Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE STANDARD AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP170023 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 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 September 08, 2017 Linda Ripley Ripley Deisgn, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave Ste 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: The Standard at Fort Collins, FDP170023, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. RESPONSES 9-20-2017 Civil- Northern Engineering Planning- Ripley Design Architecture- Dwell Design Studio Traffic- Delich Associates Lighting- APS Developer – Landmark Properties Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There appears to be walls along the right-of-way and sidewalk along Lake Street, this should be placed a minimum of 2 feet behind the sidewalk and outside of the right-of-way, whichever is greater. Response: Walls and railings are now located 2’ behind the city sidewalk and are out of the City ROW. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There is an indication of "By Others" in several places along the north and east side of the project. Additional information on who the various "By 2 Others" are should be indicated/explained. I'll need to be brought up to speed on the coordination of construction for the frontage along Lake Street. Response: Labels on the Site Plan have been revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The reduction of sidewalk width to 7 feet shown around the trees does need to widen out to 10' past the trees and not remain 7' between the trees. Have cross sections of these areas been provided for review by Forestry for their concurrence on the proximity of the sidewalk to the trees? Response: Cross Section Exhibit has been provided to Forestry. The walk has 10’ section between the two 7 foot sections. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The extension of the metal plates out to the curb and gutter for the culverts crossing the sidewalk along Prospect should be indicated on the civil plans. Response: This is now indicated on several sheets. Metal Plates have also been called out on the existing concrete chase from Plymouth Church to the west. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The civil plans do not appear to show the delineators that are depicted on the site plan and should be shown/designed. Response: Maxi-force collapsible bollards are now proposed at two locations along the Emergency Access Drive along the east side of Building A as coordinated in PFA and Engineering meeting with city staff on 9/12/2017. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please show the existing water main along Prospect continuing east of The Slab's driveway. Response: Existing water main along Prospect is now shown and in the correct location Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The Prospect/Whitcomb offsite design will need to review and approved concurrently with this development plan. I did not see these submitted with the final plan submittal. Response: A preliminary submittal of the Prospect/Whitcomb was sent to Marc Ragasa in June for initial review and coordination with CSU. The plans were provided to Engineering and Traffic after the staff review meeting on 9/6 and a schedule for the Prospect/Whitcomb Offsite project has been created and included with this submittal. The variance approval required that the turn lane be constructed prior to issuance of the CO for The Standard (anticipated August 2020) and did not specify a schedule for plan approval. As shown on the attached timeline, the required review and coordination with CSU will impact the building permit review schedule if the offsite design is required to be approved concurrently with this development Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: CSU's plan for a pathway on the north side of Lake Street should perhaps have this project look at a receiving ramp on the south side of Lake Street. Further discussion on this should ensue. Response: Discussion with the City and CSU Planning staff has been initiated. CSU will formerly be providing their recommendation to the City of Fort Collins of where the crossing should be located, however, as they are currently proposed, neither of them will require The Standard to provide a curb-cut or a receiving ramp. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The length of the patch for the water line abandonment appears to measure a distance that is wider than the existing Prospect road width. Please show the south curb and gutter for Prospect to better understand the length of the proposed patch in relation to the existing street. Response: South curb and gutter has been included. The patch for the water lines have also been 3 adjusted to reflect the updated location of the existing 6’’ water line on the southside of Prospect Road. Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There appears to be offsite construction and/or drainage easement that is needed from Stadium Apartments and/or the Slab for drainage pans and other appurtenances. We'll want to understand more fully what is intended and needed (or what may already exist regarding easements). Response: Offsite easements have been included on the horizontal, utility, and grading sheets. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The Plat language dedication statement is not per standards and is missing the streets related portions. Please have the language in 3(n) incorporated in the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/subdivision_plat_final_submittal_r equirements_2016.pdf?1457722556 Response: Noted. The language has been updated. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Thank you for including specific notes regarding 3000K or less luminaires on the photometric plans and thus supporting the City in night sky friendly lighting efforts. Response: You are welcome Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: No further Environmental Planning specific comments for this project. Refer to Current Planning and/or Forestry comments for outstanding site and landscape plan items. Thank you. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 09/07/2017: 12/20/2016: Continued: 11/10/2016: If any existing trees end up being retained, please provide Tree Protections Notes. Response: Tree protection notes provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 4 9/6/2017: Deborah Maple is still listed in the Plant Schedule and Plant Diversity table – please remove. Iseli Fastigiate Spruce is not listed in the Plant Schedule. Please update these tables to reflect the species that will be shown on the plans. 11/10/2016: Tree Species Selection: Deborah Norway Maple is not listed on the Street Tree list. Please select a suitable species from list. You may want to consider using Bur Oak as an adaptable street tree. Please consider using Iseli Fastigiate Spruce in place of Fat Albert Spruce due to the narrow planting space close to building. For the project’s consideration, Crimson Sentry Norway Maple has similar foliage color to Deborah Norway Maple, but has a narrower mature crown. This may be a better fit for some of the desired planting spaces. Response: Tree species updated accordingly. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 09/07/2017: Continued: 12/20/2016: Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please adjust street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Also are there any street lights existing or proposed along Prospect? If there are please show location and provide for street tree separations. Response: Utilities shown on Landscape Plans. No street lights are being proposed along the north side of Prospect Road. No street exist in that location currently. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 9/6/2017: Please label the species on the landscape plans. Response: Tree species now labelled on Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 09/07/2017: Please select Shademaster or Skyline Honeylocust in place of the Imperial Honeylocust. Shademaster and Skyline Honeylocust are proven to be successful cultivars and are more available in Fort Collins nurseries. Response: Shademaster now specified in place of Imperial Honeylocust. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/07/2017 09/07/2017: Some of the trees behind the right of way along Prospect are >20 feet from the proposed street trees along Prospect. Behind the sidewalk, please use a narrower crown tree such as Catalpa, Glenleven Linden, Red Barron crabapple, 5 Thunderchild Crabapple. This will provide less competition with the ROW trees. Response: Ornamentals now proposed behind ROW. See updated landscape plan. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: At its December 14, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the development project known as The Standard (PDP160035) as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6). The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-1: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of The Standard Project Development Plan (PDP160035), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 in regards to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the reasons stated in the staff report. The Staff Report noted ways in which The Standard has met the requirements of LUC Section 3.4.7, including: 1. Mitigating the discrepancy of height, setback and width between this project and the historic church and residential buildings on West Prospect Road, through courtyards and through building stepbacks and setbacks; 2. Incorporating elements to address character, by being planned as two distinct buildings, which helps to respect the existing historic block pattern of the neighborhood; and by using design characteristics that relate to the mid-century and Craftsman; 3. The use of building materials, especially brick to compliment the materials used in the adjacent Plymouth Congregational Church and horizontal siding to compliment the Craftsman and Sheely Drive Neighborhood dwellings; and 4. Preserving view corridors through the property. Response: No further response required from applicant team. Thank you. Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Light and Power has 3phase facilities along Lake St that can be extended into the site. Response: All power is being fed from the existing 3 phase facility on Lake St. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will initiate electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light and Power Engineering. Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to the development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees: 6 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Multifamily buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore commercial service forms (C-1 forms) and one line diagrams must be submitted to Light & Power for each building. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the meter bank. A link to the C-1 form: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development- forms-guidelines-regulations Response: Understood. This will be submitted prior to building code review. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. Response: All transformers are within 10’ of a drivable surface and they all have the clearance mentioned above. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Response: Noted Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: FDC LOCATIONS As both buildings will be equipped with a standpipe system, a hydrant is required within 100' of either FDC. FDC locations to be approved by the fire authority. Response: A private fire hydrant is located near the south west corner of Building B Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: FIRE SERVICE MAINS As the proposed water line to the fire pump is being fed from both Lake St and Prospect Rd, the fire marshal has approved the reduction from two proposed fire service lines down to one with the condition that shut off valves are installed on each side of the fire line to the building. 7 Response: One line with 2 gate valves is now shown on the Detailed Utility Sheet Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: BOLLARDS & RESTRICTED ACCESS FROM PROSPECT Removable bollards are still being shown on the revised Site Plan while other plan views indicate unrestricted vehicle movement. The installation of bollards is not typically allowed on fire lanes. The applicant will need to confirm what the city is or isn't willing to allow at these locations. If vehicle access is to be restricted only to emergency apparatus, further discussions with PFA will be necessary. Installation of bollards requires special review and approval prior to plan approval and the predicted frequency to which emergency apparatus will be responding to these buildings is likely to indicate the need for an Opticom controlled gate at some location. There may be a possibility to incorporate both within this site so as to allow maximum pedestrian and bike traffic while also allowing for immediate emergency access/egress. Response: Maxi-force collapsible bollards are being proposed at two different locations along the east side of Building A and an Opticom gate is now proposed along Prospect Road on the west side of building A. This was coordinated with City Staff and PFA during a coordination meeting on 9/12/2017. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT The limits of the EAE on the Plat are not consistent with the fire lane detailed on the west side of Building A. Response: EAE has been updated Response: Easements now match the PLAT. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE The signage plan does not fully indicate the limits of the fire lane. Additional signs to be added at 75' intervals at the following locations See Redlines. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. > Please include a fire lane sign detail on the plans. Sign detail to include directional arrows. > Certain off-site signage requirements at Stadium Apts may become the responsibility of this project (eg. north end of western connection to Prospect). Response: Detail 1418 was a part of the previous submittal. Detail 1419 is not a part of this sheet set but the spacing required by the detail has been met. Please refer to the horizontal plan for sign locations. Response: Applicable signage now shown on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: COURTYARD HOSE CONNECTIONS The fire marshal is requiring interior standpipe hose connections inside the building at courtyard entryways. Response: Understood and will be shown on the plans for review during the code review process. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE 8 In Process: The applicant is in the process of developing a formal plan for offsetting the lack of aerial and perimeter access at this site. A written plan to meet the intent of the code via alternative means and methods will need to be submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow for review and approval prior to final plans approval. Response: This has been submitted to PFA. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: PRIVATE HYDRANTS A hydrant is required within 100' of any FDC serving a standpipe system. Installation of private hydrants will require special approved and permitting. Private fire hydrants shall be inspected annually and have an approved maintenance plan in place as per IFC 507.5.3 prior to plan approval. Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Response: Fire private hydrant is located near the southwest corner of Building B. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: CLARIFICATIONS TO MEETING MINUTES OF 08/17/2017 > Three (3) FDC connections will be required: 1 per residential building (x2), and 1 for the dry system in the parking garage. > FDC connections to the residential buildings shall supply wet (not dry) standpipes. > FDC connection to the parking garage may serve a dry standpipe. > All FDC connections should be wall mounted. Remote FDC connections to be approved on a case-by-case basis. > A hydrant is required within 100' of any FDC serving a standpipe system. > A utility agreement with the city of Fort Collins is required for any fire pump serving multiple buildings. Contact water utilities for details. > PFA will require a minimum of 2 Knox boxes per building. Number and location to be determined at building permit. > PFA has some concerns over the egress plan from the roof top assembly area. Egress plan to be approved by the building department. Response: 3 FDC connections have been made. All FDC’s are within 100’ of existing hydrants. Response: Acknowledged. FDC are shown on the updated civil plan submittal. Fire pump agreement will be submitted prior to recording of final plat. Knox boxes will be reviewed as part of building plan review. A preliminary life safety plan will be submitted to PFA and Building Inspections for review and comment prior to building permit submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT > I seem to recall a plan for Stadium Apts to install fencing between the two properties. To what extent is fencing (if any) still being proposed between the Standard project and the Stadium project? > Is rollover curbing or other vehicle restrictions being proposed between these two properties (north side of Bldg. A) or between Bldg. A & B? If so, please note all areas on the plans as you have done for the prospect connections. Response: Roll over curb and gutter is being proposed for Stadium Apartments. This call out can be found 9 on the grading sheets and horizontal control sheets. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITY Poudre Fire Authority is currently looking to acquire commercial and residential structures for use in upcoming training exercises. Please contact me if your site may be willing to pursue a discussion along this line and I will put you in touch with our training division chief. Thank you. Response: Landmark would be willing to discuss this with the training division chief and will be in contact closer to the demolition phase if time permits for training exercises to be scheduled. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: The number of exterior bike parking spaces is specified to be 294. There are 26 bike racks which equates to 11.3 spaces per rack. But the Site Plan indicates only seven spaces per rack in which case 42 racks would be needed. Please provide a detail or a manufacturer’s specification sheet that demonstrates that the selected rack is capable of parking the requisite number of bikes. If not, then additional racks may be needed. For example, why not add a bike rack at the leasing office entrance along Lake Street? Other exterior locations need to be selected in order to meet the standard. (The Landscape Plan shows four bike racks in the loading area of Building A but these racks are not shown on the Site Plan. Response: The LUC requirements for exterior bike racks are now met. 308 exterior bike parking spaces are proposed. The bike rack product proposed is the Dero Rolling Rack (a cut-sheet is included in this submittal). See Site Plan for bike parking locations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: For the interior racks in the garage, the same issue applies. Please provide a specification for the selected rack and the number bikes that can be parked per rack. Then, please indicate the quantity of these racks to ensure that 489 bikes can be parked. Also, please show that these racks will be on the ground floor level. Response: The required number of enclosed bike parking spaces (473) will be provided. Please see enlarged plan sheets for locations and specifications. Interior spaces located within the garage are on ground level. Interior spaces within the residential buildings are distributed through the levels as approved on the PDP plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: For the interior of the garage, please show the spaces reserved for the car share vehicles. These need to be located outside the security gate (if any) as car share vehicles need to be located as conveniently possible for residents. Response: Please see enlarged plan sheets for three required car share parking locations. These will be located ahead of the security gate. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: The Landscape Plan indicates plant material around the three 10 perimeter sides of the Building A trash enclosure. Won’t this preclude access for the hauler? Response: Landscape and hardscape surrounding the perimeter sides of the trash and recycling room has been adjusted accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: Why is a wall needed along the south property line of Building B? Both Building B and The Slab are providing landscaping and it seems like a wall is unnecessary unless it’s critical for stormwater purposes. If a wall is truly needed, please provide a detail describing the height and materials on Sheet 3 of the Landscape Plan. Response: Retaining walls are required south of Building B and east of Building A. The walls are required in order to provide cover for the storm drain pipes. The proposed walls are generally less than 30 inches in height. Both of these walls are proposed adjacent to the property line and will be fully screened by the fence proposed by the Apex (formerly The Slab) project. Details for site walls can be found on the referenced details on the site plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: On the west elevation of Building A is highly visible. Between the second and third floors, there is a band of Nassau Brick under three sets of windows. This band of brick needs to be continued across the elevation under six sets of windows to the point where the vertical brick column separates the Nassau Brick from the Fiber Cement Panel with Board and Batten Trim 4 [15]. Extending this brick band was agreed to by the design team prior to the February 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Response: The additional brick has been added to the elevation drawing. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: Regarding the condition of approval, on the west elevation of Building A, I’m seeing column projections between six sets of windows on the fourth floor. Other than that, I’m not seeing any features that address the issue. I will need to further discuss this with the architect. Response: Prior to approval of the PDP we discussed window treatment. City staff requested that windows be articulated with lintels and sills and not be flat uninteresting windows. We provided an enlarged detail of the west elevation so that staff could see that the windows are differentiated. The larger graphic provided prior to P&Z and attached to this document clearly shows the proposed window articulation. Brick detailing that creates lintels over the windows and sills below are provided in the portions that are brick. Similarly stone lintels and sills are provided where stone is used. In all cases windows are framed in high quality materials suitable to the architectural materials surrounding the window. The window treatments proposed are consistent with the ones approved with the PDP. 11 WINDOW DETAILS BUILDING A WEST ELEVATION 12 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: What is the generic color name for SW 7666, “Fleur De Sel”? Response: Light grey - the color was included on the materials board provided prior to PDP. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: The Lighting Plan indicates eight A 1 light fixtures along Prospect Road but the Site Plan shows only four. Also, please adjust the location of these fixtures to account for the meandering public sidewalk. Fixtures should be placed no closer than two feet from the back of the sidewalk. Please note that the Lighting Plan does not match the Site Plan by no indicating the meandering sidewalk. Response: The site plan will be adjusted to match the lighting plan. The lighting plan backgrounds will be updated and the lights will be located 2’ on the back side of the meandering public sidewalk as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: Dimmer controls for these eight fixtures is an acceptable compromise to Staff’s concern of there being excessive illumination between the building and Prospect Road. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/06/2017 09/06/2017: For the stucco fence along the west property line, please indicate the width and depth of the reveals. Please note that these need to be more than simply score lines. Please distinguish that the reveals are horizontal and the vertical lines are score lines, not reveals. Response: Width and of reveals now specified and distinguished on the Site Plan. The reveal is proposed as 1-inch x1-inch. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: On the Landscape Plan, along Lake Street, the street trees are not continued across the entire frontage of the building with a gap of approximately 100 feet from curb to the closest tree. With an attached sidewalk, please add two street trees in grate to fill in this gap. Response: Trees added along Lake Street. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: Show the transformer locations on both the Site and Landscape Plans. Response: Transformer locations now shown on Site and Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: For the south elevation of Building A, the building entries for the two middle modules are identical. Please create differentiation between these two entries so that each entry is unique. Response: The entries are not identical. The enlarged perspectives that were presented at the March P&Z meeting have been included in this plan set. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: For the north elevation of Building B, the individual unit entries are described as being enclosed by a railing. Please change this to a gate as these entries are intended to be fully functional and not blocked by a railing. Response: A railing and gate will enclose the stoop at the individual unit entries on the north side of Building B. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 13 09/08/2017: For the east elevation of Building B, there are four stone columns but the southernmost column is not stone. Please replace this fiber cement column with matching stone as this elevation is visible from Prospect Road. Response: The east elevation of the parking deck, initially proposed a precast concrete finish for all seven columns shown. Understanding that this elevation could be visible from both Prospect Road or W. Lake Street, we decided, in coordination with the City staff during the PDP approval process, to make the four center columns stacked stone. It was decided the three remaining columns would be painted precast concrete. These columns would act as a frame of two elements on the east elevation of the parking deck. This language is carried over to the right side of the south elevation as well. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: For Building A, please indicate how the trash hauler gains access to the trash and recycling containers. Access appears to be blocked by landscaping and bike racks. Response: Access now open and unobscured by any landscape or bike racks. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: On the architectural set, we need Sheet 8 from the P.D.P. set which depicts the enlarged bike parking plan and the enlarged waste/recycling room plan for Building A.. Response: Enlarged bike parking plan and waste/recycling room plans have been included in this submittal set. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: Also, the architectural set needs to include Sheet13, 14, and 15 which depict parking spaces, bike parking and the trash/recycling facilities. Response: Enlarged plans showing parking spaces, bike parking and the trash/recycling facilities have been included in this submittal set. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: Please see redlines for minor comments related to edits and labeling. Response: These comments have been addressed in this submittal set. Response: Redlines received and are addressed. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017:09/05/2017: Please provide a temporary surface for construction entrances from Prospect and Lake, with the permeable pavement surfaces at both locations being installed late in the construction schedule. Please provide perimeter protection for the site where missing. No discussion in the report for the hazardous materials potential and handling, please review the Erosion control guidance document online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/Accomp_Doc.pdf and make sure all sections are addressed. Please address all relines on plans. If you have any questions please contact Basil Hamdan bhamdan@fcgov.com, (970) 224-6035. Response: There are two separate vehicle tracking pads at both entrances. There is a very basic detail of the permeable pavement surface protection; put down geotextile and plywood on sheet C5.01 now. Northern has never seen a detail for permeable paver protection but it’s on the contractor to make sure he stages his construction to account for these pavers. 14 Perimeter protection has been included since the last submittal, a chain link fence with rock socks at the base. I had a silt fence in at a prior stage but someone told me to remove it and replace it with this system. Please see detail 002 on sheet C5.01. I tried to call Basil this week to discuss these comments because Northern is not sure what a temporary surface for construction entrances is nor have we seen a permeable pavement protection detail. The report narrative has been updated. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: The storm sewer and the shade trees along the south side of the building and near Prospect Road are in conflict. Additional discussion is needed to determine a solution. Response: The second row of trees behind the walk have been replaced with ornamental trees as suggested. Response: The trees being saved along Prospect Road are no longer in conflict with Storm Line A. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: In discussions with the City and the applicant, reducing the storm water flows that are released into Lake Street was determined to be a better design. Please revise the drainage calculations to reflect this new design. Response: Flows have been rerouted again. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please change the project titles to match the Subdivision Plat & Utility Plans. Response: Noted and updated Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please change the sub-title to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: 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. Response: Easement descriptions have been updated to reflect what is on the Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 15 Response: Addressed Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There are sheets with incorrect numbering. See redlines. Response: Addressed Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please change the project titles to match the Subdivision Plat & Utility Plans. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Noted and corrected. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Sheet 6 is incorrectly numbered. See redlines. Response: Noted and corrected. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: 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. Response: Addressed Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please change the project titles to match the Subdivision Plat & Utility Plans. Response: Project title updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Please revise the legal description to match the legal description on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Legal description now matches the Plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Sheet index and titles now coordinated. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: 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. Response: Easements corrected and now match. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com 16 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The plans for the turn lane at Whitcomb and Prospect were not included in the plan set, and need to be provided. Response: The plans for Whitcomb and Prospect have been submitted prior to FDP Rnd 1. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The water main is not meeting the City's separations distances. These requirements are being held firm now due to issues with maintenance of the City's public mains in tight areas. Please coordinate a meeting with the City to determine the best layout of the water main and to coordinate relocation of any utilities to provide the required separation distances. Response: The 8” water main is now called out as private. Therefore it will be maintained by the property owners. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017 09/05/2017: The water meter vaults are too close to the building and may not be possible in this location with the foundation of the buildings. Please coordinate with the City a better location. Response: Meter pits have been relocated Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017 09/08/2017: Further discussion with Poudre Fire Authority is needed to determine if there is an alternative to the proposed fire hydrant. The City would like to investigate every option to avoid a public water main down the center of this development. A meeting with all parties is suggested to determine a solution. Response: The water main is private now therefore the hydrant is now a private hydrant and will be maintained by the property manager/owner.