HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - FDP - FDP110002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -Choice Center Mixed-Use Redevelopment PDP
Second Final Compliance Submittal – March 30, 2011
Date: 3/30/2011
Ted Shepard
City Planner
Current Planning
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Ted,
What follows is our response to the items that were listed in the staff comments for
CHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT PDP - TYPE I and Final Plans,
dated 2/18/2011:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 78 Created: 7/29/2008
[2/16/11] After speaking with our attorney, please change the Buffer Land Use Code reference (on the SITE PLAN
and plat) to only reference Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 (instead of the subsections). Thank you.
[9/23/08] Do not see on SITE PLAN. Unable to comment for Plat until I review drawing.
[7/29/08] The following note shall be added to the SITE PLAN and Plat at final review:
For allowable uses within a buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code.
Response: This has been updated.
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 81 Created: 7/29/2008
[2/16/11] As per Dana Leavitt's original comment, thank you for providing the profile of the storm headwall.
However, as Spring Creek is not depicted in this profile, one cannot assess the connection between the storm
outfall and the creek. Please revise this profile to illustrate Spring Creek and provide a detail, similar to those on
Sheet 14, that is a cross-section of this outfall area.
Response: Currently, we plan to core into the existing headwall. For this submittal, we did not provide a
cross-section detail because the outfall for the proposed on-site storm drain has not been finalized.
[9/23/08] have not seen utility plans, as soon as I do, I'll provide comment.
[7/29/08] Provide plan and profile of storm drain line adjacent to Spring Creek, between SDMH-OS1and SDMH-
OS2. The creek and the retaining wall are very close together, which may have impacts to the creek.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number: 39 Created: 7/23/2008
[2/16/11] The typical cross-section for Stuart does not show what the separation distance from the back of sidewalk
to the retaining wall is proposed to be (and should be at least 2' per the original comment).
Response: JVA – The typical cross-section shows a 3.5’ separation from the back of walk to the wall.
Verifying with the plans, the wall is a minimum of 4.0’ from the back of walk.
[7/23/08] Grading Plan – Please dimension sidewalk and parkway ROW improvements on College and Stuart.
Show one cross section for Stuart showing the relationship to the proposed retaining wall which should have 2 feet
minimum clearance from the sidewalk.
Response: JVA - Dimensions are now shown.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 147 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Sheet SP3 of the SITE PLAN shows all of lots 3 and 4 as being built in a future phase(s). This does not
seem to coincide with the construction plans that show no phasing of the infrastructure. Is the indication of the
future phases only with regards to redevelopment of the buildings, or does it pertain to the infrastructure within
those phases? Of concern if phasing is being looked at with lots 3 and 4, is that the frontage improvements along
College Avenue (sidewalk, street trees, etc.) are built with Phase 1 (the plan does not indicate what phase the
frontage improvements are intended to be built). Of additional concern is how the infrastructure within lots 3 and 4
would be able to tie into the frontage improvements along College Avenue to be built in Phase 1. Bringing in
sidewalk detached would have an impact on the existing parking. The construction drawings and SITE PLAN would
need to show how the interim would tie into the frontage improvements without being problematic for both the
parking lot and frontage improvements.
Response: The project is now to be constructed in one phase.
Number: 148 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The right-of-way vacation proposed on the southeast portion of the site no longer seems relevant with the
further detachment of the sidewalk along College at this area (the plat should then remove from the legal
description "that portion of vacated College Avenue...". Ideally additional right-of-way should be dedicated to match
the back of sidewalk along this further detached area instead of providing access easement and/or vacating existing
right-of-way along this location.
Response: JSD-NOLTE We have removed the record legal descriptions from the Plat cover sheet which
contained this reference, as the record legal descriptions were from old title commitments that are no
longer relevant to the project.
Number: 149 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] What is the manner in which the landscaping being removed will be mitigated with the median reduction
taking place in College Avenue that removes several trees and landscaping? I'm understanding that Community
Development and Neighborhood Services has a general concern about the landscaping and trees that along the
median in College Avenue that would be removed with the construction of the larger left turn lane onto the site. Will
the installation of the new median directly north result in the installation of low lying plantings as mitigation for the
lost landscaping. Will the narrowed down median that creates the longer left turn lane have landscaping installed?
Response: The existing trees in the median have been evaluated by the City Forester and the Tree
Mitigation sheet (11 of 11) has been updated. The new median adjacent to the turn lane is not large enough
for new landscape, but we have planted the median that is across from the main entrance, see sheet 10 of
11.
Number: 154 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] It doesn't appear that "Choice Center Drive" street signs are indicated to be installed on the signing and
striping plan. If desired (or required) however, wherever street signs are posted indicating the private "Choice
Center Drive", please provide separate informational signage (black lettering on white background ) below (at
about 5' off the ground) indicating "Choice Center Drive privately owned and maintained". Please provide a detail of
this on the details sheet. This is in the same manner as to how Council Tree Avenue (a private drive) in Front
Range Village was addressed.
Response: JVA – A sign is now proposed to be placed at the intersection with Stuart and Choice Center
Drive designating Choice Center Drive as a private drive.
Number: 155 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please ensure the title on all the drawings is coordinated (the plat has "Subdivision" at the end of the title
which does not match the site and construction plans).
Response: NOLTE The word “Subdivision” has been removed from the Plat as requested.
Number: 156 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] There is a location along College Avenue and a location along Stuart Street where the public sidewalk is
apparently shown to ramp down along the direction of travel. Why is the ramp down being proposed?
Response: The College Avenue ramps have been adjusted. The Stuart Street ramp has been laid out to best
accommodate the grading and pedestrian direction of travel. Due to the orientation of the north-south
sidewalk location and proximity to the corner a corner ramp would cause a cross-ramping situation on the
north-south walk. This option would force pedestrians to ramp up and immediately back down to cross the
parking entrance to the north. Our proposed solution establishes a pedestrian refuge by providing curbs
adjacent to the walk where it is at the same elevation as the road surfaces.
Number: 158 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Has formal discussion taken place with City Real Estate (Helen Matson) for the offsite work that is shown
on City property in order to formalize the appropriate easements? Is it understood how the City's process and
timeframe in potentially granting these coincides with anticipated final plan approval by the applicant?
Response: That is now in the process to go to City Council.
Number: 164 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Thought/suggestion: The access ramp east of Building 4 on the north side might be better served for the
pedestrian if it faced directly south and not angle southeast as the eastbound pedestrian crossing the drive aisle is
angled by the current design to not as easily see oncoming southbound traffic from the property to the north. As this
in on private property and does not impact public right-of-way, this is more of a thought/concern rather than
requirement.
Response: This ramp has been adjusted to run perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Number: 169 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Is there a reference document already compiled that lists the various dedications and vacations of
easements that are required both onsite and offsite? It is suggested that this document be provided for review and
will then be used as a "check-off" for verification and agreement with all that all the required approvals are obtained
prior to final plan approval.
Response: Nolte will prepare a graphic showing these items as requested and will submit to the City for
review when it is complete.
Number: 189 Created: 2/18/2011
[2/18/11] CDOT and the City would like to see an updated traffic memo/letter with the consultant's traffic engineer
indicating what changes (if any) to the proposed land use and resulting trip generation may have taken place
between the PDP (pre-hearing) submittal and with the present final plan submittal, and the impacts (if any) that may
result.
Response: JSD - Copies of the updated memo was included in our first Final submittal. If additional copies
are needed please let us know.
Topic: Plat
Number: 161 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The plat indicates the use of "access easement", "public access easement", and "sidewalk easement".
When dedicated to the City, these should all just use the "access easement" designation.
Response: Nolte - Public Access Easement designations have been changed to “Access Easement” on the
Plat. The “Sidewalk Easement” designation has been removed.
Number: 186 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] There would be no objection from the City if on the plat all the various separate document
dedications/vacations of easements were to just be noted as to be dedicated (or vacated as appropriate) by
separate document, instead of the various blank lines for reception numbers that would need to be filled in before
the plat is filed.
Response: Nolte - The changes has been made as requested.
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 150 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] CDOT M&S Standards should be provided in the construction details pertaining to the improvements in
College Avenue and referenced in the plans. The City is meeting with CDOT at our monthly coordination meeting
this Friday and may have additional comments/concerns following the Wednesday morning meeting. The following
three comments are thoughts I had specific to the new construction/reconstruction along the median in College
Avenue and may be further refined pending input from CDOT.
Response: JVA – The applicable CDOT M&S Standards are included.
Number: 151 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The new concrete median for the left turns onto the site and Parker Street should have additional design
information on sheet 15. Please provide spot elevations along the gutter along with cross sections of College
Avenue in at least a couple of locations along this median. Is the hatching around this median intended to indicate
concrete pavement? If so, please provide a concrete jointing plan detail for this area (from the CDOT M&S
Standards).
Response: JVA – Spot elevations have been included and the concrete pavement has been replaced with
asphalt, similar to existing.
Number: 152 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The apparent new concrete "ribbon" median extending the left turn stack into the site should have
additional information on sheet 15. Please indicate a flowline to flowline width of this median. If it's intended that the
existing median along the west side of College is to remain, how will the new median transition to the existing
median? It seems that the existing median no longer has the gutter at existing finished grade due to successive
overlays and the new median gutter would need to then be set below finished grade in order to tie into existing.
Please provide spot elevations along the gutter (or final pavement grade if gutter is set below) along with cross-
sections at several locations in order to understand how drainage along the extended turn lane is intended to
function.
Response: JVA – Due to the possibility that the existing gutter pan may have been paved over in past
overlays on College Ave, we have proposed to use asphalt rather that concrete. A full depth median gutter
is proposed, and the asphalt will overlap the gutter to match the existing curb height on the west side of the
median. This allows future mill and overlays on College to be adjusted back down to the original cross
slope.
Number: 153 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, please provide SU-30 turning template information for the
left turn movements off of College onto the site and onto Parker Street in order to demonstrate that the median nose
design will accommodate these vehicle types.
Response: JVA – Turning templates are included in the resubmittal.
Number: 157 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please provide detail on the northeast portion of the site as to how the tie-in to the existing sidewalk along
College Avenue will occur. Label the width of existing attached sidewalk the proposed is tying into. Show the
existing LANDSCAPE bed behind the attached sidewalk and how this will be terminated (Sheet 10 of the
LANDSCAPE plan seems to imply the continuation of the curb that defines the northern boundary but there is no
indication if rock, turf, plantings, etc. will be provided.)
Response: JVA - Existing spot elevations and dimensions are provided.
Number: 159 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please provide a note on the storm drainage sheets that the manhole locations along storm drain B-1
shall be adjusted to be at the center or middle of the travel lanes along Stuart Street. It appears that the manholes
B6 and B6b should be shifted slightly south to the center (crown) of Stuart Street with B7 appearing to be fine with
the taper for the turn lane.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 160 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Sheet 13 of the construction plans shows a CDS2020 water quality device that doesn't seem to be
indicated elsewhere on the set and a detail is not provided. Will an access manhole be needed and where will this
be situated in relationship to the lane lines? Will this be traffic rated? [Stormwater indicated that is a private
improvement. Private improvements should not be placed in public right-of-way and is considered problematic as a
result.]
Response: JVA – The Contech CDS2025 will have an access manhole, is traffic rated, and is now placed
within Choice Center Drive (Private Drive).
Number: 162 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] On sheet 3 of the construction plan please change "County" to "City" on Note 5.
Response: JVA - Corrected
Number: 163 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] In the construction plan set, existing features (such as contours and utilities) are too difficult to analyze
with the line weight used. It appears in some instances that proposed contours don't tie into proposed contours.
Response: JVA – Line types and colors have been adjusted for clarity
Number: 165 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please remove the incorrect labeling of the private drive as Stuart Street on sheet 12 of the construction
drawings.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 166 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The plan and profile sheet for Stuart Street seems a little unclear as one profile line is indicated that it's
finished grade for both existing and proposed left and right flowline while a different indication of the same line
indicates to see additional curb return profiles on the same sheet. Will the flowline profiles on both sides of the
street be the same? Having the flowline and centerline profiles individually separate might be preferred for clarity in
this regard.
Response: JVA – The proposed right flow line is provided in the resubmittal. The left flow line is to remain
existing and existing spot elevations are provided.
Number: 167 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please label on the Stuart Street plan and profile sheet where on the centerline (in plan view) the
transition starts to remove the crown from the street intersecting onto College Avenue.
Response: JVA – The transition is labeled.
Number: 168 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] On the Stuart Street signing and striping plan the location of the "STOP" pavement painting directly west
of the public right-of-way ending for Stuart Street seems in an odd location as it appears to define the stop location
where opposing westbound traffic would cross into. Shouldn't this be shifted south to the south half of this driveway
opening?
Response: JVA – The pavement painting has been adjusted to align with the right lane. The “STOP”
painting has been removed, though the stop bar is still proposed, as requested in other comments.
Number: 170 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] A detail of the concrete headwall for the storm outfall didn't seem to be included in the plan set.
Response: JVA – The storm outfall is tying into an existing headwall. The existing headwall will need to be
cored to accommodate the proposed outfall.
Number: 187 Created: 2/18/2011
[2/18/11] There is apparently an existing irrigation line/tap for the existing LANDSCAPEd median on College. If that
irrigation line isn't utilized with the reworked College Avenue improvements, the line will likely need to be
abandoned.
Response: JSD - JVA The water line will be extended to the new median. A note has been add to relocate
the existing irrigation box to the proposed center median.
Number: 188 Created: 2/18/2011
[2/18/11] CDOT met with the City on 2/18 and indicated that they needed to have additional discussion internal to
CDOT as to how the median improvements should be constructed given the successive overlays to College
(referring back to #151 and #152). They anticipate having comments completed by next Friday (the 25th).
JVA – We have not received additional comments from CDOT. Please include in our next set of comments.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 2 Created: 7/7/2008
[1/25/11]
[9/15/08]
[7/7/08] It appears that several existing electric facilities will need to be relocated. Relocation of existing electric will
be at the developer's expense, in addition to normal electric development charges.
Response: JVA-CAPSTONE-CRS - Acknowledged
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 130 Created: 1/25/2011
[1/25/11] The electric service to the existing Discount Tire store is 120/240 Volt open delta 3 phase. If this service
is relocated as shown on the utility plan, it will be 120/208 Volt wye three phase. The developer will need to
coordinate with Discount Tire to change the voltage, which may involve replacing equipment in the building. The
developer will be responsible for installation of the new electric service from the transformer to the meter on the
building.
Response: This issue is being coordinated, we don’t foresee any issues at this time.
Number: 131 Created: 1/25/2011
[1/25/11] It appears that there is only 24 Ft. between buildings 2 & 3. The plan shows 2 sewer services, a water
service, a fire water line, and an electric service in this area. Installation as well as maintenance of these is such
close proximity may be challenging or impossible. A utility coordination meeting is encouraged before plans are
finalized.
Response: JVA – A utility coordination meeting has been held. The fire service to proposed Building 2 has
been relocated to enter the building along the west, off of Choice Center Drive, relieving some of the utility
congestion.
Number: 132 Created: 1/25/2011
[1/25/11] The water main in Choice Center Dr. will need to be moved a minimum of 7 Ft. to the east of the location
shown to provide space for installation of the high voltage electric system. This may result in the necessity to
relocate the sewer main. A utility coordination meeting is encouraged before plans are finalized.
Response: JVA – The water line has been adjusted as discussed in the utility coordination meeting.
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Lindsay Ex
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 134 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Add the Limits to Development line to the legend on the Utility and Grading Plans.
Response: The LOD line has been added to the legend.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 136 Created: 2/15/2011
PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems
shall be installed in the following locations:
1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in size or addition(s) to an existing building that cause the building to
be greater than 50,000 SF. For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings.
2. All new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater than 50,
regardless of the occupancy classification.
3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1 and 2 of this section undergoing alterations exceeding 50
percent of the aggregate area of the building.
Public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by
Poudre Fire Authority.
PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Administrative Policy 07-01
Response: Acknowledge
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 171 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11]
General Comments:
1. The drainage report and associated plans are incomplete and contain errors, and cannot be fully reviewed
at this time. These comments are not final since identifiable revisions from this review period will change the
submittal package during the next round of review.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
2. BFE = 4986.24 ft-NGVD 29, 4989.24 ft-NAVD 88, include in plans and drainage report as redlined.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See sheet 13, Floodplain Exhibit, and refer to the Floodplain
Information section of the drainage report.
3. RFPE = 4987.74 ft-NGVD 29, 4990.74 ft NAVD 88, include in plans and drainage report as redlined.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See sheet 13, Floodplain Exhibit, and refer to the Floodplain
Information section of the drainage report.
4. Please address and resolve all comments on the 100% Development Review checklist.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Please see the attached 100% Development Review checklist with my
comments.
5. Please include a typical drawing detail for each foundation type proposed, see 100% development review
checklist, pg 4.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See sheet 13, Floodplain Exhibit for the typical foundation detail for
Building 1 and Table 2 for the elevation information.
6. All plan sheets that are marked as redlines, please revise per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Plat:
7. Please modify per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
8. Add the following notes: 1) All activities in the current effective floodplain and floodway are subject to the
requirements of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. 2) No storage of materials or equipment in the floodway before,
during and after construction. 3) All activities in the floodplain and floodway must be pre-approved through
floodplain use permit and no-rise certifications. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without no-rise re-
certifications and FEMA Elevation Certificates. 4) Landscape changes in the floodplain and floodway must be pre-
approved through floodplain use permit and no-rise certifications.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Site Plan:
9. Please modify per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
10. Label proposed conditions FEMA floodway and floodplain per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
11. Show current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries and label per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
12. Add notes: 1) All proposed conditions determined by CLOMR Case # 09-08-0735R effective January 29,
2010. 2) Proposed uses will be subject to Chapter 10 requirements consistent with approved CLOMR conditions.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Drainage and/or Grading Plan:
13. Remove all corrected effective floodway and floodplain line work per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the revised Drainage and Grading Plans.
14. Remove pre 1997 floodplain line work per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the revised Grading Plans.
15. Show current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries and label per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Line work removed from Drainage and Grading Plans. Refer to the
Floodplain Exhibit for the current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries.
16. Label proposed conditions floodway per redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Line work removed from Drainage and Grading Plans. Refer to the
Floodplain Exhibit for the proposed conditions floodway.
17. Show cross section lines on plans.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the cross-section lines.
18. Show BFE lines on plans in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the BFE lines in both NGVD29 and
NAVD88.
19. Show lowest floor elevation in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the lowest floor in both NGVD29
and NAVD88.
20. Add the following notes: 1) All activities in the current effective floodplain and floodway are subject to the
requirements of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. 2) No storage of materials or equipment in the floodway before,
during and after construction. 3) All activities in the floodplain and floodway must be pre-approved through
floodplain use permit and no-rise certifications. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without no-rise re-
certifications and FEMA Elevation Certificates. 4) Landscape changes in the floodplain and floodway must be pre-
approved through floodplain use permit and no-rise certifications. 5) All proposed conditions determined by CLOMR
Case number 09-08-0735R effective January 29, 2010.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the notes.
21. Remove note 9 on sheet 6 of 28.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the notes.
22. Sheet 7 of 28 remove note 8.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Exhibit for the notes.
23. Sheet 11 and 12 of 28, Correct orientation of North Arrow.
Response: Comment acknowledged. North arrow orientation corrected – refer to sheet 11.
Drainage Report:
24. Please see redlines for changes and comments.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
25. Clearly specify in report that if floodplain use permit will be submitted at the time of building permit
application or another time.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Information section of the drainage report.
26. Change all references to “Nolte”, Nolte’s”, and “Nolte Associates CLOMR” to the “Choice Center CLOMR”.
Add CLOMR report to the references section.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
27. Page 15 of the drainage report – if conclusive evidence of SWMM and CLOMR integration is not available,
this report is incomplete and cannot be considered a final document for review and approval.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Developed Storm Water Conditions section of the
drainage report.
Flood Plain Use Permit:
28. Please clarify in drainage report when floodplain use permit will be applied for.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Information section of the drainage report.
September 29, 2008 Comments:
29. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for structures in the current effective floodplain until the
LOMR is approved by FEMA, and until an Elevation Certificate is approved for any buildings in the floodplain,
especially at Building #1.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Information section of the drainage report.
30. A Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) is required immediately after completion of non-structural development
activities at the Choice Center site, per City Code 10-45(2)(b). The LOMR application shall be approved by City staff
and FEMA before a building permit can be issued. A floodplain use permit shall be approved for Building #1 before
the building permit can be approved.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the Floodplain Information section of the drainage report.
31. Please refer to the 100% floodplain review checklist for additional information required on the construction
plans and drainage report.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the construction plans and drainage report for revisions.
32. Please make sure that all information (plans, designs, calculations, descriptions, etc.) in the CLOMR and
LOMR submittals match the Development Plans.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Additional Comment - Drainage Report:
33. All cross section WSELs must be reported in dual units of ft-NGVD 29 and ft-NAVD 88 at all locations within
the drainage report text.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: LANDSCAPE Plan
Number: 173 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Revise Plant Note 6 to include 10' separation between trees and water or sewer mains. Adjust tree
placements accordingly.
Response: The note has been revised to include the main line separation.
Topic: Plat
Number: 142 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Provide utility easements as follows: Water mains - 10 feet each side of main (20 feet total); Sanitary
sewer - 15 feet each side of sewer (30 feet total). This applies to existing and proposed lines.
Response: NOLTE easements have been provided as requested.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2008
[2/17/11] Reminder Comment.
[9/26/08] Repeat Comment. Drainage easements are still needed for the storm sewer, and for all areas that are
being used for water quality mitigation.
[7/25/08] Drainage easements dedicated to the City of Fort Collins are required for all of the storm sewers and the
flood control swale.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 122 Created: 9/26/2008
[2/17/11] In progress.
[9/26/08] Verification needs to take place on the condition of the existing storm sewer that is being used as the
outfall for the proposed storm sewer. The City can coordinate this and even perform the inspection. The City has
TV equipment to verify that the existing pipe is still in working condition.
Response: The inspection is complete and the existing 48” RCP and CMP outfall pipes do need to be
rehabilitated. We are researching and pricing different alternatives.
Number: 174 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The report states that sub-basins C1b and C1c are being treated for water quality in the grass swale used
as the floodway channel. This channel could be used for water quality mitigation if the 3-foot pan was removed. If
the pan can not be removed, other mitigation would be required.
Response: Mike Welker (Nolte Associates) is reviewing our request to remove the concrete pan. We need to
determine if removing the concrete pan: 1) will not change the modeled water surface elevations and 2)
make it more difficult to construct and certify the flood control channel.
Number: 175 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The Contech hydro separator needs to be sized and construction details provided in the plan set. The
sizing needs to be based on a 80% efficiency removal at a particle size of 50 microns.
Response: We upgraded the Contech hydrodynamic separator unit from the CDS2020 to the CDS2025. This
unit meets the City of Fort Collins treatment guidelines: 80% removal efficiency at a particle size of 50
microns.
Number: 176 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The proposed Contech water quality device is proposed to be located in the public ROW. Private
infrastructure is not allowed in the public ROW. There is a process to allow a public utility in the ROW, but it could
be long and undesirable. A location on private property (on-site or off-site) would be the best solution.
Response: We moved the Contech CDS2025 from the public ROW into the private ROW (Choice Center
Drive).
Number: 177 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please make sure the sizing calculations for the PLDs include the entire areas draining to them.
Response: The Porous Landscape Detention (PLD) sizing calculations do include the entire tributary are
draining to them.
Number: 178 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please include construction details for the PLDs per the Urban Drainage Manual.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 179 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide easement documentation for the storm sewer located on City Park’s property.
Response: We are working with Helen Matson and Glen Schlueter on negotiating the storm drainage
easements in Creekside.
Number: 180 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Water draining from the south parking lot has increased the flows onto City Park’s property and written
permission is required to increase these flows. City Stormwater staff can assist in acquiring this.
Response: We are negotiating with the City of Fort Collins Parks Department to allow developed runoff
from Choice Centers south parking lot to drain through a GB and into Creekside Park.
Number: 181 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide a detail (cross-section) for the grass buffer being proposed to provide water quality
mitigation for the southern parking lot.
Response: Refer to Appendix C of the drainage report for the Grass Buffer (GB) sizing calculations (per
UDFCD) and Sheet 3 of the Choice Center Landscape Plan for planting details.
Number: 182 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide a drainage easement with a minimum width of 20 feet for the storm sewer in Choice
Center Drive. The pipe should be centered within the easement.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 183 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide 100-yr HGLs for all storm sewer profiles.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 184 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] There is a few areas that need more detail regarding grading to help clarify drainage patterns and to
ensure the site gets built per the plans. Please see redlines.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Number: 185 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide an erosion escrow amount in the drainage report.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 103 Created: 9/23/2008
[2/15/11]
[9/23/08] Water/sewer mains must be a minimum of 5 feet from gutter flowline. Water main in Choice Center Drive
appears to be closer than 5 feet from west flowline.
Response: JVA – The water main has been adjusted as discussed to be a minimum of 5 ft from the gutter
flowline.
Number: 137 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Provide water service sizing calculations for the buildings with residential units.
Response: JVA- Sizing calculations are included in this submittal.
Number: 138 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] The area between Proposed Bldg 2, Discount Tire and Existing Bldg 3 is very congested with utilities.
Re-locate the fire line for Proposed Bldg 2 to the west side of the building.
Response: JVA - A utility coordination meeting has been held. The fire service to proposed Building 2 has
been relocated to enter the building along the west, off of Choice Center Drive, relieving some of the utility
congestion.
Number: 139 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] A utility coordination meeting is strongly encouraged. It's been a long time since this project has been in
for review and a refresher is needed on the conflicts and pinch points for utilities.
Response: This meeting has been completed.
Number: 140 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] The existing water main to the west of Existing Bldg 4 appears to have several conflicts with landscaping
and new curb and gutter. Please schedule a meeting to review re-routing this main.
Response: JVA-JSD The landscaping and water main have been adjusted.
Number: 141 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Sht 4 doesn't reflect the water quality device in Stuart Street that is shown on Sht 11. Please clarify. This
may be in conflict with the new sanitary sewer manhole.
Response: The water quality device, a Contech CDS2025, was moved to Choice Center Drive.
Number: 143 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Show easements on utility plans consistent with comment 142 and plat.
Response: NOLTE-JSD Easements have been added to reflect comment 142.
Number: 144 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Show/label all curb stops and meter pits on 3/4-inch through 2-inch inch water services and meter vaults
and shut-off valves on services larger than 2-inch.
Response: JVA – The meter pits, curb stops and shut-off valves are shown and labeled
Number: 145 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Label elevation of the existing sewer invert at San MH-1.
Response: JVA – All existing manhole and tie-in elevations are labeled.
Number: 146 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] See redlined utility plans for other comments.
Response: JVA – Redlines have been addressed.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2008
[1/26/11] The applicant's response comment letter states that this comments is "acknowledged", but there wasn't
any documentation in the materials I received stating that they were requesting that the 4 bedroom units be
occupied by 4 people. The best way to do this is to add a note on the SITE PLAN (sheet 2 of 3) in the "Residential
Dwelling Unit Table" for Building 1 and Building 2. The note can be something like "4 bedroom/4 bath units (to be
occupied by 4 unrelated people)". This can be a typical note for all of the 4 bedroom types in the two buildings.
[9/12/08] Your request letter asks to increase the number of unrelated persons "to a maximum of 3 individuals for 3
bedroom units and 4 individuals for 4 bedroom units". The request to allow 3 individuals is not necessary and
should be deleted. Section 3.8.16(A)(2) allows "2 adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than 1
additional person". This means that you are allowed 2 adults plus 1 other person, for a total of 3 persons, all of
whom can be unrelated to each other. Therefore, your request should only be to allow 4 unrelated persons in the 4
bedroom units.
[7/24/08] Clarification is needed regarding the request to allow the number of unrelated persons to be "increased
to one individual per bedroom for each unit". If this means that they are planning on having only 1 person per
bedroom, then the request should simply be to allow 4 unrelated persons in each 4 bedroom unit. The current
wording - "increased to one individual per bedroom" when taken literally would imply that if the variance isn't
granted, a 1 bedroom unit won't be allowed to be occupied by anyone.
Response: A note has been added to the Site Plan.
Comments from Ward Stanford – Traffic Operations
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: 89 Created: 8/3/2008
[2/23/11] Please provide a drawing(s) of the turning paths. Drawing can be a separate 8.5 x 11 or as a detail on
the S&S Detail sheet. We need to see the level of turning perfection in the design (basically make sure there is
excess turning space so the public doesn't have to turn perfectly, since that does not happen.).
[9/22/08] The 3/4 turn median configuration is good, but just upon visual review it looks like the opening for the
southbound left needs to be moved a little more south. This makes for a tighter turn radius and reduced turning
speeds. Please check and provide the turning template analysis.
[8/3/08] Please provide truck turning template analysis of the revised College median north bound opening.
Wanting to verify median bull nose shape and opening width are adequate for trucks.
Response: JVA – Turning path exhibits are included in the resubmittal
Number: 197 Created: 2/23/2011
[2/23/11] Utility Plans - S&S Plan, sheet 18, Stuart St S&S detail: move the Stop Bar to the right hand side of the
access from the parking lot. Delete the word "STOP" also. It’s an on-going maintenance issue and not necessary
since there is an R1-1 sign.
Response: JVA – The stop bar has been adjusted to align with the right travel lane and the word “STOP”
has been removed.
Number: 198 Created: 2/23/2011
[2/23/11] Utility Plans - S&S Plan, sheet 18: Remove the word "STOP" at all locations that also have an R1-1 sign.
On-going maintenance issue and unnecessary.
Response: JVA – The word “STOP” has been removed.
Number: 199 Created: 2/23/2011
[2/23/11] Utility Plans - S&S Plan, sheet 18: Remove the R3-5R sign at the exit of Choice Center Drive onto
College. The median and the R3-1 sign give adequate info to motorists that there only option is to the right.
Response: JVA – The R3-5R sign has been removed.
Number: 200 Created: 2/23/2011
[2/23/11] Utility Plans - S&S Plan, sheet 18: Remove the thru/right roadway stencil on Stuart at College.
Response: JVA – The thru/right roadway stencil has been removed.
Number: 201 Created: 2/23/2011
[2/23/11] Please provide a copy of the most current TIS with the next submittal.
Response: JSD - Copies of the updated memo was included in our first Final submittal. If additional copies
are needed please let us know.
Thank you,
Jim Sell