HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE HUB ON CAMPUS - PDP - PDP160038 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)1
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
June 19, 2017
Sam Coutts
RIPLEY DESIGN, INC.
419 CANYON AVE, STE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Hub on Campus, PDP160038, Round Number 3
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: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
06/16/2017: Carried over as unresolved.
Response: Parkway along Elizabeth has been revised to be indicated as an “access easement” on
plan documents and plat.
03/08/2017: The plat call out a 2 foot parkway easement, which should be
indicated as an "access easement" (also on the other documents that reference
it as well).
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
2
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.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
06/16/2017: The response indicated that the only letter of intent needed is from
the property owner to the south. This should be provided prior to scheduling a
public hearing per #15 of the PDP submittal requirements through the following
link:
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/pdp_submittal_req_11.18.14.pdf
?1450456080
Response: Easement agreement with neighbor for signature. Email record has been provided on
CD to show they are in agreeance while we wait for signature.
03/08/2017: I didn't find any letters of intent from abutting property owners. In
general an exhibit of what the identified offsite work is needed from specific
property owners would be beneficial for review. In addition, we should be
provided information/documentation of what the language of all existing offsite
easements allows (such as the private utility access and shared parking
easement on the property to the east which the development is tying into).
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.)
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
06/16/2017: The new driveway onto Elizabeth Street does not correctly reflect
the tie in to the walk to the west. The proposal reflects pre-Uptown Plaza
sidewalk widths, but with the approved Uptown Plaza plans, the sidewalk is
further widened. Please have the design reflect the approved Uptown Plaza
plans to tie into.
Response: Sidewalk connection to the west along Elizabeth Street has been revised to reflect the
widened, newly constructed Uptown Plaza plans.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
06/16/2017: The new driveway onto Elizabeth Street should be designed in
accordance with our high volume drive type IV standard (707.2) in LCUASS.
Please ensure the detail is included in the details sheet and the plans reflect its
design. Additionally, Table 8-2 of LCUASS requires a 20' curb return radii,
which does not appear to be met here.
Response: New driveway onto Elizabeth Street is designed in accordance with the high volume
drive type IV standard (707.2) in LCUASS. Curb radii are 20’.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
06/16/2017: The new driveway onto Elizabeth Street appears to meet warrants
for a right turn into the driveway in accordance with Table 8-4 of LCUASS. In
additional access spacing requirements are not met under Table 7-3 of
3
LCUASS. Either the project should address these standards, or submit
variance request(s) for evaluation.
Response: Variance request for right turn lane on Elizabeth is included with this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
06/16/2017: In general, Engineering is of the view that work on other off-site
properties outside of the boundaries of the subdivision plat require letters of
intent prior to scheduling a public hearing based upon 2.2.3(C) of the Land Use
Code and the PDP master list previously referenced.
Response: See comment 8 response above.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: City Environmental Planning acknowledges good faith effort on
this project to meet all LUC landscape standards and that this site, in particular,
has several constraints.
Response: See revised landscape plan, this new design includes more landscape sf than previous
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Environmental Planning has no further comments at this time and
is ready for Final Plan.
Response: Thanks
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Please provide more plan details for those landscape amenities
or features that are to be included on the rooftop outdoor space.
Response: Rooftop amenity space is designed by third party and will be available for FDP
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Please add an additional note or indicator on landscape plan
sheet 5 of 19 that all trees are to be of specified upsized caliper (in addition to
that identified in plant list on 6 of 19). This is to avoid any confusion or potential
errors during installation (e.g. installing smaller caliper trees purposefully or
accidentally).
Response: Note added
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: For the green screen plantings of Hydrangea anomala petiolaris
(climbing hydrangea), upsize to 5 gallon containers to be planted to give the
screens more of a jumpstart in the short term, as they will take several years to
establish. Choice of climbing hydrangea for green screens seems sound with
high potential for long-term success as they can tolerate shade and grow up to
30 to 50 feet. Thinking ahead ensure longterm irrigation plans for the green
screens are sound as well.
Response: Green screen material is eliminated
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Thank you for clear identification on lighting plans of luminaires to
4
be ordered and installed and specifically those that support City of Fort Collins
Dark Skies efforts in using warmer color lights (3000K or less CCT) and limiting
amount of blue light in the night skies.
Response: Ok. (Assuming item closed)
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
6/12/2017:
Continued:
Thank you for stating that you can provide a cross-section of Tree #1. Please
submit this to Forestry for review. In regards to Tree #3, please provide
additional detailed information as to why this tree cannot be retained. Submit to
Forestry and Project Planner for review.
Response: Tree section will be provided at FDP
Response: Elizabeth Street cross sections are shown on Sheet 13 of the Utility Plan Set with this
submittal.
03/09/2017:
Please provide a cross-section of the two existing Linden trees in regards to the
proposed wall. Forestry would like to further review the distance between the
trees and the structure. Additionally, please provide additional information
regarding the preservation and protection of the two linden trees, and to what
measures construction will impact roots.
What is the foundation material for the walls? Please explore using pylon
spanning to limit excavation near tree roots.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
Continued:
Thank you for stating that you can provide a cross-section of Tree #1. Please
submit this to Forestry for review. In regards to Tree #3, please provide
additional detailed information as to why this tree cannot be retained. Submit to
Forestry and Project Planner for review.
Response: Tree section will be provided at FDP
03/09/2017:
Currently, the plans show the wall proposed at approximately 3 feet away from
the east tree, and 4 feet away from the west tree. With the goal of doing
everything in our power to preserve the trees in mind, I recall that Sam Coutts,
Jason Holland, Ralph Zentz, and Molly Roche discussed providing additional
separation by shifting the walls further away from the trees, or even eliminating
the walls completely. As discussed at our most recent site-visit, please provide
Forestry with a detailed cross-section sketch of each tree-to-wall separation.
We would also like to understand the degree of excavation involved on each
side of the trees. (Email sent to Sam Coutts 3/8/17)
Forestry received an email from the applicant on March 8, 2017 explaining
where some adjustments had been made to help protect these trees. After
5
reviewing this communication and diagrams, there are still additional questions
Forestry would like explored and answered by the applicant. Can the east wall
by the west tree be adjusted further to the east to provide additional separation?
Also, please explore removing the south wall by the west tree (similar to the
removal of the wall by the east tree).
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
Continued:
Provide a detail of sidewalk and street trees and specify tree type and grate.
Please set up a meeting with City Water Utilities, City Planner, Forestry,
Environmental Planning, and the applicant to discuss having street trees along
West Elizabeth.
Response: Tree grate detail will be provided at FDP
03/09/2017:
Per discussion with City Water Utilities (Heather McDowell) and City Planner
(Jason Holland), what is the status of the sewer relocation? Please explore the
feasibility of adding 2-3 additional street trees along Elizabeth Street. Please
use an ornamental or narrow shade tree in these new planting locations.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services
for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design, that the new 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.
Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com 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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Adoption of the 2015 I-Codes is anticipated for mid-April, 2017.
Be advised that permit applications submitted after the code adoption date will
be subject to the new codes and standards, as amended.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
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)
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/building web page to view them.
6
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 for Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC
commercial chapter.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: City of Fort Collins IBC amendments require a full NFPA-13
sprinkler system in multifamily buildings.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide
accessible units. This project has 219 units and will need to achieve at least 93
points.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating
of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
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.
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
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.
7
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: COURTYARDS
As courtyards are no longer accessible to the public, the determination to
require or no longer require 2 1/2" fire hose connections just interior to the
locked entry doors to the courtyards will be deferred until a floor plan is available
at building permit.
Response: Ok.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/12/2017
06/12/2017: FDC
> The Fire Department Connection for the Multi-Family, Mixed-Use building is
required to be located at the NE corner of the building so as to be within 100' of
a hydrant.
> The Fire Department Connection for the Parking Garage is required to be
located at the NW corner of the building so as to be within 100' of a hydrant.
Response: Noted. We will comply. Please note that Building 2 on the south has been
reconfigured to be a residential use. Parking structure has been relocated to south half of Main
Building 1.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/12/2017
06/12/2017: FIRE ACCESS
The proposed "drive-under" fire apparatus turnaround on the first floor of the
8
Multi-Family, Mixed-Use building needs to be reflected in the Emergency
Access Easement and fully defined by signage or striping.
Response: Emergency Access Easement provided for fire apparatus turnaround on the first floor.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/12/2017
06/12/2017: GATING
The gated exit from The Hub into Fairview Plaza is required to be an electric
gate activated by an access controlled Opticom system that will raise the gate
from either direction.
Response: Noted. Opticom will be shown on gate detail at FDP
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/12/2017
06/12/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
> No Parking - Fire Lane signs shall require directional arrows to replace the
phrase, "By order of the Fire Marshal".
> Fire lane signage at the access controlled gate shall be positioned so as to
face both east and west (visible from either side of the gate).
> The fire marshal is requiring the Dimensional Control and Paving Plan to add
two additional fire lane signs on the west drive so as to maintain 75' separation
distances between postings.
> The NE corner of the building appears to indicate three fire lane signs,
however the one facing north to W Elizabeth is not labeled on the Dimensional
Control and Paving Plan. Please label.
Response: Fire lane signs spaced every 75’ and sign shows directional arrows. NE corner of the
building also shows 3 signs.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/12/2017
06/12/2017: HIGH RISE COMPLIANCE
The applicant has declared intent to mitigate non-compliant fire code
requirements with full high rise provisions as identified and enforced by the
2015 IFC & 2015 IBC. High rise compliance will be reviewed as part of the
permitting process and no further action on the part of the applicant is required
for Site Plan approval.
Response: Please see submitted High Rise Compliance letters.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Staff is concerned that the gabion rock fill detail does not fit in the
with the character district. This material detail seems out of place in the West
Central Area and more of a large commercial center detail. Staff would
recommend that this be changed to a masonry detail such as the buff sandstone
used on campus or brick to harmonize with the adjacent buildings.
Response: Color of stone wall behind metal mesh will be selected to compliment color of
surrounding buildings.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Provide PDP level site plan details with labeling for the rooftop
amenities and interior courtyards and the inclusion of rooftop landscaping and
perimeter vines would satisfy the alternative compliance.
Response: Rooftop plans show amenity general areas and type. Rooftop amenity design will be
9
done by third party at FDP
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: The 6th story Mod. request is still listed on the site plan table, is this
needed.
Response: No, note has been removed, 6th
story modification is not needed.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Provide fence details and label on the landscape plan. Provide
retaining wall details/height/material information.
Response: Fence details provided
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Sheet 11/19 label the perspective views.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Too many compact spaces; over 40%; basement level parking
drive aisle could be reduced and more space allocated to the parking bay.
Response: Compact parking stall ratio now at 39.7% of required parking for the site.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Show a breakdown on the site plan indicating formulas and how
you arrived at the required 382 parking total. Also show the math/formula for the
retail total.
Response: Parking requirement breakdown included on cover page
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Show a cross section to the Matador to the south and the Fairview
apartment to the west that shows the transitional elements height relationships.
Label Fairview/1409 w Elizabeth on the site plan.
Response: Per our meeting on 9/20 with City staff, the images shown clearly show a step down
away from Elizabeth to the south. If a section is still needed, we can include one prior to public
hearing
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/14/2017
06/14/2017: Please look closely through the parking modification request and
the KH demand study and fix errors such as – table shows different bed/parking
for District than is described in the mod letter and then is also different in the
parking demand study. 273 parking spaces required. (278 is mentioned as the
“exact number” needed in the Mod. request). The KH study also needs to be
updated to reflect the site plan table.
Response: Parking modification is no longer been requested, we have not resubmitted parking
study
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Both the KH study and the TOD modification request provide a lot of detail.
Please provide a summary that combines the information in both documents
and provides a concise bottom-line comparison and justification, such as a
matrix, so that that Board can review the information. You could also add a
column for a "typical" student housing development showing the common
demand mitigation deducts that other projects are taking and how this
compares to the Hub breakdown.
Response: Parking modification is no longer been requested, we have not resubmitted parking
10
study
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Basement parking: Compact spaces in basement, why are they compact on the
east side? Just make the drive aisle narrower. Also the parallel spaces
adjacent to the perpendicular spaces along a 20’ drive aisle seems tight.
Response: Parking structure configuration and ramp layout has been revised. Please see updated
parking plans.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Main parking area – the two parallel spaces are an issue – please make these
employee or service spaces and label on the plans.
Response: Parking structure configuration and ramp layout has been revised. Please see updated
parking plans.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Tight maneuvering into and out of the MMN parking garage does not work well.
Can the ingress/egress be simplified so that few turns are required through the
entrance/egress area and can more openings be provided for visibility.
Response: Parking structure configuration and ramp layout has been revised. Please see updated
parking plans. Please refer to civil auto-turn exhibits for reference.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
The revised parking garage vehicular circulation design does not work and
does not meet LUC 3.2.2. This would appear to be a major issue: Three levels
of parking are required to make a 180 turn at the ramp bottom and there is not
nearly enough space to make this turn without cars turning into oncoming traffic,
which are already making a series of tight turns as the cars enter the garage.
Walls surrounding these turns appear to be solid and further hamper site
distance at the turns. Pedestrians are also walking through this vehicular area
from the stairwell.
Response: Parking structure configuration and ramp layout has been revised. Please see updated
parking plans. Please refer to civil auto-turn exhibits for reference.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Bike parking in the parking garage: If these are required bike parking spaces a
location that can be found closer to the main entrance that would be preferred if
feasible.
Response: Bike share spaces located at entrance to southern building
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
There’s an existing retaining wall along the south parking garage PL that is
labelled to be removed on the civil set. Please also label this on the site plan.
Response: Retaining wall is still proposed to be removed
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
The parking structure will need to move back off of the private drive so that a
landscape bed is provided between the back of walk and the west face of the
building. The standard minimum foundation planting depth is five feet per the
land use code.
Response: Southern multifamily building is now setback off the property line and private drive
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Headlights in the parking garage facing adjacent units to the south and east
need to be fully screened. Plans need to clarify how this is accomplished, clarify
11
the panel insert detail and is this solid.
Response: Headlights from parking structure will be screened by solid precast spandrel elements
and clad on exterior to match building finishes, typical.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
The shadow diagrams are missing an existing offsite building to the southwest.
Response: Shadow diagrams have been updated to include building.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
The utility plans show an off-site tree to the south that is being removed. Show
this on the tree mitigation plan.
Response: Tree mitigation plan has been coordinated with utility plans
Response: Trees on south shown to be removed.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
The entire area between the parking garage and the ex. buildings to the south is
being reconfigured and will essentially be a construction staging area as well.
There appear to be multiple LLC’s that own both of these properties and staff
has no confirmation that the proposed plans and off-site construction activities
are acceptable to these parties. This is required prior to scheduling the hearing
along with any other needed letter of intent from offsite owners for the project.
Response: Property to south is owned by a single entity. See comment 8 response above.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Since there is already a reconfiguration of this area, why not if possible place
fastigiate English Oaks and Woodward Junipers on the south property line to
give more instant screening in lieu of the vines. What type of footing is used
here and can the footing be notched or designed so that the trees be placed
essentially espalier next to the parking garage wall and at least 4¿ away from
the gas line. If this does not work, then the vines are acceptable. Would
recommend planting several different types of vines in case the Hydrangea has
issues.
Response: There is more room between building and property line on south side now, so adequate
plantings have been provided
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Label all surrounding buildings on the site plan, Fairview and the SW building,
not sure if that is also called Matador.
Response: Buildings labeled
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Elizabeth Street -- With tree grates typically we are looking for those to be 5’ if
achievable instead of 4’s. Please confirm what is shown.
Response: 5’ tree grates shown
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 06/19/2017
Fence shown on the utility plans is offsite on the property to the south and east,
is this correct? Please also show all fencing on the site plan, some is missing
and show details for the fence design with the planning set.
Response: Fencing is now shown only on SW side of main building, where emergency access gate
occurs.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
12
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
06/09/2017: Repeat comment: All runoff calculations need to be provided. This
means that the rational method calculations and spreadsheets that you have
used to calculate the hydrology at the site for the 2-year and 100-year storm are
required to be included in the drainage report.
Response: All runoff calculations are shown within the drainage report.
03/06/2017: All runoff calculations need to be provided.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Page 3 Storm Sewer Design: Tc of 5 minutes should be used for
all your basin calculations. Also, hydrologic calculations should be provided for
the 2-year and 100-year storms.
Response: Tc of 5 minutes used for all individual basin calculations.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: For LID systems that are volume-based are sized based on the
WQCV (water quality capture volume). The WQCV calculations need to be
included in the drainage report. The WQCV calculation can be performed using
the UDFCD spreadsheets. Note that sand filters and rain gardens are
volume-based LIDs. Bio-swales are not volume-based and are sized based on
the run-on area. The maximum allowable run-on for bio-swales is 10:1, meaning
that the area running onto the bio-swale must be no more than 10x the area of
the bottom (the bottom 2’ wide flat part only) of the swale. Please revise your
calculations for the bio-swale or change the LID system in this area to
something will more likely work.
Response: LID systems revised to be rain gardens. Appropriate calculations shown in the drainage
report and spreadsheets.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
06/09/2017: Please review this comment again. The run-on ratio for bioswales
is the run-on area: bio-swale bottom area (flat area only). I don’t know if you will
be able to make a bio-swale work here, so I would suggest sizing this area for a
rain garden or sand filter.
03/06/2017: Drainage Plan: Bioswales are required to have a minimum 2-foot
wide bottom width. The run-on ratios for bioswales are based on a maximum 10
sq ft area run-on to a 1 sq ft bottom area of the swale. You will need to show the
bioswales with a width to the bottom and show how the run-on ratios work.
Response: Rain gardens are proposed as opposed to bioswales.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Drainage Plan and Storm Sewer Plan: Please note that the
relocated storm line running along the eastern side of this project site is not
public. This is still a private storm pipe, to be owned and maintained by this
project owner. Please label all storm lines on this project (other than the storm
line running along Elizabeth) as “private”.
Response: Storm lines noted as “private” on storm sewer plan.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Drainage Plan: the sand filter located on the east side of the
building will need to be sized for the WQCV. (Volume-based LID’s are sized for
13
the WQCV not for run-on ratios.) Please provide the WQCV calculations. You
may utilize the UD spreadsheet for this.
Response: Proposed rain gardens are sized appropriately and calculations provided in the
spreadsheets in the stormwater report.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Grading Plan: There are permeable pavers shown on top of the
water meter vaults. I don’t think this will work with the subsection that is required
for the pavers. Please revise.
Response: Pervious pavers no longer shown over meter vaults.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Storm Sewer Plan: We still have concerns about the placement of
the storm pipe near or below what looks like stairs and/or walls along the
building frontage on Elizabeth Street. Please provide a cross-section of what
this looks like. The cross-section should accurately depict the depth of the storm
pipe and the foundation of the stairs/walls.
Response: Walls and stairs removed from being placed over existing storm sewer.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2016
06/05/2017: Will look for Materials at FDP
Response: Comment noted.
03/02/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet
requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan (was included in the
report however was to small to properly evaluate, please send PDF to mark up
or full plan sheet to redline), an Erosion Control Report (Please address
comments in the report) , and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Will need to be
recalculated based off of comments and plans). 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
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
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
14
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Please spell out "Fort". See redlines.
12/21/2016: The titles need to be changed to "The Hub On Campus" on all
sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Please move Lot 1, Core Fort Collins Subdivision up above the
sub-title. See redlines.
12/21/2016: Please make changes on all sheets to the sub-title as marked.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Please make changes to the Benchmark Statement as marked.
See redlines.
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¿.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Please spell out "Fort". See redlines.
12/21/2016: The title in the title blocks must match the main title.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
12/21/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
15
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
12/21/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
12/21/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/22/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match exactly what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
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.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: Will show these once recorded.
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
12/21/2016: Please show all reception numbers. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: All properties have been identified.
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
12/21/2016: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the
subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you
disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections
were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in
response letter.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
12/21/2016: Please add the following legal description to sheet 1. "Lot 1, Core
Fort Collins Subdivision"
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match exactly what is shown on the
16
Subdivision Plat.
12/21/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. Please
revise as marked. See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
6/14/2017: On page 26 of the revised study the engineer indicates that the
LOS of Elizabeth will drop to an F if the West Elizabeth plan is implemented.
We would like to work with the traffic engineer to better understand the results
they are finding with this implementation.
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 revised and resubmitted.
3/8/2017: As previously mentioned split phasing is not possible with the ped
calls that occur at the Shields and Elizabeth intersection, please revise this in
the traffic study.
12/20/2016: 12/14/2016: The traffic study has been received and reviewed.
There are a few refinements needed for the next submittal.
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 modification is no longer been requested, we have not resubmitted parking
study
17
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Utility Plan: Sanitary manhole S15 is located in the existing
detention pond. Please include a label that indicates that a water tight lid will be
required.
Response: Structure S15 does not apply due to the reconfiguration of the sanitary sewer. Structure
S11 has been labeled to be water tight due to its proximity to the rain garden.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: Utility Plan: The proposed water meter sizes need to be reviewed
again, as these are very oversized. The placement of the meter vaults will also
need to be reviewed again. It looks like the meter vaults are sitting right next to
or on top of the existing storm main. The meter vaults will need to shift south to
provide adequate separation between the two utilities. In addition, the Utility
Crossings table indicates that there are some tricky utility crossings in the area
of the meter vaults. A profile of these utility services will need to be provided to
show how they are going to be constructed.
Response: Water sizes have been reviewed along with water meter vault locations and revised
accordingly. Profile for proposed water line connections at Elizabeth Street provided on Sheet 13 of
the Utility Plan Set.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/14/2017: Utility Plan: The proposed configuration of the sanitary sewer
includes a private main (or service) that drains to the west and is located
approximately 8’ north of the wall of the parking structure and on Hub property.
This private main connects to a proposed public main that would be located
within the private drive in between Taco Bell and Uptown Plaza and on Uptown
Plaza’s property. The public sewer main would need to be placed within a
dedicated utility easement and the owner of the Uptown Plaza has not been
amenable to allowing this dedication of the easement to date. The applicant
has asked that the City consider utilizing eminent domain to aid in acquiring the
needed easement. At this time, City staff needs more time to discuss the issues
presented and we cannot yet recommend proceeding to P&Z until the issues
have been further considered.
Response: N/A
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
06/09/2017: Tree placement along the building frontage on Elizabeth Street
looks to be within 3-4’ of the storm and/or existing sewer main. These still don’t
meet the City’s separation requirement between utility mains and trees. Please
18
revise.
Response: Sanitary has been relocated out to Elizabeth to give room for street trees
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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
06/09/2017: Tree placement along the building frontage on Elizabeth Street
looks to be within 3-4’ of the storm and/or existing sewer main. These still don’t
meet the City’s separation requirement between utility mains and trees. Please
revise.
03/06/2017: The tree placement shown along the building frontage does not
look like what we had discussed via email with Sam Coutts. There are two
proposed trees shown to be placed between the sewer and storm line along the
frontage and I thought the trees were to be placed directly adjacent to the curb in
this location?
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/09/2017
06/09/2017: The proposed utilities shown on the Landscape Plans don’t match
those shown in the Utility Plans. Please coordinate.
Response: Utilities updated