HomeMy WebLinkAbout215 MATHEWS OFFICE BUILDING - FDP - FDP160008 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONS1
Community 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
November 13, 2015
Greg Fisher
Greg D. Fisher, Architect, PLLC
3115 Clyde Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: 215 Mathews Office Building, PDP150020, Round Number 1
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: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: Please indicate the species and size of the new mitigation street
tree.
Response: Bur Oak - Quercus Macrocarpa 3” Caliper for mitigation. See LP103 for more information.
Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: All exterior lighting, if LED, must be specified to have a Kelvin
temperature of 3,000 or less to minimize harsh glare.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: Please describe the materials of the trash enclosure.
Response: Please refer to the west elevation where materials have been indicated as stucco walls
With a cornice of brick and stone.
Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: On the vicinity map, please replace Howes Street with Smith
Street.
Response: The vicinity map has been revised.
Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: It appears that the retaining wall is directly on the south property
2
line. Please consider obtaining the permission of the owner of the property to
the south to gain access so that this wall can be constructed.
Response: The retaining wall has been relocated 1’ off of the property line to ease the transition to the
existing masonry gateway at the front end of the southern property. Offsite temporary construction access
easements are also being secured from the neighboring property.
Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015: For further discussion as to providing the handicap parking space
in the public right-of-way, please contact Jamie Moyer in Parking Services,
416-2036.
Response: Such suggestion was taken leading to further conversations with other City departments.
Ultimately a meeting was orchestrated by Ted that led to agreement on the handicap parking space being
located to the street. A Modification of Standards was also submitted and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: A 9' Utility Easement is needed along Mathew's Street, not a 5'
easement as previously discussed. Engineering would not support a reduced
easement width due to the demand for future utilities.
Response: The plans currently provide a 9’ utility easement minus the minor protrusion of a footing below
grade.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The bioretention planter boxes need to be in drainage easements.
The easement along Mathews Street can be a Utility and Drainage easement
for these portions.
Response: Drainage easements have been included to encompass the planter boxes and are shown on
sheet C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The building overhangs the proposed biotention planter boxes.
These areas typically are required to be in drainage easements, however
easements are not allowed under building overhangs. With the easement
dedication process, a height can be given to account for the building overhang.
Response: Each drainage easement has a height associated with the easement and are shown on sheet
C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: LCUASS standards require street cut patches less than 75' to be
one continuous patch. See redlines.
Response: The patch area has been revised.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Scored and colored concrete are not allowed in the Public ROW.
Language in the development agreement can be drafted to state this area shall
be maintained by the Developer.
3
Response: It is desired that the minimal amount of scored and colored concrete shown within the public
ROW be allowed under the condition that the property owners maintain it. It would look odd to have this
small area be different than the rest of the entry plaza and it would downgrade the project to reduce the
quality of the entry plaza to conventional concrete.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please see LCUASS detail D-10B for a sidewalk culvert. A
depressed gutter is required for the tree lawn ares, not a swale. See redlines.
Response: Response: The site has been revised to show the sidewalk chase and sidewalk culvert per the
detail D-10B.
Topic: Offsite Work
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: An offsite easement may be required to install the landscape
retaining walls along the south of the property.
Response: A temporary construction easement is shown on the plans for the wall and offsite grading that
has been negotiated with the owner of the property to the south.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Per the Plat, the parcel of land contains 7,500 SF, not 7,000 SF.
Response: The original Town Plat shows lot dimensions of 140’x50’ which is equal to 7,000 SF.
Furthermore, the dimension of 150’ as shown in the Oakpark Plat has a scaled dimension of 140’ matching
the Town plat. Therefore, it has been concluded by the design team that the dimension of 150’ on the
Oakpark Plat is incorrect.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Under Building Data, the gross building areas need to be shifted
down a line. See redlines.
Response: Text has been shifted as requested.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015:
Using Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry in place of the Shadblow Serviceberry at
the front of the building might provide better uniformity with the use of this
named cultivar.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015:
On the south side of the building in the general locations where 3 Mexico Privet
and 3 Black Chokecherry are used consider use of these shade tolerant upright
trees in their place.
Crimson Sentry Norway Maple
Columnar Norway Spruce Picea abies cupressiana
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015:
4
Mitigation tree required are 9.5. The project should provide 10 upsized
mitigation trees.
Response: Refer to LP101 for updated table, the new mitigation quantity is 8 due to a tree being protected.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015:
Please add these additional standard notes:
TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS
THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE
WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.
ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE
SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 – JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A
SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: As per the process outlined in Section 14-72(b) of the Municipal
Code, the demolition of the building located at 215 Mathews was determined to
not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the National and State Register
District. Therefore, other than the required Plan of Protection, there will be no
further review of its demolition by the Historic Preservation Division.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(1) states: To the maximum extent feasible, the
height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of
existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is
located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from
the block face on which the new structure is located¿. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision
maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to
their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure
being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building
setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or
other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain
alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to
the site.
Staff believes that the height, setback and width of the new structure are similar
to the existing historic structures along Mathews Street, i.e., the Park View
Apartments and the Carnegie Library.
Response: Acknowledged. Please note that the setback has been further increased at the front to
accommodate a 9’ utility easement requested by the Engineering Department.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) states in part: New structures shall be designed to
be in character with such existing historic structures.
5
Staff appreciates the applicant's extensive use of brick on the building's facade.
However, the brick, combined with the design, appear very reminiscent of a
historic school building. This could be mitigated by the addition of another
material. Staff notes that directly across the alley from this project are several
eligible and designated properties, along Remington Street. These include the
one-story Bode Property, a designated Fort Collins Landmark, which is located
directly across the alley from this project, as well as the individually eligible
property next to the Bode House, at 218 Remington. To achieve compatibility
with these historic properties, the rear of the building should be articulated,
possibly by a stepback, and enhanced with additional brick.
Response: Revisions have been made to address these comments. Revisions include the reduction of
brick and introduction of stucco on the front façade, reallocation of the brick and stucco on the north and
south sides and more extensive use of brick on the rear façade.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) states in part: Horizontal elements, such as
cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of
such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings.
Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be
repeated in new construction...
The window patterns on the south half of the facade match the historic window
patterns, although they do not directly line up. However, the window patterns on
the north half of the facade do not match historic window patterns, as required
by this standard.
Response: It is understood that staff is recommending that the window patterns on the north half of the
front façade be realigned to match the pattern of the adjacent properties. However, we feel strongly that the
proposed pattern is reminiscent of other historic facades where the window pattern expresses the stairway
contained within. This adds visual interest and makes the windows functional from the interior.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) states, The dominant building material of such
existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction.
Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing
distribution of materials in the same block.
This standard has been met.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(4) states, Visual and pedestrian connections
between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or
church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.
The focal point for this project would be the Carnegie Library Building and
Library Park, as well as to Old Town. The visual and pedestrian connections to
these have been maintained, and this standard has been met.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: LUC 3.4.7(F)(5) states, To the maximum extent feasible, existing
historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street
6
tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall
match that of the existing trees.
The plans call for retaining the existing tree; also, increasing the setback will
enable the front strip to be planted in grass, which is the historic landscape
material in this location. With these, staff feels that this standard has been met.
Response: Acknowledged.
Contact: Maren Bzdek, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015
10/28/2015: Staff recommends the following adjustments to application
materials for the LPC hearing: 1) Remove graphic depictions of trees from the
front elevations to provide a more clear portrayal of building details; 2) Provide
more context for the rear elevation, i.e. wider view that shows more of the
buildings to the north and south; 3) Add building dimension notations to the
elevations.
Response: Trees have been removed from the PDP elevations and the west elevation has been broadened
to include more of the Park View Apartments façade also in the PDP Elevations. Building height
dimensions are shown on the east elevation and horizontal dimensions have been provided on the site
plan.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015
10/28/2015:
The property is located in the Laurel School National Register District, so the
proposed project will be subject to compliance with the standards in LUC
Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources.
11/09/2015: The property is not located within the Laurel School National
Register District, but is located adjacent to several designated and eligible
properties.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015
10/28/2015:
The LPC provided initial feedback in a work session on May 13, 2015 and will
now need to provide a written recommendation to the Decision Maker, as
required by LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), which states "In its consideration of the approval of
plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts
that: (a) have been deter-mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for
local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of
Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially
designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or
local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a
written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless
the Director has issued a written deter-mination that the plans would not have a
significant impact on the indi-vidual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of
the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made
7
under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of
the City Code." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the LPC
review. The next two available opportunities are 12/9/15 and 1/13/16.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/28/2015
10/28/2015: In addition to the Laurel School Historic District, the LPC may
consider compatibility with individually designated properties in the area of
adjacency, according to 3.4.7(B). These include 220 Remington (Bode House)
and 200 Mathews (Carnegie Library). Several adjacent properties have been
evaluated in the past but do not have current determinations of eligibility for local
landmark status, including: 217 E. Oak, 218 Remington, 221 Mathews (Park
View Apartments), 207 Mathews (Library Park Apartments).
11/09/2015: Area of Adjacency: For the purposes of staff¿s review of the
project, and based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the
proposed project in light of the definition of ¿adjacent¿ in LUC Section 5.1.2,
property adjacent to this project has been established as being located one-half
block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed.
Historic properties within this area of adjacency include the Carnegie
Library/Museum/Community Creative Center, 200 Mathews Street; the Park
View Apartments, 221 Mathews Street; the McHugh House/St. Peter¿s Fly
Shop, 202 Remington Street; historic residential buildings at 218 and 230
Remington Street; and the Bode Property, 220 Remington Street. In its
consideration of this project for a recommendation to the decision maker, the
Landmark Preservation Commission may concur with, reject or modify this area
of adjacency.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Light and Power
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 11/13/2015
11/13/2015: Please contact Todd Vedder at Light and Power, 221-6700, to
determine the feasibility of bringing three-phase power to the site. If
three-phase power is not in the near vicinity, you may have to consider an
elevator that relies only on single phase.
Response: Single phase power will be acceptable service to the property as an elevator was found that will
accommodate.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: FIRE LANES
The footprint places the building out of fire access by approximately 50'. As the
building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, the out of access
condition is acceptable as defined by IFC 503.1.1.
Response: Acknowledged.
8
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: WATER SUPPLY
A hydrant is required within 300' of the building. The closest hydrant is
approximately 275' which meets the minimum requirement.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST
PFA now waives DCA testing and system installation in all buildings less than
10,000 sq. f. and any Type V construction building less than 15,000 sq. ft.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/2015
11/10/2015: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT
Per staff meeting on 11/10/15, the project team will confirm the proposed
building height against fire code requirements for aerial apparatus access, and
provide updated information prior to the next review.
Response: Please refer to email correspondence regarding this matter concluding on 12/3/15.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015:
- Appendix B – LID Calculations – please provide a table in this Appendix that
shows that no less than 50% of newly added impervious area is routed to the
bioretention planters. The information is discussed in the narrative, but it needs
to also be provided in this LID Appendix. (final)
- Appendix C - Cover Page indicates that a Standard Operating Procedure
Manual will be provided to the City. The City will actually provide the SOP
Manual now so you can eliminate this Appendix (final)
- Swale cross-section calculations with 100-yr water surface elevations are
required (final)
Response: The requested revisions to the Drainage Report have been included.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: Sheet C400: Grading Plan
- The swale at the southwest side of the proposed building is routing through the
bioretention planter. The underdrain pipe will need to be sized to incorporate
the flow from this swale (Basin A1) and calculations will need to be provided.
Alternatively, a second solid-wall pipe could be added to the bioretention
planter to pass the Basin A1 flow through. (final)
- The proposed swales shown on this plan are labelled as “bioswales” on the
Landscape Plans. I don’t think it is your intent to make these bioswales but
please verify and/or coordinate with the LA plans. (final)
- Detailed Grading plans with additional spot elevations, slope labels, finished
grade elevations adjacent to the building will be required at final.
Response: Hydraulics for the underdrain pipe and swales have been included within the drainage report
and swale sections are also included on the Drainage Plan. The term “bioswales” has been removed from
9
the Landscape Plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: Sheet LP103 – The bioswales indicated on this sheet are simply
shown as “swales” on the Civil plans. Please coordinate with the Civil plans.
Response: Acknowledged - the term bioswale has been re-named
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: Sheet LP501 – The bioswale detail does not meet the City of Fort
Collins bioswale requirements so either change the name of the detail to
something other than “bioswale” or you will need to revise the swale to meet the
City of Fort Collins criteria.
Response: Acknowledged - the term bioswale has been re-named
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre
($0.1795 sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a
$1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.-ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing
impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is
issued. Information on fees can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2015
11/12/2015: The bioretention planters are a volume-based LID technique and
as such drainage easements (3-dimensional easements may be warranted) will
need to be dedicated for the area of the planters. If the planters are situated
within the front lot utility easement, it is fine to have the drainage easement
overlap the utility easement.
Response: Drainage easements have been included to encompass the planter boxes and are shown on
sheet C100. Exhibits will be prepared once the locations have been approved. A height of 25’ has been
proposed for each drainage easement due to the building overhang.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/26/2015
10/26/2015: After review of the map and calculating based on the scale of the
map provided the statement that the site is under 10,000 sq-ft appears to be
true. Please review redlines for verification that those are accurate
measurements as no map showing the disturbed area was provided. Since site
is less than 10,000 sq-ft no submittal of erosion control material is needed.
However, the site still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw
cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other
pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times or BMPs will be required of
the site. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if
there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email
@ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: The site disturbance is approximately 8,910 SF. This area is noted on sheet C400 (note 6).
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
10
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: No comments.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please change the title to "215 Mathews Offices", and "Tract 2" to
"Tract Two". See redlines.
Response: The title has been revised.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please provide the following information in the EXACT format
shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX’.
Response: The information as shown has been added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted
sheets. See redlines.
Response: The sheet index has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
Response: The benchmark statements have been revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project
boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values
to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control
plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values.
Response: Property corner values have been added to each sheet.
Topic: Landscape Plans
11
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please change the legal description from "Tract 2" to "Tract Two".
See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted
sheets. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged - cover index has been updated
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The titles do not match the index on sheet PDP-1. See redlines.
Response: Titles on sheet PDP-1 revised.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please change the legal description from "Tract 2" to "Tract Two".
See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted
sheets. See redlines.
Response: Titles on sheet index revised.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Please remove the Utility Plans from the sheet index. These are
not filed with the other plans. See redlines.
Response: Removed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: How were the Utility Easements dedicated? The Oakpark plat did
not dedicate any easements. See redlines.
Response: All the easements shown will be dedicated by separate document. Easement exhibits will be
prepared by a licensed survey and provided to the City after the locations have been approved.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Corrected.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: Traffic study waived during PDR. "The anticipated change in
traffic volume is not expected to rise to the threshold of needing a TIS. Based on
section 4.2.3.D of LCUASS, the Traffic Impact Study requirement can be
12
waived."
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2015
11/09/2015: An earlier question about bike parking in the PDR was answered
with 1 bike parking space inside the fire room. This doesn't seem terrible
usable. Any chance something like wall racks could be added in the parking
area?
Response: It is preferred to continue the idea of using this room for employee bike parking. There is plenty
of space inside this room beyond what is needed for the fire riser equipment and a key can be issued to
any employee that would desire to secure their bike inside. There also isn’t really a good place even to
locate wall racks within the garage area as the dimensions are tight.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015
11/03/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: Sheet C001: Notes Sheet – There is reference to FCLWD notes –
please change the reference and notes to the appropriate City of Fort Collins
notes. (final)
Response: The notes have been revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
Sheet C100: Ex. Information and Removal Plan – clarify the extents of the
sanitary sewer service removal. (final)11/02/2015:
Response: The extents have been clarified in the plan and note 11 has been added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2015
11/02/2015: Sheet C300: Utility Plan – the water meter size will need to be
provided and the curb stop location will need to be shown. (final)
Response: The size and curb stop location have been added to the plans.