Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout221 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR160011 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity 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 May 27, 2016 Jason Messaros BHA DESIGN INC 1603 OAKRIDGE DR Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: 221 E Mountain Avenue, BDR160011, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970-224- 6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Tom Knostman, City Pavement Engineer (221-6576, tknostman@fcgov.com) has provided the following comment: We are opposed to the inclusion of the LID pervious pavers within City ROW of Mountain Ave. without some method for maintenance of the system by the property owner. These pervious paver systems plug with debris and dirt quickly (2-years at the installation on Walnut for example) and then must be disassembled, stone by stone, to do the maintenance. Response (Aspen): Pavers have been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/26/2016: As indicated by Tom Knostman's comment, porous pavers within the ROW/parking areas are not supported. Response (Aspen): Pavers have been removed. Other methods are proposed for site LID. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/26/2016: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the development/ site storm runoff. Rain gardens in the ROW are allowed to treat street flows. The ROW cannot be utilized to accommodate LID requirements for the development site. Response (Aspen): Response: The use of rain garden planters and tree planters for water quality treatment of on-site runoff was discussed with Storm Water and W/WW Utility Staff and they agree it is an acceptable method for treatment. We would like to request that Engineering consider the use of these methods. It is understood that the Owner will be responsible for all maintenance of the water quality treatment system, plantings and drainage system in the right-of-way. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/26/2016: If rain gardens are proposed in the ROW to treat street flows, additional details for rain garden design will be needed to determine if the proposed design can be approved. Response (Aspen): A detail for the diversion of flow from the sidewalk chase to the planters is provided in the Civil detail sheet C-013. Underdrain design is provided on the Utility Plan. Planter details are provided on the Landscape plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: On-street public parking cannot count toward fulfilling parking requirements. Response (BHA Design): Existing On-Street parking is not counted toward requirement. See Request for Modification, Minimum Parking Requirement. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Although existing public parking stall dimensions do not meet LCUASS standards, existing dimensions may remain. If the curb line changes for any reason, compliant dimensions should be used. Response (Aspen): Acknowledged, curb line will remain. (BHA Design): Infill parking spaces will match existing parking dimensions. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: On-street public handicap spaces should be 13' wide per LCUASS standards (19-7). Please also work with Parking Services to confirm that a handicap space here is permissible. Response (Aspen): The parking space and hatched out area is greater than the 13’ width needed for the handicap space. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/26/2016: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. Site-specific bike parking to meet code requirements is not allowed to be installed in the ROW because bike parking in the ROW is subject to City management and may be removed which would make the site non-compliant. Once constructed the property owner(s) can work with FCMoves regarding placement of additional public bike racks within the vicinity of the project based on need and space availability. Response (Aspen): The bike parking will be provided inside the building and the outside parking is removed. (Davis): Bike parking will be provided inside of the building in a secured bike storage room. This room with provide 20 bike parking spaces. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/24/2016: Trash enclosure doors should not swing into the ROW. Please recess the doors or swing inwards. Response (Davis): The trash room has been reconfigured and the doors are swinging in. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/24/2016: City standards would call for directional ramps to be installed at the corner of Mathews and Mountain; however, we're looking into what works best for this site and will get back to you with comments soon. Response (Aspen): The proposed ramps align with the existing conditions on the site and with the opposite corners. Modifying the ramps will affect existing established trees. No further comments were provided. (BHA Design): The existing fire hydrant would also be affected by the shift. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: Awnings shall conform to City Code requirements and will require an encroachment permit. Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to Engineering Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance. Response (Davis): The awnings and their encroachment are going to be applied for through an encroachment permit. They are removed from the site plan in this submittal. They are still shown on the elevation drawings but noted as. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/11/2016 05/11/2016: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens and has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit your project. Of particular interest may be the: 1. ClimateWise program: fcgov.com/climatewise/ 2. Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP): fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com 3. Green Building Program: fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416- 4238 or traeker@fcgov.com 4. Solar Energy: www.fcgov.com/solar, contact Norm Weaver at 970-416-2312 or nweaver@fcgov.com 5. Integrated Design Assistance Program: fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary Schroeder at 970-224- 6003 or gschroeder@fcgov.com 6. Nature in the City Strategic Plan: fcgov.com/planning/natureinthecity/? key=advanceplanning/natureinthecity/, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com Please consider the City's sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage with these efforts, and let me know if I can help connect you to these programs. Response (Davis): We are exploring our options and will be implementing several green strategies such as dimmable LEDs for the exterior lighting and 1.28 gal/flush, flush valves. We are also considering providing a gas-fired boiler plant and using hydronic heating over electric heating. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/11/2016 05/11/2016: FIXTURE C: Please clarify whether this fixture is full cutoff and whether or not it creates any uplight. All fixtures should be full cutoff and down-directional and should not create any light that spills upward (past 90 degrees). Response (Maxson): Revised fixture is confirmed to be ‘down’ only and is full cut-off. Refer to revised fixture schedule. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/11/2016 05/11/2016: FIXTURE D: The description calls this an "up/down" fixture. Does this mean that light shines both up and down? Or that it can be installed in either the upward or downward direction? If the latter, please include a note that the fixture shall only be mounted in the down-directional configuration. Response (Maxon): Revised fixture is confirmed to be ‘down’ only and is full cut-off. Refer to revised fixture schedule. (Davis): The revised fixture will be mounted in the down direction only and will provide no uplight. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 As the property is adjacent to the Old Town District, Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, will apply to the review of this project. Response (Davis): Meetings have been scheduled with the Landmark Preservation Commission through Maren Bzdek for July 13th and July 27th for review of this project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 LUC 3.4.7(F)(6) states that the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. Please contact Historic Preservation staff at mbzdek@fcgov.com or 221-6206 to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission at your earliest convenience. Response (Davis): See above. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: At this time, staff has identified no major areas of concern based on the submitted plans and their potential compliance with LUC 3.4.7. 05/24/2016: LUC 3.4.7 (B), General Standard, requires that "the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historical property" on the site or on adjacent property. Staff will recommend that the area of adjacency for this project should include the Old Town District and the individually eligible buildings south of the parcel along Mathews, which include: 133 Mathews, 137 Mathews, and 143 Mathews. Response (Davis): See above Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new 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. Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com 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. Response (MAVD): Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com/building web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. 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 - Commercial: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Response (Davis): All current codes and amendments adopted by the City of Fort Collins will be followed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. Response (Davis): If electric heat is used, the prescriptive energy compliance will be followed. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Xcel Energy Max gas pressure is 14" WC. Response (Maxson): Acknowledge. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: COMCAST Comcast has facility in the alley. - Don Kapperman Response (Aspen): Noted on the plans. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2016 05/19/2016: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS The fire code requires aerial access on at least one, long side of any building greater than 30 feet in height. Based upon the proposed site design and fourth floor setbacks it seems unlikely the project will be able to meet this requirement per IFC Appendix D, Section D105.3. If the site plan is unable to meet the prescription of the code, the project team will need to explore ways of achieving the intent of the code via alternative means of code compliance. Further discussion will be needed on this issue. Code language provided below. STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT (see 2012 IFC definition) 2012 IFC Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5: In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building Response (Davis): A letter requesting acceptance to an alternative means of code compliance has been sent to Bob Poncelow for review. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2016 05/19/2016: HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS A hydrant is required within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection for any building with a standpipe system. Current plans place the FDC at 155 feet from the closest hydrant on the NE corner of the building. PFA is asking the project team to see what alterations can be made to improved this condition. Code language provided below. > IFC 507.1.1: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Exception: The distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet where approved by the fire code official. Response (Maxson): Acknowledged. The FDC will be relocated to accommodate the code specified distance. (Davis): The FDC has been moved north to gridline C and is within the 100 feet that is requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: STAIRWELL TO THE ROOF For future planning purposes, the required stairwell to the roof needs to show a continuous, protected path of travel from the stairwell to the building exit and public way on the ground floor. Code language provided below. > IFC 504.3: New buildings four or more stories above grade plane, shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.13. See also IFC 1009.16. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. Response (Davis): The stairwell to the roof is to be 2-hour rated the entire path from the stairwell to the public way. Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Maximum height in the Old City Center subdistrict is 56'. Your proposal appears to be at 58'. Response (Davis): The current average grade plane is @ elevation 4977’-7”. 56’ above this is 5033’-7”. The current High Roof of the project is at elevation 5033’-3”. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Per Section 3.8.17, maximum rooftop mechanical that can exceed the building height is 5% of the roof. It appears that the proposal has 2,314 s.f of mechanical which exceeds the 5% maximum. Response (Davis): Maxson Engineering is preparing an exhibit to send in for review, to show the layout and the percentages that the equipment occupies. We are planning to use the area of both the high and low roofs in calculating our 5% coverage. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: PARKING Per the project narrative, the breakdown of uses and minimum parking requirements follow: Retail (15,738 s.f.): 32 spaces Office (44,201 s.f.): 44 spaces 60 spaces count toward the minimum requirement of 76 spaces: 56 spaces leased in the garage and the 4 on-site. Off-site (i.e. on-street diagonal) does not count toward the minimum requirement. Options to resolve this issue are: 1. Alternative Compliance which offers many different ways to meet the requirement, or 2. Modification of Standard (variance) request to provide less retail parking than is required. Response (BHA Design): Existing On-Street parking is not counted toward requirement. See Request for Modification, Minimum Parking Requirement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: PARKING The parking counts in the land use data appear to have a typo. Eg. "Office - 132" Please also include the breakdown of use square footage. Response (BHA Design): The land use table has been updated and corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: BIKE PARKING Bike parking must be provided on-site or request alternative compliance or a modification of standard. The bike parking in the ROW could off-set the demand, but it has to be permitted either as an encroachment into the ROW or for FCBikes to install. Nevertheless, we need to formally process the request. Also, the enclosed bike parking needs to be read "5 min" instead of "4 min". Please consider the needs of employees when planning for on-site and enclosed bike parking. It seems like they will need much more than 5 spaces. The spaces designated for quasi-public use and retail should be the only ones considered for the sidewalk. Perhaps additional bike parking can be placed in the small alley space on the west side of the building? Response (Davis): The bike parking is now located inside a secured bike storage room on the south side of the building. There will be 20 available bike parking spots. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: What is planned for the west side of the building? Response (BHA Design): The west side of the building receives a wide curb treatment extending the R.O.W. The area outside the R.O.W west of the building is not changed with this project with exception for barriers per the architectural drawings. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: The LID treatment for the site can not be in City ROW to treat storm water on-site. Response (Aspen): A meeting was held with Storm Water and W/WW Staff. The use of Planters and Rain Garden planters were discussed and considered to be an acceptable LID method for treatment in the ROW for on-site runoff under the condition that Engineering will accept it and the Owner is responsible for all maintenance of the system and planting. The City suggests a meeting to discuss options for this development to meet the LID requirements. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: Please revise the title & sub-title as marked. See redlines. Response (Davis): The title and subtitle have been revised per the redline set. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: Please add "Town Of" as marked in the sub-title. See redlines. Response (Aspen): Language is added as noted. (Davis): Updated in the drawings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX'. Response (Aspen): Language is updated as noted above on the cover and general notes. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. Response (Aspen): Language is updated as noted above on the cover and general notes. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response (Aspen): Redlines addresses. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: No comments. Response (BHA Design): Acknowledged. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/23/2016 05/23/2016: Please revise the title & sub-title as marked. See redlines. Response (BHA Design): Not updated with this submittal. Will correct prior to mylar. Topic: Site Plan 05/23/2016: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. Response (BHA Design): The legal description is updated per redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: The TIS has been reviewed and the general conclusions accepted. There may be a few details that need to be provided for complete documentation. We'll forward those when they are available. Response (BHA Design): No updates have been made. No further requests, directives have been received from the City. (Aspen): Noted, no other detail were provided. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: The bike parking is in the ROW, and while those racks will be very useful for patrons of businesses, available bike parking on your property for employees that is not located on the front sidewalk is important. Response (Aspen): All bike parking has moved to an inside storage location and exterior ROW bike racks removed. (Davis) The bike parking is now located in a secured bike storage room at the south side of the building with 20 spots. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: Our standards would require a directional ramp for the sidewalk connection on the SW corner. We'll need further discussions on whether this should be implanted based on other constraints. Response (BHA Design): Design matches ramp detail of North West Corner, no additional directions have been received from the City. (Aspen): No further comment was discussed. The ramp locations are limited with the existing site grading, trees and conditions. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response (BHA Design): Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: The sewer service needs to be at a 90 degree angle at the main. Response (Aspen): The sewer is now at 90 degree angle to the main. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: The water service tap needs to be a 4-inch with a 3-inch reducer. The City does not stock 3-inch water taps. Response (Aspen): The tap size is changed to 4-inch w/ 4x3 reducer noted on utility plan. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: Fixture C on the luminaire schedule is not shielded and would not be permitted. Fixture D could be used as long as the top is capped to make it down directional only. Response (Davis): The revised fixtures will only provide directional downlight only. Topic: Site Plan 05/24/2016: Vehicle and bike parking located in the right-of-way cannot be used to count towards the minimum requirements. Please removed these from the breakdown. Response (BHA Design): No off site (R.O.W) bike parking is provided with this project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016 05/24/2016: The handicap parking space will need to be a van-accessible handicap space. Response (BHA Design): Acknowledged. The ADA space provided is van accessible. (Aspen): South parking space inside the building is now sized for van accessible. (Davis): This space has been changed to a van accessible space with the appropriate dimensions. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, TBUCHANAN@fcgov.com Topic: City Trees Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016: Define how the two Kentucky Coffeetees along Mathews will be addressed. They have average shape and form. They could be used on the project or moved off site to another City property. Forestry generally thinks that moving them to another City property might be preferred and planting two new Espresso coffeetrees with a better shape. Please define how the project wants to address these two coffeetrtees. Response (BHA Design): City may propose transplant locations for consideration. Transplantation will be subject to construction schedule, season and cost. If transplanting is not feasible due to cost, schedule, or other unforeseen circumstances, the trees will be removed and replaced per plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016: If it has not already been noted on the plans specify the type of tree grates to be installed. Response (BHA Design): Tree grates have not been selected. The model to be used for all grates will be either: Ironsmith 6018-1 STARBURST or Neenah Foundry Company 8713090 (per City request). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016: Is it possible to make the 6X4 foot tree grates 5 foot wide at the smallest dimension. This facilitates possible future tree replaced. Response (BHA Design): All tree grates are shown as 5’x5’. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016: Will there be any significant grade changes within the drip line of any exiting trees to retain? If so contact the City Forester for an onsite meeting to evaluate. Response (BHA Design): No significant grade changes are expected within 7’ of existing tree trunks. Existing tree limbs extend over the R.O.W and will require pruning. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016: Typically to provide trees in grates that have a high enough canopy that works better with pedestrian movement and clearance 3 inch caliper trees are specified. Response (BHA Design): Trees meet code requirements. Upsized trees may be selected from available stock at time of installation for form and character appropriate for intended installation in the tree grates.