The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - PDP - 6-10 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSNumber:14 Created: 3/10/2010 [3/io/io] Elevations: Elevations need to comply with section 3.53 of the Land Use Code. In my opinion this does not blend with the architecture of the area... no stone, no brick, very few Windows. It resembles an industrial type use building. OZ response to item 14_Please reference the response to items 23 and 24 and the beginning of the document. Be sure and return all -red -lined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6342. Of particular note is General Comment #85, page 2 regarding the ultimate property line and the Planning & Zoning Board hearing on April 151h Yours Truly, Steve Olt City Planner CC: Ron Kechter, Operations Services Marc Virata Craig Foreman AECOM Northern Engineering CDNS file #6-io Page 25 Number: 5 Created: 3/10/203.0 [3/io/io] I don't see any handicapped parking spaces being called out. Please show their location and note their dimensions. NOTE -. HC spaces need an HC sign at the head of the space between 3 and 5'tall. OZ response to item 5: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Number: 6 Created: 3/10/2010 [3/io/3.o] Please note on the site plan where Type A and Type B fences will be located. Plans only state "Proposed Fence" but not what type. AECOM response to item 6: Noted in legend Number: 7 Created: 3/10/2010 [3/io/2o] Note the building dimensions and setbacks to property line on site plan. AECOM response to item 7: These are dimensioned from the southwest quadrant of the building to the west and south property lines on sheet SDi.3 Number: 8 Created: 3/3-0/2010 13/10/101 Just a suggestion: Strategically place some more benches along the walking paths. I only see a couple of them called- out nearthe entrance of the building. AECOM response to item 8:.Noted and addressed in conjunction with comment #39 page z. A stronger pedestrian presence at the west entry is reinforced with additional seating. Number: g Created: 3/10/2010 [3/zo/io] Trash dumpster and recycle bins need to be within an enclosure, constructed to match the main building. OZ response to item 9: An enclosure for the trash and recycle bins has been provided and will be constructed to match the main building. Number: io Created: 3/10/2010 .[3/io/io] Parking lot/drive aisles can't be gravel. Need to be of an approved hard surface. . AECOM response to item io: Addressed during review meeting as acceptable per PFA for north turnaround outside of parking area. Number: a Created: 3/20/2020 [3/io/io] Page LSi.3 Please add a note to the General Planting Notes regarding installation of landscaping prior to issuance of a CO. 12.1(p(4) AECOM response to item ii: Noted in General Planting Notes LSs.3 Number: iz Created: 3/10/2020 [3/10/10] Please label the streets on the landscape plan as you did on the Site Plan AECOM response to item 12: Noted Number:13 Created: 3/10/2010 [3/io/io] I'm questioning the large number of ornamental grasses that are being called out. Although the initial year they will look great, a year or two into their growth, I feel that it will just look overgrown and proper maintenance/thinning etc won't take place. . AECOM response to item 13: Noted. Ornamental grasses are being utilized where utility easements do not allow for deciduous shrub planting. Page 24 Number: 6o Created: 3/23/2010 13123/101 Is there a conflict at either of the points where the storm sewers cross the existing water main? NE response to item 6o: The proposed storm sewer crossing on the north side has been eliminated and any potential vertical conflicts for proposed storm sewer on the south side will be addressed in final compliance. Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/10] Is a separate irrigation tap planned? NE response to item 61: Yes a separate irrigation tap is being proposed. Number: 62 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] Label the invert elevation of the sewer service connection to the manhole. NE response to item 62: The proposed invert elevation has been added to drawings. Number: 63 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] Re-route the gas line to eliminate the low angle crossings of the existing sanitary sewer. NE response to item 63: The proposed gas line has been realigned at the existing sanitary sewer crossings: Number: 64 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/20] See redlined utility plans for other comments. NE response to item 64: Noted. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: ZONING Number: i Created: 3/20/2010 [3/2o/2o] Sheet SDi:3 - A 7' building envelope in referenced. Would like to see it noted on the plan all around the building - A dashed line would be fine to differentiate that from the building envelope. AECOM response to item is Addressed in printing Number: 2 Created: 3/10/2010 [3/io/2o] Please remove.topo lines from final site plan AECOM response to item 2: Noted, will remove topo from final compliance drawings on site plan. Number: 3 Created': 3/10/2010 [3/io/io] What are the dimensions of the bus/RV parking space along the east side. AECOM response to item 3: Added, dimensions, see plans Number: 4 Created: 3/10/2010 13/10/201 On the site plan please darken up the lines denoting the parking stalls.... Very faint. OZ response to item 4: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Page 23 Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic Stormwater Number: 53 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/2o] The flows for the southern half of the site do not have volume water quality treatment.per initial discussions with Stormwater staff. A low flow pipe was discussed to carry the flows to the water quality pond on the north side of the building. NE response to item 53: The proposed bio-swales shown along the south side of site will be designed according to USDCM Volume 3 criteria for a PLD. Preliminary calculations have been completed which show a 3.2-hour required volume of o:oy ac-ft which has been. met with the preliminary grading plan as discussed with Basil Harridan, Glen Schlueter, and Wes. Lamarque. Number: 54 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] Riprap rundowns are no longer allowed as shown from the north drive loop into the water quality pond. This can be a concrete chute, or an inlet with a pipe extending to the toe of slope. NE response to item 54: The proposed riprap rundown has been replaced with a drainage inlet and storm pipe. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 55 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] It's my understanding that portions of the 12-inch water main have NOT been located. Has the main been located at the tie-in points? NE response to item 55: The existing 12-inch water line has been field located in a couple of places by the City.. Notes will be added to drawings at connection points where exact location is not known. Number: 56 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/2o] The Utility does not have 2.5-inch water meters. Either 2-inch or 3-inch meters are available. The water service from the main through the meter pit must be the same size as the meter. At a point 5 feet downstream of the meter, the service size may be increased to minimize hydraulic losses. NE response to item.56: The drawings have been revised to reflect a 2-inch water meter. Number: 57 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] Move the location of the meter pit as noted on the plans. NE response to item 57;. The water meter location has been- revised. Number: 58 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] Show and label the curb stop which must be within 2 feet ofthe meter pit. NE response to item 58: The proposed curb stop has been labeled. Number: 59 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] Include the storm sewer shown in the north part of the site on the overall utility plan: NE response to item 59: The proposed storm sewer north of the site has been added to utility plan sheet Page 22 Number: ioo Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/io] Please add the note redlined on the Landscape plan sheet LSi.3 AECOM response to item soo: Added, see plan LS3..3 Number: io2 Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/zo] Please verify RR elevation vs. College Ave elevation. Use higher of low points. Please see conceptual comment #2. NE response to item ioi: The top of the existing railroad along the north side will be surveyed in final compliance to verify existing elevations (the city's two foot aerial topo shows the existing railroad elevation along the north side to be.4964-feet). Based on our current topographic - information the top of the existing railroad along the south side is 4969-feet. Also as we have previously mentioned and shown on our drawings the highest elevation along the lowest part of College Avenue is 4964.6-feet and since the lowest proposed building finish floor elevation is 4973- feet we are confident that in case of.floodwater backing up the floodwaters will overtop College Avenue before flooding the proposed building. Any additional revisions to drainage report in regards to the above information will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Glen Schlueter and Marsha Hilmes Robinson. Number:102 Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/io] Please revise number and dates for the FEMA map references on the plat and in the text of the drainage report. NE response to item 1.02: FEMA map references have been updated on the plat. Number:103 Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/io].Please see Flood plain Review checklist for items not found on plans or drainage report. NE response to item s03: Items on Floodplain Review Checklist will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marsha Hilmes Robinson. Number: zoo Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/io] A no -rise floodplain certification is required forthe wetland concept plan since it is in the floodway. AECOM response to item 204: The concept plan referred to was not pursued or submitted with the PDP for review Number: 1o5 Created: 3/26/2010 [3/26/io] It is suggested in the Wetland Concept Plan to move the foot bridge out of the floodway if possible so you do not have to deal with a breakaway design and a no -rise certification. AECOM response to item io5: The concept plan referred to was not pursued or submitted with the PDP for review. No footbridges are designed for this submittal. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger. Buffington Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 65 treated: 3/23/203.0 [3/23/101 Show water/sewer lines more predominantly on the landscape plan and add a note regarding the separation distance requirements of plantings from water/sewer lines (Trees so feet, Shrubs 4 feet). AECOM response to item 65: Lineweight addressed in printing and notes added, see plan LS2.3 Page 21 Number: 47 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] BNSF Railway will need to sign the plat for the easement vacation, or be vacated by separate document. City of Ft. Collins response to item 47: BNSF Railway will be added as a signature on the plat, if it is determined by the research being done by the City Attorney's Office that it is necessary. Number: 48 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] What is the Union Pacific RR ROW area across our property? It is not defined. NE response to item 48: Property line along Union Pacific (UP) Railroad has been revised to exclude UP right-of-way. Number: 49 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] Has Mason Street been vacated? City of Ft. Collins response to item 49: Please see Item #83 above: NE response to item 49: A note has been added to plat regarding the vacation of Mason Street as discussed with Wally Muscott. Number: 56 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] The subtitle of the plat needs to be revised.(See plat) NE response to item 5o: The subtitle of the plat has been revised. Number: 51 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/10] Please define the type of the 2o' easement alignment on the north side of the property. NE response to item 51: The 20-foot utility alignment will be defined in final compliance. Number: 52 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] Does the City have title to the triangular parcel between the BNSF, UPRR & Cherry Street? City of Ft. Collins response to item 52: Yes, the City does have title to the triangular piece of property to the South. Topic: Site Plan Number: 42 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/3.o] The site plans have line over text issues. AECOM response to item 42: Corrected, see plans Number: 43 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/101 The site plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or scan well. OZ response to item 43: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number: 99 Created: 3/26/2020 [3/26/io] Please show floodplain lines more prominently on the Site Plan sheet SD3..3 AECOM response to item 99: Addressed in printing Page 20 Number: 67 Created: 3/23/203.0 [3/23/1o] The TIS and project plans are not consistent. Please reconcile so project plans and TIS are consistent. Pedestrian crossing improvements may not be required based on the Pedestrian Level of Service criteria; however improving the crossing Level of Service would,be advantageous given the use and proximity tnthe Transit Center. An enhanced crosswalk similar to Maple and Mason would improve the Level of Service without interfering with a future left turn lane from Cherry onto Mason Fox Higgins response to item 67: See response to Traffic Operations comment item ig. Number: 68 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] ADA ramps are not shown on plans. Please show ADA ramps. NE and AECOM response to item.68: The proposed handicap ramps are shown on drawings. Number: 69 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/101 Suggest contacting DK Kemp the bicycle coordinator at dakemp@fcgov.com regarding input on bicycle rack style and quantity of bicycle parking facilities. There is an opportunity to develop a design that is unique to the Discover Science Center. Bicycle rack needs to be closer to entrance. Current location is further away than vehicle parking. With current location cyclist will park in areas not intended for bike parking. Any changes that address Clark Mapes comments on building entrance orientation may affect the location of the bicycle rack. AECOM response to item 69: DK was contacted and provided city standard racks as well as contact information for local design builder should a custom rack be pursued in the future. The standard "high roller" rack is now shown on the plans. Additionally, bike parking capacity was increased to 30. Department: Technical Services Topic: Landscape Plan Issue Contact: Jeff County Number: 44 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] The landscape plans have linework that is too light, and will not.copy orscan well. OZ response to item 44: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Number: 45 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/io] The landscape plans have line over text issues. AECOM response to item 45: Corrected; see plans Number: 46 Created: 3123/2010 [3/23/3-0) There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.i. AECOM response to item 46: Corrected, see plans Topic: Plat. Number: 40 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/1o] The boundary & legal close. NE response to item 40: Noted. Number: 41 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] The emergency access easement on the plat, needs to be defined. NE response to item 41: The Emergency Access Alignment will be defined in final compliance Page 19 the future and you be required to install an amplification system at that time, when it would cost less to do it now. Please contact Ron Gonzales at PFA, 219. 5316. OZ Response to item 95: The Design Team has contacted Ron Gonzales and started the coordination effort in orderto test the building at the appropriate stage of construction to verify if an amplification systen-Hs required: Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Trafiic Number: ig Created: 3/19/2010 [3/3.9/io] The TIS states "another pedestrian improvement that should be considered as part of the Museum project development is the installation of additional crossing improvements across Cherry Street in the eastern crosswalk of the Cherry/Mason street intersection." Please provide discussion and analysis of the impacts and mitigations that may be involved to provide the additional improvements this project should fund. That review should include as a minimum the impacts to westbound traffic flow, The need for a west bound left turn lane at Mason upon conversion to 2- way traffic, would changes to the median drive further changes due to the existing RR gate structure and possible setback requirements, and ped volume analysis of the future ped volume the project will generate that warrants the project funding these additional improvements. Fox Higgins response to item ig: This comment relates to a recommendation in the Draft Traffic Impact Study that suggested consideration of crosswalk enhancements across Cherry Street in the eastern crosswalk of the Mason/ Cherry intersection. This recommendation was made, in part based on prior communications with and comments by staff where. crossing enhancements of Cherry Street were discussed. Since the staff comments were provided we have had additional communication with Ward Stanford, and understand that staff has concerns regarding the traffic operational impacts along Cherry Street of a raised median or an enhanced treatment such as a HAWK signal, particularly given.the proximity to the railroad crossing and the future conversion of Mason Street to two-way traffic. Since then we have estimated that there will. be only 8 to to pedestrians per hour using this crosswalk during the peak museum access -times. A relatively low volume such as this would not typically warrant the installation of a.pedestrian signal or a raised median.refuge, particularly when the Pedestrian Level of Service in the area is LOS A. On this basis we have revised our recommendation for this crosswalk to include restriping of the faded crosswalk pavement markings and relocation of the eastbound pedestrian crossing location sign to the east side of the intersection (currently on the west side of the intersection where there is no marked crosswalk across Cherry St). With these improvements in place, we recommend that the City monitor pedestrian crossings and safety issues in this area to determine if more aggressive pedestrian crossing treatments are warranted in the future. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 66 Created:3/23/2020 [3/23/3-0] Suggest contacting Daz Bog to discuss parking. City of Ft. Collins response to item 66: The project team is working on possible_ solution for parking for Daz Bog that will be presented to the owner. However, it must be understood that the parking. that Daz Bog customers are currently using on City property has been done without any agreement between the City and Daz Bog. Page 18 NE response to item 89: The labeling was changed from'easement" to "alignment". Number: go Created: 3/24/2010 FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AREA: Thank you for the area on the west side of the building where we can operate fire apparatus. To improve this, here are my suggestions: "Strengthen" the language on the site.plan and write something like "22x6o Clearance for PFA Apparatus Access Area" (without the quotes). AECOM response to item go: Strengthened, see plans and section I suggest we also make this part of the Emergency Access Alignment, to prevent museum folks from erecting outdoor displays and blocking our apparatus access. NE response to item go: The drawings have been revised to show the proposed 22-ft x 6o-ft PFA Apparatus Access Area within the Emergency Access Alignment. - This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions). OZ Response to item go: Noted Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area. OZ Response to item go: Noted Number: 91 Created:3/24/2oso FACP: Your note should say that the fire alarm control panel will be located in the fire riser room, not fire entry room. The NE door,that provides access to the FRR shall be labeled on the exterior of the building, "Fire Riser Room" (no quotes). Please get with me for specific size and color of sign. OZ response to item gi:.The Design Team will make sure that we will label the room Fire Riser Room as noted in the comment above and will. review the text and sign size and color with the Poudre Fire Department. Number: 92 Created: 3/24/2020 FACP MAIN ENTRY: Per previous discussions, we will require a full -function FACP located near the main entrance to the building. OZ response to item 92: The FACP is located in the northeast corner of the building. Remote access will be.available at the entry.. . Number: 93. Created: 3/24/2010 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Your note regarding the. FDC location is confusing. You were responding as if you were commenting on fire hydrants. There is only ONE FDC. Please label the FDC and the fire line coming into the building. OZ response to item 93: This will be labled in the architectural floor plans Number: 94 Created: 3/24/2010 EXISTING HYDRANT: Please show and label the existing fire hydrant on Mason Court. OZ response to item 94: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Number:95 Created: 3/24/2010 RADIO AMP SYSTEM: I'm concerned about the SF of the building (-47,288 SF) in relation to our requirement for public -safety radio amplification (5o,000 SF). I don't want this to be brought up in Page 17 Number: 8o Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/io] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be reserved to become public right-of-way). NE response to item 8o: The reservation of public right-of-way along Mason Court if desired by the City will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata. Number: 83 Created: 3/24/203.0 [3/24/io] Technical Services has raised the question as to whether the original Mason Street north of Cherry has ever been vacated. If this is truly right-of-way, given the conveyance of the property to the Discovery Museum, we should probably check with the City Attorney's Office on whether this portion potentially being right-of-way and then conveyed to the Discovery Museum is problematic ornot. Should that be viewed as problematic, a vacation process of Mason Street should perhaps proceed as soon as possible. City of Ft. Collins response to item 83: It is my understanding that Gary with North Engineering, Don with Land Title and Wally with Technical Services have determined a resolution for this vacation of the Mason Street Right -of -Way. Topic: TIS Number: 82 Created: 3/23/2010 13/23/101 Should through the conclusion of the analysis of the TIS result in some sort of pedestrian crossing improvement on Cherry Street, the design and specifications of such an improvement will . . need to be shown on the constriction and site plan drawings. Fox Higgins response to item 8z:. It is anticipated that the recommended crosswalk marking reapplication will be accomplished by City crews to City standards. We also anticipate that the recommended sign relocation will be accomplished by City crews. If necessary, a note detailing these recommendations can be added to the appropriate plan sheet forthis project. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz Topic: Light. & Power Number: 37 Created: 3/23/203.0 13/23/101 Due to asbestos contamination in the area additional construction costs will apply. OZ response to. item 37: This item does not appear to require a response but the warning has been noted. Number: 38 Created: 3/23/2010 Remove landscaping around existing electric equipment and proposed new transformer. Maintain a clearance of 8' from operating doors and 3' from sides of equipment. See provided sketch for removal areas. AECOM response to item 38: Corrected, see plans Department: PFA Topic: Fire Number:89 Issue Contact: Carie Dann Created: 3/24/2010 EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS: Instead of an Emergency Access Easement, please label it an Emergency Access Alignment. All other parameters/requirements for the Emergency Access Easement provided at conceptual review still apply. Page 16 indicated on the TDR fee application. Given that there may be some changes reducing the area being platted, there could be some savings to offset the additional amount owed. City of Ft. Collins response to item 96: After this Friday, when we determine the actual boundaries of the Discovery Museum property, we will work with Engineering to determine the final amount of the TDR fee. Number: 97 Created: 3/25/2020 [3/25/io] The following are the items that I believe should be resolved priorto the public hearing for the project: * #72/#72 - either a letter of intent from UP Railroad/Mason Street North, LLC or revise the drawings to no longer show work being done outside of the property. NE response to items 71 & 72: A proposed retaining wall has been located along the east property line to prevent grading on railroad property. Ron Kechter will be providing the "Letter of Intent" for offsite storm sewer connection along Mason Court. * #79 - the establishment of the platted boundary (as a result of the staff review discussions), reflected on all the drawings. City of Ft. Collins response to item 79 — This issue will be completely resolved through a meeting of the parties this Friday, April 2, 2020. * #82 -further follow-up on the findings of the TIS with direction on whether the need for a crossing improvement on Cherry Street is needed,(and if so, what will it be and how/who will. construct?) or the findings of.the TIS are amended or changed to indicate the improvement isn't required. Fox Higgins response to item 82: See response to Traffic Operations comment item 19. The current recommendation is to reapply the faded crosswalk marking and to relocate one existing sign to better identify the crosswalk on the east leg of the Cherry / Mason intersection. It is likely that these recommendations can be accomplished as part of normal roadway, maintenance operations by City crews. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 81 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/10] It appears that st reet trees aren't being provided along the Cherry, Mason,. and College fronting the property?. AECOM response to item 81: Corrected, see plans Topic: Plat Number:_79 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/1o] The platted boundary seems to show areas -that may require the signature of one or both railroad companies on the plat. Confirmation from the appropriate City attorney who will be certifying the plat should be coordinated as soon as possible to understand what may be needed from the railroad companies in order to meet the requirements forthe City attorney to sign off on the plat. The indication of a railroad easement to be vacated by this plat appears to be odd if intending to truly "vacate" as this would imply signature from that railroad company being needed. City of Ft. Collins response,to item 79: BNSF Railway will be added as a signature on the plat, if it is determined by the research being done by the City Attorney's Office that it is necessary Page 15 should meet with the consultant team to verify what the requirements will be for a final approval for grading only. NE response to item 76: A rough grading permit will no longer be required. Number:77 Created:3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on.this project, with the additional Cherry Street frontage west of that portion also needing to be included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the frontage on Mason Court. City of Ft. Collins response to item.77: We will work with Engineering to determine the amounts of the repays for Cherry Street, both along the triangular property and the property to the West: We will also work with the developer of Mason Street North for the frontage on Mason Court to determine the repay amounts there. The property along College Avenue will be removed from the project Plat, since it has no value to the project,.so there will be no repay involved there. Number: 78 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] As a heads -up, per an earlier email I had sent on 2/3/2010, the following approach shall be used in lieu -of a development agreement for the project: - A development agreement will not be done for the project. City of Ft. Collins response to item 78: We will work with Engineering to determine the appropriate language to place on the Plat that will cover what is normally in the Development Agreement. - Instead of a DA, needed provisions that would have been in a development agreement will be placed on the plat. City of Ft. Collins response to item 78: We will work with Engineering to determine the appropriate language to place on the Plat that will cover what is normally in the Development Agreement. - These provisions needing to be placed on the plat are specific to concerns regarding ongoing maintenance/"running with the land" types of provisions. Items that would pertain to construction of the development should not be included. NE response to item 78: The provisions and special conditions language will be added to plat in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata. - There are a few standard conditions in the typical development agreement that will be included on the plat after consultation with Paul. I'm also understanding that there will be special condition type language added to the plat pertaining to at least stormwater and natural areas. Finally repays for public streets fronting the project would likely need to be included on the plat. NE response to,item 78: The provisions and special conditions language will be added.to plat in . final compliance: as discussed with Marc Virata. Number: 96 Created: 3/25/2010 [3/24/101 Sheri Langenberger calculated an additional $573.25 required for the TDR fee (see attached) based upon mainly the finding of a higher building square footage than what was Page 14 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 71 Created: 3/23/2020. [3/23/io] The project shows offsite grading work on what appears to be UP Railroad property. The. offsite work would require a letter of intent from UP priorto scheduling a public hearing per the PDP submittal requirements. Alternatively, the project could be designed to show no off -site work which would then negate the letter of intent requirement. NE response to item 71: A proposed retaining wall has been located along the east property line to prevent grading on railroad property. Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the sidewalk maintenance? City of Ft. Collins response to item 72: A letter of intent will be obtained from the Mason Street North, LLC that will also address sidewalk maintenance. Number: 73 Created: 3/23/2010 13/23/101 Please indicate on the construction and site plan drawings the width of the sidewalk along Mason Court that is to be added. AECOM response to item 71: This sidewalk will not be added per discussions with parks and advanced planning. See response to Number 15, item #2. Number: 74 Created: 3/23/2010 13/23/101 Please show the drive approach out to Mason Court being in concrete to the back of sidewalk (this should also be reserved out on the plat as right-of-way). NE response to item 74: The proposed driveway was revised to reflect being all concrete to.back of walk. The reservation of public right-of-way along Mason Court if desired by.the City will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata. Number: 75 Created: 3/23/2010 .[3/23/10]. The use of a 25' radius for the drive approach onto Mason Court is required to be 15' per Table 8-2 of LCUASS. The radius should be reduced (as a suggestion, if the driveway intersected Mason Court closer to go degrees, the turning movement off Mason Court would perhaps be smoother.) AECOM response to item 75: A 25' radius is allowable per review of LCUASS with civil engineer. The added radius is required to facilitate turning for emergency PFA vehicle to north bike trail from Mason Court. NE response to item 75: The 25-foot radii were used for a WB-65 (per client' request) truck turning movement. If a variance for the larger radius is required it will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata. Number: 76 Created: 3/23/2010 [3/23/1o] There may be a desire by the developer's consultant.to seek separate entitlements of first rough grading for the property, and then the remaining utilities, hardscape, building, and final grading with a second entitlement. This appears to be possible, though an expanded City staff Page 13 Number: 21 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/ig/io] Site Plan, Sheet SDi.3: * Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is legible. There are numerous things that are not readable. OZ response to item 21-This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. * The entries into the building, on all sides, are difficult to find on this plan. OZ response to item 21: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. * Please better delineate the dividing line between the asphalt paving and the gravel paving for the driveway on the east/northeast side of the building. AECOM response to item 21: Corrected, see plans * There is fiber optic cable in an easement running diagonally through the south end of the property. Is this facility intending to connect to and utilize this cable? NE response to item 2i: At this time the need for fiber optic services are not known. * A detail or details is/are needed forthe retaining walls on the west side of the building. AECOM response to item 2i: Noted, to be addressed in final compliance * If striping is proposed for the pedestrian crosswalk at the entry drive to the facility, the question is: Could more substantial.enhancement be provided here? Fox Higgins response to item 21: Please see response to item ig on page i1 * There is no intent to physical control (gate, etc.) entry into the facility's parking lot, is this correct? ' OZ response to item 21: That is correct. * Will the amount of building, walls, and patio as shown be allowed within the too' wetland buffer? AECOM response to item 21. Yes, a review with Environmental Planner Dana Levitt in conjunction with the natural features buffer line and zone identified in resubmittal allow for the design as submitted. * Does the too' wetland buffer actually end in the planting area at the southwest corner of the building, as shown? AECOM response to item 21: Yes, the buffer ends at the Howes outfall structure however, at the request of the environmental planner references to the too' buffer have been removed from plans and replaced with "Natural Features Buffer Line" to combine the bike trail grading offset, buffer and river setbacks into a limit of Natural Features Buffer Zone per Environmental PDP redlines. * The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled as to what they are, presumably storm drains. AECOM response to item 21: Corrected see plans Page 12 5. 'The parking needs for park and trail users will be addressed at a later date since the programming of the Discovery Museum is unknown at this time. Once the programming and associated parking needs are more defined; then the ability for shared parking for park and trail user can be determined. OZ response to item 15(5): Agreed. 6. Staff is working with Ingrid in the City Attorney's Office to determine the legal for the Discovery Museum building and affected land around the building for its "lot OZ response to item 15(6): This item does not appear to require a response. 7. Park Maintenance will work with the Discovery Museum team on documentation as to "who does what" on the landscape areas around the building and improvements, such as boardwalks, etc., for their long term operation and maintenance. City of Ft. Collins response to item 15(7): Parks Maintenance and the Discovery Museum will develop a written agreement as to the responsibilities for landscape operation and maintenance within the Museum boundaries. Topic: Site Plan Number:18 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/19/io] Several things under LAND USE DATA on the Site Plan cover sheet: * . Zoning is POL & CCR (unless the triangular area between the railroad tracks & Cherry Street and the area between the parking lot and North College Avenue area removed from the within property boundary). Nothing is proposed in either of the aforementioned areas except trees in the triangular area. The only thing to be aware of in the CCR District is Section 4.2o(D)(4)(a) Landscaping/Vegetation 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 the site and landscape improvements." It might be a stretch to say that this triangular area, at the corner of Cherry Street and North College Avenue, is in the "River corridor". AECOM response to item 18: In a review with the projects city representative, Ron Kechter, the project was confirmed to be POL with the exception of the appendage to the East that we will be eliminating from the Plat and the triangle, which we will be retaining, but with only landscaping and street trees showing in our submission. * The Gross Land Area and the Net Land Area.numbers appear to be reversed. The Net is larger than the Gross as shown. AECOM response to item 18: Corrected, see plans Number: 20 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/ig/io] Overall Site Plan,.Sheet SD1.2:. * Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is legible. There are numerous labels for things that are not readable. OZ response to item 20: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. * Please distinguish between the 2 zoning areas (POL & CCR) on the plan. AECOM response to item 18: Corrected, also see previous response to number 18 Page 11 15. Add buffer zone distances to all sections on SDS.i. AECOM response to item 98 (15): Added only to sections relevant to the natural feature buffer zone, see SD5.1 16. Add tree protection notes to the Utility Plan set, sheet Cooi. NE response to item 98 (-6):: The tree protection notes have been added to sheet Cooz. 17. All comments can be addressed during Final Plan Review. AECOM response to item 98 (17): Noted Topic: Parks Planning Number: i5 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/i9/io] From: Craig Foreman, Park Planning and Development: 1. Lee Martinez Community Park Sign -Staff has been working with the development team to site a new sign for the park in the appropriate location off Cherry Street. The site proposed for the sign appears to have a conflict with a proposed telecom line. A storm water line in the location may be able to be worked around. The proposed relocation of the sidewalk running east/west in this area needs to remain at existing location. This sidewalk will need a flat connection, maximum 30h, to the proposed re -graded trail running north/south. Discussion needs to continue on this important sign forthe park. NE and AECOM response to item 3.5 (i): The sidewalk alignment (existing and proposed) has been revised and the proposed telephone alignment has been revised in this area to allow ample room for proposed Community Park Sign. z. The sidewalk proposed between Cherry Street and the Discovery Center building has been discussed about becoming an attached walk along Disc. Court drive. This seemed to be a good decision and opens up some land for the Discovery sign. It is proposed the sidewalk be widened to io' from back of curb if attached, due to the amount of anticipated traffic and for snow removal. AECOM response to item i5 (i): In a follow up meeting with Clark Mapes and Kathleen Benedict it was decided to protect existing sidewalk alignment in place in lieu of re -designing to an attached io'curb. 3. The Discovery development team has been informed that they may be able to attach to the existing Lee Martinez irrigation system for their outdoor landscape water needs. This would be a cost savings to the project in having to establish a new tap for their landscape needs. This item can be coordinated with Bill Whirtyfor the physical connection and cost sharing items. AECOM. response to item i5 (3): Noted, City of Ft. Collins response to item 15(3): This connection to the irrigation system for Lee Martinez Park will be coordinated with Bill Whirty With Parks Maintenance. 4. The development team agreed to supply power for a light to new park sign from their electrical system. City of Ft. Collins response to item 3.5(4): The Discovery Museum project team will provide the requested power to the new sign for Lee Martinez Park, once the location has been determined. Page 10 5. Add the note "Refer to Section 3:4.i(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses in a buffer zone" to Plat, Site, Landscape and Utility Plans. AECOM response to item 98 (5): Added, see general landscape notes 6. Add Environmental Planner signature block to the following plans: Utility Plans, sheets C1oo, Czoo; C201, C300, C400 & C401 NE response to item 98(6): Environmental Signature line was added to all specified sheets. 7. All plant material in the buffer zones shall consist of native plant species common to the existing habitat. AECOM response to item 98 (7): Noted 8. Provide a separate plant list and seed list for the buffer zone plants. AECOM response to item 98 (8): Added, see LSi.3 g. Remove all Siberian Elm and Russian Olive trees within the buffer zone, excluding any wetlands areas. AECOM response to, item 98 (g): Noted and added per redlines 1o: Additional plant material is required between the bike trail and the edge of the wetlands to enhance the buffer zone such that the landscape improvements, along with the removal of nuisance trees, performs equal to or better than the performance standards in Section 3.4.1(E) of the LUC. AECOM response to item 98 (1o):.Noted and added per redlines: Clarification with Environmental Planner on 3-26-203.0 for the proposed re -vegetation density was to replant trees and shrubs atan equal or greater density of:the existing cottonwoods and understory in the natural feature buffer zone between the bike trail and the wetland edge. That density was field verified to be a total of six cottonwood -trees and three understory shrubs. Verification of buffer planting requirements based on field conditions is requested of the Environmental Planner prior to FDP — see comment 17 ii. Lighting shall not extend into the buffer zone. . MEG response to item 98(11): Pole lights near the buffer zone will be equipped with a house side shield to prevent light from entering the buffer zone.. iz. The z parking lot pole mounted lights next to the natural feature and buffer zone are required to have a house side shield on the fixture. Provide product information on the fixtures. MEG response to item 98(12): Pole lights near the buffer, zone will be equipped with a house side shield to prevent light from entering the buffer zone. A fixture cut -sheet will be provided. 13. Remove references to the 300' Poudre River buffer and the ioo' wetland buffer from all plans. AECOM response to item 98 (13): Noted, wetland buffer removed from plans. Soo' river buffer reference to be removed by FDP pending clarification of reviewer's intent — see comment 17 14. Provide construction details for proposed fences adjacent to natural feature buffer zones. AECOM response to item 98 (14): Noted, to be addressed in FDP Page 9 Number: 98 Created: 3/26/2010 Environmental Planner (Dana Leavitt) comments: 1. Add "Natural Feature Buffer Line" to the following plans: • Plat, sheets 1 & 2 • Site Plan, sheets SDi.2, SDi.3 AECOM response to item 98 (1): Added, see plans • Landscape Plan, sheets LSi.i, LSi.2, LSi.4 AECOM response to item 98 (1): Added, see plans • Utility Plans, sheets Cioo, C2oo, C201, C3oo, C400 & C401 • Lighting Plan MEG response to item 98(1): The buffer line will be added to the Lighting Photometric Plan. NE response to item 98(1): The proposed Natural Buffer Line and Zone were added to all specified sheets. 2. Add "Natural Feature Buffer Zone" in the buffer areas to the following plans: • Plat, sheets i & 2 • Site Plan, sheets SDi.2, SDI-3 AECOM response to item 98 (z): Added, see plans • Landscape Plan, sheets LSi.i, LSi.2, LS1.4 AECOM response to item 98 (2): Added, see plans • Utility Plans, sheets Cioo, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401 • Lighting Plan MEG response to item 98(2): The buffer line will be added to the Lighting Photometric Plan. NE response to item'98(2): The proposed Natural Buffer Line and Zone were added to all specified sheets. The Natural Feature Buffer line is to.include the Poudre River Soo' buffer, the wetland buffer (which is to be defined as the west edge of the bike trail) and the fox den buffer. Buffer lines are only shown on the project property. AECOM response to item 98 (2): Noted 3. Show the edge of the wetlands on all sheets. OZ response to item 98(3): This is a printing issue and will be.resolved for the re -submittal. 4. Add 'Limits -of -Development" (LOD) line per the full extent of development activities (from site, landscape and utility plans) on the following sheets: AECOM response to item 98 (4): Addressed in printing • Site Plan, sheets SD1:2, SDI-3 AECOM response to item 98 (4): Added, see plans • Landscape Plan, sheets LSi.i, LSi.2, LSi.4 AECOM response to item 98 (4): Added, see plans • Utility Plans, sheets Cioo, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C4oi NE response to item 98 (4): The "Limits of Disturbance" line was revised to be called out "Limits of Development" and is shown on all specified sheets. Page 8 Number: 31 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/201 Please add the required standard note about installing or securing the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy (see red -lined Landscape Plan, sheet #LSi.3). AECOM response to item 31: Corrected, see plans Number: 32 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/3.o] The fences are very difficult to see on the Landscape Plan. OZ response to item 32: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Number: 33 Created: 3/22/203.0 [3/22/101 Please label the adjacent streets, Mason Court and Cherry Street, on the Landscape Plan. AECOM response to item 33: Corrected, see plans Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/101 Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan. AECOM response to item 34: 'Added, see plans Number: 35 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/101 Please label the building (Fort Collins Discovery Museum) on the Landscape Plan. AECOM response to item 35: Added, see plans Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2020 [3/22/101 Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan. AECOM response to item 36: Added, see plans Number: 88 Created: 3/24/2010 [3124/101 Street trees (canopy shade trees) must be provided along the property's frontages on Cherry Street and Mason Court (at 30'to 40' spacings) per Section 3.2.2(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. Please see red -lined Landscape Plan sheet #LSi.4. AECOM response to item 88: Added, see plans Topic: Natural Resources Number: 87 Created: 3/24/2010 [3/24/10] Mark Sears of the Natural Resources Department offered the following comments: 1. The maintenance access road to the river.will need:to line up with the existing road north of the Poudre trail. NE response to item 87(i): The proposed maintenance road alignment has been revised to line up with the.existing maintenance road that is north of the existing Poudre Trail. 2. Could the water quality pond drain north in a pipe underthe maintenance road and then through a depressed area, perhaps a drainage swale and then in a pipe under the Poudre trail, then again in a Swale to the river? NE response to item 87(2): The outfall forthe proposed water quality pond north of the site has been revised to discharge north into the existing depressed area as recommended Page 7 Number: 85 Created: 3/24/2010 [3/24/l0] After lengthy discussion at staff review on Wednesday morning, March 24th, it was determined thatthe Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan could possibly go to the Planning & Zoning Board on April 15, 2010 if certain additional information is provided in a timely manner. However, there appears to be a significant difference of opinion between several City:departments and the development team about the property line for the Discovery Museum as currently shown on the Site Plan and Subdivision Plat and the ultimate property line. If this cannot be resolved soon it would be inappropriate for this development proposal to go to the Board in April. The issue could be difficult to resolve between PDP approval and Final Plan approval. City of Ft. Collins response to item 85-This issue will be completely resolved through a meeting of the parties this Friday, April 2, 2010. Number: 86 Created: 3/24/2020 [3/24/10] After further thought about documents to re -submit by Wednesday, March 31st (or as soon thereafter as possible) here are the numbers of each document: * 22 Site Plans * 8 Landscape Plans * 4 Building Elevations Plans * u Subdivision Plats * g Utility Plans OZ response to item 86: The requested drawings and comment responses will be submitted by the end of the day Wednesday, March 31st. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 27 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/201 Please bring the line weight forthe background information up slightly so that it is legible. It is difficult to identify the driveways andparking lots amidst the landscaping. OZ response to item 27: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal. Number: 28 Created:3/22/2010 [3/22/io] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling cannot be read very well: Please change. AECOM response to item 28: Corrected, see plans Number: 29 . Created: 3/22/203.0 [3/22/io] Please darken the line weights for the various items under the LEGEND. AECOM response to item 29: Corrected, see plans Number: 30 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/io] The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled as to what they are, presumably storm drains. AECOM response to item 30: Corrected, see plans Page 6 Number: 26 Created: 3/22/20i0 [3/22/101 Staff agrees with the analysis provided in the Special Height Review Request for the portions of the building in excess of 40' in height. The views to and through the site will be minimally impacted, with the view of only one small area of foothills from properties east of North College Avenue that wip be impacted. The shadows from the building will be completely contained on -site with the exception of g a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December list. In the morning there will be shadows cast over natural areas to the west and north of the building for short period of time; and, in the afternoon there will be shadows cast over a short stretch of railroad tracks, off -site to the east, for a short period of time. On -site lighting will be sensitive to the surrounding natural areas environment and no other buildings will be adversely affected by the shadows cast by the Discovery Museum building. The building will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and privacy will not be compromised by this facility. OZ response to item 25: This item does not appear to require a response. Topic: General Number: 16 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/3.9/io] Richard Stiverson of Owest indicated that they have no problems with or concerns about this development proposal. OZ response to item 16: This item does not appear to require a response. Number: 17 Created: 3/19/2010 [3/ig/io] Statement of Planning Objectives: NE response to item 17: Noted. * page io - "parking area contains 68 spaces"... Should this be 71 parking spaces? OZ response to item 17: The Statement of Planning objectives have been revised to state 71 spaces * pages io & ii - references 11 part-time employees as FTE's (being full-time employees). Is this not contradictory? OZ response to item 17: The Statement of Planning objectives document has been revised to call out part time employees separate from FTE's. Number: 22 Created: 3/19/2010. [3/ig/io] The property that the Discovery Museum will be located on is, and supposedly will continue to be, owned by the City of Fort Collins. This is indicated on the application and in the Statement of Planning Objectives. However, would it be possible to provide information about the actual operators of the facility? Also, what is/are the funding source(s) for the Discovery Museum? City of Ft. Collins response to item 22: —The property will continue to owned by the City of Fort Collins. The operators of the facility will be the Partnership comprised of the City of Fort Collins and the Non Profit Corporation, formerly the Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science Center. The sources of funding are: BOB (Building on Basics) City Tax Initiative, Grants and Corporate and Private Donations. Number: 84 Created: 3/24/2010 [3/24/io] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no problems with or concerns about this development proposal. NE response to item 84: Noted. Page 5 Example of metal panels to emphasize entry in Downtown Ft Collins SELECTIVE GLAZING: A primary role of the Museum is the preservation of Fort Collins history within controlled environments. The City of Fort Collins also requires a High-performance building. As a result, windows are necessarily somewhat restricted in quantity in order to. minimize harmful UV infiltration and solar gain. Windows are however selectively used in large expanses at key areas, including the South -facing public fa4ade and entries, where glazing is used in the entire ground floor, typical of Downtown Fort Collins storefronts. Full glazing at ground floor entry with non -reflective metal enclosure above entry. Number: 25 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/io] The heights of the various portions of the building will be consistent with existing and proposed buildings in the area. There are 2-story buildings, 3-story buildings, and 4-story buildings that provide similar heights to the 21'-6", 3o'-8", and 49'-o" heights proposed. The north building in Penny Flats, yet to be built, will be 5 stories in height, similar to the 58'-6" tower height on the Discovery Museum. OZ response to item 25: This item does not appearto require a response. Page 4 OZ response to items 23, AND 24: The design team's goal aligns with the objective stated in Section 3.5.i(B) that "new developments shall be compatible with the established architectural character"...with "a design that is complementary." With respect to the above staff comments, the submitted building design proposes to achieve this in the following manner: WALL MATERIAL The proposed building seeks to complement the masonry and storefront heritage of downtown with an exterior wall that combines glazing with architectural precast panels. Echoing the scale and rhythm of the area, these panels are io' wide. The panels are of a warm tone that compliment the brick, precast and stucco elements of the area. These precast panels be partially clad with a cable/wire system that supports the growth of vines. This is done to reflect the unique natural context within which the building sits, and will yield a fagade that further reflects its ever -changing natural context. METAL FEATURES The architecture of downtown Fort Collins includes many buildings that use metal as either accents within their facades ---or even as entire enclosures. This reflects the agricultural heritage of Fort Collins. Such structures are found in even closer proximity to the Downtown College Avenue core than the Discovery Museum site. As is typical of the area, the proposed building employs metal paneling in a strategic areas (approximately 8% of the entire enclosure) in order to highlight the facility's entry. This metal siding will be non -reflective, and detailed in a sophisticated mannerthat is consistent :itution that the Discovery Museum will be. Page 3 ktar 6++�Ra -r. Rt�• e�T. I Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Building Elevations Number: 23 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/io] The proposed Discovery Museum is a relatively contemporary building in this older part of Fort Collins. This comment relates to both the architectural design and the materials. There is a statement in Section 3.5.3.(B) Architectural Character that says: "New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary". Please provide a brief explanation of how this building complements other buildings in the area, or visa versa. Number: 24 Created: 3/22/2010 [3/22/io] The proposed building materials are as follows: * precast concrete * stucco * metal planting trellis * metal panels (gray) * spandrel glass Without a doubt there are existing buildings in the area containing precast concrete, stucco, and spandrel glass materials; however, are there any metal panels or metal planting trellises on buildings in the area? The metal planting trellises (with live greenery) up against the precast concrete walls is a good effect but the significant metal panels on the tower portions of the building may not be duplicated anywhere in the area. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Response to PDP Review comments 03/31/10 OZ Architecture Date: 3/26/2010 c/o David Schafer 1805 291h Street, #2054 Boulder, CO 80302 Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - TYPE 2, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Topic: Building Elevations Issue Contact: Clark Mapes Number: 39 Created: 3/23/2020 [3/23/1o] The building and site plan should have a much clearer and stronger pedestrian orientation to the corner of Mason Court and Cherry Street. That is by far the most important pedestrian linkage and corner. The building overtly de-emphasizes this relationship with the location of the entrance and the overall massing and design. Let's discuss this. OZ response to item 39: The proposed building and site features are designed to support a strong pedestrian connection to the Mason Street corridor. The building purposely steps down towards the West to create a welcoming pedestrian scale associated with existing and proposed paths. Further, over -sized walkways are directed to an entrance at this portion of the building. In response to the reviewers concern, this South-western entrance has been emphasized by repeating, at a more pedestrian scale, the forms and materials of the entry element. Hence above the glazing we propose a raised element, clad in metal, that signals this entry. Furthermore, in order to promote a welcoming pedestrian experience, we propose to increase the wall glazing that is adjacent this entry. AECOM response to item 39: In follow up meetings with AECOM, Clark Mapes with Advanced Planning and the citys Project manager Ron Kechter, a stronger pedestrian presence and connection from Mason Court is provided in revised plans. As a part of this pedestrian design improvement, the parking drive aisle width, bus drop off and parking stalls were reconfigured to preserve egress requirements for bus and emergency vehicles. Page I