HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE HUB ON CAMPUS - PDP - PDP160038 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
December 23, 2016
Sam Coutts
RIPLEY DESIGN, INC.
419 CANYON AVE, STE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Hub on Campus, PDP160038, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Comment Responses: Ripley Design, Kimley-Horn, Ware Malcomb, ESC, Core Spaces
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: Vehicular access to/from Elizabeth Street occurs through a private
drive with an access easement but on property owned by the property owner to
the west of the site. The City should be provided with information from the
developer regarding discussions with that adjacent property owner to
understand whether agreements are being made for ongoing
access/maintenance of this drive aisle. Note that the traffic study recommends
the placing of a stop sign at the intersection of the private drive and Elizabeth,
and the plans reflect this along with the striping of turn lanes at the intersection,
how might this be potentially coordinated with this project? It should also be
looked at in providing no parking signage and a white informational sign,
indicating "Begin private maintenance".
Response: Vehicular access to/from Elizabeth Street will be provided via the private access drive
and also through both the adjacent west and east properties. An existing access easement is
already granted over the entire private drive. Discussions between CORE and the adjacent
property owners are taking place and letters to that affect are included in this submittal. Signage
along the private drive will be coordinated with owners and depicted in our plan set.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: It should be verified from a City and PFA perspective on whether a
potential naming of the offsite private drive with a street name is contemplated
or required as part of this development.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The cross section for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan (ETC) specifies an area behind the curb of 12 feet. While
acknowledging that the plan would appear to show the road narrowing and the
future implementation of the corridor plan under this premise would then be at
12 feet, the concern at this time is that the project isn't funded to implement the
plan, and there may be the realization that the narrowing of the roadway isn't a
cost effective approach to implement the ETC. As a result, we would want to
ensure that an equivalent sidewalk area of 12 feet behind the curb is provided
at this time, instead of the 10 feet shown, requiring the offset of the landscape
wall and plaza area 2 feet further south than presently shown. (As Figure 16-1 of
LCUASS requires the horizontal clearance of 2 feet from the back of sidewalk
to a wall, this additional 2 foot of widening also accomplishes the horizontal
clearance requirement from walls to a sidewalk). Additional right-of-way
wouldn't necessarily need to be dedicated, we would be OK with the first 2 feet
of the 15 foot utility easement also being an access easement.
Response: Plans are revised to reflect 12’ of clear space for future Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan. Access easement and 15’ utility easement will overlap for a portion to accomplish
this goal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: Will the elevated plaza area with walls, stairs and railings require a
building permit? If so, there may be a conflict with this over the 15 foot utility
easement, as the building department wouldn't issue a building permit over a
utility easement. Aside from building department concerns though, will the utility
provider potentially have any concerns about current or future
utilization/access/maintenance of a utility easement underneath the elevated
plaza? A utility coordination meeting may be beneficial to understand general
utility needs with the development proposal as well as the overall area.
Response: Per our understanding, the elevated plaza area will not require a building permit as the
walls will under 4’ in height. Utility coordination meeting was held with all utility stakeholders on
January 11, 2017 and no issues were raised regarding the elevated plaza and the utility easement.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The mountable curb shown on the plans for the emergency access
should be specified and spec'd with driveover curb.
Response: Comment noted and plans revised to have a driveover curb at the emergency access
pull in areas.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: In order to further ensure that the general public doesn't utilize the
emergency access areas in lieu the public connection off the private drive,
knockdown plastic delineators would need to be provided 2 feet behind the
sidewalk along Elizabeth Street. Additional placement of these may want to be
considered for the portion of emergency access areas accessed from the
southern portion of the site as well. PFA may require opticon access gates
though.
Response: As the access has been revised to not be a thru access and is strictly a driveway for
emergency access vehicles, plastic delineators are no longer provided.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The grading plan does not show existing contours outside of the
property boundary, making it difficult to understand how the project would tie into
existing grades and whether it can do so without needing offsite easements for
grading and/or construction. Additional information needs to be provided, and
understanding what sort of discussions may be had with surrounding properties
on the impacts to their properties in order to constructing this project.
Response: Addition topographic survey was completed and his shown on our proposed grading
plans. Reference our existing and proposed drainage plans for reference.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The grading plan does show TW labels with elevations that would
appear to indicate top of wall elevations. If so, it appears that these walls are
built on the property line and would need to excavate offsite in order to build,
needing offsite easements and letters of intent from those property owners prior
to hearing (this may also be needed for offsite grading that would be needed
from the previous comment.)
Response: For all offsite work, letters of intent are being coordinated with the adjacent
property owners and letters of approval are included with this submittal.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: Please provide the existing (or to be constructed) information for
the surrounding properties. What will the Elizabeth Street frontage
improvements for this property tie into on either side?
Response: Additional existing information features and topography is shown in our revised plan
set.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: Please provide a cross-section of the area proposed for
emergency access. Is it intended to use detail D-54 provided in the details
sheets of the civil plans, utilizing a curb to define the edge? The plans don't
indicate this, however the plans show grass pavers in areas and these aren't
defined in that detail though provided in the Grasspave2 detail. It seems the
intent is to build these as inverted crowns with the area above the underdrain
serving as the low point, but the details sheet don't necessarily reflect this. There
should be some information regarding whether a liner and/or cut-off walls are
intended to be used in conjunction with the underdrain. Historically, we have
concerns about the use of liners in utility areas as these liners may be cut by the
utility providers during maintenance/replacement of the utility infrastructure,
causing concern that the infiltration of drainage then finds a different path than
the intended underdrain.
Response: Cross section and more details for the pavers are provided in the plan set. Grass pave
is no longer proposed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The different plans have several different titles for the project (Plat:
"Core Fort Collins Subdivision", Site Plan: "The Hub on Campus", Civil: "The
Hub Colorado State") We'd prefer utilizing the same name on all the documents
for electronic "searchability".
Response: Noted, the project is now titled Hub on Campus Fort Collins
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: Label storm lines as public or private maintenance on the civil
plans.
Response: Storm lines are noted as public or private on the utility plan sheets.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Majority Environmental Planning comments provided during
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and discussed with Applicant and Developer
on September 28, 2016, still apply. Specifically comments #2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
Response: Noted, see below responses.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: How will waste and recycling be handled at this site? With currently
proposed number of units, this will be a significant issue. If have not yet done so,
contact Caroline Mitchell about the WRAP program (Waste Reduction and
Recycling Assistance). 970-221-6288 or cmitchell@fcgov.com
Response: Building will have a trash chute accessible from each floor and terminates in a ground
floor trash compactor room accessible from the fire access lane bisecting the site.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
PDR comment 2: In regard lighting plans and in particular LED light fixtures, The
American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky Association
(IDA) both recommend using lighting that has a corrected color temperature
(CCT) of no more than 3000 degrees Kelvin in order to limit the amount of blue
light in the night environment. Cooler color temperatures are harsher at night
and cause more disruption to circadian (biological) rhythms for both humans
and wildlife; blue light brightens the night sky and creates more glare than any
other color of light. Both LED and metal halide fixtures contain large amounts of
blue light in their spectrum, and exposure to blue light at night has been shown
to harm human health and endanger wildlife. Therefore, use of warmer color
temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for light fixtures is preferred in addition
to fixtures with dimming capabilities. Site light sources shall be fully shielded
and down-directional to minimize up-light, light spillage and glare [see LUC
3.2.4(D)(3)]. If this project continues in the design process please submit a
photometric plan and manufacture cut sheets of light fixtures at PDP. For further
information regarding health effects and lighting please see:
http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from-leds/
12/21/16: PLEASE VERIFY LIGHTING PLANS INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION
PLANS WILL COMPLY
Response: Lighting design will comply with all city requirements.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
PDR comment 3: A detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted that
includes scientific and common names of all proposed species. City of Fort
Collins street tree standards would apply; contact Tim Buchanan, City Forester
(970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) for any clarification on tree
standards. In addition Land Use Code [Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)], requires that to the
extent reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water
conservation materials and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use
plants and grasses in landscaping or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass
lawns as much as possible. Native plants and wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators;
songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are also encouraged. Please refer to
the Fort Collins Native Plants document available online and published by the
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department for guidance on native plants that
are appropriate for our CO Foothills ecotype; the link is:
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf
12/21/16: MORE DETAILED PLAN NEEDED PRIOR TO HEARING
ESPECIALLY IF ANY MODIFICATION OF STANDARD IS REQUESTED.
DETAILED MITIGATION PLAN NEEDED.
Response: A full landscape plan has been provided with this submittal.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
PDR comment 4: Note that in approving the required Landscape Plan, the
decision maker shall have the authority to determine the optimum placement
and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees,
vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the
following criteria outlined in LUC Section 3.2.1(H):
1) protecting existing trees, natural areas and features;
2) enhancing visual continuity within and between neighborhoods;
3) providing tree canopy cover;
4) creating visual interest year round;
5) complementing the architecture of a development;
6) providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site
elements;
7) establishing an urban context within mixed-use developments;
8) providing privacy to residents and users;
9) conserving water;
10) avoiding reliance on excessive maintenance;
11) promoting compatibility and buffering between and among dissimilar land
uses;
12) establishing spatial definition.
12/21/16: MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN NEEDED PRIOR TO
HEARING TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN OVERALL SITE DESIGN AND
OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS
Response: A full landscape plan has been provided with this submittal. Through meetings with
Planning and Environmental Planning, we have worked to achieve a landscape plan that fits these
criteria.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
PDR comment 5: It appears the current site design would eliminate mature
growth trees. LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requires developments to submit a
landscape and tree protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City,
an irrigation plan, that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and
habitat, and (5) enhances the pedestrian environment.¿¿ Note that a significant
tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches
or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six
inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City
Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) to determine the status of
the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the
proposed development. City Staff highly recommends keeping healthy, mature
growth trees in place, as our urban tree canopy helps reduce energy costs in
summer months, mitigates heat island effects, adds to the pedestrian
environment, and provides habitat for local wildlife including songbirds and
pollinators. Maintaining and enhancing the urban forest and tree canopy aligns
with both the City of Fort Collins Nature in the City and City Plan goals.
12/21/16: APPEARS TWO MATURE GROWTH, HEALTHY LINDEN TREES
ARE STILL SHOWN ON PLANS TO BE REMOVED. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN
DETAIL WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THESE CANNOT BE DESIGNED
AROUND. REDUCING PROGRAMMING WOULD PROVIDE GREEN SPACE
AND MEET LANDSCAPE STANDARDS EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATING NEED
FOR A MODIFICATION REQUEST.
Response: An onsite meeting with Planning and Forestry deemed that the two existing Linden
trees mentioned above can survive with the proposed site layout included with this submittal. Tree
mitigation plan has been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
PDR comment 7: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking
community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens now and
generations from now. Thus, the City of Fort Collins has many sustainability
programs and goals that may benefit this project. For example:
1) Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance
Program (WRAP):
fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/_20120404_WRAP_ProgramOverview.pdf, contact
Caroline Mitchell at 970-221-6288 or cmtichell@fcgov.com
2) Green Building Program: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php,
contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com
3) Solar Energy:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/renewables/solar-contractors-resource
s, contact Norm Weaver at 970-416-2312 or nweaver@fcgov.com
4) Integrated Design Assistance Program: http://fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary
Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or gschroeder@fcgov.com
5) Nature in the City Strategic Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/natureinthecity/,
contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com
6) Urban Agriculture: http://www.fcgov.com/urbanagriculture, contact Spencer
Branson at 970-224-6086 or sbranson@fcgov.com . In addition, the Northern
Colorado Food Cluster is sponsored and supported by the City of Fort Collins.
The executive Director, Brad Christensen, can be reached at
director@nocofoodcluster.org
Please consider City sustainability goals and ways this development can
engage with these efforts. Let me know if I can help connect you to these
programs.
12/21/16: PLEASE AT LEAST CONTACT WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM
MANAGER. THANK YOU.
Response: Noted.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Project as proposed does not appear to meet minimum code nor
intent of code outlined in City landscape standards. If the proposed project
continues in the development review process, much further information will be
needed prior to Hearing for decision-making regarding the specifics of how the
proposed project meets LUC Section 3.2.1, or how, specifically, the project is
providing "equal to or better than" for standards outlined in LUC Section 3.2.1.
From a landscape standards, including tree mitigation standards perspective,
the project as proposed is not ready to be scheduled for a Hearing. Waiting until
Final Plan for landscape plans for this proposed project will not be sufficient.
Response: Through meetings with Planning, Environmental Planning, PFA and adjacent property
owners, a new configuration of the fire lane has been designed to give more room on the east and
west sides of the building for landscape. The proposed plan now meets tree stocking and
foundation planting standards.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There is opportunity for creative solutions for landscaping and
landscape features at this site. Rooftop gardens/amenities; green roof; vine
valls; vertical gardens etc. There are many innovative solutions such as these
that have been around as options for the last 10-15 years, at least. Some of our
landscape architects in the City have experience with features such as these
and could potentially serve as a design resource. Thank you.
Response: Noted, there are two interior courtyards that will be landscaped as well.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Use of warmer corrected color temperatures for lighting, especially
any and all LED lighting is requested (3000K or less). It appears that current
manufacturer cut sheets show 4000K and 4500K fixtures selected. Please
either adjust and show 3000K or less selected on these sheets, or, describe
justification for currently selected choices in detail. Thank you.
Response: During permit submittal and construction phase we will be sure to select fixtures lamp
colors to meet City preferences.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016:
Trees #33, 35, and 36 are off-site, but are shown as ‘to be removed’ by the
project. The adjacent property owner, where the trees are located, must provide
written approval for the removal of these off-site trees. Please provide written
approval to the Project Planner, Jason Holland.
Response: These trees are no longer to be removed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016:
Please contact the City Forester to schedule an additional site meeting to
review the two Linden trees to retain on W Elizabeth Street. Forestry would like
to further review the potential construction impact to these trees.
Response: An onsite meeting with Planning and Forestry deemed that the two existing Linden
trees mentioned above can survive with the proposed site layout included with this submittal. Tree
mitigation plan has been updated accordingly.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Light and Power has 3phase electric facilities running through the
site and along the rear of the lot that can be utilized to provide power.
Response: Comment noted and relocation of existing facilities is being coordinated with Light and
Power.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges
and system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this
development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate
of charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: System modification charges will apply to remove/relocate
existing electric infrastructure on the site. Due to the existing electric system
that will need to be modified, modification charges will be substantial. Light and
Power has primary electric lines existing running north/south through the middle
of the site and along the rear property line. It appears that these lines will need
to be relocated as part of this project. The relocated lines will need to be
placed within a utility easement on the site. Please note that there is a 10ft
minimum separation requirement with electric lines and other utility main lines.
Relocation and system modifications will be at the expense of the
developer/owner of the project. Please contact me to discuss.
Response: Comment noted and discussed at our utility coordination meeting on January 11, 2017.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Commercial service information forms (C-1 forms) and a one line
diagrams for the commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted
to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Comment noted and forms will be submitted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan,
utility plans, and landscape drawings before final design of the electric facilities
will begin.
Response: Comment noted and files will be sent once plans are approved.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if
you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies,
construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/22/2016
12/22/2016: It is anticipated that a new vault will need to be placed along the
frontage of the property to relocate the 3phase primary electric lines. Please
show a new vault in the sidewalk on the plans.
Response: Electric has been coordinated with Light and Power, and the service line will now be
routed along the west side of the proposed building and then will be bored straight across
Elizabeth Street. No vault will be required along the front plaza.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Xcel,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: The City recieved a comment from Xcel that the max gas pressure
is 14" WC. The note indicated that this may be an issue.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: ROOFTOP AMENITIES?
The prior PDR plan indicated rooftop amenities at a floor level of 71' in building
height. Updated plan requested.
Response: Updated documents highlight some conceptual layouts for the rooftop amenity area
that is located at 71’ AFF. The parapet height extends up to 75’ AFF
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: CURB CONNECTIONS AT W ELIZABETH
PFA needs to insure that by "mountable curbs" at these two connections to W
Elizabeth, that they are designed as rollover curbs and not vertical curbs.
Response: Curbs are driveover curbs and not vertical curbs and are noted appropriately.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: FDC
The Fire Department Connection will need to be located in the NE portion of the
building to be within 100' of the nearest hydrant.
Response: FDC room relocated to west façade (approximately 92’ south of the north property line).
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: COURTYARDS
2 1/2" fire hose connections will be required just inside the entryways to any
courtyard.
Response: Project will comply as required – however courtyards will no longer be accessible to
public – will be locked off landscaped area only accessible by staff for maintenance. Units
surrounding courtyards will have private patio spaces with 8’ tall fences and will exit patios thru
the units.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: CONNECTION TO EAST PROPERTY
Access to the property immediately east of this site is currently available. Is
there a reason why this connection cannot be maintained with this site plan?
Removal of the connection will create a negative impact on fire access to the
adjoining property which does not have a turnaround.
Response: Through meetings with Jim Lynxwiler and Bob Poncelow, the proposed site plan now
shows the emergency access to connect Uptown Plaza (property to the west) and Fairview
Shopping Center (property to the east).
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: FIRE LANE
> Is the intent to maintain the perimeter fire lane open at all times or will it be
gated? (12/23/16: See updated comment below).
> An AutoTurn exhibit will be required to verify that fire apparatus turning
movements can be verified.
> The transformer detailed for the underground vault is in the fire lane and will
need to support 40 tons.
> As stated in conceptual review comments, grass pavers are typically not
approved in the proposed application. Discussion with the fire marshal will be
required. (12/23/16: See updated comment below).
Response: Grass pavers have been removed from the site.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets and the applicant should be aware that additional
on-site signage may be required at time of field inspection and final CO. Code
language provided below.
> IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
Response: Fire lanes will be noted and signs placed and are shown on our revised plan sheets.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: 4-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE
The 4-level parking garage does not currently meet either required perimeter
access or aerial apparatus access. Prior discussion indicated that a dry
sprinkler system would be needed as an allowable offset to code compliance.
Response: Dry-pipe sprinkler system will be provided at garage as requested.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: NAMING OF PRIVATE ROAD
As previously indicated during the PDR review, PFA would like to entertain a
discussion with city staff regarding the necessity of naming the private drive on
the west side property street connection.
Response: Noted, to be coordinated at Final Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: FIRE LANE ACCESS CONTROL
During city staff review, discussion indicated the need to provide access control
for the perimeter fire lane currently proposed around the residential building.
Any plan to gate the fire lane will require approval of the fire marshal. He will
require an Opticom gating system at both points of access on W Elizabeth.
Response: Noted. New fire lane is intended for emergency and trash vehicles, so no gate will be
required.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
A preliminary plan for meeting the aerial apparatus requirement via alternative
means and methods has been submitted for review. The fire marshal has taken
the tentative plan under consideration is acknowledging that many on the
proposed items intended to offset the lack of aerial apparatus access are
already required by code. The project team is asked to revisit this problem from
a high rise perspective. As the building is 4' shy of being categorized as a high
rise and as the building cannot provide any measure of aerial access as
detailed in the International Fire Code (Appendix D), the fire marshal is
requiring the project to meet full high rise provisions of the IFC & IBC (See
Section 403 of the IBC). Should further discussion be required, a meeting with
the fire marshal may be facilitated.
Response: Project shall meet high rise provisions.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
12/23/2016: FIRE LANE DESIGN
The fire marshal will accept the current fire lane design/configuration with a 12'
wide concrete drive flanked by engineered Grasscrete to support 40 tons in
conjunction with full high rise provisions being met in the code (See above
comment). The full 20' width will need to be signed, maintained unobstructed
and cleared of snow at all times.sp
Response: The revised site plan has a 20’ wide fire access area south of the main bldg. – bisecting
the site and the detached parking structure and connects with adjacent property fire access lanes
as discuss with Staff.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Appears there may be an issue going down the ramp and making the 180 deg.
turn. Please show auto a turning radius exhibit for average and large autos to
clarify whether this will work.
Response: Turning radius exhibit provided on civil site plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
There are issues with the parking garage drive aisle not lining up as you cross
into the main building, would we like to see the east parking spaces removed
on the ground level so that the drive aisle lines up.
Response: alignment modified as requested – see revised plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Show access points into the stairwells on the plans and provide a safe,
dedicated route from the parking garage that is clearly separated from drive
aisles.
Response: Plans updated.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
The 3-way intersection in the parking garage appears to be tight, especially
when exiting. Would suggest losing parking spaces to improve the flow in this
area and showing proposed striping and traffic control on the plans (stop and
yield bars, etc.) so it’s more clear and reasonable in how this works.
Response: parking garage intersection modified as requested – see revised plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
The LUC does specifically state that street trees can be used to satisfy tree
stocking requirements, but not private trees on adjacent properties. There could
be more discussion about how the tree stocking could be alternatively complied
with, but I would suggest writing the alternative compliance request to be more
holistic, addressing the fact that you are providing an entire landscape plan that
alternatively complies, and then address the criteria in Section3.2.1(H). The
elements that would be helpful to focus on would not be an urban vs. suburban
discussion but rather screening, foundation plantings, transitioning, softening of
the paved areas that are not associated with the parking garage.
A low wood fence or gabion wall fence with evergreen vines, planted along
portions of the perimeter could help with the alternative landscape plan. The
preference would be to do this in combination with additional trees that are
incorporated into the site perimeter or within a dedicated planning easement on
adjacent properties to the west and south.
Response: Through meetings with Planning, Environmental Planning, PFA and adjacent property
owners, a new configuration of the fire lane has been designed to give more room on the east and
west sides of the building for landscape. The proposed plan now meets tree stocking and
foundation planting standards, thus negating the need for an alternative compliance for landscape.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Provide a grading detail enlargement around the existing Linden trees that
shows how these are contained. I’m concerned that the design will not
accommodate enough of the existing root system and that these trees will not
survive. The issue here is that the street pattern in the area is not cohesive a
consistent tree pattern may be a better long term design solution.
Response: An onsite meeting with Planning and Forestry deemed that the two existing Linden
trees mentioned above can survive with the proposed site layout included with this submittal. Tree
mitigation plan has been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Show/describe any adjacent existing trees to the south and east with Fairview
and Matador.
Response: All affected trees have been included on tree mitigation plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Parking garage, Need to break up the massing/provide more visual interest;
would like to see a vine system, on a support structure that is designed to break
up the repetition. Add more information/clarify what the wrap material is around
the end caps on the parking structure.
Response: we have provided more rendering views and an animation to illustrate façade designs
along with material sample boards and photos of example bldgs. Parking structure has significant
landscaping along the façade to help break up the massing. Façade materials selected to be cost
effective for a detached parking structure while blending in with the overall development by
matching precast reveal spacing with the bldg. siding and painting to match siding color. Stair
tower elements have additional material accents to correlate with main bldg.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
Need a materials board and intent photos for the building design prior to
hearing.
Response: materials board provided as requested.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
East and west facades – Need to add more visual interest / shadow lines to
upper stories, such as popping out some of the 5th floor windows (a bay
window of sorts).
Response: added projecting window bays on facades of main bldg. as requested – see revised
renderings an animation.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
East façade has a fiber board area along the first two stories that needs
additional detail. Perhaps a gabion panel with vines or some other treatment.
Response: gabion wall treatment extended farther back along lower levels of east façade as
requested to symmetrically balance east façade.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
Bike parking -- would like to see additional measures taken to improve
flow/convenience in and out of the building and added convenient bike parking
in the parking garage in addition to in the rooms.
Response: Additional bike racks have been located along Elizabeth St, as well as on the ground
floor on the south side of the building.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Dimension Control Plan: This plan shows “Grasspave” – are you
proposing this as an LID measure?
Response: Grasspave is no longer proposed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Grading Plan: The proposed grading plan around the perimeter of
the building and the parking structure shows runoff going offsite to adjacent
properties. Existing topography on these adjacent lots needs to be shown and
the grading plan needs to clarify that it’s not creating additional runoff towards
the neighboring properties. In addition, there are some low points in the grading
plan that don’t appear to drain anywhere – this needs to be resolved.
Response: Existing topography for adjacent lots is now shown and onsite grading revised to not
show low points without inlets.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Grading Plan: Drainage along the northwest retaining wall needs
to be detailed further. This can be provided in final design.
Response: More detail is provided along the existing wall at the northwest corner of the site
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Drainage Memo: Please note that you will need to provide a
Drainage Report, not just a Drainage Memo. As a part of the Drainage Report,
the following items should be included:
a. Drainage map, showing the various drainage basins on the site and the
amount of runoff going each direction. (i.e. runoff calculations for the existing
site and the proposed site need to be performed.) Please note that this is pretty
important for a site like this where you may be draining toward the neighboring
properties. We want to ensure that you aren’t increasing the amount of runoff in
any one direction.
b. The “standard” water quality and/or LID systems will need to be more
thoroughly explained and shown. Please note, 100% of the site will need to be
treated through some sort of stormwater quality feature – 50% standard WQ
and 50% LID is 100%. An LID table needs to be added to the drainage exhibit
and report that shows how you’re meeting the LID requirements. How are you
treating runoff from the front side of the building along Elizabeth? How are you
treating any of the runoff from the parking structure? The exhibit at the back of
the memo seems to indicate the use of GrassPave and green roofs…are you
proposing these as LID systems?
c. For permeable pavers, please note that we have a 3:1 maximum run-on
requirement (impervious run on area to paver area). WQCV will only need to be
quantified for storage based LID systems such as rain gardens, sand filters, or
standard WQVC like in an extended detention pond.
d. Please get in touch with me if you need further direction on drainage report
requirements.
e. Drainage Report: See redlined report for other minor comments/questions.
Response: Drainage report is provided. The entire site is now treated by a water quality measure
(pavers, bioswales). Runoff maximums and calculations are provided in the
report.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2016
12/12/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan,
an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based
upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since
the site is over an acre. 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: Erosion control plan, report and escrow calculation is submitted with this revision.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: No comments.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: The titles need to be changed to "The Hub On Campus" on all
sheets. See redlines.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please remove the address from the title & title blocks on all
sheets. With the project being replatted, the address could change.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please make changes on all sheets to the sub-title as marked.
See redlines.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Some of the sheet numbers in the sheet index are incorrect, and
sheet 5 is missing. See redlines.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of
January 1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please
provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement 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: Comment noted and benchmarks provided in the format noted above.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: The title in the title blocks must match the main title.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There is an issue with text on sheet 2. See redlines.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Text masks have been provided.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/22/2016
12/22/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Response: Plat and plan easements are coordinated and labeled the same.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. Please
revise as marked. See redlines.
Response: Easements have been removed from landscape plans for clarity.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a
signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include
response in written comments.
Response:
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all
adjacent streets. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See
redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please remove all centerlines as marked of the easements to be
vacated. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: The dimensions are not necessary for the easements to be
vacated. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There are spelling issues. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: There are bearings that do not match the closure report provided.
See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please show record measurements as marked. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please correct the scale. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Per Pott's P.U.D., all of the area of Lot 2 as marked was a Utility &
Drainage Easement. Either note the intent to vacate, or label the easement
appropriately. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: It appears that based on the Pott's P.U.D. that there is already a
Utility & Drainage Easement in the area marked. Please verify, and if so, label
as such and remove offsite easement line work. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please show all reception numbers. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the
subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please add the missing note "There shall be no private....of the
City Code.".
Response:
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please make changes to Note #2 as marked. See redlines.
Response:
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Please add the following legal description to sheet 1. "Lot 1, Core
Fort Collins Subdivision"
Response: Added.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
12/21/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. Please
revise as marked. See redlines.
Response: Plans updated.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: The sidewalk width along the frontage is a concern. This should
reflect West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan.
http://www.fcgov.com/westelizabeth/pdf/e-appendix-conceptual-design-and-pha
sing-summary.pdf?1476464946
Please work with Engineering and Transportation planning to determine
appropriate width.
Response: Per conversations with Traffic and Engineering, the plat now shows 2’ wide public
access easement behind the ROW in order to achieve the 12’ attached walk required in the interim
while the WEETCP is implemented on a larger scale.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: 12/14/2016: The traffic study has been received and reviewed.
There are a few refinements needed for the next submittal.
At Shields and Elizabeth: The TIS shows the existing overall LOS at Shields
and Elizabeth as LOS F. That would potentially invoke Adequate Public
Facilities constraints through our Land Use Code and as such this should be
double checked. Also, the TIS recommends removal of split phasing to improve
operations. In the past this strategy was not possible/beneficial due to
geometric constraints (shared through/left lanes) and pedestrian calls (on the
north side crosswalk almost every cycle). The conclusions also list
recommended changes to auxiliary turn lane lengths. Unless you’re proposing
to construct those, the assumptions in the study (especially in the short term)
should reflect the actual turn lane lengths. Please call so we can discuss the
timing, existing LOS, ped calls, and what improvements are possible or
anticipated with the current underpass project that can be assumed.
At Shields and Elizabeth, please include movement and approach LOS
information.
Any movements / approaches that do not meet LOS standards will require
variance letters.
Response: Traffic study has been revised per conversations with the City. Intersection is no longer
shown has LOS F. Reference updated traffic study.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Please include the required multi-modal LOS analysis for bike and
pedestrian LOS based on Appendix H of LCUASS.
Response: Traffic study revised to include LOS analysis for bike and pedestrians.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: PARKING MODIFICATION / PARKING STUDY
The Parking Study indicates peak parking demand it 336 occupied spaces of
467 spaces in inventory (71.9%). This study identifies utilization rates but some
additional information is needed to truly identify demand. How many permits are
in circulation? How much do the permits cost and how many car-owning/driving
tenants have opted to park in the neighborhood? What is the District’s leasing
occupancy and do they know the amount of tenants who own cars?
Response: Parking study has been revised to include the available information obtained as noted
above.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Demo Plan: Please note that any water or sewer services to be
replaced or abandoned will need to be abandoned at the main. Per my redline
on this sheet, please add a note regarding proper service abandonment
procedures.
Response: Comment noted and lines to be abandoned will be abandoned at the main.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Utility Plan: For the water service taps – you will be required to
show and provide two separate taps at the main for each service – one for the
residential service and one for the retail service. Also, each service needs to be
approximately sized during preliminary design and the correct meter size needs
to be shown to scale for each service.
Response: Separate taps are proposed for all services and meter sizes indicated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Utility Plan: Our records indicate that the existing sewer main
along Elizabeth is an 8-inch main, not a 10-inch. Do you have something that
indicates a 10-inch diameter?
Response: Elizabeth sewer is 8” and survey has been revised to reflect.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Utility Plan: The proposed sewer main will be required to be
located a minimum of 15’ from the building and 30’ wide easements will be
required for these mains. A 5’ wide utility easement will not be accepted. In
addition, the separation between the sewer and storm mains will need to be a
minimum of 10’.
Response: Separation and easement width requirements have been discussed with Staff and
revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Utility Plan: The existing hydrant located off of the Private Drive
may need to be relocated to ensure a minimum of 10’ separation from the
proposed sewer main.
Response: 10’ of separation is provided between the hydrant and the sewer main.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Landscape Plans: Trees are required to be located a minimum of
10’ from utility mains. Along the front of the building the proposed trees will need
to be relocated as they are in very close proximity or on top of the existing
sewer and storm mains.
Response: Noted, trees have been moved off mains.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Plat: Please provide “letters of intent” for all proposed easements
that are outside of the property boundary that basically indicates that the offsite
property owners will accept an easement on their property. These “letters of
intent” will need to be provided prior to public hearing.
Response: Letters of intent are in the works and will be provided prior to Public Hearing
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016
12/16/2016: LUC 3.2.4(D)(8) Light levels measured twenty (20) feet beyond the
property line of the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public
rights-of-way) shall not exceed one-tenth (0.1) foot-candle as a direct result of
the on-site lighting. The light levels on the west, north and east sides are
exceeding this requirement.
Response: Light levels and fixtures will be designed to have cutoffs/shields to limit levels to
allowable threshold at 20’ past property line.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016
12/16/2016: Based on the number of provided parking stalls the total amount of
handicap stalls required is 8.
Response: handicap stalls revised to provide 8 spaces.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016
12/16/2016: Please include setbacks from property line on east and south of
parking garage.
Response: Plans updated.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016
12/16/2016: How will trash and recycling work? Please show on site plan.
Response: trash chutes provided in SE corner of main bldg. on each floor adjacent to stairwell and
terminates is a trash compactor and sorting room on the ground floor that is accessible via an
overhead door and man door along the fire access lane in the SE corner of the site.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Bicycle parking must include a mixture of fixed rack and enclosed
parking. Residential must be at least 60% enclosed and 40% fixed rack. Retail
must be 20% enclosed and 80% fixed rack.
Response: Per conversations w/ Planning, additional bike racks have been provided on ground
level (20 bike spaces per rack) at the SW corner of the main building adjacent to the townhouses
and covered parking area and SE corner adjacent to the stairwell in addition to the designated
bike parking areas in units and the 22 bike spaces at the NW corner of the building along Elizabeth
Street.