HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - FDP - 6-10/A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSBe sure and return all red -lined plans if/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) 221-6750.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-10/A
Page 13
Number: 151 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD volume requirement was given a 20% contingency. This is only required
for extended detention calcs per volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Manual.
NE Response: The PLD volume has been revised to reflect no contingency.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 136 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Revise the note at the 2-inch water service connection as shown on the redlines.
NE Response: Note has been revised.
Number: 142 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The site wall on the west side of the building as shown on Sheet C300 does not
agree with Sheet S01. What is the shortest distance between the site wall and the 12-inch
water main? How accurate is the water main location in that area?
NE Response: The distance between proposed retaining wall and existing 12-inch water
line is approximately ten feet. The existing 12-inch water line has been located by the City
in a couple of places (please see pothole locations on sheet C100). Hensel Phelps will
locate the existing water line during construction to help prevent any constructability
problems
Number: 143 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Add lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
NE Response: Lengths have been added to water main and is reflected on drawings.
Number: 144 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] If the proposed water main is to be PVC, add Std Details 25 and 30.
NE Response: Standard details 25 and 30 have been added.
Number: 145 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Due to site topo and grading, provide a profile of the 8-inch water main.
NE Response: A profile for the proposed 8-inch water main has been provided.
Number: 147 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Storm line A must have all joints within 10 feet of the water main encased.
NE Response: Notes and details have been added to drawings to indicate concrete
encasement of proposed storm sewer at water main crossing.
Number: 152 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Delete Std Detail 26. The existing water main is NOT cathodically protected.
NE Response: Standard detail 26 was removed from plans.
Number: 153 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 See red -lined plans for other comments.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 154 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Return red -lined utility plans with the next submittal.
NE Response: Noted.
Pa"e 12
will be required at the time of the floodplain use permit and the post -construction information
will be required at the time of CO.
NE Response: The proposed two -rut maintenance road has been removed from drawings.
The existing north -south public trail that is situated west of the site will be used for city
maintenance. The existing 8-ft wide trail north of the proposed PFA apparatus area will be
modified to anew 10-ft wide heavy duty trail to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. If
necessary Hensel Phelps (general contractor) will provide a pre and post construction
survey of trail that is within the floodway to ensure that the elevations along the trail did not
change by more then 0.04feet (1/2 inch). Please see note 6 on sheet C101 and note 7 on
sheet C401.
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 130 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The Howes Outfall water quality study by Ayres will not be done at this time. Per
previous discussions, the portion of the site from the floodway line north should be
preserved for a future water quality pond.
NE Response: A note has been added to grading plan (sheet C401) and drainage/erosion
control plan (sheet C501) stating "area reserved for future regional water quality pond(s)".
Number: 131 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please provide a maintenance access road parallel to the trail from the end of the
fire access to the trail on the north. The maintenance access road can be a combination of
existing paved trail/ access road or a separate access road along side of the trail. Please
make the maintenance access road full width gravel and not just two wheel tracks to follow.
Some signage and gates may be needed to direct maintenance staff.
NE Response: A 10-foot wide public trail will be provided from PFA Apparatus Area north to
the existing Poudre Trail.
Number: 146 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please clarify if basin 6 is draining to the north or the south. The drainage calcs
show this basin draining to the north.
NE Response: Proposed basin 6 drains south into proposed roof drain system which then
drains north into proposed water quality pond on north side of the site.
Number: 148 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD water quality elevation should be at 71.80 in order to meet the volume
requirement. The PLD would still average less than 12-inches of depth, which is required.
Please revise.
NE Response: The PLD water quality elevation has been revised to meet volume
requirement.
Number: 149 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please revise the water quality elevation (Elev. B) on the water quality outlet
structure detail located on sheet C604 per redlines.
NE Response: The water quality elevation (elev. B) on the water quality outlet structure
detail has been revised.
Number: 150 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The proposed drainage calculations were not included in the report.
NE Response: The drainage calculations have been added to the drainage report.
Page 1 1
Number: 135 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad Company" is the wrong corporate
name. See redlines.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show "BNSF Railway".
Number: 137 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the "vacating railroad easement" say "per" rather than "by"?
NE Response: The term "by" has been replaced with "per" as shown on drawings.
Number: 138 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the word "existing" be added to Note #5 on the Subdivision Plat?
NE Response: The word "existing" will be added to note 5 on plat.
Number: 139 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Is the 5' existing utility easement along Cherry Street being vacated?
NE Response: This easement was recorded between Comcast and previous property
owner for and existing TV cable line that meanders back and forth along the property line so
this easement will not be vacated.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 140 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Please change the Railroad name to reflect the Subdivision Plat, on Sheet SD1.2
of the Site Plans.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show "BNSF Railway".
AECOM: Corrected. see SD1.2
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 157 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] The description of City of Fort Collins #461on Sheet C001describes the same
corner, but does not match Sheet C000.
NE Response: The benchmark callout on sheet C001 has been revised to match
benchmark callout on sheet C000.
Number: 158 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad" is the wrong corporate name.
Please change "Burlington Northern Railroad" to "BNSF Railway" on Sheets C100, C200,
C300, C400 & C500.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show "BNSF Railway".
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 164 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Please provide an erosion control surety calculation in the drainage report.
NE Response: Erosion control surety calculation has been provided.
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 159 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Since the maintenance access road crosses the floodway, a no -rise certification
will be required. This will involve pre- and post -construction survey to show that the grades
have not changed, along with a no -rise certificate (see floodplain forms website for a copy of
this form http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php). The pre -construction information
Paae 10
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 110 Created: 4/6/2010
[5/26/101
[4/6/10] Bicycle rack location has not been modified.
If the entrance for people arriving by walking or bicycling is at the South East corner of the
building or main entrance, the main bicycle rack location must be near this entrance. If it
makes sense to provide some bicycle parking at the South West corner of the building for
night meetings the above comment is not intended to exclude additional bicycle parking at
the South West corner of the building. One possible location suggested by Advance
Planning can be seen sketched on site plan. The Landscape Architect will likely have an
attractive solution that fits the desires of both the applicant and the City.
There is an opportunity to provide bicycle parking facilitates protected from rain and snow.
Suggest providing some means of protection from the elements as this destination will likely
have high visitation by individuals and families on bikes.
AECOM Response: The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 46 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/25/10] There is still what looks like cut off text on Sheet LS1.1 of the Landscape Plans.
[3/23/10] There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.1.
AECOM Response: Corrected, See LS1.1
Topic: Plat
Number: 132 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/251101 The boundary & legal close.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 133 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The Fort Collins Discovery Museum needs access to Mason Court. See redlines.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
Number: 134 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Why is the Union Pacific signing the Subdivision Plat?
NE Response: The UP Railroad signature line will be removed from plat as City will seek
approval with UP Railroad by separate agreement.
Page 9
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:
- 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.
Ron Kechter Response. An Emergency Access Alignment is being prepared for
recordation.
- This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
Ron Kechter Response: This will be accomplished with the Alignment.
- Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
Ron Kechter Response: In a meeting with Carie Dann, it was agreed that the signs shown
on the attached sign layout would be located at the positions shown on the attached sketch.
Number: 93 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] Please show FDC location.
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.
NE Response: The utility drawings have been revised to show the proposed FDC location
on building.
Number: 129 Created: 5/25/2010
Just a reminder that any vegetation within 3 feet of the FDC and hydrants should be no taller
than ground cover.
NE Response: Noted.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: General
Number: 156 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Bicycle rack location has not been modified. Bicycle rack must be near the
entrance. Please consult with the landscape architect for redesign and appropriate location.
If needed I am available to meet with the applicant to resolve this issue.
AECOM Response. The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 69 Created: 3/23/2010
AECOM Response: The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
Page 8
1) Change the 10 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project to Skymaster English
Oak.
AECOM Response: There were only 9 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project, all of
which have been changed to Skymaster English Oak
2) Change the 6 Hotwings Tatarian Maple along the northwest side of the building to
Wavy Leaf Oak (Quercus undulata).
AECOM Response: Changed: see plans
3) Change 3 Bigtooth Maple northwest of the building to Wavy Leaf Oak.
AECOM Response: Changed: see plans
4) Change 11 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry to either Saskatoon Serviceberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia) or to Cornelian Cherry Dogwood (Corpus mas).
AECOM Response: Changed 10 (not 11) Autumn Brilliance Serviceberries to Cornelian
Cherry Dogwoods, one Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry was changed to Wavy Leaf Oak to
meet the minimum species diversity standard (3.2.1 D 3).
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Erica Saunders
Topic: Genera/
Number: 155 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] The issue related to type "A" fencing has been resolved. City staff now agrees
that the fencing not be included.
AECOM Response: To clarify, this is in regard to the type "A" fencing previously required
west of the existing and proposed bike trail.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 89 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] The plans label the turnaround area as a gravel surface. To be able to
accommodate 40 tons, this may need to be recycled asphalt. Whatever material you use
must be able to accommodate 40 tons and be an all-weather surface.
NE Response: The PFA turnaround area pavement section will be changed to recycled
asphalt and pavement section detail will be added to drawings.
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.
NE Response: The term "easement" was changed to "alignment' on the previous submittal.
Number: 90 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] Please get together with me to discuss specific signage for this area, to convey to
the employees, public and firefighters that this area is to be unobstructed and used for
emergency vehicles.
Ron Kechter Response: In a meeting with Carie Dann, it was agreed that the signs shown
on the attached sign layout would be located at the positions shown on the attached sketch.
Page 7
Topic: Plat
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/10] With this area no longer falling within the boundary of the plat but still being
constructed outside of the platted boundary, isn't an easement required from Parks for the
construction, and should an alignment/area be established as well?
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] 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).
Number: 123 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] The plat shows various alignments as "to be dedicated by this plat". It should be
verified that a "dedication" is in fact occurring. I believe these alignments are more intended
to be shown as "notice" for.
NE Response: The "to be dedicated by this plat" language has been removed from plat.
Number: 124 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Maintenance and repair language should be added to the plat for the public
infrastructure being installed.
NE Response: The maintenance and repair language will be added to plat.
Number: 125 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] The placement of inset parking off Mason Court is a recent proposal since the
submittal of the plans, at the moment, verification hasn't been officially made with Traffic
Engineering on if there are concerns with this. From an Engineering perspective, should this
be allowed, the inset parking should be built in concrete, not asphalt. Will this parking be
proposed to be 2 hour parking? If so, this needs to be approved by Parking Services and will
there be sufficient room for placement of 2 hour parking signs? Finally, as previously noted,
would Parks have any concerns with this construction as it appears to fall within their
property.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
Number: 126 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Per Ingrid Decker, the railroad easement shown to be "vacated" should be
changed to "abandoned" per the language of that document.
NE Response: Language will be changed from "vacated" to "abandoned".
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
Number: 120 Created: 5/19/2010
[5/19/10]
To meet the minimum species diversity standard (3.2.1 D 3) no more than 15% of any one
species should be used. With 69 trees used on the project no more than 10 of a species
should be used. There are 4 species that exceed this number. This standard can be
achieved by making the following changes.
Page 6
Number: 169 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] The following agreements should be provided prior to approval of mylars (drafts of
these easements/agreements should be provided as soon as possible for review, which may
need review by Paul Eckman):
- The apparent existing access easement on Mason Street North LLC property.
Ron Kechter Response: The existing access easement for the storm sewer will be provided.
- The construction easement that will be needed from Mason Street North LLC property
to construct the sidewalk and storm connections within their property.
Ron Kechter Response: Review of this by Real Estate Services and the Attorney's Office
deemed that no Temporary Construction Easement was necessary for the sidewalk or the
storm sewer connection. We will provide notification to Mason Street North LLC of the
upcoming work.
The agreement with Parks to construct the inset parking proposed off Mason Court.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
- The agreement with Parks to construct and establish the legal right of the driveway that
goes out to Mason Court.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
- The agreement with Parks that allows the construction of the sidewalk, storm
connection, parking stalls, connecting walkway, landscape wall, and concrete
trail/emergency access.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
- The establishment of an emergency access alignment for the concrete trail/emergency
access (can be delayed until C.O.).
Ron Kechter Response: This will be done.
- The agreement from Union Pacific Railroad for the offsite construction on their
property.
Ron Kechter Response: We are working with UPRR to obtain a Temporary Construction
Easement for this work.
Number: 170 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] With the construction plans showing an approval block by North Weld, please
ensure that they sign off on mylars prior to routing to the City.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 171 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/101 Please ensure construction details are provided for the inset parking off of Mason
Court (concrete joint detail, thickness of concrete section, etc.)
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
Page 5
2) Is there or will there be agreements established regarding sidewalk maintenance that
falls on Park property but is in front of this project?
Ron Kechter Response: The sidewalks and trails on Parks property will be maintained by
Parks.
3) Similar to #1, does Park need to give permission for the construction of parking stalls
off of Mason Court onto Park property, which is currently being looked at?
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be part of this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a separate DCP
will be used for this construction.
Number: 122 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any off -site work on UP railroad property
by the construction of a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the property? The current
submittal seems to show that a fence is instead being installed with some grading taking
place off of the platted property within presumably UP property, which would seem to again
require an off -site easement.
Ron Kechter Response: We are working with UPRR to obtain a Temporary Construction
Easement for this work.
NE Response: The UP Railroad signature line will be removed from plat as City will seek
approval with UP Railroad by separate agreement.
Number: 168 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Further follow-up on the inset parking being looked at on Mason Court has the
following outcome:
- The City will allow the installation of inset parking as shown in concept on the drawing
submitted by Northern Engineering.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
- Traffic Engineering requires a 30' separation from the first stall to Cherry Street, which
is being provided in the drawing.
NE Response: Noted.
- Engineering requires that the inset parking be done in concrete, which Ron indicated
support in doing so, the plans should be revised to reflect this.
NE Response: Noted.
- Two-hour vs. non -regulated parking:
In checking with Randy Hensley, Manager of Parking Services this area could be two-hour
parking that Parking Services would then enforce. It should first be verified (by the Museum)
with surrounding uses (such as Dazbog) whether two-hour parking is desired. Their
desire/needs will dictate how the parking should be enforced. The costs for making this area
two-hour will be that of the Museum.
NE Response: Noted:
Page 4
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/101 The resubmitted drawings brings back the placement of a sidewalk within Mason
Street North LLC property and would as a result require an access easement from MSN,
LLC in addition to the utility tie-in on their property previously noted.
Ron Kechter Response: Review of this by Real Estate Services and the Attorney's Office
deemed that no Temporary Construction Easement was necessary for the sidewalk or the
storm sewer connection. We will provide notification to Mason Street North LLC of the
upcoming work.
[4/8/101 The revised drawings negate the need for a letter of intent from Mason Street
North, LLC for the purposes of sidewalk installation, however a letter of intent is still needed
for the storm line tie-in.
[3/23/10] 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?
Number: 77 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/10] The final repayment amount has been determined by Dean Klingner in
Engineering to be $2,375.40 (plus inflation) as was required with Cherry Street Station. The
additional frontage being platted that is west of what was the Cherry Street Station project is
not subject to an additional repayment amount and the removal of College Avenue frontage
eliminates a College Avenue repayment obligation.
Ron Kechter Response: This repayment will be consummated, once Dean determines the
exact amount, including inflation.
[4/7/101 Carried over for reference upon verification of the final agreed to property boundary
for the project.
[3/23/10] 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.
Number: 121 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] With the reduced plat boundary a couple questions come to mind:
1) Should the Discovery Museum be pursuing easements/alignments from City Parks for
the offsite construction taking place on Parks property (concrete trail, landscape wall,
portions of a parking lot, drive approach to Mason Court, etc.)
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through signature of the Utility Drawings and the Plat by Parks.
Page 3
Number: 165 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] There appears to be one Serviceberry sitting right on a retaining wall on the west
side of the building, see red -lined Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Corrected per redlines provided; see LS1.4
Number: 166 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] It is very difficult to follow the ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence alignments on
the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: The ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence line types have been
changed to delineate fence types per legend
Number: 167 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] In the lower right-hand comers of Sheets LS1.0 and LS1.4 of the Landscape
Plans please move the name MASON COURT down to the centerline of the street, just to
read better.
AECOM Response: Corrected, see LS1.0 and LS1.4
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 128 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] With the additional vehicle parking spaces being added to the site, now 86 instead
of 71, will the school buses no longer be parked on -site while awaiting the school kids?
OZ Response: The school buses will be parked on site while awaiting the school kids.
When school buses are not anticipated these spaces will be used for general parking.
When school buses are anticipated the museum staff will cordon off the area using cones to
save the spaces for bus parking only.
Number: 160 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] The numbers in the TOTAL LAND AREA table on Sheet SD1.1 of the Site Plan
appear to be "out of whack". Assuming the square footages to be OK, then the acres and
%'s do not check. Please see the red -lined Site Plan.
AECOM Response: Data has been adjusted for new property boundary. Additional
information included to explain how calculations were derived
Number: 161 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] What has happened to the fence types and details that previously were on the
plans (Site Plan)?
AECOM Response: Fence types still shown. Fence detail was photo, not detail and
removed. Detail added for breakaway 3 rail fence per city standards. Fence detail for 6'
steel fence not provided and not required per FDP submittal.
Number: 162 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Please label the retaining walls on the Site Plan, at least on Sheet SD1.3.
AECOM Response: Wall labeled in addition to legend call out shown previously
Number: 163 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] On the north side of the building, the Building Envelope should be expanded to
include the Future (Building) Expansion, see red -lined Site Plan.
AECOM Response: 7' building envelope extended beyond future building expansion line
Page 2
a STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of Fort Collins
OZ Architecture Date: 6/4/2010
c/o David Schafer
1805 29th Street, Suite 2054
Boulder, CO 80301
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - FINAL
PLANS, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: General
Number: 172 Created: 6/3/2010
[6/3/10] The Property Boundary as shown on the Final development plans (Subdivision
Plat, Site Plan, etc.) is different than the boundary shown on the PDP plans that were
approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on April 29th. There is an area at the southwest
corner of the building where sidewalk and vehicle/bicycle parking improvements are now
outside of the project's Property Boundary, The City has concerns about its ability to sign the
Subdivision Plan and Site Plan because of this. The ability to request, approve, and sign
mylars could possibly be delayed somewhat.
Ron Kechter Response: This issue will be resolved with an Ordinance that is being taken
before the City Council on July 6, 2010 that will exempt a portion of the Site form the
requirement of Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code. City Staff believes that the City
has already acquired title to an absolute fee interest in the Parcel through the legal doctrine
of "adverse possession". Staff will proceed with the quiet title action, based upon the
adverse possession, to obtain record ownership of the Parcel.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 28 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] There still are "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan, making scanning of the plan
difficult.
AECOM Response: Corrected per redlines provided; see plans
[3/22/10] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling
cannot be read very well. Please change.
AECOM Response: Corrected; see SD1.3
Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] Still need the easements labeled.
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Corrected, see plans
Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/101 Still need to label.
[3/22/10] Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Added to landscape plan LS1.4, see also site plan SD1.3
Page 1