Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS JEEP - PDP - PDP170013 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)1 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 August 11, 2017 Commercial Building Services 7661 E Grant St A-4 Littleton, CO 80122 RE: Fort Collins Jeep, PDP170013, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/11/2017: LCUASS Table 7-3, all of the driveways for this development need to be spaced between 460' and 660' from other driveways and intersections. As currently proposed, all driveways (including the driveway on the west parcel) for this development do not meet this requirement and would require a variance request. 08/07/17: Engineering did not receive any variance requests with this submittal. 04/06/2017: Variance requests will be needed for the Driveway spacing along Harmony Road and Mason Drive. The access off of Harmony would not meet the spacing distance from Mason Street. The access off of Mason would not meet the spacing distance from Kensington Drive. A Variance Request Letter has been provided with Submittal #3. 2 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/11/2017: LCUASS Figure 19-6, identifies the parking set back for this project to be 100' from the right-of-way. 08/07/17: Engineering did not receive any variance requests with this submittal. 04/06/2017: Another variance request would be needed to meet the minimum off street parking setback distance (Figure 19-6). The parking would need to be setback further so that cars are not backing up onto the public sidewalk. Can you verify which parking spots are for public parking and which are for vehicle display/storage? A Variance Request Letter has been provided with Submittal #3. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/08/2017: Please add grades onto the drainage plan. Additional spot elevations and slope arrows were added to the drainage plan. 04/06/2017: It appears more than the allowable 750 square feet drains across the public walk at the driveway (both on Harmony and Mason). Please provide more spot elevations to verify the location of the high point. Please add a high point or add a sidewalk chase. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/07/17: The driveway's off of Harmony are not shown as concrete in the Utility Plans. 04/06/2017: The driveways should be built in accordance with LCUASS Drawing 707.1. Concrete should be shown to the back of sidewalk, creating an ADA route. Concrete has been modified at both drive locations Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 04/06/2017: The roadway design for Mason Street needs some work. The minimum flowline grades is 0.5%. No single point grade break shall exceed 0.40 percent. This will have a direct impact on the cross slopes as well. The proposed cross slopes can be up to 3-4%. The cross slope would need to be designed in such a way that the existing pavement, when overlaid, will result in a straight line cross slope grade that meets the standards. The minimum cross slope would be 1.5%. Complete, see revised plans Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 04/13/2017: More discussion is going to be needed for the ultimate cross section of Mason Street. A striping plan will be needed to see how a right turn lane is going to be striped. Please contact traffic operations (Nicole Hahn) to begin discussions. We will most likely need to either modify the sidewalk or parkway to achieve the minimum widths of a left, thru, bike and right turn lane at Harmony Road. 3 The traffic lane configuration requested by the City has been provided with adequate profiles & cross-sections. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/08/2017: Please remove repair notes #5, all encroachments should be in easements dedicated on this plat. Repair note #5 was removed. A new 5’ Pedestrian Trail Access Easement was added. 04/06/2017: Please verify that all encroachments from curbing of the bus lane are within easement. Repair Guarantee notes may need to be adjusted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 04/06/2017: Other easements may be needed on the Plat, which may include Utility, Emergency Access, Transit and Drainage easements. All required easements have been added to the Plat. Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The cross section on the cover sheet shows an existing bike lane to the east of the center line of Mason St. There is not a bike lane on the section of Mason St between Harmony and the driveway for McDonalds. Please add one more cross section without the easterly bike lane and a right turn lane onto Harmony. The typical cross sections on the cover sheet were corrected to show the different sections accurately. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The property that is being improved west of the railroad is not highlighted in the vicinity map as part of the site. It has been determined, in consultation with the City, that the portion of the property on the west side of the tracks (the West Parcel) will not be affected or modified by this plan and its disposition is to be determined at a later date. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: "Please add street cut note to demolition page and overall utility plan. "Street Cut Note: 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." The Street Cut Note was added to the demolition sheet and utility plan. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 4 08/08/2017: The slopes across the driveways need to be a maximum of 2% to meet ADA requirements. The slopes that appear to exceed 2% result from the flowline being skewed relative to the sidewalk. The cross section @ STA 0+74 now shows all the relevant elevations and slopes to make this apparent to the reviewer. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Can you separate the grading plan from the erosion control plan? There is a lot of information on one page making it difficult to see where arrows are pointing for grades. The erosion control and grading plans were separated into two separate sheets C-5 & C-6. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: How is the west parcel being graded? Response: There are no propose changes to the existing grading on the West Parcel. The owner is in negotiations with the City regarding a potential park-n-ride use. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Where are the manholes for the utilities located in Mason St? They need to be out of the wheel path See revised sheet C-11, manholes have been added to striping plan. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The employee parking spots are only 16' long, this would be classified as a compact space by Figure 19-7. You are allowed to reduce the length of the stall by a maximum of 2' if an overhang is provided. If these are not going to be specified as compact spaces, the length of the stalls need to be 19' long. If the stall is lengthened into the parking lot it would overhang into the EAE, so the curb line would need to move west towards the property line to accommodate the longer spaces. The parking spaces were adjusted to be in compliance with the City requirements. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: What is the detail for the fence on the west parcel? See detail on Sheet L-2 Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: How high is the overhang on the metal vehicle shed to the north? It appears to encroach into the EAE. Check with Poudre Fire Authority if the height of the overhand is acceptable. The existing shed building roof is 15’-8” clear from grade. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Where is the fire hydrant south of the main building being relocated too? If the hydrant is not already, it needs to be in a utility easement. The fire hydrant actually is and was shown on the plan. Added new water line easement. 5 Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: All sidewalk chases in the public rights-of-way need to be detail D-10B or D-10C. D-10B outfalls to curb and D-10C drains the curb into the site. Whichever detail is used, please add it to detail sheet, reflect the 6" bump outs on the plans, and label accordingly. The sidewalk chases were revised to be in compliance with the requested details and the City details were added to the detail sheet. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The flow line grade is insufficient and does not meet the minimum of 0.5%: -Between station 2+00.00 and 2+50.00 The profile has been revised to comply with this requirement. -Between station 4+50.00 and 4+69.22 This station range is the location of the Curb inlet and is at 0% due to the flat inlet box. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The sidewalk cross slope needs to be 2.0% or less in the public rights-of-way, station 0+07 does not meet this requirement. The grading has been revised at STA 0+07 so that the sidewalk from the driveway north to the property line does not exceed 2% cross-slope. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: What does the right-of-way look like in front of the west parcel? The west parcel upgrades are on hold while the owner and the City negotiate the potential for use of the property by the City as a park-n-ride for the MAX system. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Where is the "Exist. Street light with "40MPH" sign" being located to? The site distance triangle needs to be preserved. This drive way is a right-in/right-out only. Further there is a continuous raised median island traffic that prevents east-bound traffic from making a left turn into the sight. Therefore, only traffic approaching from the east requires the clearances provided by the sight triangles. Therefore the sign does not need to be relocated for being an obstruction within the site triangle. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please add these LCUASS details to your detail sheet: 702.1, 707.1, D-10B or D-10C, 1201, 1202, 1404, 1406, 1407, 1410, 1606, 1607. Also add fence detail that is being added to the driveways. 6 The details have been added to the Utility Plans as requested. Fence details are located on sheet L-2. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: A drainage plan should be included in the Utility Plan set. Noted Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please add grades and directional flow lines to the drainage plan. Grades & flow arrows have been added to the drainage plan. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: How does the west parcel drain? There is about 28,500 sqft of asphalt paving being proposed on that lot. Response: There are no proposed pavement or grading changes on the West lot. Existing drainage patterns will not be changed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The 15' UE needs to be behind the ROW dedication on Harmony Road. Where the bus pull out is, the easement is not following the ROW line. The 15’ UE has been revised to follow the ROW line. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: "Add street cut note to sheet 3 of the PDP plan set. "Street Cut Note: 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."" The Street Cut Note was added to the PDP sheet. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: On the west side of the main parcel, there is a label "Area of conc. Encroachment", is this encroaching on your property lines or vice versa? This will need to be in an easement between the two owners or put into your property lines. 7 A portion of the City’s existing access ramp encroaches on this property. This issue will be resolved at a future date when it is determined what is to become of the west parcel. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The 2nd paragraph of the conclusions section of the traffic study reference "Access #2" twice, I think one of these should be "Access #1". Noted – See revised report Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/23/2017 08/11/2017: The fees were calculated based off of the foot notes on the TDRFee application. In the foot notes, it states, "when a development project involves a change of use for a building, the change per square foot shall apply to the portion of the overall building size for which the change of use is proposed". 03/23/2017: The project owes an additional $6,034.75 for TDRFees. This is based on a building square footage of 34,752 sq feet as identified on the site plan and the platting of 4.479 acres. Noted – Check included with submittal Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Overall the proposed landscape plan looks much better than in April. Thank you. Noted Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/08/2017: Moving forward please make sure you have a sound and practical irrigation plan as part of construction set drawings. Noted – Irrigation plans will be included with construction set. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/08/2017: In landscape plans please include and clearly label all bollards. Noted – See revised landscape plan for notes Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/08/2017: Per discussion during staff review meeting please incorporate vines into site design where chain link fencing is proposed. Landscape architect can decide what to use, however, providing some potential choices here in case recommendations are desired. Noted – See revised landscape plan for added vines and locations. Golden hops (H. lupulus aureus) Coral honeysuckle (L. sempervirens) Kintzley's ghost honeysuckle (L. reticulata kintzley) 8 Climbing hydrangea (H. anomala petiolaris) Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Refer to Planning comments regarding lighting. Thank you for responding to comments from April staff review meeting; recommend double checking BUG ratings provided this round as they do seem high. Noted Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 8/9/2017: Continued: It appears that ornamental species are still shown in parking lot islands. Please use canopy shade trees, unless otherwise directed by Chief Planner, Ted Shepard. 04/14/2017: The code generally directs canopy shade trees in parking lot islands. Ornamentals are used in several islands. Please review this standard with Chief Planner, Ted Shepard. Noted – Use of ornamentals was based on fire lane clearances and then consistency of the look on site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 8/9/2017: Continued: Please use another species in place of Caddo Sugar Maples, such as Espresso Coffeetree, Accolade Elm, Chinkapin Oak, or Hackberry. Please use another crabapple species in place of Perfect Purple Crabapple, such as Thunderchild Crabapple or Red Barron Crabapple. Noted – See revised landscape plan, Espresso Coffee Tree and Thunderchild Crab are now planned for use on site. 04/14/2017: Tree Species Selection - Caddo Sugar Maples are not very adaptable to exposed locations. Forestry suggests changing the five Caddo Maples along Mason Street to Espresso Coffeetree, Accolade Elm, Chinkapin Oak, or Hackberry. - Forestry is not familiar with Perfect Purple Crabapple. In checking with a local nursery, there is very little experience using this cultivar in Fort Collins. Other crabapples that could serve as a substitute are Thunderchild Crabapple or Red Barron Crabapple. Of those two suggested Crabs, Red Barron has more of an upright form. Noted – See revised landscape plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 8/9/2017: Continued: 9 04/14/2017: Crimson Spire Oak is listed in the legend but it appears it may not be used on the project. Noted – remove from legend Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 8/9/2017: Continued: 06/07/2017: Following an on-site meeting with Chief Planner, Ted Shepard, City Forestry would like to propose the new bus shelter be shifted further to the east so as to avoid conflict with the existing significant crabapple tree and possibly the mature spruce as well. Forestry can provide a preferred separation distance to the east from the crabapple tree. 04/14/2017: The new bus shelter appears to be quite close to an existing mature crabapple tree. Also, significant grade changes may need to occur for the bus shelter. Forestry will want to evaluate the impact the bus shelter will have to this tree at the on-site meeting. Noted – See revised landscape plan for not regarding placement of bus shelter. This will be field verified Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2017 08/10/2017: 11 upsized mitigation trees are required to be planted. Please confirm that 11 trees have been upsized (ornamentals at 2.5”, canopy shade trees at 3”, evergreen trees at 8’ height) and mark these trees with a bolded “M” on the landscape plans. Noted – upgraded sizes are shown on landscape plan at new tree locations. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2017 08/08/2017: 04/10/2017: If the applicant anticipates any change or increase to the existing electrical service, a C-1 Form and a One-line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all proposed commercial buildings and multi-family (commercial) buildings larger than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Noted – We will meet with Power once building plans are complete. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: 04/11/2017: Once the plans are approved please submit an electronic copy 10 (CAD) of the Utility Plan and Site Plan to Light & Power Engineering. Noted Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please remove, from the existing conditions plan, the note "Elec. Box (Relocate)" since the vault is to remain. The note was removed from the Plan sheet. Department: PFA Contact: Cal Sheesley, 970-416-2599, csheesley@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 04/11/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign detail. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire inspection. 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. Complied Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/01/2017 08/01/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS PFA requires the signs featuring directional arrows below "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING" verbiage and shall be oriented parallel to the fire lane they are identifying. Complied Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Revised Comment Number Two: Based on the dialogue and the new information provided at the review meeting, please revise the Site and Landscape Plans to indicate a connecting walkway from the building entrance to the public sidewalk on Mason Street. Thank you for responding to our first round comment by providing this walkway. 11 Complied Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Revised Comment Number Five: Based on the dialogue and new information provided at the review meeting, please revise the Site and Landscape Plan to show the north-south leg of the Mason Street-to-MAX walkway shifted outside the perimeter fence. Also be sure to show how this walkway ties into the existing MAX station. Complied, see revised Site and Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Revised Comment Number Nine: Based on the dialogue and the new information provided at the review meeting, please revise the Site and Landscape Plans to indicate that the fencing along the west edge of the display lot will be vinyl-clad chain-link. Noted – see revised landscape plan. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Along the north property line, please consider adding vines at the base of the proposed six foot chain-link fence. Adding vines will contribute to complying with the standard for exterior parking lot screening. 04/12/2017: The landscaping along the north fence must also be continuous and dense. Additional plant materials are required. Again, mixing in clusters of a variety of upright junipers would have the benefit of providing year-round screening. Staff also recommends that the landscape designer select a vine that is suitable for this location and could take advantage of the chain link fencing. At maturity, a chain link fence featuring vines is very attractive and would be an asset to the overall aesthetics of the site. Noted – See revised landscape plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Regarding the architectural elevations, thank you for adding a distinctive base in compliance with Section 3.5.3(E)(6). The e-mail response indicates that this material could be Stonelite Exterior Panel either black slate or granite. Staff prefers granite as it would be significantly more suitable to our region than slate. Also, black slate next to building field color of anthracite grey may result in two similar colors that would not result in a distinctive base as called for in the standard. 04/12/2017: As noted in Conceptual Review comments 24 and 25, commercial buildings are required to have a distinctive base, middle and top. In addition, corporate imaging must be toned down so the building is not duplicative of similar buildings found in neighboring communities. Finally, buildings in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District have character and image requirements unique to this area. Staff acknowledges that the re-use of an existing building is sustainable and that the new image is an important part of a national branding effort. As presented, however, the new parts of the building lack a distinctive base. 12 Noted – See revised building elevations. We have changed the accent ACM from stainless to silver to reduce the reflective intensity. We now have two distinct colors for the CMU to be used on the building. See attached photo of color board, we will submit this by Friday. We have also added stone panels (granite) to the main building elevations as a 4’-0” base course. At the main elevation the dark ACM will be continuous to the top of the parapet per corporate standards. In order to meet the city’s requirement for a top element, we are using the dark, split-face cmu as a band at the parapet for the rest of the building. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Staff is concerned about the two c.m.u.’s being too similar in color. While there is a distinction between the split-face and the ground-face, we need to be assured that there is also a differentiation in color so that the split-face acts as a distinctive base. Also, colors should be integral to the c.m.u. and not painted. Please provide samples so we can make this evaluation. 04/12/2017: For the parts of the building that are to be clad in c.m.u., the product selected must be textured, not smooth-face. Complying with the distinctive base standard can be accomplished by providing a c.m.u. that substantially differs in color, size, texture or any combination thereof. Noted – See revised building elevations. We have changed the accent ACM from stainless to silver to reduce the reflective intensity. We now have two distinct colors for the CMU to be used on the building. See attached photo of color board, we will submit this by Friday. We have also added stone panels (granite) to the main building elevations as a 4’-0” base course. At the main elevation the dark ACM will be continuous to the top of the parapet per corporate standards. In order to meet the city’s requirement for a top element, we are using the dark, split-face cmu as a band at the parapet for the rest of the building. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: The recent e-mail from the project manager indicates that achieving compliance for a new commercial building to feature a distinctive top [Section 3.5.3(E)(6)] will not be approved by the corporate design team. If this is indeed the case, then Staff is interested in pursuing other architectural mitigation features in order for Section 3.5.3(1) to be achieved without requiring a Modification of Standard. As you will recall, this standard requires that a standardized prototype be designed so that our community retains a sense of place that is not duplicated within the region. 04/12/2017: Also per Section 3.5.3(E) and 3.10.5, a commercial building in the T.O.D. must feature a recognizable top. There are a variety of architectural treatments that would lead to compliance with these standards. Of the various options, staff recommends that three-dimensional cornice be considered as the most appropriate for the style of the building. If a cornice is selected, please provide a dimensioned detail on sheet A-200. Noted – See revised building elevations. We have changed the accent ACM from stainless to silver to reduce the reflective intensity. We now have two distinct colors for the CMU to be used on the building. See attached photo of color board, we will submit this by Friday. We have also added stone panels (granite) to the main building elevations as a 4’-0” base course. At the main elevation the dark ACM will be continuous to the top of the parapet per corporate standards. In order to meet the city’s requirement for a top element, we are using the dark, split-face cmu as a band at the parapet for the rest of the building. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Regarding the Lighting Plan, thank you for reducing the second and third row illumination levels and for specifying the Kelvin temperature to be 3,000 degrees.. We just need to verify that the CC fixture will indeed be rated at 3,000 Kelvin. The handwritten notation could be a 3 or a 5. 04/12/2017: Staff is concerned that the lighting is not specified to be at 3,000 degrees Kelvin or less. Higher Kelvin temperatures are harsh and radically 13 different from public roadway lighting. In order to reduce the harshness of the higher Kelvin temperatures, please reduce to no greater than 3,000 degrees Kelvin We have verified that Type CC is available and included in the photometric plan as a 3000K CCT fixture. . Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017:On the Lighting Plan, please add a note that explains the extent of the dimming features. This note should indicate the time frame for the lower levels and the amount of illumination that will be dimmed. 04/12/2017: Has the applicant and lighting designer considered adding dimming controls to the light fixtures? Significant energy savings could be attained if lighting were dimmed after hours, especially late evening and early morning hours. The system is available and will be designed with a 0-10 volt wireless dimming system. Each site light head will be equipped with a module that will communicate wirelessly and dim at specified times. Typical schedules would look like this however a high level of flexibility is available: 15 minutes after Sunrise to 15 minutes prior to Sunset: Photocell operation 15 minutes prior to Sunset to 15 minutes after store closing lights would be on 100% 15 minutes after store closing to 15 minutes after Sunrise lights would dim to 50% or an acceptable security level. Upon occupancy detection, the lights would rise to a predetermined higher level. Their will also be a manual override installed. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Staff is concerned that the Backlight and Glare ratings for most of fixtures exceed one. With the modern technology available in today’s fixtures, these ratings are surprisingly high. Perhaps we should discuss with the lighting designer as to why these two ratings cannot be lower. 04/12/2017: At Conceptual Review, we asked for Department of Energy Ratings for Backlight, Uplight and Glare. Please provide. After review of the BUG ratings for the specified GE fixtures we found them to be on par with competing fixtures of similar lumen (20,000+) and performance levels of Lithonia, Hubbell and LSI. I have a request into an engineer at GE to see if I can be presented with a technically detailed response and will forward any information received. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: Please add a note to the General Notes that all chain-link fencing to be vinyl-clad including the rolling gates. A detail is still preferred. 04/12/2017: Please provide a fence detail for the two rolling gates. Are these to be ornamental iron or an iron-like product? If these are to be chain link, then they must be vinyl-clad. See revised L-2 for fence detail. Gates are painted steel pipe type to match desert tan bollard color Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/12/2017 08/09/2017: For future submittals, the P.D.P. needs to be consolidated into an eight sheet set and number sheets as 1 of 8, etc. 04/12/2017: When labeling the Planning Set, please delete the C prefix for the four sheets as these sheets are not considered to be civil drawings. Noted 14 Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 04/14/2017 08/09/2017: Carried over for discussion purposes. 04/14/2017: At the review meeting, Transfort indicated that they may be interested in exploring options for a Park 'N Ride on the parcel west of the railroad tracks. If this option is pursued, a Parking Lot is an allowable principal use in the C-G zone district. Noted, the owner and City are in negotiations regarding west lot Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: The plat does not include the area west of the railroad tracks. Since this area is part of the Project Development Plan, it needs to be part of the Plat as well. This area could be referred to as Lot Two. Noted, the owner and City are in negotiations regarding west lot Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Revised Comment Number 29: Staff remains concerned about the bollards. Based on the dialogue and the new information provided at the review meeting regarding the quantity, spacing and design of the bollards, please revise the specification so that the impact of the bollards is minimized to the maximum extent feasible. This includes lowering the height, increasing the intervals, staggering their placement, and selecting an earth tone neutral color such as Desert Tan (Benjamin Moore #2153-50) or Softer Tan (Sherwin Williams #6141) or equivalent. Bright colors will not be acceptable. Be sure to integrate the bollards with the plant material by showing the bollards on the Landscape Plan. This is especially critical as along Mason Street the width of the landscape bed is only four feet. Finally, could you provide documentation for the Planning and Zoning Board that leads the applicant to conclude that the bollards, to the extent shown, are indeed required? At the meeting, you mentioned approximately six to eight “drive-offs” per month but not mentioned was the basis of this number. Is this on a per dealership basis, per regional basis, per state basis, or nationally? If the bollards are necessary, data would be helpful. See revised landscape plan for bollard placement and notes. We have staggered the placement where possible, but will need to keep them at 6’-0” on center because the Jeep Patriot model is only 5’-9 ½” wide. The bollards will be painted desert tan per recommendation. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: There is an area along the east elevation between the overhead doors where the use is not described. The parking spaces are about 20 feet set back from the building. Both the Site and Landscape Plan need to describe the use of this area. Why is this area not landscaped? Landscaping would help reduce the amount of impervious surface and thus the extent of Low Impact Development measures. We have added an 8’-0” wide planting area on the east side of the building. We will need to maintain a drive aisle to allow for access for parts delivery. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Along Mason, there is a 105-foot gap in parkway street trees. In this location, three Hot Wing Maples are placed but located behind the sidewalk. Please re-calibrate the plan so that there is no gap in the street trees 15 in the parkway. If there is a public street light that is causing this gap, then Ornamentals can be placed in the parkway within 15 feet of the street light so there is no gap in street tree planting. Please adjust the H.W. Maples accordingly but the priority is on the street trees in the parkway. See revised landscape plan for tree placement and impacts from turn lane changes Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Please adjust the number of street trees along Mason Street to accommodate the separate right-turn lane and its taper. Noted Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Regarding the architectural elevations and the new trim material, even though the ACM-3 has been changed from Silver to Stainless, Staff remains concerned about its reflectivity. As you are aware, Section 3.10.5(C) (3) requires that: “predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited.” We look forward to evaluating the sample to make sure that compliance with the standard is achieved. See revised building elevation and material color board provide with submittal. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Regarding the left side of the west elevation, there is approximately 156 feet of wall length that is blank (with the exception of one overhead door). Section 3.5.3(E)(2)(a)1.and 2 require that there be no uninterrupted walls that exceed 30 feet without including at least two (2) of the following: change in plane, change in texture or masonry pattern, windows, treillage with vines, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions. This elevation needs to be upgraded in order to comply with the standard. We have added pilasters to the west elevation which match pilasters on the other building elevations. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Please indicate on the plans the maximum height of the Jeep Hill vehicle display. Maximum height of 3’-0”. See attached image. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Under General Notes, note number 10, please add “…to concrete and not interfere with walkways or landscaping.” Complied Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 08/09/2017 08/09/2017: Please delete note number 14 as this applies to residential development only. Complied Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com 16 Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2017 08/07/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan (Based upon returned redlines), an Erosion Control Report (Based upon returned comments), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Revised based upon plan changes). 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 Complied Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please use the City's standard details, cross-sections, and specifications for the proposed bio-retention cells. We found that the City standards refers to UDFCD criteria and details. The Bioretention cells have been redesigned to have a maximum ponding depth in accordance with UDFCD criteria. We also revised the specification from perforated pipe to Contech A-2000 slotted pipe per UDFCD criteria. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please show all water, sewer, and storm lines on the Landscape Plan and show that all separation distances with landscaping are being met. See revised Landscape Plan for utility lines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Bio-retention cells are required to be within drainage easements. Easements have been created for the bio-retention cells. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please revise the hydrology calculations to the City's data and methods. See revised plans and drainage report Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The maximum depth for bio-retention cells is 1 foot. 1.2 feet has been proposed with this submittal. The maximum ponding depth was redesigned to be 1.0 ft per UDFCD criteria. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.  Complied Topic: Construction Drawings 17 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Please revise the title as marked. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet  Complied titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are spelling issues. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. 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'¿. Complied Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values.  Complied Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 18 04/13/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.  Complied Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Complied Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: All but 2 of the 4/12/17 comments HAVE NOT been addressed. Please see the 4/12/17 redlines for comments. 04/13/2017: 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. We did not receive comments originally, but have addressed all in this submittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Please revise the title as marked. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are spelling issues in the legal description. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: The Benchmark Statement is not required on the Site Plan. If it is to remain, please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. (See above Comment 12.) Complied Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.  Complied Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/13/2017 08/08/2017: This will be verified at FDP. 04/13/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.  Complied Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/08/2017: The updated plans show a shared through right, 8' bikelane and left turn lane. As mentioned previously there will need to be a right lane, bike lane, through lane, and left turn lane. At most intersections this is accomplished by limiting the parkway and attaching the walk. 19 04/06/2017: Please provide a signing and striping sheet with your next submittal. The minimum width for the proposed right turn lane at Mason and Harmony is 10' of pavement in addition to the pan. The plans show an 8' turn lane. Mason Street has been widened to provide the required traffic and bicycle lanes. Please see associated profile and cross-section sheets. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/06/2017 08/08/2017: The comment section of the response letter indicated that the path was to be built for others, however plans show the path being constructed. We would like to see the connection installed. The connection/pedestrian trail along the north property line and connecting to the MAX stop is now shown to be constructed with this project. 04/06/2017: The proposed pedestrian circulator access path should provide a connection along the west side of the development to the MAX stop. The current alignment would guide pedestrians to the fenced off guide way. Response: The proposed alignment is correct. The pedestrian path has been extended along the west side to the MAX station Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please provide a ped connection to Mason. All internal pedestrian connections need to be ADA compliant. Due to elevations differences, providing an ADA compliant connection from Mason Street is not possible. We have added the connection with a set of steps on the Mason Street side. A sign will be posted directing pedestrians to the ADA access point on Harmony. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: Please see original comment.  Complied 04/11/2017: Please add the MAX Harmony Station and guideway details to your site plan so we can evaluate the relationship of proposed improvements to existing conditions.  Complied Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2017 08/08/2017: How many spaces can Transfort procure in order to provide a park-n-ride? It appears that the westernmost parcel could stripe parking spaces on both sides with an adequate sized drive aisle. Ideally, 50-100 spaces would provide the needed accommodation. What landscape considerations are you interested in? Use of the west lot as a park-n-ride location is currently being discussed with the owner 04/11/2017: The City of fort Collins is interested in public parking at this location to support the MAX BRT line as a park-n-ride. The parking does not 20 necessarily have to be on the development site but could possibly be on the narrow parcel west of the railroad tracks. Please contact us to discuss further arrangements. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: The curb stop is required to be within an Utility Easement. The curb stop for the water service line has been relocated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: A thrust block is required at the tee and main intersection for the fire line. Complied Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2017 08/08/2017: Please see relines for other minor comments. Complied