HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - 6-10 A - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
Final Compliance
This is a request for the proposed new Fort Collins Discovery Museum. The building is anticipated to be approximately 47,000 square feet on an 6.27
acres. Nearly half of the square footage will be devoted to gallery space to house a variety of science and history based displays. In addition to the
gallery space, the museum includes public reference areas for the general public to visit, free of charge, to research local history, and examine artifacts
in the museum's collection. The museum will also have class room spaces, administration and service areas. A limited amount of retail use will be
included to serve museum visitors in the form of a small café and gift shop. There will be three distinct open space zones within the project boundary
as well as two naturalized wetlands. Located at 408 Mason Court, near the northwest corner of North College Ave. and Cherry St., just east of Lee
Martinez Park and south of the Cache La Poudre River. The zoning is POL - Public Open Land and CCR - Community Commercial River Districts.
Initial P&Z meeting, April 15, 2010, was continued due to the Board's dissatisfaction with the proposals elevations and parking. A special meeting
was scheduled for April 29, 2010 to review updated plans. The Board approved the new plans with some conditions and 3 modification of standards
in addition to the originally submitted modification request.
Received the Certification of Mineral Estate Owner Notification 7/16/2010
Vested Rights published 9/16/2010
Project Type:
Project Desc:
File ID: 6-10/A Planner: Steve Olt DMS Project Num: CP102230
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
1 ZONING [3/10/10] Sheet SD1.3 - 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.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
2 ZONING [3/10/10] Please remove topo lines from final site plan Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
3 ZONING [3/10/10] What are the dimensions of the bus/RV parking space along the
east side.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
4 ZONING [3/10/10] On the site plan please darken up the lines denotings the parking
stalls . Very faint.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
5 ZONING [3/10/10] I dont see any handicapped parking spaces being called out.
Please show their location and note their dimensions. NOTE - HC
spacedsneed an HC sign at the head of the space between 3 and 5' tall.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
6 ZONING [3/10/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
3/7/2011 Page 1
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
7 ZONING [3/10/10] Note the building dimensions and setbacks to property line on the
site plan.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
8 ZONING [3/10/10] Just a sugguestion: Strategically place some more benches along
the walking paths. I only see a couple of them called- out near the entrance
of the building.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
9 ZONING [3/10/10] Trash dumpster and recycle bins need to be within an enclosure,
constructed to match the main building.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
10 ZONING [3/10/10] Parking lot/drive aisles can't be gravel. Need to be of an approved
hard surface.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
11 ZONING [3/10/10] Page LS1.3 Please add a note to the General Planting Notes
regarding installation of landscarping prior to issuance of a CO. 3.2.1(I)(4)
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
12 ZONING [4/9/10]
[3/10/10] Please label the streets on the landscape plan as you did on the
Site Plan
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
13 ZONING [3/10/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
14 ZONING [3/10/10] Elevations: Elevations need to comply with section 3.5.3 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.
Resolved 1 Jenny Nuckols 03/10/2010
3/7/2011 Page 2
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
15 Parks Planning [3/19/10] 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. Discussion needs to continue on this important sign for
the park.
2. 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 10 due to the
amount of anticipated traffic and for snow removal.
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 not
having to establish a new tap for their landscape needs. This item can be
coordinated with Bill Whirty.
4. The development team agreed to supply power for a light to new park
sign from their electrical system.
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.
6. Staff is working with Ingrid in the City Attorneys Office to determine the
legal for the Discovery Museum building and affected land around the
building for its lot.
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.
From: 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
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 3
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
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 3%, to the proposed re-graded trail running
north/south. Discussion needs to continue on this important sign for the park.
2. 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 10 from back
of curb if attached, due to the amount of anticipated traffic and for snow
removal.
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 not
having to establish a new tap for their landscape needs. This item can be
coordinated with Bill Whirty for the physical connection and cost sharing
items.
4. The development team agreed to supply power for a light to new park
sign from their electrical system.
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.
6. Staff is working with Ingrid in the City Attorneys Office to determine the
legal for the Discovery Museum building and affected land around the
building for its lot.
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.
16 General [3/19/10] Richard Stiverson of Qwest indicated that they have no problems
with or concerns about this development proposal.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 4
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
17 General [3/19/10] Statement of Planning Objectives:
*page 10 - "parking area contains 68 spaces" Should this be 71 parking
spaces?
*pages 10 & 11 - references 11 part-time employees as FTE's (being full-time
employees). Is this not contradictory?
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
18 Site Plan [3/19/10] Several things under LAND USE DATA on the Site Plan cover
sheet:
*Zoning is POL & CCR.
*The Gross Land Area and the Net Land Area numbers appear to be
reversed. The Net is larger than the Gross as shown.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
19 Traffic [3/19/10] 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 futher 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.
Resolved 1 Ward Stanford 03/19/2010
20 Site Plan [3/19/10] 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.
*Please distinguish between the 2 zoning areas (POL & CCR) on the plan.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 5
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
21 Site Plan [3/19/10] Site Plan, Sheet SD1.3:
*Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so
that it is legible. There are numerous things that are not readable.
*The entries into the building, on all sides, are difficult to find on this plan.
*Please better delineate the deviding line between the asphalt paving and the
gravel paving for the driveway on the east/northeast side of the building.
*There is fibre 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?
*A detail or details is/are needed for the retaining walls on the west side of the
building.
*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?
*There is no intent to physicall control (gate, etc.) entry into the facility's
parking lot, is this correct?
*Will the amount of building, walls, and patio as shown be allowed within the
100' wetland buffer?
*Does the 100' wetland buffer actually end in the planting area at the
southwest corner of the building, as shown?
*The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be
labeled as to what they are, presumably storm drains.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
22 General [3/19/10] 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?
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 6
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
23 Building Elevations [3/22/10] 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
3.5.1(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.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
24 Building Elevations [3/22/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
25 Building Elevations [3/22/10] 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", 30'-8", and 49'-0" 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.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
3/7/2011 Page 7
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
26 Building Elevations [3/22/10] 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
will be impacted. The shadows from the building will be completely contained
on-site with the exception of 9 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December 21st. In the
morning there will be shadows cast over natural areas to the west and north
of the building for a 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.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
27 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] Please bring the line weight for the background information up
slightly so that it is legible. It is difficult to identify the driveways and parking
lots amidst the landscaping.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
28 Landscape Plan [5/26/10] There still are "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan, making
scanning of the plan difficult.
[3/22/10] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the
plant labeling cannot be read very well. Please change.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
29 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] Please darken the line weights for the various items under the
LEGEND.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
30 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building
should be labeled as to what they are, presumably storm drains.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
31 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] Please add the required standard note about installing or securing
the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy (see red-lined Landscape
Plan, sheet #LS1.3).
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
32 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] The fences are very difficult to see on the Landscape Plan. Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
33 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] Please label the adjacent streets, Mason Court and Cherry Street,
on the Landscape Plan.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
3/7/2011 Page 8
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
34 Landscape Plan [5/26/10] Still need the easements labeled.
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
35 Landscape Plan [3/22/10] Please label the building (Fort Collins Discovery Museum) on the
Landscape Plan.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
36 Landscape Plan [5/26/10] Still need to label.
[3/22/10] Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/22/2010
37 Light & Power [5/11/10]
[3/23/10] Due to asbestos contamination in the area additional construction
costs will apply.
Resolved 1 Alan Rutz 03/23/2010
38 Light & Power [5/11/10]
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.
Resolved 1 Alan Rutz 03/23/2010
39 Building Elevations [3/23/10] The building and site plan should have a much clearer and stronger
pedestrian orientation to the corner of Mason and Cherry. 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.
Active 1 Clark Mapes 03/23/2010
40 Plat [3/23/10] The boundary & legal close. Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
41 Plat [3/23/10] The emergency access easement on the plat, needs to be defined. Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
42 Site Plan [3/23/10] The site plans have line over text issues. Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
43 Site Plan [3/23/10] The site plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or
scan well.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
44 Landscape Plan [4/7/10] Sheets L1.1, L1.2 & L1.3 of the Landscape Plans still have some
linework that is on the light side. This will not scan or copy.
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have linework that is too light, and will not
copy or scan well.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 9
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
45 Landscape Plan [4/7/10] Sheet L1.1 still has some minor line over text issues.
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have line over text issues.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
46 Landscape Plan [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.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
47 Plat [3/23/10] BNSF Railway will need to sign the plat for the easement vacation,
or be vacated by separate document.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
48 Plat [3/23/10] What is the Union Pacific RR ROW area across our property? It is
not defined.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
49 Plat [3/23/10] Has Mason Street been vacated? Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
50 Plat [3/23/10] The subtitle of the plat needs to be revised.(See plat) Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
51 Plat [3/23/10] Please define the type of the 20' easement alignment on the north
side of the property.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
52 Plat [3/23/10] Does the City have title to the triangular parcel between the BNSF,
UPRR & Cherry Street?
Resolved 1 Jeff County 03/23/2010
53 Stormwater [3/23/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/23/2010
54 Stormwater [4/7/10] Can be resolved at final.
[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.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 03/23/2010
55 Water/Wastewater [4/6/10] At final, note will be reviewed/revised as needed.
[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?
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 10
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
56 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
57 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] Move the location of the meter pit as noted on the plans. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
58 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] Show and label the curb stop which must be within 2 feet of the
meter pit.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
59 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] Include the storm sewer shown in the north part of the site on the
overall utility plan.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
60 Water/Wastewater [4/6/10] Will be reviewed at final.
[3/23/10] Is there a conflict at either of the points where the storm sewers
cross the existing water main?
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
61 Water/Wastewater [4/6/10] Show and label on utility plan.
[3/23/10] Is a separate irrigation tap planned?
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
62 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] Label the invert elevation of the sewer service connection to the
manhole.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
63 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] Re-route the gas line to eliminate the low angle crossings of the
existing sanitary sewer.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
64 Water/Wastewater [3/23/10] See redlined utility plans for other comments. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
65 Landscape Plan [4/6/10] (Repeat comment)
[3/23/10] 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 10 feet, Shrubs 4 feet).
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 03/23/2010
66 Landscape Plan [4/6/10]
[3/23/10] Suggest contacting Daz Bog to discuss parking.
Resolved 1 Jennifer Petrik 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 11
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
67 Landscape Plan [3/23/10] The TIS and project plans are not consistent. The TIS indicate
offsite improvements and the site plan does not show offsite improvements.
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 to the 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.
Resolved 1 Jennifer Petrik 03/23/2010
68 Landscape Plan [3/23/10] ADA ramps are not shown on plans. Please show ADA ramps. Resolved 1 Jennifer Petrik 03/23/2010
69 Landscape Plan [5/26/10]
[3/23/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Jennifer Petrik 03/23/2010
70 Landscape Plan [3/23/10] Be aware section A-A, vehicles will overhang curb approximately 2
onto sidewalk reducing the usable width. One solution may be to remove
lighted bollards and provide lighting on the side of the building.
Resolved 1 Jennifer Petrik 03/23/2010
71 General [4/7/10]
[3/23/10] 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
prior to 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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 12
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
72 General [7/27/10]
[5/21/10] 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.
[4/8/10] 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 stormline 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?
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
73 General [3/23/10] Please indicate on the construction and site plan drawings the
width of the sidewalk along Mason Court that is to be added.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
74 General [3/23/10] 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).
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
75 General [4/7/10] Acknowledged of the intent to resolve with the next submittal. Please
note that 15' is the standard required (the LCUASS standard is not a
minimum. From my perspective it seems awkward to be implementing a
radius that's apparently larger than the radius at the Cherry/Mason Court
intersection (with both the driveway and Mason Court having the same 30'
width). It seems that there's justification of a variance to have the driveway
radius be at the same radius of the Mason/Cherry intersection, but to havei it
larger would be difficult to justify. in terms of emergency services
requirements, I've checked with Carie Dann with PFA and she is amenable to
the driveway radius being reduced to match that of the Mason/Cherry
intersection.
[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 90
degrees, the turning movement off Mason Court would perhaps be
smoother.)
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 13
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
76 General [3/23/10] 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
should meet with the consultant team to verify what the requirements will be
for a final approval for grading only.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
77 General [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.
[4/7/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 14
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
78 General [4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion with further
submittals.
[3/23/10] 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.
- Instead of a DA, needed provisions that would have been in a development
agreement will be placed on the plat.
- 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.
- 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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
79 Plat [4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] 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 for the 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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
3/7/2011 Page 15
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
80 Plat [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?
[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).
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
81 Landscape Plan [3/23/10] It appears that street trees aren't being provided along the Cherry,
Mason, and College fronting the property?
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
82 TIS [3/23/10] 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
construction and site plan drawings.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/23/2010
83 Plat [4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/24/10] 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
Museuem is problematic or not. Should that be viewed as problematic, a
vacation process of Mason Street should perhaps proceed as soon as
possible.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/24/2010
84 General [3/24/10] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no
problems with or concerns about this development proposal.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/24/2010
85 General [3/24/10] After lengthy discussion at staff review on Wednesday morning,
March 24th, it was determined that the Fort Collins Discovery Museum,
Project Development Plan could go to the Planning & Zoning Board
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/24/2010
3/7/2011 Page 16
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
86 General [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:
*12 Site Plans
*8 Landscape Plans
*4 Building Elevations Plans
*11 Subdivision Plats
*9 Utility Plans
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/24/2010
87 Natural Resources [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.
2.Could the water quality pond drain north in a pipe under the 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?
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/24/2010
88 Landscape Plan [3/24/10] 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 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. Please see
red-lined Landscape Plan sheet #LS1.4.
Resolved 1 Steve Olt 03/24/2010
89 Fire [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.
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.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
3/7/2011 Page 17
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
90 Fire [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 unosbtructed and used for emergency vehicles.
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 writie something like "22x60
Clearance for PFA Apparatus Access Area" (without the quotes).
- 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.
- This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
- Let''s get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
91 Fire 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.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
92 Fire FACP MAIN ENTRY: Per previous discussions, we will require a full-function
FACP located near the main entrance to the building.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
93 Fire [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.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
94 Fire EXISTING HYDRANT: Please show and label the existing fire hydrant on
Mason Court.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
95 Fire 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 (50,000
SF). I don't want this to be brought up in 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.
Active 1 Carie Dann 03/24/2010
3/7/2011 Page 18
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
96 General [4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion with the potential of
a revised platted boundary.
[3/24/10] Sheri Langenberger calculated an additional $573.25 required for
the TDR fee (see attached) based upon mainly the fidning of a higher building
square footage than what was 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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/25/2010
97 General [3/25/10] The following are the items that I believe should be resolved prior to
the public hearing for the project:
#71/#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.
#79 - the establishment of the platted boundary (as a result of the staff review
discussions), reflected on all the drawings.
#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.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 03/25/2010
3/7/2011 Page 19
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
98 Natural Resources [5/26/10] These comments are being carried over just as a reminder.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER (Dana Leavitt) COMMENTS:
Add "Natural Feature Buffer Line" to the following plans:
Plat, sheets 1 & 2
Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
Lighting Plan
Add "Natural Feature Buffer Zone" in the buffer areas to the following plans:
Plat, sheets 1 & 2
Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
Lighting Plan
The Natural Feature Buffer line is to include the Poudre River 300' 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.
Show the edge of the wetlands on all sheets.
Add 'Limits-of-Development" (LOD) line per the full extent of development
activities (from site, landscape and utility plans) on the following sheets:
Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
Add the note "Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable
uses in a buffer zone" to Plat, Site, Landscape and Utility Plans.
Add Environmental Planner signature block to the following plans:
Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
All plant material in the buffer zones shall consist of native plant species
common to the existing habitat.
Active 1 Steve Olt 03/26/2010
3/7/2011 Page 20
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
Provide a separate plant list and seed list for the buffer zone plants.
Remove all Siberian Elm and Russian Olive trees within the buffer zone,
excluding any wetlands areas.
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.
Lighting shall not extend into the buffer zone.
The 2 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.
Remove references to the 300' Poudre River buffer and the 100' wetland
buffer from all plans.
Provide construction details for proposed fences adjacent to natural feature
buffer zones.
Add buffer zone distances to all sections on SD5.1.
Add tree protection notes to the Utility Plan set, sheet C001.
All comments can be addressed during Final Plan Review.
99 Floodplain [3/26/10] Please show floodplain lines more prominently on the Site Plan
sheet SD1.3
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
100 Floodplain [3/26/10] Please add the note redlined on the Landscape plan sheet LS1.3 Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
101 Floodplain [3/26/10] Please verify RR elevation vs. College Ave elevation. Use higher of
low points. Please see conceptual comment #2.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
102 Floodplain [3/26/10] Please revise number and dates for the FEMA map references on
the plat and in the text of the drainage report.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
3/7/2011 Page 21
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
103 Floodplain [3/26/10] Please see Floodplain Review checklist for items not found on
plans or drainage report.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
104 Floodplain [3/26/10] A no-rise floodplain certification is required for the wetland concept
plan since it is in the floodway.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
105 Floodplain [3/26/10] 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.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 03/26/2010
106 Traffic [4/9/10] Continue comment.
[3/28/10] On page 2 of the TIS, 3.2, sub-para. College Avenue it states the
speed limit is 35 mph north and south of Cherry. The speed limit is 25 in the
area around the Cherry/287 intersection. Please revise TIS narrative and
analysis to reflect the correction.
Active 1 Ward Stanford 03/28/2010
108 Site Plan [4/6/10] ADA ramps are labeled but not drawn at all labeled locations. Please
see redlines.
Resolved 2 Jennifer Petrik 04/06/2010
109 Site Plan [4/6/10] Revised TIS recommends relocation of an existing sign and
restriping. City Traffic Operations has agreed to address these
recommendations this summer with routine maintenance. No action required
by applicant.
Resolved 2 Jennifer Petrik 04/06/2010
110 Site Plan [5/26/10]
[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.
Resolved 2 Jennifer Petrik 04/06/2010
3/7/2011 Page 22
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
111 Water/Wastewater [4/6/10] Revise note on north F Hydr as shown on redlined plans. Resolved 2 Roger Buffington 04/06/2010
112 Stormwater [4/7/10] Stormwater is ready for a hearing Active 2 Wes Lamarque 04/07/2010
113 Floodplain [4/7/10] Floodplain is ready for a hearing. Resolved 2 Wes Lamarque 04/07/2010
114 Plat [4/7/10] Knowing that the boundary of the plat is going to change, we have
not reviewed this version of the plat.
Resolved 2 Jeff County 04/07/2010
115 Natural Resources [4/8/10] Natural Areas & Museum staff would like to develop a "Wild Zone" (
a natural play area for children) in the area north of the maintenance road
and south of the Poudre River Trail. This area is also shown as a potential
location for a future water quality pond. Natural Areas would like to work with
Stormwater on the design of this area. We think the "Wild Zone" and the
Water Quality Pond could be compatible. The restoration of this area is
critical to the transition from the museum area to the river. The ultimate
design of this area will influence the design/location of the pipe from the
proposed water quality pond south of the maintenance road into this area.
What is the purpose of the Type "A" fence along the west side of the trail? I
can see benefits for protecting the wetlands and wildlife, but I also see the
aesthetic and wildlife benefits of removing the fence. Natural Areas would like
to be a part of a discussion about the need for this fence.
The Natural Features Buffer zone plant list should include some shrubs, and
shrubs should/could be planted along the west side of the trail to enhance the
edge of the trail and enhance the habitat along the wetland. Shrubs should
also be included in the restoration of the buffer area north of the museum
area. Natural Areas staff can help identify the appropriate shrub species to be
used.
Active 2 Steve Olt 04/08/2010
3/7/2011 Page 23
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
116 Parks Planning [4/8/10] The actual boundary for the north and west sides of the Fort Collins
Discovery/ Museum plat will be determined and finalized during the Final Plan
review process. Stormwater has a need for water quality pond improvements
in the area north of the Discovery/Museum proposed fee fence line. The
Discovery/Museum development has plans in this area to place "features".
The Discovery/Museum would like to have this area included in their plat
boundary. During the Discovery/Museum's final outdoor design process the
Stormwater water quality pond needs and the "feature " needs in this area are
to be coordinated with agreed upon site design documentation as part of the
final design process.
Realign the gas line to eliminate crossing Park property at entrance of the
museum, this are need to be fully reserved for our future sign location. See
attached PDF 1. (Pg C300)
The existing sidewalk connection from Lee Martinez park to the proposed
re-alignment of the bike/pedestrian trail is at 5% grade (pg C400), please
revise grading to provide for a maximum 3% connection of this existing walk
to the proposed regraded walk per original comment #1 dated 3/19/10.
Remove tree from existing sidewalk (pg LS1.0) and move east. Remove
proposed tree on park property at proposed sign location. See attached PDF
2.
Will easements for sewer, telephone and gas line need to be established for
crossing park property to the west and the Mason Court property even further
west than our finger of land? See attached PDF 1.
(Pg c401) Park planning prefers utility access road to connect to existing
pedestrian pathways at a 90 degree angle to either trail but not at a 45 to the
existing intersection of the Poudre Trail and north south sidewalk. Will this
utility access be gated, how and where?
Active 2 Steve Olt 04/08/2010
3/7/2011 Page 24
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
117 Traffic [4/8/10] As I mentioned to Marc Virata, we will take care of the crosswalk
through our normal maintenance program. It will be done some time this
summer when we are out doing our annual crosswalk painting. I'll also have
somebody go out and check the signs sometime within the next week or so.
I'm not clear what the consultant means regarding the relocation of a sign but
we'll look at it and see if something needs to be fixed.
Regardless, there should not be any requirements of the developer related to
the crossing.
Joe Olson
Active 2 Steve Olt 04/08/2010
118 General [4/8/10] This item is scheduled for discussion at the Planning & Zoning Board
public hearing on April 15, 2010. The comments expressed in this letter must
be addressed with the Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Final Plan submittal
for review following the public hearing.
Resolved 2 Steve Olt 04/08/2010
119 General [4/8/10] Can differeing lineweights be utilized to differentiate between
existing and proposed? While distinguishing between the two are for the most
part labeled, having it visually indicated would also be preferred.
Resolved 2 Marc Virata 04/08/2010
120 General [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.
1) Change the 10 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project to
Skymaster English Oak.
2) Change the 6 Hotwings Tatarian Maple along the northwest side of the
building to Wavy Leaf Oak (Quercus undulata).
3) Change 3 Bigtooth Maple northwest of the building to Wavy Leaf Oak
4) Change 11 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry to either Saskatoon
Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) or to Cornelian Cherry Dogwood (Cornus
mas)
Active 3 Tim Buchanan 05/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 25
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
121 General [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.)
2) Is there or will there be agreements established regarding sidewalk
maintenance that falls on Park property but is in front of this project?
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 beign
looked at?
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
122 General [7/27/10] The agreement for the offsite construction will be needed prior to
sign off on the construction drawings.
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any offsite 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.
Active 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
123 Plat [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
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
124 Plat [5/21/10] Maintenance and repair language should be added to the plat for
the public infrastructure being installed.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
125 Plat [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 Engnieering 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.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
3/7/2011 Page 26
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
126 Plat [5/21/10] Per Ingrid Decker, the railroad easement shown to be "vaacted"
should be changed to "abandoned" per the language of that document.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
127 General [5/21/10] Overall, there appears to be several instances of text over
shading/hatchign areas on all documents which would be of scanning
concern.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/21/2010
128 Site Plan [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?
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/25/2010
129 Fire Jure a reminder that any vegetation within 3 feet of the FDC and hydrants
should be no taller than ground cover.
Active 3 Carie Dann 05/25/2010
130 Stormwater [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.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
131 Stormwater [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.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
132 Plat [5/25/10] The boundary & legal close. Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
133 Plat [5/25/10] The Fort Collins Discovery Museum needs access to Mason Court.
See redlines.
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
134 Plat [5/25/10] Why is the Union Pacific signing the Subdivision Plat? Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
135 Plat [5/25/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad Company" is the
wrong corporate name. See redlines.
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
136 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Revise the note at the 2-inch water service connection as shown on
the redlines.
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
137 Plat [5/25/10] Should the "vacating railroad easement" say "per" rather than "by"? Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
3/7/2011 Page 27
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
138 Plat [5/25/10] Should the word "existing" be added to Note #5 on the Subdivision
Plat?
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
139 Plat [5/25/10] Is the 5' existing utility easement along Cherry Street being
vacated?
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
140 Site Plan [5/25/10] Please change the Railroad name to reflect the Subdivision Plat, on
Sheet SD1.2 of the Site Plans.
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
141 Utility Plan [5/25/10] We were not routed Utility Plans. We will need to review them. Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/25/2010
142 Water/Wastewater [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?
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
143 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Add lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc. Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
144 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] If the proposed water main is to be PVC, add Std Details 25 and
30.
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
145 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Due to site topo and grading, provide a profile of the 8-inch water
main.
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
146 Stormwater [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.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
147 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Storm line A must have all joints within 10 feet of the water main
encased.
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
148 Stormwater [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.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
149 Stormwater [5/25/10] Please revise the water quality elevation (Elev. B) on the water
quality outlet structure detail located on sheet C604 per redlines..
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
3/7/2011 Page 28
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
150 Stormwater [5/25/10] The proposed drainage calculations were not included in the report. Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
151 Stormwater [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.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/25/2010
152 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Delete Std Detail 26. The existing water main is NOT cathodically
protected.
Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
153 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] See redlined plans for other comments. Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
154 Water/Wastewater [5/25/10] Return redlined utility plans with the next submittal. Resolved 3 Roger Buffington 05/25/2010
155 General [5/26/10] The issue related to type "A" fencing has been resolved. City staff
now agrees that the fencing not be included.
Active 3 Erica Saunders 05/26/2010
156 General [5/26/10] 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.
Resolved 3 Jennifer Petrik 05/26/2010
157 Utility Plan [5/26/10] The description of Cityof Fort Collins #461on Sheet C001describes
the same corner, but does not match Sheet C000.
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/26/2010
158 Utility Plan [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.
Resolved 3 Jeff County 05/26/2010
159 Floodplain [5/26/10] 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 will be required at the time of the floodplain use permit and the
post-construction information will be required at the time of CO.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/26/2010
3/7/2011 Page 29
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
160 Site Plan [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.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
161 Site Plan [5/26/10] What has happened to the fence types and details that previously
were on the plans (Site Plan)?
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
162 Site Plan [5/26/10] Please label the retaining walls on the Site Plan, at least on Sheet
SD1.3.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
163 Site Plan [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.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
164 Erosion/Sediment
Control
[5/26/10] Please provide an erosion control surety calculation in the drainage
report.
Active 3 Wes Lamarque 05/26/2010
165 Landscape Plan [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.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
166 Landscape Plan [5/26/10] It is very difficult to follow the ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence
alignments on the Landscape Plan.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
167 Landscape Plan [5/26/10] In the lower right-hand corners 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.
Active 3 Steve Olt 05/26/2010
3/7/2011 Page 30
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
168 General [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.
- Traffic Engineering requires a 30' separation from the first stall to Cherry
Street, which is being provided in the drawing.
- 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.
- 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 Daz Bog)
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.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/26/2010
169 General [5/28/10] The following agreements should be provded 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
- The construction easement that will be needed from Mason Street North
LLC property to construct the sidewalk and storm connections within their
property.
- The agreement with Parks to construct the inset parking proposed off
Mason Court.
- The agreement with Parks to construct and establish the legal right of the
driveway that goes out to Mason Court.
- The agreement with Parks that allows the construction of the sidewalk,
storm connection, parking stalls, connecting walkway, landscape wall, and
concrete trail/emergency access.
- The establishment of an emergency access alignment for the concrete
trail/emergency access (can be delayed until C.O.).
- The agreement from Union Pacific Railroad for the offsite construction on
their property.
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/28/2010
170 General [7/27/10] Carried over for reference.
[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.
Active 3 Marc Virata 05/28/2010
3/7/2011 Page 31
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
171 General [5/28/10] Please ensure construction details are provided for the inset
parking off of Mason Court (concrete joint detail, thickness of concrete
section, etc.)
Resolved 3 Marc Virata 05/28/2010
172 General [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.
Active 3 Steve Olt 06/03/2010
173 Light & Power [7/22/10] Light & Power will need a copy of the recorded plat, a completed
Commercial Service (C-1) form, and name and address of who to bill for
Light & Power development charges.
Active 4 Doug Martine 07/22/2010
174 Plat [7/23/10] The boundary & legal close. Active 4 Jeff County 07/23/2010
175 Plat [7/23/10] We suggest that the boundary sheet (#2) be sheet #3, to insure
that the guarantees sheet (#3) is with the cover sheet (#1) & other signatures
and not forgotten about.
Active 4 Jeff County 07/23/2010
176 Plat [7/26/10] All Transportation Planning comments have been addressed. Active 4 Jennifer Petrik 07/26/2010
177 Plat [7/27/10] For clarity purposes, the newly added third page of the plat should
switch pages with the second page.
Active 4 Marc Virata 07/27/2010
178 Water/Wastewater [7/27/10] Add to note at point where sewer service connects to existing MH
that the openings in the MH must be core drilled.
Active 4 Roger Buffington 07/27/2010
179 General [7/27/10] Prior to sign off on the construction drawing mylars we'll need to see
the temporary construction easement with the UP railroad in place and the
agreement from Mason Street North for the construction of the sidewalk
(assuming this is viewed as necessary after Ingrid's email on the subject).
Signature on the constrction drawings from Park will signify their approval.
Active 4 Marc Virata 07/27/2010
3/7/2011 Page 32
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
180 Building Elevations [7/28/10] There are several changes to the Building Elevations since the
plans went to the Planning & Zoning Board on April 29th, including an
additional height of 3 to 3.5 feet to the "tower" element. Considering the
Board's significant concerns about the architecture and design of the building,
the changes are making it challenging for staff to review the plans and ensure
that the Board's concerns are being addressed.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/28/2010
181 General [7/28/10] There are several Current Planning comments on the red-lined
plans being forwarded to the applicant.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/28/2010
182 General [7/28/10] The increase in the area being platted from the previous review will
result in a slight increase in the required TDR Fee, which Sheri Langenberger
will coordinate through the charge number.
Active 4 Marc Virata 07/28/2010
183 Plat [7/28/10] It is suggested that the Comcast easement shown on the plat be
changed to a utility alignment. Confirmation was made with Comcast that they
do not ultimately need an exclusive easement and a general utility easement
dedicated to the City would be fine.
Active 4 Marc Virata 07/28/2010
184 Natural Resources [7/29/10] Erica Saunders of the Natural Resources Department indicated that
she has no problems with the Final Development Plan.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
3/7/2011 Page 33
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
185 Parks Planning [7/29/10] Craig Foreman of Parks Planning offered the following comments:
I could not find on the utility plans the electric line for the power to the park
entrance sign. We are still working through the exact location for the sign.
General: At today's staff review it was determined that Parks and Recreation
will not be signing the plat.
Department: Engineering
Topic: General
No. 72: Mason North sidewalk connection: Covered at today's meeting
No. 121: Easements/agreements for project work on Park property: Ingrid is
working on language in the final agreement that will clarify these items for
the installation and future maintenance, etc. Examples include:
Project tap to Lee Martinez irrigation system: The Discovery Museum (the
Project) will provide all drawings, specifications, permits and complete the
instillation at their cost for the required meter and any other apparatus for a
connection to the Lee Martinez irrigation system. The use of water will be
recorded monthly with a repay to Parks. Any costs associated with the
annual start-up and shut-down of the system will also be the responsibility of
the Project.
Project items such as landscaping, walls, parking lots, etc. shall be installed
and funded by the Project. Long term maintenance, repairs and
replacements shall be at the expense of the Project.
The section of the 10' wide trail from Mason Court north for the fire access
lane shall be installed at the expense of the Project. The repair of any trail or
other park damage caused by emergency vehicles accessing the Project will
be at the expense of the Project. Replacement of the 10' wide trail will be
cost shared with the Parks Department paying for the cost for 8' of the trail at
a depth of 5"; with the Project paying for the cost of the additional trail width,
base, thickness and any reinforcing.
The installation of Project items, in the future, on Park property shall be
coordinated with affected parties and an agreement (?) prepared for each
item indicating funding responsibilities for installation, routine maintenance,
repairs and removal.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
3/7/2011 Page 34
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
186 General [7/29/10] Plat Sheet 1:
(1) Certificate of Dedication change dedicate and convey to give notice;
change forever to of.
(2) Attorneys Certification in first line change 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) to 2.2.3(C)(3)
(b); second-to-last line, add a comma after inquiry; at end of sentence
before period add and by Ordinance No. 088, 2010 of the Council of the City
of Fort Collins.
(3) Notice in second line change utility alignments to utility
improvements; in last line, change within certain to within which certain.
(4) Parks and Recreation signature block per a conversation I had with
Marc Virata, I understand there is a desire to have Parks sign off on the
design drawings because of what are essentially offsite improvements being
constructed on Park property. But there is no legal reason to also have them
sign the plat. If someone thinks it is a good idea or just wants Parks to sign
the plat that is OK with me, but I dont think it is necessary.
If Parks IS going to sign it, there isnt a City department called Parks and
Recreation, and dont think the Recreation Division would have any interest
in this anyway. Shouldnt it just be Parks Department or Park Planning?
(5) Comcast signature block Not sure why this is set up for Comcast
signature I dont see anything on the plat indicating they have an existing
interest in the property. Perhaps someone can explain this at the review
meeting.
(6) Note No. 5 Is this necessary? The City owns the property and you cant
have easements in your own property, so there couldnt possibly be any
City-owned easements to vacate by this plat.
Plat Sheet 2:
Comcast utility easement I dont think this an existing easement; Im
guessing it is really just showing the location of the service line for this
building. The City cant create an easement for Comcast by just putting it on a
plat. However, an easement isnt necessary if this is going to be just the
service line for this building. If it is important to indicate somehow where the
cable connection will be thats fine, but I think in that case it should be labeled
as something other than a Utility Easement.
Plat Sheet 3:
Second-to-last paragraph before the Owners signature in first line, please
change he/she to it. Change last sentence to read, Owner further
warrants that it has the right to convey said land according to this Plat.
Site Plan Sheet No. SD1.1
Since there isnt really a we here, please change Ownership Certification to
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
3/7/2011 Page 35
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
read:
The undersigned hereby certifies that the City of Fort Collins is the lawful
owner of real property described on this site plan and does hereby certify that
the City of Fort Collins accepts the conditions and restrictions set forth on
said site plan.
here are the additional changes we discussed this morning:
Plat Sheet 1 -
Notice of Documents - 5th line down, delete "Development Agreement".
Also, are there separate "Site and Landscape Covenants" on this project, or
are those incorporated into this Plat? If they aren't a separate document,
they can be deleted from this list, too.
Note 3 - References an 8 month old title commitment. The project should
obtain an updated commitment, as that's pretty old.
Plat Sheet 3 -
(Marc may have already mentioned this, but it would probably be a good
idea to make what is now Sheet 3 with all the contract language into Sheet 2.)
Add a clause to the end of the introductory paragraph on Sheet 3 so that
it reads: "...hereby agrees to be bound to the following requirements and
provisions, subject to the annual appropriation of funds sufficient and
intended therefore by Owner's City Council in its sole discretion."
Second-to-last paragraph on Sheet 3, we can delete the last sentence
about warranting the right to convey, as the City is not conveying any
interests by this Plat (in my prior comments I had edited it, but Carrie said we
may as well just delete it.)
187 Site Plan [7/29/10] The Total Floor Space shown in the LAND USE DATA on the Final
Plan dated 5/5/10 was 47,288 square feet. On the current Final Plan dated
7/6/10 the total floor area now appears to be 45,894 square feet (lobby,
mezzanine, accessible roof deck), which is about 1,500 square feet smaller
than before. Does this include the future addition on the north side?
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
3/7/2011 Page 36
Project: FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
188 Site Plan [7/29/10] The building footprint typically is not netted out of the gross area of
the development plan, i.e.: 278,971 square feet vs. 237,411 square feet.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
189 Site Plan [7/29/10] On Sheet SD1.3 of the Site Plan there appears to be 2 notes for
the same thing, i.e.: Flagstone Paving, Typ. north of the building. Possibly 1
note could be eliminated. Also, where actually is the Cobble Swale, Typ. as
shown north of the building?
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
190 Site Plan [7/29/10] There are 3 handicap parking spaces (including 1 van-accessible
space) shown on the Site Plan. Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) of the Land Use Code
requires 4 handicap spaces when there are between 76 - 100 parking spaces
on the development plan. This plan has 86 parking spaces.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
191 Building Elevations [7/29/10] The building heights must be shown, as on the previous Building
Elevations plans.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
192 Building Elevations [7/29/10] The height of the "tower" element (north elevation) keeps going up,
from 36'-0" on the 3/1/10 plan to 39'-0" on the 3/31/10 plan to 41'-6" on the
7/6/10 plan. What is the reason for this?
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
193 Building Elevations [7/29/10] The shorter metal panel on the North Elevation has contained
window panel articulation on the previous 2 Building Elevations plans. On the
current plan (dated 7/6/10) nothing is shown. Something should be added
back onto that panel, even if only faux windows.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
194 Building Elevations [7/29/10] The large metal panel on the West Elevation has contained window
panel articulation on the previous 2 Building Elevations plans. On the current
plan (dated 7/6/10) nothing is shown. Something should be added back onto
that panel, even if only faux windows.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
195 General [7/29/10] At the staff meeting on July 28th it was determined that staff is now
ready to accept mylars for the development plans. It is critical that all of the
current comments are adequately addressed on the mylars so that they won't
have to be reprinted. Please note that we require 3 sets of mylars for the
subdivision plat (2 sets to Larimer County and 1 set for the City). At least 1 of
fhe sets must contain original signatures of all the signers.
Active 4 Steve Olt 07/29/2010
3/7/2011 Page 37