Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE VALLEY HOSPITAL A-WING REPLACEMENT - PDP - PDP140019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview December 15, 2014 January 21, 2015 response to comments Angela Milewski BHA Design, Inc 1603 Oakridge Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Poudre Valley Hospital A-Wing Replacement, PDP140019, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Along Lemay Avenue, a much denser screen of landscaping is required behind the sidewalk in order to effectively screen the operations of the ambulance area of the E.D. Please refer to Section 3.5.1(J) (operational compatibility) and 3.2.4(D) (light spillage). This screen must consist of a mix of trees, not shrubs that will block at least 75% of the light from the emergency vehicles and other fixtures. Otherwise, the operations of the E.D. will become yet another distraction for drivers along an arterial street. Evergreen trees are recommended to accomplish this objective. Species such as Scopulorum Juniper and Fastigiate Colorado Blue Spruce would fit into the available planting area. If deciduous trees are to be mixed in, then please consider the following as their shapes would also fit into this planting area: Crimson Sentry Norway Maple, European Pyramidal Hornbeam, Swedish Columnar Aspen, Crimson Spire Oak, Corinthian Linden. Response: Subsequent discussion confirmed the intention to have trees and shrubs support the visual screening from Lemay, while still allowing air to move freely for ventilation purposes. An informal/ natural (vs formal/ structured) landscape arrangement is preferred by the City. The plans have been revised to include a 4’ wall and a denser landscape screen. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Also, the sizes of these trees must be up-sized in order to allow for effective screening in the short term and not have to wait for plant maturity. Please note that this buffer is needed to comply with the aforementioned compatibility and lighting standards, not tree mitigation standards. For this reason, for any tree that is up-sized to accomplish the buffering must not be counted as credit for any other tree mitigation required under Section 3.2.1(F). Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: To further accentuate the screening along Lemay, please consider the use of green screens between the canopy columns. The way the columns are arranged, there are two wide gaps and three narrow gaps between the columns. Green screens could be placed in the three narrow gaps. Live plant material can be supported to grow vertically and, over time, significantly contribute screening the operations and activity associated with the ambulance area of the E.D. Response: With subsequent discussion, we agreed that the design intention is to not call unnecessary attention to the EMS canopy. A green screen would potentially create that unwanted attention. The design team acknowledged that there may be a green screen application opportunity on the east side, on the air intake brick wall, but it is not indicated along Lemay. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Or, conversely, please consider raising the height of the low, solid screen wall on the west side of the canopy. As indicated, this screen wall appears to be about four feet in height. A higher screen wall would obviously be more effective. Has the team considered raising this height to five or six feet? Response: Since the new finish floor would be about 2’ above the Lemay elevations, we agreed that raising the knee wall from 3’ to 4’ would accomplish the desired visual screening for the public. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The west elevation of the west canopy indicates that the fascia is to be “white aluminum composite metal.” The team should strongly consider using brick instead. Brick would complement the overall architectural appearance of the building along Lemay Avenue and ties the canopy to the entire campus. The brick color is a warm tone. White metal, in contrast, is an industrial/commercial (i.e. fuel canopies) application and lacks continuity with the overall facility. Even the north canopy is black, not white. If the white is intended to match the horizontal banding on the building, then consider using the white cast stone as metal does not match or complement stone. Response: Appreciating the desire to not have a “gas station canopy” look, the design team agreed to not use “gloss refrigerator white”, but rather a matt off-white that better matches the precast coloring. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Will the light fixtures under the canopy, S6, be recessed into the decking? Or, do the fixtures protrude? Section 3.2.4(D) requires under-canopy fixtures to be flush-mount using a flat lens. Response: All under canopy light fixtures will be recessed into the ceiling, with flush lenses. Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The north elevation includes a wall segment along Doctor’s Lane of about 100 feet that lacks horizontal relief. In order to mitigate this expanse, please add pilasters or columns to the façade at regular intervals that replicates the use of such features to the east. Response: Based on subsequent discussion, we have added three brick relief (1”) columns on the west end of the north elevation. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The site plan should indicate the land use to the north of the parking lot. What lies beyond? Response: These medical office ‘cottages’ owned by UCHealth will remain, and are now better indicated on the site plan. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The driveways out to Lemay Avenue as well as the driveway out to the south side of Doctors Lane seem to show drainage in excess of 750 square feet directed out to their respective public street sidewalks. How will the respective canopies above each access drive aisle direct drainage that falls on top? Response: Curb cuts and chases have been provided to meet City criteria. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: With the removal of the attached sidewalk/integrated Hollywood curb along both Doctors Lane and Hospital Lane, patching of both Doctors and Hospital Lane will be needed to remove the integrated curb. With the diagonal parking along Hospital Lane, a 2 foot patch can be depicted. With the Doctors Lane having travel lanes and no parking, the patching should be indicated to be half the lane width. Street patching for a Response: A 2 foot patch is shown along Hospital Lane along the proposed curb and gutter replacement. Doctors Lane also shows a patch to the lane line and around the proposed refuge island. Luke street will patch to the center of lane then 2 foot off the lip of proposed gutter where the existing pan is replaced to the north. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The metal sidewalk culvert detail reflects the widening of the sidewalk approaches on either side of the culvert, this should be reflected on the plans as well for clarity and reduce the likelihood that the contractor does not initially install the sidewalks to reflect this widening. Response: The plan view of sidewalk culverts are now drawn to reflect the detail. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The sidewalk construction on the west side of Luke Street, depending on the elevation of the walk along this area, could have some concerns with the tree trunks. Having the sidewalk situated above the existing finished grade elevation I suspect will be beneficial to minimize concerns of impact to the tree roots with the sidewalk installation. Response: The sidewalk will be graded at or above the existing elevation around the existing trees along Luke Street. They are currently in a narrow island with curb at limits of tree. With the proposed layout there will be more room on the west for growth. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The construction of the right turn lane at the southern entrance opposite of Robertson Street would require the installation of truncated dome detection at the east leg of this intersection, as well as appear to need the relocation of the traffic signal and controller box (unless a median splitter island were to somehow be designed). Retaining walls (if needed) with the grade change from the parking lot to right-of-way, would need to be located outside of public right-of-way. Response: Proposed curb gutter and sidewalk with be constructed with the signal poles and controls shown relocated behind curb. The ramps are shown as directional with the north-south ramps angled to align with the existing north ramp. A 2’ wide block retaining wall is proposed behind the proposed right-of-way to protect existing landscaping. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The street patching along Doctors Lane that angles off towards the east end should be shown as being "squared-off" in order to have the street cut either parallel or perpendicular with the line of travel. Response: The water line was changed to connect straight to existing water line. Therefore the angles on the sawcut are now removed. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: How much of the existing curb and gutter along Luke Street around the existing trees is envisioned to be kept with the reworking of this area? Is it all of it, with the only new curb being from elevation 67.57 and 67.88? Why isn't the gutter pan for the former drive approach at the northeast corner of the parking lot not seemingly being replaced with vertical curb and gutter and then remove the "access ramp" for the attached sidewalk that's no longer needed directly to the north, and seemingly does not tie into the detached sidewalk? Response: The existing drainage pan and ramp on the north of Luke Street will be removed and proposed curb and gutter and sidewalk will be constructed to tie in to existing near the north end of the lot. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: It appears the plans indicate an irrigation line that ties the two properties and crosses Doctors Lane. If this is not already identified and permitted through an encroachment permit, it would likely need to be through the Development Construction Permit process. Response: An encroachment permit will be completed with the City Inspector for the portion of the 24” irrigation line crosses the proposed right-of-way in Doctors Lane. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The development portion on the north side of Doctors Lane would need to be platted in conjunction with the development plan approval. New detached sidewalks along Hospital Lane, Doctors Lane, and Luke Street should have right-of-way dedication to match the back of walk locations. Response: The proposed plat will dedicate right-of-way to back of walk around the north lot, as well as an internal drainage and utility easement. Right-of-way along Lemay and south side of Doctors Lane will be dedicated by separate documents. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The development plan needs to establish what the development plan boundary is (both shown and described). On the north side of Doctors Lane this will be evident as the name of the plat for this portion of the development. On the south side of Doctors Lane, the development plan boundary should be shown and described as Lot 2 of the Poudre Valley Hospital. It would then be envisioned that the corresponding development agreement property boundary is also the platted boundary on the north side of Doctors Lane and the current Lot 2 of the Poudre Valley Hospital plat. Response: The plat now establishes the boundary for the north parcel. The existing Lot 2 will not be replatted, but instead separate legals and exhibits provided for new ROW, and easements, as applicable. Legals and exhibits will be provided in final design. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The traffic study indicated that one of the impacts proposed by the expansion is the need for a northbound right turn lane on the Lemay Avenue/Robertson Street intersection. As part of the development plan, this right turn lane will need to have dedicated right-of-way, and be designed and constructed, with ideally a detached sidewalk along Lemay as well. Response: Acknowledged. Due to constraints, the walk is attached and then transitions to detached as one goes north. The ROW and utility easement (south of the PVH Lot and within the existing residential lot) will be by separate document, as may be applicable. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: With the two previous comments in mind, the dedication of right-of-way for the right turn lane at Robertson can be done via separate document. Given that additional right-of-way (or access easement) for the new detached sidewalks along Doctors Lane and Lemay Avenue is needed, there may be some value in replatting Lot 2 concurrently with the plat for the portion of the development on the north side of Doctors Lane. Response: The north lot will be platted and the south areas will be dedicated as separate documents for right-of-way and easements, as applicable. Legals and exhibits will be provided in final design. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Will any change be occurring onsite with the redirection of the south Lemay (Robertson) entrance? Those changes could be shown on the plan now and avoid an amendment review in the future. Response: Please see BHA Plans for proposed changes to the on-site layout. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: In general, the plans should be showing the full width of Lemay Avenue to ascertain how the access points on Lemay Avenue are aligned with the access points on the west side of Lemay Avenue. Similarly, the plans should be showing the full width of Luke Street to ascertain how the new access defined point on Luke Street aligns with the existing access point across the street. Response: The plans have been updated to include the access points on the opposite side of Lemay Avenue and Luke Street. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The emergency access entrance and exit access on Lemay Avenue require variance requests to LCUASS access spacing requirements along Lemay Avenue (from both Robertson and Doctors Lane). Response: A variance request will be provided in final design. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The entrance off of Lemay Avenue has four parking spaces which back out onto the main drive aisle that accesses Lemay Avenue. Based on the Traffic Study indicating 167 visits (ADT's) utilizing this access, Figure 1906 of LCUASS would require a parking setback distance of 75 feet off of Lemay Avenue, which would require the removal of the four parking spaces. Similar to the previous comment, a variance request would be required for evaluation. Perhaps the emergency nature of the access and the particular use of those four parking spaces (unknown) would provide such justification to allow all or a portion of these parking spaces to remain? Response: There is no public parking or public access in this west canopy area. It is only for ambulance and emergency service vehicles. These spaces will be ‘back in’ spaces used by police vehicles that may follow an ambulance to the hospital on an emergency run, so we would not expect any impacts on Lemay due to their proximity to the street. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: In general, signage for how the access points onto both Lemay Avenue and Doctors Lane are restricted (either to emergency, and/or one-way) should be indicated on the plans for clarity of how accesses will be limited and function. I'll also be curious to see what sort of signage will be visible to vehicles on the west side of the Lemay Avenue/Garfield Street intersection. Existing No Parking signage along Luke Street should be shown as to remain, with additional signs added as well? Response: Regulatory signs have been indicated on the civil plans. Changes to monument and directional signs are also anticipated, subject to separate sign permits. But we have prepared an exhibit illustrating the planned messaging changes anticipated for the monument and directional signs. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The existing access ramp configuration on the southwest corner of Doctors Lane and Lemay Avenue is not ADA compliant. This should be shown as being rebuilt with separate truncated dome detection that directs peds to the north and to the west. (Ideally, this should also be done on the northeast corner of Doctors Lane and Lemay Avenue, which would "complete" the compliance of ADA ramps at this intersection. Response: Proposed ADA compliant ramps are now shown on the plans. Ramps are also shown on the north side to make the intersection fully ADA compliant. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The sidewalk along Hospital Lane as it heads north to the property boundary should probably be shown to attach to the existing attached sidewalk at the boundary rather than remain detached, as the sidewalk as shown appear to tie directly into a utility pedestal. If there's an opportunity to move the pedestal to maintain the sidewalk detachment, that could certainly be explored. Please show more of the existing features to the north for verification. Response: The sidewalk will now transition to connect with the existing attached walk on the north and avoid conflict with the existing utility pedestal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: The sidewalk along Luke Street as it ties in to the existing attached "sidewalk" might be tying into more towards the east-west narrower "sidewalk" with the raised curb head on the north side than the north-south sidewalk along Luke Street. Please show more of the existing features to the north for verification. A comment was made in the civil portion of comments regarding the appearance of the existing gutter pan (for the former driveway) at the northeast corner not being removed and replaced with vertical curb and gutter and how the new sidewalk ties into the attached walk/access ramp as well. Response: The gutter pan will be removed and new curb gutter and sidewalk will be constructed to tie in at the north edge of the existing ramp. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: I'm understanding that features to promote/identify the striped crosswalk crossing Doctors Lane such as a raised median island in the center turn lane is being contemplated. We'll want to review what proposed design solutions are implemented for Engineering considerations. Response: Raised median island is now provided. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: In addition to the right turn lane at the southern entrance to the overall hospital, the traffic study identified additional offsite improvements needed at Lemay and Elizabeth. How this project is tie to these improvements and any corresponding obligations should be discussed and verified. Response: This comment was reviewed and determined to no longer be relevant. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2014 11/20/2014: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: If not already included please add the tree protection specifications to the tree mitigation plan found in LUC 3.2.1 G. Response: Tree protection specification notes have been added to the tree mitigation plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: Schedule an onsite meeting with the City Forester to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. Response: We have met with the City Forester to review and document all trees within the project area. Mitigation trees will be provided on both this redeveloped site and the concurrent UCHealth Harmony Campus Emergency Department site. Mitigation trees have been indicated on both sets of plans. The total amount of mitigation trees required for the A-Wing project is 75. We have room for and have indicated 40 mitigation trees on the A-Wing redevelopment site, so the remaining 35 mitigation trees have been included in the plans for the Harmony Emergency Department project. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The existing electric transformers feeding the hospital will need to be protected in place and access maintained. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Light & Power has existing electric facilities running along the North edge of the proposed parking lot between Hospital Lane & Luke Street with transformers in the NW & NE corners of the site. Access to these transformers will need to be maintained. Will the proposed LID BASIN in the NE corner block access to the existing transformers? Response: LID BASIN will not impact the electrical transformer. The transformer can be serviced from the parking lot. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Applicant will need to submit a C-1 Form and a One-line diagram to Light & Power Engineering with load requirements. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and system modification charges where applicable will apply. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Contact Light & Power Engineering @ 970-221-6700 to coordinate any relocation of existing electric facilities including street lighting. Response: Acknowledged Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: HELISTOP Fire code requirements pertaining to Helistop operations can be found under Section 2007 of the 2012 IFC. > 2007.1: Helistop shall be constructed in accordance with the IBC. > 2007.2: Surrounding clearances to be 15 feet. > 2007.3: Control of flammable and combustible liquid spillage shall be provided. > 2007.4: Exists and stairways shall be maintained in accordance with Section 412.7 of the IBC. > 2007.5: A standpipe to the roof shall be required. > 2007.6: (Foam protection for Heliport operations) > 2007.7: Fire extinguishers to be provided. > 2007.8: Federal approval required. Reference IBC 1607.6 for additional information. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: WEST SIDE APPROACH TO ED Please note that fire apparatus respond to nearly every medical call and routinely follow the ambulance to the hospital in order to pick up firefighters who accompany the ambulance. The ambulance entrance to the ED on the west side should therefore function in a way that meets the needs of responding fire apparatus. Turning radii at the south entrance appear adequate but drive aisle widths and turning radii provided after entering do not meet minimums standards and it is unclear if fire apparatus could negotiate the site. In order to have a comprehensive understanding of how this site will function, it would also be helpful to detail PVH's intended parking plan for this area, including ambulance arrival/departure area, rehab/restocking area, staging area, PD parking, Fire parking, intended clear lanes for drive through, etc. More discussion is needed. Response: The truck turning movement was provided to PFA and approved by the Fire Chief. Signage/striping will need to be provided for emergency parking and will be tracked and confirmed during final design. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: TRAFFIC LIGHT CONTROL PLAN During conceptual discussions for this project, a need for capturing traffic signals for emergency vehicle entering and exiting the site was identified. Has there been any progress made toward resolving this problem? Response: A subsequent meeting was held with Engineering, Planning and Traffic Operations departments. To allow for opticom control of the SB Lemay traffic only, the signal at Lemay and Doctor’s Lane will require modifications. The SB signal arm pole will likely need to be replaced. Traffic Operations is developing an estimate of cost for this replacement, but pending approval by UCHealth we expect this change will be made and it has been indicated on the plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: WATER SUPPLY The hydrant relocation to the SW corner of new A-Wing building is shown coming off the line which I believe also serves the fire pump. Please ensure hydraulic calculations support water demand for both. Response: The system pressures, based on water models, was provided to Aspen and the mechanical engineer. Field testing of the system will be performed by City of FC Utilities and information will then be provided to the mechanical engineer to determine demand needs are met. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2014 12/02/2014: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Corrected Erosion Control Plan from the redlines (SW Packet), Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. SWMP to be provided in final design and prior to entitlement. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The irrigation lateral may be used for the outfall. The storm sewer needs to be inspected to make sure it is in good working condition. The City can assist in using a television camera to inspect the line. If the line is not adequate, the storm sewer would need to be repaired or replaced up to City standards. Response: The existing pipe will be tv’d by UCH/PVH’s private contractor, and appropriate action taken, if necessary and as applicable. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Please provide a table for the LID techniques showing the site meets the 50% and 25% requirements. Response: LID Table has been provided on the drainage exhibit. Porous pavement and LID basins were reviewed with Wes and approved, with no porous pavers required for north parking lot. LID/PLD sizing will be provided in final design, as required. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Please provide PLD (porous landscape detention) sizing calculations. Response: PLD sizing calculations will be provided in final design, as required. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The PLDs should be designed with underdrains where possible. A discussion with the City needs to take place to determine which PLDs will require underdrains. Response: Areas with underdrains were discussed with Wes. It was agreed no pavers were required for the north parking lot. Furthermore, due to no storm pipe outfall system, the LID/PLD’s will not require underdrains, and LID basins may overtop and spill onto adjacent streets, as historically occurs and to maintain historic drainage patterns. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are lines on sheet C-006 that are too close to each other and need more separation. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Please tie the coordinate values on sheet C-011 to the project boundary. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The new crosswalk on Doctors Lane between the ED and the parking lot should be considered for an enhanced crosswalk. Perhaps a center pedestrian refuge island in the middle of the road (center turn lane area) could be installed. Response: A refuge island is shown on plans with an underdrain to accommodate landscaping. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The pedestrian ramps in the SE corner of Lemay and Doctors need to be directional ramps. Response: ADA compliant ramps have been added to plans on the SE corner. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Bike parking will be needed close to the public entrance for the ED. The site plan says bike parking is provided on the east side of the hospital by the employee entrance. Some parking should be provided closer to the ED. Response: North side near CUP Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Some previous comments from 2013 included initial discussion about parking on Doctors Lane. This is not something that we support at this time. Response: Acknowleged, No parking signs to be reset. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: We'll need some signage/wayfinding plans in the future. This includes directing people to the main entrance (Robertson), and directing public to the ED entrance (Doctors), and do not enter signs at the ambulance entrance across from Garfield. Response: While final sign plans will be prepared and approved by separate sign permit, we have included an exhibit with the planned messaging changes to monument and directional signs that will occur with the relocation of the Emergency Department for your reference. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: This development will need to plan on constructing the warranted northbound right turn lane at Lemay / Robertson. This proposal has a significant impact on that movement (up to 170 northbound right turns in the peak hour). Response: The right turn lane has been added to all plans. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The exit for the new ambulance bay is far from ideal. It is incredibly close to the Doctor's intersection. The TIS notes that this should be a right out only (unless emergent). This will need to be signed. For emergent exit, the traffic study discusses using optican at the Lemay / Doctor's signal. Because of the location of the exit, creating pre-emption for the exiting ambulances will require some changes to the signal, including left turn arrows that can go red, and with those new heads, we may need new mast arms. Response: A subsequent meeting was held with Engineering, Planning and Traffic Operations departments. To allow for opticom control of the SB Lemay traffic only, the signal at Lemay and Doctor’s Lane will require modifications. The SB signal arm pole will likely need to be replaced. Traffic Operations is developing an estimate of cost for this replacement, but pending approval by UCHealth we expect this change will be made and it has been indicated on the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The re-distribution of existing traffic between Doctors and Robertson is not really explained in the TIS. Although the end numbers seem reasonable, I'm not sure how they were developed. Any questions that come up during the hearing process would need to be responded to by the applicant and their team. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2014 11/28/2014: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. Response: Landscape Plan has been updated to reflect this change. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: For the new water service, a backflow preventer will be required if the service line connects with any existing water service lines within the building. Response: Aspen is working with the Wes and Shane in the Utility department to determine the location and details necessary for the backflow prevention unit. A note has been added to the civil utility plan, as applicable. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Is the existing water service line being used for irrigation? Please document this on the plans. If the service is planned to not be used, it will be required to abandon the service at the main. Response: The existing water service line will be used for irrigation. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Please using a tapping saddle to connect the proposed 8-inch main to the existing 6-inch line on the east side of the project. This will allow the bends to be removed as well. See redlines. Response: Tapping saddle has been included for connection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: The fire hydrant on the east end needs to have a straight connection from the main. See redlines. Response: The fire hydrant now shows a straight line connection to the existing waterline. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/09/2014 12/09/2014: Please see redlines for other minor comments. Response: Redlines received and addressed. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2014 12/10/2014: You should provide fixed bicycle racks near the visitors entrance as well as provide the covered employee bike parking. Response: Bicycle racks have been added to the west of the visitor entrance in addition to the covered employee racks.