Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER FILING 3 (FORMERLY 1721 S. COLLEGE TOWNHOMES) - PDP - PDP160042 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)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 06, 2017 Mark Goehausen CORE FT COLLINS LLC 2234 W NORTH AVE Chicago, IL 60647 RE: 1721 S College Townhomes, PDP160042, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Comment Responses: Antunovich Associates, Kimley-Horn, Core Spaces, AE Design Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4334, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Move the date under the legal description. Response: The date has been moved under the legal description. See Sheet 1 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Missing note 1. in Street Improvement notes: 1. All street construction is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans as well as the Street Improvements Notes listed here. Response: Street Improvement note 1 has been added to Sheet 2 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Missing note 1. in Traffic Signing and Pavement marking notes: 1. All signage and marking is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans, as well as the Traffic Signing and Marking Construction Notes listed here. Response: Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking note 1 has been added to Sheet 2 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Missing construction notes on section: D - storm drainage notes E - Waterline notes Response: The Storm Drainage and Waterline notes have been added to Sheet 2 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Add street cut notes to demolition plans. Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Response: The street cut notes have been added as notes 16 and 17 to the demolition notes on Sheet 3 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Note that you can not drain more than 750sqft over a sidewalk. Response: Comment Noted. The only area that drains over the ROW sidewalk is the 10 ft landscape setback, which is also being utilized as a utility easement, see Sheet 6 and 8 of the Utility Plan Set. Yard inlets have not been provided within the front landscape to avoid obstructions in the easement. An inlet is provided at the southeast corner of the site to capture all runoff from the drive aisle. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Per LCUASS detail 707.1 the driveway onto College Ave needs to be between 24'-36' wide, currently 22' is shown. Response: The driveway onto College Avenue has been expanded to 24 feet. See Sheet 1 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Cannot build structures that require building permits in utility easements, there is a proposed retaining wall on the west and south side of the property and on the east side Response: The easements are being revised to not conflict with the proposed retaining wall locations. See sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Dumpster walls will not exceed 6’ in height. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Storm inlet D2 is in the trash enclosure, what does this detail look like? Response: This storm inlet has been removed. Drainage from the trash enclosure will sheet flow over the pavers, ultimately reaching storm structure D3. See sheet 7 and 8 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Labels for easements are not consistent through documents, the middle 24' easement is listed as just a drainage easement on the utility plan sheet 5. Response: The Utility Plans have been revised to be consistent with the proposed Plat. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Show all easements on the utility plans, missing the trash enclosure easement and the access easements in the south corner. Response: All easements are shown in the Utility Plan Set, see Sheet 8. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: LCUASS 9.4.6, the driveway needs to be concrete up until the property line. Response: The driveway is concrete to at least the property line. See Sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Please label the property lines and easement lines more clearly. Response: The property lines and easement lines have been labeled clearly. See Sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Please provide a table of curves for your return radii, CDOT curb return radii for this intersection be 30' from table 7.13. Response: The return radii have been changed to 30 ft. See Sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Topic: General Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: See redlines for additional comments. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Have graphic scale but missing the wording 1"-XX' on all sheets. Response: A written form of the scale has been listed on all sheets. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: The legal name on all the documents need to match the legal name on the plat. Response: The legal name on all sheets has been revised to be consistent with the Plat. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: All of the "to be vacated" statements should be removed, all of the easements need to be recorded prior to the recording of this plat. Show them as completed on this document with the reception number. Response: Easements to be vacated are now shown on the plat as noted above per the comment. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: The north measurements of the lot are not consistent with the suggested movement of the property line. Response: Length measurement on north property line has been revised. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: The cross access easements need to identify who they are dedicated to. They will need to sign accepting the easement. Response: Cross access easements will be private and ownership will be designated in the easement document. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Is this re-plat dedicating 13' from the existing Lot 2 of the Choice Center? If so, need approval from current owner. Response: Yes, and the client developing this property is also the owner of the adjacent property. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: The applicant will need to obtain access permits from CDOT for closing and opening the access point on S College Ave. Response: Comment noted. An access permit application will be submitted to CDOT for the closing and opening of the access point on College Avenue. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: Fees Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2016 12/09/2016: The project owes an additional $279.75 for the TDR PDP fees. The project is platting 1.474 acres and only identified .35 acres on the form. Response: A check for the additional amount has been cut and will be delivered to the city so that all fees are paid in full. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016 12/16/2016: It appears there are a few trees that would be removed with this project, but a tree mitigation plan was not submitted. Please arrange an on-site meeting with the City Forester to determine mitigation requirements for any significant trees on the site. For trees that will be protected, the City's standard tree protection specifications and notes will need to be included with the landscape plan. Note LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requiring developments to submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan, that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5) enhances the pedestrian environment.” Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Response: Onsite meeting completed and mitigation plan included. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016 12/16/2016: If tree removal is necessary, please include the following note on the tree mitigation plan and/or landscape plan, as appropriate: “All tree removal shown shall be completed outside of the songbird nesting season (Feb 1 - July 31) or a survey will be conducted of the trees to be removed to ensure that no active nests are present." Response: Note added on the Landscape plan. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/04/2017: Please schedule a site visit with the City Forester to obtain Tree Inventory and Mitigation information. Response: Onsite meeting completed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/04/2017: Please evaluate the feasibility of expanding the parkway to 5 feet wide in order to accommodate the future health of the trees. Also, be sure to use irrigated turf grass in the parkway. Response: Per City discussion and per the Midtown corridor plan, 12’ multi use path and a 5’ parkway is acceptable. Parkway no longer planted with turf. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/04/2017: The City Forester would like to see Catalpa and Kentucky Coffeetree used as street trees. Response: Trees changed to Catalpa and Kentucky Coffeetree. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/04/2017: In the Plant Schedule, please be sure to include tree sizes, quantities, and list as B&B (balled and burlapped). Response: Tree sizes, quantities and B&B listed in plant schedule. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/04/2017: Please add the bolded Permit Box note, which is available through the City Forester. Response: Permit box note added to Landscape plan. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016 12/21/2016: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 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 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 Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Response: A pre-submittal meeting was conducted with the development team on January 18th , 2017 and suggested modifications have been incorporated into the attached re-submission package. Development will comply with adopted codes and design guidelines indicated above. 1721 s college – project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required. 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor for 1 exit buildings. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. 5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. 7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. 9. Low VOC interior finishes. Response: Project will comply with adopted codes and design guidelines indicated above. Per CRS 9-5, the apartment development of 10 total dwelling units requires 6 ‘accessibility points’ which will achieve by the provision of (1) Type-A dwelling unit (6 points). City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Currently three phase power is the primary source of power in the area. There is a 120/208V three phase transformer located to the NE corner of the property to the south. This can be upgraded or primary can be tapped off of this and supplied to a dedicated transformer for the site. Response: Per our meeting with the city of Fort Collins Power and Light on 1/18/2017, the city of Fort Collins has agreed to allow us to utilize the transformer at the adjacent property to the south so long as the transformer is in an easement. We plan to utilize (4) of the (6) available conduit entry points in this existing transformer. We were advised during this meeting that the transformer would be upgraded if necessary. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: If power is taken from an area located on another private property, utility easements will need to be obtained from that property owner Response: Comment noted. The owner of this property is also the owner of the neighboring property from which we will be taking power, so we will ensure that all easements between the two properties are obtained. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Single phase service can be supplied from the existing three phase transformer. Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations. Please show these locations on the utility plans. Transformers need to have an 8’ frontal and 3’ side/rear clearance. It also has to be 10’ within a drivable surface and cannot be located under the drip zone of any trees. Please reference our Electric Service Standards to ensure requirements and policies are met. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: AE Design is currently planning 3 phase power to the site. We have shown the requested meter locations on the electrical site plan. Thank you for listing the clearance requirements. Since we are utilizing the existing transformer, we will not be showing anything new on the site plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: A completed commercial service form (C-1) and one-line diagram will need to be filled out by engineer/electrician and provided to Light & Power in order to determine billing and proper transformer sizing. A link to our C-1 form is below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: Per your request, we have provided form (C-1) with our resubmittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Currently the existing transformer to the south has only six feed positions available. If service to these townhomes needs more than this, a new transformer must be added and location must be coordinated. Response: Thank you for this information. Our site will only require (4) conduit feeds. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: If there are any additional questions, please contact Todd Vedder with Light & Power at tvedder@fcgov.com or 970-224-6152 Response: Thank you for the contact information. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Gas must maintain a 3 feet parallel and meter separation with electric services. Response: The gas meter and the electric meter will be at least 3’ apart per your requirements. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: The two 5 unit buildings will be treated as a commercial application. Therefore commercial rates will apply. Response: Comment noted. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: FIRE LANE TURN RADIUS The plans do not support the ability of fire apparatus to negotiate the turn at the south end of the central drive aisle. Turning radius is to be a minimum of 25ft. This should also be reflected on the plat. Code language provided below. > IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Response: Per the AutoTurn exhibit provided to the Fort Collins Fire Department, the city’s fire truck can make the turn only when the front end of the truck is allowed to pass over the proposed curb line. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: FIRE LANE There are some inconsistencies between the Replat and Site Plan documenting the width of the Emergency Access Easement. In order to avoid confusion, the EAE should be widened to include the whole drivable width between the buildings. Response: The Emergency Access Easement has been widened to include the entire driveway width. See sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets and the applicant should be aware that additional on-site signage may be required at time of field inspection and final CO. Code language provided below. > IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. Response: Fire lane signs shall be provided on the site. Notes have been added to sheet 1 of the Site Plan Set. Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: The proposed layout has significant code issues regarding landscape requirements. Full tree stocking is required around the buildings. Foundation planting is required along the west face of the west building. See LUC 3.2.1. The combination of elements used to transition between the Choice Center Building 2 and new west building are too harsh and the area is not put together in a way that meets the requirement in LUC 3.2.1(H). Currently this west area includes wet utility lines so it does appear that space exists with the current layout to meet all of the basic elements of the land use code. Response: Additional landscape space added to lessen the harshness of the transition area. between buildings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Parking design: HC spaces? Guest spaces? Parking dimensions of garage spaces? Response: Residential parking spaces are located within enclosed garages attached to each residential dwelling unit. “Unit Summary & Enlarged Parking Plans” exhibit sheet has been added to depict the parking dimensions of garage spaces. Guest parking spaces will be available at the adjacent “State on Campus” parking structure which is owned and operated by the Applicant. A 28’ drive aisle width btw. garages is required per LUC 3.2.2(L). Response: Site constraints limit the drive between the garages to 24 feet. A modification request has been submitted for this variation. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Landscape plan -- The three ribbons of plantings along College Do not provide a good design. All of the ribbons are about the same width. Would suggest getting rid of the grass strip and making the design have larger massings of perennial grasses and tougher evergreen sections such as the dwarf varieties of Spruce, such as Globe Spruce. Response: Design amended, grass strip removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Would suggest looking at recent locally approved plans for plant selections that are more bullet-proof and that will grow together in more cohesive massings. Response: New plant selections used. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Originally I had said that a 10’ wide parkway is required along the College frontage, however the 5' parkway is allowable with the Midtown plan. Overall the parkway design along the Choice Center looks bleak. The parkway to the north for some reason is not currently installed per the approved landscape plans. This needs to be investigated further. Would suggest massings of low perennial grasses between the trees. Response: Massings of grasses added between the trees. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: 7’ width entrance walks to each door along S. College is excessive, change to 5 feet. Response: Walkways from College Ave. sidewalk to apartment entryways have been revised to 5’-wide. Entry patios immediately adjacent to each apartment door and between built-up planters are 6’-wide and corresponds to apartment entry width of architectural façade bays. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Too much pavement touching the building in the NE corner and NE portion of the site. Snow/ice issues and not aesthetically pleasing. Also walkway next to building would have visibility/crossing issues. Think about ways to combine walkways, such as the east/west walkways to the north, perhaps locate shrubs to create privacy and buffering from S. College of the grass panel as opposed to along the drive connection, perhaps a low wall/seating area somewhere to the north, also the pedestrian crossing appears to be important with the current Choice Center approval. Response: Walkways have been combined and 5’ landscaped area is provided along the north side of the buildings. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Bike area location is odd and tacked on. Only accessed by drive aisle used by autos, and by jumping over the curb. Not a good solution. Response: The bike area has been relocated to the northeast corner of the site. This location is accessible and off the main drive. See sheet 2 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Proposal includes elements of Choice Center that are off-site. I will need to discuss this approach with staff to see options available to amend these plans or whether this project would be a new filing of the Choice Center. Response: Amendment Plans are provided for the proposed improvement to the retail center, north of the site. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Building designs: Need subtle changes to add variety, such as variation in door design. Clarify window inset depth on the callouts. See building varaition requirements in LUC 3.8.30. Response: Apartment entry doors will feature variations in their glazing patterns (see architectural elevations). Window inset depth from façade portions featuring modular brick cladding will be +/- 5”. Window inset depth from façade portions featuring fiber cement cladding will be +/- 1.5”. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Too much of one material on the south elevations and interior elevations. Would like to see better quality materials turning the corner of the buildings as opposed to the façade dominant treatment. Response: Architectural facades have been redesigned to incorporate more brick material at the south and inner driveway elevations. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Need to project the durable/quality materials further inward, and also a better garage door design would be helpful. Response: Architectural facades have been redesigned to incorporate more brick material at the south and inner driveway elevations. Sectional overhead garage doors will feature glazed glass panels. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: PDP submittal, landscape plan in particular does not include all of the items in the detailed city PDP checklist. Also naming the buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’ would be helpful if the proposal continues with two separate buildings. Response: Buildings labeled A and B. Checklist further reviewed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please make appointment and resubmit for further review. Will send you a routing sheet with specific quantities. Response: Comment Noted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: An Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow/Security Calculation have been included in this submittal. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please document in the Drainage Report how the 100-year flows exit the site. Response: A proposed drainage plan is included in the Utility Plan Set and the Drainage Report. which shows the 100 year over flow routes. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please provide a Drainage Plan in the Utility Plan set. Response: A Drainage Plan has been provided in the Utility Plan Set, See Sheet 6. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please show the pavers in the Utility Plan set. The Drainage Plan is a good sheet to show this. Response: The pavers have been shown on the Drainage Plan, Sheet 6, of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please add a LID table to the Drainage Plan. Response: An LID table has been added to the Drainage Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please add a basin summary table to the Drainage Plan. Response: A basin summary has been added to the Drainage Plan. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: Please change the title. The address needs to be removed from the titles & title blocks. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: Comment noted. The address has been removed from the title and titleblock. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: Please change the title. The address needs to be removed from the titles & title blocks. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: Comment noted. The address has been removed from the title and titleblock. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: Please make changes to the sub-title as marked. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: 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: Formatting for benchmark information has been revised accordingly. See sheet 2 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: We suggest using another benchmark. C 322 Reset has been moved during bridge reconstruction. Response: C322 Reset was not the correct benchmark listed. The benchmark information on sheet 2 of the Utility Plan set has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. Response: The benchmarks have been revised to be consistent on all sheets. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched Response: Comment noted. areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: Please change the title. The address needs to be removed from the titles & title blocks. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: Comment noted. The address has been removed from the title and titleblock. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: Please remove the address from the title & title block. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: Project address has been removed from title and title block. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: This Plat has many issues. Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: The plat has been revised per the redline markups. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please change the title. The address needs to be removed from the title & title block. With the project being replatted, the address could change. Response: Comment noted. The address has been removed from the title and titleblock. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Please make changes to the sub-title as marked. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Please remove the "proposed" and/or "PR" from the labels. Response: Comment noted. All “proposed” or “PR” have been removed from easement descriptions. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Please remove the "proposed" and/or "PR" from the labels. Response: Comment Noted. All “proposed” or “PR” have been removed from right of way descriptions. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: The legal description does not match the Subdivision Plat, and is not necessary with the sub-title. Response: The legal description has been removed, it is listed with the subtitle. See sheet 1 of the Site Plan Set. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/05/2017 01/05/2017: There are sheet numbering issues in the sheet index. See redlines. Response: The sheet index has been revised accordingly. See sheet 1 of the Site Plan Set. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable hydrozones, including a water budget chart that shows the total annual water use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. Response: Hydrozone chart for entire site included. Site does not exceed 15 gallons per square foot. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: 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: Comment noted. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: The water and sewer service configurations do not meet the City's requirements. Each building will require it's own water and sewer service. Response: Each building will have a separate sanitary and water service. See sheet 8 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: Are fire services going to be required? Response: A 6” fire service has been extended to each building. See sheet 8 of the Utility Plan Set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: The minimum utility easement widths are 20 feet for water and 30 feet for sanitary sewer. Response: Site constraints do not allow for typical easement widths. See sheet 8 of the Utility Plan Set for the proposed easement widths. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/04/2017 01/04/2017: The minimum sanitary sewer size is a diameter of 8-inches. Response: The existing sanitary sewer servicing the site is 6 inches. Based on discussions with City Staff, this existing 6 inch service will be dedicated as a public main in an easement, thus allowing it to service both buildings. Department: Zoning Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: The provided parking does not meet the T.O.D. adjusted minimum requirement of 22 spaces. The attached garage parking may be credited toward the minimum requirement only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost. Response: Because these dwellings will be rented by the unit, we meeting the parking requirements per the TOD district L.U.C. ordinance which requires us to provide 0.75 spaces for our 1-bedroom unit, 1 space for our 2-bedroom unit, 1.25 spaces for our 3-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for our 5-bedroom unit. Per these calculations, our parking requirement is calculated as 12 parking stalls while we are providing 19. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: A floor plan detail will need to be provided to show where the interior bicycle parking will be allocated . A dedicated 6 square ft. area will need to be provided to meet this requirement. Response: “Unit Summary & Enlarged Parking Plans” exhibit sheet has been added to depict the bike parking areas located in each of the garage spaces. Dedicated bike parking space is 40” x 32” minimum (8.9 square feet) and examples of bike parking equipment has been illustrated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2017 01/03/2017: Will the trash enclosure remain, or will it be reconstructed ? The existing enclosure is constructed over the existing property line. If reconstructed, the enclosure is shown as 8' high and will need a separate building permit. Response: The trash enclosure will be reconstructed. Once the property is replatted, the trash enclosure will be located fully within the property. Per revised elevations, trash enclosure height is reduced to 6”.