Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - FDP - FDP130015 - 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 October 09, 2012 RE: River District Block One Mixed Use - Encompass, PDP120020, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970- 221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 08/15/2012: Carried Over: Thank you for considering dimming the light fixtures but the time frame described as two hours after normal business hours is vague. For example, a bar/restaurant is allowed to stay open to 2:00 a.m. meanng the lights can stay fully illuminated to 4:00 a.m. This is intrusive for the residential tenants. It appears that a conflict between the bar/restaurant and the residential tenants is being built in without consideration of the impacts. Issues related to exhaust fans, vents, outdoor condensing units, restaurant loading, deck lighting, etc., while probably best addressed at Final, do not seem to be taken into account. (Note, we have received complaints from downtown residents regarding outdoor patio noise from bars and restaurants.) As proposed, the response to this comment remains unresloved. For the parking lot, has any consideration been given to dimming the lighting levels after a certain hour? For example, could lighting be reduced by one-half after 10:00 p.m.? Again, consideration for both the river habitat and the residents should be factor in reducing unnecessary lighting after a specified time. RB+B Response: The current site photometric drawings are in accordance with the City of Fort Collins lighting standards. The current City standards specify a minimum lighting level for parking and building surrounds to be 1FC minimum. To achieve the 1FC minimum, the average illumination over the parking areas will usually be in the 2-3FC range. Parking lot poles are specified to be 15’ tall with full cut-off architectural fixtures with 100W or 150W metal halide lamping. Building mounted fixtures are wall mount versions of the parking fixtures with 70W or 100W MH lamping. The Illuminating Engineering Society recommends lighting levels to be 0.5FC minimum for enhanced security in parking areas with a maximum to minimum illuminance ratio of 15:1. We would suggest that the City utilize the IES recommended levels if they want reduced light levels at the Block One site. A lighting control system is provided to automatically control all site fixtures. The lighting controls will be programmed to turn exterior fixtures on at dusk. Parking lot fixtures will be programmed to turn off at 10:00pm. The remaining exterior building mounted and site fixtures will be programmed to turn off at dawn. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/02/2012: Carried over as unresolved. BHA Response: Requested letters of intent have been provided to City of Fort Collins 08/08/2012: Prior to scheduling a public hearing for the project, a letter of intent is needed from the appropriate City department for the offsite drainage easement that is needed to the north of the site. Additionally, a letter of intent appears to be needed from Ranch-Way Inc. for the offsite grading and water line work shown on their property. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/02/2012: Carried over as unresolved at this time, subject to final determination in City upper management. BHA Response: From Marc Virata: “The City Manager finds that the encroachment should be treated as an easement, approved by City Council.” If approved by City Council, details to be worked out with Helen Matson. 08/08/2012: The various encroachments into right-of-way were elevated to the PDT (Planning Development and Transportation) Director Karen Cumbo, for discussion and her input. After evaluation of the plans submitted, including the updated building elevation set indicating the property line, it is the position of PDT that the amount and impact of the proposed encroachments onto Linden Street right-of-way factored with the site being a new construction without existing constraints, are more than what PDT would be able to rationalize as being permissible through an encroachment permit. PDT is unable to support the proposed encroachments as being permissible through an encroachment permit. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/02/2012: The response indicating that subsurface building elements are to be within the property lines is acknowledged. City staff may look to have this monumented in the development agreement. RB+B Response: Acknowledged. Please let us know if this will be a requirement. 08/08/2012: Will the building have subsurface items in the right-of-way such as exterior footings and/or perimeter drains that are not evident with the PDP submittal but would be part of the building plan submittal? Footings, perimeter drains, and other subsurface items should be placed outside of public right-of-way. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/02/2012: The response is acknowledged and will be looked at further at time of a final plan. NE Response: Noted, as agreed with Marc this will be explored in final design. 08/08/2012: With Linden Street's condition as a relatively brand new pavement roadway in conjunction with the Linden Street improvement project, the three street cuts shown will result in pavement impact fees with a triple penalty fee. It may be worth exploring the cost differential of the triple penalty fee vs. a mill and inlay of the full width street frontage as a potential option. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/02/2012: The response is acknowledged and will be looked at further at time of a final plan. NE Response: Noted, as agreed with Marc this will be addressed in final design. 08/08/2012: At the time of a final plan submittal, additional Linden Street design information will be needed for review to demonstrate that a proposed neckdown to the street still maintains a consistent cross slope for Linden Street while keeping the flowline grade sufficient. Linden Street spot elevations and/or cross sections would be needed to help verify this. Flowline curve radii should be provided to verify that street sweeping operation can reach the flowline throughout. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/02/2012 10/02/2012: The site plan shows that the City is an owner that signs off on the site plan. Is this solely for the areas identified as offsite along the river area? I'm questioning how the project development plan seems to show area outside of the property boundary (and subdivision plat) being part of the site plan's PDP. There does not seem to be an actual PDP boundary clearly defined on the site plan. There may be some concerns with how the PDP boundary will not match the platted boundary and in turn the development agreement is typically defined to only be legally bound to a platted boundary (unless the development agreement also adds part of the City area being worked on as being part of the boundary.) I think there should be more formal detailed discussion on how the project's boundary is represented and how it manifests itself in the subdivision plat and development agreement. BHA Response: We have better defined the land between Block One and the River by hatching it and labeling it ‘not a part’, and have removed the City’s signature block from the plans. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: Three siberian elms are proposed to be removed from this site plan. However, site has concerns that the removal of these trees could negatively affect the stability of the river bank. A 'best professional judgment' letter has been provided, via the ECS, that discusses the bank stability, but the applicants still need to provide additional evidence to meet Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code regarding the ability to withstand a 100-year flood event. In addition, the ECS should specifically highlight the habitat value of these three species, if any, to ensure that all habitat value on the site is either maintained or restored. BHA Response: Acknowledged – received approval on this item from Environmental Planning via 01/25/13 email. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 10/02/2012: On the graphic provided with the building illustrations, measurements are taken from the building edges to the top of bank, but the other plans, e.g,. the hydrozone plan indicates that the landscape buffer is much less. Please only provide these measurements for the areas that will be treated as a buffer zone, e.g., no lighting, native plantings, etc. 08/06/2012: A graphic will need to be provided that illustrates the varying distances proposed from top of bank to the edge of the development. In addition, please provide the metric for the total buffer area proposed. BHA Response: Acknowledged – received approval on this item from Environmental Planning via 01/25/13 email. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: Please add a note to the site, landscape and grading plans that states "Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the buffer zone." BHA Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 10/02/2012: This comment is kept active only as a reminder. BHA Response: Acknowledged 08/06/2012: Staff appreciates the long management implications outlined in the ECS. As the project proceeds through to construction (should it gain approval), staff will require a weed management plan and a landscape bond for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to ensure this area achieves its design objectives. Staff also cautions the applicant in selecting a landscaping company that is proficient in establishing and maintaining native landscapes to increase the site's success. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 10/02/2012: This revised plan is moving in the right direction. Is there a way to create an increased sense of enclosure along the building where it is closest to Linden so that there is increased structure on the west side, even if it is harder to achieve on the east where you are proposing to regrade the bank? Also, not all of the plants in the buffer zone are native - given the site's small buffer width, I would like to see all native plants in the buffer zone. Finally, I saw a species labeled that wasn't in the legend (AR TR) - what is this? 08/06/2012: More trees and shrubs will be required in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. A separate meeting may be required, now that plans are able to be reviewed. It might be worth it to overlay the the tree mitigation plan with the proposed landscape plan to evaluate where additional plant material can be placed. The trees and shrubs in the buffer zone area will need to be labeled to evalute the species and their wildlife contribution. Also, because of the extensive compaction at the site, the applicants should consider over excavating for the trees on the site to increase the success of tree establishment. BHA Response: Per coordination with Lindsay Ex, planting plan has been approved as of 12/20/12 email. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 10/02/2012: See comment 3 above regarding light. BHA Response: Acknowledged – received approval on this item from Environmental Planning via 01/25/13 email. 08/06/2012: There appears to be light spillover into the buffer zone. According to Section 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code, "Natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." A revised lighting plan will be required that does not have light spillover into the river buffer. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: In general, I may have more comments once I'm able to see other staff members' comments. BHA Response: Acknowledged Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: The three Siberian elms along the River edge shown to be removed need further discussion. Do these trees contribute to bank stabilization? What are the objectives for removing these trees? Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: Please set up a meeting with the City Forester to discuss some changes to the pruning information recorded on Tree Mitigation Plan Sheet 1 of 1. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012:Please provide information if their will be wildlife impact from the proposed pruning and removal of trees along the River edge. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012:Please provide a clarification note that any approved pruning and removal work on the City property along the river edge would be by the development. Also that any future pruning work to maintain the management objectives of the plan would be by the adjacent owner with approval by the City Forester. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: Will there be any grading within the drip line of any of the existing trees? If so review in an on site meeting with the City Forester. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012:: Tree protection note #2 can be replaced with the following information which is taken out of note #7. Pruning and Removal of any tree on site shall only be by a Fort Collins licensed arborist following City of Fort Collins tree management standards under the direction of the City Forester. Note #11 should be changed to read...Licensed Arborist to work with City of Fort Collins Forestry staff and Environmental Planner to address several small Siberian Elm trees (non-native) along Poudre River Bank that were too small to be picked up in site survey. Trees should not be removed if it is determined that their retention is important for bank stabilization. BHA Response: Above comments were included with PDP resubmittal documents (September 18, 2012). Since then, additional comments from Forestry have been incorporated into the Tree Mitigation Plans. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The plans, as presented, comply with the standards of LUC 3.4.7. The two- story element along Linden Street provides relief to surrounding historic properties. The added articulation, horizontality, and location of taller elements within the interior of the site, along with the use of similar materials to adjacent historic structures, in addition to those of the Old Town Historic District, all contribute to the project's compliance with this section. RB+B Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Alan Rutz, 970-224-6153, arutz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/02/2012 Please verify that the tranformer is within 10 feet of a paved surface and accessible by our line trucks. NE Response: Proposed transformer will be within 10-feet of a paved surface and will be accessible as discussed with Doug Martin. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2012 Please note that the secondary service to the building that is shown as being "removed/relocated" will be done so by the contractors electrician. Light and Power will remove the old transformers and cabinet and set the new transformers. NE Response: A note will be added to the demolition sheet (C100) stating the site contractor will be responsible for removing all private site electrical equipment. Per discussion with Doug this will be addressed in final compliance. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2012 Our maps do not show the light that is to be removed - this may be a private light to be removed by the developers contractor NE Response: That is correct as the existing light on site is private and will be removed by the contractor at developer’s expense. A note will be added to the demolition sheet (C100) for clarification. Per discussion with Doug this will be addressed in final compliance. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings greater than 50,000 square feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be installed. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 RB+B Response: Noted. This will be addressed during construction. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: 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 RB+B Response: The 2006 IFC, section 1009.11 allows an alternating tread device and roof hatch to be used to access an unoccupied roof. The roof in this project is not considered to be occupied and therefore we will be utilizing a ships ladder. 2009 IBC defines an alternating tread device as being between 50-70 degrees from horizontal. Our intent is to build within this requirement but have continuous treads across the full width of the ladder in lieu of the alternating treads. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: FIRE ALARM & DETECTION SYSTEMS A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in Group R-2 occupancies where any dwelling unit is located three or more stories above the lowest level of exit discharge. Smoke alarms are required in all Group R-2 occupancies. 2006 International Fire Code 907.2.9; 907.2.10 RB+B Response: The fire alarm & detection system will be a design-build condition and the comment will be addressed during construction. Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION An FDC shall be installed in accordance with the HVPA standard applicable to the system design and shall comply with IFC Sections 912.2 through 912.6 The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire authority. RB+B Response: A preliminary location for the FDC was discussed with PFA and a final location will be determined during final compliance. Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: STAND PIPE SYSTEMS A standpipe system 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. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. A fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. 2006 International Fire Code Section 905 RB+B Response: Noted. The automatic sprinkler system will be a design-build condition and the comment will be addressed during construction. Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: FIRE PUMP A fire pump, where provided, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 20 and Section 913 of the IFC. RB+B Response: We have determined that approximately 90-95 psi is available at the site and a pump will most likely be required. However, the automatic sprinkler system will be a design-build condition and the comment will be fully addressed during construction. Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: 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 RB+B Response: A preliminary location for the knox box was discussed with PFA and a final location will be determined during final compliance. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/08/2012: The outfall pipe needs to be sized for these off-site flows. NE Response: The proposed outfall pipe as currently designed is sized to accommodate the 100-year offsite flows passing through the site. 08/07/2012: Under the general comments #2 is states that the offsite flows and patterns will be maintained. It should be anticipated that the offsite flows will be concentrated when the areas to the southwest of the site redevelop. Those site will be required to detain their flows and treat them before they discharge to the Poudre River. So a path/easement needs to be provided for the discharge of future pond(s). This will take some guess work but at least it will give those sites a possible outfall path and not drainage lock the future sites. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/08/2012: AT final compliance NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Basin OS1 is planned to directed to Linden St. Therefore the capacity of Linden St. needs to be verified and document the complete path of the outfall to the river. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/08/2012: Reminder. NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: During final plan review the detail is needed to be shown on the plan set for how the driveway and grading is to be accomplished in the vicinity of the Bay Saver. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: 1. Drainage Report, P.4 and P. 7 – Please include a statement that a CLOMR/LOMR will be required for the bank protection work. NE Response: Per discussions with Glen and Wes this can be addressed in final compliance. 2. Stability Report – This version of the stability report is a much more comprehensive assessment of the bank stability. However, there are several issues that still need to be covered in the stability report: • Please explain why only 85 feet of the bank in the middle of the development site is being proposed to be stabilized? What about the other sections upstream and downstream? Are these other areas considered stable? What is the risk of failure and what is the potential consequence to the development? • CLOMR/LOMR requirement • How can the City extend the improvements in the future (accessibility)? • Maintenance responsibilities • Irrigation and maintenance of planted materials. How will irrigation be designed so as to not impact slope stability? • Other Permitting needs – 404 permit, 401 water quality, coordination because working near EPA clean-up site upstream, flow diversion, proximity to Oxbow Levee requiring USACE review, etc.. • How is this work being integrated with the Natural Area Buffer standards? • How will stabilized section be keyed into the bank upstream and downstream? • Next steps in design. Timing of bank stabilization and CLOMR/LOMR with construction of development. FlyWater Response: A revised bank stabilization evaluation and design report was submitted to Mark Kempton and Marsha Hilmes Robinson on Wednesday 12/19/12 that addresses the above comments. 3. Stability Report – a P.E. must stamp the report. FlyWater Response: A revised bank stabilization evaluation and design report was submitted to Mark Kempton and Marsha Hilmes Robinson on Wednesday 12/19/12 with a P.E. stamp. 4. Stability Report, P.4 – The second paragraph under the bank stability section is of concern. This paragraph is in contradiction with the fourth paragraph in this section. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this slope with intermittent concrete slurry and the undercut bank toe is considered stable. Please review and revise this paragraph. FlyWater Response: A revised bank stabilization evaluation and design report was submitted to Mark Kempton and Marsha Hilmes Robinson on Wednesday 12/19/12 that addresses this comment. 5. Stability Report, P.5 – It is unclear what is meant by the statement, “the interlocking characteristics of large riprap is not essential and design should consider appropriately sized large rock boulders.” Please clarify this section. FlyWater Response: A revised bank stabilization evaluation and design report was submitted to Mark Kempton and Marsha Hilmes Robinson on Wednesday 12/19/12 that addresses this comment. 6. Stability Report, P. 6 – Need to discuss that if the channel bed is disturbed, then the armor layer will need to be replaced using the pre-disturbed grain-size distribution and depth. FlyWater Response: A revised bank stabilization evaluation and design report was submitted to Mark Kempton and Marsha Hilmes Robinson on Wednesday 12/19/12 that addresses this comment. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 10/05/2012: There are still line over text issues on the Elevation Plan (west elevation), Level Four Plan & Penthouse Level Plan. 08/10/2012: There are line over text issues on the Garage Plan & Plan-Elevation- Section sheets. RB+B Response: All line over text issues noted have been addressed. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: There is a mispelled word (proposed) on sheet C200. NE Response: Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. Topic: General Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: No comments on the Bank Stabilization Plan. NE Response: Noted, thank you. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: No comments. BHA Response: Acknowledged Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 10/02/2012: The boundary & legal description close. NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/10/2012: The boundary & legal closes. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 10/02/2012: Once the pending sale of the property is completed, please add the new ownership/lienholder information to the plat. NE Response: New ownership/lienholder information will be provided once sale of property is complete. Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. 08/10/2012: Is there a lienholder? If so, please add a lienholder signature block. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 10/02/2012: This has not been added yet. NE Response: Once offsite drainage easement is recorded the reception number will be added to plat. Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. 08/10/2012: Please show the reception number for the drainage easement by seperate document along the easterly boundary. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/04/2012 10/04/2012: Please add the title in the owner signature block. NE Response: Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/04/2012 10/04/2012: Please reduce the size of the monument symbols in the legend. NE Response: Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: If the Legacy Senior Residences plat is filed prior to this plat, please label it on the north side of Linden Street as an adjoining subdivision. NE Response: Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: Please label the Northside Atzlan Community Center plat. NE Response: Per discussion with Jeff this will be addressed in final compliance. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/05/2012 10/05/2012: Does the City own this property? The City is listed in the Ownership Certification signature block on sheet 1. BHA Response: City Ownership Certification signature block has been removed from drawings. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/04/2012 10/04/2012: The gored-out area immediately north of the on-street parking stalls would not be painted and maintained by the City. The trapezoidal space from existing Linden curb to parking stall striping to inset curb could be signed as a bicycle/motorcycle parking area giving utility to the unused pavement and more parking for alternative transportation patrons/visitors. BHA Response: Per discussions with Traffic Operation Department, striping has been removed and Motorcycle Parking sign has been added, as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/04/2012 10/04/2012: Please provide a scaled plan and profile view of the driveway from the lower parking to the street. NE Response: Per discussion with Ward this will be addressed in final compliance. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 10/04/2012: Plantings near the driveway seem acceptable except have concerns with one tree, the Skyline Honeylocust. The following description From the US Forest Service Fact Sheet ST-282 is of concern: "Trunk/bark/branches: droop as the tree grows, and will require pruning for vehicular or pedestrian clearance beneath the canopy;". It looks close enough to be a possible sight distance issue as well as possibly being a problem for the nearby sidewalk. I'm unable to attain Tim Buchanan’s or Ralph Zentz's input on the choice and location at this time (both are out) but would like their input before finding comfort in the choice. BHA Response: Per discussions with Forestry and Traffic Operation, Honeylocust is acceptable. 08/08/2012: Please provide names of plantings near the Linden access so we can verify plant type will not cause sight distance issues on the sidewalk or on Linden St. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2012 10/01/2012: My comments have been addressed. BHA Response: Acknowledged Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Provide information (elevations, clearances, etc.) on pipes crossing the existing storm drain. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Provide specification and design thickness and width of the insulation over the sewer service. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Provide more information (surfacing, grades and elevations) of the area around the meter pits. Schedule meeting to discuss possible option for meters. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Show/label curb stops on all water services. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: Add profile of sewer service. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 10/02/2012: (To be addressed at final.) NE Response: Noted, thank you. 08/07/2012: The re-located meter pit to Ranchway Feeds must NOT be in a drive or parking area ass it is not traffic-rated. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/03/2012 10/03/2012: Compact parking stalls are allowed up to 40% in long term parking areas. These spaces should be designated by sign that they are reserved for residents and employees. BHA Response: Compact parking stalls have been limited to less than 40% and requested signage has been added.