HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE UNION ON ELIZABETH (FORMERLY 1208 W. ELIZABETH STREET) - FDP - FDP170024 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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 15, 2017
Stephanie Hansen
Ripley Design
419 Canyon Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Union on Elizabeth (formerly 1208 W. Elizabeth Street), FDP170024, Round
Number 2
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.
Consultant Responses:
Northern Engineering
Humphreys & Partners Architects
Ripley
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The Table 8-2 of LCUASS would require the use of 20' curb
returns for driveways onto Elizabeth. The proposal utilizes 25' and 15' curb
returns instead of the 20' and would need to be addressed.
Response: It is our understanding that the required radii is under discussion between PFA and City staff
due to the conflict between codes. We will be happy to utilize whichever radii is preferred. Please note that
the radii at that east entrance will need to remain smaller than code in order to align with the existing
parking lot and and avoid impacting the new pedestrian crossing.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The construction of the two access driveways need truncated
dome detection and access ramps as part of the provided 707.1 detail. It is
presumed that the truncated dome detection would occur to promote the
crossing as if this were a detached sidewalk condition.
Response: Truncated domes have been added.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: My interpretation of the grading plan is that all of the work is being
done on-site, except for the work adjacent to the property to the east, which had
previously provided a letter of intent. Has there been communication with the
property owner to the west on the shared access drive change?
Response: We are unaware of any communication with the owner to the west, but would intend to work
with them throughout construction to ensure suitable access is maintained.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: Please include the standard construction note for the depiction of
the street cuts: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be
determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in
accordance with City street repair standards."
Response: The note has been added.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/21/2017: Further discussion on the implementation of the Elizabeth
Enhanced Travel Corridor with FCMoves has determined that the
implementation of the plan to widen Elizabeth Street is not likely to occur. Under
this premise, the local street portion that the project is required to provide the
City will consist of the local street portion of sidewalk, to address the sidewalk
work the City constructed in the early 2000's.
09/12/2017: The obligation for the local street portion for Elizabeth Street under
24-95 (given that the road is slated to be widened and a new sidewalk system
in place) with the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor project is needed to be
determined.
Response: (Repeat Response) The project will of course pay whatever obligations exist. Philosophically
we believe that requiring a project to pay for a capital improvement project that is over 15-years old seems
unfair. Furthermore, City code requires that a project pay for its local half section if the roadway doesn’t
exist, however the Capital Project did not provide a new roadway – it replaced and enhanced an existing
corridor. Were any of the existing businesses required to pay for the improvements along their frontage? If
an existing business along the frontage was not required to pay because of taxes paid or some other
mechanism, it would seem that requiring a new development to pitch in would in effect charge this property
twice. We would like to discuss this in more detail when appropriate.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The driveway onto Elizabeth Street appears to meet warrants for a
right turn into the driveway in accordance with Figure 8-4 of LCUASS, with the
theoretical ability to do so given the turn lane would be along the property
frontage. A variance to Table 8-4 should be provided -- City staff has taken a
general view that this corridor isn't perhaps intended to implement these turn
lanes and could find support in not implementing the turn lane.
Response: A variance letter will be provided.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: Coordination with Transfort's concern on the future implementation
of the bus pad/pullout is needed prior to hearing to ensure that its future
placement can be done without impacting the site design and how costs
associated with this future implementation are agreed to.
Response: Documentation has been provided to staff showing that the future bus stop can be
accommodated if needed. It was agreed that this project would not be responsible for costs associated
with the bus stop. Please let us know if additional info is needed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The site plan indicates that a mid block crossing is to be removed
by others. The civil plans don't reflect this information, and in general I'm unsure
what is occurring here other than street cuts for utility abandonment. If it is to go
away, I'm not recalling in general if this is required, and if so, by whom, and who
is then to remove it -- it would seem to be the development and not the City that
would need to remove it, presuming the City supports this.
Response: The mid-block crossing has already been removed as a part of the pedestrian crossing to the
east.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The placement of knockdown bollards at the emergency
access/paseo is needed to ensure that the emergency access/paseo is not
utilized as a loading area/general access/delivery area. This design should be
provided in the civil plans.
Response: Bollards have been added.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The Image_Paseo.pdf doc shows a fire pit, tables and chairs,
along with bench seating. Aren't these in conflict with the emergency access
aspect of this area?
Response: Site elements along the paseo are now proposed outside of the emergency access easement.
No surface mounted materials are being proposed in the easement.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017
11/29/2017:
Continued:
Forestry requested for our review a site plan from the consultant showing the
locations of the three spruce trees at the SE part of the project. Ralph and I
reviewed the proposed construction impacts to these three trees as depicted
on that plan. Our conclusion was that the three spruce trees could not be
successfully retained or survive on the proposed plan. The consultant has
provided information why design requirements limit having a realistic option to
retain the trees.
(LUC 3.2.1 F) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing
tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location the applicant shall
replace such tree(s) according to the following schedule and requirements.
Forestry staff have assigned the required number of upsized mitigation trees.
Unfortunately the three spruce cannot be retained with the proposed plan. Three
upsized Fastigiate Norway Spruce have been added to this area of the project
and other mitigation trees listed. The consultant reports there is an interest by
the applicant to utilize the wood form the trees on the project. Forestry
encourages the project to further evaluate utilizing the wood and documenting
that on the project plans or records.
Forestry is OK with the project going to hearing with the required mitigation.
`Response: Acknowledged. The Norway Spruce have been added and other trees have been upsized.
11/15/2017:
Continued:
It is very unfortunate that these landmark Spruce trees cannot be retained on the
project. Please provide information for the record why trees cannot be retained
to the extent reasonably feasible while elaborating on the burden this would
cause to the project. In addition, please consider the use of extra large
Fastigiate Norway Spruce or another narrow crown conifer in order increase
mitigation on the corner where the prominent spruce are proposed to be
removed.
09/15/2017:
The proposed building layout appears to be roughly 4 feet from existing spruce
tree #1 and 7 feet from spruce tree #2. Discuss the feasibility of adjusting the
building layout to provide additional separation between the spruce trees and
the building to avoid any unnecessary pruning on the north side.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/27/2017:
Continued:
Please contact Rob Mosbey in City Engineering (rmosbey@fcgov.com) to
review the tree grate detail that will be placed in the public right of way.
Response: Rob has been emailed.
11/15/2017:
There appears to be several internal and right of way tree grates proposed.
Please include a tree grate detail to the landscape plans. This detail is available
from the City Planning or Forestry departments.
Response: tree grate detail now added for clarification on the Landscape Details sheet.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/29/2017
11/29/2017:
Will heat be added to the fire feature that could potentially damage the
surrounding Japanese Tree Lilacs?
Response: Fire feature and Lilac trees are now no longer in conflict.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/29/2017
11/29/2017:
Please update the plant schedule and tree species diversity table to include the
three additional PAC(M) trees. There should be a total of 15 PAC Mitigation
trees.
Response: Plant schedule has been updated. There are only 12 proposed PAC trees, the tree diversity
table indicates that we are meeting all tree species requirements, and we are providing more than required
number of mitigation trees. See plans for clarification.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2017
11/09/2017: Please provide drawings for the ¿Trash Staging¿ enclosure
labeling the service gate width, pedestrian entrance, overall dimensions, and
diagram the proposed bins (include capacity of each bin). If residential and
leasing customers will be depositing their trash directly into this room a
pedestrian entrance is required, consider using a door-less entry which will
provide safer and more efficient access.
Response:
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2017
11/09/2017: Please provide drawings for the “Trash Room” enclosure labeling
the service gate width and diagram the proposed bins (include capacity of each
bin). If residential and leasing customers will be depositing their trash directly
into this room a pedestrian entrance is required, consider using a door-less
entry which will provide safer and more efficient access.
Response:
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: 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 propose.
Response:
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2017
09/10/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
2015 International Residential Code (IRC)
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2017 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.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 129vult or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code - Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2015 IECC
commercial chapter.
Response:
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: The proposed area for the 4 new transfomers, 2 spots intended to
replace the existing transformers in the alley, looks to be to small to fit all 4
transformers, depending on how big the transformers need to be. The total
area needed could be as much as 38' x 10' including the necessary clearances.
09/12/2017: The existing electric transformers that feed the current Pan
Handlers Pizza building, also serve a building to the West at 1240 W. Elizabeth.
This equipment and electric service will need to remain in it's current location or
a suitable transformer location, and any utility easements necessary, will need
to be provided by the developer.
Response: The area provided is approximately 40’ long by 10’ wide.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: With the placement of all 4 transformers in one location it may be
possible to install 1 primary switch cabinet in the Northwest corner of the site.
11/17/2017:
09/12/2017: Light & Power will need to install at least 2 primary switch
cabinets, one in the Northwest corner and one in the Northeast corner, to feed
the 2 proposed transformers.
Response: We look forward to working with Light & Power on the exact design once we have some more
specific information from the electrical engineer.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017:
09/12/2017: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line
diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all
proposed commercial buildings and multi-family (commercial) buildings larger
than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: Utility coordination for the existing transformers feeding the
PanHandlers building will be extremely important before the building can be
demolished. Power to the existing transformers will need to be maintained
during the demo and during construction. Light & Power will most likely have to
set some temporary transformers in the existing alley way to be able to remove
the existing transformers off the building so it can be demolished. Then the
transformers will need to remain until the new transformers can be installed and
energized to maintain power to the building to the North.
Response: We agree that this will be critical, and we look forward to working with staff once a contractor is
on board so we can talk about phasing, access, and all the other fun things that will be affected by this.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: FDC LOCATION
The location of the FDC shall be approved in conjunction with the sprinkler plan.
Response: FDC has been proposed and shown on Civil plans. FDC will be coordinated with PFA and final
Location shall be provided in Construction Documents provided for permit submittal at a future date.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: SIGNAGE
A plan for posting fire lane signage is required for FDP approval.
Response: Fire lane signage is provided on the paving plan.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: EXITING PLAN FROM POOL DECK
The exiting plan from the pool deck remains in question. An occupant load
exceeding 49 persons will require two exits, where only one is apparent at this
time.
Response: FDC has been proposed and shown on Civil plans. FDC will be coordinated with PFA and final
Location shall be provided in Construction Documents provided for permit submittal at a future date.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: GROUND LEVEL STAIRWELL DOORS
Ground level doors appear to be opening in the wrong direction.
Response: All Ground Level Doors serving as Egress shall swing in direction of travel per IBC 2015 Code
Please Reference Sheet A201
Additional clarification and detail will be provided in Construction Documents provided for permit submittal
at a future date.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Alternative means of compliance proposal to be submitted to the
fire marshal for consideration.
Response: Letter of proposed alternative means has been attached.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Is it possible to provide 200 covered bike parking locations that
are on the ground level or ground/second level so that there can be a strong
argument that in addition to the spaces in the units, ample covered parking is
provided that is convenient for the residents as they enter/exit the facility without
using stairs or elevators. This would be more in line with land use code changes
that are pending per the code change requested by Council based on a recent
appeal, which would require that enclosed bicycle parking spaces be located
on the ground floor of a development, or if a portion is on upper floors, they be
located in bike rooms that are adjacent to elevators or stairwells so that they are
easily accessible to entrances and walkways.
Response: 150 covered bike racks are now being proposed at fixed racks in the garage and on site.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Please add bike details/general specifications to the plans for
each bike rack style proposed.
Response: Bike racks details now provided.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: With the underpass portion of the promenade, staff is
recommending that this be a taller opening. Staff does agree that an overhead
element can work over the connection and is recommending a taller height so
that the public connection is more open/comfortable space and the building less
obtrusive.
Response: Clearance to underside of “underpass” requires a Min. of 14’-6” clearance to allow the passage
of an emergency vehicle. This has been provided at the most restrictive point. Please Reference Sheets
A407&A408
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Staff is recommending that the south entrance of the promenade
be defined with an architectural element or site feature that reinforces the
southern public entrance to the promenade. This could be similar to what was
provided to the north at the Lokal or another design approach.
Response: This is being considered and discussed by the design team at this time.
Response: We propose adding pedestrian scale way finding signage integrated and a part of the
landscaped plaza design in lieu of any building mounted / aerial signage.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Level 6 parking and rooftop amenities. Please confirm that the
extent of these elements is shown on all elevations and that height changes are
shown and dimensioned. See redlines.
Response: Elements “beyond” are shown on elevations
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Clarify/label on the plans the material and color specifications for
residential and commerical windows. Staff recommends a window color other
than white such as brown or black.
Response: We propose a manufacturer standard color other than white for the project.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: A-408 east elevation, please label as west.
Response: Revised Note on Sheet A408
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Shadow analysis review for updated plan (pending)
Response: Updated shadow analysis is provided.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
11/21/2017: Please provide an Erosion Control Escrow/Security calculation in
ESC Report. Please include a copy of the Landscape Plan in the Appendix to
the ESC Report.
Please provide a detail for how the paver system will be protected in the interim
period, and add a note specifying when the paver system will be built relative to
other construction activities on the site, please try to make that as late as
possible within the construction time frame or provide a temporary access
surface in the interim period.
Please address all detailed comments on the ESC Plan redlines.
09/05/2017: Please indicate flow arrows on the site in order to assess the
need for perimeter protection. How will paver field in the middle of the site be
protected from clogging up during construction, please delay in the construction
phasing and provide protection after installation. Please contact Basil Hamdan
@bhamdan@fcgov.com 970 224 6035 with any questions.
Response: An escrow calculation has been provided with this submittal.
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 102 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please see redlined report.
09/13/2017: Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance
with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information
on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a
spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at
http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet.
Response: Redlines have been addressed.
Comment Number: 103 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Comment is left active to ensure inclusion in the DA (no action or
response is necessary).
09/13/2017: Please note that a clause in the development agreement
regarding access to the detention and LID facilities located within the structure
will be required as there is not an easement for these facilities.
Response: Acknowledged. We plan for this to mirror what was done with West Plum.
Comment Number: 106 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please see redlines on overflow paths.
09/13/2017: What are the proposed overflow paths for the proposed detention
areas?
Response: Redlines have been addressed. Please call if there are still questions on this.
Comment Number: 107 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please see redlines on overflow paths.
09/13/2017: Please provide modeling to show conditions if the paver system
were to be clogged and that runoff is still safely conveyed to Elizabeth Street.
Response: Redlines have been addressed. Please call if there are still questions on this.
Comment Number: 108 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please provide easement where paths/pipes are outside of
building.
09/13/2017: Please provide an easement for the detention outfall paths
including pipes and spillway/emergency overflow.
Response: Easements are provided.
Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: I understand that building plans are not yet finalized. Comment is
left active to ensure congruency between the plans can be verified once building
plans are available.
Response: Acknowledged. We are working with the structural engineer to get this document as soon as
possible.
09/13/2017: Please provide details for the design of the proposed detention
and LID facilities within the structure including building plans so it can be
verified that utility and building plans are in alignment.
Comment Number: 111 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please help me understand what is happening in the paseo. I see
pavers and StormTech proposed; however, I don't understand how they are
working together.
Response: I believe our discussions have resolved this question. Please let me know if additional
clarification is needed.
09/13/2017: It appears there is proposed landscaping over the proposed
pavers. Are there planter boxes here? Please help me understand what is
proposed.
Response: There is no landscaping proposed over the pavers on the paseo. Landscaping is now being
proposed in designated landscape beds. Trees are proposed to be planted within tree grates that line the
paseo. See detail on the Landscape Details sheet for clarification.
Comment Number: 113 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Note was not seen. Repeat comment. Please add note in a
prominent location.
09/13/2017: Please add the following note to the proposed paver system on
the grading and utility plans:
Please refer to the erosion control plan sheets and report for temporary control
measures and construction sequencing that shall be used to prevent loading of
this drainage facility with sediment during construction.
Response: The requested note is provided in the general notes.
Comment Number: 114 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please see updated redlines (pdf).
09/13/2017: Please see redlined drainage report and plans (provided via pdf).
Response: Redlines have been addressed.
Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Repeat comment.
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 116 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: Please submit a variance request as water quality treatment is not
being provided for the entire site.
Response: A variance request will be provided as we discussed.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Include a copy of the FEMA Map Panel, with the site outlined in
red.
Response: A FEMA map panel is included as requested.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Include a table and drawing listing the BFE, RFPE, FFE, HVAC
Elevations, etc. for each building as is included in the Drainage Exhibit.
Response: This info is provided on the floodplain exhibit.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Include a discussion that Critical Facilities are not allowed in the
floodplain and there will be no such facilities as part of this project.
Response: The requested discussion has been added.
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
11/20/2017: Change the labels on the Plat, Site Plan, and all sheets in the
Utility Drawings to read Existing Condition 100-year floodplain (and floodway)
(Per CSU CLOMR)
Response: The labels have been updated.
09/08/2017: Please show and label the Canal Importation 100-year Current
Effective floodplain and floodway boundaries on the Plat.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/08/2017
11/20/2017: We are initiating a discussion with FEMA whether this should be
considered one building or three. If it is determined to be one building, than the
BFE and RFPE for the western building will govern the entire site.
Response: We are understand that the building could be viewed as three separate buildings, however we
will continue to use the highest (most conservative) BFE across all finished floor elevations.
09/08/2017: On Sheet C800 of the Utility Drawings; the BFE should be
interpolated at the upstream edge of the building, not the property line. It
appears there are two buildings. If that is the case, each building will have it's
own BFE. If they are connected, than the BFE of the upstream building will take
precedence for the entire structure.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Note 25 on Sheet C300, is from the abandonment page, C200.
Please revise and include the appropriate floodplain and floodway notes for this
sheet.
Response: The note has been changed.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Note 25 on Sheet C301 is from the abandonment page, C200,
and not one of the appropriate notes for this page. Please revise and include
the appropriate floodplain and floodway notes.
Response: This has been updated.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Add a note to Sheet C400 regarding the need for a floodplain use
permit prior to working on the flood fringe. Note 5 on C800 is appropriate.
Response: The requested note has been added.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: On Sheet C400 and C800, the FFE for the Water Entry Room and
the southwest retail shop are both lower than the RFPE for this building.
Response: The grading has been adjusted to elevate these areas above the RFPE.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Add a note to Sheet C401 and C402 regarding the need for a
floodplain use permit prior to working on the flood fringe. Note 5 on C800 is
appropriate.
Response: The requested note has been added.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: On Sheet C402, the FFE for the southwest retail shop is lower
than the RFPE for this building.
Response: I believe this may have been misinterpreted. All FFE’s are above the RFPE.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Usually the shaded areas on Northern Engineering plans is equal
to the Floodway. The shaded area on C800 is not labeled and if it is the
floodway for the CSU CLOMR, it is incorrect.
Response: We do a lot of these, don’t we! We have clarified our notes and hatching.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: On Sheet C800, in the elevation summary, the RFPE and the FFE
are the same. That meets our requirements, but in our experience it may be
wise to add a few tenths to the FFE. If there are any errors in construction, it can
be disastrous if the FFE ends up being lower than the RFPE.
Response: We have added 0.10’ to the FFE.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Sheet C800 shows the Current Effective Floodplain and Floodway
as well as the Existing Condition CSU CLOMR Floodway and Floodplain. That
is fine, but please label them accordingly.
Response: We have updated these to be consistent with our phone call and the other plan sheets.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: On the Site Plan, the floodplain and floodway boundaries are
illegible, and incorrectly labeled. See Note 2 above.
Response: Site plan has been revised
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line of Text have been Resolved
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Text in Hatched area have masked the hatch
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: 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.
09/12/2017: 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: We believe we have this addressed. Please let us know if you see any other issues.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Correct.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Text is now masked.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
Response: The statements all match.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: All Basis Of Bearings statements must match on all sheets.
Response: This matches now.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: All redlines addressed.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Noted
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: 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.
09/12/2017: 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.
Response: Changes have been made.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
09/12/2017: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal
description on the Subdivision Plat.
Response: Legal description now matches the Plat.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: Some of the sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the
sheet numbers on the noted sheets. There are also sheets shown that are not in
the plan set.
09/12/2017: Some of the sheet titles & numbers in the sheet index do not
match the sheet titles & numbers on the noted sheets.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
09/12/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
11/17/2017: 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.
09/12/2017: 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: Easements have been coordinated.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: Variance letter for LOS received. Other than an exhibit for future
bus stop along W. Eliz, all traffic related issues resolved and ready for hearing.
Response: Great!
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2017
09/12/2017: TRANSFORT
Consistent with the comment made from Emma Belmont during the PDR, a bus
stop is required per the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. Please see "Figure 20:
Planning for Redevelopment" (page 46-47) and "Figure 24: Parking
Management Focus Areas" (page 56-57) for identification of a bus stop at this
location for phase 4 West Elizabeth BRT. Also, please see Appendix E for the
"Typical Bus Stop Island Design" that should be installed at this location.
Response: It was determined that we would show the potential location of a bus stop but construction and
money in lieu would not be required.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: TRANSFORT
Construction of the bus stop is not required at this time. However, payment of a
fee-in-lieu for construction of the bus stop is required. Please provide an exhibit
that shows the bus stop design included in the proposed development. The site
plan needs to include a note that the future bus stop will go here.
Response: It was determined that we would show the potential location of a bus stop but construction and
money in lieu would not be required.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2017
09/05/2017: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Response: Noted.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Noted that these calculations will be provided once available.
09/13/2017: Please provide calculations for maximum intermittent and
maximum continuous flows in accordance with AWWA M22 manual design
procedure to support proposed water service sizing.
Response: MEP is onboard and just completed DD’s. We expect calcs to be coming soon.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Please see updated redlines (pdf).
09/13/2017: Please see redlined plans (provided via pdf).
Response: All redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2017
11/17/2017: Repeat comment.
09/13/2017: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Response: Acknowledged.