Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICES BUILDING - PDP - PDP140005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSPage 1 of 15 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 July 07, 2014 (Latest responses 12/24/2014) Brian Hergott City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: City of Fort Collins Utilities Customer Services Building, PDP140005, 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, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The gray brick conveys a cold feeling. Please try some different, more traditional, brick colors such as those used on the other civic buildings in the area. Perhaps blond and/or brown brick or more natural sandstone. Please provide a sample material board. What is the brick color of the Butterfly Building, perhaps the paint could be stripped and the color copied in the proposed building.  RNL RESPONSE: The color palette of the UAB includes more traditional red brick, including reused brick from the historic creamery building, as well as blond brick. Sandstone veneer panels are also included around the base of the building. A material board with specific product information has currently not been supplied as material selection is contingent upon project pricing currently under way. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The Civic Center Plan calls for use of Colorado Sandstone. The base floor of the building should use more local sandstone. Generally, the building should covey a sense of permanence and importance (Sec. 4.16(F)). Perhaps the columns (light gray brick) could be more pronounced.  RNL RESPONSE: As noted above, a sandstone veneer panel base has been incorporated into the building design. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Please provide elevations of the "mechanical unit enclosure". Page 2 of 15  RNL RESPONSE: The mechanical unit enclosure elevations are shown on the main elevation sheets. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The cornices at the roof and the base level needs more architectural detail. Three-dimensional cornices.  RNL RESPONSE: The cornices are cast stone, the tone of which closely matches the sandstone veneer panel bases. The cornice locations serve to break up the roofline and establish a hierarchy within the building massing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The roofline is 200 feet long, unbroken and unarticulated. The feel of the buildings mass will be reduced by breaking up the roofline.  RNL RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment Number 8. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: The new building design does a much better job of conveying the sense of permanence of a civic building. The Code requires use of local sandstone, please provide more details as to how it is being incorporated. The long horizontal entry/cornice element could use some greater detail, perhaps something above each column. The entry doors need to be better distinguished. What will the building look like with the City's typical logo on the facade?  RNL RESPONSE: Please see above responses. Regarding building signage, please provide the design team guidance as to whether the city would prefer a stand-alone monument sign south of the building or signage mounted on the building near the south entry. Given the amount of glazing and the articulation of the portico on the south elevation, a monument sign may be better incorporated. Secondary building signage will be included at the north entry of the building, see elevations for approximate location. Please provide any particular requirement for the wording/content of these signs. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 07/07/2014: Parking demand: The TIS shows 121 total employees, 73 already in downtown, equalling 48 new employees downtown. Parking Supply: Howes restriping creates 47 new spaces, and Civic Center Garage has 288 available spaces. Where are the 73 current downtown employees parking and will they move to a new parking area? How many staff members ride bikes or take transit? 05/28/2014: Please provide a separate narrative clearly outlining the amount of employees and how you will provide parking between restriping (#s before and after) and the parking garage. This will have to reflect the actual striping on Howes Street as determined by this staff review.  RNL RESPONSE: Per the previous reviews, a diagram depicting the restriping of Howes Street is attached, showing the preferred option that creates 47 parking spaces, this modification has been completed. The comment from 07/07/2014 confirms that the supplied TIS for this project calls for parking for 121 total employees with 74 already working downtown. The remaining 48 new Page 3 of 15 employees are offset by the 47 parking spaces added through re-striping Howes Street and through the city employee subsidized parking in the Civic Center Garage, which currently has 288 available spaces. The 73 utility employees currently working downtown that commute to work by car park in the Civic Center Garage. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014:Why are you removing a couple White Oaks and putting trees in the exact same location?  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The White Oak trees along Howes Street are in poor condition. The site design includes street trees in other locations. We will confirm the condition of the trees with the city forester during an onsite meeting and determine if they are worth relocating. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The windows shown on the site plan are in a different location than shown on the elevations.  RNL RESPONSE: The window locations have been coordinated between Architectural and Landscape disciplines. RE: Elevations. Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Standard utility easements/alignments will be needed around the property. Current street standards specify 15ft utility alignments along Howes St and Laporte Ave, and 8ft utility alignments along the alleys. See redlines  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Proposed utility easements/alignments will not be required since all dry utility mains (telephone, electric, and gas) are located within adjacent public right-of-ways per meeting with XCEL, City Light & Power, Comcast, and Century Link on Thursday (6/19/14). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The current plans show parking modifications along Howes St with the addition of back in diagonal parking. This is not allowed by current City code. Currently, Howes St accommodates parallel parking adjacent to the site. If parking is proposed to change along Howes St please submit a plan that shows changes to the striping and lane layout along Howes St.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: A Traffic Impact Study was not received as part of the PDP project submittal. Additional Page 4 of 15 comments may apply after the TIS has been submitted and reviewed.  RNL RESPONSE: TIS was completed and submitted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Profile and cross sections of Laporte Ave is needed to evaluate the curb and gutter and drainage modifications along Laporte. See redlines  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: A flow line profile and cross sections have been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The seat walls along Laporte need to be set back a minimum of 2ft behind the public sidewalk  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: All proposed seat walls/retaining walls along LaPorte Avenue and Howes Street are set back a minimum of 1-foot from existing right-of-way. Per structural engineer this will allow sufficient room for footing and ensure no encroachment on existing right-of-way. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: What is happening with the downspout and drainage off of the butterfly building? Plans call to remove the exiting sidewalk chase.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The existing butterfly building is being relocated and therefore this comment no longer applies. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Please remove the old power pole and overhead utility lines at the northeast corner of Laporte and Howes St.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The Demolition Plan sheet C100 is now showing removal of existing old power pole and overhead utility line. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: How does the new detached sidewalk along Howes St tie into the exiting sidewalk to the north? The alley approach may need to be removed and replaced with this project.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The proposed walk on the south side and the existing walk on the north side of the existing alley tie in pretty good. Knowing that in the future this public alley will be removed for the Civic Master Plan, does it make sense to improve the alley approach at this time? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: With the bump out at the Laporte and Howes corner an intersection detail is needed to evaluate the alignment and current pavement striping.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: An intersection detail showing current pavement striping has been provided. Since the back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated the proposed bump out has been reduced and does not impact the existing striping along Howes Street and LaPorte Avenue. Page 5 of 15 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The existing handicap ramp at the northeast corner of Laporte and Howes will need to be removed and replaced as part of this project to meet ADA detection warning standards.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The existing handicap ramps are being replaced with new handicap ramps that meet ADA standards. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Is it intended to extend the 215 Mason streetscape finishes (colored concrete, pavers etc.) along the Laporte Ave property frontage?  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The site design intent is to integrate colored concrete paving finishes for the sidewalk along Laporte Ave, but will not be a continuation of the paving patterns of 215 Mason. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: By bumping in the curb/gutter along Laporte you are causing a pinch point along the sidewalk between the butterfly building stairs, tree grates, and the car doors. 2 frontage trees may need to be relocated.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The new site design has relocated the butterfly building and increases the area between the curb and the building. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: Adequate information is not provided on the site plan to determine the proposed total square footage of the building. Once this information is provided I can determine if the TDRFees paid are correct.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The building square footage has been provided in sheet SD1.1, under the “Land Use Data” table. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: My only comment is regarding the proposed living wall. Planting only one species (the clematis) may hinder the success of this project. Consider choosing more than one species to increase the likelihood of success. We can provide more specific assistance on plant selection, if you would like.  RNL RESPONSE: The living wall is no longer part of the project scope. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Will tree grates be used on this project? If so please specify. Page 6 of 15  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Tree grates will not be used on this project, the trees planted along Laporte Ave.will be in planting areas without tree grate, which is the preferred method according to Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Please set up an onsite meeting with the City Forester (Tim Buchanan 221 6361 tebuchanan@fcgov.com) to conduct an existing tree inventory and get information for the preparation of the mitigation plan. Other aspects of the project such as tree transplanting, placement and the rain garden tree details will also be discussed at this meeting. A separate landscape sheet should be provided for the existing tree inventory and mitigation plan. All existing trees should be identified as to species size and condition with intent to transplant keep in place or remove. The tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G with the table for specification 7 should be placed on the tree inventory and mitigation plan. Add specification describing how the tree transplanting will occur to the tree inventory and mitigation plan. These tree transplanting specifications should include such things as time of year, ball size, tree space size after care and other important details. Include the City of Fort Collins manager of the project in this meeting.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Logan Simpson has requested an onsite meeting with Tim Buchanan in order to meet the mitigation plan requirements for the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The three maple trees shown to be transplanted are Sensation Boxelder and not Tatarian Maple. Please correct on the plans.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to reflect Sensation Boxelder rather than Tatarian Maple as the existing trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Evaluate the trees planted near the corner of Howes and LaPorte for site distance. They are shown close to the corner and should be evaluated.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requirements for site triangle conditions have been met as shown by diagram in the 12-24-2014 submitted PDP site plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: If the scale is not already on the landscape plan please add.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Scale annotation has been added to the landscape plan sheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Species Selection: Linden trees have not done well in sidewalk cut outs in the Fort Collins area. Forestry recommends using Skymaster English Oak as pyramidal cultivar in place of the Boulevard Lindens. Page 7 of 15 Ash trees should not be planted due to the threat from Emerald Ash Borer. The have been moved to the do not plant category on the Front Range Recommended tree list. Use a suitable substitution. Please specify honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to reflect the substitution of Skymaster English Oak for Boulevard Linden Trees. Kentucky Coffeetree, along with Hackberry trees have been chosen from the approved tree list to replace the Patmore Ash previously shown. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Identify the following features on the plan and provide the required tree utility separations. Streetlights: 40 feet between shade trees and streetlights. 15 feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. 20 feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. 6 feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 8 feet from driveways.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been updated with dimensions reflecting the required separation distances. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Identify the following features on the plan and provide the required tree utility separations on a final landscape plan. Streetlights: 40 feet between shade trees and streetlights. 15 feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. 20 feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. 6 feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 8 feet from driveways.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been updated with dimensions reflecting the required separation distances. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 Page 8 of 15 05/28/2014: Add the standard landscape notes. Standards notes can be obtained from Seth Lorson the city Planner for this project. Be sure to include the following as well as other standard notes on the landscape plan. • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. • A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. • The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. • All tree pruning and removal shall be by a business holding a current City of Fort Collins arborist licensee on the City Forestry Division bid list. • Per the code required tree utility separations in LUC 3.2.1 K. Street and ornamental trees shall be planted no closer than 40 feet and 15 feet respectively from street lights, no trees shall be planted within 10 feet from water and sewer main lines, 4 feet from gas lines, 6 feet from storm sewer lines, 6 feet from water and sewer service lines and 8 feet from driveway or curb cuts. Tree utility and traffic control separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street tree.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The City of Fort Collins standard notes have been added to the landscape and site plans. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City Page 9 of 15 codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required. 2. New Green Code requires: a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. b. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. c. Low VOC interior finishes. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: A completed Commercial Service Information (C-1) form will need to be provided to Light & Power Engineering before the electric system can be designed. Even though this is (in part) a Light & Power building, normal electric development charges will apply.  RNL RESPONSE: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: After plans are final, an AutoCad (v.2008) drawing of the utility plan needs to be sent to Page 10 of 15 Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Noted, thank you. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2014 05/14/2014: One comment on the prlimin. plat for the Utilities Customer Svc Bldg., is to correct the section number in the subtitle of the plat. The section is labeled as Section 15 but is really in Section 11. It looks like the other references on the plat are correct as sec 11. Thank you, Megan Harrity Subs/Larimer County Assessor 970-498-7065 mharrity@larimer.org  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Section labeling has been corrected to reference section 11. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2014 05/15/2014: Xcel Energy Two gas services currently on property will need to be cut off prior to demolition. 14" WC mas gas pressure in this location.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: It was confirmed with XCEL that three of the four existing services were cut off prior to demolition. A note has been added to Demolition Plan that states the existing gas service for the existing butterfly building shall be cut off prior to relocation Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CODE COMPLIANCE As the building will have an automatic fire sprinkler system, general fire access to the UCS building's exterior is acceptable under the proposed development plan. However, due to site constraints as well as building height, fire code requirements relative to aerial fire apparatus access cannot be met either in the short-term or long-term plans for the site. It is recognized the site will not allow the placement of a 30' wide EAE spaced 15' from the building and adjacent to the longest side of the building. The current plan therefore creates a condition with firefighter access obstacles similar to those of high rise buildings. The intent of the fire code shall be preserved and as such, offsetting measures must be added so as to mitigate the current 'out of access' condition. Further building design considerations are required to offset the lack of aerial fire apparatus access. These offsetting measures will ultimately require the approval of the fire marshal. Page 11 of 15  RNL RESPONSE: Arch to coordinate with PFA to incorporate enhanced fire protection/access. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: 1. Please address the red-lined comments on the Site Plan, the Plat, the Utility Plans, and the Drainage Report. 2. Floodplain modeling proving this project will not cause a rise in the floodway or change to the floodplain boundaries will be needed prior to plan approval. They should be included in the No-Rise Certification and Floodplain Use Permit and I would like to see them prior to mylars being signed.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drawings were revised accordingly per city redlines and comments. All required floodplain modeling, No-Rise Certification, and Floodplain Use Permit will be provided as requested prior to mylar submittal. As discussed with Mark Taylor the COFC will allow a 0.049-ft rise. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please add text in the drainage report comparing the existing impervious area and flows with what is proposed. Please add any calculations to support numbers.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drainage Report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please tie-in the south underdrain with the inlet bank along the north side of Laporte Ave.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Site design has been revised and therefore this comment no longer applies. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please show in the drainage report how the water quality mitigation and LID mitigation requirements are being met. Please separate the calculations to show each treatment method and how much site area each method is mitigating.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drainage Report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please provide a drainage easement for all drainage features, including the bio- swale.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Proposed drainage easements/alignments are shown on plat, Horizontal Control Plan, and Utility Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: The City would like the landscaping to be enhanced in the north water quality pond.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised to reflect Page 12 of 15 the relocation of the butterfly building, and the new building layout of the Utilities Administration Building. Landscaping with plant material that is appropriate for a water quality pond will be provided. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD 1988 vertical datum. Please state the project datum on sheets C000 & C001, and provide an equation to get from NAVD88 to NGVD29 unadjusted, i.e. NAVD88 = NGVD29 Unadjusted + .  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Two benchmarks and an equation between the NAVD88 and NGVD29 Unadjusted were added to Cover Sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues on sheets C100 & C400. See redlines.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drawings were revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas on sheet C100. See redlines.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drawings were revised accordingly. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please correct the spelling of "Lighting" in the title.  RNL RESPONSE: Typo has been corrected, see Lighting Plan Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please make changes as marked. See redlines.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: City redlines were addressed and Plat Page 13 of 15 was revised accordingly. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please add "COFC Utilities Customer Services Building" in front of the legal description shown on sheet SD1.1.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The annotation has been added to sheet SD1.1. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet LS1.2. See redlines.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The noted text has been rotated 180 degrees. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Sheet C200. The back-in angle parking needs to be removed as it is not allowed by City code.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Sheet C200. There are some changes shown on the adjacent street (Howes and LaPorte) in terms of parking without a clear understanding of how this impacts the street width, striping etc. Please provide a signing and striping plan that details how the width of the street will be used. For instance, there may not be enough street width to allow any kind of diagonal parking (head-in) on Howes. Will lanes need to be narrowed on LaPorte to accommodate the new parking?  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: An intersection detail showing current pavement striping has been provided. Since the back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated the proposed bump out has been reduced and does not impact the existing striping along Howes Street and LaPorte Avenue Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Short term parking signs may be needed along the LaPorte parking. This can be added at final. Page 14 of 15  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Noted, thank you. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 07/02/2014: Traffic study has been received, reviewed, and the traffic operations elements of the study are accepted. The parking information has been forwarded to the planning staff for their use. 05/27/2014: No traffic impact study has been received. The study was requested and scoped, and traffic operations agreed to accommodate a shortened review time so the project could move forward with submittal, but no study has been submitted during the review timeframe. Traffic cannot recommend the project moving forward to hearing until this is received and reviewed. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: A 3" water service seems large for this office building use. Provide water service sizing calculations for review. If a 3" is needed, provide the projected peak day water usage in gallons/day and projected annual water usage in gallons/year for use in calculating development fees and raw water requirements.  RNL RESPONSE: The proposed water service for the Utility Administration Building has been reduced to a 2 ½ -inch and MKK Consulting Engineers will provide calculations as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: How will water and wastewater service be provided to the Butterfly Building?  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: An existing ¾ - inch water service on LaPorte Avenue will be used to service the relocated Butterfly Building. A new sanitary sewer service will be provided and connect to the existing sanitary sewer main in alley to the east. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Show all existing water and sewer lines extending to the site on the plans. (There are 5 or 6 water lines.) The lines which will not be used must be abandoned at the main. Include a note to coordinate abandonment with Water Utilities (416-2165).  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Existing water services to be abandoned are shown on Demolition Plan sheet C100. Existing water services to remain and used for irrigation and/or service to Butterfly Building are shown on Utility Plan sheet C300. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: See redlined utility plans for other comments.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: All city redlines were addressed and drawings were revised accordingly. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 Page 15 of 15 05/16/2014: Show the building footprint dimensions.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Building footprint dimensions have been added to the site plan sheet SD 1.3. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: Is the 'mechanical unit enclosure' a building? Show the dimensions of the enclosure and distance to property line. If it's a building, include elevation drawings. If it's an enclosure, include a detail (elevation drawings, materials, height, etc).  RNL RESPONSE: See the elevation sheets for the mechanical unit enclosure. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: Reverse angle parking spaces are shown on Howes. I believe more discussion needs to occur regarding the appropriateness of these since they will be short-term customer parking. Using them isn't intuitive, and maybe more appropriate for long-term employee parking areas rather than short-term, where drivers will likely be blocking the travel lane of the street while they attempt to back into the space. Also, probably not desirable to have some designated as handicap spaces.  NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: The plan shows 9 bike 'racks'. Is each rack a multi-bike rack, or an individual bike rack?  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The selected bike racks are individual bike racks, 9 bicycle parking spaces are required for the 36,689 sq. ft. building. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: Need to add a notes table to plan indicating building use, building square footage (total and per floor), number of stories, overall height, number of bike parking spaces, etc. With regard to bike parking, at least 1 bike per 4000 sf. of floor area is required, with 20% enclosed.  LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: 9 bicycle parking spaces are required for the 36,689 sq. ft. building and have been provided at the north and south building entrances. Per COFC Utilities end user DD comments, all bike parking will be accommodated outside the building with the option to cover a portion of the bike racks. No formal bike storage is currently supplied within the building due to significant space constraints. Will covering 20% of the 9 parking spaces meet the requirement for enclosure?