Much of the east elevation where the building meets the ground is stark cement to cement. Foundation plantings, planter boxes, seat walls or a combination there of would help meet the standards in 3.10.4 and 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). The base level should be more prominent by utilizing accent elements such as a cornice, window sills and lintels, pilasters etc... Some elements, such as the stair wells, provide a strong vertical element but these should be used sparingly. 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 modification 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. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 Sections have now been provided to illustrate the articulation. Furthermore, we have recently added t “Juliet” balconies to units on the 5th floor. 03/01/2013: The west and south elevations have not provided sections that illustrate the articulation. Please show how you meet the standards in 3.5.3 on these sides of the building. 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 Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 Shadows were removed from the adjacent buildings so as not to confuse shadows cast from this building with those cast by the neighboring buildings. By doing that, we inadvertently removed shadows on the roofs of the adjacent buildings. We have re-cast the shadows showing shadows cast by both buildings. We have also added 3D views showing shadows at 10:00AM on each of the three dates, illustrating the extent of the shadow cast on the neighboring buildings. Note that in all cases, shadows cast by the subject building are clear of the adjacent buildings by 10:30-10:45AM. Also note that the analysis is based on the requirements of 3.5.1(G), which specifies only a 3-month timeframe (not times of day). The analysis does not address requirements of 3.2.3, since that section specifically exempts projects in the C-C District. 03/01/2013: The shadow analysis does not show the shadows upon the adjacent structures. Please ensure an accurate shadow analysis. 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). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 The material board has been updated for final selections as presented at the P&Z hearing. Note that the metal panel has been removed from the project. Planting at the “green walls” will be irrigated. Plants selected are honeysuckle coral on the east facing façade and English ivy at the north-facing plaza. Both these plants are evergreen, providing green color throughout the year. The honeysuckle has a reddish-yellow flower that blooms in mid-spring and then sporadically throughout the growing season. 03/01/2013: Thank you for the material board. Notably omitted is the metal panel. Please provide. Please provide more information about the green walls: how will they be irrigated and maintained? What plant material is proposed to be used? What will it look like in the winter? 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. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 Floodplain comments and resolution/approach have been discussed with Mark Taylor. To further explain the flood-proofing strategy and respond to questions noted on the drawings: The strategy for the retail space is to flood-proof via doors. The back door will be a “steel flood door” as manufactured by Savannah Trims (or equal), which will be flood-proof. The front door is an aluminum/glass door that is listed as being “flood-resistant”, allowing 17 gal/hr of seepage when tested under 60” of water. Per FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93, acceptable seepage is an accumulation of up to 4” of water over 24 hours. By calculation, 24x17=408 gal/day. 408 gallons translates to 54.5 cu. ft., which is .04’ (or less than 1/2”) over 1466 sq. ft. of the retail floor area. FEMA requires a sump pump and flood-resistant materials when such seepage is anticipated - both of which we will provide. All exterior walls of the retail will be waterproofed to a height of 3’. All other areas will have flood-resistant materials to a height of 3’ per FEMA Technical Bulletin 2 as noted on the Site Plan and Flood-Proofing Notes on sheet PDP 3. All other comments have been addressed. 03/06/2013: Floodplain comments forthcoming. They are expected by Friday (3/8/13). Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013 All areas at the northeast corner are either planting or plaza. The revised site plan clarifies this by indicating paving patterns and furnishings. 03/01/2013: There is a blank area near the northeast corner of the building. What is this and why is there not landscaping here? Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2013 Paving is to be concrete scored in a 2’x2’ pattern. A strip from the Mason Street Sidewalk to the retail entry will be scored in a 1’x1’ pattern for emphasis and to help delineate seating areas vs. the primary walking area. Plaza amenities will include: seat walls, and tables and chairs. “Art in Public Places” and/or an outdoor piano are other potential amenities (specifics to be determined). 03/01/2013: What material is proposed for the plaza? How will it be engaging for the public and provide amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks, or public art. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 The requested note has been added to the Utility Plans. 3/6/2013: Provide a note on the plans that all private bike parking shown in the right of way is subject to approval by separate document/agreement and is not approved by this plans. 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. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 This sheet has been revised accordingly. All sidewalk within the ROW shall be 6” thick. 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. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 Acknowledged. 3/6/2013: Thank you for the explanation of the overhangs and itemizing them out, it was very helpful for review and understanding. City Code section 23-8 speaks to overhangs and encroachments, additionally please contact Rob Mosbey in Engineering for the process of encroachment easements and permits, 213-8537. 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. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 Since the ash tree is now to remain and be protected, the parkway pavers have been shifted east of the horse chestnut tree. The sidewalk has been upsized to 10’ in width from the parkway pavers to the transformer to allow sufficient access for Light & Power line trucks. 03/06/2013: Light and power is requesting some sort of hard surface off of Mulberry to access their transformer pad. The request mentioned pavers, it should be noted that concrete pavers with in the right of way will need to be constructed to full standards and can not just be placed on the top soil. Engineering may be willing to consider concrete pad in lieu of pavers. Topic: General Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 The concrete pad is drawn to scale per Light & Power’s specifications, and is located outside of the ROW. 03/06/2013: Sheet C300 - The concrete pad for the transformer is required to be a specific size to meet light and powers standards. Please ensure that this pad does not encroach into right of way. In the event that Mulberry is widened the sidewalk will be pushed to right of way and this pad should not interfere with the walk. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 Due to the height of the existing curb, there will not be “ramps” at this BRT platform. The platform and sidewalk elevations can tie-in at gentle slopes less than 5%. 3/6/2013: It appears that the Bus Station is well coordinated on these plans. Please consider how the ramps of the bus station, proximity of the building and bike racks interface and the accessibility. 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. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 These are cut sandstone seat boulders (see landscape plan). We presume that they will require an encroachment permit. 03/06/2013: There is a concrete pad along Mulberry that is shown on the site plan with little square blocks. What are these? Do they require an encroachment permit? Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 The variance request letter has been provided with the Final Plan application. 3/6/2013: Revised variance request at final is acceptable. Thank you. 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. 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. 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. Previously revised 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. Previously revised 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. Previously revised 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. Previously revised 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 Canopy trees have been added at 40’ OC in lieu of the columnar spruce trees 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. Previously revised 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. Previously revised 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". Previously revised 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. Additional site meetings and discussions have occurred since this comment was first written. The Utility Plans have been revised accordingly. . Since the ash tree is now to remain and be protected, the parkway pavers have been shifted east of the horse chestnut tree. The sidewalk has been upsized to 10’ in width from the parkway pavers to the transformer to allow sufficient access for Light & Power trucks. 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? The plans have been modified to utilize boring to full extent feasible. The referenced notes are included and have been utilized for guidance, but cannot be fully met in all instances. The emphasis has been placed on preserving the Horse Chestnut. The installation of the fire hydrant will require limited open trenching. 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. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Trees are shown along the parking lot side perimeter area but do not appear to be at the standard of 1 tree per 40 lineal feet. Review and add trees to meet standard. LUC 3.2.1 E 4 Canopy trees have been added at 40’ OC in lieu of the columnar spruce trees Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 Updated Utility Plans have been provided with the Final Plan application. Sandy Lindell and/or Seth Lorson can help ensure that Forestry receives a copy. 03/06/2013: Forestry did not receive a utility plan. We would like to review the utility line placement in reference to the two existing trees along Mulberry to be retained with lines located and the associated notes for coring under root system before final approval. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Please provide information and contact City Forester about the subsurface grass paver system in reference to the need to install and the impact to the root system of the existing City ash tree to retain in the parkway on Mulberry. Only minor excavation near the trunk could occur. A detail of placement around the tree is needed. Since the ash tree is now to remain and be protected, the parkway pavers have been shifted east of the horse chestnut tree. The sidewalk has been upsized to 10’ in width from the parkway pavers to the transformer to allow sufficient access for Light & Power line trucks. See note 27 landscape plan. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013 Acknowledged. 02/26/2013: After the plan is final, please send an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the utility plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. 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. 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. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 01/01/2013 The FDC location and new hydrant are shown on both the Site Plan and Utility Plan. 01/01/2013: HYDRANT & FDC Proposed locations for the fire department connection and new hydrant are not identified on the plans. 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 Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 This issue has been resolved between the City and PFA. No parking signage will be provided. 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. Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-416-2864, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013 There will be no parking along the entire Mason Street frontage (±300’). 02/28/2013: Currently, the PDP Site Plan indicates Emergency Access footprint located on Mason Street with dimensions of 20 x 50. PFA requests this footprint be extended another 100 feet north for a final dimension for emergency access of 20 x 150 feet parallel to existing curb. Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013 The FDC location and new hydrant are shown on both the Site Plan and Utility Plan. 02/28/2013: The fire department connection cannnot be located on the Mulberry side of the edifice; or it shall be relocated via a remote FDC to be relocated 40 feet south of the intersection of W.Mulberry and Mason Street on the Mason Street side. This will be protected with "NOPARKING" signage for a total length of 20 feet (10 ft from center line of FDC both directions). Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013 All parking is above grade with openings (considered an open parking garage by IBC & IFC). However, we are presuming that we will still be required to sprinkler the garage per IBC 903.2.8 and NFPA 13. 02/28/2013: If the parking garage below grade has no openings, fire sprinklers are required Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 An Erosion Control Plan & Report have been provided with the Final Plan submittal. 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 Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/07/2013 Resolved. 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. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013 03/08/2013: See returned redliens for any applicable responsese/clarification. 1. Please make the changes called out in red lined comments on the Drainage Report, the Plat, the Utility Plan Set and the PDP Plan Set. Acknowledged. Thank you. 2. The comments on the drainage report became rather cluttered, so make sure and call if help is needed interpreting what I wrote. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 Acknowledged. 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. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 03/04/2013: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 Line over text issues have been corrected. 03/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet C100. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 Text over text issue has been corrected. 03/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet C400. Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 This has been corrected. 03/04/2013: The index on sheet PDP1 shows the Photometrics Plans as sheets PDP10 & PDP11, but the actual sheets are numbered PDP11 & PDP12. Please correct this discrepancy. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 See comment above. 03/04/2013: There is no sheet PDP10. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 03/04/2013: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 This has been corrected. 03/06/2013: Sheets PDP11 & PDP12 are numbered differently than the index on sheet PDP1. It shows the Photometrics Plans as sheets PDP10 & PDP11. Please correct this discrepancy. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 This has been corrected. 03/04/2013: The title in the top right corner of the sheet is cut off. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 A legal description has been added. 03/04/2013: Please add a legal description to sheet PDP1. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 The requested dimension has been added to the plans. 03/07/2013: Thank you for the inclusion of the BNSF barrier curb. Please add the requested flowline to flowline (curb face - curb face) dimension, or you could provide a detail in your Detail sheets providing the dimension. 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. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 Acknowledged. 03/04/2013: Regarding PFA's comment about extending the size of the Emergency Access Easement, there are no concerns from Transfort if this extends in to the location that the MAX BRT bus may travel. In the unfortunate event of an emergency we would likely detour around this site. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 Acknowledge. You’re welcome. 03/04/2013: Thank you for making sure the path behind the MAX station is the ADA accessible minimum width of 4'. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 The requested cleanouts and notes have been added. 03/06/2013: Show the clean-outs on the 6" sewer service. Label as "traffic-rated" in all paved areas. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 The notes have been revised, per the redlines. 03/06/2013: Revise the notes on the water service and fire line as shown on the redlined plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 The detail has been removed. 03/06/2013: The Water Standard Detail 18 is not needed. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: The location of the meter vault on the landscape plan does not coincide with the civil plans. Please coordinate. Landscape plan has been updated with current proposed utilities. No landscaping will be planted on top of vault Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 02/28/2013: On the modification request please indicate exact number of bicycle spaces that are in the ROW. Also in addtion to the 1 space per bedroom the code requires a minimum of 4 spaces with a 20%/80% split for the retail. Please adjust plans and modification on the number that is requried. Previously revised 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. Previously revised Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 The photometric plan has been revised to show a minimum of1.0 foot-candle (average) for the parking area. The parking area has been segregated from the remainder of the site for an accurate calculation. 02/28/2013: The minimum foot-candle for the parking area is 1. It is unclear at this time if the average foot candle as indicated is only for the parking area or for all of the photometric site plan. The photometric site will need to be revised illustrating the 1 foot candle average for the parking area. If this average cannot be achieved than a request for alternative compliance is needed. 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. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 02/28/2013: There is a large portion of parking lot landscaping that on the plans is stated to be interior landscaping that is incorrect. The portion of landscaping that is required for a landscape setback can not be considered interior landscaping. This means the first 15 from the property along Mason St is still perimeter landscaping. Which makes this project deficient interior landscaping. Previously addressed LUC 3.2.1(E)(5) Now that there is 16 parking spaces along the west property there is requirement for a landscape island that is at least 80 sq ft and 8ft in width which contains a canopy tree. Previously addressed. 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. Previously addressed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 The note regarding painting has been added as requested. The views on sheet PDP10 show that rooftop mechanical equipment is adequately screened by the parapet walls. As such, no additional screening is being provided. 02/28/2013: On the elevations notes 15.2, 15.3 and 16.1 need to include that such equipment will be painted to match portion of building it is adjacent to. The rooftop Mechanical equipment will need a sufficient sized screen wall on all four sides. The distance they should not be seen is roughly one city block away from the property line or approximately 550 ft. Screening for the transformer will meet the following: require a minimum of 3¿ of clearance on the east, west, and south sides of the pad to any obstruction such as a wall or fence. The front (north) side will need a minimum of 8¿ of unobstructed clearance. The transformer can be fenced in, but the fence will need to provide these clearances and be a type that will allow for air movement (such as a shadow box fence) as the transformer is an air cooled device. A fence in front of the transformer can have a gate that is 3¿ from the pad as long as it has a full width gate that when open provides the 8¿ of clearance. 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. 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.