Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKING SOOPERS #146, MIDTOWN GARDENS MARKETPLACE - FDP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303.770.8884 •GallowayUS.com March 24, 2021 City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: King Soopers #146 – Midtown Gardens Marketplace – FDP210001 Round Number 1 - 1st Review Applicant Responses Please find below our comment responses addressing the first FDP submittal. This letter is to address comments we received from you on February 26, 2021. To facilitate your review, we have included the original conditions in italicized font and have provided our responses in bold blue. Planning Services – Kai Kleer Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: The addition of the single wing wall only screens one of the many items that are stored and sold outside. It may be worthwhile to create a zoom-in site plan view of this area that should demonstrate where the following elements exist and how they will be screened: Wood Propane Vending machines Windshield washer fluid Outside storage locker for snow shovels or other accessory items. Cases of water Please also update use of CMU on gas station to reflect the changes made to BL2. It’s recommended that the cultured stone be used as a base treatment rather than CMU to provide better contrast between the materials. To better screen the fuel station please provide landscaping within parkway adjacent to college. Response: Please refer to the enlarged exhibit of this area for reference and the detail of the display items for this store. Additional, landscape along College at the fuel station has been enhanced to greatest degree possible without impeding sight triangles. See Fuel Exhibit included with submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: It appears that a parapet overhang was updated for FDP. Please provide a dimension of this overhang. Response: All projections have been dimensioned on the elevations as requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Please update site plan to include the 2’6” projections provided by the architectural features in the elevation view. Additionally, can the trees be removed from the perspective views on sheet AE3 and AE4? Response: All trees and landscaping have been removed from AE3 and AE4. Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 2 of 15 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Trash enclosure details are required for the existing retail building. Please review 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures for standards related to this. Generally, the enclosures should provide a separate 32” person door, equal distribution of trash and recycling, space for waste cooking oil, match the building they are associated to, concrete roll-out pad, j hooks to keep doors open/closed, protective bollards for inside the enclosure. Response: Trash enclosure details have been added to the FDP and construction plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following notes to the cover page of the: BY A 7-0 VOTE ON JANUARY 21, 2021, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVED A MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUEST TO SUBSECTION 3.2.2(C)(5)(A) - DIRECTNESS AND CONTINUITY TO ALLOW FOR TWO INTERNAL WALKWAYS THAT DO NOT FLANK THE MAIN DRIVE AISLE THAT CONNECTS TO COLLEGE. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS FINDING IS BASED ON TWO WALKWAYS, ONE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, CAFÉ, OUTDOOR SEATING, CIVIC SPACE, AND TRANSIT CENTER AND THE OTHER THAT PROVIDES A 11.6-FOOT CORRIDOR WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE BUILDING’S MAIN SOUTH ENTRANCE. BY A 6-1 VOTE ON JANUARY 21, 2021, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVED A MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUEST TO SECTION 3.2.2(J) – SETBACKS TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK ALONG S COLLEGE AVENUE AND W DRAKE ROAD TO BE REDUCED BY PROVIDING AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE DESIGN THAT COMPENSATES FOR THE REDUCED DIMENSIONS AND REFLECTS A CAREFULLY BALANCED SET OF TRADEOFFS AMONG SETBACK DIMENSIONS AND OTHER SITE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS BY A 7-0 VOTE ON JANUARY 21, 2021, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVED A MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUEST TO SECTION 3.10.3(A) – BUILDING ORIENTATION BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH PROVIDES PERIMETER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT WILL HELP PROVIDE A POSITIVE URBAN RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET SIDEWALK IN ADDITION TO GARDEN WALLS AND LANDSCAPING. THE APPROACH PRESERVES PARKING NEAR THE MAX DRAKE STATION AND, BY USING A SIMILAR PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION THEN WHAT EXISTS TODAY, PRESERVES SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT TREES. FURTHER, THE ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF BUILDINGS, VEHICULAR ACCESS, UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, SHARED PARKING EASEMENT ALL CREATE EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR PLACING THE BUILDING IN AN ENTIRELY NEW LOCATION AND ORIENTATION TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD. BY A 7-0 VOTE ON JANUARY 21, 2021, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVED A MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUEST TO SECTION 3.5.4(D)(1)(A)(1) SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT AND DESIGN TEAM FURTHER EMBELLISHING THE FAÇADES AND EXTERIOR WALLS ON THE SOUTH, WEST, AND WEST HALF OF THE NORTH ELEVATIONS Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 3 of 15 TO FURTHER COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE AND FURTHER COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 3.5.4(D)(1-4) RELATED TO ROOFLINES. Response: The hearing notes have been added to the cover sheet of the FDP. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Would Anthony mind further detailing the changes to the building architecture related to the Modification Approval 3.5.4(D)(1)(a)(1)? One of the elements of the modification was to further comply with 3.5.4(D)(1-4). It would be great if a table with standards could be produced to demonstrate pre-hearing/post hearing changes that address each standard. Response: A separate exhibit (AE9) detailing the changes has been included as part of the resubmittal package. Engineering Development Review – Spencer Smith Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED Offsite access easements are required for the proposed plan to be approved by Engineering. These easements must provide a route that will allow the 20% of vehicles that are leaving the site to the north, to get to the Columbia/S. College Ave. intersection. If the easements will not or cannot be provided, the TIS will need to be updated to route the 20% of vehicles elsewhere and the other site accesses will need to be reevaluated. This could lead to site changes, additional public infrastructure, etc. if the other site accesses do not function with the additional traffic. Just to be clear, Engineering will not approve any final plans/plat/DA, etc. or issue any permits until this item is resolved. 10/27/2020: FOR HEARING I have not seen letters of intent from the adjacent property owner to the north. This is a typical requirement to proceed to hearing. 08/20/2020: FOR HEARING Per Section 3.3.1© of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, this project is responsible for dedicating any easements and/or Rights of Way (ROW) that are necessary or required by the City for this project. Based upon the street sections identified in the Midtown Plan, it looks like there would be a minimum ROW dedication associated with this project of approximately 10 feet along the property frontage for both College Ave. and Drake Rd. There may be more ROW required, depending on roadway improvements such as the bus pullout, turn lanes, etc. The standard 15-foot utility easement will need to be dedicated along the frontage of both College Ave. and Drake Rd. as well. Other potential easements to be dedicated could include emergency access (to be determined by PFA), various utility easements (per Stormwater, Utilities, Light and Power), access easement for promenade area, etc. Also, if a shared access easement on the north side of the property will be required by the City, a letter of intent from the adjacent property owner(s) will be required prior to being scheduled for a PDP hearing. Response: Cross access easements are still being negotiated with adjacent property owners and will be provided once they are finalized. Positive progress is being made and we hope to have a recorded document in place in the coming weeks. However, please not that the additional request by the city to place the water main line off-site, may further complicate these discussions with the adjacent ownership group. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/25/2021: The draft DA has not been prepared yet. I will continue to coordinate with City staff to finalize a draft and will update you when it is ready for your review. I don't believe the DA information form has been submitted yet either (see previous comment below). I will need this before I can finalize the draft. Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 4 of 15 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL A Development Agreement (DA) will be required for this project. The DA is an agreement between the property owner and the City of Fort Collins that defines the various standards, infrastructure requirements, maintenance responsibilities, etc. of the owner. A draft of the DA will be prepared by the City during the review and approval process. Prior to preparing this agreement, the applicant will need to provide a completed “Information for Development Agreements” form. This can be submitted with the initial project submittal. A copy of the document can be found at the Engineering web page link below: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php Response:Comment Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/25/2021: FOR DCP (UDATE) The design should close enough to being finalized after this round of revisions that you can prepare an engineer's cost estimate and submit it with your next submittal. This will be reviewed by our Chief Engineering Inspector. Once approved, this will serve as the basis for the public infrastructure inspection fees and surety that will be required for permitting. A template spreadsheet is available on the Engineering Development Review website: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php as well as a DCP application and other information. Response: The engineer’s cost estimate using the city’s template has been included as part of the resubmittal package. 02/23/2021: FOR DCP A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the Site. Response: Comment Noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please refer to the Engineering redlines provided with these comments. This file contains the majority of my design/plan specific comments that need to be addressed. Please contact me with any questions as you work on revisions. Response: Redlines have been addressed and blueline responses have been provided. Traffic Operation – Nicole Hahn Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/24/2021 02/24/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Alternative mitigation strategy for the APF constrained intersection can be memorialized in the Development Agreement. Response: Per our phone call with staff on 3/19/21, which including the URA group; it was discussed that the APF and related URA funding for the College and Drake intersection improvements will be revisited amongst staff. 12/15/2020: FOR HEARING Thank you for the work towards determining an Alternative Mitigation Strategy for the APF constrained intersection of Drake and College. We would like to meet with your team and finalize the mitigation strategy prior to hearing. 10/27/2020: UPDATED: The mentioned memo was not received with this submittal. This projected LOS at College and Drake does not meet our standards. We can schedule a meeting to discuss how we might work with you to find an Alterative Mitigation Strategy. 08/18/2020: The overall short term pm peak hour intersection LOS at College and Drake shows an overall LOS E. This does not meet Adequate Public Facilities requirements in the Land Use Code. What this means is that improvements need to be made to meet LOS E in the short-term total that are feasible / proportional to impact, or an Alternative Mitigation Strategy can Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 5 of 15 be negotiated. Please provide a memo on the expected improvement for right turn overlap (already shown in the TIS), and the addition of a new right turn lane on the EB approach that allows all lanes to move over (and better align) to accommodates EB double lefts (and maybe WB double lefts). If that project would result in measurable improvements, then it may be that a fee in lieu towards that project can be the AMS. If needed, we can schedule a meeting and discuss this further. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/24/2021 02/24/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Work with engineering on the design of the channelized T intersection. Response: The applicant has reached out to engineering and has incorporated the requested changes to the channelized T intersection. 12/15/2020: FOR HEARING Please address the design of the channelized T. We remain concerned about the safety of the left turning movement onto College Ave. We understand that this movement will be challenging and a cross access easement with the property to the North will be required prior to hearing. 10/27/2020: UPDATED: The geometric design of the channelized T does not channelize traffic. This is an important function in the channelized T as it allows for the flow of traffic to be unimpeded by the merging of traffic from this access point. We still have concerns about the safety of turning vehicles against three lanes of through traffic and a turn lane. We would be happy to meet off line to discuss more. 08/18/2020: The proposed access from the King Soopers onto College is recommended to be limited to a ¾ movement. The EB left turn out as a “high T” is not supported by City staff and likely not supported by CDOT. We believe allowing un-signalized left turns across four lanes of traffic on high speed arterials is problematic, especially given the backups from the downstream signal which greatly limit the visibility. This raises significant safety concerns. CDOT may have comments about this as well. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/24/2021 02/24/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A cross access easement to allow for the distribution of traffic assumed in the TIS is required prior to final approval. Response: Cross access easements are still being negotiated with adjacent property owners and will be provided once they are finalized. 08/18/2020: The TIS has been received and reviewed. Thank for the comprehensive work on the TIS. Please provide approach and movement LOS information. This will help identify whether any variance requests are needed to the LOS requirements in LCUASS chapter 4. Transportation Planning – Seth Lorson Easements Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: Please expand the shared parking easement to include the new spaces along the west side of the site as discussed during the PDP process. Response: Comment noted and under consideration with KS. PFA – Jim Lynxwiler Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/22/2021 02/22/2021: EMERGENCY ACCESS Lot 2 Emergency Access Easement/ Fire Lane is noted on the paving legend as standard duty. Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Due to underground storm drainage in this area, if Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 6 of 15 the proposal is incorporating pavers as surface for the fire lane, geotech information confirming the paver design can handle fire truck loading shall be provided. A note shall be added to the civil plans. Response: The pavement section for this area has been updated. Stormwater Engineering Erosion & Sediment Control– Basil Hamdan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2021 02/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 1 lot, 12.12 acres of disturbance, 1 year from demo through build out of construction and an additional 2 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $ 1,335.93 Based on 1 underground treatment the estimated Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee is $415.00. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. The fee will need to be paid at the time of the posting of the erosion control escrow. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please address all the redlined comments provided on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. Response: Redlines have been addressed and blueline responses have been provided. Stormwater Engineering – Matt Simpson Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: The next plan set will need to adhere to our electronic submittal requirements. These can be found here: (https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications ) specifically the plans need to be flattened and the AutoCAD comments removed. The Utility Plan PDF file has useability problems that need to be corrected for the next round of review, for some reason this PDF file crashes Acrobat often. These issues have made this review difficult. In addition, the bubble note callout outs are very cumbersome and also make plan review difficult. Can you please use standard callouts? I recognize this may require a smaller drawing scale and more plan sheets. As a result of these two items, new comments may occur on future submittals. Response: Comment Noted. The pdf has been created following these criteria. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: One row of the underground detention/ water quality (StormTech) chambers is located in the public utility easement adjacent to College Avenue. These will need to be relocated out of the public utility easement. Response: The underground chambers have been moved out of the public utility easement. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The outlet pipe from the underground detention/ water quality (StormTech) chambers conflicts with a tree that Forestry wants to preserve. This was previously discussed on rounds 2 and 3 of PDP. Please revise the outlet pipe alignment to avoid this tree and maintain separation from the adjacent water main. See the redlines for more information. A utility-forestry coordination meeting with you may be helpful to resolve this. Please contact us to set this up if you are interested. Response: The outfall pips has been moved so that it falls under Tree #13 which is to be removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 7 of 15 Please provide temporary construction easements any offsite abandonment on adjacent properties. Response: Comment noted. Easements are currently being negotiated with the adjacent property owners. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Add the design hydraulic grade line (HGL) on all storm drain profiles. Response: HGL’s have been added to all storm drain profiles. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: For the State SDI sheet, you will need to use the Fort Collins rainfall depths. I have included a template excel file with these depths with the redlines. Response: This form has been updated and is included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please see the redlined plan set for further comments. Please contact me for a meeting to go over in more depth. Response: Redlines have been addressed and blueline responses have been provided. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Is the building at the at the SE corner of the site going to remain open for business during construction? Response: The building at the southeast corner is currently planned to stay open during construction. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: The plans state that the “store GC responsible for overlot grading of fuel pad only. Refer to separate plans by others for fine grading of the fuel center.” We would prefer that all site utilities and grading work was approved under this FDP. Could you consider phasing the construction project and including the fueling station grading and utility details in this plan set as a 2nd phase? Feel free to contact me to discuss. Response: The fuel center design has been included as part of the construction plan set as a second phase. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The plans show you will be modifying the College Ave curb line in front of the proposed fuel station. Please reconstruct the existing stormwater inlet and provide a lateral and manhole on the storm main in the right turn lane of College Ave. This may need to be a custom structure due to the shallow depth to storm invert (approx. 30-inches below existing flowline). Feel free to contact me to discuss. I can provide more information about the existing configuration. Response: The storm inlet has been designed and is a part of the resubmittal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please review the Landscape Plan redlines. There are several conflicts with between proposed landscaping and other infrastructure such as storm rundowns and light poles. Response: Comment noted. We have coordinated any utility/landscape conflicts. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Add the drainage map back into the Utility Plan set. Response: The drainage map has been added to the utility plan set. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 8 of 15 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: For the underground storm tech system: -Add an underdrain plan with invert elevations. -Do not provide the inlet restrictors. It is fine if the whole underground system fills and surcharges before discharge to College Ave curb gutter. Please contact me to discuss if you would like. Response: Comments above have been addressed and are included in the utility plans. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: For drainage report, please see the attached redlines, including: -Text revisions -Questions on the StormTech detention/ WQ chamber summary. – Please explain what the “additional storage in perimeter aggregate” is. -Outlet orifice sizing calculations. Response: Drainage report redlines have been addressed and blueline responses have been provided. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Combine the StormTech water quality chambers into 1 connected system (via connected manifolds and isolation chambers. Or provide a “Fort Collins isolator row sizing” calculation for each individual area. Response: Separate isolator row sizing calculation sheets have been provided for each connection to the underground system. Water-Wastewater Engineering – Matt Simpson Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL – REPEAT COMMENT FROM PDP: The proposed water main on the northside of the building needs a different alignment that does not include the additional horizontal bends. These plans also show show a proposed water main lowering along this section. We do not want the watermain in this location or the lowering if it can be avoided. The redlines I have provided show 2 options for alternate alignments. The preferred location for this main is north of the property line. How are negotiations going with the adjacent property owner for a utility easement? Please contact me to discuss. Response: Per our conversations with city staff, we will continue to discuss this water line with the adjacent property owner. For this submittal, we are showing the water line onsite as it would best fit to avoid potential conflicts with landscaping and other utilities. If we can shift the line north, we will update accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please submit a water meter/ service sizing calculation for the proposed main water service. Response: Water service sixing form has been included as part of the resubmittal package. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The proposed sewer line in front of the King Soopers building will need to be a private service line until connection with the next downstream service. See the redlines for more information. Response: The sanitary line in front of the store has been changed to a private line north of the service line coming from the grease interceptor. It is labeled on the plan as such and the easement has been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please see the redlined plan set for further comments. Please contact me to go over any questions. Response: Redlines have been addressed and blueline responses have been provided. Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 9 of 15 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the 8-inch water mains, all thrust restraint shall be mechanically restrained joints. Response: Thrust restraints have been updated to mechanically restrained joints. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Utility easements need to be provided for the sewer services from Lot 2 (southeast corner of site) and Lot 3 (old gas station). A 20-ft easement centered on the service should suffice. Response: Utility easements for the sanitary services have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The waterline lowering, on the existing 8-inch watermain crossing the 48-inch storm, needs to be profiled. Response: This water line lowering has been added to the plan set. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/25/2021 02/25/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: The existing sewer manhole in Drake may need to be replaced or lined depending on condition. This will be determined in field by inspector. Response: Per out meeting on 3/10, the City was going to investigate this manhole prior to plan approval to determine if it needs to be replaced. We have not yet heard back from the City. Environmental Planning – Scott Benton Contact: Scott Benton,sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2021 02/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Agropyron cristatum (Ephraim crested wheatgrass) is no longer permitted in seed mixes in the City of Fort Collins. Please replace with another species, preferably native. Response: Seed mix has been revised as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/19/2021 02/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please replace Note 9 of Tree Protection Notes with the following language: NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. Response: Note has been revised as requested. Forestry – Molly Roche Topic: General Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please review Forestry redlines to review tree-utility conflicts and address accordingly. There are also a few lines that run near or under proposed trees that are not labeled. Please label all existing and proposed utility lines on the landscape plan. Response: Additional labels have been provided for clarity on some of the linework in question and another review for utility conflicts has been completed prior to this submittal. Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 10 of 15 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Forestry will review Tree Protection Notes edits with Sarah Adamson on Monday March 1. Response: We are still awaiting full redlines from Forestry regarding this comment. Please pass these along as soon as they are available. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Tree #15 should be preserved and protected which will alter the mitigation totals. Please edit the information below the tree inventory table to reflect the final number of trees preserved, removed, transplanted, mitigated on-site, and mitigated via payment in lieu. More information is shown on the redlines. 12/14/2020: FOR HEARING Below the tree inventory and mitigation table, please include the number of mitigation trees that will be fulfilled through the payment in lieu option. Response: Tree 15 is now to be preserved and protected and all related charts and calculations have been updated. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Thank you for including the note. Was this plan approved by Planning and Transportation Planning? Response: If it is determined during the investigation that additional parking would have to be sacrificed to protect this tree a discussion with planning and transportation will need to take place weighing the shared parking against the risks to the tree. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: INFORMATION ONLY – ADDRESS FOR FINAL Forestry redlines are provided on the landscape plans and existing tree removal feasibility letter. Please review and address all questions. 12/15/2020: INFORMATION ONLY Forestry redlines are provided on the landscape plans, utility plans, and existing tree removal feasibility letter. Response: Redlines that were provided have been addressed with this submittal. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Correction on the previous comment – the tree in question is tree #1. The landscape plan has some linework over this area which makes it a little difficult to review. It appears as though the storm inlet is less than 8 feet from the tree which is within the critical root zone. Can this infrastructure be shifted outside of Tree #1’s CRZ? Response: The storm inlet is approximately 8’ from the trunk of this existing tree and with the current size of the tree and the fact that the storm line does not continue North we feel this poses minimal risk to this tree. This is the optimal location for the storm inlet due to grading constraints. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Please clarify if the utility will be abandoned in place versus removing it. Removing the line would impact existing tree health and should be avoided. There is some unlabeled linework under these trees and it is not clear if that is the old utility line or something else. Please clarify (redlines provided). Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 11 of 15 Response: We believe the linework in question was the sight triangle, it is now labelled. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please remove all symbols for trees to be removed from the proposed landscaping plan. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please edit species diversity percentages in the plant list to include mitigation tree species numbers. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please protect tree #15. Shift storm drain utility north along College and then run it west underneath tree #13 which is already planned to be removed. Review Forestry redlines for further clarification. Response: Tree 15 is now to be preserved and protected and all related charts and calculations have been updated. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Regarding the stormtech infrastructure that is proposed to be placed around existing trees #40 and #15, please note that all shoring and excavation needs to occur a minimum of 15-ft from the trees. If it is feasible, please remove all stormtech infrastructure that is within 20 ft of trees #15 and #40 in order to protect as many existing roots as possible. In addition this excavation needs to be observed by a City Forester to ensure sufficient root protection. Please provide at least 3-business days for notification. Response: The requested separation has been provided for tree 15 but could not be accommodated for tree 40, the 15’ separation from infrastructure around tree 40 has been maintained. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please include the Drake Road bus pullout and tree exhibit showing existing and final grades, sidewalk profile, and critical root zones to the landscape and utility plans. Response: Exhibit has been updated per our discussion and is included with the submittal package. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Forestry will provide DA language to City Engineer Spencer Smith in the upcoming rounds. Response: Noted Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please verify that all trees to be preserved and protected are accurately shown as such on the utility plans for final approval. Response: These trees have been coordinated and are accurately shown on utility plans. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 02/26/2021 2/26/2021: Is it feasible to increase the size of private property tree grates to 5x5-ft instead of 4x4-ft? 5x5 grates will provide additional room for trees to establish and grow. Response: The size of the tree grates has been increased as requested. Light & Power – Cody Snowdon Topic: General Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 12 of 15 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: Form C-1 has been included as part of the resubmittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the one-line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric policies practices and procedures below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-regulations Response: A one-line diagram has been included as part of the resubmittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: To avoid the need for a blast wall, please shift the transformer behind the King Soopers north to a minimum of 10' from the doorway opening. Response: The transformer has been moved north to provide a minimum 10’ separation from the adjacent door. Internal Services – Russell Hovland Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/12/2021 For a M occupancy of II-B construction the building is limited in size of approx. 70k square ft if 60 ft of clearance to all property lines is not provided on all sides. If 40ft to property line is provided on the north side with 3-hour wall and openings, then unlimited building size can still be achieved. Response: Per discussion with Russell Hovland, the 40’ reduced yard with 3-hour ratings is the path for compliance that will be pursued. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/12/2021 02/12/2021: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments 2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): -40mph (Ultimate) exposure B or -Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Seismic Design: Category B. -Climate Zone: Zone 5 -Energy Code: 2018 IECC commercial chapter. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: -Commercial occupancies must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC. Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 13 of 15 -City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system per IBC chapter 9 or when building exceeds 5000 sq.ft. (or meet fire containment requirements). -Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. -A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new commercial structure. Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services 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 rhovland@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, type of construction, and energy compliance method being proposed Response: Comment Noted. Technical Services – Jeff County Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Text has been revised per comment. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text has been revised per comment. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The sub-title and legal description should match. Response: The sub-title and legal description now match. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please revise the sheet index to match the sheets & titles in the plan set. Response: The sheet index has been updated to match the plan set. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. Response: The benchmark has been updated on both the FDP and construction plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 14 of 15 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All Benchmark Statements must match on all sheets. Response: The benchmark has been updated on both the FDP and construction plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All Benchmark Statements must match on all sheets. Response: The benchmark has been updated on both the FDP and construction plans. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Theses have been updated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Text has been masked where applicable. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: Plat has been updated per the comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The sub-title and legal description should match. Response: The sub-title and legal description now match. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles & sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Sheet titles and numbers have been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/23/2021 02/23/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Benchmark Statement is not necessary. If they are to remain, please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. Response: The benchmark has been updated on both the FDP and construction plans. Water Conservation – Eric Olson Midtown Gardens Marketplace FDP210001 3/24/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 15 of 15 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/12/2021 02/12/2021: 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: Irrigation plans are underway and will be provided ahead of the building permit. Sincerely, GALLOWAY (303) 770-8884 Aaron McLean Site Development Project Manager AaronMcLean@GallowayUS.com Phil Dalrymple, PE Civil Engineer Project Manager PhilDalrymple@GallowayUS.com Sarah Adamson, RLA Landscape Architect SarahAdamson@GallowayUS.com