HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP110006 (15-08) - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)•
Client Name
Date
Page 2
Response: The Developer is aware of this issue and is currently working toward resolution with the adjoining
property owner and will be contacting the City for further discussions on this issue.
Matt- this seems to be a JVA issue, even though it was (lagged in the comments as being a Nolte Plat issue. I
have added response text for the issue as I understand it to be as of this date.
Topic: Technical Services
Comment #119
Comment: "The boundary closes but the legal does not. Some line over text conflicts need to be fixed. Please
see redlines for clarification".
Response: The error in the legal description has been fixed and the legal description now matches the
boundary courses and distances on the plat and both form a mathematically closed figure. The Plat has been
revised to eliminate line work over text as requested.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater
Topic: Plat
Comment # 106
Comment: "Provide utility easement 15 feet on each side of sanitary sewer".
Response: Nolte is working with the Engineer to define the easement and the easement will be provided on the
Plat for the next submittal.
Matt- JVA will need to address this but I have added response text for the issue as I understand it to be as of
this date.
For and on behalf of Nolte Associates, Inc.
Charles Beresford, PLS
A'
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
BEYONDNCCTE
ENGINEERING
January 19, 2011
Choice Center Mixed -Use Redevelopment PDP-Type I
Preliminary Plat Comments Responses to "Staff Review Review" dated 09/29/2008
Department: Current Planning
Topic: General
Comment # 78
Comment: "The following note shall be added to the Site Plan and Plat at final review: For allowable uses
within the buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code".
Response: The note has been added to the Plat as requested.
Department: Engineering
Topic: Engineering
Comment # 107
Comment: "The City has a new standard plat note that is required on all plats. I have attached the new note to
the redlines. Please add this note anywhere on the Plat cover sheet".
Response: We were unable to find the copy of the note affixed to the cover sheet of the plat copy with redline
comments from 2008. Please add as a review comment to the next review, or please furnish the text for the
note and we will add to the Plat.
Comment #108
Comment: "Please add a line next to the label for all vacations or dedications by separate document where the
reception numbers for the recorded documents can be hand written before the Plat gets filed. All dedication
and vacation applications must be submitted with review fees prior to scheduling a hearing. If a signed deed of
dedication is not yet available, a letter of intent from the owner (Tire Store) must be provided prior to bearing.
New dedications are $250 per document and vacations are $400".
Response: We have added the lines for the recording information for the future vacations and dedications as
needed on the Plat.
Matt- Please add text to this regarding the addition of these lines to the Site Plan and the Developer's
understanding of the vacations and dedications that need to occur for the project.
Comment # 109
Comment: "The requested public access easement connection to the north has been provided to facilitate a
future connection however, the location does not line up well or connect logically with the existing private
drive isle. There also appears to be a large existing tree that may block this location. Further discussion with
Transportation Planning and Current Planning is needed to resolve this cross lot issue".
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
8000 SOUTH CHESTER STREET, SUITE 200
CENTENNIAL, CO 80112
303.220.6400 TEL 303.220.9001 FAX
WWW.NOLTE.COM
6
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Bames
Topic: Zoning
Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2008
[9/12/08] Your request letter asks to increase the number of unrelated persons "to a
maximum of 3 individuals for 3 bedroom units and 4 individuals for 4 bedroom units". The
request to allow 3 individuals is not necessary and should be deleted. Section 3.8.16(A)(2)
allows "2 adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than 1 additional person". This
means that you are allowed 2 adults plus 1 other person, for a total of 3 persons, all of
whom can be unrelated to each other. Therefore, your request should only be to allow 4
unrelated persons in the 4 bedroom units.
[7/24/08] Clarification is needed regarding the request to allow the number of unrelated
persons to be "increased to one individual per bedroom for each unit". If this means that
they are planning on having only 1 person per bedroom, then the request should simply be
to allow 4 unrelated persons in each 4 bedroom unit. The current wording - "increased to
one individual per bedroom" when taken literally would imply that if the variance isn't
granted, a 1 bedroom unit won't be allowed to be occupied by anyone.
-Acknowledged
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit for final plan review.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6206,
Sincerely
Anne H.Aspen
Senior City Planner
Pa,-e I I
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 4 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] Clarification needed on information submitted, and counts needed for Bldg 2.
[7/22/081 Two 4" water services and meters for each of Bldgs 1 and 2 seem excessive.
Provide fixture counts and water service sizing calculations for these buildings.
Only one 4" service line is now shown for building 1
Number: 5 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] Only 1 water service is shown to Bldg 2.
[7/22/08] For mixed -use buildings, provide separate water and sewer services for the
commercial and residential portions of the building.
Acknowledged
Number: 9 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] In progress.
[7/22/08] The City will do some computer modeling of the proposed water lines to determine
if both water lines crossing College are needed.
�A manhole is now proposed at the point of abandonment.
Number: 102 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Install a sanitary MH in Stuart at the point where the sewer to north is being
abandoned.
Acknowledged
Number: 103 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 Water/sewer mains must be minimum of 5 feet from gutter flowline. Water main in
Choice Center Drive appears to be closer than 5 feet from west flowline.
r ., The water main is closer to the flow line than the 5 ft min. Can we receive
approval to move the main closer to the sanitary sewer line to achieve the 5 ft
separation from the curb line?
Number: 104 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Correct the labeling of the proposed sanitary sewer. It appears to be labeled as
both 8" and 12".
iCorrected
Number: 105 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] See reclined utility plans for other comments.
cknowledged
Page 10
•
[7/23/08] Please provide actual % impervious calculations for the proposed development to
determine if the site is under the assumed master plan % impervious of 75%. The standard
commercial % impervious numbers used in the calculations are lower than what is being
proposed. Instead of 60% impervious for some of the assumed basins, the number is
probably closer to 80%.
The weighted percent impervious is 64%. Refer to the Runoff Coefficient
Calculations.
Number: 14 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/081 Some form of water quality mitigation should be proposed for the sub -basins that
drain into the storm sewer along Choice Center Drive. The City suggests proposing a
hydraulic separator near the downstream end of the storm sewer. At final compliance, a
determination can be made on the details of the water quality device.
- With this submittal we proposed a Contech CDS2020 precast Water
Quality System. The unit will be positioned off-line between SDMH2-B6 and SDMH3-
B6. A weir box will divert low flows to the unit while allowing higher flows to bypass
the unit.
The City finds the water quality mitigation techniques for the other sub -basins acceptable.
[7/23/08] Water quality mitigation needs to be designed and accounted for in the preliminary
submittal before a public hearing. The addition of water quality mitigation could have an
iim act on the site plan.
ikii
Comment acknowledged.
Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2008
[9/26/08] Repeat Comment. Drainage easements are still needed for the storm sewer, and
for all areas that are being used for water quality mitigation.
[7/25/081 Drainage easements dedicated to the City of Fort Collins are required for all of the
storm sewers and the flood control swale.
Comment acknowledged.
Number: 122 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Verification needs to take place on the condition of the existing storm sewer that is
being used as the outfall for the proposed storm sewer. The City can coordinate this and
even perform the inspection. The City has TV equipment to verify that the existing pipe is
still in working condition.
RESPONSE: Coordinating the verification process with Wes Lamarque and Jay
Barber.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: M WELKER Buffington
Topic: Plat
Number: 106 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Provide utility easement 15 feet on each side of sanitary sewer.
The easement has been adjusted and is shown on the plat.
Page 9
CLOMR application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA, and
shall be supported by floodplain modeling and technical analysis consistent with floodplain
modeling guidelines, per City Code Sec. 10-45.
3. The CLOMR application shall be submitted to FEMA immediately following City approval.
FEMA's acceptance of the CLOMR as proposed shall be a condition of approval for the 50%
submittal.
4. No site work may commence prior to approval of the CLOMR by FEMA per City Code 10-
45(2)(a). Floodplain Administration will only agree to the early release of a grading permit if
the Floodplain Use Permit and No -Rise Certification are approved, if all other departments
are in agreement, and if the applicant understands that all overlot grading shall commence
at their risk. Revisions to the site plan may be necessary based on FEMA's comments on
the CLOMR application. A Floodplain Use Permit shall be required for each building and
site element (parking lots, drainage channels, landscape features, detention features, etc.).
A $325 permit fee and hydraulic review fee is required for the Floodplain Use Permit for the
channel construction. All other Floodplain Use Permits have a $25 permit fee.
5. Per the e-mail dated September 8, 2008, construction of parking lots within floodways
shall be prohibited, per FEMA and FEMA's contractor at Baker Corp. Please revise the
development plan with all parking areas removed from the proposed CLOMR floodway.
6. A FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval for
Building #2. Please allow 2 weeks for review and approval.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for any structures at the Choice Center
until the LOMR is approved by FEMA, and until an Elevation Certificate is approved for any
buildings in the floodplain, specifically Building #2.
8. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is required immediately after completion of
development activities at the Choice Center site, per City Code 10-45(2)(b). The LOMR
application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA.
9. As noted in July 25, 2008 comments, the Applicant's engineer shall provide quantitative
evidence, supported by engineering calculations, to prove the flood control channel on the
west side of the residential structure is erosionally stable as designed. The channel is so
close to the railroad embankment and the proposed residential building that any failure
caused by erosion may threaten the life safety and property of the railroad and the student
housing complex. Please refer to specific comments in the July 17, 2008 Floodplain
Comments delivered to NOLTE -PLAT Associates, Inc., specifically Item #10, #10-a, #10-b,
#15-b, and #15-c.
10. Please refer to the 50% floodplain review checklist for additional information required on
the construction plans and drainage report.
11. Please make sure that all information (plans, designs, calculations, descriptions, etc.) in
the CLOMR and LOMR submittals match the Development Plans.
12. Proposed floodplain and floodway limits shat not be shown on the plat or on the
drainage, grading, and site plans, etc. Please show floodplain and floodway boundaries
from current effective modeling only.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 13 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/08] The report states at final compliance another look at the percent impervious will
take place. If the percent impervious were to increase with site plan changes above 75%,
on -site detention would be required.
RESPONSE; The weighted percent impervious is less than 75%: therefore, on -site
detention is not required.
Pace S
PJ
Installation of this electric service will need to be coordinated with Light & Power
Engineering (221-6700).
is acknowledged that the new location of the electric service to the tire
store will be at the expense of the developer. The separation may still need to be
reviewed.
Number: 93 Created: 9/15/2008
[9/15/08) The developer will need to coordinate the power requirements for all 4 buildings
with Light & Power Engineering.
Acknowledged
Number: 94 Created: 9/15/2008
[9/15/08] Light & Power will need to install an electric system from the building #1
transformer to the building #2 transformer, then to the existing transformer at the N.W.
corner of building #3. This line will need to be installed along the front of building #1 (under
the sidewalk is okay) as long as there is a minimum lateral separation of 10 feet between
the power line and the 8" sewer main. In order to install this power line, the northerly water
meter pit will need to be relocated farther to the west.
Acknowledged and the final location of the electric line will be shown on
future submittals.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 120 Created: 9/24/2008
[9/24/081 PFA has no additional comments or concerns at this time.
Thank you
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: 89 Created: 8/3/2008
[9/22/08] The 3/4 turn median configuration is good, but just upon visual review it looks like
the opening for the southbound left needs to be moved a little more south. This makes for a
tighter turn radius and reduced turning speeds. Please check and provide the turning
template analysis.
[8/3/08] Please provide truck turning template analysis of the revised College median north
bound opening. Wanting to verify median bull nose shape and opening width are adequate
for trucks.
JJWThe turn median has been analyzed and adjusted accordingly.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 121 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] 1. The Choice Center project is located in a FEMA regulatory floodway and
floodplain on Spring Creek. The development application must comply with all applicable
sections of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code.
2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to document and quantify all
proposed modifications to the floodway and floodplain per City Code 10-45(2)(a). The
Paee 7
i
to be wider such that vehicles leaving the parking lot are not directed into oncoming traffic
on Stuart. Please see the redlines for clarification.
Standard high volume drive approaches are now shown and the profile
with right and left flowline profiles is also shown
Number: 116 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Please call out the drive approach being constructed on College across from
Parker with the LCUASS standard (707) and identify the width of this driveway. Provide
LCUASS DWG 707 on the detail sheets.
�he drive approach proposed on College across from Parker has been
designed with detail 707 and is provided in the street details sheet
Number: 117 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 See redlines for all other minor comments related to drafting & labeling.
Redlines have been addressed.
Number: 118 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 1 will be meeting with CDOT on September 26 to review these latest plans and
discuss waivers for the median and left turn bay work proposed on College. I will do my
best to include any comments resulting from that meeting in the final comment letter.
Although variance request letters have been submitted to the City, CDOT will need to issue
formal waivers for any work being done in the College ROW that does not meet CDOT
standards for street construction.
Topic: Technical Services
Number: 119 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Plat - The boundary closes but the legal does not. Some line over text conflicts
need to be fixed. Please see redlines for clarification.
Acknowledged
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 2 Created: 7/7/2008
[9/151081
[7/7/08] It appears that several existing electric facilities will need to be relocated.
Relocation of existing electric will be at the developer's expense, in addition to normal
electric development charges.
Acknowledged
Number: 92 Created: 9/15/2008
(9/15/081 The electric service (and I believe some other utilities) that serve the existing tire
center are located where building #2 is planned. The new location for this electric service as
shown on the utility plan may be problematic. The developer will need to install a new
service from the existing transformers at the N.W. corner of proposed buliding #3 to the tire
shop meters. The lateral separation between this electric service and the water & sewer
services must be at least equal to the depth of the deepest of these utility services.
Page 6
•
��Acknowledged
Number: 109 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 Plat - The requested public access easement connection to the north has been
provided to facilitate a future connection however, the location does not line up well or
connect logically with the existing private drive isle. There also appears to be a large
existing tree that may block this location. Further discussion with transportation Planning
and Current Planning is needed to resolve this cross lot access issue.
'Please refer to the north access exhibit that is included in the submittal
packet.
Number: 110 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 General Notes - Please remove the reference to the Modification listed under Note
48. Only variances to the LCUASS standards should be listed under this section. The
modification will be subject to approval by the hearing officer where variances are approved
administratively by Engineering.
(Only variances to LCUASS are listed.
Number: 111 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 Please add a Note 7 on Sheet 5, Grading, indicating that any retaining walls over
40 inches in height measured from the bottom of footing to top of wall are under separate
permit by the Building Department.
This note is provided on the grading sheet.
Number: 112 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 No plan or profile design has been provided for the storm drain system under
Stuart Street. I will defer to Storm Water but I believe this design needs to be provided and
all maintenance responsibility should be clearly identified public versus private.
® The storm drain profile within Stuart is provided.
Number: 113 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Please call out all pedestrian access ramps within the public ROW with the
a ro nate LCUASS 2007 standard with truncated domes.
Pedestrian ramps with truncated domes are shown.
Number: 114 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 1 believe that the cross walk striping across Stuart will need to be modified or
skewed to line up with the ramps. I will confirm this with Transportation Planning and Traffic.
The cross walks have been adjusted to align with the skewed ramps.
Number: 115 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 Stuart Street should terminate at the far west end as a standard street section with
private access drive approaches into the parking lot and onto Choice Center Drive. Please
revise the street design to show standard high volume drive approaches at both access
points and call them out with the LCUASS standard 707. Please only provide a profile
design for that portion of Stuart that will be public. The access to the parking lot area needs
Page 5
Number: 79 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/081 Require meeting to finalize.
[7/29/081 During the final review process, a "Limits of Development" line will be determined
and shown on the following plans:
Site, Landscape, Existing conditions and Demolition, Utilities, Grading and Erosion Control.
The "Limits of Development" are shown on the plans and encompass all
improvements
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 80 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/081 Clarify why straight trickle pan is needed by CLOMR/LOMR design. If in fact it is
not required, address 7-29 comment.
[7/29/08] Tricle pan in swale adjacent to the railroad R.O.W. should reflect the grading of
the side slope and walkway, creating a more curvilinear alignment.
The trickle plan was reviewed and is part of the approved CLOMR. The
bottom of the swale is at 1.0% slope and to ensure proper drainage, a trickle pan was
provided
Number: 81 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] have not seen utility plans, as soon as I do, I'll provide comment.
[7/29/08] Provide plan and profile of storm draim line adjacent to Spring Creek, between
SDMH-OS1and SDMH-OS2. The creek and the retaining wall are very close together,
which may have impacts to the creek.
The storm plan and profile is provided.
Number: 82 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/081 Show edge of creek and wetlands on appropriate plans for evaluation. Did not
review utility plans, will comment once plans are reviewed.
[7/29/081 The plan does not show any kind of riprap at the south end of the tricle pan where
it ties into the creek. Provide details of design to allow for evaluation on impacts to the
creek and associated wetlands.
the edge of creek and wetlands are provided on the appropriate sheets.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number: 107 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/081 The City has a new standard Plat note that is required on all plats. I have
attached the new note to the redlines. Please add this note anywhere on the Plat cover
sheet
acknowledged
Number: 108 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Plat - Please add a line next to the label for all vacations or dedications by
separate document where the reception numbers for the recorded documents can be hand
written in before the Plat gets filed. All dedication and vacation applications must be
submitted with review fees paid prior to scheduling a hearing. If a signed deed of dedication
is not yet available, a letter of intent from the owner (Tire Store) must be provided prior to
hearing. New dedications are $250 per document and vacations are $400.
Page 4
6
Number: 125 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/081 Wherever there are ramps, dip the sidewalk if the ramp would pinch the through
walk.
All ramps are ADA compliant.
Number: 126 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] There needs to be landscaping (10' setback from Stuart, 15' setback from
College).
�On Stuart Street we request a variance based on "equal or greater than"
criteria. Instead of providing 10 feet of setback we are utilizing an ornamental wall and
landscaping. College Avenue meets the criteria. Also, in order to preserve the
existing trees along the north section of the parking lot, we are jogging the new walk
to the west outside of the R.O.W.; an easement will be granted.
Topic: Elevations
Number: 127 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Need elevation details of trash enclosures. Need color rendered north and south
elevations of Building 1 and east and north elevations of Building 2.
included in the submittal
Number: 128 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/081 Consider revising your design for the north side of Building 3 to be a wider walk
with trees in grates separating peds from vehicles.
The cross grade on the north side of building # 3 is too steep to
accommodate the requested design.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Number: 129 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] How will the main entrance to Building 1 be lit? The lighting plan doesn't show
any building mounted light fixtures. Please add.
`� We have added a building mounted light at the main entrance. See
photometric diagram.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 78 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] Do not see on Site Plan. Unable to comment for Plat until I review drawing.
[7/29/081 The following note shall be added to the Site Plan and Plat at final review:
For allowable uses within a buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code
.LAcknowledged
Payo3
a
Number: 123 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Once the prehearing issues have been addressed, you can contact me to
schedule your administrative hearing. I'll need 2 sets of the full site, arch, landscape and
lighting planset plus 2 plats. Remember to include 2 sets of the color rendered elevations
and special height review materials.
Number: 124 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] As of the staff review. the pre -hearing issues are as follows:
+Engineering needs the LOI
+Engineering needs the application and TDRF fees
+Planning and Transportation Planning need the ped LOS situation addressed (which we
saw a draft of at staff review).
+Planning needs special height review materials.
+All the Stormwater pages need to reflect the site as currently mapped.
+Adjust design of the south parking lot nose to eliminate traffic conflict.
+Adjust design of Choice Center Drive to reflect a drive approach and/or submit a variance
to go over 750sf of drainage.
UNDERSTOOD
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 21 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/23/08] I'm still not seeing any context to the north towards Prospect. We need to see the
buildings and the proposed pedestrian connection from your site to Prospect. Please add
this to your site plan or as a separate exhibit.
A letter of intent and diagram are included in the submittal packet.
Number: 73 Created: 7/28/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/28/08] 1 am concerned about the plaza design. The walkways are narrow given how
many students will be coming and going on them and there aren't areas to eat or bbq or sit
and read. Clark Mapes suggested looking at the University Village courtyards on campus
for ideas.
We have modified the plaza design accordingly.
Number: 100 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] Since your last submittal, Building 2 parking lot no longer meets dimensional
standards. The drive aisle must be 24 feet wide and overhang can only happen where there
is sufficient clear walkway beyond. On the north side, you will be left with just 4 feet of
walkway, and yet your main (and only) entrance to Building 1 spills everyone out onto this
sidewalk. This does not make sense.
Fjoppqx-w_We have added wheel stops in the parking lot and reserved these 4 spaces
for compact cars only. The main entrance to building #1 is actually further to the
north.
PaL,e
0
r, mak STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of Fort Collins
Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design
153 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Date: 9/29/2008
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Choice Center Mixed -Use Redevelopment PDP- TYPE
I, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic:
General
Number: 77 Created: 7/28/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/28/08] For the Choice Center Drive elevations to be pedestrian friendly as was intended,
additional design features need to be incorporated like additional entries, porticos, perhaps
metal awnings or trellises. This is not a requirement per code but a suggestion.
NOTED
Number: 95 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] The following departments or agencies have no further concerns with the
proposed project: Comcast, PFA, Water Conservation.
THANK YOU
Number: 96 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] 1 have made minor edits to the request to increase occupancy. Please see
redlines.
NOTED
Number: 97 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] 1 know you are interested in scheduling the hearing as soon as possible. We will
do our best to accommodate your request. Please be aware that I need one full week to
write the staff report and the hearing officer needs one full week to review the staff report. If
we overlap staff review, I'll need to be sure to have all items for the hearing no later than 2
weeks prior to the hearing (including the special height review items, north and east color
rendered elevations for Building 2) so that I will have time to review the project and write the
staff report concurrently. I have sent a letter via email to Walker and JSD spelling out what
staff members have indicated must be done prior to hearing. I have also sent a letter dated
9/17/08 to Walker and JSD reiterating that Capstone assumes all risk taking this project to
hearing prior to FEMA approval. If FEMA requires changes that affect the site plan, at best,
you'll need to request a minor amendment or at worst, you'll need to go back through staff
review and public hearing again.
UNDERSTOOD
Page 1