HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGE COOPERATIVE FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP160036 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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
November 18, 2016
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Village Cooperative Fort Collins, PDP160036, 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, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Discussion with Transportation staff on the Horsetooth Road frontage improvements has general support
on further exploration of the pork chop design to create the bike lane with the right turn lane avoiding the box structure.
Further design implementation should be explored.
RESPONSE: A pork chop and dedicated right turn lane is now shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Discussion with Transportation staff finds general support on not necessarily requiring additional
right-of-way dedication for the detached sidewalk system along Horsetooth Road, provided that access easement is in
place. The right turn lane/pork chop would need to be fully in right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Right of way will be dedicated to include the pork chop and attached sidewalk.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The parameters for the sight distance easement shown on the plat would need further information.
RESPONSE: A variance will be submitted with regarding the sight distance easement.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Are the plans reflective of the "existing condition" today with the right turn lane constructed by Alberta
Development?
RESPONSE: The existing condition has been updated to include the installed curb and gutter.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: We'll need a formal variance request to the 3 foot of cover from fiinished grade for the storm utility
crossings and the widening for the bikelane/turn lane.
RESPONSE: A variance will not be necessary for the existing arch pipes since we are not proposing changes to the
curbline in that location.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Based on Traffic Operations acceptance of the TIS, and its trip generation, I'm comfortable with the
premise that the new driveway onto Stanford Road is not a high volume driveway and its access spacing along
Stanford Road is acceptable.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The emergency access off of Horsetooth requires the specifying of a driveover curb for the access drive.
Plastic delineator/bollards would need to be specified behind the right-of-way with further onsite design of the
emergency access to meet PFA requirements.
RESPONSE: A driveover curb is now shown at the entrance to the emergency access drive. Gates are proposed to
restrict traffic.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please have the City's full plat language for the certificate of dedication, maintenance and repair
guarantee, etc.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Proposed shade tree species include approximately 36% Quercus spp. including bur oak and red oak
varieties. Please re-allocate and diversify by lowering amount of oak species and increasing other species
perhaps: Hackberry (C. occidentalis) or Catalpa (C. speciosa) in accordance with species diversity standards outlines in
LUC 3.2.1(D). Long-term the City of Fort Collins has a desire not to rely too heavily on specific species for urban
tree canopy cover in case of drastic reductions in the future due to disease or pest species, for example the reductions
anticipated in the next 3-5 years due to emerald ash tree borer (approximately 25% of City urban tree canopy is
composed of green ash trees).
RESPONSE: Changes to the Tree List have been made to reduce the ratios.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Thank you for including the note and specifics on the native seed mix that includes grasses and forbs
(wildflowers). Additional installation and maintenance standard notes need to be added to Landscape Notes. City Staff
can provide those. In addition, please note that City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department has notified seed
companies to begin creating these specific requested mixes for 2017, thus, there should be no difficulty in
availability or need for substitutions in lieu of mixes included on approved plans. Thank you.
RESPONSE: Notes have been revised
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: 3000K or less LED fixtures are called out on plans. Please ensure these notes make it to approved plans
and/or construction drawings and that substitutions are not made. The request for LED luminaires with corrected color
temperature of 3000K or less is due to City resident complaints and recommendations by both the American Medical
Association and International Dark Skies Association for reducing the amounts of blue light in the night sky.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Environmental Planning and Planning Services appreciates cooperation in helping design and build a healthy
community from a public health and environmental health perspective. Thank you.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016:Royal Red Maple and Red Oak are not on the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List. Northern Red Oak does
not reliably survive or thrive in Fort Collins soils. Please incorporate tree species that are approved on the Street Tree
List. Also, on private property, replacing the Northern Red Oaks with a more adaptable species is recommended.
RESPONSE: Tree List has been revised
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: It appears that there are three trees that are too close to gas lines – from the entry off of Horsetooth Rd, 2
to the east and 1 to the west. Street trees need to be 4 feet from gas lines – please explore locating those trees in back
of the walk. For further guidance, visit the utility separation specifications in the Land Use Code.
RESPONSE: Trees have been relocated / adjusted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please show locations of street lights and adjust tree spacing according to street tree separation
requirements if necessary.
RESPONSE: Lights have been added
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: If there are any existing trees on the site, please contact the City Forester for proper tree inventory and
mitigation information.
RESPONSE: No trees are located on site
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Will there be trees located at the east end of the project in the water retention area?
RESPONSE: Trees have been added around the perimeter of the detention pond
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Light and Power has three phase facilities readily accessible on the southwest corner of the proposed
development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required
between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between
ornamental trees and streetlights.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please contact Luke Unruh at Utility - Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
970.416-2724. Please reference our free fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Are single or three phase electric facilities anticipated for the site? Please note L&P single phase
transformers are limited to 7 parallel runs of no larger than 350kcmil cables. Three phase transformers are limited to no
more than 12 parallel runs of no larger than 500kcmil cables.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering if help is needed to coordinate a transformer location, please show
the locations on the utility plans. Transformer must be within 10’ of an asphalt/concrete surface. Pay close
attention to the transformer clearances in the Electric Service Standards.
RESPONSE: A transformer has been proposed next to the East Side of the building.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_17June2016.pdf
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system modification charges will apply at
owners expense.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Comment from Comcast: "Comcast Cable has no issue with the plat map.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comcast will need a right of entry agreement to service this development.
RESPONSE: Any agreements necessary will be executed with final design.
Comcast will need to coordinate with the developer on how to have the units pre-wired with conduit from the demark
point to a media panel in the unit. Comcast will be planning on building this with a fiber to the unit design and will
work with the developer on demarcation points. Please call Don Kapperman with questions."
RESPONSE: Coordination with Comcast will be necessary during final design to address these issues.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
> Horizontal Control Plan: Please add one No Parking - Fire Lane sign to the south side of the island immediately across
from the main entryway. Add another sign to the west of this island, on the other side of the main entry drive
aisle.
RESPONSE: Additional signs have been added as requested.
> EAE signage on the southeast connection to Horsetooth Road should read, EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY" rather
than "Fire Lane Only."
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: ALTERNATIVE MEANS AND MEASURES
The fire marshal has accepted the proposed measures for meeting the intent of the fire code via alternative means as
per email from Chris Goring dated 09/01/2016. The email needs to be submitted in letter form, via email to the fire
marshal. His contact information is as follows:
Bob Poncelow
Poudre Fire Authority
Division Chief
Community Safety and Service
Office 970-416-2871
bponcelow@poudre-fire.org
RESPONSE: Emailed to Bob and copied Cathy
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: LABELING
The 1:20 scale printed on the Site Plan is incorrect. It appears to be a 1:30 scale.
RESPONSE: Scale has been corrected to 1:30
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please provide material samples of the brick veneer and the stone veneer.
RESPONSE: Will mail to Cathy ASAP (waiting for the brick samples)
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please indicate the height of the building in different locations of the building. Some of the sections of the
building will be over 50' in height when taking into account the grade change and the height of the roof.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Perspective #4 is not labeled on sheet A7.2. Please add this label.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Generally speaking, the architecture presented is appropriate for the area and properly articulated.
Consider carrying the brick through the entire first floor elevation along Horsetooth Rd. This elevation will have the most
visibility by the public and should have the highest quality materials and architectural treatment.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Since the building is over 40' in height, you must submit a shadow analysis. Staff will need to see
diagrams of the shadow the building casts on adjacent properties at the summer and winter solstices in addition to the
spring and fall equinox.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please provide color, perspective renderings of the building. This will help staff to evaluate the articulation
of the building in conjunction with the quality of the porch facing Horsetooth. Staff wants to ensure the building is not
turning its back onto Horsetooth.
RESPONSE: Provided
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Sheets LS3 and LS4 contain no information but have charts for shrubs. I assume this means further detail
about the landscape plan will be supplied for the second round of review.
RESPONSE: Landscape plans have been completed
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: The scale indicated on the site plan is incorrect. The plan is scaled at 1" = 30'. Please upate the scale to
reflect this.
RESPONSE: Scale has been corrected to 1:30
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: How far is the surface parking lot setback from the property to the north? The label for that dimension
does not appear on the site plan. Please update this label so staff can ensure compliance with the 5' minimum setback
from a property line.
RESPONSE: 5’ dims have been added
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: 88 parking spaces is required for this development. The proposed site plan only shows 75 parking
spaces, which is 13 spaces short. Staff did not find a modification request as part of this round of review. Please submit
a modification request as part of your next round of review.
RESPONSE: A Modification request and Parking ratio analysis are provided.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: The site is also 56 bicycle parking spaces short of meeting the minimum bicycle parking requirement.
Please also submit a modification request to this standard.
RESPONSE: A Modification request is provided.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: The two tandem spaces in the NW corner of the parking structure cannot be counted towards your
minimum parking requirement. This results in a total of 73 parking spaces.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please label the location of the trash and recycling enclosures on the site plan.
RESPONSE: Trash enclosures are located in garage
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: How wide is the drive aisle for the structured parking? Please show this dimension and label it clearly.
RESPONSE: Varies. See plan min 24’
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: 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: Additional Erosion control details will be submitted with Final Plans
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: 10' minimum separation is required between the outlet structure of Pond B and the existing sanitary
sewer.
RESPONSE: Pond B has been removed due to the right turn lane realignment. All stormwater is directed to Pond A.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: There are several areas shown in the plans that don't appear to be constructible as shown. These
include areas of both detention ponds and the proposed inlet on Horsetooth near Stanford. Please review the redlines
and revise design as appropriate.
RESPONSE: Plans were updated as suggested.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: More detail will be needed on how the combination water quality in the chambers/Pond A works together.
RESPONSE: A water quality paragraph was added to further detail how the Stormtech chambers were designed for
water quality volume and how the Pond A and the chambers interface.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: The report references zero freeboard in Pond B. At a minimum, 1' of freeboard is required to the finished
grade of the building. Please address this in the report and/or revise the design if necessary.
RESPONSE: Pond B was removed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Since the streets are existing, the site is required to capture and treat/detain all portions of the street
where it is feasible. In this case, it appears the development plan is doing so. Therefore, the drainage calculations
can be completed without incorporating the portions of the street that are not able to be captured by the site drainage
design. Doing so should result in the ability to increase the release rate from the detention ponds.
RESPONSE: A portion of Horsetooth Road is shown as being collected and detained in Pond A.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: The report and plan shows Basin C1 being captured and conveyed to the sanitary sewer. Stormwater is
not allowed to be discharged into the sanitary sewer. A system that captures this runoff and conveys it to an
appropriate stormwater outfall will be required.
RESPONSE: This basin is now shown as being collected and conveyed to detention Pond A.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Landscaping is shown on top of and in close proximity to the proposed storm sewer at the northwest
corner of the site. Even though this pipe is private, a minimum landscape separation of 6' is required.
RESPONSE: Trees have been adjusted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: As shown, the Landscape Plan does not meet the Detention Pond Landscape Guidelines. Technically,
neither does the grading, but it is recognized that there is a significant grade issue on this site that makes
grading difficult. In light of that, additional and robust landscaping (i.e. screening) will be needed around the detention
ponds to mitigate the slopes and lack of naturalistic shaping of these areas.
RESPONSE: Trees have been added
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please revise the sub-title to match the corrected sub-title on the Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The benchmark shown does not match our records.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please revise the Basis Of Bearings to match the revised Basis Of Bearings on the Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: All Basis Of Bearings statements must match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: 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.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please make changes to the sub-title as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please make changes to the Owners & Lienholders signature blocks as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please make changes to the vicinity map as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please make changes to the Basis Of Bearings statement as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please make changes on sheet 2 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: Updated
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: 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.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal description on the Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: Updated
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: The comment in the previous round of revisions asked for a sidewalk connection on the east side of
Stanford north of the project. The comment response indicated that this connection will be made, however it was
not shown on the site plan. We are making mention of the connection to make sure its still in the plan.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk connection is now shown on the plans.
RESPONSE: We are not intending to provide any sidewalk not on our property
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: The submitted traffic study explored the traffic generated by this development. The information has been
reviewed and the following conclusions have been accepted. The development will require a right turn lane from WB
Horsetooth to NB Stanford. A singular vehicular access off of Stanford is appropriate.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: Traffic operations is supportive of the design alternative that includes mainline Horsetooth travel lanes,
bike lanes, and right turn lane.
RESPONSE: A dedicated right turn lane with pork chop is now shown on the plans.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/11/2016
11/11/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply
with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Understood
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please check the remaining cover over the existing sanitary sewer main at Pond B and indicate on the
Utility Plans.
RESPONSE: Pond B was removed. Grading along existing sanitary sewer will provide at least 4.5’ of cover.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Please see minor comments in redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: What is the height of the building? Buildings over 40 ft in height will need to submit a shadow analysis.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: How will the grills for the PTAC units be screened?
RESPONSE: Landscape and paint to match building
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: Need to include shrub details on final landscape plan.
RESPONSE: Landscape plans have been completed
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2016
11/09/2016: The number of Parking Spaces provided does not meet the minimum requirements. A modification will be
required to approve proposed parking.
RESPONSE: Modification Request has been included