Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - FDP190002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 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 July 11, 2016 Cathy Mathis TBGROUP 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Landmark Apartments Expansion, PDP160013, 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, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Framework of Walkways in Lieu of Streets Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/13/2016 A fundamental Modification of a standard is required for code standard 3.5.2(D) which requires residences to be placed along streets in a traditional neighborhood pattern, as opposed to freestanding complexes with orientation to parking lots instead of streets. To meet the standard, this PDP would have to add new streets into the site across the channel. Staff finds that a framework of walkway spines in lieu of a street is a better approach to development on this constrained site. To function in lieu of streets the framework must be formative, not left over after parking lots and buildings are maximized; it must maximize clear, direct, highly visible connections and not follow parking lot outlines that are not aligned to a logical route for direct pedestrian connectivity. Walkway spines that meet standards are 35’ wide, tree-lined on both sides, and visible from streets. The north leg of the site plan has been a problematic portion of the plan in this 2 regard from the outset. The area is about 145 feet wide, located between single family houses. (The Assessor lists the property next door to the west as single family.) The issue dates back to the previous, expired PDP from a few years ago which had virtually the same layout as the current proposal. Adding up space for setbacks, the parking drive/fire lane, and a walkway spine that could work in lieu of a Major Walkway Spine as defined, it looks like the remaining space for a building is in the 35-40 foot range depending on modulation and offsets in massing. This is based on a general assumption of an area averaging 20’ for the west setback and 18’ for a walkway spine area. Neither of these complies with standards and thus both still require Modifications. And, thus still require special enhancement to be supportable as alternatives to the standards. Staff’s idea behind the 20-foot average setback in conjunction with offsets in building mass is to allow for some Tree Stocking as required. PERHAPS it could be found to be supportable as ‘nominal and inconsequential’, and ‘as good or better’ in regard to the Modification request. Staff’s idea behind the 18-foot average walkway spine area (with a minimum of 15’) is to allow for the equivalent of street trees to define a comfortable pedestrian walkway space between the parking lot and building. Also, the space could possibly allow some for low walls and landscaping at the transition from the sloping walk to the building, possibly easing the awkward privacy relationship of the walk looking directly down into bedroom windows. Also, bike parking could be integrated into the special, more-complex urban design solution needed in this area. The site plan as shown needs significant re-design in this regard. The walkways are attached to parking lot outlines in the manner specifically intended to be avoided in the definitions of 'Connecting Walkway' and 'Major Walkway Spine'. Some ideas: - 10-foot-wide (min) sidewalk with trees in cutouts. Some of this might end up paved clear to the building. This then raises a question about transition from sloping walk to bldg. wall and windows. (Looks awkward.) Related to the Modification for the 25-foot buffer yard in terms of the building not being programmed and designed to fit within standards. - Raised crossing where main spine crosses driveway w/ a 90-degree, quarter of a pie pedestrian area to connect walks. Extend corner plaza area to entry on s. side of Bldg. B. - Adjust the bridge angle and create smooth curves connecting southward from the bridge. This will create a plaza area at the nw corner of bldg. E where walks converge, which should then have a tree in a cutout. - Widen this main spine walk to 6 feet along west side of Bldg. C. - 10 foot wide (min) sidewalk along west side of Bldg E. 3 - Show how the walk south of Bldg. B connects to existing walk to the west in existing Landmark. - Where sidewalks flank parking, increase width to 6.5'. Bumpers overhang more than 2 feet. 6’ is suitable for utilitarian, secondary walkways but here this is the main framework of access to homes. RESPONSE: This was done prior to hearing. Presumably, the Modification request will be based on a physical hardship of narrowness. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/13/2016 Bike parking - please verify how the bike parking works as shown. 12 bikes on 5'long racks? Bikes in 6' wide breezeways? RESPONSE: We have added additional bike racks and bike symbols to the site plan. The ribbon –style bike racks come in configurations of 5 bikes and 7 bikes. The 5-bike rack is 3’-3” long and the 7-bike rack is 5’-3” long. We have also provided a typical breezeway showing the covered bike racks. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/13/2016 A Modification of standards will likely be required for a central feature/gathering space of 10,000 square feet, highly visible from streets and part of the formative framework of space rather than left over space between buildings. This is interrelated with previous comments. The plan shown is supportable by staff in this regard based on physical hardship and "as good as". RESPONSE: Prior to hearing, it was agreed that the shared use of the existing Landmark amenities would satisfy this requirement. It was also agreed that a Minor Amendment to the existing Landmark approved Site Plan, along with notes on both site plans and plats and private easements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 "Full Tree Stocking" in the landscape plan is not met. Trees on the plan need more consideration. This is interrelated with walkway/plaza comments. RESPONSE: Additional trees were added to the landscape plans in order to meet the ‘full tree stocking’ requirement. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/13/2016 From Comcast: Comcast cable will need a right of access agreement to be able to service this project. Due to the size of this project Comcast Cable will most likely build this as a fiber to the unit project. This will require more coordination than with the Owner/Builder to have units wired so that the fiber to the unit design will work. Joint trench with Light and Power looks like the way to go due to tight space. 970.567.0245. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/13/2016 A bus stop is required on Prospect Road in association with this development. Emma Belmont at 224-6197 can explain and provide the design requirements. RESPONSE: We have been working with Seth Lorson and it was understood that the bus stop is being moved on 12/6/18 approximately 150 feet to the west. 4 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: A fence along the west property line should be considered in conjunction with trees and shrubs to aid the setback Modification. RESPONSE: A new 6’ tall privacy fence is shown on the plans and the building was reduced to comply with the 25’ setback. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: A fence along the east edge should be considered in conjunction with trees and shrub beds. A fence could offset the need for extensive shrub beds in the east area. RESPONSE: In order to satisfy the City Council COA, the applicant’s design team has met with representatives from the neighborhood to address fencing and additional landscaping. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Compact parking spaces: are these spaces long-term, and in compliance with limits in section 3.2.2? - Just a minor point for follow up. RESPONSE: Yes, the compact spaces are considered long-term per the Article 4 Definition. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Fire Access at Prospect on Site Plan - label it - material? edging? RESPONSE: The fire access lane has been labeled as all-weather solid surface. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Building design: Comment from a citizen: the massing is not adequately mitigated as shown by the elevations. The comment is that the ends of buildings A and B should be more significantly stepped down, possibly to two stories. A greater offset in building modules was also mentioned. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Building design: comment from a citizen - perhaps some of the building walls or trim boards could be extended past building corners as these kinds of extensions occur in the Sheely neighborhood. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Building graphics: Can you generate sidewalk views of the buildings? Staff requests that, particularly for LPC. RESPONSE: The colored building perspectives were included at the hearing. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/11/2016 07/11/2016: Building graphics: Bldg A and B Elevations don’t seem to reflect the 5% sloping sidewalk along the building face. This is related to the lengthy comments about the walkway area in the north neck area. ALSO, the bldg. graphics show trees in green areas, which do not correspond to plans. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. 5 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: Carried over for reference, as the response indicates a letter of intent will be provided prior to hearing. 04/26/2016: Provided that PFA is satisfied with the emergency access onto Prospect Road not requiring an emergency access easement through the existing Landmark Apartments, the need for a letter of intent from the property owner specific to the emergency access easement would not be needed. We would still need a letter of intent from that property owner however, as evidence that they are okay with the plans being shown for the work that is occurring on their property (connecting the drive aisle, connecting new sidewalks, etc.) RESPONSE: A letter of intent for the off-site emergency access easement was provided prior to hearing. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: With the understanding from the response that easements from existing Landmark and Blue Ocean for offsite work is needed, we'll want to ensure letters of intent are received prior to a hearing. 04/26/2016: In general, what sort of easements are contemplated/needed from the existing Landmark Apartments property as part of the development? RESPONSE: Letters of intent from the existing Landmark owner and Blue Ocean were provided regarding proposed off-site easements and right of way to be granted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: The civil plans show the bridge to be designed by others. If that's the intent, I would like verification that the design will be tied to the final approval and approved concurrently (and attached to) the Northern civil plans. 04/26/2016: There is a bridge shown across Tract B. On the civil plans it is indicated as not being a part of the project. What is the intention on the bridge in terms of who is constructing it and is it part of the development plan/development plan requirements? RESPONSE: Preliminary bridge design provided, stamped set to be provided with bridge permit. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: The proposed design does meet the intent of 3.6.2(D). There needs to be verification as to whether this is considered a permanent cul-de-sac vs. a temporary turnaround. A permanent cul-de-sac would need to be fully designed with elements of the cul-de-sac built to final form. In that scenario, the attached sidewalk (in lieu of the standard detached sidewalk) would be acceptable here given the existing context of Hobbit Street, but should be widened to a 5' attached sidewalk. Permanent right-of-way dedication (and/or not vacating elements of the Hobbit Street right-of-way on site) to the back of the attached sidewalk would need to be ensured, as well as a 9 foot utility easement behind the sidewalk around a permanent cul-de-sac scenario. In a temporary turnaround scenario, interim and ultimate design scenarios need to be established with the understanding of what needs to be modified in order to be built to the ultimate condition, and funds potentially provided to ensure that this development's portion of the conversion to the ultimate is provided at this time. 6 04/26/2016: The termination of Hobbit Street is depicted with a turnaround bulb of about 50 feet in diameter. 3.6.2(D) requires that the diameter be a minimum of 100 feet. As currently designed, the project would not be in conformance with the Land Use Code specific to this section. RESPONSE: The cul-de-sac will be designed as a permanent improvement. Additional Right of way, access, drainage and utility easements will be dedicated by the off-site owner. Draft exhibits are provided with this final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: The revised drive access appears to be better than the previous. Figure 19-6 would show that the first parking stall off of Hobbit Street should be set at either 20 feet (if Hobbit's ADTs are less than 100 ADTs) or 40 feet (if Hobbit's ADT exceed 100 ADTs). The site plan shows a 20 -foot setback, but in looking at the traffic study numbers during the peak hour, I would tend to believe that the ADT on Hobbit exceeds 100 ADTs and a 40 -foot setback criteria should be used. As it is, I'm not sure if vehicles can readily turn into that first parking space due to the curve. 04/26/2016: The drive access off of Hobbit Street to this development appears awkward as it doesn't intersect the turnaround bulb at a right angle and seemingly almost directs the westbound driver into the driveway intersecting Hobbit Street to the north. Both the new driveway and existing (but reconfigured) driveway need to be separate and distinct driveways meeting driveway separation standards and angle of intersection in LCUASS. In addition, if the Hobbit Street turnaround isn't designed and built in a manner that's considered permanent, there may need to be funds provided that would allow the finishing of the frontage at the time the property to the south ultimately either extends, or elects not to continue Hobbit Street onto their property. RESPONSE: A variance request was submitted to the City regarding the parking setback. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: Referring to ID#4 there appears to be portions of the Hobbit Street right-of-way that would need to be retained for the cul-de-sac bulb under the premise that it is a permanent improvement. 04/26/2016: Hobbit Street is platted through the property, terminating into a cul-de-sac bulb as part of Young's Creek. With the project proposal, Hobbit Street would need to be vacated through the property. The project at a public hearing, will need to have a conditional approval, subject to City Council approval of the right-of-way vacation. The ordinance that would authorize right-of-way vacation would not be effective until the subdivision plat and ordinance are concurrently recorded at Larimer County, which would occur upon a final plan approval. RESPONSE: Right of way will be dedicated to allow for the construction of the cul-de-sac. Draft exhibits are provided with this Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/06/2016: Carried over for reference to verify receipt of a letter of intent prior to a hearing. 04/26/2016: Previous site plan versions showed an offsite trail connection(s) to the southeast that doesn't appear to be depicted here. Should that be proposed/required as part of the review of the project, there may need to be letters of intent from the property owner(s) indicating their okay 7 to the connection prior to hearing. RESPONSE: Draft easement exhibits are provided with this Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: A variance request will be needed for the attached sidewalk and would be supported based on a 5- foot attached design. RESPONSE: A variance request has been submitted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: The use of a crosspan just west of the cul-de-sac bulb will need to be looked at in more detail. While not prohibited in this location per LCUASS, I'm wondering if the intent of the cross pan is to take a majority of the flows from the cul-de-sac? In general, if the street flows along Hobbit are all directed to the east end of the cul-de-sac through the sidewalk chase, would the crosspan be even needed? RESPONSE: Design update to remove crosspan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: The sidewalk chase at the end of Hobbit Street needs to be widened and additional 6 inches along the back of walk (widened to a 5' attached) side, a detail of this can be provided at time of final. RESPONSE: The sidewalk chase has been widened to accommodate the 5’ walk. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: For the emergency access off of Prospect Road, please ensure that the rebuilt emergency access has a minimum 5' attached sidewalk. RESPONSE: There is a sidewalk but due to the steep grades, it is not attached. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573 slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/13/2016 04/13/2016: the project owes an additional $147.50 for the TDRFees. The acreage identified on the application was less than that shown on the plat. RESPONSE: We are not sure if this got resolved. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: Please add the following note to sheets EX2, HC2, U2 and G2 of the utility plans: "The existing wetlands shall not be disturbed by any construction or development activities, except as approved by the City Environmental Planner and in accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code." RESPONSE: Note has been added to Utility Plans. Topic: General 8 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: Thank you for providing a calculation comparing the amount of area that would be protected with a standard 50' buffer with the amount of area proposed to be included in the buffer with this project. Please add some explanatory text to the table on Sheet 2 of the landscape plans to clarify that the 50' offset is what would typically be required, but the proposed habitat buffer varies from that standard. Also, a narrative document still needs to be provided that describes how the applicant feels these plans meet each of the 9 performance standards listed in section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code. This needs to be provided before the project can proceed to hearing. RESPONSE: A narrative describing the qualitative performance standards for this site has been provided. In addition, a calculation of the acreage of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (50’ offset vs. performance standard) has been provided on Sheet 2 (Landscape Notes, Details & Schedules). 04/26/2016: The boundary of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone may be adjusted by the decision maker if the performance standards in LUC section 3.4.1(E)(1) are met instead. If the project is proposing to use the qualitative performance standards rather than the standard 50-foot buffer, please provide a narrative analysis that details how the proposed project meets each of these performance standards. Please also provide a calculation of the acreage of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone that would have been provided via the 50' buffer vs. what is proposed with the performance standards. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: The buffer zone has been updated on the landscape plans, but still needs to be updated on the site, utility and photometric plans. The boundary of the buffer should match on all plans. RESPONSE: Buffer Zone has been updated on the Utility Plans. 04/26/2016: LUC section 3.4.1(E)(2) specifies the development activities allowed within a buffer zone. Please note that buildings, parking lots, trash enclosures, and other features that are incompatible with the ecological character and function of the buffer zone are not allowed. The site will either need to be reconfigured to protect the buffer zone or the applicant must demonstrate that the buffer zone performance standards can be met with a reduced buffer. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The buffer zone boundary has since been reviewed and approved by Rebecca Everette. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: The buffer zone has been updated on the landscape plans, but still needs to be updated on the site, utility and photometric plans. The boundary of the buffer should match on all plans. RESPONSE: Buffer zone has been updated on the Utility Plans & Site Plans. 04/26/2016: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone and edge of wetlands need to be delineated and labeled on all sheets of the site, landscape, and utility plans that show that portion of the site. RESPONSE: The edge of wetlands note has been added to the landscape sheets. The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is labeled on the plans and in the legend on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 9 07/05/2016: Thank you for adding this note to the utility plans. This note still needs to be added to site, landscape, and photometric plans, as well as sheet HC2 of the utility plans. RESPONSE: This note is included in the legend on each of the landscape sheets. Also, note has been added to the HC2 of the Utility Plans and the site and photometric plans. 04/26/2016: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets that show the Habitat Buffer: "Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape." This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: In the legend on the landscape plans, please remove " 50' " from the label for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, as the performance standards will be used to determine the adequacy of the buffer instead. RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: Please re-label the 50' offset from the wetlands as such on the site and landscape plans, rather than a "Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This line does not need to be shown on the photometric or utility plans. RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: There are two dark black lines shown within the buffer zone on sheet 4 of the Landscape Plans that are unlabeled. Can you clarify what these are (or remove them if not needed)? RESPONSE: These have been revised. They are property boundary lines that are now set to print like the other property boundary lines. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: Please ensure the boundary is updated to match the buffer zone shown on the landscape plans. RESPONSE: The boundary had been updated as requested. 04/26/2016: Please add and label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to the lighting plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: It still appears that lighting will spill over into the buffer zone, which is in conflict with the performance standards that need to be met. Please demonstrate that light spillage has been removed or adequately mitigated within the buffer zone. RESPONSE: Fixtures have been revised to mitigate light spillage into the buffer area as much as possible. 04/26/2016: It appears that light from some fixtures will spillover into the buffer 10 zone. Land Use Code section 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please ensure that the light fixtures are placed and/or shielded to prevent spillover lighting. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: It does not appear that the details for the light fixtures were updated to reflect warmer color temperatures (CCT). This will be necessary to ensure compatibility with the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. RESPONSE: All light fixtures have been updated to reflect a 3000K color temperature. 04/26/2016: In regard to LED light fixtures, cooler (higher) color temperatures are harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian rhythms for both humans and wildlife. Please use a warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for your LED light fixtures, particularly on the southern portion of the site near the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 07/05/2016: Is the project proposing to use the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to meet the requirement for a park, central feature or gathering space? Staff has a number of concerns with that approach and does not feel that both can be accomplished within the same area. Please exclude the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone from diagrams or calculations for the park, central feature or gathering space requirement. RESPONSE: Prior to hearing, it was agreed that the shared use of the existing Landmark amenities would satisfy this requirement. It was also agreed that a Minor Amendment to the existing Landmark approved Site Plan, along with notes on both site plans and plats and private easements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated 04/26/2016: Please provide additional information for the neighborhood gathering area. What types of features will be included and how will the area be used by residents? A detail or vignette for this area would help staff determine whether this meets the requirements in 3.8.30(C) and is compatible with the buffer zone. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: The open space exhibit shows a multiple use turf area within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, and in the same location that a rain garden is shown on the utility plans. A multiple use turf area is not an acceptable use within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, and the native seed mix shown throughout the buffer zone would not support higher intensity recreational use. RESPONSE: The multiple use turf area note has been removed. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 11 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 07/08/2016: Continued: It appears that some trees may still be closer than 10 feet to the sewer main. Review and confirm that the 10- foot separation standard has been met. RESPONSE: Tree locations have been reviewed and areas of conflict were revised. 04/28/2016: Place trees at least 10 feet from the sewer main located on the east boundary of sheet 3 of 3 LUC 3.2.1 K. RESPONSE: Tree locations have been reviewed and areas of conflict were revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/08/2016 07/08/2016: There are 2.5 mitigation trees required which rounds to 3 mitigation trees. It appears that only 2 are shown on the plans so if this is the case add an additional mitigation tree. Also in the plant list show three upsized mitigation trees that meet the following mitigation tree size requirements. Canopy Shade tree – 3.0- inch caliper Ornamental tree – 2.5- inch caliper Evergreen tree – 8 feet height RESPONSE: Per the tree inventory with Ralph Zentz, only 1.5 trees are required to be mitigated. We have rounded up and shown 2 trees as mitigation trees. The mitigation trees have been noted in the plant list. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/08/2016 07/08/2016: Please confirm that there will not be any significant grading or cuts and fills around the 19- inch diameter honeylocust to be retained. What is the feature shown just to the east of the tree, is it a fence? If significant root impact will occur to the tree contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to evaluate. RESPONSE: An exhibit showing the cross-section near the honeylocust is included with the resubmittal. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/25/2016: This project is located immediately adjacent to the Sheely Drive Neighborhood Landmark District. Containing eleven mid-century residential properties, it was designated as a Landmark District by Ordinance No. 012, 2000. Therefore, the project will need to comply with the standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. RESPONSE: The design team made many changes to the building design to meet the standards of 3.4.7. The LPC forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Planning and Zoning Board stating compliance with Section 3.4.7. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/25/2016: The Area of Adjacency has not been established. The buildings and structures near this project that are either already officially designated or are 50+ years old include the Sheely Drive District to the east, and four individual properties along Prospect Road to the north. To establish an Area of Adjacency, the eligibility of the four Prospect Road properties will need to be evaluated. The applicant is responsible for submitting good quality, labeled photographs of all elevations (and partial elevations) visible from public rights of way, of each of the buildings and structures. RESPONSE: The area of adjacency was established to only be the Sheely Neighborhood. 12 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/25/2016: The Sheely Drive ordinance and attachments emphasize the district's "innovative architecture." The documents describe these custom Ranch homes as a low profile architectural style, designed to follow the contours of each individual lot, and paying particular attention to views...a one story, ground-hugging house, with a low roof and deep eaves; walkout or daylight basements and terraced landscape allow the homes to blend into the terrain, rather than dominate it; rear elevations feature large expanses of glass, decks merging indoors with outdoors, spacious yards; layout of the subdivision designed to take advantage of the natural topography, with the houses fit in to the terrain, emphasizing the sense of spacious nature; houses are oriented to take advantage of the views and do not always sit parallel to the street; a conscious choice to have lampposts rather than standard street lights-this less intrusive lighting choice protects the neighborhood's view of the night sky, representative of the emphasis placed upon the natural environment. Houses are generally one room deep and shaped like an L or U. Design relies on the expression of material connections, finishes and relationships. Designs are asymmetrical rather than symmetrical. Bands of windows and solid planes create a horizontal feeling. Windows are often mitered together to create glass corners. Cantilever eaves and overhangs are commonly used. Hipped roofs have broad eaves and overhangs. Walls and terraces often extend from the main structure emphasizing a horizontal appearance. Roofs are low pitched with deep and cantilevered eaves. Designs may include balconies. Windows are geometric compositions. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/25/2016: The Purpose of 3.4.7 is to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, new construction is designed to respect the historic character of historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The site plan shows a very dense project that is out of character with the Historic District; building heights that are significantly taller than the existing walk-out ranch homes; and building designs, materials, and architectural details that do not respect the architectural significance of the Historic District. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/28/2016: 3.4.7(F)(1) discusses height, setback and width. To comply with this standard, the apartment buildings should be broken into smaller masses, with more articulation to mitigate the bulk and width. Three story buildings are not consistent with the District. Building heights should be reduced to 2 stories, with 1 story elements, or possibly 2 1/2 stories if sunk into the ground. The building setbacks should at a minimum meet, and ideally will exceed the required 25' buffer. At its February 10, 2016 meeting, the applicants were asked to explore the scenario of more buildings with smaller footprints and lower heights. This information was again requested at the April 27, 2016 meeting. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/28/2016: 3.4.7(F)(2) addresses character. The apartment buildings appear more vertical than horizontal, and are not in character with the District. The buildings are very symmetrical, which is the opposite of the design of the Sheely Drive homes. Attention should be given to changing the site plan and building design to not line up the apartment and to shape each building to be more organic. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. 13 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/28/2016: 3.4.7(F)(3) discusses materials. The Sheely Drive houses provide lots of material choices. While staff has no issue with the applicant's choice of materials, the placement is not consistent with the character of the District. Each Sheely Drive building is unique in both design and materials, and each apartment should have its own character rather than being so replicative. Additionally, material choice and placement should emphasize horizontality, rather than verticality. RESPONSE: This was resolved at PDP. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/28/2016 04/28/2016: 3.4.7(F)(4) addresses the preservation of visual connections. Building placement, and height and step-downs, have the potential to affect the views from the Sheely neighborhood homes. One of the significant characteristics of most mid-century architecture, and a key characteristic of the Sheely Drive homes, is the emphasis on the rear of the home. Compared with earlier housing styles, the houses are essentially flipped, with minimal attention placed on the front and great emphasis placed on the rear, which become the focus. The applicants are asked to provide models showing scaled elevations of the new apartment buildings in relation to each of the abutting Sheely houses, to identify what the homeowner will see from their deck, as well as cross-sections of the project from both Sheely Drive and Prospect Road showing how the houses lay in respect to the new apartments. RESPONSE: The requested items were provided at PDP. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/29/2016 04/28/2016: The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed this project at its meetings on February 10, 2016 and April 27, 2016. Commission members stated that they felt the project was not compatible with the Sheely Drive Neighborhood due to the project's significant density, and the buildings mass and height. Members stated that the buildings are huge, and out of scale with the District. The members are concerned with the proposed heights of 3 and 2 stories; buildings should be scaled lower, most members stating a height of 2-stories with one story portions, with low roofs, to become more compatible with the Sheely Drive, and to transition between the historic district and existing Landmarks Apartments. The Commission discussed the need for a significant reduction in density and scale. In addition to reducing the overall density, other suggestions to mitigate mass and to reduce bulk were provided, including building articulation, emphasizing horizontality rather than verticality, the use of long, low overhangs and incorporating horizontal elements that extend the length of the building and project beyond. The buildings were described as "standard apartment buildings with materials arbitrarily applied," and "boxes with applique." Overall, Commission members stated a strong level of discomfort with the project as presented. Staff will provide additional Commission comments when the meeting minutes are prepared. RESPONSE: The design team made many changes to the building design to meet the standards of 3.4.7. The LPC forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Planning and Zoning Board stating compliance with Section 3.4.7. Department: Internal Services 14 Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com/building web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use: Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: City of Fort Collins IBC amendments require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system in multifamily units with an exception for buildings with up to 6 dwelling units that are not more than 2 stories nor more 5000 sqft per floor. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. This 15 project has 72 units and will need to achieve at least 36 points. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 970-416-2724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: The Plat shows an Emergency Access Easement through the development; the Site Plan calls out Utility and EAE? RESPONSE: EAE provided by Meets and Bounds through the development and a blanket Utility Easement is also provided Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: Please provide a one- line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf I will need a C-1 form for each building. Please note that single phase L&P transformers have a max capacity of 21 cables no larger than 350kcmil. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: It looks like L&P will need additional Utility Easements to serve this site. Please contact Luke Unruh at 970-416-2724 to discuss various options. RESPONSE: Blanket utility easement is being provided for the site. Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/21/2016 04/21/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at RESPONSE: Acknowledged. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: DETAILS DUE WITH FINAL PLAN > Plan for fire lane marking. 16 > Plan for wayfinding. > Plan for fire lane gating. RESPONSE: Fire lane signage provided on Horizontal Control Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: AERIAL APPARATUS FIRE LANE WIDTH The requested reduction of the required 30' aerial apparatus fire lane width to 26' remains under review with the fire marshal. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: HYDRANT LOCATION There was an off-line discussion regarding relocating the hydrant north of Bldg. D to a location to the west, at the intersection. Has this option been given further consideration? RESPONSE: The fire hydrant is now located on the suggested parking island. What is the status of the existing hydrant on the east side of property? RESPONSE: Utility Maps were consulted and no evidence of hydrant was found. Additionally, hydrant did not show up on topo survey. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: Please revise Note # 7 on Sheets G1 and G2. This is an AE zone with Base Flood Elevations determined. RESPONSE: Floodplain notes were revised. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: Please add a note to both the Utility Plans, General Notes section and on the PDP site plan stating the flood zones information, that a floodplain use permit is required for any development within the floodplain and referencing the complete floodplain notes on the grading plans. RESPONSE: The note has been added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/05/2016 07/05/2016: The revised utility plans still show storm sewer outfall pipes up to the boundary of the floodway. Since the final outfalls and grading are not yet designed please add a note stating that if the outfalls will include grading in the floodway a no-rise certification will be required as a part of the floodplain use permit. RESPONSE: A note has been added regarding any construction in the floodway will trigger a no-rise certification. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/19/2016 06/30/2016: Repeat will look for materials at FDP. 04/19/2016: 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 17 Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre. 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: Erosion Control Plan and Details are provided Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: The grading plan will need to ensure that a safe overflow condition can be achieved in areas where there is a swale between the building and the sidewalk in case the sidewalk chase becomes plugged. RESPONSE: Confirmed overflow for swales Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Calculations will be needed to show that the drainage from Basin A5 can be contained within the curb and gutter and is not contributing to Basin A4. The amount of water draining along the eastern property line in Basin A4 will need to be less than the historic condition. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please verify that outfall curb is appropriate in all instances where it is called out. It appears there are locations where the road is crowned but the curb is called out as outfall. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: All impervious areas will need to receive water quality treatment prior to being released to the Canal Importation Channel. All UD basins will need to be redesigned so that the impervious area is captured and routed to a treatment facility. Releasing some pervious area untreated is ok. This comment also applies to proposed offsite impervious areas. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please provide an LID table showing the areas being treated and the overall site treatment percentage. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Topic: Drainage Report 18 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please discuss the treatment area the water quality pond is being sized to treat. The report calculations show 1.93 acres. Which basins does this include? RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please include calculations for sizing of all proposed LID treatment areas. Sizing for Basins A2, A5, and A6 is currently not included. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please confirm calculations for Basin B. The proposed rain garden is sized using an area of 11,110 sq. ft., the hydrology calculations show an area of 0.31 acres, and the Drainage Plan shows an area of 0.52 acres. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: All proposed volume treatment areas (LID and water quality pond) and the associated outfall pipes will need to be within Drainage Easements. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 04/27/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: This has not been corrected. 04/27/2016: 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: 19 PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX¿. RESPONSE: Benchmark statements have been updated and now match on all sheets. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: This has not been corrected. 04/27/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. RESPONSE: Benchmark statements have been updated and now match on all sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: No comments. 04/27/2016: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: No comments. 04/27/2016: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: Please provide if applicable when title commitments are received. 04/27/2016: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include response in written comments. RESPONSE: No lienholder on the property Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: All ordinance numbers for right of way vacations must be added prior to mylars. 04/27/2016: All ordinance numbers for right of way vacations must be added prior to mylars. RESPONSE: Ordinance numbers will be provided at the time of ROW vacation. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: All reception numbers for documents recorded by separate document must be added prior to mylars. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Reception numbers will be provided at the time of mylar. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: We would prefer that all of Hobbit Street on the project property be vacated. See redlines. RESPONSE: Hobbit Street is now shown as all vacated. 20 Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/06/2016 07/06/2016: There is a 15' Utility Easement along the north line of the property that is not shown. It was dedicated with the Young's Creek plat. It was shown in previous submittals. Why is it not shown? Has this been vacated? RESPONSE: 15’ Utility easement is now shown on plat. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 07/06/2016: This has not been corrected. 04/27/2016: 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: Easements now match the plat. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 04/27/2016: The submitted traffic study information has been reviewed and the general conclusions accepted. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/27/2016 04/27/2016: How is the emergency access controlled? With a gate, chain, or bollards? It would be good to leave a gap for bikes. RESPONSE: There will be a chain and lock. There is a sidewalk connection for pedestrians and bikes. Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/30/2016 06/30/2016: Has an off- site trail connection on the south side of the development been considered? RESPONSE: Yes, a trail connection to the Spring Creek trail is being added within an easement. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/25/2016 04/25/2016: 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: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 21 04/26/2016: Please place all curb stops and the proposed fire hydrant within Utility Easements. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: If it will provide adequate water supply, the proposed 8" dead end main can be downsized to 6" in order to help with water quality since this main is serving only one building. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Minimum easement widths are not being met on this project. A minimum 20' easement is required for water mains and 30' for sewer mains. Where the mains are parallel, there should be a minimum of 10' from the center of the water main and 15' from the center of the sewer main. Additionally, it appears the proposed Utility Easement stops short on the northern end of the site and will need to be extended so that the proposed water main is inside the easement. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please show existing easements on the adjacent parcel and ensure proposed water and sewer improvements are within the appropriately sized easement or dedicate new easements as necessary. RESPONSE: See attached updated comments from Shane Boyle. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 04/26/2016: Please show all proposed service lines and ensure minimum separations are being met. It appears there are conflicts with the existing water main on the north end of the site, the proposed fire hydrant, and the Building B water service. Please check for other conflicts as there may be others. RESPONSE: The plan has been checked and revised if necessary. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 06/272016: Still need the floor plan to verify the breezeway will room enough for the number of bike spaces. 4/26/2016: Please provide floor plan of the breezeways and how they will fit the enclosed bike spaces. RESPONSE: A typical floor plan showing breezeways was included at PDP. 22 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2016 06/27/216: There is already existing parking on the west side of the property by building E. This existing parking cannot be counted towards meeting the minimum parking requirements for this project. RESPONSE: We are not counting the existing parking for the new buildings; it is replacing parking that will be lost for the existing Landmark project. 4/26/2016: Parking requirements are not accurate on the site plan tables. The total required off-street parking spaces is 123. RESPONSE: The total required space is 120. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/27/2016 06/27/2016: Please label the dimensions of the bike racks and verify that the bikes will not overhang/block the sidewalks. RESPONSE: We have added additional bike racks and bike symbols to the site plan. The ribbon –style bike racks come in configurations of 5 bikes and 7 bikes. The 5-bike rack is 3’-3” long and the 7-bike rack is 5’-3” long. Project: Landmark Apartments Expansion Page 1 of 3 Water/Wastewater Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 1 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: Some work and coordination still needs to be done on the offsite easements. This can be done at Final. 04/26/2016: Please place all curb stops and the proposed fire hydrant within Utility Easements. RESPONSE: Curb stops and fire hydrant are now within blanket Utility Easement Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 5 Topic: Easements Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: Some work and coordination still needs to be done on the offsite easements. Are there existing easements that encompass the existing utilities on the current Landmark Apartments site? None are shown on the Utility Plan. This can be done at Final. 04/26/2016: Please show existing easements on the adjacent parcel and ensure proposed water and sewer improvements are within the appropriately sized easement or dedicate new easements as necessary. RESPONSE: Off-site utility easement includes proposed water and sewer improvements Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 6 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: More coordination and final review will be needed. This can wait until Final. 04/26/2016: Please show all proposed service lines and ensure minimum separations are being met. It appears there are conflicts with the existing water main on the north end of the site, the proposed fire hydrant, and the Building B water service. Please check for other conflicts as there may be others. RESPONSE: Confirmed separations of proposed utilities Stormwater Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 3 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: The plan adequately addresses the boundary condition on the east side of the development. With the grading revisions in the last submittal along the western property boundary, it now appears there will be significant additional drainage added to this property boundary. Is there a way to pipe the roof drainage or direct the entire roof drainage to the front of the building and into the drive aisle so as to minimize the drainage along the property boundary? If not, some form of drainage conveyance will be needed so that the impact to the adjacent property is mitigated. 04/26/2016: Calculations will be needed to show that the drainage from Basin A5 can be contained within the curb and gutter and is not contributing to Basin A4. The amount of water draining along the eastern property line in Basin A4 will need to be less than the historic condition. RESPONSE: Grading and drainage has been updated to correct this issue. Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 6 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: The LID table has been added and is great. For ease of reference, please modify the "Location" labels on the LID calculation sheets to match the labels shown on the LID Sheet. 04/26/2016: Please provide an LID table showing the areas being treated and the overall site treatment Project: Landmark Apartments Expansion Page 1 of 3 percentage. RESPONSE: Updated LID calculation sheet Date: 04/26/2016 Issue ID: 7 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: Repeat 04/26/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. RESPONSE: Redlines were reviewed and addressed. Date: 07/13/2016 Issue ID: 19 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: The current plan shows 5 new outfalls into the Canal Importation Channel. Please try to consolidate these new outfalls to limit the channel disturbance as much as possible. RESPONSE: Outfalls were consolidated as much as possible Date: 07/13/2016 Issue ID: 20 Topic: Drainage Report Round: 2 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: The Drainage Report references that the proposed bridge will be designed to span the floodway and be set at an elevation above the BFE. The Construction Plans do not appear to be consistent with this concept, however. Please provide additional detail showing how this will work. RESPONSE: Grading updated to show BFE and bridge. Deck will be 18”-26” above BFE. Date: 07/13/2016 Issue ID: 21 Topic: Drainage Report Round: 2 Status: Active Issue: 07/13/2016: It is going to be difficult or impossible to construct the proposed outfalls and associated permanent erosion control BMPs without doing work in the floodway. Please update the text in the Drainage Report to reference these improvements within the floodway. RESPONSE: Drainage report was updated to reference a no-rise certification if the construction disturbs the floodway.