HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE VALLEY PLAZA MIXED-USE - MJA210003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College AvenuePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewSeptember 03, 2021Shelley
Lamastra Russell +Mills Studios506 S COllege Ave Unit AFort Collins, CO 80524RE: Poudre Valley Plaza MixedUse, MJA210003, Round Number 1Please see the following summary of comments
from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Poudre Valley Plaza MixedUse. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter
or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 9702246119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary:Department: Development Review
CoordinatorContact: Tenae Beane, 9702246119, tbeane@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION: I will be your primary
point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout
the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations.
Thank you!RMS Response:Thank you.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided
in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color.
When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations
of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.RMS Response: Thank you, please see below.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal
requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY
PLANS_PROJECT RMS Response: Files submitted with naming structure.NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdfComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:Resubmittals are
accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cutoff for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your plans, please notify me advanced notice as possible.RMS
Response: Emailed on 9/3/20 for round 2 submittal date.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:Temporary Service Changes City of Fort Collins
Development ReviewIn order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how
we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews.
We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our
customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service changes.Beginning Monday May 10th one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals
(increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks).RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review:
Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application
for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information
or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void.RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Comment Number:
7 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: INFORMATION:LUC 2.211(D) Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and upon the expiration
of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development
plan within three (3) years... If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically
lapse and become null and void.RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: FOR HEARING:The proposed development project is subject
to a Type 1 Review. The decision maker for your project will be an Administrative Hearing Officer at a public hearing. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners
within 800 feet (excluding public rightofway and publicly owned open space). As your Development Review Coordinator, I will assist with preparing the mailing and coordinating the hearing
date with your team.RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: FOR HEARING:All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed
and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff would need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3 5 weeks prior to the hearing.RMS
Response: Noted, thank you.Department: Planning ServicesContact: Shawna Van Zee, 9702246086, svanzee@fcgov.comTopic: Building ElevationsComment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please provide a window detail drawing showing a head and sill detail including the location of the window within the wall plain to ensure it creates
visual interest and shadow lines.ALM2s Response: Detail has been added to all windows including raised stucco trim bands that project out from the stucco wall plane.Comment Number:
2 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Building needs clear and direct access from the street. Please highlight the southern entrance to the building with
architectural detailing.ALM2s Response: The south entrance has been enhanced with an entry canopy and additional glazing above the entry to the upper level of the stairwell.Comment Number:
5 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please provide additional screening for the units facing Arbor Avenue.RMS Response: Individual planting shown on revised
plans, a combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs with grasses.ALM2s Response: Railing at the main level patios have been added to provide additional screening and privacy.Topic:
Lighting PlanComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:The S1 and P1 light fixtures have a G2 rating which exceeds the G1 rating for fixtures
in the L2 Lighting Context Area. Please change those to fixtures that meet the G1 rating. Can you confirm that the light poles will be anodized.RMS Response:Lighting fixtures have been
updated for the G1 rating. Poles are anodized – note added.Topic: PlatComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please provide a plat for the
next round of review.Majestic Surveying Response: Plat has been submitted.Topic: Site PlanComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please ensure
that all standards in 3.2.5(C) are being met. Will the angle of the trash enclosure prevent the opening of the southern most door of the enclosure? Can you demonstrate that this will
be operable? Please add additional low landscaping around the trash enclosure for additional screening from the rightofway. The current location of the trash enclosure does not meet
the setback distance requirements for trash enclosures for a sidewalk and would require a modification. There are also specific standards in the code when cooking oil is located in the
same enclosure as trash. See LUC language below.ALM2s Response: The trash enclosure addition and access doors have been revised to provide full access to the dumpsters and grease container.
Additionally, a roof cover has been added over the grease container along with steel columns on the sides for protection and attaching/anchoring the grease container too.RMS Response:
Additional planting has been provided in the existing landscape area south of the trash enclosure. A modification request has also been submitted for the setback requirement.3.2.5(C)(11)
"Where proposed uses and future uses that are likely to occupy the development will generate waste cooking oil, internal waste cooking oil collection systems are encouraged. All areas
used to store waste cooking oil must include measures to prevent spills and contamination of the stormwater system. Waste cooking oil containers must be secured in place, enclosed separately,
or separated from other containers with bollards or another physical barrier. To prevent rain water from carrying residual waste cooking oil into the stormwater system, all areas used
to store waste cooking oil must include a roof unless an alternative and functional method is demonstrated on the plans."ALM2s Response: A roof cover has been added over the grease container
along with steel columns on the sides for protection and attaching/anchoring the grease container too.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:A
few of the parking calculations appear to be off by a few spaces. Please update accordingly. See attached word document for edits. However, based on the updated calculations, the parking
in the plaza does exceed the minimum number of parking spaces required in 3.2.2(K) for both the existing uses and the addition of the new mixeduse building.RMS Response: Parking table
updated per edits.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please add a note to the parking plan explaining the intent, including that all parking
will be shared by all users of the plaza, and how parking will be managed by the user groups. Can you provide assurance/documentation that this site has permission to utilize the existing
parking to meet the parking requirements?RMS Response: A note on the shared HOA parking has been added to LS102.Schuman Properties Response: A letter from the HOA will be provided to
clarify the shared parking of the plaza and verify permission to utilize the parking.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:The code requires
that main entrance of any commercial or mixeduse building will face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage in 3.5.3(C)(1). The current location of the retail/commercial
building is on the back of the building, though it faces the parking area. Please add or move an entrance to the east side of the commercial space with a connecting walkway to the street.
An entry feature should be used to bring people into the retail/commercial space from the street.ALM2s Response: The south entrance, that has been enhanced with this submittal, provides
for a centralized and combined entrance for both the residents and the commercial space.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please provide
a clear walkway from the parking to the building with curb cuts and stripping across the private drive to the west.RMS Response: A striped crosswalk that aligns to existing curb cut
on the west of the private drive and the new sidewalk has been added to the plans.Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Marc Virata, 9702216567, mvirata@fcgov.comTopic:
GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: for hearing:The meter pit location appears to be depicted in the existing sidewalk and in rightofway, as
these are considered private infrastructure the placement of this would need to be outside of City rightofway on private property. Ideally these are located outside of utility easement
as well due to potential conflicts with utilities.I2 Consultants Response: The water meter has been relocated closer to the building out of the existing utility easement.Comment Number:
2 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: for hearing:I'm understanding that a plat was intended to be submitted that appears to redefine the boundary of Lot 7. Additional
review and comment will be needed when this is provided. One of the aspects to consider with the potential boundary change to Lot 7 is that currently there are several changes that are
occurring for this development that are occurring on Tract A outside of the presently defined Lot 7 boundary (drainage features, utility crossings, pedestrian paths, etc. along with
any parking requirements) and whether there should be an expansion of the Lot 7 boundary to include these within the boundary of the Lot 7 so as to not treat this as an "offsite requirement".RMS
Response: Lot 7 was originally shown as a building envelop. The building will remain within the lot boundary, with a replat to adjust overall location. The remaining portions of the
development will be within Tract A, the HOA area, similar to the other pads/buildings on the site. All uses, amenities, parking are shared. Documentation will be provided to allow for
Tract A improvements.Schuman Properties Response: A letter from the HOA will be provided to show that the HOA understands that off-sight improvements will be required with the project
and that HOA supports the project and it’s completion to create a fully built-out plaza.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: for hearing:Related to
the previous comment, I will defer to Planning on the ultimate approach, but it should perhaps be verified on whether there needs to be any amendment approvals to the overall Poudre
Valley Plaza PUD approval pertaining to changes to their development requirements resulting from this project. I am also anticipating that a development agreement will be needed for
this project for Stormwater and Forestry language, we would need to consider if the boundary of the development agreement is recorded against solely Lot 7, or does it need to be recorded
against Tract A as well to the extent that there may be improvements for this project that impact Tract A? Overall this comment pertains to understanding what boundary is being entitled
both as the development plan and corresponding development agreement, is it Lot 7 with offsite improvements on Tract A, or is it Lot 7 together with Tract A?RMS Response: Lot 7 was originally
shown as a building envelop. The building will remain within the lot boundary, with a replat to adjust overall location. The remaining portions of the development will be within Tract
A, the HOA area, similar to the other pads/buildings on the site. All uses, amenities, parking are shared. Documentation will be provided to allow for Tract A improvements. Improvements
are being made to both lot7 and tract A.Schuman Properties Response: Due to the in-fill conditions of this project, the HOA is proposing that the developer post escrow funds, of a percentage
to be agreed upon, of the off-sight improvement work instead of making the HOA subject to the development agreement. Please let us know City’s thought of this approach.Comment Number:
4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: for hearing:It seems that a letter of intent from the owner of Tract A should be provided before a hearing given the work occurring
within the Tract as well as the parking that is being shared.Schuman Properties Response: A letter from the HOA will be provided to show that the HOA understands and agrees to the proposed
work in Tract A as a part of the development of Lot 7.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/202109/02/2021: for hearing: UPDATEA site visit was performed and the sidewalk
along the Arbor frontage has settlement behind the curb and gutter section along with cross slopes that exceed 2%, which will require replacement. In addition the drive approach for
the trash enclosure exceeds 2% and isn't ADA compliant as well. The plans should be reflecting replacement of the sidewalk along with the rebuilding of the drive approach to not exceed
2% cross slope.I2 Consultants Response: The plans have been revised to reflect removal/replacement of the sidewalk along Arbor Ave. as well as the trash enclosure approach.08/31/2021:
for final:A site visit will be conducted to assess the existing cross slope and condition of the sidewalk along Century Drive that may need to be replaced. Final determination will
be made through the building permit process.I2 Consultants Response: Comment acknowledged.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: for final:The City's
adopted on its civil/utility plan set an updated approval block that would only be used on the cover sheet and the depicted utility plan approval block can then be removed on all the
sheets. This detail to use on the cover sheet is linked below.https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399I2 Consultants Response: The approval block has been
revised and is shown only on the cover sheet.Department: Traffic OperationContact: Steve Gilchrist, 9702246175, sgilchrist@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment
Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: Please update the Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Notes to reference the City of Fort Collins Standards and the City of Fort Collins Traffic
Engineer as the approving entity, not Larimer County/CDOT.I2 Consultants Response: The notes have been updated.Topic: Traffic Impact StudyComment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
08/30/202108/30/2021: The Traffic Memo has been received, reviewed, and the general conclusions accepted. The traffic generated by this development is consistent with the traffic
outlined in the Traffic Study for the original PUD. No further evaluation is needed at this time.RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Department: Erosion ControlContact: Chandler Arellano,
(970) 4206963, carellano@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: For Final:The plan provided on this project was reviewed
against the City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3). Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans meet requirements. The erosion control plan is missing key components to meet City
Criteria. Please review the provided comments and redlines and address them accordingly.I2 Consultants Response: The redlines on the plans have been addressed and the updated plan is
included with this resubmittal.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: For Final:The escrow calculation provided on this project was reviewed against the
City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5). Resolved: Upon review, the erosion control escrow calculation was found meeting the City Criteria.I2 Consultants Response: Comment acknowledged.Comment
Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/202108/30/2021: Information: Based upon the updated materials and information provided since the last review comments, we have recalculated
an Erosion Control Inspection fee of $1142.77 and a Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections fee of $1260. A copy of the calculation spreadsheet will be provided. The fee will need to be provided
at the time of erosion control escrow.Schuman Properties Response: Escrow checks will be provided.Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic:
GeneralComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:I am not clear if the project is fully meeting the storm water quality requirements for the
project. Please update the impervious area documentation in the drainage report to clearly present the required and provided treatment amounts. Please provide a delineation (exhibit)
and tabulation of "new + modified impervious areas," this is the "required treatment area." Runoff from 75% of the impervious surfaces should be treated with LID, the other 25% can
be any water quality method. Please present these values in table and make a comparison with the treatment provided. Please see the examples provided for reference. It may be worth
sending this over to me for a courtesy review before the second submittal.I2 Consultants Response: An exhibit has been added to the drainage report for the project. Runoff from impervious
surfaces is being treated to the extent possible with this project. Parking areas and sidewalks flow away from this project/site and therefore are not able to be treated. 100% of the
proposed roof runoff is being treated with this project.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please present a design for the rain garden
planters for review. These will need to be provided on the Utility Plans (cross section, elevations, inlet and outlet works, underdrain etc).I2 Consultants Response: A detail has been
added to the plans.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Please show the roof drain downspout locations on the civil plans. Any roof downspouts
and roof gutters that contribute to the rain garden planters will be part of the drainage certification and should be considered part of the civil drainage design. Please coordinate
with the different disciplines on this project to ensure this configuration is successful.Specifically, please look at the roof downspout configuration at the northeast corner of the
building – please show how this roof area will be connected to a rain garden planter.I2 Consultants Response: The downspout locations have been added to the Utility Plans. Please refer
to architectural plans for roof configuration – the downspouts are connected to the rain gardens.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:The
proposed rain garden at the southeast corner of the site is located over an existing sewer service. The City would strongly prefer the rain garden not to be located over the sewer
service. Please see if you can adjust the site plan.I2 Consultants Response: The rain garden has been removed. The roof downspouts have been added to the plans and the rain garden
at the southeast corner of the building was not needed to capture imperious surface (or roof runoff).Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:The
rain gardens should be fully vegetated to the extent possible. On the Landscape Plan, please remove the rock cobble from the rain gardens and replace with a vegetation of your choice.
The MHFD Manual does have a recommended seed mix, however Fort Collins leaves the vegetation selection to the site designers.Also, please clarify the ground cover in the north rain
garden planters.RMS Response: The raingarden cobble has been removed and replaced with vegetation as listed. The rain garden planters have switchgrass ornamental grasses and cobble mulch.Comment
Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:The WQCV calculations need to be updated for to show 120% of the WQCV as required by the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual (FCSCM).I2 Consultants Response: The WQCV calculations have been updated.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Drainage
easements will need to be provided around the raingardens, both north and south of the building. Since these are on adjacent property, a Letter of Intent (LOI) will need to be provided
from the corresponding property owner before Hearing.I2 Consultants Response: Please refer to the plat prepared by Majestic Surveying.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated:
08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:There needs to be 1foot (min) of freeboard from the rain garden WSEL to the FFE of the buildings. Please review the design and adjust as necessary.I2
Consultants Response: The grading has been revised to provide for 1-foot of freeboard above the rain garden elevations and outlet swale on the south side of the building. The rain gardens
on the north side of the building are contained in planters and therefore it is not feasible to have the water surface elevation 1-foot below the building finished floor.Comment Number:
12 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:Provide more detail on the proposed grading along the south side of the building. Additional spot elevations and
swale cross section(s) would help.I2 Consultants Response: Spot elevations are included for the finished grade, rain garden and walk. Swale cross-section has been added.Comment Number:
13 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:Provide an existing conditions and removals sheet in the Utility Plan.I2 Consultants Response: The requested sheet
has been added to the Utility Plan set.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:All inlet locations to the rain gardens, with concentrated
flow, will need a forebay for energy dissipation. Please show this on the final plans and provide a detail to match.I2 Consultants Response: Forebays and a detail have been added to
the plans.Department: WaterWastewater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021:
FOR FINAL PLAN:Will there be any facilities with a commercial kitchen? If so, a grease interceptor will likely be required on the sewer service. For any questions on grease interceptor
requirements, please contact Wes Lamarque at WLAMARQUE@fcgov.com .ALM2s Response:A point of use grease inceptor will be included for potential small service user.Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:See redlines for more comments to be addressed with Final Plan.I2 Consultants Response: Acknowledged.Comment Number:
3 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:You will need to provide a water service sizing memo for both taps. This should include calcs for peak flow and
average flow (if applicable). The calcs and tap sizing should be summarized in a cover memo.ALM2s Response: The water meter justifications for both of these water taps have been completed
and are included with this submittal.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR HEARING:Water meter pits are private and should be located outside of
the ROW and preferably outside of the public utility easement. Please relocate the existing and proposed water meter pits to behind the utility easement. Feel free to contact me to
discuss if needed.I2 Consultants Response: The water meter has been relocated closer to the building out of the existing utility easement.Department: Light And PowerContact: Luke Unruh,
9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: Information only: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges,
and any necessary system modification charges will apply at owners expense. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures
at the following link:http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopersALM2s Response: Thank you for this information. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021:FOR
HEARING:L&P requires 3' separation from other utilities. The proposed transformer location doesn't meet this requirement. Please see the redline drawing I submitted. Please contact
me to discuss alternative transformer locations. Please show the new transformer location and electric line on the utility plan. Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with
Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and
side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 ESS7 within the Electric
Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans.https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandards_12august2019.pdf?1570027325I2
Consultants Response: The proposed transformer location has been coordinated with Light & Power (by Schuman Companies) and the location is being shown on the plans.Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021:FOR HEARING I need to know if the building will need single phase or three phase power so the transformer pad can be properly sized
on the utility plan.ALM2s Response: 3 Phase power if preferred.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A commercial service information
form (C1 form) and a oneline diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A link to the C1 form is below:http://zeus.fcgov.com/utilsprocedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C1Form.pdfALM2s
Response: Our electrical consultant will provide a completed C-1 form when they have completed the Contract Documents and the project is submitted for building permit.Comment Number:
5 Comment Originated: 09/01/202109/01/2021: FOR HEARINGMeter location will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. Please show proposed meter location on the utility plan.
Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below.https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdfI2
Consultants Response: The electric meter location is shown on the Utility Plan. The meter is located on the south side of the building, near the southwest corner of the building.Comment
Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/01/2021Information only:The electric service shall be installed, owned and maintained by the owner.Schuman Properties Response: Owner understands
& accepts.Department: ForestryContact: Molly Roche, 2246161992, mroche@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/01/20219/1/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALThank
you for submitting an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. Please update the justification for removal of tree #3.RMS Response: Tree #3 justification updated.Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/01/20219/1/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALPlease include species diversity percentages to the plant list.RMS Response: Diversity percentages were outlined at
the bottom of tree list – a new column has been added for each tree.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/01/20219/1/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALMitigation trees shall be above
and beyond standard tree stocking requirements. Tree stocking should be accomplished first, then mitigation trees added to the site. There appears to be space to add trees along the
western boundary of the site along the private drive. If additional trees cannot fit, mitigation trees will need to accomplished through payment in lieu or alternative methods.RMS Response:
As noted in email correspondence and phone calls with Molly the plans as presented are acceptable. Additional trees have been added as requested by forester as well as to offset parking
lot tree island that cannot be installed.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/01/20219/1/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALIf feasible, please replace the parking lot island ground
material to shredded mulch with irrigation. If this is not preferred, please include a mulch ring around the tree placed in rock cobble. This will help retain moisture to help the tree
get established.RMS Response: Tree island no longer has a tree as light and power has indicated this is where transformer must be located. A modification request has been submitted.Department:
PFAContact: Marcus Glasgow, 9704162869, marcus.glasgow@poudrefire.orgTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/202108/26/2021: PFA has no comments at
this time.RMS Response: thank you.Department: Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, (970)4164290, sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
08/30/202108/30/2021: No comments.RMS Response: thank you.Department: Building ServicesContact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.comTopic: Building Insp Plan ReviewComment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: Accessibility is required per IBC, ICCA117.1 and state law CRS 95. Plan site and grading accordingly.I2 Consultants Response: Comment
acknowledged.RMS Response: ADA van stall is shown on plans.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit
in place) including accessible parking. Plan underground work accordingly.RMS Response: A total of (4) EV ready stall are shown on the plans.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
08/31/202108/31/2021: If trash chutes are proposed in the building, dedicated recycle chutes must also be provided (local amendment). Coordinate site plans accordingly.ALM2s Response:
There are no proposed trash chutes included with this project.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Buildings located within 250ft
of a 4 lane road, or within 1000 ft of an active railway must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.ALM2s Response: Comment Acknowledged.Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: NFPA13 sprinkler system is required.ALM2s Response: Comment Acknowledged. An NFPA 13 system will be included with
this building.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new
multifamily structure.ALM2s Response: Comment Acknowledged.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: R2 occupancies apartment/condo must
provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet between to avoid fire rated exterior walls and limited/no openings (doors/windows).ALM2s Response: This project is sited to meet this
requirement.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/31/202108/31/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Accessible parking and loading zones must be provided for each type of parking
provided (i.e.: in open and covered parking areas as provided). per current IBC (including van spaces where required.)RMS Response: Van accessible space is shown on the plans. All parking
in the development is shared.Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/202108/24/2021:
INFORMATION ONLY:Unless required during MJA, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.RMS Response: Noted, thank you.Department: Outside AgenciesContact: Don Kapperman,
Comcast, don_kapperman@comcast.com, Topic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/20/202108/20/2021: Comcast has no issues at this time.RMS Response: Noted,
thank you.