Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT STATION II - PDP - PDP150021 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview November 20, 201 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80513 RE: Prospect Station II, PDP150021, 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, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: What is the pitch on the roof of the building? LUC 3.10.5(B) requires, to the maximum extent feasible, a minimum pitch of 6:12 for gable and hipped roofs; 4:12 for hipped roofs alone. RESPONSE: The hipped roofs are 4:12 pitch. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: The currently proposed articulation of the building does help divide the long (approx. 220 ft) facade of the proposed project; however, a more varied articulation/offset floor plan of one or more sections of the building could significantly improve the pedestrian environment, provide additional resident amenity space, and add visual interest. Plazas or gathering places are required in LUC 4.27(D)(7)(b)(1), and the articulation of facades and walls is addressed in LUC 3.8.30(F)(6). RESPONSE: The central 4 units have been offset a total of 4' to help breakup the overall massing of the building. The resulting outdoor spaces has been utilized to create gathering places. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: How did you measure the distance between the project and Lilac Park? LUC 4.27(D)(7) specifies that the distance to a park, central feature, or gathering place shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. It appears, using this measurement requirement, that Lilac Park is more than the required 1,320 feet away from the building. RESPONSE: We have added additional gathering places to the plans to fulfill this requirement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Please ensure that you are providing adequate space for trash and recycling enclosures. Adequate size is estimated at 100 square feet for the first 10 units and 5 square feet for each additional unit. The “Trash and Recycling Enclosures – Design Considerations” referenced in LUC 3.2.5(C) can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/enclosure-guidelines0804.pdf. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: As described in LUC 4.27(D)(7)(b)(1), the required park, central feature, or gathering space on a site of less than 2 acres in gross area must be a minimum of 6% of the gross site area. RESPONSE: Gathering spaces have been provided along both the North (Prospect Rd) and South sides of the Building Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: LUC 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) requires that 50% of all tree plantings be canopy shade trees. The landscape plan submitted does not appear to meet this requirement. RESPONSE: Trees counts have been adjusted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: The landscape plan shows two existing trees on the northwest corner of the site that are marked for removal (trees #33 and #34). Will these trees be removed? If so, please remove them from the landscape plan. RESPONSE: They are removed from the plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: At least 6% of the interior space of the parking lot must be devoted to landscaping according to LUC 3.2.2(M)(1). Please provide a calculation of the interior parking lot space that is devoted to landscaping. In addition, 1 canopy shade tree per 150 square feet of internal landscaped area is required in LUC 3.2.1(E)(b) for parking lot landscaping. RESPONSE: Calculations have been added and we are just above the 6% requirement. See landscape plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: If feasible, the three mature pine trees on the western edge of the site (#35, 36, and 37 on the landscape plan) should be preserved as described in LUC 3.2.1(F) as these trees are some of the largest on the site, and provide screening between the adjacent building and the site. The space required to preserve these trees could be used as resident amenity space, thereby satifying the requirements of LUC 4.27(D)(7). RESPONSE: The trees are less than 5’ from the new foundation. Because of the amount of cut and fill and the amount of over excavation for the foundations it is not reasonable to believe the trees could survive that amount of disturbance. We are replacing the 3 trees with 6 columnar pine / spruce trees that will provide screening over time. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: LUC 3.2.4(D)(8) states that light levels measured 20 feet beyond the property line of the site shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle as a result of the on-site lighting. On the northeast corner of the site, it appears that the lighting from the fixture labeled GG2(E) will project more than 0.1 foot-candles at 20 feet beyond the property line. RESPONSE: This is an existing light fixture (designated with and "(E)" and described as "existing" in the exterior lighting fixture schedule from the previously approved and completed phase. In addition the perceived “light spill” is at the main vehicular entry to the site off of Prospect Road Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: The submitted request for a Modification of Standards relies on a justification that the plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard and states that allowing this modification would be "nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan." Please provide additional information to support this justification. In particular, include information about the percentage of secondary vs. primary uses in the Employment Zone area south of Prospect Road and West of College Avenue as defined in LUC 4.27, as well as an estimate of the current proposal's contribution to the percentage of secondary uses in the Employment Zone area. Do not include CSU property in your justification, as it does not have a City zoning designation. RESPONSE: A revised Modification request is included with the resubmittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Does the project provide pedestrian seating and lighting along Prospect Rd. as required in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.10.4(A)? Please include these elements in your plans. RESPONSE: Yes pedestrian seating and lighting is provided Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: LUC 3.10.3(C) requires outdoor spaces (courtyards, plazas, decks, and similar) “to the extent reasonably feasible.” The project does provide decks for some units, but does not appear to have any other outdoor public spaces with the exception of the tree lawn. The proposed project has 36 units, with 54 bedrooms. RESPONSE: Gathering spaces have been provided along both the North (Prospect Rd) and South sides of the Building What amenity space is provided for residents to barbeque, sit outdoors, etc.? RESPONSE: A BBQ area is provided on the south side away from decks and patios Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Bike Parking: The project meets bike parking requirements for the number of bike spaces. However, LUC 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) specifies that 60% of the provided bicycle parking must be “enclosed.” Enclosed is defined in LUC 5.1 (in part) as “secure, lighted and protected from the weather.” The site plan identifies enclosed bicycle parking in the breezeways of the building. Where will this enclosed parking be provided, and how will it be secured, lighted, and protected from the weather? RESPONSE: Over 60% enclosed bike spaces are provided, defined as secure (lockable), lighted and protected from weather in the breezeways on each level. See bike table on cover sheet. 60% of the bike racks will be located in the breezways with vertical bike racks similar to: http://www.parkabike.com/offset-vertical-bike-rack-VR2 These rack are securable. The breezeways are fully covered and have lighting. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: Walkways: LUC 3.2.2(C)(5) requires walkways that “directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination,” and are a minimum of 6 feet in width between building entries and sidewalks. The site plan appears to show walkways of 4 feet in width. RESPONSE: Walks have been widened to 6’ Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: The planning objectives state that, “It is anticipated that reciprocal access and parking agreements will be negotiated.” Please note such arrangements and associated easements on the site plan. Particularly note the 11 spaces on the site that will be reserved for Prospect Station I in your parking counts. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Note has been added on parking table Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015 11/13/2015: The project appears to meet the design requirements and recommendations of the adopted Prospect Corridor Design. Pending the results of the Traffic Impact Study, please note that additional improvements may be required off-site as explained in LUC 3.2.2(A) to ensure safe, efficient movement for all modes of travel. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: The 30' offsite Access, Emergency Access, Utility and Drainage easements are not being shown on the plat provided. These easements were reserved with the vacation of Tamasag Drive. Please verify location RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: The 10' sidewalk/shared path ramp at the driveway to the north will need to be reconstructed so that the sidewalk transitions further south to line up with the receiving ramp to the east. See redlines. Refer to LCUASS drawing 707.1 for a Type III driveway detail. RESPONSE: The walk and connection to the curb at the ramp has been revised. We do not want to demo the curb in this area as the curb drop for the existing ramp lines up with the ramp to the east and also with a flat crossing area in the driveway off of Prospect. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Label all widths of easements. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Please provide a legend to the Utility Plan. RESPONSE: Legend is on the cover – let us know if there is something different you are needing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Please label all water main sizes and manhole locations. RESPONSE: Updated Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Add the following note to the Plat: There shall be no private conditions, covenanctsor restrictions that prohibit or limit the installation of resource conserving equipment or landscaping that are allowed by sections 12-120 - 12-122 of the City Code. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: The 30' access, emergency access, Utility and Drainage easements were reserved with the vacation of Tamasag Drive. Please show these easements on the plat. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Are the easements that are being vacated by separate documents to remove the enitre easement, which extend offsite, south of the property? If not, the easements can be vacated through the replat. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised to note the easement vacations on the plat, not by separate document. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: There is a portion of the 15' Utility Easement to the north and the 18' Utility & Drainage easement to the east that overlap. Please verify if you are wanting this area as a drainage easement. See redlines. RESPONSE: The 15’ Easement on the north is Utility and Drainage Easement, so the line does not need to be extended – it will be one continuous easement on the east and north. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Confirm that the location of all the trees just off site along the north boundary are accurately surveyed and located on the plan. It’s critical that these trees be accurately located so the evaluation of construction impact to them can be correctly assessed. RESPONSE: The survey was provided by a professional surveyor and is accurate to the best of our knowledge Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Tree number 21 is a 24 inch diameter blue spruce. It is branched to the ground and has surface roots that extend to the north. Move the parking lot peninsula located to the east of this tree to align with the spruce and explore making it wider. This will help protect lower branches and the shallow root system of this prominent tree. At the current location the peninsula has pine branches extending over it that may limit having a tree planted at that location. RESPONSE: Because of LID requirements the island is placed as needed for engineering purposes. Parking counts cannot be adjusted because of the 11 needed for Prospect Station I Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: It appears that existing tree number 31 may be able to be retained. This tree is an 18 inch diameter Ponderosa Pine. Evaluate how the sidewalk and drainage shown by this tree need to be modified so this tree can be retained. RESPONSE: I now understand the tree number is #37. We may be able save this tree with proper adjustments to the bike rack and Drain pan. Will discuss this with civil engineer Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Existing tree number 11 should be shown to be transplanted. This tree is a 9 inch Austrian Pine. It appears it could be transplanted into the landscape area between the building and the sidewalk. This would provide a prominent conifer tree is this zone to help offset the loss of tree number 31 which is a 19 inch spruce. RESPONSE: The area between the building and sidewalk is a drainage and utility easement no trees can be planted in this area. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Existing trees 34 and 35 appear to be kept in place? Evaluate and confirm is this is the case and then adjust the existing tree inventory table. RESPONSE: 35 is to be removed and 34 to remain. Table has been adjusted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: On sheet LS 2 list the existing tree number by each of the existing trees shown to be retained. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Explore retaining exiting trees 1, 2 and 3 which are Spring Snow Crabapples by attaching or repositioning the sidewalk. This evaluation should also evaluate any grade changes that would occur for retaining these trees. As an alternative choice evaluate transplanting these trees to the landscape area between the building and sidewalk. Feasibility of transplanting should include checking underground utilities and evaluation by a qualified tree transplanting contractor. The evaluation of retaining these trees by attaching the walk should be evaluated at an onsite meeting with City staff from Forestry and Engineering and the Project Planner. Set an onsite meeting with these City staff members to evaluate. RESPONSE: Because of the large depths of cut and fill and the fact these trees are privately owned; attempts will be made to transplant as many trees as possible at the owner’s discretion. Trees will be transplanted to this site or other private site(s). Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Use the new landscape, tree protection and street tree notes on the landscape plan. These notes are available from the City Planner or City Forester. Add this additional note to the tree protection notes. Pruning of any off-site trees that have canopy that extends over the project shall only occur based on an evaluation and recommendation of a private ISA certified arborist and with the approval of the adjacent property owner or their designated representative. Tree pruning shall be by a business that holds a current City of Fort Collins Arborist License. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and note added Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: In addition to tree number 28 which is a Washington Hawthorn also show tree number 27 which is also a Washington Hawthorn to transplant. Contact a qualified tree transplanting contractor to evaluate feasibility of transplanting tree number 28 and 27 because of how close they are to the building. Transplanting these trees after the building is demolished may be necessary. Provide the report by the tree transplanting contractor to the City Forester. RESPONSE: Because of the large depths of cut and fill and the fact these trees are privately owned; attempts will be made to transplant as many trees at the owner’s discretion. Trees will be transplanted to this site or other private site(s). Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Show locations on the landscape plan sheet LS 3 of all transplanted trees with their existing tree number. RESPONSE: Because of the large depths of cut and fill and the fact these trees are privately owned; attempts will be made to transplant as many trees at the owner’s discretion. Trees will be transplanted to this site or other private site(s). Tree to be transplanted on site will be shown on landscape plan. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Existing Tree Inventory Table: Make adjustments to the table for those trees to be transplanted and if tree number 33 and 34 will be retained. If additional trees are retained as presented in other comments also edit the table to reflect this. Clearly identify trees to be transplanted with only the word transplant. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Add a column to the Existing tree inventory table with the heading Reason for Removal. List the reason for removal for each tree to be removed. Reasons for removal could be abbreviated with a key at the bottom of the table. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised At the bottom of the table total required mitigation trees and also list the number of mitigation trees provided. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Since Lindens do not do very well on arterial streets change the street tree species to either Shumard Oak or Chinquapin Oak. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Move the proposed Japanese tree Lilac further away to west from exiting tree number 21 which is the 24 inch diameter Blue Spruce. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: In the plant list record the percentage of each tree used and check that it meets the Minimum Species Diversity Standard in LUC 3.2.1 D 3. RESPONSE: Percentages are provided on the Plant List. Trees should not be greater than 15% for each tree listed Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: If there are any City Street lights show location and place trees to meet the separation standard. Canopy shade tree 40 feet from lights Ornamental trees 15 feet from lights RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Plan has been reviewed and adjusted Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, , mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: The existing building at 303 West Prospect is not old enough to require historic review, but it has been surveyed for historic significance as part of an inventory of post-WWII architecture in Fort Collins. Because the building is associated with the historically significant Gasamat company, and because the building itself is well-designed and a significant representation of its type and era, staff respectfully requests that the applicant consider a documentation process to preserve knowledge and information about the building prior to demolition. Measured drawings of the exterior and interior and a set of photographs of the building would be an appropriate way to recognize the contributions and significance of site to Fort Collins history before the site is redeveloped. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. The ownership groups plans on providing photographs of the existing building to be displayed near the building's entries. Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: 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 commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects should call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. We will be scheduling a pre-submittal meeting in the next few weeks. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 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. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: 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. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: City of Fort Collins IBC amendments require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system in multifamily units. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24". RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. This project has 36 units and will need to achieve at least 18 points. RESPONSE: The Building will have (1) Type A Accessible unit and the remaining (11) ground level units will be Type B accessible units for a total of 50 points provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Building will utilize gas for heat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft of train tracks. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: GIS 1. Addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. 2. Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Existing 3-Phase primary electrical service is available to this proposed facility. (Currently feeding the Griffin Office Building.) The existing transformer is a 75kVA 120/208 3- Phase. If the electrical service needs to be re-located and or modified then system modification and added kVA charges will apply. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. The intent is to utilize the existing transformer feeding the Griffin Office building. Multi-family units shall be individually metered "ganged" together on one end of the building preferably opposite side of where the gas meter cluster will be located. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. Transformers shall be installed within 10' of a paved service and must have an 8' Clarence on the front and a 3' clearance around the sides and back. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. It is our current intention to use the existing transformer in the SW corner of the site if possible. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2015 11/17/2015: 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 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2015 11/20/2015: Comcast Comcast has service in the alley and would like to do joint trench with City Light and Power. Developer will need to sign joint trench agreement with Light and Power. Don Kapperman RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: See redlined drainage report. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 4 (Grading Plan): LID - For both LID requirements, please provide an exhibit that shows which basins/areas drain toward each requirement. An LID table is also required to be included on the Drainage Plan that shows the LID techniques being used on the site and the area treated by each. (These are required to be provided prior to recommendation for hearing.) - 25% Permeable Pavement requirement - what is the run-on ratio of the pavers (ratio of area draining to pavers: paver area itself). The city will allow a maximum run-on ratio of 3:1. - 50% LID requirement - The drainage report states that Basins A, B, and C are treated with the porous pavers, but basins B and C don't drain into/toward the pavers. Please verify which areas drain into the pavers. RESPONSE: We now intend to use the “new” criteria which does not require permeable pavement. We have redesigned the drainage to get all of the water from the building and parking to an underground rock water quality chamber which has 100% WQ capture volume for the site within the void of the rock (above the new 75% requirement and meeting the requirement for on-site water quality volume). 11/09/2015: Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: The Grading Plan and the Drainage Report indicate that a Snout is being proposed in lieu of providing WQCV at the site. WQCV needs to be provided at the site because variance won't be supported. Please note that if you plan to provide some LID features on the north side of the building, volume based LID (i.e. bioretention cells) should not be placed in the 15-foot utility easement. (This is required to be provided prior to recommendation for hearing.) RESPONSE: The use of the Snout as a standalone water quality component has been removed from the design. There is still a Snout on the upstream side of the rock water quality chamber as a pretreatment prior to water entering the voids of the rock. We are not proposing to put any LID in the 15’ utility easement for the following reasons: • Other City staff have requested that this area be improved with boulders and other features; • The area between the walk and the building slope relatively steeply (about 5%) – adding a swale here along with pipes crossing the connecting walks would look very aggressive from a landform standpoint. • If a utility later came through and installed a pipe in the 15’ easement, it would be the owner’s responsibility to rebuild the bioswale. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: How are you proposing to grade around the one existing tree along Prospect that is supposed to remain in place? It looks like the grading plan is cutting approximately 1 foot¿ in this area of the tree. RESPONSE: Because of the large depths of cut and fill and the fact these trees are privately owned; attempts will be made to transplant as many trees at the owner’s discretion. Trees will be transplanted to this site or other private site(s). Tree to be transplanted on site will be shown on landscape plan. That tree was shown in error to remain. Demo Plan has been revised. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Please verify that the underdrain starting at the northwest corner of the building and wrapping around the building to the southeast is intended to accept roof drainage. If so, please make a note of this on the plans. RESPONSE: It is noted on the plans that this pipe is intended to have all roof drainage. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: Contour and slope labels should be added to the plans. RESPONSE: Contours are labeled and spot elevations are provided in lieu of slope arrows. Aside from the 2% that walks slope towards curbs, there is no “consistent” enough slope on the site to warrant specific slope labels. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. As a result of the last phase's construction, this phase will need to take proactive/additional steps to prevent materials from being allowed to leave site, the Erosion Control Materials need to be sumbitted with a section discussing how the Developer plans to ensure that the site will not be discharging with this phase. Also as a result of the last phase 'Straw Wattle' will not be accepatable with this project due to how tight this site is and the likelihood of discharge along prospect. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Erosion control plan and report will be submitted with FCP. Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015 all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the following information in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX’. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: No comment. RESPONSE: Topic: Plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: Please make changes to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: 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: Prior to final submittals, the ownership / signature blocks will be updated per attorney requirements – at this time, ownerships, company names, etc. may be in flux. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: Please change “Engineering Department” in the Notice Of Other Documents statement to “Clerk”. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: Please correct the reception number for the 25' Drainage & Utility Easement to be vacated by separate document. It is for the vacation of Tamasag Drive. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: Some or all of the easements can be vacated by Vacation Statement, modified to fit this plat? RESPONSE: Per the City’s direction, we are now proposing to vacate all of the easements within the boundary with this plat. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/16/2015 11/16/2015: Please remove the comma from the legal description. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Traffic impact study has been received, reviewed, and the conclusions accepted. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: The closure of the driveway and the addition of the 10 ft path is a big improvement. The connection of the path to the existing walks on both east and west side may need to be reviewed. On the east side, can it be more direct? On the west side, can we built the path all the way to the property line, and still tie into existing? RESPONSE: On the east side, the connection has been revised to tie more directly into the existing curb drop for the existing ramp and the flat area that acts as the “crosswalk” for the driveway. On the west side, we are tying into the existing 6’ attached sidewalk. We have designed this connection to be similar to other areas where the development detaches a walk and needs to connect to existing attached walk on adjacent property. If we carried the full width of the walk to the property line, we would anticipate that Engineering would want a Type III barricade on the blunt end which is undesirable. The walk as shown can easily be extended west upon improvement to the adjacent property or Prospect Road. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 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: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: 2 (Demolition Plan): Please note that the water and sanitary sewer services to be abandoned in Prospect Road will need to be abandoned at the main. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015 11/09/2015: LS 2: The water meter is placed in a landscape island with a tree and shrubs. Please make sure that there is 4’ separation from the edge of the meter vault to any shrubs and 6’ separation from trees. Also, a note regarding landscape/utility separation requirements should be added to the plans. RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised. Landscape Note #1 on sheet LS3 has these separation requirements noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2015 11/18/2015: Trash enclosures greater than 6 foot in height require a separate building permit. If you bring the height down to 6 foot in height you don't need a separate permit. RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged. The height of the trash enclosures has been lowered to below 6'-0" high.