Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, MULTI-FAMILY - FDP - FDP150048 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 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 January 26, 2016 Dean Barber McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Multi-Family, FDP150048, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Along Stanford Road, due to grading, will there be any stairs required to gain entry to the buildings? If so, please indicate on the Site Plan the location, and the materials selected for steps and railings. RESPONSE: Stairs are shown on the Site Plan. The entries along Stanford Road will have concrete steps and side walls sloping with the grade. Railings for the stairs will be decorative steel with vertical pickets on the guardrails and standard round handrails. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On the Landscape Plan, on sheet six, between Buildings D-1 and C-1, a continuous row of shrubs is needed to screen the parking lots from Stanford Road. RESPONSE: Shrubs have been added to this area. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On the Landscape Plan, on sheet seven, the same comment applies. A continuous shrub row is needed to screen the parking lot between Buildings A and B. RESPONSE: Shrubs have been added to this area. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 2 01/20/2016: Regarding the overall architecture, Staff presented information to the Planning and Zoning Board back in December which emphasized that additional design detail would need to be provided to enrich the design of the on the various building types. The Board’s Staff Report stated the following: While staff finds that overall intent of the standard is satisfied, there remain some points that should be emphasized in enriching the variety and guiding the formulation of the Final Plan. These points do not rise to the level of becoming conditions of approval, but are brought to the attention of the both the Board and the applicant so that there is a clear expectation as the project moves forward. • Staff advises that various window details and cornices should be investigated to include additional trim and detail in order to ensure more three-dimensionality and mitigate flat, uniform surfaces. RESPONSE: See comments below. • Staff advises that for the eight buildings along Stanford Road (Lots 4 and 5), additional opportunities should be considered to create more recesses, projections, reveals and the like in order to add shadowlines and depth to the facades that are visible to the public. Such features would help mitigate the emphasis on the overall horizontality of the buildings. RESPONSE: See comments below. • Staff advises that current mix of materials be looked at to enrich the use of wood and masonry versus stucco in order to add recognizable texture. RESPONSE: Double soldier course bands with a metal coping have been added as detail to the top of all brick facades. Metal coping has been added to the top of all the Stucco and cement fiber board facades as well. Reveals (detail included) have been designed to mitigate any flatness in the stucco and Cement fiber board facades. Projecting trellises have also been added to most of the windows along Stanford Road to create shadow lines and added three dimensionality to the facades. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Staff is not seeing where the architecture has been revised in response to the three points of emphasis. The focus should be on the street-facing (former East Foothills Parkway and Stanford Road) elevations of all the building types with the exception of buildings C-1, 18 and 19. Our concern regarding the overall flatness that is derived by over reliance on the stucco system. and lack of three-dimensionality carries over from the last submittal. RESPONSE: Double soldier course bands with a metal coping have been added as detail to the top of all brick facades. Metal coping has been added to the top of all the Stucco and cement fiber board facades as well. Reveals (detail included) have been designed to mitigate any flatness in the stucco and Cement fiber board facades. Projecting trellises have also been added to most of the windows along Stanford Road to create shadow lines and added three dimensionality to the facades in response to the comment about overall flatness. Entries have also been embellished along the street facing sides. In the perspective views you will notice many changes in planes even if the material stays the same. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Has any consideration been given to adding reveals to the stucco system? Or, is there any possibility of placing the windows in an inset position relative to the wall plane? 3 RESPONSE: Reveals (detail included) have always been designed to mitigate any flatness in the stucco and Cement fiber board facades. Reveals will also be added around the windows in the Cement Fiber Board applications. Along street facing facades trellises have been added above most windows to add shadow lines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016:Staff is particularly concerned about the portions of the first floor south elevations along Lot 3, and the first floor east elevations along Lots 4 and 5 (again with the exception of Buildings C-1, 18 and 19) where the sidewalls of the garages create a blank wall along the first floor. Staff recommends that these blank walls be mitigated by any available technique or detail as listed in the Staff Report or by another method. RESPONSE: Detail and revisions to the sidewalls have been added to mitigate the blank walls with the addition of windows at the garages, extending canopies, extending trellises and revisions to some building entries. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Staff is also concerned that there is not sufficient differentiation across the six various entry features. Entry Features two and four appear rather non-descript and would benefit from additional detail, material change or increased overhang. Has any consideration been given to accentuating the wing walls by increasing their footprint or mass? Perhaps the entry features could be embellished to carry partially across the blank wall along the first floor created by garages. RESPONSE: Detail and revisions have been added to the six entry features. Canopies have been extended on the sides, trellises have been added at the first floor level and windows have also been added to some garages. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Can the tops of the buildings along the street-facing elevations (former East Foothills Parkway and Stanford Road) be treated with additional detail such as a cornice or a coping system? This would help articulate the walls and add a measure of three-dimensionality. RESPONSE: Double soldier course bands with a metal coping have been added as detail to the top of all brick facades. Metal coping has been added to the top of all the Stucco and cement fiber board facades as well. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: For Building 19, on the right side of the south elevation, there is a ground-to-top module of one material, and lacking articulation, that would benefit from adding reveals at the joints or floor levels for relief. RESPONSE: Articulation has been added to the stair towers at all the end elevations for buildings 18 and 19, by adding striations in the coursing of the ground face CMU all the way up the buildings. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please note that the Major Amendment included the following condition of approval: 4 At the time of submittal of the Final Plan, the location and extent of the transit stop along Stanford Road, along with a connecting walkway that links to the project, shall be fully depicted and described in accordance with Section 3.6.5. The resolution of this condition is required prior to accepting the Final Plan for recording with the City of Fort Collins. If this improvement is found to be an obligation of Alberta, then documentation, and perhaps an escrow, will be required acknowledging such obligation. RESPONSE: Note added to Site Plan. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please be sure that connecting walkways and landscaping are coordinated so there is direct access to the bus stop from the internal walkway network. RESPONSE: As discussed at staff review, there is a connecting walkway along the north side of Building B that provides a nice connection to the bus stop. The landscape in this area is grass turf. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On the Lighting Plan, for the Bollards, please specify that the Kelvin temperature will be 3,000 or less. RESPONSE: Lighting Temperatures have been revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: For the Catenary lights, please specify that the selected option will be 2,800 Kelvin. RESPONSE: Lighting Temperatures have been revised Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: For the Pole Lights, please specify that the Kelvin temperature will be 3,000 or less. Also, for the two Pole Lights on the north side of Lot 3, please specify that these two fixtures will be supplemented with the House-Side Shield to minimize glare that may be visible from the adjoining residences (sheets LP 1 and 2). RESPONSE: Lighting Temperatures have been revised, full cutoff has been noted per the fixture. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please note that Tree Up-lights are not allowed and must be removed from the Lighting Plan. RESPONSE: Lighting type has been removed. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: For the Wall Packs, please specify that the selected option will be 3,000 Kelvin. RESPONSE: Lighting Temperatures have been revised Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: For the Wall Sconces, since the fixture that is selected has the option of also having up-lighting capability, please further specify that the selected option is down-lighting. RESPONSE: Lighting fixture has been revised. No up lighting will be provided. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com 5 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please create a key map for the specific civil plan and profile sheets, to more easily identify the location of the improvements within the specific sheet. RESPONSE: The keymap has been created and added to the appropriate sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please provide the easement legend table (or label each easement) within the individual utility plan sheets. RESPONSE: The easement legend has been added to the sheets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The fire access easements should be indicated as "emergency access", and these specific proposed and existing emergency access easements don't appear to be depicted in detail on any sheets, other than the overall utility plan. RESPONSE: The Notes have been revised. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: It should be discussed at staff review whether other departments and/or the developer believe a new development agreement, or amendment to the previous development agreement is needed. From purely an Engineering perspective, I'm comfortable with the language in the previous agreement. RESPONSE: As discussed, McWhinney would like a new DA. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The developer should contact Steve Cicione at 970 692-4418 to do a walk through of the existing Stanford Road sidewalk and curb and/gutter condition. There will need to be portions of existing sidewalk and curb and gutter replaced, and identifying an initial magnitude early on might be beneficial. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please remove notes 17-19 from the general landscape notes, as there is no natural habitat buffer zone on this site. RESPONSE: The Notes have been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Given the extent of the landscaping on this site, there is a greater opportunity to provide additional habitat for birds, butterflies, and pollinators than on many smaller sites. Please consider substituting some of the proposed shrub, perennial, and grass species with native, wildlife-friendly species - particularly in areas with large concentrations of these plantings. RESPONSE: We have switched out some species as requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: A citizen group associated with the Colorado Native Plant Society 6 has reviewed the latest landscape plans and provided a number of comments and suggestions for plant species. I will provide copies of the comments at the staff review meeting. Please consider changes to the landscape plans that support the intent of these comments. RESPONSE: We have switched out some species as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Are there any turf areas that could be replaced with a native grass seed mix? This would reduce water demand, create a more natural aesthetic, and encourage greater use of the site by birds, butterflies, and pollinators. I'd be happy to work with you on an appropriate seed mix if there is interest. RESPONSE: As discussed at staff review, there is really no opportunity for native grass. All of the detention ponds are being constructed by Alberta with the PA-2 plans. All of the remaining turf areas will consist of irrigated blue grass blend sod. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Tree species comments: Sterling Silver Linden is not fully hardy in the Fort Collins area. Redmond Linden would be a better adapted tree to use in locations where Sterling Silver Linden is used. Emerald Queen Maple is not on the City of Fort Collins street tree list. Hackberry, Kentucky Coffeetree or Accolade Elm are trees to consider for a replacement of Norway maple Red Oak is not adapted to the alkaline soils in Fort Collins. A similar oak is Shumard Oak and should be used in its place. Autumn Blaze Maple is not adapted to the soils in Fort Collins and declines because of nutrient deficiencies. The cultivars of American Linden (American Sentry and Boulevard) could work at some of the locations where Autumn Blaze Maple is shown and in a few other less exposed locations where Autumn Blaze is used Green Mountain Sugar Maple could also be considered for use as a replacement. In dryer locations such as parking lot islands Shumark Oak would be well adapted. Degroots spire Arborvitae had freeze damage in the fall 2014 freeze. The upright juniper Woodward has a similar form with good adaptability and would be a good substitution. Prairie Fire crabapple is listed to have some susceptibility to fireblight in the Front Range Tree Recommendation List. Thunderchild crabapple should be considered as a replacement. Chinquapin Oak could be used in place of the regular English Oak for a better adapted species as well as consistency with other section of the mall development. Use Chinquapin Oak as a street tree for English Oak and evaluate using it in place of at other project locations. RESPONSE: The species have been replaced as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 7 01/20/2016: Gray Gleam Juniper is listed in the plant list with a mature height of 15 feet and with a spread of 3 feet. A local descriptive guide lists Gray Gleam with a spread of 7-10 feet. It appears that the mature width of Gray Gleam would not work real well at many of the locations where this plant is used. An alternate upright juniper to consider with a narrower form would be Skyrocket Juniper that has mature width of around 3 feet. RESPONSE: The Gray Gleam Junipers have been replaced with Skyrocket Junipers. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Some of the symbols for trees are very hard to read. In some cases symbols used on the plan may not be recorded in the plant list. Show all plant symbols (trees, shrubs and other landscape plants) of a size that can be readily identified in the plant list. The symbols for some of the evergreen trees need to be much larger in the plant list. Revise the plan with readable symbols and email the revision of plant symbols to the City Forester so the Forestry review of species can be completed. RESPONSE: The symbols have been made larger so they are easier to read. We will send an email so you can review. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Confirm the accuracy of trees to retain sheet 11. Check all trees to retain on this sheet with the trees shown to retain on the site plan. As one example where there appears to be inconsistency tree number 301 is shown to retain but will not be retained on the other plans. RESPONSE: The Trees have been taken out of the mitigation plan and new mitigation trees have been identified. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The dark shadow on sheet 11 and sheet 2 makes it very difficult to see the symbols for existing trees to retain as well as to see proposed trees on sheet 2. RESPONSE: The hatch pattern is now lighter so the plans are easier to read. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On landscape sheets 4-8 label all of the existing trees to retain with the complete inventory information. (Tree number, species, size, condition and mitigation) RESPONSE: The trees have been labeled on Sheets 4 – 8. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On sheet 4 a proposed tree along Stanford near the north boundary is too close to an exciting tree. Also check other proposed trees to see if there are other placement conflicts with existing trees. RESPONSE: Both proposed trees have been replaced with ornamental trees. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: On sheet 6 an entry sidewalk is shown going through existing trees at two 8 locations. Position these sidewalks well away from these trees so they can be adequately protected. RESPONSE: The sidewalks have been adjusted so they go around the trees. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Set an onsite meeting to review the detailed grading information around existing trees to retain and to also further evaluate building foundation impact to some of the exiting trees. The meeting should include the City Forester, Chief Planner, Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer. Edit plans after the meeting to incorporate any changes. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will set up a meeting when Alberta gets closer to finalizing the grades for the pad sites. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Along the north boundary evaluate the objective of providing more screening with trees. Consult with the City Planner for the project about the importance of this objective and add upright juniper of similar trees to this area if needed to provide greater screening. Side parking lot areas need to have one tree per 40 feet at a minimum. More trees than this would be need for enhanced screening. RESPONSE: This needs to be discussed further. Landscape strip is very narrow and there is an existing fence that is not on the property line. We’ll have a conversation with the City Planner regarding what we can fit in the strip. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The following existing trees cannot be used for a mitigation credit because they are shown to be retained on the approved Foothills Mall Redevelopment plan. These trees are currently used to total the 102 total mitigation provided by saving existing on site trees. The existing tree schedule on sheet 9 will need to be edited to reflect that the mitigation for these trees is not part of the total. Adjust the increased number of mitigation trees accordingly on other sheets that the project will need to provide. Existing trees not to be included in the total: 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 288, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298, 387, 289, 291, 822, 821, 820, 528, 527, 526 RESPONSE: The trees have been removed from the Mitigation Sheets and the numbers have been adjusted. Department: Light And Power Contact: Janet McTague, 970-224-6154, jmctague@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/25/2016 01/25/2016: We will need to coordinate transformer locations within 10' of a paved surface and accessible by a line truck. We'll also need to coordinate the route of the primary line; it can follow the internal drive or be parallel with Stanford. RESPONSE: Transformers are located to meet this requirement. Electrical Engineering has left messages to request coordination meeting. 9 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/25/2016 01/25/2016: Light and Power installs the secondary service to the "first vault", if there is one. The owner is responsible for installation and maintenance of the secondary service to the buildings. RESPONSE: Noted Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT While the applicant's response letter of 10/26/2015 referenced, "Emergency Access Easements have been created and added to the utility plans," I was unable to find any such exhibit included in the Utility set. I found a legend on the utility plans cover sheets indicating such but found nothing labeled anywhere on the plans. On a separate sheet titled, "FIRE ACCESS" I see a hashed area which appears to coincide with what might be the proposed fire lanes but nothing is labeled and some areas of the fire lane limits are omitted (especially in Lot 5 & 6). RESPONSE: Emergency Access Easements where provided as separate document exhibit provided with last submittal. We will provide exhibits via direct e-mail. In addition: All fire lanes shall be dedicated by separate document and labeled on the plans as an Emergency Access Easement. The easement legend currently refers to them as a Fire Access Easement. Please adjust on future plan revisions. RESPONSE: We will provide exhibits via direct e-mail. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: AUTO-TURN EXHIBIT A turning template was submitted but does not include all needed turning movements in all areas, especially those needed in Lot 3. Turning movements appear to be in conflict with parked cars in Lot 4. No turning movements were provided for Lot 6 and the EAE is not shown to connect with the public way on the south side of the site. Turning radii need to be labeled on future plan sets. RESPONSE: We will provide exhibits via direct e-mail. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: SECURITY GATES/MAN GATES RESPONSE: Fence Gates will have keyed access. Key will be provided in Knox Box. 10 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/26/2016 01/26/2016: FIRE PITS/FIRE FEATURES Fire pits or fire features fueled by natural gas are allowed. Wood burning or smoke producing fire pits are prohibited. RESPONSE: All fire features are planned as natural gas on timer shut-offs. GAS GRILLS Gas grills require a 10' separation distance (both horizontal and vertical) from any combustible construction or vegetation. RESPONSE: Noted, combustible materials will be placed minimum distance. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please see redlines. Note that many of my comments on earlier are addressed later in the plans; in these cases, it would be helpful to add a note or callout to these earlier sheets stating where additional detailed information can be found. RESPONSE: Detail was added as necessary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations to support sizing of inlets and pipes. RESPONSE: See drainage letter. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: SOPs are not approved as a part of the drainage review. They will be provided as a part of the Development Agreement. RESPONSE: Comment is noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide additional details on grading - more arrows, elevations and breakpoints would be helpful. RESPONSE: Additional grading details have been added to grading plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide details on how surface flows will enter rain gardens and sand filters. Also, detail the connection of the pipe outfalls and riprap in these facilities. RESPONSE: Detail has been added and minimal surface flows will sheet flow into rain gardens and sand filters. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please show and detail underdrain systems for proposed rain garden and pavers. It would be helpful to see the pavers called out on additional sheets other than the paving plan. RESPONSE: Bioretention / Bioswale Cross Section Detail has been added to represent rain garden underdrain system. Permeable pavers will no longer be used for this design and therefore a detail is not needed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide an easement for the proposed rain garden. 11 RESPONSE: Comment is noted and will be provided Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide evidence that the proposed rain garden is in compliance with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at (970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet. RESPONSE: Acceptance of Drainage Letter compliance spreadsheet will be completed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of additional information. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Erosion Control Plan and Details have some significant redlines that need to be addressed. First this plan may be better served by a closer view or lot sections of the project and adding storm infrastructure as well as flow arrows or grades to the grade lines to facilitate the review of the material. At this time it is difficult to see if the supplied materials are adequate to meet the City's Criteria. Erosion Control Report has two redlines based upon an old template location an who to get a hold of. Erosion control escrow will need to be submitted; acknowledged note wanting acceptable plans before that can be calculated. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the returned comments. 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: Plans and report have been revised. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Sheet A1 is not a Site Plan. Please change it to "Building Summary Plan" or something similar. RESPONSE: A1 sheet has been renamed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Topic: Construction Drawings 12 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are spelling issues with some text. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. RESPONSE: Coordinates have been added to the utility plans Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are cut off text issues in some of the title blocks. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are issues with the matchline numbering. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment addressed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 13 01/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: All redlines have been addressed. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: No comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: All redlines have been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Transportation planning would like to confirm that that sidewalk along the perimeter road that are callout as 'not a part' are being built by others? RESPONSE: The sidewalk along the loop road is to be constructed by Alberta with the PA-2 plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Is there a piece of sidewalk and curb ramps missing on lot 4 (southwest corner?) RESPONSE: The linework has been fixed. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Previous comment addressed. No additional comments. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. RESPONSE: The Russian Sage has been replaced. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide calculations to support water service sizing. No calculations were seen with this submittal. 14 RESPONSE: Calculations have been provided Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide mechanical memo to show that the dead end mains serving Lots 3 & 6 can support the number of units (41 on Lot 3) as well as fire flows. RESPONSE: Calculations have been provided Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please advise how existing water taps will be used/abandoned. Please see redlines. RESPONSE: Detail has been added to the utility plans as well as plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please show proposed utilities (existing utilities are seen) on the landscape plan and verify that separations are met per General Landscape Note #8. RESPONSE: Utilities are now shown on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: It appears there was an issue with printing on the Existing Conditions & Demolition Plans. The legend appears incomplete and there is a lack of notes on the plans. RESPONSE: The legends have been updated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide legends on additional sheets to improve ease of plan reading. RESPONSE: The legends have been updated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please see redlines. Note that many of my comments on earlier are addressed later in the plans; in these cases, it would be helpful to add a note or callout to these earlier sheets stating where additional detailed information can be found. RESPONSE: Comments in redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Please provide easement for all hydrants. RESPONSE: Easements have been provided for hydrants. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: 5' of separation is required between mains and the face of curb. Please ensure this is maintained. Note redlines on Lot 3. RESPONSE: There is now 5’ of separation everywhere. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016 01/19/2016: Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of additional information. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The sidewalk crossing on the west side of lot 3 needs to include a 15 ramp at the driveway. RESPONSE: The sidewalk has been fixed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The south sidewalks on the east side of building 4 and on the west side of building 5 should connect into the public sidewalk and not stop at the driveway. RESPONSE: The sidewalks on the west side connect to the loop road. The east side is more difficult because the building is now much closer to the entry drive. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The trash enclosure is showing CMU block. The Land Use Code prohibits the use of smooth-face CMU. Please label this with a different type of CMU. RESPONSE: All CMU Block used for trash enclosure will be architectural ground face. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The UL light fixture is prohibited to point up. It appears the locations shown on the lighting plan are doing so. The WS light fixture has an option for up-lighting. Please include a note this option will not be used. RESPONSE: Light has been revised, no uplighting will be specified. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Where are the meter locations both gas and electric? How are they screened? RESPONSE: Each building has single gas meter. Meters have been shown in elevation. Electrical meters are planned within electrical closets at ground floor. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: The sidewalk connections on building 15 on the east side appear to conflict with tree locations. Please revise the plans. RESPONSE: The sidewalks have been adjusted at these locations. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2016 01/20/2016: Please label the bicycle storage details with a location, such as in the apartment or in the garage. Typical details have been shown for storage. RESPONSE: The bike storage lockers are located on the first floor of each building. We have added typical details to the cover sheet.