Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER (FORMERLY LINK-N-GREENS) - PDP - PDP130001 - CORRESPONDENCE -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 25, 2013 Allen Ginsborg NewMark Merrill Mountain States, LLC 2720 Council Tree Ave., Suite 230 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Please provide color builiding elevations and a materials page that shows actual photographs of the proposed materials. Pages with 3D views of the buildings would also be helpful. For the Lot 3 architecture, please show footprints that are more detailed that illustrate the recesses and projections in the elevations. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 The building elevations for Lot 3 may need more articulation in some areas in order to satisfy the Land Use Code standards in 3.5.3. We suggest a meeting to discuss this in more detail. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Topic: General Site and Landscape Plans need to clearly show a line that distinguishes Phase One from Future Phases. Please also use a finer CAD line type and/or LTSCALE for the topography to increase readability for all sheets. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please adjust all sheets and provide a 1.5 inch margin on the left side of the paper. It would also be helpful to add the key map to S1 and L1. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Label proposed monument signs on all plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. RE: Link-n-Greens, PDP130001, Round Number 1 Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General The key map and title for the plan on some of the pages is not referenced correctly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Topic: Landscape Plans Please refer to landscape redlines for comments related to labeling and formatting of the plans as well as landscape buffer comments. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please provide a typical plan detail and section of the perimeter landscape buffer, showing quality and extent of the buffer provided, for both the buffers along streets and transition buffers adjacent to natural areas. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please draw the future retail/commercial building envelopes as dashed lines, same as shown on S1. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please add the following note to the landscape plan: Landscape buffer areas shown on the plan shall be used to screen all, service, loading and parking areas, including drive isles, from abutting uses, streets and natural areas. Screening shall consist of at least two of the following elements: masonry wall, plant material, earthen berm or fence, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend one hundred (100) percent of the length of the area to be screened, and shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20) in width exclusive of right-of-way. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Topic: Site Plan Please refer to redline of Sheet S1 for sidewalk comments. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please add Lot numbers with acreages to the site and landscape plan sheets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please add proposed parking quantities that correspond to the Lot 3 layout, based on square footage and uses. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please remove the word Standard from the site plan notes. Amend note 9 to read: Buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements are not indicated in final detail with this Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and building elevations. Any application for Building Permit, therefore, shall require the approval of a Minor Amendment of these plans that demonstrates compliance with all applicable Land Use Code requirements and standards, provided that the Minor Amendment does not result in a change of character of this development. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Please provide dimensions to building envelopes from property lines and dimensions showing the proposed size of the envelopes. Show the same for building footprints. Every dimension does not need to be shown, but rather overall dimensions sufficient to show the scope of the project and to provide general information. Distance numbers should be placed adjacent to each envelope face without dimensional arrows. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Add a note to the site plan S1 that building square footages shown on the plans represent the building footprint area, and not the area of the building envelopes. This seems to be the case for all of the building footprints except for the two future footprints to the west, where the 100,000 SF seems to represent to building envelope, not the footprint. Please expand the land use table to list the SF of each building footprint as well as each envelope, with the subtotals of each. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please show future sidewalks that are on the 30 scale plans on the overall plan for reference. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: Lot 3 buildings, the use labels aren't consistent with the 30 scale sheets and aren't shown as future. For clarity and presentation purposes label the footprints A,B,C, etc. and provide a data table on Sheet S1. In the table show the uses as future. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: Please delineate the 500 year floodplain, 100 year floodplain with greater emphasis that is more readable and with a finer CAD line type. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: In addition to the 300' river buffer, show the proposed limits of the proposed river buffer, with a line that is bolder and different than the 300' river buffer. Please show this on all 30 scale site and landscape plan sheets. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: Please show the approximate edges of the Poudre River flow line with a bold triple dot line (or other line), for graphic informational purposes. Label the river. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: Label the existing trail more prominently. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S1: Label adjacent uses/businesses and adjacent zoning districts. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S2: The building SF shown appears to reflect the envelope space and not the footprints. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S3: The building envelope for the future ES needs to be pulled back from the private drive in order to accommodate future trees along the private drive in front of the future ES building. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan SP S4: Show the future sidewalk along the private drive, south of the ETC. Please pull the building envelope back, ten feet behind the sidewalk, to accommodate a future foundation landscape edge of reasonable quality and depth along the ETC building envelope. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S4: The potential service area gate. Some discussion is needed as to whether these gates are needed in order to provide interim screening of the service areas. Staff is concerned that the proposed evergreen trees north of the service area will not provide sufficient screening of Phase One operations. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S5: Please dimension the parking setback. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 SP S13, 14, and 15: Please pull the Building Envelope back off of the main entrance, at least ten feet from the back of sidewalk, in order to provide a reasonable amount of landscaping and spaciousness at the main entry into the campus. Show building footprint and envelope dimensions (without leader lines and arrows), and label the gross square footage of each footprint. Please refer to the redline of Sheet S1 for comments on the position and extent of the building envelopes and footprints shown. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Please make sure that the building footprint dimensions shown on the site plan match the elevations. The Lot 3 office/commercial buildings are shown as 70 feet wide on the elevations, with a patio as well. This needs to be reflected on the site plan. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 We need a note on the site plan that addresses the need for the overall Lot 3 site plan layout to move east if the PRPA easement along Lemay is not needed. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: Link N Greens Request for Variance #1 – Driveway Curb Return Radii We do not believe that the following two turning template drawings are realistic and need to be redone. 1. The right turn movement into the ¾ access point on Lemay Ave. It is not desirable nor is it safe for a vehicle to turn from the outside travel lane across the other travel lane, the bike lane and the right turn lane to enter into the site. It maybe that the driveway width needs to be widened and/or shown that the turn can be made by encroaching into the exit lane. 2. The right turn movement into the driveway off of Lincoln. It needs to be shown that the turn can be made from the travel lane, bike lane or left turn lane not the center turn lane since this will likely be a raised median in the future and not available for the truck to use for turning. As with the other intersection it maybe that the driveway will need to be widened out and/or the turning truck will need to encroach on a portion of the exit lane to be able to turn into the site. 3. Also missing a drawing for right out at the ¾ access. I will not provide a written response (other than this) to the variance request until we receive and review revised turning template drawings for these two movements. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: We are asking that a condition be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the design for the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry Street be designed now and built with the 2nd Phase or whichever Phase of the project triggers it. The design should be included in the final utility plan set, the row needed to accommodate the turn lane be dedicated, and language regarding the timing of the improvement be included in the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: With each additional Phase/ minor amendment the project will need to submit a TIS for that phase. The TIS submitted for the site and Phase 1 indicates that with the development of additional phase there maybe LOS and/or APF issues or concerns, therefore language will be placed with the Development Agreement for the project that with each subsequent submittal be it minor amendment or otherwise that a TIS for the proposed Phase be provide for review and analysis. From this analysis we will be able to determine if there are any LOS or APF issues with the proposed Phase, and appropriate measures can be done to address the issues. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Note number 9 on the site plan also needs to indicate that a Traffic Impact Study shall be submitted with each Minor Amendment for future buildings. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: New standards for median landscaping are being adopted (the standards have had first reading with City Council). I don’t know what the expectation for the landscaping of the modified medians is to be. I have talked briefly about this with Bruce Hendee and it seemed that landscaping to the new standards would be expected. This maybe what you are showing. The landscape plans for the medians need to be reviewed and coordinated with the Streetscape Team. Pete Wray or Clark Mapes can coordinate that. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: The plans note that the existing sewer main easement will be vacated by the plat. The easement cannot be vacated until the easement is no longer needed and the line has been relocated, so the notes on the plans need to be changed to reflect this. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Upon relocation and of the Sewer Main line the City can process a vacation of the existing easement area. This is an administrative process. At such time as this can be vacated the applicant will need to provide a legal description and sketch for the area to be vacated (prepared by licensed surveyor), the processing fee (currently $400), and the filing fess which will be calculated at the time of recording. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: You are showing the building envelope line crossing over the utility easement adjacent to Lincoln Ave. It would be better if this was not shown crossing over since it is unlikely that the easement would be vacated to accommodate this. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Note number 4 on the utility plans and note number 1 on the grading plans indicate that the City shall inspect all storm sewers. We can do this (inspection fees will be charged), but we only require the City to inspect those lines to be owned and maintained by the City. Right now it is not noted on the plans which lines are private or public, but will assume that some of them will be private and we do not need to inspect these. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: On the interim cross section and as part of your design you need to show a 4 paved shoulder with a minimum of 2 foot gravel beyond adjacent to the right turn lanes. The bike lane serves as this where they are adjacent to the edge of roadway, so it is not needed there. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: North of the Phase 1 production support building there is some landscaping that is shown within the row. This landscaping will conflict with the future sidewalk, grading and improvements that will be installed with the Lincoln improvements. I suggest that this is not shown or installed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Why are there no street trees shown in the Lemay Ave parkway adjacent to the retail portion of the property? Also a portion of this frontage doesn’t show grass or any improvements within the parkway. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Cover sheet – may want to provide more room for the index of sheets so that there is room to add the list of additional sheets that will be added with the future minor amendments (future phase sheets). Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: The existing fire hydrant shown to be relocated (at the north west corner of the property) is this to be relocated with the first phase? If so it needs to be shown on the phase 1 utility sheets. The hydrant should be placed 8- 10 feet north of the property line so that it falls within the future parkway and will not need to be relocated again. A note should be provided indicating this location. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Phase 1 utility sheets. You need some additional sheets to show all the utility work that is a part of phase 1. The relocated sewer and several storm lines go off the sheets provided. Also per the street plans it appears that the water and sewer mains going into the retail area are to be stubbed in, but the phase 1 plans do not show that. Please clarify. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Need to note what happens to the existing sewer line once it is no longer needed. Will it be removed? The portion within the row will need to be removed. If other portions are to be left in place the portions that run under utility easements will need to be flow filled so it will be clear if a utility digs them up that it is no longer an active line. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: It appears that an access easement will be needed at the NW corner of the Magnolia entrance for the sidewalk and ramp that is outside of the row. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Will need to show the boundaries of the off-site easements on the final plan set. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The signal pole relocations and changes will need to be noted on the utility plan sheet. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The phase 1 grading plans show that the existing driveway for the golf course and the club house building are to remain. For how long? Is it just to be used for the construction of Phase 1? Once we know the intending time of usage we can address when the access point needs to be closed. The site plan doesn’t show this building and parking staying. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The wall at the south end of the retail area needs to be labeled on the site plan and height provided. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Need to provide off-site profile design at time of final. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Can we keep the interim pavement section being added to Lincoln to a minimum 2% cross slope? Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The plat needs some work. There are missing utility easements and drainage easements Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: The plat is showing the vacation of a gas easement. The gas easement owner will need to sign the plat to show that they do agree to this. It should also be noted that only the portion of the easement within the boundaries of this plat is vacated by this plat. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: PRPA will need to sign the plat accepting the new easement being dedicated to them and identifying they agree to the vacation of the existing easement. I would guess that they will not vacate the existing easement until the line has been relocated, but that decision is theirs. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Will need PRPA signature on the utility plans on the sheets where the line relocation is shown. This will indicate their approval of the infrastructure and improvements shown below the line. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The extra row dedication shown on Lincoln Ave for the right turn lanes does not need to be dedicated. Based on preliminary cross section any right turn lanes needed for this site can be accommodated within the 57.5 feet of ½ row being dedicated. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Some adjustment of the flowline profile grades is needed to meet minimum standards, but I think we can work through that. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/24/2013: The approximate 300' buffer line and proposed buffer line needs to be added to all plan sheets for ease of reference. These lines need to be labeled. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: A rendering for the river restoration area would be highly valuable to illustrate the different planting zones, as it is difficult to see these areas on the plans. These areas should be more clearly delineated as well. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: The lighting plan, as currently submitted, does not address the Lot 3 area, as this is a future phase. A note will need to be added to the plans that indicates no lighting will be allowed to spill over into the buffer zones in any future phases. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: Are there opportunities to create more diverse experiences for trail users, e.g., on the west side of the plan? Also, as discussed, where can access to the river for trail users be had? One option could be in the power line easement, if that is relocated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/24/2013: Alternative compliance for the river restoration landscaping (Section 3.2.1(N)) of the Land Use Code will be necessary to use the alternative species sizes and for the species diversity requirements. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: Please consider an interpretive area at the west side of Lot 3 at the end of the bank entrance. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: In the Lot 3 area, the transitions from the built to the natural environment will be critical. The following ideas were discussed: -to achieve compliance with Section 4.20(D)(3)(1), the formation of outdoor spaces, such as courtyards, plazas, etc. shall be applied and this will also help break up the massing of the two-story building. -screening of the west side of the parking lot should include a wall (if it works from a floodplain perspective) and landscaping materials. Landscaping materials in this area must not all be native, though the transition back to native species should occur as quickly as possible. Rocky Mountain Junipers was one species discussed during the meeting for achieving this objective. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: One concern with the building along the river buffer is the potential for bird collisions. Treatments for the glass are recommended. See a set of guidelines here: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/bird_safe_bldgs/Standards_for_Bird_Saf e_Buildings_7-5-11.pdf. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: In the long-term management plan for the site, beaver management, including the painting of trees, should be considered. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: In the landscape plans, wetland plantings are proposed to be broadcast seeded. As per discussions with the Natural Areas Department, wetland plugs are required. Though the initial cost will be more, the management costs associated with weed and cattail removal from broadcasting wetland seeding will quickly eliminate any of the upfront savings. Please revise the plan sets accordingly. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: The project has submitted a proposal that utilizes the performance standards outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code instead of the quantitative standards of 300'. The project has proposed an overall buffer area of 29.4 acres instead of the 24.4 acres that would be required through the 300' standard. In addition, the project has proposed extensive grading to reconnect the Poudre River with its floodplain and extensive bank stabilization work is being proposed. If the above issues are addressed by the time of hearing, then staff will support the use of the performance standards on this site. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/24/2013: The ECS will need to be updated to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of the buildings in Lot 3, as the plans have changed since the ECS was submitted in December of 2012. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: Tree removal should be timed to avoid the nesting season in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A nest survey shall be conducted prior to any tree removal if tree removal is proposed during the nesting season (April-July). Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: A signature line for the Environmental Planner shall be added to all Utility Plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: Staff has received a copy of the Jurisdictional Determination from the Army Corps of Engineers, which indicates that all of the site's wetlands and open ponds are non-jurisdictional, as they are covered as a preamble water of the US (waters created artificially, such as the golf ponds). However, City staff is continue to work with the applicants to ensure that the 0.1 acres of wetlands surrounding the golf ponds are mitigated during the project in the river restoration area. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: Additional tree and shrub plantings should be provided along the western portion of the realigned Poudre River Trail for additional shading and cover. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 01/24/2013: How will users access the proposed amphitheater? Is there to a crusher fines path or just social paths that arise? Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 01/23/2013: The note that discusses utility and tree separation should include 6 feet separation for water and sewer service lines. Please review tree locations to meet the tree utility separation standards in 3.2.1 K including the street light separation. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: A tree survey with the code required information has been submitted. Please submit the final version of the survey including the list of trees that have been numbered. Please delineate on that survey the trees to retain, remove or transplant. Unfortunately prior attempts to transplant on site have proved limiting with the rocky material in the soil. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 01/23/2013: Please add information on total tree planting on the project on sheet L19 Tree mitigation plan. Consider placing this information with the possible heading Total Tree Planting on Project above the tree mitigation table. Mitigation trees # Additional trees # Total tree planting on project # Also please add the number of trees retained on the project possibly by the symbol for existing trees to remain and be protected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The peach leaf willow is a very good selection to use along the River. Since availabilty of caliper material is sometimes challenging it might be worth checking with suppliers on their inventory of caliper material. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Some of the large trees near the barn and sillo may be in the location of the future head quarters. If that is their location is the project considering retaining any trees that might be suitable short term in this area until the construction of the building? Not sure if grading is a factor that could impact short term retention? Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please review any cut or fill within the drip line of trees to retain with a qualified and certified arborist to confirm likelihood of survival. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Consider using both Plains Cottonwood and Lanceleaf Cottonwood along the River. Please consider if the use of additioanl tree species or varieties is benifical in the the development area. City Forester is available for discussion. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Light And Power Contact: Alan Rutz, 970-224-6153, arutz@fcgov.com Department: Light And Power Contact: Alan Rutz, 970-224-6153, arutz@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2013: Light and Power development charges and system modification charges will apply Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: If trees are being planted in the medium in Lemay they need to be 40’ from a streetlight. Ornamental trees need to be 15’ from a streetlight. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: Coordinate location of Light and Power switchgear and primary metering cabinets. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: Transformers should be located within 10 ft of a drivable surface and be accessible by a line truck. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General 01/21/2013: FIRE LANES Fire lanes shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: FIRE LANES Currently, the proposed emergency access routes do not allow for sufficient access to the ITS Bldg. or the Production Support Bldg. (see plans page #OCP-1). Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: FIRE LANES Provide a detail showing which fire lanes are "designed to be above the flood plain elevation" vs. those that "will be located slightly below the flood plain." Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: SECURITY GATES The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. 2006 International Fire Code 503.6 Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: WATER SUPPLY & FIRE ACCESS The project has yet to provide a proposed fire suppression plan for offsetting the need for fire access and water supply in the south side of the ITS facility. Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General 01/25/2013: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire lines capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. 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 on entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D Per PDP130001 plan set, the height of the ITS building is 34 feet. As such, a fire lane shall be provided on the east flank of the building meeting the criteria specified in Appendix D of the 2006 IFC. Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 01/25/2013 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain 01/23/2013: 1 Plat – The effective 100-year floodplain and floodway must be shown not the proposed floodplain. 2 Landscape plans – Please make sure the floodplain lines can be seen throughout and that the floodplain is labeled as “proposed.” 3 Landscape Plan – Sheet L6 – An amphitheater is shown on this plan and is not included on the floodplain plans. Please discuss this with ACE for inclusion in the hydraulic model and the impact on the floodplain. 4 Site Plan – Please add the proposed floodway boundary and see edits to the notes. 5 On any plans where the floodplain variance is discussed, please revise to say the variance was approved and list the conditions of approval. Ex. Floodplain Plan, Note 9; Site Plan, Sheet 1. 6 Floodplain Plan – Please expand the floodplain table to include all of the buildings – including the retail and the future buildings. Please also list in separate columns: the effective 100-year flood elevation, the effective 500-year flood elevation, the regulatory flood protection elevation, the lowest HVAC, mechanical or electrical elevation. Please add a footnote of the conversion to the FEMA 1988 datum for use in filling out the elevation certificates. 7 Floodplain Plan – Other plans show a retaining wall, entrance sign and amphitheater. Please show these items on the floodplain plan and provide a detail of the design. Staff is concerned that the retaining wall may be considered a flood wall by FEMA. These items should be discussed with ACE for floodplain impact. 8 Floodplain Plan and MUP-1 – Please include FF for future buildings. 9 Floodplain Plan- Please clarify Note 3 that a separate floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee is required for each structure built prior to the LOMR approval by FEMA. The permits can be obtained at time of building permit. All restoration and site grading can be done as one permit. Any future work not included on these plans will require a separate floodplain use permit. 10 Floodplain Plan – Note 4 – Please clarify that no work, including excavation, shall be done in the floodway prior to approval of the CLOMR by FEMA. Include that the staging 11 Floodplain Plan – Note 8 – Clarify that proposed flood elevations are subject to approval of the FEMA CLOMR and LOMR. 12 Floodplain Plan – Please add a note that no work is planned for the historic barn or other structures at this time. Any future work is subject to the floodplain regulations in Chapter 10 of City Code. 13 Floodplain Plan and ECP-1 – Include a note that all staging areas, including storage of equipment and materials, etc., must be located out of the 100-year floodplain. 14 Floodplain Plan – Include a note that all floatable materials (picnic tables, bike racks, trash dumpsters) located in the 100-year floodplain must be anchored to prevent floatation. Any fleet vehicles must be parked in areas outside the 100-year floodplain. 15 Floodplain Plan – Include a note that all buildings are designed as slab-on-grade. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain 01/23/2013: 16 Floodplain Plan – Include a note that any elevators will be designed in compliance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 4. 17 Floodplain Plan – Include a note that each structure must have a FEMA elevation certificate reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the CO. 18 Floodplain Plan and Site Plan – Include a note that life-safety and emergency response critical facilities are not allowed in the 100- or 500-year floodplain. 19 Floodplain Plan – Legend – Floodway needs to be mapped and shown on the plans. The floodplain lines are hard to distinguish and make it difficult to determine what is in and out of the floodplain – please review and revise if possible. Label the floodplain lines as “proposed”. 20 A second floodplain plan is needed to show the effective floodplain and floodway, since the proposed floodplain and floodway are not yet approved and therefore are not regulatory. 21 When including a note about floodplain being revised and that these are “proposed floodplain lines”, please add a clarifyi8ng statement that these lines are subject to the FEMA LOMR. Ex. Sheet MGP-5, Site Plan – Sheet 1 22 As currently shown on the proposed floodplain mapping, the relocated Fisher Barn may be the only historic structure to ultimately be shown in the 100-year floodplain. Is it possible to have this relocated to an area out of the floodplain? See Site Plan Sheet S8. 23 More details are needed regarding the bank stabilization work. Please include details of the site specific grading, rip rap, any TRM, etc. There should be information on specific materials being used – i.e. rip rap size, color, locations, cover, etc.; type of TRM and anchoring of TRM with details for each location. Show areas where concrete and spur dike are being removed and details for bank restoration. 24 Drainage Report – Sect. 1.2 and 3.6 – Please discuss the critical facility hazardous material floodplain variance. Include variance conditions. 25 Drainage Report – Sect. 1.3 – Please discuss other floodplain criteria. See notes from the floodplain plan for items to be included. 26 Drainage Report – Sect. 1.3 - Discuss elevation of structures. Include table from floodplain plan. 27 Drainage Report – Sect. 2.1 Problem Areas and Bank Stabilization Approach – In discussing the stability plans, please reference the specific plan sheet for the location and the restoration details for these problem areas. Include descriptive details of the designs. 28 Drainage Report – Sect. 3.6 – Please state that the development is subject to the floodplain regulations in Chapter 10 of City Code. Discuss future development requirements from notes being added to the floodplain plan. 29 Please see the Floodplain Development Review Checklist marked up by Marsha Hilmes-Robinson. Items that are not checked off or marked NA still need to be included on the plans and in the drainage report. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: General Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: There is a concern for the lack of design for the many areas areas proposing overland flow in a 100-year storm. How these flows are directed to the river in the interim and ultimate conditions without causing erosion and in a safely manner in conjunction with the other site features is the focus. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The text of the drainage report mentions taking the off-site flows of the Coy ditch but I could not see on the plans how this was happening. It looks like if enter a sump (pond) and then just spills and travel overland towards the south and maybe even onto the property to the west. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: It was hard to determine if the storm sewer system was accepting the 10 or 100-year design flows or if the system was designed for these flows minus the calculated infiltration flows in the water quality mitigation areas. There was a lack of labeling that I could not correlate the inlet calculations with the utility plans. The City does not like the idea of reducing pipe sizes an not accommodating the full design flow. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Just an FYI - The future development will need to meet the assumed impervious area calculation or revisions to the water quality ponds and conveyance system would be required in the future. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Many details will need to be worked out with this unique design during final compliance. The project is close to meeting the requirements for a public hearing. Comments 3 and 4 should be addressed before the hearing and any floodplain comments determined by that department. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: All water quality mitigation and conveyance infrastructure needs to be in a drainage easement. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: A separation distance of 10 feet is required between shade trees and any storm sewers. Seven feet separation for ornamental trees. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: During final compliance, the spill locations need to designed in detail with special attention to erosion and site conflicts. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The maximum depth for ponding in a parking lot or private drive is 1 foot. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations 01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please increase the text sizes of the stories & finish floor elevations on the last 3 sheets. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please remove Site from the title on the last 3 sheets. This is not consistent with the other plan sheets. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add sheet numbering to the last 3 sheets. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: Construction Drawings 01/23/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark R402. If you need a current copy of the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control Network, please contact Jeff with Technical Services. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There are descriptions in the index on sheet CV-1 that do not match the actual sheet title. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Sheets MUP-1 - MUP-5 show sheet MUP-3 incorrectly labeled as MUP-5 in the key map. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There are match line references on sheets MUP-2 & MUP-3 that are incorrect. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There are several sheets that show "continuation" rather than "match". Are these correctly labeled? Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add the missing match line reference to the top of sheet MGP-3. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add a space between "Sheet" & UP-4 in the match line reference on sheet UP-3. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please swap the title around on sheets SPP-1 - SPP-9 to match the index on the cover sheet. For example, sheet SPP-1 would read "S. Lemay Ave - Plan & Profile West Flowline". Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: Landscape Plans Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet L16. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please remove Woodward & Site from the title on sheets L17 & L18. This is not consistent with the other plan sheets. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheets L17 & L18. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: Lighting Plan 01/23/2013: Could the text be a little larger on sheet EL1-00-00? Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please remove Woodward from the title on all sheets. This is not consistent with the other plan sheets. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please mask all text on sheets EL1-00-01, EL1-00-02 & EL1-00-04. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: Plat 01/23/2013: The legal description closes. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The legal description differs from the plat dimensions shown. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The two distances shown(see redlines) near the end of the legal description, are not shown on the plat. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please correct the plat tite shown in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. It does not match the title shown in other places on the Plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholders signature block. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Are there sight distance easements on this plat? If not, please remove the language from sheet 1. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add a space between Of & Link in the title block on all sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat 01/23/2013: Please label all surrounding properties as unplatted or with the subdivision names. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please label all monuments set or found. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add bearings & distances as shown. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There are several line over text issues. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There is cut off text on sheet 2. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: What do the "shaded" & "hatched" mean in the easement labels? Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please make lot lines heavier. They are difficult to see with so many other easement lines. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: All easements(existing & proposed) must be shown with enough information(bearing/distance, curve data, etc.) to establish their positions. Please include detail drawings as necessary. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please supply monument records for the public land corners shown. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: For easements "to be vacated", please include a note, if applicable, explaining that easement will be vacated at a later date pending the completion of new utility/trail(etc.) improvements. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Any vacations or dedications of easements to parties other than "the public" or the City of Fort Collins must either be 1) dedicated/vacated by seperate document, and the recording information must be shown on the plat, or 2) have acceptance language included on the plat which is signed by an appropriate repressentative of the easements owner(PRPA, Public Service, etc.). Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Are the "Set #4 Rebar w/ 1" Plastic Cap, LS14283", set with ALTA? Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The curve data table on sheet 3 differs from the legal description. See redlines. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please show the bearings in the line table on sheet 3 to the nearest second. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat 01/23/2013: Please label the 100 year floodplain line. See redlines. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please show all dedication information for all street rights of way. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please show pins on line(> 1400') for the outer boundary. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Topic: Site Plan 01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study 01/22/2013: 1) The study shows that the initial phase of the project which includes Woodward office and manufacturing space can occur without any significant impacts to the transportation system with the following improvements installed: a. Left turn lanes at access points on Lincoln. b. A new west leg at the Lemay/Magnolia intersection with a left turn lane and combination through/right lane on the new eastbound approach and a northbound left turn lane on Lemay. c. A new ¾ movement access on Lemay north of Magnolia with a northbound left turn lane on Lemay. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: 2) The study shows that subsequent phases can occur provided the following additional improvements are installed: a. A second southbound left turn lane at Lemay/Mulberry b. A southbound right turn lane at Lemay/Magnolia c. A southbound right turn lane at the new ¾ movement access on Lemay north of Magnolia d. Right turn lanes at the access points on Lincoln. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: 3) While the study does not show that items 2) b., c., and d. above are needed for the first phase, it indicates that they will be installed as part of the first phase. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: 4) The study indicates that the Lemay/Vine intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) with implementation of subsequent phases. However, further analysis by City Traffic Operations staff and the project traffic consultant show that acceptable level of service (LOS D) can be maintained at this intersection. An addendum to the traffic study should be provided noting this result change. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Amy Lewin, 970-416-2040, alewin@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/23/2013: Please provide a separate sheet showing the pedestrian framework (without contours, etc.), as required in Section 3.2.2. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: On the Lincoln Typical Section – Interim: Please note the westbound shoulder as a bike lane. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2013: Regarding the bus stop at Magnolia and Lemay, I see the side walk extends to leave enough room for the the space needed for the bus stop (12' x 18'), but the square shown for the bus stop is only 10' x 18', can you please make the square the full size needed to clarify exactly where we can locate the bus stop? Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings 01/22/2013: At final, label all fittings, valves, hydrants, etc., etc. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: At final, label all fittings, valves, hydrants, etc., etc. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: At final, provide profile of the 12" water mains and all sanitary sewers. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: At final, provide profile of the 12" water mains and all sanitary sewers. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Minimum easement widths are 20 feet for water and 30 feet for sanitary. In areas where water and sanitary are together and 10 feet apart, the minimum easement with is 35 feet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Minimum easement widths are 20 feet for water and 30 feet for sanitary. In areas where water and sanitary are together and 10 feet apart, the minimum easement with is 35 feet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: All connections to existing water mains are to be made using wet taps and labeled as noted on the redlined utility plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: All connections to existing water mains are to be made using wet taps and labeled as noted on the redlined utility plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings 01/22/2013: Show all water meter pits/vaults. These are to be located in landscaped areas. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Show all water meter pits/vaults. These are to be located in landscaped areas. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The connections for 3" water services are to b made using a 4" valve followed by a 4" x 3" reducer. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The connections for 3" water services are to b made using a 4" valve followed by a 4" x 3" reducer. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The Energy Technology Center, the Production Support building and the future Headquarters building are all shown with 3" water services which seem quite large for those facilities. Are those services labeled correctly? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The Energy Technology Center, the Production Support building and the future Headquarters building are all shown with 3" water services which seem quite large for those facilities. Are those services labeled correctly? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The existing 27" sewer is a VCP sewer not steel. The re-routed 27" should be installed using PVC sewer pipe. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The existing 27" sewer is a VCP sewer not steel. The re-routed 27" should be installed using PVC sewer pipe. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Add valves where noted on the redlined plans. Valve locations will be reviewed again at final. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Add valves where noted on the redlined plans. Valve locations will be reviewed again at final. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Please return redlined plans with next submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Please return redlined plans with next submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Topic: Landscape Plans 01/22/2013: Adjust plantings to meet the required separation distances from water sewer lines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, , rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 01/22/2013: Adjust plantings to meet the required separation distances from water sewer lines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Topic: Plat 01/22/2013: Why are easements not shown for Phase 2 water/sewer lines? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Why are easements not shown for Phase 2 water/sewer lines? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The easement for the existing 27" sewer cannot be vacated until the re-routed sewer is installed, accepted and in service. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The easement for the existing 27" sewer cannot be vacated until the re-routed sewer is installed, accepted and in service. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2013: Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.2(L) The standard stall dimensions is 19' x 9'. The length of the stall can be reduced with the adequate overhang area as illustrated in figure 5 in section 3.2.2(M). Also LUC 3.2.2.(L)(3) allows a reduction in stall length and width in a Long-term Parking area as long as there is no compact spaces. LUC 3.2.2(L)(2) Compact stalls are allowed only in long-term vehicle parking areas. There should be no compact stalls on LOT 3 On LOT 2 and on LOT 1 the parking areas can not mix the reduced stalls dimensions for standard parking and stall dimensions for compact spaces. Also when using compact stall dimensions, compact spaces can only be 40% of the long term vehicle parking area. Please identify the percentage of compact spaces. Future Parking areas should be labeled with stall dimensions. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) The bicycle parking requirements spaces should be located near all buildings' primary entrance. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General 01/18/2013: LUC 3.5.3 The uses of buildings along the ROW on LOT 3 are required to be built within 10-25ft of the ROW of an Arterial street. Please indicate exactly the required POWERLINE setback along each of these buildings. Also parking spaces are required a landscape setback of at least 15ft from an Arterial ROW and 10ft from a Non-Arterial ROW please label the setback distance of the parking spaces from the ROW. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: On Site Plan cover sheet under Standard Notes #8, please include that signs on plans are for reference only and will be permitted through separate sign permit. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: LUC 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling enclosure locations need to be includes on LOT 3 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/22/2013: LUC 3.5.1(G) Buildings and structures over 40ft in height require to provided additional information (shadow analysis and visual analysis). It appears the HQ, ES and Office/Courtyard buildings are over 40ft in height. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: Need to see Mechanical/utility equipment (vents, flues, conduit, meters, AC/RTU...) locations on plans with notes on how these will be screen/painted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: LUC 3.5.3(D)(4) On Lot 3 the building entrances are required to be clearly defined and recessed by a sheltering element. On Lot 3, the Office building elevations, how is the patio that faces the river accessed from the building? Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/23/2013: The lighting plan needs more information. Particularly more reference to the actual site plan. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The landscaping plan needs to include the quantities. Also can the landscaping plan be simplified, by only showing the phase one condition. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013