Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOTEL (DOWNTOWN HOTEL) - FDP - FDP150033 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSPage 1 of 13 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 October 23, 2015 Stu Macmillan Bohemian Companies 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Fort Collins Hotel (Downtown Hotel), FDP150033, 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: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Question: Why are the LID pavers proposed in parking spaces instead of drive aisles? It seems like the aesthetic quality of the pavers would better serve the project without vehicles parked on them. Response: From a design standpoint it is our preference to place the permeable pavers in the parking spaces due to less traffic loading and this location also works better for drainage to adjacent rain gardens. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please discuss the note about further evaluation of the seatwall finish. Response: Finish of seatwall will be an additional concrete finish. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: No cover page is necessary for the landscape plan. The site plan cover will serve as the signature cover for all planning docs except the plat. Response: Acknowledged. Page 2 of 13 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please change signature block from "CDNS Director" to "Planning Manager". Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please add note to "proposed on site vehicle parking count" section that reads "Approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 10, 2015" Response: Note will be added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please show the enclosed bike parking on the site plan. Response: The enclosed bike parking will be identified on the plan. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 200 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: {With further discussion on this comment, this is reaffirming that the concern of adding additional flows to the south side of Chestnut Street needs to be mitigated with the flowline curb and gutter of the south side of Chestnut Street being substandard. There may be options that could minimize the amount of work on the south side, including providing an inlet that ties into the storm line within Chestnut Street.} Existing Chestnut Street appears to have a crowned roadway throughout its existing condition. The flow arrows on the grading plan show that centerline crown appears to be going away west of the alley until the right turn onto Walnut Street, with sheet flow of drainage from the sidewalk/hotel entrance and drop off, across to the south side of Chestnut Street. In general, I'm wondering why the centerline crowned roadway isn't being maintained throughout and what are the implications with introducing a larger area draining onto the south side of Chestnut Street. Existing flowline shown on the south side of Chestnut Street appears to indicate that there's a low spot in this area that doesn't drain. Changing the Chestnut Street cross section in this area from a centerline crowned street to a section that all slopes to the south (including from outside of the roadway) would need to discussed further and require a variance request for evaluation. Response: Per agreement with City and developer the existing curb/gutter along the south side of Chestnut Street will be replaced with a new curb/gutter with a variable curb height (a Variance Letter will follow). Comment Number: 210 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The amount of drainage concern referenced in the previous comment could appear to be slightly reduced by maintaining a gutter pan across the entrance and exit of the hotel entrance/drop-off. Please look at providing a pan that connects the flowline Response: Per agreement with City and developer the existing curb/gutter along the south side of Chestnut Street will be replaced with a new curb/gutter Page 3 of 13 with a variable curb height (a Variance Letter will follow). Comment Number: 220 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: Please provide cross sections of Chestnut Street showing existing and proposed cross-sections to gain a better understanding on the amount of reconstruct and reshaping of the roadway is being proposed. 50 foot intervals would be beneficial. Response: Cross sections have been provided per your request. Comment Number: 230 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: Why can't the 10" RCP roof drain on Walnut Street not utilize the sidewalk/right-of-way and remain on private property, tying into the trench drain in the same manner as the design depicted along Chestnut Street? Response: Roof drain alignment has been revised to remain on private property as much as possible. Comment Number: 240 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: {This comment has been updated} A flowline design with corresponding edge of alley pavement information for Old Firehouse Alley needs to be provided on the civil plans. Public utilities and also the trench drain design needs to be on the civil plans. Has it been confirmed that the DDA is establishing maintenance responsibilities for the alley in the same manner as Old Firehouse Alley to the north? Response: An alley flow line profile with corresponding edge of alley pavement information has been provided. Public utilities and trench drain detail are being provided on civil drawings. Comment Number: 250 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: There should be additional information shown as to how the proposed alley work will tie into the existing to the north. Does the alley improvement match the existing asphalt width to the north, show existing buildings, drive edge of pavement widths tying into the alley on both the west and east side, etc. Response: Additional information has been provided per discussions with Marc. Comment Number: 260 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: {This comment won't be actively pursued but kept in as reference, with the understanding that the alley is to be privately maintained by the developer (or DDA) through an encroachment permit.} The presumed paver design for the alley should be using concrete banding along the west and east sides of the alley for the pavers to abut and is not depicted on the plans, I'm presuming the concrete banding widths used for Old Firehouse Alley to the north would be sufficient. With the pavers not being depicted to continue up to Linden Street, a concrete edge should also be provided at the limits of the pavers to the north. This concrete section may need to be wider than the width provided along the east and west sides, as the switch from existing asphalt to pavers here will be with more vehicular traffic. I will need to inquire on suggestions for how to address this change of interface. Response: A concrete band will be shown on the plans. Comment Number: 270 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: {This comment won't be actively pursued but kept in as reference, with the understanding that the alley is to be privately maintained by the developer (or DDA) through an encroachment permit. The civil plans do not need to have design Page 4 of 13 for the alley that pertain to the encroachment aspect of the alley work (pavers, lighting, etc.)} The civil and site/landscape plans aren't in sync with depicting the alley design, as the paver sizes are different and the landscape plan appears to be depicting different paver types or colors based on lineweight and additional lines/bands across the alley that I'm not sure what they represent. I do now notice the alley cross section detail on the landscape plan and concrete header detail for the east and west sides of the alley referenced in the previous comment. The 6 inch width for the concrete header seems narrow, as the Old Firehouse Alley concrete header appears to be 12 inches. The alley construction details should be provided on the civil plans and not in the landscape plans. The concrete depth of 5" below the pavers shown I don't believe we'd support as 6" in or minimum sidewalk depth. Response: The civil drawings only depict paver hatching and not intended to show the paver design/pattern. Please refer to Russell+Mills drawings for alley paver design. Comment Number: 280 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The access ramps on both sides of Chestnut Street at Jefferson Street not being brought closer together up to the Chestnut Street travel lane seems awkward, combined with how gutter pan/flowline drainage is designed in this area. Further information/discussion on options for these areas should be pursued. Is a 10.9% flowline grade really occurring on the western side? Response: This area has been revised per discussions with Marc. Comment Number: 290 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: There is one depicted sidewalk cross-slope along Walnut Street that exceeds the required 2% max (shown as 4.4%) and would need to be adjusted. Are there other areas not meeting 2%? Response: Cross slope callouts have been revised. Topic: General Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: How will the approval of the plans, plat, and development agreement be envisioned with the approved PDP for both the hotel/parking lot and hotel/parking garage? Response: The title for the Civil Drawings, Site Plan, and Landscape Plans have been revised to match the name of the plat which is “Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision”. Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: A response to the pork chop comment indicated that the TIS for the surface lot does not warrant a right turn lane and that the plans will be revised to not show a right turn on Jefferson. In discussing this with Martina, the City is still requiring as previously commented: "we'll want to see that no parking is indicated along Jefferson Street from just past the tree (in front of the depicted SU-40 vehicle) to the intersection. This won't technically serve as a turn lane, but will aid in turning movements for the areas." Response: The signage and striping improvements along Jefferson Street will be the same for the parking garage and parking lot scenarios. All signage/striping comments per Martina have been addressed. Comment Number: 120 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The area shown as proposed sidewalk along the north side of the parking lot aligns with the existing driveway out to Jefferson Street. Understanding the recent input that the driveway is to remain open, wouldn't the drawings need to be modified accordingly, with the removal of the planter area, Page 5 of 13 street tree on Jefferson Street and the concrete wall, as well as the site and landscape plans showing the driveway? Is it understood, and any concern that the identified 7 foot wide sidewalk will be driven on for a portion of it, for the access off Jefferson Street? Please have all the plans show the existing infrastructure to the north (parking lot, existing paving, existing buildings, etc.) identified to understand how the proposed infrastructure will tie into the existing context. Truncated dome detection should be provided on either side of the driveway, and in general the driveway itself I don't believe has a 2% cross slope max for the sidewalk crossing, with the six inch drop for the curb removal. The driveway would likely need to be rebuilt for ADA compliance. Response: The current drawings will not reflect this change however, the applicant is setting up a time to meet with Marc to discuss and the outcome of that meeting will be reflected on the final set. Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The site and landscape plans do not reflect the truncated dome access ramp detection required at the Walnut/Chestnut. There is a proposed (subject to encroachment permit) concrete planter/seatwall that would be within the ramp area and a landscape uplight that's abutting it. Their location is awkward and I believe should be realigned out of the center of the access ramp movement. Response: The design of this area has been resolved with the updated road alignment. Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: With the two handicap stalls along Chestnut Street, why isn't there reflected an accessible ADA/City compliant access ramp between them, connecting to the Chestnut Street sidewalk? Response: Drawings have been revised to show a handicap ramp between two handicap parking spaces. Comment Number: 150 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: {This comment has been updated, removing the reference to the water meter.} Rob Mosbey indicated that the major encroachment permit information has been forwarded "up the line" for City Manager review with input forthcoming. Response: Noted. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 300 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The name on the plat being Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision is confusing as it doesn't coincide with the site, landscape, and civil drawings, making cross-referencing awkward for future reference. Please look to have the title of the plans be the same across all documents (either Downtown Fort Collins Hotel, or Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision). Response: The title for the Civil Drawings, Site Plan, and Landscape Plans have been revised to match the name of the plat which is “Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision”. Comment Number: 310 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The 3 foot wide emergency access easement shown dedicated on the east side of the alley would also need to be an access easement. However, Page 6 of 13 I think that this emergency access/access easement would only be needed in the parking garage scenario as the alley is only widened outside of the right-of- way in the parking garage scenario, but remains fully in the alley right-of-way in the parking lot scenario. Response: The plat for the parking lot scenario has been revised to only show the drainage easements required for the proposed rain gardens on Lot 1. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape PlansComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: A conceptual plan has been submitted that explores retention of existing trees number 12 and 13. Provide information on feasibility of moving the drive around 5-6 feet away from the trees with a retaining wall. The conceptual indicates moving the drive around 14 feet from the trees. Also evaluate feasibility of retaining existing tree number 17. The location of this tree is currently shown in the proposed sidewalk. Provide information on feasibility of retaining tree number 17. Response: The pork chop island at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Walnut Street has been revised and approved by Forestry, Storm Water, Engineering, Planning, and developer. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Katie Dorn, , kdorn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent to properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. 2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: Page 7 of 13 That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like adjacent historic buildings. b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step-backs to mitigate height, relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block. c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. 3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants’ request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building’s height and setback, specifically: Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet; and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. 4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Response: Noted. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: 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 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) Page 8 of 13 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. 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: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Response: A Pre-submittal Code Review meeting was held on 03 November 2015. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2015 10/19/2015: Any changes to the existing electric capacity and or location will initiate electric development and system modification charges. Please coordinate power requirements with Light and Power Engineering at 221-6700. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2015 10/19/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: Light & Power has 3-phase electric facilities in this area for both of the existing addresses. System modification and capacity charges may apply. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: If the plan is to move forward with the parking garage option, two separate C-1 forms and one-line diagrams will be required. Page 9 of 13 The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre- fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: AERIAL FIRE ACCESS VS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE PFA and the project team have both acknowledged that the site plan does not provide minimum fire access for aerial apparatus as required by code. Although the building does not meet the definition of a high rise, access limitations, due to site constraints, create a situation similar in nature to that of a high rise. The PFA will continue to work with the project team to meet the intent of the fire code through alternative means of compliance in order to offset code deficiencies. PFA advises the project team to consider high rise provisions in future discussions. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: ALLEY LIGHTING The alley shows string lighting to be located above 14' in height. This is acceptable. The single globe, traditional pole mounted lights are shown at 12' in height. The fire marshal is requiring the cross bars to be elevated to a minimum of 13'6" (IFC503.2.1). Response: The bottom of the lighting standard has been raised to 13’-6”. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please complete variance request for 6" of freeboard (rather than 12") and include this request in the drainage report. Response: Variance has been revised as reflected in drainage report. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please expand on the LID Summary Table provided to include a breakdown of the area that is treated by each LID feature. Please show for each paver section and rain garden. Response: The LID Summary Table has been expanded per City’s request. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: If the parking garage alternative is approved and the proposed parking lot is not built, how will the proposed hotel meet the LID requirements? Page 10 of 13 Response: The applicant and City are discussing this and the details of this will be sorted out with the FP for the parking structure. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please eliminate Appendix C.1 to avoid any potential confusion between details shown in the report and the plans. Response: Appendix C.1 has been eliminated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please show that the pipe from the proposed inlet to the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity for the proposed flow. Response: Information has been added to show adequate capacity in storm pipe between proposed inlet and existing infrastructure. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please provide drainage easements for the proposed rain gardens. Response: Drainage easements have been provided for proposed rain gardens. Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please see redlines. Response: All redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2015 10/22/2015: Removing the crown from Chestnut in front of the entrance will increase the stormwater flows across the street to the SE curb and gutter on Chestnut. Please show that curb and gutter has adequate conveyance to handle the proposed flow and the downstream inlet can also handle the flow. Response: Per agreement with City and developer the existing curb/gutter along the south side of Chestnut Street will be replaced with a new curb/gutter with a variable curb height (a Variance Letter will follow). Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: The site plan currently shows an "asphalt pavement" parking lot. Please update the plan to show features such as permeable pavers and rain gardens. Response: The site plan has been updated to reflect the pavers in the parking lot. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/05/2015 10/05/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Page 11 of 13 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. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (Not Submitted in the Utilities Plans as required for the final plans), Erosion Control Report (Not Submitted), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Not Submitted). 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: An Erosion Control Report has been submitted for review/approval. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: All redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: All redlines have been addressed. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text issue has been resolved. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: Text has been rotated. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: The permanent Plat name will need to be decided on before mylar. It needs to be chosen by the next round of review. We will need to approve the name, before the mylars can be produced. Response: The plat name has been finalized which is “Walnut-Chestnut Subdivision”. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 Page 12 of 13 10/20/2015: Please change "Parcel" to "Lot", and remove the "Parcel 3" label. See redlines. Response: Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please increase text sizes for the street names & dedication information. See redlines. Response: Plat has been revised accordingly. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please add sheet LS503 to the sheet index. See redlines. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please add a legal description for the project property. See redlines. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Line over text issue has been resolved. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2015 10/07/2015: redlines provided to engineering. Response: All of Martina’s redlines have been addressed. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: 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: This plant will be replaced. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please show that the proposed grease trap is connected to sewer service. Page 13 of 13 Response: A note has been added to grease trap note on Utility Plan Sheet C300 referencing mechanical/plumbing drawings for sanitary sewer inlet and discharge pipe routings. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: Please show slope on the proposed sewer service. Response: Slope has been added to proposed sanitary sewer service. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2015 10/22/2015: Please add a call out to the existing manhole west of the alley that is said to have sewer, water and stormwater running thru it. The City is unsure of the status of these lines and would like to have coordination at time of construction with Water Field Operations at 970-221-6700. Response: We will need the City’s assistance to identify these existing utility lines and once the City identifies these lines we can revise our drawings accordingly. We think the two (2) utility lines crossing the manhole are a 12- inch and 6-inch storm sewer. We are showing the 12-inch line on our drawings which we believe is the storm sewer that connects into the existing drainage inlets in the 20-foot wide parcel north of the hotel. The existing 12- inch storm sewer and drainage inlets are going to be removed with this project. We do not show the 6-inch utility pipe because we don’t know where it comes from but we assume it is connected to the existing inlet on the east side of Walnut Street immediately north of the 20-foot wide parcel. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: The landscape plans do list separation requirements; however, it appears that these requirements are not met in all locations. Please review to be sure that proper separations are provided. Response: Separation requirements will be met for all trees and shrubs.