HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2014-09-16August 21, 2012
Comments from Transportation Planning, Traffic Operations, and Engineering
The following notes need to be placed on the Link N Greens ODP plan:
The exact location and the type of the two access points (limited movement to full
movement) on Lincoln Ave will be determined at the time of PDP submittals and shall be
determined based on the alignment and/or off -set from other access points and the
ultimate design of Lincoln Ave. It is anticipated that one access point will be full
movement, but both access points may not be full movement access points.
Any change in the location of access points with PDP submittals needs to comply with
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards.
Street Standards will be subject to the design standards in effect at the time of application
for project development plans (PDPs).
Common open space areas and streetscapes will be maintained by the owner/developer or
a Homeowners' Association (HOA).The Developer/Owner or HOA will maintain all
streetscapes, sidewalks, and bicycle/pedestrian trails including snow removal. The
exception to this is the Poudre River Trail in the buffer area.
Off -site improvements may be required at the time of PDP in order to meet level of
service for all modes of transportation.
Sight distance easements may be required along the public roadways at the time of PDP
review.
The exact location and type of the two access points on Lincoln Ave will be determined
at the time of PDP submittals and shall be determined based on the alignment and/or off-
set from other access points and the ultimate design of Lincoln Ave. Both access points
may not be full movement access points.
Response: Water quality treatment is being provided in a series of BMP's which include Rain
Gardens, Grass Buffers and Sweles, Dry Wells and use of the existing Retention Pond.
20. The Stormwater Utility anticipates that City Council will be approving new Low Impact Development (LID)
requirements in late December 2012 or early January 2013. Please contact Basil Harridan at 224-6035 or
bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information.
Response: The proposed BMP's described in number 19 above are anticipated to adequately
address the desired LID goals by meeting an equal or better standard for the project
21. The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious
area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for
existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued.
Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at
http://www.fcgov.com/ufilibes/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees or
contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow
required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is
determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or a minimum amount in
accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria.
Response: Acknowledged
22. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Cache la Poudre River Master
Drainageway Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliamsAfcgov.com
1. The project area contains the Coy Barn Complex, which is designated on the State Register of Historic
Properties, and, although not official, is also very likely to be individually eligible for Fort Collins
Landmark designation. The State Register designation would mean that LUC Section 3.4.7 would apply to
this project.
Response: We have met with the State Historic Preservation Office to confirm that the barn complex
retains its eligibility for State Register listing with the proposed development plans. We are in the
process of obtaining official determination of continued eligibility concurrent with the PDP.
2. The State and National Register coordinator at the Colorado Historical Society/History Colorado will need
to define the boundaries of the designated area; and will need to comment upon the effects of the
proposed development on the Coy Barn Complex's continued eligibility for State Register listing. In
order to comply with LUC Section 3.4.7, the property will need to retain both its State Register listing and
its eligibility for individual Fort Collins Landmark designation. If a property is found to be eligible/remains
eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Properties, it is also likely to to retain its local landmark
eligibility and therefore comply with LUC Section 3.4.7.
Response: See comment 1 response above. We will request determination of Local Landmark
designation eligibility once the determination from the State of continued eligibility.
3. The State and National Register Coordinator for Northern Colorado is Heather Peterson. Her contact
information is heather.peterson@state.co.us or 303-866-4684. Historic Preservation staff is working with
Ms. Peteson to facilitate the State's review.
Response: We have met with Heather— see comment 1 response above.
Department: Fire Authority
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416-2869, olynxwiler&oudre-fire orq
1. FIRE LANES
Fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from
fire apparatus access, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire -sprinkler system. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1
4 A fire access shall be provided to within 1504 of all portions of all buildings. This distance can be
extended for sprinkled buildings as approved by the Fire Marshal.
Response: Fire Lanes are depicted on the Master Utility Plan pursuant to prior
discussions with the gre code official. All buildings will be equipped with an approved, automatic
fire sprinkler system.
2. FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria
already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general
requirements:
4 Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
6 Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance.
NOTE: Required fire lanes for structures three stories or more in height require 30 foot wide minimum on
at least one long side of the building.
6 Be designed as a fiat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons.
4 Be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times.
6 All surfaces shall be maintainable in all-weather conditions, including snow removal.
4 The required turning radii of a fire lane shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
4 Dead-end fire lanes cannot exceed 660 feet in length. Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150
feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4; 503.2.5; 503.3, 503.4; Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B) and
Local Amendments
Response: Acknowledged
3. TEMPORARY FIRE LANE
The surface of all fire lanes, including temporary fire lanes, shall be of an approved hard surface or
compacted road base capable of supporting 40 tons. Asphalt, concrete, or compacted road base is
acceptable.
Response: Acknowledged
4. FIRE LANE PROXIMITY
Buildings or portions of buildings exceeding 30 foot in height above the lowest level of fire department
vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating
fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire
apparatus access roadway. Fire lanes shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 30 feet and shall be
positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Fire lanes shall be located within a minimum of 15
feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D
Response: Acknowledged. The future Headquarters (HQ) Building is the only proposed structure
exceeding 30 feet A 30 foot wide fire lane has been identified along the north side of HQ
pursuant to discussions with the fire code official. Also see response number 7 below.
5. FIRE LANEs & FLOOD PLAINS
Dedicated fire lanes shall be built above the flood plain.
Response: Primary fire lanes are designed to be above the flood plain elevation. A secondaryfire
lane is identified along the south side HQ which will be located slightly below the flood plain.
6. COMPLETION TIMELINES
PFA does not require fire lane completion or fire hydrant operation until buildings go vertical.
Response: Acknowledged
7. WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department.
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy.
Commercial requirements: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further
than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and
Appendix B
� The number and placement of fire hydrants on the Woodward Campus remains a discussion point. This
discussion should postpone until the parking plan and access issues have been resolved.
Response: A fire hydrant location plan has been reviewed with the fire code official and is in
general compliance with the required spacing. Due to conflicting goals and criteria associated
with having a fire access road along the south edge of the ES and ITS buildings, an alternative
design is proposed consisting of a fire suppression pump to be installed along with a series
of perimeter stand pipes which will allow PFA to energize the sprinkler system for ES and ITS
from various locations.
8. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a
minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1
4 A comprehensive address plan for the Woodward Campus shall be submitted for fire department
review and approval.
Response: Response: Acknowledged, address/signage will comply with codes.
9. PROPERTY ACCESS
Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s)
on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be
higher than 6 feet above finished floor. The location(s) shall be approved by the fire department. 2006
International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20
Response: Acknowledged, One Knox Box to be located at each building.
10. PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
New buildings or building additions that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 square feet will
require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to
final build out. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety
radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the
Poudre Fire Authority. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate
buildings. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 07-01
Response: Acknowledged, radio amplification system to be provided in accordance with the Poudre Fire
Authority.
11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Managing the storage and use of Hazardous Materials on the Woodward Campus is still under review
and requires further discussion with the fire department. A HMIA detailing compliance with FCLUC 3.4.5
shall be submitted for review. This study shall confirm that storage of such shall not take place within the
flood zone.
Response: Acknowledged, hazardous materials storage zone to be located adjacent to receiving dock,
outside of flood zone. This area will be identified on our site plan as part of our PDP submittal package.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex anfcaov.com
1. Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code applies at the time of PDP. An Ecological Characterization Study will
need to be submitted at least 10 days prior to the PDP submittal. The ECS should address all of the
required components in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code and the value of all of the site's natural
habitats and features, as noted above.
Response: Preliminary ECS report was submitted prior to PDP application.
One of the most critical issues for the ECS to address is the performance standards outlined in Section
3.4.1(E)(1). The project is proposing to encroach into the 300' buffer established in the Code and thus
must indicate how all of the performance standards are being met by varying the buffer standard of 300'
on the site. The encroachment proposed includes the buildings and parking lot proposed on the SE
corner of the site - the submittal should address why these buildings could not be moved further north
and the parking lot further east to avoid encroaching into the buffer zone.
Response: The ECS and additional narrative have been submitted with the PDP to describe the
collaborative approach that has been undertaken to accomplish the buffer standard for the site.
2. Within the Poudre River buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to
determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer
zone. Please ensure that your ECS discusses the existing vegetation and identifies potential restoration
options. Visual examples of the proposed improvements, e.g., the different riparian and wetland zones
proposed, should be provided with the submittal or prior to hearing.
Response: Proposed restoration and planting plans for the buffer zone are included in the ECS Report.
City staff and the project development team have consulted extensively on habitat restoration of the
buffer zone. It is City of Natural Resources staffs desire to use the buffer zone to achieve more natural
topographic and river flow conditions within the buffer zone and to create and expand native wetlands,
floodplain cottonwood woodlands, and upland shrublands and grasslands within the buffer zone and the
extended riparian restoration area. Project and City planning staff used evaluations of historic aerial
photos, river morphology, and existing topography to guide their development of a native riparian
restoration plan for the proposed buffer zone between the river and commercial development in the
project area. This plan will include allowing the Poudre River to overflow its banks during high flow
periods into a designed overflow channel that would assist in creating adjacent wetlands and areas of
upland floodplain forest.
3. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural
areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off -site sources." Thus, lighting from
the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas.
Response: Acknowledged, full -cutoff fixtures to be provided and included in the lighting design to
eliminate light spillage to the buffer areas.
4. As discussed during prior meetings, staff will continue to work with the applicants on the proposed river
grading in the buffer zone. Connecting the river to its floodplain, recreating diverse riparian habitat types,
creating microtopography, and creating interesting experiences for those using the Poudre River trail will
be critical.
The landscaping plan, especially if the performance standards are sought to be applied, will be critical to
ensuring the encroachments are sufficiently buffered and the river/floodplain connections are met. The
driver of this landscape plan is the grading plan. Staff will work with the applicants through the iterative
process of proposed grading, hydrological modeling, and landscape design.
Response: Acknowledged
5. Transitions from the proposed development area to the buffer zone will also be critical.
Response: Acknowledged
6. Please note the requirement in the Land Use Code for "Compatibility with Public Natural Areas of
Conserved Lando (see Section 3.4.1(L)), which requires that tithe development plan shall be designed
so that it will be compatible with the management of such natural area of conserved land.6 Please
illustrate in your submittal documents (including the statement of objectives) how the site plan is
compatible with the Williams, Springer and Udall Natural Areas management plan and objectives. (see the
Poudre River Management Plan); the plan for this Natural Area is available at
hfP://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/i)df/Poudre-management-i)lan20l 1.0f.
Response: The proposed enhancements, described in response to Environmental Planning comment #2,
will greatly improve the Poudre River's ecology, biodiversity, habitat value, and create a healthier and
sustainable river ecosystem. A description of the comprehensive approach to the river restoration area
is include with the PDP submittal.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(a)-fcgov.com
1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit.
Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions.
Response: Acknowledged
2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. Because of
this projects large size and the amount of the TDRF may exceed $65,000 we will want to use the
submitted plans to calculate the PDP fee for the project and determine if the fee does exceed $65,000.
If it does the fee is eligible to be reviewed and set by the City Manager based on an evaluation and
estimation of the staff time needed to process the application and the appropriate fee amount needed to
cover expenses occurred. For additional information on these fees, please see:
http:/twww.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Response: Based on this comment and discussions with staff, we have not included TDR fee with our
submittal. We will submit the required fee once the final fee determination is set by staff and City
Manager.
3. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced
or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of
completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Response: Acknowledged.
4. A TIS for this project will be needed. It will need to evaluate the project based on the proposed project,
the proposed phasing the anticipated build out of the project. Scoping meetings have occurred. Any
questions regarding the content and requirements of this study should be directed to the City's Traffic
Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062).
Response: Acknowledged. Delich Associates has been in contact with Joe Olson.
5. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at:
http://www.larimer.o[g/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Response: Acknowledged.
6. This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this
project. Right of way along Lemay and Lincoln will be needed. The row provided on both streets
should be that needed to accommodate a 4 lane arterial. This allows for the 4 lane section on Lemay
and the boulevard design on Lincoln. Additional row will be necessary for the right turns and if the 2nd
left is needed at Mulberry along the Lemay frontage.
Response: Additional right-of-way and easements are indicated on the plans and plat to accommodate
a 4 lane arterial for both Lincoln and Lemay.
7. For Lincoln Ave frontage. Since there will be a study done this next year to determine if an alternative
cross section for Lincoln Ave should be planed and built along this site it does not make sense for this
project to build its frontage improvements at this time. In lieu of building the developments local street
frontage obligation with this project at this time the project will need to construct interim improvements as
needed to accommodate the traffic movements into and out of the site and any improvements needed to
meet Level of Service requirements. In lieu of constructing the developers local street frontage
improvement with this project a payment in lieu (cash) covering the cost of these improvements shall be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the site.
Response: Lincoln will be designed to an interim condition with right-of-way
dedicated to support the future design and construction of a boulevard design. Preliminary
plans are included for a 2 Lane Arterial roadway section across the property frontage which
will be the basis of developing a cash in lieu amount.
8. For Lemay Ave frontage. In addition to the dedication of row needed for the frontage improvements the
site is responsible for the design and installation of the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side of
the road adjacent to the site. When the roadway was built the median width narrows as it goes north from
Magnolia and this was intended to be an interim solution due to limited row and it is expected that the
median would be widened (to the west) with the improvements along the sites frontage. Additional
median width maybe necessary to accommodate the median design for the % movement.
Response: Construction plans will be prepared for the ultimate improvements along Lemay
Including curb, gutter and sidewalk. Median improvements are proposed to accommodate turn
Lanes at Magnolia and for the % movement to the north. The median is proposed to be widened
to the ultimate 19 foot width to a point as far north as is practical with the right-of-way available.
9. Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is
finalized.
Response: Acknowledged.
10. This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review.
Response: Acknowledged.
11. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site.
Response: Acknowledged.
12. Will need to see how the row line and PRPA relocated lines will work. How it works with the right turn
lanes, left turn lanes and widening needed to accommodate these. If the lines are overhead a shared
easement for the PRPA line and the other utilities would most likely be acceptable to the utilities (it is up
to them). If the lines are buried most likely separate easements would be needed for the PRPA lines
and the other utilities.
Response: A temporary realignment of the PRPA overhead line is shown on the Utility Plan and Site
Plan. The future realignment of the remaining lines is currently under consideration between PRPA
and the City of Fort Collins.
Department: Electric Engineering
Contact: Alan Rutz, 970.224.6153, arutz(a)_fcgov.com
1. Contact Light and Power to discuss development charges, rate schedule and load requirements. Contact
Alan Rutz 970-224-6153
Response: Acknowledged Ghafari has had meetings with Alan Rutz and is scheduling follow-up
meetings to identify the best program for rate charges.
2. Contact PRPA to discuss cost and schedule to move or underground the existing transmission line.
Response: Discussions with PRPA are ongoing with the intent to establish a new location for the
transmission line.
Current Planning
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224.6126, jholland �fcgov.com
As the site plan is developed in more detail, a sidewalk connection needs to be added along the west
project boundary that connects Lincoln Avenue to the Poudre River trail. A connection is also needed
from Lemay Avenue. Please refer to Section 3.2.2(C)(6) which states:
(6) Direct On -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. The on -site pedestrian and bicycle
circulation system must be designed to provide, or allow for, direct connections to major pedestrian and
bicycle destinations including, but not limited to, parks, schools, Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood
Commercial Districts and transit stops that are located either within the development or adjacent to the
development as required, to the maximum extent feasible. The on -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation
system must also provide, or allow for, on -site connections to existing or planned off -site pedestrian and
bicycle facilities at points necessary to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle travel from the development
to major pedestrian destinations located within the neighborhood. In order to provide direct pedestrian
connections to these destinations, additional sidewalks or walkways not associated with a street, or the
extension of a sidewalk from the end of a cul-de-sac to another street or walkway, may be required.
Response: We have provided multiple connections for pedestrians into, through, and adjacent to the
large industriaUoffice campus. A significant amount of walkways connect to and through the open space
areas south of the collection of Woodward facilities and the realigned Poudre trail. Public connections to
the Poudre Trail are indicated from the road intersections at Mulberry/Lemay and at Magnolia/Lemay.
Public trail connections also exist to the west of the site at the Lincoln Avenue bridge. The client would
prefer to limit public connections along the west edge of their industrial campus for safety and security
reasons.
2. The two-story buildings that are shown in the southeast corner abutting and within the buffer will require a
modificion request to Section 4.20(D)(3)(a)(1), which requires buildings to step down to one story when
directly abutting the natural area protection buffer.
Response: A modification of standards has been included for the mixed-use/commercial buildings on
the east side of the site. All other buildings directly adjacent to the buffer are indicated as one-story.
3. The applicant is proposing to reduce the 300' buffer along the southeast and western portion and enlarge
the buffer along the center of the project. An Ecological Characterization Study is required to further
evaluate this proposal. For the two buildings that are proposed within the 300' area, please shift these
buildings north to the extent feasible.
Response: Please see response to Environmental Planning comment V.
4. A request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) will be required for the parking areas that
are behind the main office headquarters building (the curved building), as well as the parking area that is
between the river buffer and the back side of the buildings on the west side of the development. A part of
the justification for these parking areas could be to provide appropriate screening between the parking and
the river, meeting the intent of Section 4.20(D)(4)(a) LandscapingNegetation Protection, which states: The
natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced using plants and landscape
materials native to the River corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements.
Response: Although all parking areas could be considered to be located in side yards as required by the
LUC, we have included a request for Modification of Standards to better explain the justification.
5. A key consideration for this campus style development will be the requirement that parking areas
adjacent to streets and abutting uses be screened per Section 3.2.1.(E)(4). Please also note the
requirement for screening of potential low interest or visually intrusive site elements, as described in
Section 2.3.1(E)(6).
Response: Parking lot screening is provided.
6. A major amendment to the ODP is assumed to be required based on the likely increase in building square
footage shown in the SE corner of the site.
Response: Building square footage is in compliance with the approved ODP.
7. The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review and public
hearing. The applicant for this development request is required to hold a neighborhood information
meeting prior to formal submittal of the proposal. Neighborhood meetings offer an informal way to get
feedback from your surrounding neighbors and discover any potential hiccups prior to the formal hearing.
Please contact me, at 221-6750, to assist you in setting a date, time, and location. I and possibly other
City staff, would be present to facilitate the meeting.
Response: Neighborhood meeting has taken place, as required. No significant concerns were raised.
8. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color
coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide
includes links to just about every resource you need during development review.
Response: Acknowledged
9. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code
(LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on
the web at httg://www.colocode.com/ftcollinsAanduse/begin.htm.
Response: Acknowledged
10. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard
Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of
the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard.
Response: Acknowledged
11. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at:
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.phi).
Response: Acknowledged.
12. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community
Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required
documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing
agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal.
Response: Acknowledged
13. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with Community
Development and Neighborhood Services at (970)221-6750.
Response: Acknowledged.
Pre -Submittal Meetings for Building Permits
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to 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 and is typically scheduled after the Current
Planning conceptual review meeting.
Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to 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.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2009 International Building Code (IBC)
2009 International Residential Code (IRC)
2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003.
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
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chapter 4
2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4.
3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5.
Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements
can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number.
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
TIME:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT INFO:
ENGINEER:
PLANNER:
COMMENTS:
November 19, 2012
11 am
Woodward Governor at Link n Greens
Link n Greens golf course at Lemay and Lincoln
Sheri Langenberger
Jason Holland
Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building
permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions.
The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal.
Because of this projects large size and the amount of the TDRF may exceed $65,000 we will
want to use the submitted plans to calculate the PDP fee for the project and determine if the fee
does exceed $65,000. If it does the fee is eligible to be reviewed and set by the City Manager
based on an evaluation and estimation of the staff time needed to process the application and the
appropriate fee amount needed to cover expenses occurred. For additional information on these
fees, please see: 1-ittp://www.fcaov.com/engineering/dev-review.phR
Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project,
shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to
the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.
A TIS for this project will be needed. It will need to evaluate the project based on the proposed
project, the proposed phasing the anticipated build out of the project. Scoping meetings have
occurred. Any questions regarding the content and requirements of this study should be directed
to the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062).
Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at:
http://www.larimer.org/en ing eering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for
this project. Right of way along Lemay and Lincoln will be needed.
For Lincoln Ave frontage. Since there will be a study done this next year to determine if an
alternative cross section for Lincoln Ave should be planed and built along this site it does not
make sense for this project to build its frontage improvements at this time. In lieu of building the
Link n Greens January 21, 2013
PDP round 1 comments (black)
PDP round 2 comments (green)
Comment #2
We are asking that a condition be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the
design for the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry
Street be designed now and built with the 2nd Phase or whichever Phase of the project
triggers it. The design should be included in the final utility plan set, the row needed to
accommodate the turn lane be dedicated, and language regarding the timing of the
improvement be included in the Development Agreement.
The TIS indicates that with future phases that a southbound double left turn lane will be
needed at Lemay and Mulberry. The design for this needs to be provided by this project.
A condition will be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the project will need
to provide this design as a part of the final plans and provide the row needed as a part of
this as well. It will work for engineering to delay the construction of this improvement
until it is needed, but there may be other circumstances as well that might impact the
timing of these improvements. It needs to be noted that this area of Lemay looks to be in
the 100 year Floodplain and a portion potentially the Floodway as well. This means that
FEMA will be involved and KLOMER and LOMERs may be needed as well.
Comment #3
With each additional Phase/ minor amendment the project will need to submit a TIS for
that phase. The TIS submitted for the site and Phase 1 indicates that with the
development of additional phase there maybe LOS and/or APF issues or concerns,
therefore language will be placed with the Development Agreement for the project that
with each subsequent submittal be it minor amendment or otherwise that a TIS for the
proposed Phase be provide for review and analysis. From this analysis we will be able to
determine if there are any LOS or APF issues with the proposed Phase, and appropriate
measures can be done to address the issues.
whether that is the design and construction of additional infrastructure improvements by
the Developer, waivers by City Council, or appropriate measures as allowed, identified or
required by the City codes.
AComment #14
The existing fire hydrant shown to be relocated (at the north west corner of the property)
is this to be relocated with the first phase? If so it needs to be shown on the phase 1
utility sheets. The hydrant should be placed 8- 10 feet north of the property line so that it
falls within the future parkway and will not need to be relocated again. A note should be
provided indicating this location.
Comment #15
The relocated sewer is no longer in phase 1, but still have some storm pipes that go
outside the boundaries of the Phase 1 sheets.
Phase 1 utility sheets. You need some additional sheets to show all the utility work that
is a part of phase 1. The relocated sewer and several storm lines go off the sheets
provided. Also per the street plans it appears that the water and sewer mains going into
the retail area are to be stubbed in, but the phase 1 plans do not show that. Please clarify.
Comment #18
Will need to show the boundaries of the off -site easements on the final plan set.
Comment #19
Needed with final plans.
The signal pole relocations and changes will need to be noted on the utility plan sheet.
Comment #22
Need to provide off -site profile design at time of final.
Comment #29
Some adjustment of the flowline profile grades is needed to meet minimum standards, but
I think we can work through that.
Comment #30
You will probably want to show and note the use of the existing building as a
construction trailer on the site plan.
Comment #31
Please provide the City with a copy of the new recorded easement for PRPA once this has
been completed.
Comment #33
The following are needed as part of the final plan set.
- Design of all work to be in and approved by Phase 1.
- Clear labeling of what work is Phase 1 work.
- Signal design.
- Signing and striping plans.
- Traffic pole and ramp location information and detail for the Magnolia intersection
(both sides).
- Median profiles — or enough spot elevations to build and detennine what is going on.
- Design of the double left turn.
- Lincoln phase 1 condition profile and striping plan.
- Additional details as per the check sheet.
Comment #1 - resolved
Received Revised drawings. Variance Request granted.
Link N Greens Request for Variance #1 — Driveway Curb Return Radii
We do not believe that the following two turning template drawings are realistic and need
to be redone. 1. The right turn movement into the 3/ access point on Lemay Ave. It is
not desirable nor is it safe for a vehicle to turn from the outside travel lane across the
other travel lane, the bike lane and the right turn lane to enter into the site. It maybe that
the driveway width needs to be widened and/or shown that the turn can be made by
encroaching into the exit lane. 2. The right turn movement into the driveway off of
Lincoln. It needs to be shown that the turn can be made from the travel lane, bike lane or
left turn lane not the center turn lane since this will likely be a raised median in the future
and not available for the truck to use for turning. As with the other intersection it maybe
that the driveway will need to be widened out and/or the turning truck will need to
encroach on a portion of the exit lane to be able to turn into the site. 3. Also missing a
drawing for right out at the 3/ access.
I will not provide a written response (other than this) to the variance request until we
receive and review revised turning template drawings for these two movements.
Comment #2
We are asking that a condition be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the
design for the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry
Street be designed now and built with the 2nd Phase or whichever Phase of the project
triggers it. The design should be included in the final utility plan set, the row needed to
accommodate the turn lane be dedicated, and language regarding the timing of the
improvement be included in the Development Agreement.
The TIS indicates that with future phases that a southbound double left turn lane will be
needed at Lemay and Mulberry. The design for this needs to be provided by this project.
A condition will be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the project will need
to provide this design as a part of the final plans and provide the row needed as a part of
this as well. It will work for engineering to delay the construction of this improvement
until it is needed, but there may be other circumstances as well that might impact the
timing of these improvements. It needs to be noted that this area of Lemay looks to be in
the 100 year Floodplain and a portion potentially the Floodway as well. This means that
FEMA will be involved and KLOMER and LOMERs may be needed as well.
Comment #3
With each additional Phase/ minor amendment the project will need to submit a TIS for
that phase. The TIS submitted for the site and Phase I indicates that with the
development of additional phase there maybe LOS and/or APF issues or concerns,
therefore language will be placed with the Development Agreement for the project that
with each subsequent submittal be it minor amendment or otherwise that a TIS for the
proposed Phase be provide for review and analysis. From this analysis we will be able to
determine if there are any LOS or APF issues with the proposed Phase, and appropriate
measures can be done to address the issues.
whether that is the design and construction of additional infrastructure improvements by
the Developer, waivers by City Council, or appropriate measures as allowed, identified or
required by the City codes.
Comment #4 - resolved
The note was revised to add that a TIS will need to be provided.
Note number 9 on the site plan also needs to indicate that a Traffic Impact Study shall be
submitted with each Minor Amendment for future buildings.
Comment #5 - resolved
Information was passed along to Clark, Parks and Forestry regarding the need to review
these.
New standards for median landscaping are being adopted (the standards have had first
reading with City Council). I don't know what the expectation for the landscaping of the
modified medians is to be. I have talked briefly about this with Bruce Hendee and it
seemed that landscaping to the new standards would be expected. This maybe what you
are showing. The landscape plans for the medians need to be reviewed and coordinated
with the Streetscape Team. Pete Wray or Clark Mapes can coordinate that.
Comment #6 - resolved
They are no longer including this relocation in Phase 1, so the easement is no longer
being shown to be vacated. At such time as they propose the phase in which they will
relocate the sewer line, they will need to design the new line and after it is constructed we
can vacate the existing easement.
The plans note that the existing sewer main easement will be vacated by the plat. The
easement cannot be vacated until the easement is no longer needed and the line has been
relocated, so the notes on the plans need to be changed to reflect this.
Comment #7 - resolved
Upon relocation and of the Sewer Main line the City can process a vacation of the
existing easement area. This is an administrative process. At such time as this can be
vacated the applicant will need to provide a legal description and sketch for the area to be
vacated (prepared by licensed surveyor), the processing fee (currently $400), and the
filing fess which will be calculated at the time of recording.
Comment #8 - resolved
You are showing the building envelope line crossing over the utility easement adjacent to
Lincoln Ave. It would be better if this was not shown crossing over since it is unlikely
that the easement would be vacated to accommodate this.
Comment #9 — resolved
They removed the note.
Note number 4 on the utility plans and note number 1 on the grading plans indicate that
the City shall inspect all storm sewers. We can do this (inspection fees will be charged),
but we only require the City to inspect those lines to be owned and maintained by the
City. Right now it is not noted on the plans which lines are private or public, but will
assume that some of them will be private and we do not need to inspect these.
Comment #10 —resolved
This has been shown on the plans.
On the interim cross section and as part of your design you need to show a 4 paved
shoulder with a minimum of 2 foot gravel beyond adjacent to the right turn lanes. The
bike lane serves as this where they are adjacent to the edge of roadway, so it is not
needed there.
Comment #11 — resolved
Trees and shrubs were removed out of the row.
North of the Phase 1 production support building there is some landscaping that is shown
within the row. This landscaping will conflict with the future sidewalk, grading and
improvements that will be installed with the Lincoln improvements. I suggest that this is
not shown or installed.
Comment #12 - resolved
They indicated they do not plan on installing them now. Imagine the trees will be
required by planning when the retail portion of the site is developed.
Why are there no street trees shown in the Lemay Ave parkway adjacent to the retail
portion of the property? Also a portion of this frontage doesn't show grass or any
improvements within the parkway.
Comment #13 - resolved
Cover sheet — may want to provide more room for the index of sheets so that there is
room to add the list of additional sheets that will be added with the future minor
amendments (future phase sheets).
Comment #14
The existing fire hydrant shown to be relocated (at the north west corner of the property)
is this to be relocated with the first phase? If so it needs to be shown on the phase 1
utility sheets. The hydrant should be placed 8- 10 feet north of the property line so that it
falls within the future parkway and will not need to be relocated again. A note should be
provided indicating this location.
Comment #15
The relocated sewer is no longer in phase 1, but still have some storm pipes that go
outside the boundaries of the Phase 1 sheets.
Phase 1 utility sheets. You need some additional sheets to show all the utility work that
is a part of phase 1. The relocated sewer and several storm lines go off the sheets
provided. Also per the street plans it appears that the water and sewer mains going into
the retail area are to be stubbed in, but the phase 1 plans do not show that. Please clarify.
Comment #16 - resolved
Since the relocation is no longer ro
addressed once the se p
Need to sewer relocation posed t a part of this
be re note what happens to the a part of the plan Seplan set, this will need to be
moved? The portion existing
to be left in l within the ro g sewer line once it is no longer so it pace the portions that n' will need to be re needed.
Will be clear if unlit run under moved. if other Will it
y digs them utility easements portions are
UP that it is no longer an active linneed e be flow filled
Comment #17 —resolved This has been
shown on the p
It appears that lat.
an
and ram
will be needed at the
p that is outside of the row.corner of the Magnolia
entrance forth
Comment #18
Will need to show the boundaries of the Off -site
easements on the final plan set.
Comment #19
Needed with final plans.
The signal pole relocations and changes will
need to be noted on the utility plan sheet.
Comment #20 —resolved
Additional note
added regarding this.
The phase 1 grading plans show that the exist'
club house buildingmg driveway for the
construction of Phse 1 °remain. For how lon golf course
Once we g Is it just to be used for the and the
When the access point needs c be closed. t The site intending time n, usage this
can address
Parking staying, plan doegn t show this building and
Comment #21 —resolved
The wall has been removed.
The wall at the south end of the retail area needs to be labeled e
on the site plan and height
provided. g t
Comment #22
Need to provide off -site profile design at time of final.
Comment #23 — resolved
This was shown on thissubmittal.
Can we keep the interimpavement section being added to Lincoln to a minimum 2%
cross slope?
Comment #24 - resolied
The plat needs some work. There are missing utility easements and drainage easements
Comment #25 — resolved
Have provided a signture line for the gas company.
The plat is showing the vacation of a gas easement. The gas easement owner will need to
sign the plat to show that they do agree to this. It should also be noted that only the
portion of the easement within the boundaries of this plat is vacated by this plat.
Comment #26 - resolved
No longer proposing to vacate or dedicate a PRPA easement on the plat. Assume that
this will all be done by separate document.
PRPA will need to sign the plat accepting the new easement being dedicated to them and
identifying they agree to the vacation of the existing easement. I would guess that they
will not vacate the existing easement until the line has been relocated, but that decision is
theirs.
Comment #27 — resolved
PRPA signature line is shown on the utility plans.
Will need PRPA signature on the utility plans on the sheets where the line relocation is
shown. This will indicate their approval of the infrastructure and improvements shown
below the line.
Comment #28 - resolved
The extra row dedication shown on Lincoln Ave for the right turn lanes does not need to
be dedicated. Based on preliminary cross section any right turn lanes needed for this site
can be accommodated within the 57.5 feet of row being dedicated.
Comment #29
Some adjustment of the flowline profile grades is needed to meet minimum standards, but
I think we can work through that.
Comment #30
You will probably want to show and note the use of the existing building as a
construction trailer on the site plan.
Comment #31
Please provide the City with a copy of the new recorded easement for PRPA once this has
been completed.
Comment #32 - resolved
The two crest curves on the Lemay Ave flowline have been approved as shown (with
grades less than .5%) since the series of grade breaks can be used in lieu of a crest
vertical curve as long as the series of grade breaks meet the vertical curve criteria. I have
checked and the series of grade breaks would meet this criteria. Section 7.4.13.4 of
LCUASS
Comment #33
The following are needed as part of the final plan set.
- Design of all work to be in and approved by Phase 1.
- Clear labeling of what work is Phase 1 work.
- Signal design.
- Signing and striping plans.
- Traffic pole and ramp location information and detail for the Magnolia intersection
(both sides).
- Median profiles — or enough spot elevations to build and determine what is going on.
- Design of the double left turn.
Lincoln phase 1 condition profile and striping plan.
- Additional details as per the check sheet.
Project: Link-n-Greens
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan for approximately
101.5 acres at the Link-n-Greens property, located at 777 East Lincoln Avenue.
The Link-n-Greens P.D.P. is being proposed to accommodate a new campus for
Woodward. As a large employer, Woodward intends to develop a campus of
office, manufacturing, and testing facilities. The site is zoned C-C-R, Community
Commercial 6 Poudre River District, and a P.D.P. is subject to a review and
public hearing with the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 1 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue:
01/23/2013: Link N Greens Request for Variance #1 -Driveway Curb Return Radii
We do not believe that the following two turning template drawings are realistic and need to be redone. 1. The
right turn movement into the '/. access point on Lemay Ave. It is not desirable nor is it safe for a vehicle to turn
from the outside travel lane across the other travel lane, the bike lane and the right turn lane to enter into the
site. It maybe that the driveway width needs to be widened and/or shown that the turn can be made by
encroaching into the exit lane. 2. The right turn movement into the driveway off of Lincoln. It needs to be
shown that the turn can be made from the travel lane, bike lane or left turn lane not the center turn lane since
this will likely be a raised median in the future and not available for the truck to use for turning. As with the
other intersection it maybe that the driveway will need to be widened out and/or the turning truck will need to
encroach on a portion of the exit lane to be able to turn into the site. 3. Also missing a drawing for right out at
the'/. access.
I will not provide a written response (other than this) to the variance request until we receive and review revised
turning template drawings for these two movements.
01/23/2013 Issue ID: 2W Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: We are asking that a condition be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that the design for
the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry Street be designed now and built
with the 2nd Phase or whichever Phase of the project triggers it. The design should be included in the final
utility plan set, the row needed to accommodate the turn lane be dedicated, and language regarding the timing
of the improvement be included in the Development Agreement.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 3 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: With each additional Phase/ minor amendment the project will need to submit a TIS for that
phase. The TIS submitted for the site and Phase 1 indicates that with the development of additional phase
there maybe LOS and/or APF issues or concerns, therefore language will be placed with the Development
Agreement for the project that with each subsequent submittal be it minor amendment or otherwise that a TIS
for the proposed Phase be provide for review and analysis. From this analysis we will be able to determine if
there are any LOS or APF issues with the proposed Phase, and appropriate measures can be done to address
the issues.
ate: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 4_ Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
T-Issu�e: 01/23/2013: Note number 9 on the site plan also needs to indicate that a Traffic Impact Study shall be
'---m-7-773 submitted with each Minor Amendment for future buildings.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 5 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: New standards for median landscaping are being adopted (the standards have had first reading
with City Council). I don't know what the expectation for the landscaping of the modified medians is to be. I
have talked briefly about this with Bruce Hendee and it seemed that landscaping to the new standards would
be expected. This maybe what you are showing. The landscape plans for the medians need to be reviewed
and coofginated with the Streetscape Team. Pete Wray or Clark Mapes can coordinate that.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 6 Topii;: ) General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The plans note that the existing sewer main easement will be vacated by the plat. The easement
Page 1 of 4
Project: Link-n-Greens
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan for approximately
101.5 acres at the Link-n-Greens property, located at 777 East Lincoln Avenue.
The Link-n-Greens P.D.P. is being proposed to accommodate a new campus for
Woodward. As a large employer, Woodward intends to develop a campus of
office, manufacturing, and testing facilities. The site is zoned C-C-R, Community
Commercial L Poudre River District, and a P.D.P. is subject to a review and
public hearing with the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
cannot be vacated until the easement is no longer needed and the line has been relocated, so the notes on the
plans need to be changed to reflect this.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 7 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Upon relocation and of the Sewer Main line the City can process a vacation of the existing
easement area. This is an administrative process. At such time as this can be vacated the applicant will need
to provide a legal description and sketch for the area to be vacated (prepared by licensed surveyor), the
processing fee (currently $400), and the filing fess which will be calculated at the time of recording.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 8 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/2312013: You are showing the building envelope line crossing over the utility easement adjacent to Lincoln
Ave. It would be better if this was not shown crossing over since it is unlikely that the easement would be
vacated to accommodate this.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 9 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Note number 4 on the utility plans and note number 1 on the grading plans indicate that the City
shall inspect all storm sewers. We can do this (inspection fees will be charged), but we only require the City
to inspect those lines to be owned and maintained by the City. Right now it is not noted on the plans which
lines are private or public, but will assume that some of them will be private and we do not need to inspect
these.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 10 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: On the interim cross section and as part of your design you need to show a 4 paved shoulder with
a minimum of 2 foot gravel beyond adjacent to the right turn lanes. The bike lane serves as this where they are
adjacent to the edge of roadway, so it is not needed there.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 11 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: North of the Phase 1 production support building there is some landscaping that is shown within
the row. This landscaping will conflict with the future sidewalk, grading and improvements that will be installed
with the Lincoln improvements. I suggest that this is not shown or installed.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 12 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
' Issue: 01/23/2013: Why are there no street trees shown in the Lemay Ave parkway adjacent to the retail portion of
the property? Also a portion of this frontage doesn't show grass or any improvements within the parkway.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 13 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Cover sheet —may want to provide more room for the index of sheets so that there is room to add
the list of additional sheets that will be added with the future minor amendments (future phase sheets).
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 14 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The existing fire hydrant shown to be relocated (at the north west corner of the property) is this to
be relocated with the first phase? If so it needs to be shown on the phase 1 utility sheets. The hydrant should
be placed 8- 10 feet north of the property line so that it falls within the future parkway and will not need to be
relocated again. A note should be provided indicating this location.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 15 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Page 1 of 4
developments local street frontage obligation with this project at this time the project will need to
construct interim improvements as needed to accommodate the traffic movements into and out of
the site and any improvements needed to meet Level of Service requirements. In lieu of
constructing the developers local street frontage improvement with this project a payment in lieu
(cash) covering the cost of these improvements shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance
of the first building permit for the site.
For Lemay Ave frontage. In addition to the dedication of row needed for the frontage
improvements the site is responsible for the design and installation of the curb, gutter and
sidewalk along the west side of the road adjacent to the site. When the roadway was built the
median width narrows as it goes north from Magnolia and this was intended to be an interim
solution due to limited row and it is expected that the median would be widened (to the west)
with the improvements along the sites frontage. Additional median width maybe necessary to
accommodate the median design for the 3/4 movement.
Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is
finalized.
This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway. Plans will be routed to CDOT for review.
A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work
on the site.
�C -' ,, 6", A�-c Coca kA" � - Lne'
6U�
Project: Link-n-Greens
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan for approximately
101.5 acres at the Link-n-Greens property, located at 777 East Lincoln Avenue.
The Link-n-Greens P.D.P. is being proposed to accommodate a new campus for
Woodward. As a large employer, Woodward intends to develop a campus of
office, manufacturing, and testing facilities. The site is zoned C-C-R, Community
Commercial 4 Poudre River District, and a P.D.P. is subject to a review and
public hearing with the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
Issue: 01/23/2013: Phase 1 utility sheets. You need some additional sheets to show all the utility work that is a part
of phase 1. The relocated sewer and several storm lines go off the sheets provided. Also per the street plans
it appears that the water and sewer mains going into the retail area are to be stubbed in, but the phase 1 plans
do not show that. Please clarify.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 16 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Need to note what happens to the existing sewer line once it is no longer needed. Will it be
removed? The portion within the row will need to be removed. If other portions are to be left in place the
portions that run under utility easements will need to be flow filled so it will be clear if a utility digs them up that
it is no longer an active line.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 17 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: It appears that an access easement will be needed at the NW corner of the Magnolia entrance for
the sidewalk and ramp that is outside of the row.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 18 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Will need to show the boundaries of the off -site easements on the final plan set.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 19 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The signal pole relocations and changes will need to be noted on the utility plan sheet.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 20 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The phase 1 grading plans show that the existing driveway for the golf course and the club house
building are to remain. For how long? Is it just to be used for the construction of Phase 1? Once we know
the
intending time of usage we can address when the access point needs to be closed. The site plan doesn't
show this building and parking staying.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 21 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The wall at the south end of the retail area needs to be labeled on the site plan and height
provided.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 22 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Need to provide off -site profile design at time of final.
�.J
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 23 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/2312013: Can we keep the interim pavement section being added to Lincoln to a minimum 2% cross slope?
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 24 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The plat needs some work. There are missing utility easements and drainage easements
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 25 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The plat is showing the vacation of a gas easement. The gas easement owner will need to sign
Page 1 of 4
Project: Link-n-Greens
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan for approximately
101.5 acres at the Link-n-Greens property, located at 777 East Lincoln Avenue.
The Link-n-Greens P.D.P. is being proposed to accommodate a new campus for
Woodward. As a large employer, Woodward intends to develop a campus of
office, manufacturing, and testing facilities. The site is zoned C-C-R, Community
Commercial 6 Poudre River District, and a P.D.P. is subject to a review and
public hearing with the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
the plat to show that they do agree to this. It should also be noted that only the portion of the easement within
the boundaries of this plat is vacated by this plat.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 26 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: PRPA will need to sign the plat accepting the new easement being dedicated to them and
identifying they agree to the vacation of the existing easement. I would guess that they will not vacate the
existing easement until the line has been relocated, but that decision is theirs.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 27 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Will need PRPA signature on the utility plans on the sheets where the line relocation is shown.
This will indicate their approval of the infrastructure and improvements shown below the line.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 28 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: The extra row dedication shown on Lincoln Ave for the right turn lanes does not need to be
dedicated. Based on preliminary cross section any right turn lanes needed for this site can be accommodated
within the 57.5 feet of % row being dedicated.
Date: 01/23/2013 Issue ID: 29 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 01/23/2013: Some adjustment of the flowline profile grades is needed to meet minimum standards, but I think
we can work through that.
Page 1 of 4
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmenaeview
January 25, 2013
January 30, 2013 responses shown below in RED:
Allen Ginsborg
NewMark Merrill Mountain States, LLC
2720 Council Tree Ave., Suite 230
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Link-n-Greens, PDP130001, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126
or jholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Jason Holland, 970.224.6126, iholland a(,.fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please provide color builiding elevations and a materials page that shows actual photographs
of the proposed materials. Pages with 3D views of the buildings would also be helpful. For
the Lot 3 architecture, please show footprints that are more detailed that illustrate the recesses
and projections in the elevations.
Woodward buildings: A color version of the building elevations have been included with the resubmittal,
including 3D view.
Commercial Buildings: Color building elevations are provided and a materials sheet illustrating the
proposed materials to be utilized. Building outlines have also been added for each building on the
corresponding elevation sheets. 3-D elevations will be provided over the next week.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
The building elevations for Lot 3 may need more articulation in some areas in order to satisfy
the Land Use Code standards in 3.5.3. We suggest a meeting to discuss this in more detail.
A meeting was held on January 24, 2013 and commercial area building elevations have been revised to
reflect the comments from this discussion. In addition, the architect for the commercial area has offered the
following narrative to further describe the concept for this area:
Architectural Concepts.
As the proposed project will be a part of the overall campus it is our intent to create a compatible
architecture to that of the corporate structures, yet somewhat understated, so as not to compete in any way
with the major structures. This will be accomplished first from a mass and square footage standpoint. Given
that all lot 3 buildings will be dramatically smaller than the corporate structures the major buildings will
immediately be much more prominent to the passer by.
Secondly the retail and mixed -use buildings will embrace the contemporary nature of the Ghafari design
and be more simply stated than typical retail buildings. The major building materials shall be glass and
corrugated metal matching that used in the corporate structure both by manufacturer and color.
The restaurant building at the signalized intersection, coming in off Lemay, is planned to be predominantly
of the buff cultured sandstone with a beige cast stone base and cornice, accented by projected silver metal
canopies and "V" roof element.
At the retail shop building along Lemay corrugated metal will wrap both ends of the building and be
contrasted by an off—white stucco at the center bays. Splashes of more playful primary colors will be
introduced in the projected steel and canvas awnings. The entire building will capped off by an articulated,
clean, contemporary metal cornice.
The bank building has been re -designed to add more interest in proposed facades.
A central entry spine projects above the base building creating a south facing entry with an abundance of
glass and featuring a projected steel canopy to welcome the customer. This feature is sheathed in
corrugated metal and contrasts the beige cast stone of the base building, which features a series of vertical
slit windows. The east and west facades of the building are enhanced by a splayed corrugated metal
projection featuring four symmetrical punched windows.
The drive through canopy is sheathed with corrugated metal which pierces a vertical cast stone wall at its
northern edge.
The restaurant building at the corner of Mulberry and Lemay is planned to be of two stories with a roof top
deck taking advantage of views to the river and front range. It will be contemporary in appearance featuring
corrugated metal siding playing off the buff cultured sandstone. It will be enhanced by projected metal
canopies at the entry, as well as a metal trellis protecting the rooftop deck.
The mixed -use building at the northwest corner of Lot 3 will be of two stories and is being planned for retail
at the ground floor and office above. Combining what were two buildings, gives more leasing flexibility and
the ability to attract larger tenants. The building will feature a two story lobby/atrium extending to the west
facade to take advantage of views to the river. A riverside patio off this atrium is also envisioned.
The building materials consist of glass and corrugated metal, again in keeping with that of the corporate
structure, at the south and north ends of the building, with a composite off-white panel at the middle bays.
The ground floor will feature colorful canvas awnings and the upper floor on the west elevation, will have
projected metal sunscreens.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Site and Landscape Plans need to clearly show a line that distinguishes Phase One from
Future Phases. Please also use a finer CAD line type and/or LTSCALE for the topography to
increase readability for all sheets. Done
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please adjust all sheets and provide a 1.5 inch margin on the left side of the paper. It would
also be helpful to add the key map to S1 and L1. Done
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Label proposed monument signs on all plans. Done
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
The key map and title for the plan on some of the pages is not referenced correctly. Corrected
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please refer to landscape redlines for comments related to labeling and formatting of the plans
as well as landscape buffer comments. See comment 2 below
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please provide a typical plan detail and section of the perimeter landscape buffer, showing
quality and extent of the buffer provided, for both the buffers along streets and transition buffers
adjacent to natural areas. Additional perimeter buffer areas have been indicated on the plans, and buffer
symbols have been widened to a minimum of 20' in all areas. In addition, a note has been added to the
Landscape Plans to describe the intent and minimum widths of the buffers. Fencing and walls are not
identified as a required buffer element in these future areas as they in most cases may not be feasible due
to drainage and floodplain requirements, and they may begin to reflect a perimeter fence character that has
been discouraged by staff and the client. Instead, we would like to insure that the code requirements are
met, but with landscaping and berming in a character that fits within the river context.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please draw the future retail/commercial building envelopes as dashed lines, same as shown
on S1. Done
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please add the following note to the landscape plan: Landscape buffer areas shown on the
plan shall be used to screen all, service, loading and parking areas, including drive isles, from
abutting uses, streets and natural areas. Screening shall consist of at least two of the following
elements: masonry wall, plant material, earthen berm or fence, each of which shall have a
minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend one hundred (100) percent of
the length of the area to be screened, and shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20) in width
exclusive of right-of-way. See comment 2 above
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please refer to redline of Sheet S1 for sidewalk comments. Most of these additional sidewalk connections
have been added. The exception is through the service areas west of the Production Support Building and
south of the future Energy Technology Center. These areas will be characterized by service needs, loading
docks, and movements of large vehicles, so we would like to encourage pedestrian patterns around these
areas rather than through them.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please add Lot numbers with acreages to the site and landscape plan sheets. Done
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please add proposed parking quantities that correspond to the Lot 3 layout, based on square
footage and uses. We are not indicating exact quantities for any of the future phase areas. Instead they will
be based on the final building square footages and use. Parking quantities in the Lot 3 area are anticipated
to meet, but not exceed, the Land Use Code allowances.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please remove the word Standard from the site plan notes. Amend note 9 to read: Buildings,
parking, landscaping and other site elements are not indicated in final detail with this Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, and building elevations. Any application for Building Permit, therefore, shall
require the approval of a Minor Amendment of these plans that demonstrates compliance with
all applicable Land Use Code requirements and standards, provided that the Minor
Amendment does not result in a change of character of this development. Done
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please provide dimensions to building envelopes from property lines and dimensions showing
the proposed size of the envelopes. Show the same for building footprints. Every dimension
does not need to be shown, but rather overall dimensions sufficient to show the scope of the
project and to provide general information. Distance numbers should be placed adjacent to
each envelope face without dimensional arrows. Done
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Add a note to the site plan S1 that building square footages shown on the plans represent the
building footprint area, and not the area of the building envelopes. This seems to be the case
for all of the building footprints except for the two future footprints to the west, where the 100,000
SF seems to represent to building envelope, not the footprint. Please expand the land use
table to list the SF of each building footprint as well as each envelope, with the subtotals of
each. Land Use table has been expanded to indicate approximate future building sf anticipated. We have
indicated building area, not areas of building envelopes. Building envelopes are intended to indicate the
area in which future buildings will be allowed, not to represent building sf. The building envelope to the west
has been modified.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please show future sidewalks that are on the 30 scale plans on the overall plan for reference. Done
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: Lot 3 buildings, the use labels aren't consistent with the 30 scale sheets and aren't
shown as future. For clarity and presentation purposes label the footprints A,B,C, etc. and
provide a data table on Sheet S1. In the table show the uses as future. Done
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: Please delineate the 500 year fioodplain,100 year floodplain with greater emphasis that
is more readable and with a finer CAD line type. Done
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: In addition to the 300' river buffer, show the proposed limits of the proposed river
buffer, with a line that is bolder and different than the 300' river buffer. Please show this on all
30 scale site and landscape plan sheets. Done
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: Please show the approximate edges of the Poudre River flow line with a bold triple dot
line (or other line), for graphic informational purposes. Label the river. Done
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: Label the existing trail more prominently. Done
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S1: Label adjacent uses/businesses and adjacent zoning districts. Done
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S2: The building SF shown appears to reflect the envelope space and not the footprints. Building
footprints are representative, building envelope has been modified to allow flexibility for this future
undetermined area of expansion.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP SI The building envelope for the future ES needs to be pulled back from the private drive
in order to accommodate future trees along the private drive in front of the future ES building. Done
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S4: Show the future sidewalk along the private drive, south of the ETC. Please pull the
building envelope back, ten feet behind the sidewalk, to accommodate a future foundation
landscape edge of reasonable quality and depth along the ETC building envelope. Building envelope has
been modified. Sidewalk is not indicated as the building design and programming does not anticipate
employees walking between these uses in this service area — see comment #1 response above.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S4: The potential service area gate. Some discussion is needed as to whether these
gates are needed in order to provide interim screening of the service areas. Staff is
concerned that the proposed evergreen trees north of the service area will not provide
sufficient screening of Phase One operations. We have indicated not only the evergreen trees but berming
along the north edge of the service drive to help provide visual screening until the buildings along Lincoln
are constructed. The combination of distance, overlot grading of the ETC pad site, and these additional
berms with evergreen trees should provide visual screening in the initial phase.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S5: Please dimension the parking setback. Done
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
SP S13,14, and 15: Please pull the Building Envelope back off of the main entrance, at least
ten feet from the back of sidewalk, in order to provide a reasonable amount of landscaping and
spaciousness at the main entry into the campus. Show building footprint and envelope
dimensions (without leader lines and arrows), and label the gross square footage of each
footprint. Please refer to the redline of Sheet S1 for comments on the position and extent of
the building envelopes and footprints shown. Done
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
Please make sure that the building footprint dimensions shown on the site plan match the
elevations. The Lot 3 office/commercial buildings are shown as 70 feet wide on the elevations,
with a patio as well. This needs to be reflected on the site plan. Building elevations and site plans have
been revised.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
We need a note on the site plan that addresses the need for the overall Lot 3 site plan layout to
move east if the PRPA easement along Lemay is not needed. A note has been added to the plan.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Link N Greens Request for Variance #1 — Driveway Curb Return Radii
We do not believe that the following two turning template drawings are realistic and need to be
redone. 1. The right turn movement into the % access point on Lemay Ave. It is not desirable
nor is it safe for a vehicle to turn from the outside travel lane across the other travel lane, the
bike lane and the right turn lane to enter into the site. It maybe that the driveway width needs to
be widened and/or shown that the turn can be made by encroaching into the exit lane. 2. The
right turn movement into the driveway off of Lincoln. It needs to be shown that the turn can be
made from the travel lane, bike lane or left turn lane not the center turn lane since this will likely
be a raised median in the future and not available for the truck to use for turning. As with the
other intersection it maybe that the driveway will need to be widened out and/or the turning
truck will need to encroach on a portion of the exit lane to be able to turn into the site. 3. Also
missing a drawing for right out at the % access.
I will not provide a written response (other than this) to the variance request until we receive and
review revised turning template drawings for these two movements. Updated Turning Templates have been
provided.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: We are asking that a condition be placed on this project as it goes to hearing that
the design for the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry
Street be designed now and built with the 2nd Phase or whichever Phase of the project triggers
it. The design should be included in the final utility plan set, the row needed to accommodate
the turn lane be dedicated, and language regarding the timing of the improvement be included
in the Development Agreement. A horizontal design of the southbound turn lanes will be provided with the
Final Utility Plan set to verify the location of the proposed right-of-way. The final horizontal and vertical
construction drawings areto be provided at such time as the turn lane construction is warranted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: With each additional Phase/ minor amendment the project will need to submit a
TIS for that phase. The TIS submitted for the site and Phase 1 indicates that with the
development of additional phase there maybe LOS and/or APF issues or concerns, therefore
language will be placed with the Development Agreement for the project that with each
subsequent submittal be it minor amendment or otherwise that a TIS for the proposed Phase
be provide for review and analysis. From this analysis we will be able to determine if there are
any LOS or APF issues with the proposed Phase, and appropriate measures can be done to
address the issues.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Note number 9 on the site plan also needs to indicate that a Traffic Impact Study
shall be submitted with each Minor Amendment for future buildings. Done
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: New standards for median landscaping are being adopted (the standards have
had first reading with City Council). I don't know what the expectation for the landscaping of the
modified medians is to be. I have talked briefly about this with Bruce Hendee and it seemed
that landscaping to the new standards would be expected. This maybe what you are showing.
The landscape plans for the medians need
Clark Maoesecanlewed and coordinated with the
coord�ate thataMedian landscaping has been based
Streetscape Team. Pete Wray or Cla p
on the new standards.
Comment Originated: 01123/2013
Comment Number: 6
01/23/2013: The plans note that the existing sewer main easement will be vacated by the plat.
The easement cannot be vacated until the easement is no longer needed and the line has
been relocated, so the notes on the plans need to be changed to reflect this. The relocation of the 27 inch
sewer main is now shown as part of a future phase. Therefore, the easement vacation is no longer
applicable at this time and has been removed from the plat.
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
Comment Number: 7
01/23/2013: Upon relocation and of the Sewer Mainline the City can process a vacation of the
existing easement area. This is an administrative process. At such time as this can be
vacated the applicant will need to provide a legal description and sketch for the area to be
vacated (prepared by licensed surveyor), the processing fee (currently $400), and the filing
fess which will be calculated at the time of recording. This will be applicable at such time as the sewer line
is relocated.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: You are showing the building envelope line crossing over the utility easement
adjacent to Lincoln Ave. It would be better if this was not shown crossing over since it is
unlikely that the easement would be vacated to accommodate this. Corrected
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Note number 4 on the utility plans and note number 1 on the grading plans indicate
that the City shall inspect all storm sewers. We can do this (inspection fees will be charged),
but we only require the City to inspect those lines to be owned and maintained by the City.
Right now it is not noted on the plans which lines are private or public, but will assume that
some of them will be private and we do not need to inspect these. The note has been removed.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: On the interim cross section and as part of your design you need to show a 4
paved shoulder with a minimum of 2 foot gravel beyond adjacent to the right turn lanes. The
bike lane serves as this where they are adjacent to the edge of roadway, so it is not needed
there. The section has been updated as noted.
Comment Originated: 01/2312013
Comment Number: 11
01/23/2013: North of the Phase 1 production support building there is some landscaping that is
shown within the row. This landscaping will conflict with the future sidewalk, grading and
improvements that will be installed with the Lincoln improvements. I suggest that this is not
shown or installed. Trees and shrubs have been removed from ROW
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Why are there no street trees shown in the Lemay Ave parkway adjacent to the
retail portion of the property? Also a portion of this frontage doesn't show grass or any
improvements within the parkway. Trees are indicated south to the Magnolia intersection. It is possible that
the flowline, sidewalk and ROW between Magnolia and Mulberry may be change to accommodate a future
1
SB left turn lane. So in the interim, we have indicated a turf parkway and sidewalk in this area to create a
finished edge condition, but trees have not been included with this initial phase.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Cover sheet— may want to provide more room for the index of sheets so that
there is room to add the list of additional sheets that will be added with the future minor
amendments (future phase sheets). More space has been provided for future Minor Amendments.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The existing fire hydrant shown to be relocated (at the northwest corner of the
property) is this to be relocated with the first phase? If so it needs to be shown on the phase 1
utility sheets. The hydrant should be placed 8-10 feet north of the property line so that it falls
within the future parkway and will not need to be relocated again. A note should be provided
indicating this location. The fire hydrant is to be relocated with Phase 1 and has been so noted on MUP-1.
The hydrant has been placed to be within the future parkway and will be further detailed with the
Final Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Phase 1 utility sheets. You need some additional sheets to show all the utility
work that is a part of phase 1. The relocated sewer and several storm lines go off the sheets
provided. Also per the street plans it appears that the water and sewer mains going into the
retail area are to be stubbed in, but the phase 1 plans do not show that. Please clarify. The relocated
sewer is no longer part of Phase 1 and additional views have been added for the storm lines as requested.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Need to note what happens to the existing sewer line once it is no longer needed.
Will it be removed? The portion within the row will need to be removed. If other portions are to
be left in place the portions that run under utility easements will need to be flow filled so it will
be clear if a utility digs them up that it is no longer an active line. Detailed notes regarding the existing
sewer will be added to the Final Utility Plans. At this time the Master Utility Plan notes the existing sewer to
be abandoned in place at such time as the sewer is relocated. We will work with Roger Buffington on the
details as we move forward.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: It appears that an access easement will be needed at the NW corner of the
Magnolia entrance for the sidewalk and ramp that is outside of the row. An access easement has been
added.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Will need to show the boundaries of the off -site easements on the final plan set. Understood
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The signal pole relocations and changes will need to be noted on the utility plan
sheet. The signal poles have been shown. Detailed information will be provided with the
Final Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The phase 1 grading plans show that the existing driveway for the golf course and
the clubhouse building are to remain. For how long? Is it just to be used for the construction
of Phase l? Once we know the intending time of usage we can address when the access
point needs to be closed. The site plan doesn't show this building and parking staying. A noted has been
added to state that the Clubhouse is to remain until such time as as the western entrance off of Lincoln
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com
January 14, 2012
Conceptual Review Comment responses below in RED:
December 04, 2012
Allen Ginsborg
New Mark Merrill
2720 Council Tree Ave, Suite 230
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Link-n-Greens Conceptual Review
Description of project: This is a request for a phased project to include office/commercial and industrial
space for Woodward as well as retail spaces in a campus -like setting located at the former Link-n-Greens
Golf Course site at the southwest corner of Lincoln Ave and Lemay Ave (Parcel #s 9712400062, 9712400071,
9712400006, 9712400017, 8707300096, 9712400005, 8707300099). The project will require Planning & Zoning
Board (Type 2) review.
Please see the following summary of comments regarding the project request referrenced above. The
comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will assist you in preparing the detailed
components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the
time of formal review of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project
Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbealsQ_fcaov.com
1. Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.2(K)(a) This sections identifies the parking maximums for non-residential uses.
These maximums can be adjusted by request of the applicant for alternative compliance please review
this section for criteria for alternative compliance
Parking spaces also require a minimum of them to be signed accessible spaces located near main
entrances and at least one van accessible.
LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) This section sets the minimum bicycle parking required please illustrate in the plans that
Ave. is required. It is intended to be used as the construction trailer for subsequent phases as is feasible.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The wall at the south end of the retail area needs to be labeled on the site plan
and height provided. The wall has been removed.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Need to provide off -site profile design at time of final. This request needs further clarification
as to the extent of work required.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Can we keep the interim pavement section being added to Lincoln to a minimum
2% cross slope? Cross slopes have been revised to reflect a minimum of 2%.
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The plat needs some work. There are missing utility easements and drainage
easements
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The plat is showing the vacation of a gas easement. The gas easement owner will
need to sign the plat to show that they do agree to this. It should also be noted that only the
portion of the easement within the boundaries of this plat is vacated by this plat. We have placed a
Public Service Company signature block and statement on Sheet 1.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: PRPA will need to sign the plat accepting the new easement being dedicated to
them and identifying they agree to the vacation of the existing easement. I would guess that
they will not vacate the existing easement until the line has been relocated, but that decision is
theirs. At this time the PRPA easement will remain "as is" until the new alignment is determined.
Any changes to the easement will be done by Separate Document.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Will need PRPA signature on the utility plans on the sheets where the line
relocation is shown. This will indicate their approval of the infrastructure and improvements
shown below the line. A signature line for PRPA has been added to the utility plans.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The extra row dedication shown on Lincoln Ave for the right turn lanes does not
need to be dedicated. Based on preliminary cross section any right turn lanes needed for this
site can be accommodated within the 57.5 feet of % row being dedicated. The ROW along Lincoln Avenue
has been revised to reflect 57.5 feet across the entire site frontage as requested.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Some adjustment of the flowline profile grades is needed to meet minimum
standards, but I think we can work through that. Understood
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(c�fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: The approximate 300' buffer line and proposed buffer line needs to be added to
all plan sheets for ease of reference. These lines need to be labeled. Both buffer lines have been added to
the Grading Plans for the river buffer and labeled.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: A rendering for the river restoration area would be highly valuable to illustrate the
different planting zones, as it is difficult to see these areas on the plans. These areas should be
more clearly delineated as well.
The most up-to-date river restoration plan is included as an attachment to the updated ECS Report.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: The lighting plan, as currently submitted, does not address the Lot 3 area, as this
is a future phase. A note will need to be added to the plans that indicates no lighting will be
allowed to spill over into the buffer zones in any future phases. A note has been added to the site plan
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Are there opportunities to create more diverse experiences for trail users, e.g., on
the west side of the plan? Also, as discussed, where can access to the river for trail users be
had? One option could be in the power line easement, if that is relocated. The wetland area (lower
elevations) cannot expand further north in this area due to the location of existing underground utilities.
Instead we have aligned the trail further south closer to the wetland areas, and have added more
trees/shrubs in other upland locations here to create more diversity of experience
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Alternative compliance for the river restoration landscaping (Section 3.2.1(N)) of
the Land Use Code will be necessary to use the alternative species sizes and for the species
diversity requirements. We have included an alternative compliance request for your review with the
resubmittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Please consider an interpretive area at the west side of Lot 3 at the end of the
bank entrance. We have indicated three potential interpretive areas, one at the west side of Lot 3, one at
the river access location, and one near the historic structures.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: In the Lot 3 area, the transitions from the built to the natural environment will be
critical. The following ideas were discussed:
-to achieve compliance with Section 4.20(D)(3)(1), the formation of outdoor spaces, such as
courtyards, plazas, etc. shall be applied and this will also help break up the massing of the
two-story building. An outdoor patio area has been included along the west side of this building.
-screening of the west side of the parking lot should include a wall (if it works from a floodplain
perspective) and landscaping materials. Landscaping materials in this area must not all be
native, though the transition back to native species should occur as quickly as possible. Rocky
Mountain Junipers was one species discussed during the meeting for achieving this objective. Walls cannot
be used in this location due to FEMA restrictions. We prefer the more natural approach of a dense
landscape buffer near this river setting. We have indicated a significant landscape buffer in this location
especially in areas adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. We have added a 6'-10' height Rocky
Mountain Juniper to the plant list, and will continue to discuss further an in more detail during Final Plan
stage when specific species are indicated for each plant symbol.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: One concern with the building along the river buffer is the potential for bird
collisions. Treatments for the glass are recommended. See a set of guidelines here:
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publicafions_reports/bird_safe_bldgs/Standards_for_Bird_Saf
e_Buildings_7-5-11.pdf.
Mike Phelan response:
From a wildlife perspective, it is not anticipated that the buildings nearest the river corridor will represent
a significant glass collision hazard for birds for the following reasons. Movement of birds using the river
corridor will be contained primarily within the river corridor. Most of the buildings will beset back
considerably from the restoration area except at the southeast corner of the project area and the
separation between the buildings native habitat restoration areas will be planted with more formal
landscaping that should not attract birds within the riparian corridor. Finally, I know of no situations
in Fort Collins where buildings along the Poudre River or Spring Creek corridors where bird
collisions with windows have been identified as a significant issue.
Mike Mulhern (commercial area architect) response:
In our meeting of January 24th, concern was expressed that the mixed -use building adjacency to the river
may be potential for reflection on the open space and/or issues of bird's flying into the building.
With respect to reflectance no more than 55% of the west fagade will be glass, and any glass, will be of low
reflectance.
Per the concerns of bird's flying into the building we did research the San Francisco code and other
available information to gain an understanding of problematic design issues. We came to find that the
buildings of greatest concern are those that are "see through" and those that are pristine glass boxes with
little or no articulation and butt glazing.
As you will see from our elevations, the proposed building is only 55% glass and is highly articulated where
it is glass. All glass is set in mullions, is not envisioned to be "see through" as the west fagade will most
likely be lined with offices and that the upper glazing portions are articulated by a projected sun screen.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: In the long-term management plan for the site, beaver management, including the
painting of trees, should be considered.
With final plans, a wildlife management plan will be included to address the protection of woody
species plantings through browse cages, spraying, and other appropriate measures.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: In the landscape plans, wetland plantings are proposed to be broadcast seeded.
As per discussions with the Natural Areas Department, wetland plugs are required. Though the
initial cost will be more, the management costs associated with weed and cattail removal from
broadcasting wetland seeding will quickly eliminate any of the upfront savings. Please revise
the plan sets accordingly. Cedar Creek (Steve Long) has had good experience with establishing wetland
areas from seed if 1) wetland soils can be stockpiled and replaced in establishment areas, and 2) adequate
seasonal moisture is present during establishment period. We anticipate the ability to stockpile and replace
the existing wetland soils on -site for use in wetland establishment, but we will be creating larger acreage of
new wetlands than exist currently. Due to the size of the river restoration area, we would like to continue to
allow a combination of seed and plugs for wetland establishment through the PDP. Final quantities of seed
vs. plug areas will be adjusted with Final Design Plans based on available quantity of available wetland
soils.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: The project has submitted a proposal that utilizes the performance standards
outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code instead of the quantitative standards of 300'.
The project has proposed an overall buffer area of 29.4 acres instead of the 24.4 acres that
would be required through the 300' standard.
In addition, the project has proposed extensive grading to reconnect the Poudre River with its
floodplain and extensive bank stabilization work is being proposed. If the above issues are
addressed by the time of hearing, then staff will support the use of the performance standards
on this site.
Agreed, and we believe the performance standards are met. Revisions to the total acres of
buffer zone with the current proposal are included and discussed in the revised ECS Report.
Please let us know if we need to provide additional information prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: The ECS will need to be updated to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of the
buildings in Lot 3, as the plans have changed since the ECS was submitted in December of
2012.
A Revised ECS Report will be submitted to address changes in Lot 3 and revisions to the
habitat restoration plan. The revised ECS will also include the recently collected tree survey
data for the Poudre River corridor.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Tree removal should be timed to avoid the nesting season in accordance with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A nest survey shall be conducted prior to any tree removal if tree
removal is proposed during the nesting season (April -July).
Tree removal will be in compliance with this recommendation.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: A signature line for the Environmental Planner shall be added to all Utility Plans. A signature
line for the Environmental Planner has been added to all sheets.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Staff has received a copy of the Jurisdictional Determination from the Army Corps
of Engineers, which indicates that all of the site's wetlands and open ponds are
non -jurisdictional, as they are covered as a preamble water of the US (waters created artificially,
such as the golf ponds). However, City staff is continue to work with the applicants to ensure
that the 0.1 acres of wetlands surrounding the golf ponds are mitigated during the project in the
river restoration area.
Restoration plans for the river corridor will include the development of well over 0.1 acre of
wetlands to be lost with the filling of the golf course ponds.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: Additional tree and shrub plantings should be provided along the western portion
of the realigned Poudre River Trail for additional shading and cover.
Additional tree and shrub plantings have been provided along the western portion of the realigned
Poudre River Trail — see comment response #4 above.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/24/2013
01/24/2013: How will users access the proposed amphitheater? Is thereto a crusher fines path
or just social paths that arise? The amphitheater closest to the historic structures is slightly larger (two tiers
of low walls) and includes flagstone paths. The smaller amphitheater in the natural area near the Poudre
Trail is simply one small tier in the seeded area, no path. Let us know if you have any concerns with this
approach.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tuchanan(&-fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
01/23/2013:
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
The note that discusses utility and tree separation should include 6 feet separation for water and
sewer service lines. Please review tree locations to meet the tree utility separation standards in
3.2.1 K including the street light separation. Plans have been corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013:
A tree survey with the code required information has been submitted. Please submit the final
version of the survey including the list of trees that have been numbered. Please delineate on
that survey the trees to retain, remove or transplant. Unfortunately prior attempts to transplant on
site have proved limiting with the rocky material in the soil. Done. Based on these soil conditions, no tree
transplanting is anticipated.
Comment Number: 3
01/23/2013:
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
Please add information on total tree planting on the project on sheet L19 Tree mitigation plan.
Consider placing this information with the possible heading Total Tree Planting on Project
above the tree mitigation table.
Mitigation trees #
Additional trees #
Total tree planting on project #
Also please add the number of trees retained on the project possibly by the symbol for
existing trees to remain and be protected. Added.
Comment Number: 4
01/23/2013:
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
The peach leaf willow is a very good selection to use along the River. Since availabilty of
caliper material is sometimes challenging it might be worth checking with suppliers on their
inventory of caliper material. We will consider this with Final Plans as we better understand timing of
construction and needs for this material from suppliers.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013:
Some of the large trees near the barn and sillo may be in the location of the future head
quarters. If that is their location is the project considering retaining any trees that might be
suitable short term in this area until the construction of the building? Not sure if grading is a
factor that could impact short term retention? The entire site will be overlot graded with the initial phase in
order to complete the construction required to remap the floodplain through FEMA. So all planned tree
removals will occur with the initial project phase construction.
Comment Number: 6
01/23/2013:
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
Please review any cut or fill within the drip line of trees to retain with a qualified and certified
arborist to confirm likelihood of survival. Agreed
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013:
Consider using both Plains Cottonwood and Lanceleaf Cottonwood along the River. Agreed
Please consider if the use of additioanl tree species or varieties is benifical in the the
development area. City Forester is available for discussion. We are happy to discuss additional tree
diversity for our proposed plant list either now in our representative plant list or in final design.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Alan Rutz, 970.224.6153, arutzbfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: Light and Power development charges and system modification charges will apply
Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: If trees are being planted in the medium in Lemay they need to be 40' from a
streetlight. Ornamental trees need to be 15' from a streetlight. Agreed. Adequate spacing has been
indicated.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: Coordinate location of Light and Power switchgear and primary metering cabinets. we are
working with the City of Fort Collins on the location of the primary power feed, substation duct, switchgear
location, etc. These items will continue to be coordinated and included in final design utility plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: Transformers should be located within 10 ft of a drivable surface and be
accessible by a line truck. Understood. Transformers will be shown on the Final Utility Plans
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ollynxwiler(a�poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013
01/21/2013: FIRE LANES
Fire lanes shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Emergency Access
Easements for Phase 1 are now shown on the plat.
Comment Number: 02
01/21/2013: FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 01/21/2013
Currently, the proposed emergency access routes do not allow for sufficient access to the ITS
Bldg. or the Production Support Bldg. (see plans page #OCP-1). The access routes graphic has been
updated to reflect the areas requested.
Comment Number: 03
01/21/2013: FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 01/21/2013
Provide a detail showing which fire lanes are "designed to be above the flood plain elevation"
vs. those that "will be located slightly below the flood plain." All dedicated fire lanes are shown to be above
the flood plain elevation with the exception of an area at the south end of the Commercial area. It should
be noted that Lemay Avenue in this area is also currently below the floodplain elevation; therefore, the
entrance to the Commercial area and a portion of the parking lot also will be slightly below as well.
Comment Number: 04
Comment Originated: 01/21/2013
01/21/2013: SECURITY GATES
The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the
fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of
emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained
operational at all times.
2006 International Fire Code 503.6
Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013
01/21/2013: WATER SUPPLY & FIRE ACCESS
The project has yet to provide a proposed fire suppression plan for offsetting the need for fire
access and water supply in the south side of the ITS facility. A memo from Ghafari has been provided
outlining the proposed fire suppression plan
Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 01/25/2013
01/25/2013: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest
level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire lines capable of
accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide
minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes
meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet
from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to on entire side of the building.
2006 International Fire Code Appendix D
Per PDP130001 plan set, the height of the ITS building is 34 feet. As such, a fire lane shall be
provided on the east flank of the building meeting the criteria specified in Appendix D of the
2006 IFC. The building elevation has been corrected to show a perimeter height of 30 feet.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargueCcilfcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01 /23/2013:
1 Plat — The effective 100-year floodplain and floodway must be shown not the proposed
floodplain. The effective 100-year floodplain and floodway are now shown on the plat.
2 Landscape plans — Please make sure the floodplain lines can be seen throughout and that
the floodplain is labeled as "proposed." Floodplain lines are now indicated on the landscape plans.
3 Landscape Plan — Sheet L6 — An amphitheater is shown on this plan and is not included on
the floodplain plans. Please discuss this with ACE for inclusion in the hydraulic model and the
impact on the floodplain. This information has been coordinated with ACE for inclusion in the hydraulic
model.
4 Site Plan — Please add the proposed floodway boundary and see edits to the notes. The final floodway
line is still being developed by ACE, and will be indicated on the plans when available and prior to hearing.
5 On any plans where the floodplain variance is discussed, please revise to say the variance
was approved and list the conditions of approval. Ex. Floodplain Plan, Note 9; Site Plan, Sheet
1. Wes — I apologize, but missed this note prior to printing of our site plan. We will revise the site plan note
to note the variance approval and list the conditions. This will be added prior to hearing. The note and
COA's were added to all other applicable sheets
6 Floodplain Plan — Please expand the floodplain table to include all of the buildings —
including the retail and the future buildings. Please also list in separate columns: the effective
100-year flood elevation, the effective 500-year flood elevation, the regulatory flood protection
elevation, the lowest HVAC, mechanical or electrical elevation. Please add a footnote of the
conversion to the FEMA 1988 datum for use in filling out the elevation certificates. The floodplain table has
been expanded as requested.
7 Floodplain Plan — Other plans show a retaining wall, entrance sign and amphitheater. Please
show these items on the floodplain plan and provide a detail of the design. Staff is concerned
that the retaining wall maybe considered a flood wall by FEMA. These items should be
discussed with ACE for floodplain impact. The retaining wall has been removed from the plans.
8 Floodplain Plan and MUP-1— Please include FF for future buildings. Minimum finished floors have been
added for design of future buildings.
9 Floodplain Plan- Please clarify Note 3 that a separate floodplain use permit and $25 permit
fee is required for each structure built prior to the LOMR approval by FEMA. The permits can
be obtained at time of building permit. All restoration and site grading can be done as one
permit. Any future work not included on these plans will require a separate floodplain use
permit. The note has been modified.
10 Floodplain Plan — Note 4 — Please clarify that no work, including excavation, shall be done
in the floodway prior to approval of the CLOMR by FEMA. Include that the staging The note has been
modified.
11 Floodplain Plan — Note 8 — Clarify that proposed flood elevations are subject to approval of
the FEMA CLOMR and LOMR. The note has been modified.
12 Floodplain Plan — Please add a note that no work is planned for the historic barn or other
structures at this time. Any future work is subject to the floodplain regulations in Chapter 10 of
City Code. A note has been added.
13 Floodplain Plan and ECP-1— Include a note that all staging areas, including storage of
equipment and materials, etc., must be located out of the 100-year floodplain. A note has been added.
14 Floodplain Plan — Include a note that all floatable materials (picnic tables, bike racks, trash
dumpsters) located in the 100-year floodplain must be anchored to prevent floatation. Any fleet
vehicles must be parked in areas outside the 100-year floodplain. A note has been added.
15 Floodplain Plan — Include a note that all buildings are designed as slab -on -grade. A note has been
added.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01 /23/2013:
16 Floodplain Plan — Include a note that any elevators will be designed in compliance with
FEMA Technical Bulletin 4. A note has been added.
17 Floodplain Plan — Include a note that each structure must have a FEMA elevation certificate
reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the CO. A note has been added.
18 Floodplain Plan and Site Plan — Include a note that life -safety and emergency response
critical facilities are not allowed in the 100- or 500-year floodplain. A note has been added.
19 Floodplain Plan — Legend — F000dway needs to be mapped and shown on the plans. The
floodplain lines are hard to distinguish and make it difficult to determine what is in and out of the
floodplain — please review and revise if possible. Label the floodplain lines as "proposed". The effective
floodway has been added and the line type changed for clarity.The proposed floodway is not yet completed
and will be shown on the next PDP submittal or the Final Utility Plans.
20 A second floodplain plan is needed to show the effective floodplain and floodway, since the
proposed floodplain and floodway are not yet approved and therefore are not regulatory. An effective
floodplain plan has been added.
21 When including a note about floodplain being revised and that these are "proposed
floodplain lines", please add a clarifyi8ng statement that these lines are subject to the FEMA
LOMR. Ex. Sheet MGP-5, Site Plan — Sheet 1 A clarifying statement has been added to the notes.
22 As currently shown on the proposed floodplain mapping, the relocated Fisher Barn may be
the only historic structure to ultimately be shown in the 100-year floodplain. Is it possible to
have this relocated to an area out of the floodplain? See Site Plan Sheet S8. The Fisher Barn is no longer
being relocated to this area.
23 More details are needed regarding the bank stabilization work. Please include details of
the site specific grading, rip rap, any TRM, etc. There should be information on specific
materials being used — i.e. rip rap size, color, locations, cover, etc.; type of TRM and
anchoring of TRM with details for each location. Show areas where concrete and spur dike are
being removed and details for bank restoration. Additional narrative has been added for the bank
stabilization work. Detailed plans will be provided with the Final Utility Plans.
24 Drainage Report — Sect.1.2 and 3.6 — Please discuss the critical facility hazardous material
floodplain variance. Include variance conditions. The variance approval and COA's have been added.
25 Drainage Report — Sect. 1.3 — Please discuss other floodplain criteria. See notes from the
floodplain plan for items to be included. Requested notes have been added to the plans.
26 Drainage Report— Sect.1.3 -Discuss elevation of structures. Include table from floodplain
plan. The floodplain table has been added.
27 Drainage Report — Sect. 2.1 Problem Areas and Bank Stabilization Approach — In discussing
the stability plans, please reference the specific plan sheet for the location and the restoration
details for these problem areas. Include descriptive details of the designs. More descriptive details of the
design intent has been added and specific plan sheets cross referenced.
28 Drainage Report — Sect. 3.6 — Please state that the development is subject to the floodplain
regulations in Chapter 10 of City Code. Discuss future development requirements from notes
being added to the floodplain plan. Notes from the Floodplain Plan redlines have been incorporated into the
Drainage Report.
29 Please see the Floodplain Development Review Checklist marked up by Marsha
Hilmes-Robinson. Items that are not checked off or marked NA still need to be included on the
plans and in the drainage report. The checklist has been updated and resubmitted for further review.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01 /23/2013: There is a concern for the lack of design for the many areas areas proposing
overland flow in a 100-year storm. How, these flows are directed to the river in the interim and
ultimate conditions without causing erosion and in a safely manner in conjunction with the other
site features is the focus. The report has been updated to reflect information regarding overland flow in both
the interim and ultimate conditions and an exhibit has been added. Details regarding the design will be
provided with the Final Drainage Report.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The text of the drainage report mentions taking the off -site flows of the Coy ditch
but I could not see on the plans how this was happening. It looks like if enter a sump (pond)
and then just spills and travel overland towards the south and maybe even onto the property to
the west. The Master Grading Plan allows for residual nuisance flows from the old Coy Ditch to
continue to enter the property at the northwest corner via the existing pipe under Lincoln Ave.
The water will then be directed to an infiltration area. Should this area be overtopped, the grading
plan now reflects the water being directed east into the outer loop drive aisle so water can be directed
to the south and away from adjacent properties.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: It was hard to determine if the storm sewer system was accepting the 10 or
100-year design flows or if the system was designed for these flows minus the calculated
infiltration flows in the water quality mitigation areas. There was a lack of labeling that I could not
correlate the inlet calculations with the utility plans. The City does not like the idea of reducing
pipe sizes an not accommodating the full design flow. More detail has been added to denote areas of
10-year vs. 100-year design in the pipes. This submittal of the Preliminary Drainage Report continues to
reflect taking advantage of reduced pipe sizes based on the anticipated infiltration of storm flows. An
exhibit has been added for additional clarity of the proposed system.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Just an FYI -The future development will need to meet the assumed impervious
area calculation or revisions to the water quality ponds and conveyance system would be
required in the future. Understood
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Many details will need to be worked out with this unique design during final
compliance. The project is close to meeting the requirements for a public hearing. Comments
3 and 4 should be addressed before the hearing and any floodplain comments determined by
that department. Understood
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: All water quality mitigation and conveyance infrastructure needs to be in a drainage
i
this requirement is being met.
Response: Acknowledged
2. Standards LUC setions 4.20 and 3.5.3 do apply based on the uses of the buildings.
LUC 4.20(D)(a)2. Parking lot shall be to the side or interior of building that face the street or the river.
Any parking in between the buildings and the street or river will require a modification.
Response: Although all parking areas could be considered to be located in side yards as required by the
LUC, we have included a request for Modification of Standards to better explain the justification.
3. LUC 3.2.1 Requires a landscape plan (see section for details).
Response: PDP application includes and landscape plan for Phase One areas, and key landscape
buffering concepts for future areas.
LUC 3.2.4 Requires a lighting plan (see section for details).
Response: PDP application includes and lighting plans for Phase One areas.
LUC 3.2.5 Requires enclosures that is adequate for both trash and recycling. Such enclosures shall be
designed with walk-in access without having to open the main service gate and located on a concrete
pad and at least 20ft away from a public sidewalk.
Response: Trash and recycling enclosures to be located at receiving dock between ITS and ES on the
interior of the building.
4. LUC 3.5.1(1) Mechanical/utility equipment shall be identified on site, landscape, and elevations plans with
notes on how such items are to be screened/painted.
Response: Acknowledged, all exterior mechanical and utility equipment are identified on the site plan.
5. LUC 3.8.11 Fences shall be 4ft in height in the front yard. Fences used for screening purposes shall not
be chain link.
Response: Acknowledged, currently there are no fences included on our master site plan, however if
fences are to be incorporated, they shall comply with these guidelines.
6. LUC 4.20(D)(3)(a)l . Building that directly abut the natural area protection buffer shall step down to 1 story.
Anything higher then 1 story in this location will need a modification.
Response: A modification of standards has been included for the mixed-uselcommercial buildings on
the east side of the site. All other buildings directly adjacent to the buffer are indicated as one-story.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington aMcgov.com
1. Information pertaining to existing water mains and sanitary sewers has been provided to the engineer.
2. No additional comments at this time.
easement. Drainage easements have been added to the main conveyance infrastructure.
Minor upstream water quality features have not been shown to be within the easement as we
Have shown all required WQCV to be provided in the larger downstream facilities.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: A separation distance of 10 feet is required between shade trees and any storm
sewers. Seven feet separation for ornamental trees. Understood
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: During final compliance, the spill locations need to designed in detail with special
attention to erosion and site conflicts. Understood
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The maximum depth for ponding in a parking lot or private drive is 1 foot. Understood.
There may be minor areas that slightly exceed 1 foot. Details to be provided with the Final
Utility Plans.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221-6588, jcounty(a)-fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Corrected
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please increase the text sizes of the stories & finish floor elevations on the last 3
sheets. Corrected
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please remove Site from the title on the last 3 sheets. This is not consistent with
the other plan sheets. Corrected
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please add sheet numbering to the last 3 sheets. Corrected
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 37
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark R402. If you need a current copy of the
City of Fort Collins Vertical Control Network, please contact Jeff with Technical Services. Benchmark
corrected.
Comment Number: 38
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are descriptions in the index on sheet CV-1 that do not match the actual
sheet title. Corrected
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Items have been corrected except in areas
associated with standard line types or Symbols.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Sheets MUP-1 - MUP-5 show sheet MUP-3 incorrectly labeled as MUP-5 in the
key map. Corrected
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are match line references on sheets MUP-2 & MUP-3 that are incorrect. Corrected
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are several sheets that show "continuation" rather than "match". Are these
correctly labeled? Correct. Where labeled as "Continuation" there is an overlap to the other sheet.
Where labeled "Match" it is a true match line.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please add the missing match line reference to the top of sheet MGP-3. Corrected
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please add a space between "Sheet" & UP-4 in the match line reference on sheet
U P-3. Corrected
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please swap the title around on sheets SPP-1 - SPP-9 to match the index on the
cover sheet. For example, sheet SPP-1 would read "S. Lemay Ave - Plan & Profile West
Flowline". Corrected
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Jeff, in order to meet the aggressive
resubmittal schedule required by Woodward, we have focused on the areas of plan change. We still see
line over text issues on our sheets, and will continue to correct these over the next few days with the intent
of having corrections prior to hearing and recordation.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet 1-16. Corrected or will correct, see response #26
above.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please remove Woodward & Site from the title on sheets L17 & L18. This is not
consistent with the other plan sheets. Corrected
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheets L17 & 1-18. Corrected
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Could the text be a little larger on sheet EL1-00-00? Corrected
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please remove Woodward from the title on all sheets. This is not consistent with
the other plan sheets. Corrected
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please mask all text on sheets EL1-00-01, ELl-00-02 & EL1-00-04. Corrected
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The legal description closes. No changes made to description.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/2312013: The legal description differs from the plat dimensions shown. Changed the distance along
the west line of Back Porch Cafe property and added another bearing and distance to read with
legal description.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The two distances shown (see redlines) near the end of the legal description, are
not shown on the plat. Divided the 1799.73' into two separate distances to read with legal description
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please correct the plat tite shown in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision.
It does not match the title shown in other places on the Plat. Deleted the "PDP" in Statement.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholders signature block. At this time,
no Lienholder signature block is needed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Are there sight distance easements on this plat? If not, please remove the
language from sheet 1. Sight distance language has been removed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please add a space between Of & Link in the title block on all sheets. Done
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please label all surrounding properties as unplatted or with the subdivision names. 4 areas
on the plat have been label "Unplatted"
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please label all monuments set or found. Done
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please add bearings & distances as shown. See redlines. Done
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are several line over text issues. Done
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There is cutoff text on sheet 2. Corrected
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: What do the "shaded" & "hatched" mean in the easement labels? Labeled the areas to
clarify.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please make lot lines heavier. They are difficult to see with so many other
easement lines. The lot lines have been darkened.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: All easements(existing & proposed) must be shown with enough
information(bearing/distance, curve data, etc.) to establish their positions. Please include detail
drawings as necessary. Sheet 4 & 5 have been added to the plat to show the dimensions of the
emergency access easement which was recently added to plat and the revised water and sewer
easements.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please supply monument records for the public land comers shown. Enclosed with
drawings.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: For easements "to be vacated", please include a note, if applicable, explaining
that easement will be vacated at a later date pending the completion of new utility/trail(etc.)
improvements. Note 5 was added to the plat to cover the vacation of trail easement. The
sewer line that was shown on the plat to be vacated is now remaining for this phase and "to be
vacated" has been removed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Any vacations or dedications of easements to parties other than "the public" or the
City of Fort Collins must either be 1) dedicated/vacated by seperate document, and the
recording information must be shown on the plat, or 2) have acceptance language included on
the plat which is signed by an appropriate repressentative of the easements owner(PRPA,
Public Service, etc.). The PRPA easement will remain "as is" until the new alignment is determined.
Any changes to the easement will be done by Separate Document. Please note on Sheet 1, a
Public Service statement and signature area has been added. Please revise if needed.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01123/2013: Are the "Set #4 Rebar w/ 1" Plastic Cap, LS14283", set with ALTA? Yes
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The curve data table on sheet 3 differs from the legal description. See redlines. Curve
data table has been corrected.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please show the bearings in the line table on sheet 3 to the nearest second. Done
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please label the 100 year floodplain line. See redlines. Floodplain lines have been
changed per Wes Lamarque comments under Item 1 of Floodplain. 100 year flood plain line is labeled.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please show all dedication information for all street rights of way. Highway 14 right-of-way
has been labeled.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please show pins on line(> 1400') for the outer boundary. Done
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Cleaned up lines over text, we will
continue to make the plat more readable.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford(fcgov.com
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01 /22/2013: 1) The study shows that the initial phase of the project which includes Woodward
office and manufacturing space can occur without any significant impacts to the transportation
system with the following improvements installed:
a. Left turn lanes at access points on Lincoln.
b. A new west leg at the Lemay/Magnolia intersection with a left turn lane and combination
through/right lane on the new eastbound approach and a northbound left turn lane on Lemay.
c. A new 3/, movement access on Lemay north of Magnolia with a northbound left turn lane on
Lemay.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: 2) The study shows that subsequent phases can occur provided the following
additional improvements are installed:
a. A second southbound left turn lane at Lemay/Mulberry
b. A southbound right turn lane at Lemay/Magnolia
c. A southbound right turn lane at the new % movement access on Lemay north of Magnolia
d. Right turn lanes at the access points on Lincoln.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: 3) While the study does not show that items 2) b., c., and d. above are needed
for the first phase, it indicates that they will be installed as part of the first phase.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: 4) The study indicates that the LemayNine intersection would operate at an
unacceptable level of service (LOS F) with implementation of subsequent phases. However,
further analysis by City Traffic Operations staff and the project traffic consultant show that
acceptable level of service (LOS D) can be maintained at this intersection. An addendum to
the traffic study should be provided noting this result change. A memo addressing this issue is included in
the resubmiftal.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Amy Lewin, 970-416.2040, alewinC&_fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: Please provide a separate sheet showing the pedestrian framework (without
contours, etc.), as required in Section 3.2.2. We have indicated both current and future walks on the overall
site plan and on the 30' scale sheets.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: On the Lincoln Typical Section —Interim: Please note the westbound shoulder as a
bike lane. Amy, we just noticed this label was not corrected before printing. Will correct prior to hearing.
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.224-6197, emcardleO-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: Regarding the bus stop at Magnolia and Lemay, I seethe sidewalk extends to
leave enough room for the the space needed for the bus stop (12' x 18'), but the square
shown for the bus stop is only 10' x 18', can you please make the square the full size needed
to clarify exactly where we can locate the bus stop? The bus stop pad is 12' x 18'. Let us know if we need
to make changes to the standard arterial sidewalk width in this area to accommodate this differently.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington(Mcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: At final, label all fittings, valves, hydrants, etc., etc. Understood
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: At final, provide profile of the 12" water mains and all sanitary sewers. Understood
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Minimum easement widths are 20 feet for water and 30 feet for sanitary. In areas
where water and sanitary are together and 10 feet apart, the minimum easement with is 35 feet.
Response: The easement widths have been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: All connections to existing water mains are to be made using wet taps and labeled
as noted on the redlined utility plans.
Response: Wet taps are now labeled
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Show all water meter pits/vaults. These are to be located in landscaped areas.
Response: Meter pits/vaults are now shown and labeled.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: The connections for 3" water services are to be made using a 4" valve followed by
a 4" x 3" reducer.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: The Energy Technology Center, the Production Support building and the future
Headquarters building are all shown with 3" water services which seem quite large for those
facilities. Are those services labeled correctly?
Response: The final sizing of these services is still under design. The plans have been updated
to reflect a more accurate sizing; however, these size are still expected to be fine-tuned with the
Final Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: The existing 27" sewer is a VCP sewer not steel. The re-routed 27" should be
installed using PVC sewer pipe.
Response: The pipe material label has been changed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Add valves where noted on the redlined plans. Valve locations will be reviewed
again at final.
Response: Valves will be added to the Final Utility Plans as noted.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Please return redlined plans with
next submittal.
Response: Additional redlines have been addressed and the previous redlines returned.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Adjust plantings to meet the required separation distances from water sewer lines. Corrected
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Why are easements not shown for Phase 2 water/sewer lines? Future phase utilities will be
designed and easements recorded with subsequent Minor Amendments.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: The easement for the existing 27" sewer cannot be vacated until the re-routed
sewer is installed, accepted and in service. Understood
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(a-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.2(L) The standard stall dimensions is 19' x 9'. The
length of the stall can be reduced with the adequate overhang area as illustrated in figure 5 in
section 3.2.2(M). We are utilizing long-term parking stall sizes in most areas as they will be used for
employee parking. Standard stall widths are indicated in lots near main entrances where visitor parking will
likely occur. No compact stalls are proposed, but we are utilizing the reduced length in overhang areas.
Also LUC 3.2.2.(L)(3) allows a reduction in stall length and width in a Long-term Parking area as
long as there is no compact spaces. See above
LUC 3.2.2(L)(2) Compact stalls are allowed only in long-term vehicle parking areas. See above
There should be no compact stalls on LOT 3 Understood.
On LOT 2 and on LOT 1 the parking areas can not mix the reduced stalls dimensions for
standard parking and stall dimensions for compact spaces. Also when using compact stall
dimensions, compact spaces can only be 40% of the long term vehicle parking area. Please
identify the percentage of compact spaces.
Future Parking areas should be labeled with stall dimensions. The future parking areas are shown for
location only. Final quantities and stall dimensions will be indicated in Final Plan or with Minor Amendment
to relate to the final building square footages, uses, and/or employee counts for each building phase. The
intent is to continue with the allowance of long term parking for employee parking areas and standard stalls
for visitor parking areas and in Lot 3 (commercial/mixed use areas)
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: LUC 3.2.2(C)(4) The bicycle parking requirements spaces should be located near
all buildings' primary entrance. Understood. Final locations and quantities for bicycle parking will be
indicated with final building design for future building areas, but is intended to meet or exceed the LUC
requirements.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: LUC 3.5.3 The uses of buildings along the ROW on LOT 3 are required to be built
within 10-25ft of the ROW of an Arterial street. Please indicate exactly the required
POWERLINE setback along each of these buildings. The setback for the anticipated PRPA easement and
future widening of Lemay Avenue have been indicated on the plans. In addition, a note has been added to
the site plan indicating that the building envelopes will move east if this anticipated easement alignment
changes.
Also parking spaces are required a landscape setback of at least 15ft from an Arterial ROW and
10ft from a Non -Arterial ROW please label the setback distance of the parking spaces from the
ROW. Corrected
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: On Site Plan cover sheet under Standard Notes #8, please include that signs on
plans are for reference only and will be permitted through separate sign permit. Corrected
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013
01/18/2013: LUC 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling enclosure locations need to be includes on LOT 3
Understood. Final location and configuration of enclosures for these future building areas will be indicated
in detail with Final Plan or by Minor Amendment to reflect final design of these buildings with the intent to
meet the Land Use Code requirements.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: LUC 3.5.1(G) Buildings and structures over 40ft in height require to provided
additional information (shadow analysis and visual analysis). It appears the HQ, ES and
Office/Courtyard buildings are over 40ft in height. The only building in the planned development over 40'
height is the future headquarters office building. This building is internal to the site and will not cast shadow
beyond the site boundary. Shadow and visual analysis has been included.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: Need to see Mechanical/utility equipment (vents, flues, conduit, meters,
AC/RTU... ) locations on plans with notes on how these will be screen/painted. Mechanical / utility
equipment will be screened by parapets of equal height or separate roof top screens should certain
equipment exceed the height of the parapets. Materials of separate screens shall be in keeping with the
building architecture.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 01/22/2013
01/22/2013: LUC 3.5.3(D)(4) On Lot 3 the building entrances are required to be clearly defined
and recessed by a sheltering element.
On Lot 3, the Office building elevations, how is the patio that faces the river accessed from the
building?
In elevations provided for buildings on Lot 3 one will see noted various projected metal canopies and
canvas awnings adding protection at anticipated entries.
The mixed -use building patio deck facing west will be accessed from the central lobby of the building. A
second emergency egress will be provided at the north end of the patio as the patio meets adjacent grade.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The lighting plan needs more information. Particularly more reference to the actual
site plan. Included.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 01/23/2013
01/23/2013: The landscaping plan needs to include the quantities. Final plant species assignments and
quantities will be provided in Final Plan as per the code. We have indicated quantities for overall plant
categories on the plant list.
Also can the landscaping plan be simplified, by only showing the phase one condition. Only the phase one
and river restoration area plantings are indicated on the plans, with dryland seed in future phase overlot
grading areas
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentreview
2/28/2014
RE: Woodward Technology Center FP#3 - Woodward Campus, FDP140005, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126
or jholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland(a�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Add all mylar sheets to the sheet index that will be included in the planning set.
BHA — A sheet index has been added to the site plan cover sheet
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Because subsequent phases will be approved as minor amendments to this final
plan set, we would suggest adding to the notes: the modifications and alternative compliance
that were approved with the PDP. Also as a supplement to the land use table, adding the total
buildout and total parking data would be helpful so that these elements from the PDP will be
part of the final approval.
BHA — ODP and PDP modifications have been noted on the site plan, as well as the land use table for the
future anticipated phases.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: PRPA has the following comments:1. Corrections need to be made where PRPA
easement width is mentioned. We have a 65 foot easement not 60 foot. Bothdrawing
packages mention the easement width.
BHA — PRPA easement labels changed to say 65' on all sheets.
PRPA discussed that mature trees will not exceed the 15 foot maximum height within the
easement and also discussed that trees outside the easement could be trimmed if they are in
danger of falling or being blown into the power line.
BHA — All trees in PRPA easement have a max height less than 15'.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please add the basic "future" elements from the PDP to the site and landscape
plans -- the future parking and future landscape buffer areas.
BHA —'Future' elements from the PDP have been added to the Final Plans.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Amy Lewin, 970.416.2040, alewinfifcgov.com
1. The two full movement accesses may make it difficult to achieve a boulevard design with a wide median.
Does the traffic study confirm the need for two full movement accesses on Lincoln?
Response: The client desires to have two full movement accesses on Lincoln Avenue. The TIS reflects
only this access configuration.
2. Please show the proposed trail connections between the site and the Poudre Trail.
Response: Trail connections are provided, as requested. Refer to PDP site plan.
3. Please indicate a trail connection on the west side of the project site between Lincoln and the Poudre
Trail to comply with Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(B) and 3.2.2(C)(6).
Response: Public connections to the Poudre Trail are indicated from the road intersections at
Mulberry/Lemay and at Magnolia/Lemay. Public trail connections also exist to the west of the site at the
Lincoln Avenue bridge. The client would prefer to limit public connections along the west edge of their
industrial campus for safety and security reasons.
4. Please show pedestrian facilities and circulation on site, as required in Section 3.2.2.
Response: On -site pedestrian facilities and circulation are provided for Phase One and conceptually for
future phases. Refer to PDP site plan.
5. Please show bike facilities on the internal roads, as required in Section 3.2.2.
Response: Internal automobile circulation is accommodated on private driveways 28' or more in width.
Bicyclists will share the private driveways with automobiles.
6. Please show how bike parking is being accommodated, as required in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b).
Response: Please refer to the PDP site plan for bike parking locations and quantities.
Department: Transfort
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.224.6197, emcardleCcilfcgov.com
1. Per the email sent to Angie Milewski on November 8, 2012, Transfort has the following comments for the
Link-n-Green's site:
There are 2 phases of bus improvements you need to be aware of. First is stops to accommodate
Transfort's current service in the area and second would be stops to accommodate future plans for a
downtown circulator that would operate on Lincoln Avenue.
A graphic was attached to the original email indicating the location of the two existing stops, one on
Lincoln west of Lemay and one on Lemay south of Magnolia Street. These two stops will need to be
upgraded to current standards which is a concrete bus pad of at least 12' by 18' attached to a sidewalk,
typical location recommendation would be 50' - 80' from the intersection.
The phase 2 improvements would include an upgraded "station like" stop to be located on the western
part of the site on Lincoln Avenue. Exact location is negotiable as well as the design will need to be
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please add the following note for site lighting: All exterior lighting fixtures
provided shall have a concealed, fully shielded light source and shall feature sharp cut-off
capability so as to minimize up -light, spill -light, glare and unnecessary diffusion.
BHA — Note added to Notes on Cover Sheet SO.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please show further detail as to how the rooftop mechanical equipment shown on
the building elevations will comply with LUC 3.5.1(1)(6) which states that "All rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into
building and roof design to the maximum extent feasible." Staff would suggest that this
equipment be screened with architectural panels so that the architectural design is continuous
and so the functional aspects of the mechanical equipment is not obvious.
Ghafari — Mechanical areas on the large roof are located to generally be screened by raised daylighting/PV
roof elements, or enclosed within mechanical penthouses. Remaining RTUs that are still visible will be clad
with panels to match the building materials and colors. Additional 3D images have been included with the
resubmittal to illustrate the views from several locations.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please add a general note indicating the reflectivity of glazing. Staff would also
suggest adding a general "or approved equal" note to the Product Matrix.
Ghafari — added
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
Comcast has indicated they currently have a line on the south side of East Lincoln in the right of
way. Comcast would like to go in joint trench with City power if Woodward would like Comcast
service.
Interwest — this information has been passed on to Woodward
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger -fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: Street Maintenance Program has indicated that they have no comments at this
time, but would like to receive a copy of the Plat and utility plans with any future routings.
Interwest — Understood
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: Notes need to be added to the plans clarifying the extent of the improvements to
be constructed as it relates to the property line and tying into the Lincoln and Lemay
improvements that will be constructed by the City project. i.e. The stormdrain line shall be
constructed to the Property line and capped. Driveway improvements to be installed to the
property line.
Interwest — Notes have been added to the storm system plan and improvements are shown to the
property line where applicable. Driveway improvements along Lemay (North % entrance and
Magnolia entrance) are shown to the R/W or edge of future handicap ramp. Coordination
between the Woodward contractor and the yet to be determined contractor for Lincoln
and Lemay construction will be required.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: The utility plans are showing the Pro shop staying. The parking lot associated with
this building extends into the right-of-way. The parking lot needs to be modified (a portion of
the asphalt should be saw cut and removed) so that the parking lot is not within the right-of-way
and the required parking lot buffer from the row line is provided.
Interwest — Notes are to be added to the Development Agreement stating that Woodward is
responsible for removing the portions of the existing parking lot from the right-of-way
should the construction of the ultimate Lincoln Ave improvements occur prior to the
removal of the Woodward construction offices. Specific notes and drawings are not
shown on the plans per staff.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: The site and landscape plans do not show the Pro Shop staying on the plans - if
this is the case it also needs to be shown on these plans as well.
BHA — Site and Landscape plans show Pro Shop to remain, as it is planned to serve as a construction
trailer while construction on the site continues.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: Which if any of the storm system is considered public? Just need to know so
when we are working on a DCP we know which portions of the system are to be inspected.
Interwest — All storm systems on site will be privately owned and maintained. This note has been
added to the Overall Utility Plan and storm sewer plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: In looking at the driveway out to Lincoln Ave and how it will work with the proposed
future ultimate improvements along Lincoln Ave I would suggest that the driveway be widened
out to 35 feet. I didn't have a WB-67 turning template, but this width worked for a WB-50 turning
and a passenger car at that access. Just as was looked at for the access points previously.
Interwest — The driveway access at Lincoln has been widened to 35 feet to accommodate this turning
movement. Concrete shall be installed to the right of way in this location.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: Easement Exhibits.
Drainage Easement — The drainage easement needs to extend to the property line at the NE
corner of the production support building. There is a flared end section being shown to be
installed here and this pipe could be ettended to the street (inlet) in the future.
Access Easement — Is this exhibit intended to be for what is to be dedicated as emergency
access easement? If so an additional exhibit is needed for what is to be dedicated at an
access easement (Magnolia extension as a minimum). And if this exhibit is intended to be the
exhibit for the access easement then an exhibit for emergency access easement is needed.
Interwest— The drainage easement has been extended to the property line. A separate public access
easement (in addition to the emergency access easement) has been prepared that includes
the Magnolia extension
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: 1 intend to add a paragraph to the development agreement identifying that the
Developer gives permission to the City to access the property adjacent to Lincoln Ave to
extend storm pipes, do grading work, landscaping work along Lincoln Ave in order to
complete the interim and future street improvements.
This comment has been shared with Woodward, and they will coordinate with the city during the
development agreement process.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: 1 have a concern regarding the locations shown on the site plan that indicate the
locations of future security gate locations. I see 3 options right now regarding this item. 1)
Provide more information at this time to show what will be installed, where the items would be
installed and how they will be utilized. 2) Make it clear that before the security gates are
approved and installed, that a minor amendment would need to be submitted, reviewed, and
approved to determine the details of this system. 3) Remove the notes regarding the security
gates.
If the details are shown now, my concerns are: When will the gates be closed and how will
they be used. The security gates would need to be located far enough back from the
right-of-way that there is room for the largest vehicle to be able to stop at the gate and not block
the sidewalk or impact the traffic movement on the street. And enough distance to
accommodate the anticipated number of vehicles that could be entering at any given time.
There also needs to be the ability for a vehicle that enters the driveway and is not allowed
access to be able to turn around and get off of the site.
BHA - Security gates are not anticipated with Phase One. Woodward intends to run electrical conduit to
these general areas in case they are required in the future. We have indicated the gate locations as
'potential future security gate locations', and that final review with additional details would be required by
Minor Amendment before they are approved and installed.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan0fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Consider identifying the species of street trees by others along Lemay so the design of these
trees can be coordinated with the phase one Woodward design.
BHA — Species selection has not yet been made for the Lemay & Lincoln Streetscapes. We will review the
street tree species with Forestry as the plans are finalized.
Comment Number: 2
02/27/2014:
Suggested tree type changes:
Swamp White Oak — sensitive to high pH soils
Autumn Purple Ash- problems with Emerald Ash Borer
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Princess Kay Plum — poorer long term survival
BHA — Swamp White Oak has been replaced with Texas Red Oak and Crimson Spire Oak
Ash has been replaced with Pinnacle Birch (only 2)
Plum — replaced with hardier varieties, Moongold Apricot & Purple Leaf Mayday Tree
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Suggested that additional reviews of these trees occur with local nursery or horticultural
professionals to evaluate adaptability in the Fort Collins area:
Dakota Pinnacle Birch — not a lot of planting of this tree in the area has occurred so far; review
for borer and heat tolerance; good survival in mass planting is important
Douglas fir
Birch masses replace with hardier Sensation Boxelder & remaining used as specimen trees.
Fir is used sparingly and in wetter areas.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Tree location consideration:
Greenspire Linden when planted in parking lot islands can develop summer heat scorch.
Particularly with the hotter summer temperatures the area has recently been experiencing.
Linden replaced with Kentucky Coffeetree in islands
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Place an M for mitigation by all the upsized trees in the plant list. Check to see if 175 are
provided in the plant list as it may be one short. Also please place an M that could be shaded
by the direct label of mitigation trees to help identify where the mitigation trees are going on the
project.
BHA— M has been placed by all upsized trees in plans and plant list. 174 (75% of 232) trees have been
upsized for phase 1.
Comment Number: 6
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Please place the full tree mitigation table found on the previous approved Minor Amendment
Final Plan/Tree Mitigation Plan 9-27-13. This information provides a valuable overall summary
for a big picture reference with information from Lots 1-3 and Lot 4.
BHA — Full tree mitigation table has been placed on sheet L9
Comment Number: 7
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Add the table that is referenced in tree protection note number 6 to the tree protection notes.
This table can be found in LUC 3.2.1 G 7
BHA — Table LUC 3.2.1 G7 has been placed next to note 6 on Sheet L9.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Will the existing trees along Lincoln be removed in phase one? They are shown to be retained
on the Minor Amendment Final Plan/Tree Mitigation Plan but not on Phase one landscape plan.
BHA — Existing trees along Lincoln to be removed with interim road improvements as noted in PDP.
These trees were accounted for in tree mitigation counts.
Comment Number: 9
02/2712014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Plant note number 7: The separation standard for water and sewer service lines of 6 feet should
be added.
BHA — Note added to sheet L1.
Comment Number: 10
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Plant note number 11: Add information that says in effect that cultivation for soil improvement
shall not occur within in the drip line of any exiting tree.
BHA — Information added to Note 11 on sheet L1.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970.416.2341, rhovland D—fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2014
02/25/2014: Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting
Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to 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 and is typically scheduled after the Current
Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are
advised to 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.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI Al17.1-2009.
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
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4.
2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4.
3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5.
Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these
requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224.6152, dmartine(a)fcuov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/14/2014: No comments.
Comment Originated: 02/14/2014
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416.2869, lllynxwiler -,poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Provide an updated plat showing recent changes to the Emergency Access
Greenspire Linden when planted in parking lot islands can develop summer heat scorch.
Particularly with the hotter summer temperatures the area has recently been experiencing.
Linden replaced with Kentucky Coffeetree in islands
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Place an M for mitigation by all the upsized trees in the plant list. Check to see if 175 are
provided in the plant list as it may be one short. Also please place an M that could be shaded
by the direct label of mitigation trees to help identify where the mitigation trees are going on the
project.
BHA — M has been placed by all upsized trees in plans and plant list. 174 (75% of 232) trees have been
upsized for phase 1.
Comment Number: 6
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Please place the full tree mitigation table found on the previous approved Minor Amendment
Final Plan/Tree Mitigation Plan 9-27-13. This information provides a valuable overall summary
for a big picture reference with information from Lots 1-3 and Lot4.
BHA — Full tree mitigation table has been placed on sheet L9
Comment Number: 7
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Add the table that is referenced in tree protection note number 6 to the tree protection notes.
This table can be found in LUC 3.2.1 G 7
BHA — Table LUC 3.2.1 G7 has been placed next to note 6 on Sheet 1-9.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
02/27/2014:
Will the existing trees along Lincoln be removed in phase one? They are shown to be retained
on the Minor Amendment Final Plan/Tree Mitigation Plan but not on Phase one landscape plan.
BHA — Existing trees along Lincoln to be removed with interim road improvements as noted in PDP.
These trees were accounted for in tree mitigation counts.
Comment Number: 9
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Plant note number 7: The separation standard for water and sewer service lines of 6 feet should
be added.
BHA — Note added to sheet L1.
Comment Number: 10
02/27/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/27/2014
Plant note number 11: Add information that says in effect that cultivation for soil improvement
shall not occur within in the drip line of any exiting tree.
BHA — Information added to Note 11 on sheet L1.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970.416-2341, rhovland anfcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2014
02/25/2014: Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting
Easement.
BHA — There is no change to the plat anticipated. Easements are being reviewed and recorded by separate
document, and the Access Easement for emergency vehicles is included for review with the resubmittal.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, Ischiam(a.fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/05/2014
03/05/2014: Redlines in both the plan and report need to be corrected. Please add a
sequence chart to the erosion control plan. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there
are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam(c0cgov.com
Interwest - The sequence chart has been added to details sheet DT-11 and redline comments from both
the Plans and Report have been addressed unless otherwise noted on the redlines.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamarque(�ilfcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 3
02/28/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
1.Sheet OGP-1 and EC-1, please include the floodway line on the plans.
Interwest - The floodway line has been added
2.GP-9, The trash dumpsters must be anchored to prevent floatation (until LOMR approved).
Please show a detail for how these will be anchored.
Interwest - An anchor detail has been added to Sheet GP-9
3.EC-1, Please modify Note 4 to state that these must be outside the effective 100-year
floodplain. Note 4 and 7 have been updated as requested Please modify note 7 to specify that a floodplain
use permit is needed for each structure built in the 100-year floodplain.
4. Please provide a list of elevator, HVAC, mechanical, electrical equipment or openings that
are planned below the regulatory flood protection elevation so that we can discuss
requirements for flood protection. Please set up a meeting to discuss. Per our meeting
March 6, 2014, the project architect is preparing a Memorandum describing the
items noted to be below the proposed building finished floor along with notes regarding
their use or how they might be flood proofed in accordance with FEMA regulations.
This Memo will be provided prior to final plan and report approval.
5.FP,2 Because of the multiple floodplain analyses, please add a note to the legend
referencing the ACE report and date for the floodplain information shown on this plan.
Interwest - A note referencing the date of the updated floodplain by ACE has been added. This date is not
specifically associated with the CLOMR addendum report as this work is still ongoing.
UP-1, FP-2, Drainage Report, Please replace the table with the updated version and check
this table with the most updated ACE report. The regulatory flood protection elevation needs to
be referenced to the existing condition not the effective condition, per the variance. Let's
review and discuss.
Interwest - The updated table has been added to the plans and report. Note
that the proposed FP elevations on the table are based on recent modeling but does not
reflect the anticipated CLOMR addendum elevations with the downstream bridge improvements.
A final version of the table will be provided prior to approval.
7.Drainage Report, p.3., Please provide the FEMA CLOMR Case # and date. Also discuss
CLOMR addendums by ACE upon which the building data in the table is based.
Interwest- The Case # has been added to the report. A final discussion of the CLOMR addendum will
be provided by ACE and included in the report prior to approval.
8.Drainage Report, P.3, last paragraph. Need to clarify the requirements related to the
effective, existing and proposed conditions. Let's discuss.
Interwest - The expanded floodplain table footnotes clarify the requirements related to each condition and
which elevation controls in regard to establishing the minimum finished floor elevations for each building.
9.Drainage Report, P. 9, These are not the conditions for the variance; these are the
justifications for the variance. Please replace with the conditions of the variance.
Interwest - Conditions have been updated per the approved variance letter
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: To prevent clogging and to ensure longevity of the infiltration of the detention
ponds, please design forebays at the entrance points to collect debris and sediment.
Interwest - Forebays have been added where practical based on pond geometry and flow entry locations
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please ensure that all the overflow paths of the detention ponds will function and
be safe with other aspects of the site plan.
Interwest - The overflow paths have been evaluated including the overflow at the ITS main entrance. The
channel and bridge crossings proposed at this plaza entry can adequately convey the overflow and it is not
intended for this flow to sheet across the plaza itself.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Most of the drainage swales are have cobble at the bottom of the swales. The
City does not recommend this design. Long term maintenance has shown to be a problem
with sediment build-up and weed control.
BHA — While we agree that the use of cobble swales at the bottom of grassy, mowed detention areas can
result in weed control issues, the cobble swales here are used as drainage areas as well as landscape
features in high -visibility areas near the building and parking lots. They are contained within mulch beds
with shrubs, trees, and perennials, so will receive a higher level of weed control similar to the adjacent
mulch beds. Lowflow areas within mowed grassy areas are instead treated with a soft pan instead of
cobble to aid maintenance.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
Please add a note stating that all storm sewers are private.
Interwest - This note has been added to the Overall Utility Plan and the storm sewer plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please specify the gravel to be used for the gravel trenches in the infiltration
ponds and swales.
Interwest - A note has been added to the typical detail on SHT DRN-2
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please specify that the close mesh grate is to be used for all area inlet C and Ds.
Interwest - This note has been added to the storm plan and profile sheets
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please specify type of "storage rock" to be used for the dry wells.
Interwest - A note has been added to the detail on SHT DT-8
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please add and show the 6 inches of topsoil and temporary erosion control
blanket on the riprap detail.
Interwest - This information has been added to the riprap detail.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: Please add a legend for the hatching in the infiltration ponds and swales.
Interwest - A legend for the cobble swales has been added to the grading plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/28/2014
02/28/2014: The swales that have a slope under 2% need either a soft pan or concrete pan.
Concrete pan would not be consistent with the design, so a soft pan is needed.
Interwest - A typical detail for a soft pan has been added to the grading plans for swales that are under 2%.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty(cDfcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet AE2-00-1. See redlines.
Ghafari — line over text issues have been corrected.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please correct the sanitary sewer sheet numbering. the sheet index shows
different numbering from the actual sewer sheets.
Interwest - Sanitary sewer sheet numbering has been corrected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please correct the elevation for benchmark R402 on sheet GN-1. The elevation on
sheet CV-1 is correct.
Interwest - The benchmark elevation on GN-1 has been corrected.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please relate the coordinates shown on the horizontal control plans to the property
boundary.
Interwest - Northing and Easting building coordinates have been related to the property boundary.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please change the matchline reference along the east side of sheet GP-7 to GP-1
& GP-3. Please change the matchline reference along the east side of sheet GP-8 to GP-3 &
GP-5.
Interwest - The matchline references have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please rotate the matchline references 180 degrees on the profiles on sheets
STM-1 & STM-2.
Interwest - The matchline references have been rotated
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please change the stationing of 9+00 to 16+00 in the matchline reference on the
profile on sheet STM-3.
Interwest - The stationing has been corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: There are line over text issues on sheets L3, L4 & L6. See redlines.
BHA — Line over text corrected.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: There are text over text issues on sheet L4. See redlines.
BHA — Line over text corrected.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 10
02/26/2014: No comments.
Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington bfc oc ov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Provide water usage data for the ITS Bldg (8" water service). Include the average
and peak flowrates in gpm, average and peak day water use in gpd and annual water usage
volume in gallons/year.
Interwest - This data has been provided by Ghafari via an email dated 3/4/14.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Provide water usage data for the PSB Bldg (4" water service). Include the
average and peak flowrates in gpm, average and peak day water use in gpd and annual water
usage volume in gallons/year.
Interwest - This data has been provided by Ghafari via an email dated 3/4/14.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: At the existing sanitary MH in Lemay, include the elevation of the lower part of the
drop connection. It does not have to match the invert of the existing 15" sewer.
Interwest - The elevation of the lower part of the drop connection has been added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Add steel casings at all locations where water or sanitary sewer mains are passing
below storm drains 24" and larger.
Interwest - Steel casings have been added to these crossing locations.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Which sanitary sewer service connections will contain process wastes. Provide
information on flow metering and sampling facilities that are planned.
Interwest - Only the sewer service that exits on the east face of the ITS will contain process wastes. A
sampling facility will be located inside the building.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Label tees for F Hydr's as swivel tees.
Interwest - All fire hydrant tees have been labeled as swivel tees.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Two of the 12" water main lowerings are showing a 4 degree deflection at a pipe
joint. That exceeds the allowable joint deflection for PVC pipe. Options would be to use
fittings or to start the deflection farther back from the low point.
Interwest - Maximum allowable joint deflection for PVC is 1 degree, a note has been added to the plans
and the lowerings reflect a 1 degree deflection.
thought through and designed with the overall road design. If this station is not built with the project then
a transit easement will need to be provided.
Response: Transit stops have been indicated on site plans. The future `station like'stop will be
accommodated when the enhanced section for Lincoln Avenue is designed by the city. ROW has been
dedicated for this anticipated enhance section.
2. All bus stops will need to be either in the public right of way or within a Transit Easement.
Response: All bus stops are located within the public right of way. Future stop locations have
not yet been identified in detail nor has the need for a Transit Easement been established.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970.224.6065, gschlueterCcD-fcgov.com
1. Floodplain Comments:
This site is in the FEMA-designated Poudre River 100-year floodplain and floodway and 500-year
floodplain and subject to all requirements in Chapter 10 of City Code.
Response: All requirements identified in Chapter 10 of the City Code have been met. A floodplain
variance for critical facilities has been requested in order to construct buildings that may contain
hazardous materials in the currently effective 100-year floodplain. However, all structures will be
elevated 2-feet above the existing 100-year flood levels or the existing 500-year flood levels, whichever
is greater.
2. Residential and Mixed -Use Development is prohibited in the 100-year floodplain and floodway.
Response: All structures will be elevated 2-feet above the existing 100-year flood levels or the existing
500-year flood levels, whichever is greater. Also, all 100-year post -project condition water surface
elevations through the entire project reach will be at or below that of the pre -project conditions as to not
adversely impact any insurable structures. A CLOMR is being prepared to verify the design intent and
a LOMR will be completed at the completion of the project based on as -built survey. In addition, a
floodplain use permit and no -rise certification will be completed and submitted as part of the CLOMR
submittal package.
3. New structures are not allowed in the floodway.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2.
4. Any new, non-residential structures in the 100-year floodplain must have their lowest floor, HVAC,
electrical and mechanical elevated or floodproofed 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.
Response: All proposed lowest floors, HVAC, electrical and mechanical systems shall be elevated a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.
5. Life -safety, Emergency Response and Hazardous Material Critical Facilities are prohibited in the 100-year
floodplain and floodway. Life Safety and Emergency Response Critical facilities are prohibited in the
500-year floodplain. Please seethe definition of "critical facilities" in Chapter 10 of City Code. The
specific uses, in particular the industrial uses, will need to be reviewed for conformance with this
definition.
Response: Please see the response to Comments No.1 and 2.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Show the air release valve locations on the plans. A meeting is suggested to
review this to minimize the number and air release valves as practical.
Interwest - Air release valves have been added to the water line at STA 10+50 and STA 14+85.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Will there be any irrigation taps?
Interwest — A 2" irrigation tap and meter has been added at STA 13+80.to serve Phase One.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/20/2014
02/20/2014: Water service sizes will be reviewed once the water usage information requested
in Comments 1 and 2 is received. If the 8" meter is warranted, an 8" meter detail will be
provided to include on the plans.
Interwest — A 6-inch tap and 6-inch meter is proposed for the ITS building. A 1.5-inch tap and 1.5-inch
meter is proposed for the PSB.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/21/2014
02/21/2014: See redlined utility plans for other comments.
Interwest — Redline comments have been addressed
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Need to clarify what the word "Future" means.
BHA — The Woodward Campus will be developed and constructed in phases over time. Final plans indicate
in detail the planned improvements for Phase One, and general information from the PDP for future
phases. We have added information from the PDP regarding future anticipated phases to the site plan, and
specified that review of future design elements will be required by a Minor Amendment process prior to
approval or construction of those phases.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Existing building (clubhouse) on the civil plan but not the planning set. When will
this building and associated parking lot be removed?
BHA - Site and Landscape plans have been revised to show Pro Shop to remain, as it is planned to serve
as a construction trailer while construction on the site continues. Based on our discussions with city staff,
the development agreement will clarify the need to remove the pro shop if the Lincoln Corridor
improvements move ahead.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014
02/26/2014: Please design the EAE on the west side of the Production Support Building to a
large sidewalk not another asphalt vehicle use area.
BHA — Acknowledged
6. Remodeling of any existing structures is allowed subject to the substantial improvement requirements,
including elevating or Foodproof ng to 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Designated historic
structures may apply for a variance to the substantial improvement requirements.
Response: A variance shall be requested should substantial improvements be made to the designated
historic structures.
7. Storage of floatable materials including overnight parking of fleet vehicles is prohibited in the 100-year
floodplain. All floatable materials must be secured in a structure or anchored to resist floatation.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2.
8. Floodway Modification, including filling, grading, detention ponds, trails, planting of vegetation, etc., is
subject to the requirements of Section 10-45 of City Code and will either be required to show no -rise in
100-year flood elevations and no change in floodplain or floodway boundaries or the floodplain map
must be changed via the FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) process.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2.
9. Property maybe removed from the 100-year floodplain by preparing a hydraulic model and changing the
floodplain map using the FEMA CLOMR/LOMR process (City Code Section 10-80(a)(1)).
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2.
10. The Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan identifies three erosion sites on the left bank of the Poudre
River. Mitigation of these sites will need to be incorporated into the work on proposed in the buffer and
floodway.
Please be aware that CDOT is planning to replace the Mulberry Bridge over the Poudre River in the next
few years and will be going through a FEMA map revision process. Coordination with CDOT on their
hydraulic modeling will be necessary.
Response: The Applicant is working with the Natural Areas Department to develop a joint river buffer
design and mitigation plan that will incorporate the three erosion sites identified.
11. The City is in the process of reviewing and possibly changing the floodplain regulations for the Poudre
River. There may be a future requirement for an emergency response and preparedness plan.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2.
12. Any work in the floodplain requires approval of a floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee. Each
structure will require a separate floodplain use permit. For each new structure, addition or substantial
improvement constructed in the floodplain, approval of a FEMA Elevation or Floodproofing Certificate will
be required for release of the Certificate of Occupancy. Work in the floodway may require approval of a
pre- and post -construction No -Rise Certification. The review fee for hydraulic modeling is $325.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2. All applicable fees will be covered by the
Woodward representatives.
13. Variances are allowed. All variance requests are heard by the City's Water Board. Please see Section
10-28 and Section 10-29 of City Code for more information on variance requirements. The cost for each
variance request is $300.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No.1.
14. Please see the Floodplain Forms Website for the floodplain use permit, no -rise certification forms,
elevation certificate, and variance forms. This site also contains the 50% and 100% floodplain
development review checklists.
http:/twww fcgov com/utilities/what-we-do/Stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 2. All submittal package material will satisfy the
requirements identified in the development review checklists.
15. The Floodplain Administration contact for this project is Marsha Hilmes-Robinson,
mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or (970) 224-6036.
Response: Acknowledged
16. Stormwater Development Review Comments:
A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by
a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four -step
process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage
facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when
the project is complete. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Section
1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector,
Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam fcgov.com.
Response: A Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report has been prepared for the PDP submittal
in accordance with City Stormwater Design Criteria.
17. The Stormwater system maps show two outfalls into the river from ponds on the golf course. It is usually
preferred that those be used as the outfalls for the proposed development so as not to cause any new
protrusions into the river. The existing outfall points need to be evaluated as to their condition and
effects on the river. There may need to be some mitigation done on them.
Response: The two existing outfalls into the river have been determined to be inadequate for the
proposed development. The development team is working in conjunction with the city Natural Areas
Department to redefine the river buffer area. New storm drain outfalls will be required and mitigation
of the entire reach will be provided as part of the bank stabilization efforts.
18. Generally onsite water quantity detention is not required when discharging into the river as long as the
outfall system can convey the developed 100 year flow to the river.
Response: Onsite water quantity detention is not provided, however, a series of Dry Wells and similar
Systems are proposed which will allow runoff to re-enter the groundwater system via percolation.
The soils in the area are highly permeable and the design will take advantage of these soils to
reduce the quantity of water which needs to be conveyed directly to the river. The outfall system
to the river is a combination of overland flow and pipe network capable of conveying the 100
year flows.
19. Water quality treatment of the runoff is required for 100% of the site. Water quality treatment methods are
described in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual and Volume III of the Urban Drainage manual
Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of
the BMPs is encouraged. (hftp:/twww.udfcd.org/downloads/down critmanual vollll.htm)