HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE HUB ON CAMPUS - FDP - FDP180011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
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
November 22, 2017
Sam Coutts
RIPLEY DESIGN, INC.
419 CANYON AVE, STE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Hub on Campus, PDP160038, Round Number 4 DRAFT COMMENTS
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: 8 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
11/21/2017: Correspondence provided documentation that satisfies as a letter
of intent from the owner of Lot 1 Pott's P.U.D. Work is also occurring on the two
properties directly east of Lot 1 Pott's P.U.D. (Matador Apartments Phase IV
and unplatted property) which do appear to be owned by the same owners
(Rams Crossing) as Lot 1 Pott's P.U.D., it would seem that an addendum to the
letter of intent is needed where Rams Crossing acknowledges the additional
work and easements on the properties outside of Lot 1.
In addition to the letter of intent from the three properties controlled by Rams
Crossing, it appears that a letter intent is needed from the Uptown Plaza owner
for the sidewalk demolition identified on the demo plan ("Contractor to
coordinate sidewalk demolition with adjacent property owner").
Response: We are no longer seeking an offsite easement. Utilities on eastern portion of the
southern building will not be disturbed and are proposed to remain. Building design has reduced to
accommodate needed separations. The revised demolition plan no longer calls for the demolition
of the sidewalk on Uptown Plaza property, so a letter of intent from Uptown Plaza is no longer
required.
2
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
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
11/21/2017: The revised drawing still seems awkward in how the access ramp
on the west side of the drive aisle ties into Uptown Plaza. I'd like to look at this in
further detail, but can be an item to address at a final plan review.
Response: The access drive on Elizabeth sidewalk ramps have been revised to encourage
pedestrians to walk in the east-west direction.
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.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
11/21/2017: The crosswalk striping shown should be removed unless agreed
to by Traffic Operations.
Response: Crosswalk striping revised to be single lines as warning to cars of potential pedestrians
in the drive lane.
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.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/16/2017
11/21/2017: The variance request wasn't initially noticed with the submittal, I
need to coordinate the review of this with Traffic and should have an update in
3
the coming days.
Response: Per correspondence with the City, the variance requests have been reviewed and
approved by City staff.
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
LCUASS. Either the project should address these standards, or submit
variance request(s) for evaluation.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The building's proximity to the sidewalk along Elizabeth creates
some visibility concerns at the driveway. We'd like to ensure that the
pedestrians are directed away from the building when crossing the driveway,
perhaps there's landscaping that can be added to encourage this.
Response: A landscape buffer with tall grasses has been added to the east side of the driveway to
prevent pedestrians from crossing too close to the building.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The turning templates for PFA seem to show that the vehicle isn't
contained within the driveable area, I'll defer to PFA if there are any concerns
with this.
Response: Turning templates are revised and resubmitted. Tires and truck overhang are depicted in
different colors on the exhibits to help clarify.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The patching shown on Elizabeth should have the City's standard
street cut repair note added "Limits of street repair are approximate, final limits
to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the
street cuts are made. All repairs are to be to City standards." The street
patching shown on the demo plan indicates the need to expand the patching to
encompass the full width of the outer eastbound travel lane, the full width of the
eastbound bikelane, and the full width of the westbound bikelane.
Response: Note added to the plans. Pavement replacement will extend to the full width of the bike
or travel lane as required.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: How is the emergency access driveway being built on the east
side of the building? Typically we have rollover curb without curb returns and
look at other treatments (such as bollards) to ensure that the general public
doesn't utilize this. Coordination with PFA on design of this area is needed.
Response: Rollover curb will be provided at the emergency access driveway at the northwest
corner of the property. Keynote is provided on the site plan to reference the City detail. Collapsible
bollards are also provided at the entrance to prevent the general public from pulling in.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
11/17/2017: New plans reviewed. A few clarifications needed. Will discuss
details during staff review meeting 11/22/2017.
Response: Clarifications were given at the last staff review. Comments were addressed.
4
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
11/17/2017:
Continued:
Please show the cross-section detail that includes the tree location. City
Forestry would like to review the extent to which the roots might be damaged.
Response: See details 6 and 7 on sheet 6 for existing tree sections.
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.
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
11/17/2017:
Continued:
Tree section detail will be provided at FDP. Comment continued until FDP.
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: See details 6 and 7 on sheet 6 for existing tree sections.
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
5
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
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
11/17/2017:
Continued:
Tree grate detail will be provided at FDP. Comment continued until FDP.
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: 5’ sq. tree grate has been spec’d. It is preferred to leave this generic language on the
plans to keep options open for the contractor to price at a later date.
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: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/10/2017
11/10/2017: Please provide drawings of the trash/recycle enclosure with
service gates, and required pedestrian entrance. Will this be the only enclosure
used on site?
Note: the Community Recycling Ordinance will require all new businesses and
multifamily complexes to have recycling service that is equal to at least 1/3 of
their overall service volume (bin capacity x weekly service frequency) please
plan bin capacity accordingly.
Response: Trash enclosure blowup shown on site plan. Two pedestrian entrances are located. The
western for trash pickup services and employee access, the eastern for employee drop off of trash
and recycling totes for the main level tenants. These totes are located outside of the stairwell door
in the parking garage.
Response: Enclosure will house trash and recycling bins at the required volumes
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
6
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.
Response: We have provided Code summary letters to Building Department and attended a pre-
submittal meeting previously. If additional info is needed we can certainly provide.
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.
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
7
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.
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
8
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING &
WAYFINDING
These buildings will require separate addressing. Address and wayfinding for
the building fronting the unnamed private drive is now a bigger concern with
regard to efficient emergency access. Has there been any further discussion
regarding the naming of the private drive? At this point, PFA believes city
planning staff needs to weigh in on this issue.
Response: We are open to naming the private drive if it can be arranged with the City. Another
option may be to name the access drive on our property, west of the main building, and address the
southern building off of that street.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: MISCELANEOUS
> The Fairview Apartments to the east will be dedicating an Emergency Access
Easement on their property.
> Potential exists to re-evaluate the need for the access control gate on the east
side of the property.
> Potential exists to re-evaluate the need for a fire lane turnaround in the parking
garage.
> Standpipes required in basement parking garage at 200' intervals for
sprinklered building.
Response: After contacting the Planner on the Fairview PDP, it was not clear whether these plans
were moving forward or not. We have left the emergency access as-is for now. If the neighboring
EAE is platted in the future, we will evaluate our plat and site access design at that time.
Response: Noted. Required sprinkler equipment will be provided in permit submittal documents.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: HIGH RISE COMPLIANCE
High rise compliance as an alternative means of meeting aerial apparatus
access requirements have been submitted to PFA for Buildings 1 & 2. The
parking garage shall also comply with aerial apparatus access. The proposal is
currently under review by the fire marshal and no further action by the applicant
is required at this time.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: PARKING PLAN Page 3 of 9
> Scale is misrepresented at 1"=40'
> There appears to be an extra stairwell indicated on the Ground Level plan
going neither up nor down.
Response: Extra stairwell leads to a mezzanine level between ground floor and 2nd
floor. There is no
parking on the mezzanine level, so it is not represented on the parking plans.
Department: Planning Services
9
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
Ped access to Uptown Plaza possible? Currently EAE only. Can a connection
work with grades? Please see redlines.
Response: Ped access is not available to Uptown Plaza due to steep grades and unavailability to
perform work on their property.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
Is it possible to provide additional 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 the ground level entrances and walkways.
Response: Bike racks have been relocated to ground and lower levels as much as possible.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
Please add bike details/general specifications to the plans for each bike rack
style proposed.
Response: It is preferred to leave generic language for bike racks on the plans in order to leave
options open to the developer for pricing without needing a Minor Amendment. Standard Site Plan
note about bike racks has been provided on cover page.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
For the gabion wall system, staff's preference is that this be designed so that
the are no visible mortar joints or dry stack backing visible behind the masonry
face of the wall system. If this is not achievable, staff recommends going with a
masonville ashlar stone pattern to help establish a common vernacular in the
area.
Response: We can provide a mockup of the selected system so that City Staff can comment on
actual condition before installed on the rest of the building. Architect is confident that design
solution can be achieved to meet the city’s concerns.
Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
Please see redlines for additional comments.
Response: Redlines were addressed prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
above remaining round 4 comments from planning can be resolved offline
without a formal resubmittal, prior to scheduling a hearing.
Response: Noted.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
10
11/20/2017: Dimension Control and Paving Plan: The front stairs and wall
seems like they should also be labelled as a retaining wall, or called out in some
fashion to show that there is a grade difference.
Response: Front walls have been labeled to show that there is a grade difference.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Grading Plan: There is a small existing retaining wall along the
building that is located south of your south building. It looks like you are
proposing to regrade all the way up to the existing building face in this area to
install a storm line and other dry utilities. Are you coordinating with this other
property/building owner to ensure that this work will be allowed to be done?
Response: We have routed utilities so that the only offsite work will be done within the existing 10’
utility easement on the southwest property.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Cross-Section Details: Thank you for providing the cross-section
of the plaza column and existing storm pipe. The detail shows an area of
influence line, but doesn’t account for what a typical trench excavation would
look like if/when the pipe needs to be excavated/repaired/replaced along the
building frontage. Please include more details here.
Response: More details have been added to the cross section to allow for trench excavation.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Existing Conditions: Along with re-routing storm sewer pipes
through the property, you will need to also show how the offsite (upstream) runoff
is being safely routed through your property. Runoff amounts from the upstream
properties should be included in your drainage analysis and shown to be routed
safely. The flows don’t necessarily have to be routed in the storm pipe system,
but you need to be able to show that you’re not adversely affecting other
properties in the area.
Response: Offsite tributary flows to our site have been accounted for and explained in our offsite
drainage summary and exhibits in our drainage memo.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Proposed Conditions: Similar comment; the proposed storm
runoff doesn’t necessarily need to be completely captured and routed in the
storm sewer pipes, but you do need to be able to show that whatever amount of
runoff that isn’t being captured in the pipes is safely and adequately routed
through or around your property so as not to adversely affect your property or
others around it. The hydraflow model shows up to 6’ of ponding depth in the
100-year storm – this must be addressed.
Response: Offsite tributary flows to our site have been accounted for and explained in our offsite
drainage summary and exhibits in our drainage memo.
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: Stormwater Management Plan included in this FDP submittal.
03/02/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet
11
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Text has been aligned.
06/16/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
03/10/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Text has been aligned.
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Titles have been updated.
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Subtitle has been updated.
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
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Benchmark data has been updated.
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Titleblock has been updated.
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Benchmark statements match on all sheets.
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.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Text issues resolved.
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
13
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Text issues resolved.
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Easement descriptions match the plat.
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: 32 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: available changes made
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.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/17/2017
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.
Response: available changes made
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Legal description updated
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
11/17/2017: This will be verified on round 1 of FDP.
Response: Easement descriptions updated
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
14
Subdivision Plat.
12/21/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. Please
revise as marked. See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: The revised traffic study has been received and the conclusions
accepted related to the short term total conditions relevant to The Hub. Prior to
final, but preferably prior to hearing, we'll need a variance request letter for the
LOS of a couple movements and one approach at Shields / West Elizabeth. I'll
provide Curtis with a sample of the letter needed for our files.
Response: December 2017 traffic study revised to obtain acceptable LOS for all movements.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/21/2017
11/21/2017: At the NW corner of the site, there is a concern for pedestrians
and vehicle conflicts with limited sight distance if pedestrians are very close to
the building. At the driveway coming out towards West Elizabeth, can you
ensure pedestrians are as close to the road as possible?
Response: Planting cutout with tall ornamental grasses has been provided as a buffer for
pedestrians from the access drive.
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.
Response: Letters of intent were provided for the public hearing. We are no longer seeking offsite
easements. Utilities on the eastern side of the southern building will remain as existing. Building
has been reduced to accommodate necessary separations.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Demo Plan: Please note that the existing water service location will
need to be shown relative to the proposed water service locations. These
should be separated by a minimum of 5’.
Response: Water lines are separated by 5’ minimum.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Water Services: please show the curb stop for the 2” service next
to the meter pit. We do not require “valve vaults” for the 4” water service or the
6” fire service lines. (final)
Response: 2” curb stop shown next to the meter pit.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Water Meters: These are both shown in the public ROW. We need
to work with Engineering to determine if they are ok with placement of the
meters in the public ROW for this project.
15
Response: Based on existing utilities and spacing, water meters are still shown within the ROW.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Ex. Hydrant: The existing hydrant located on the private drive is
shown to be located ~3’ from proposed relocated dry utilities. The standard
requirement is 10’ separation; however, 8’ will be acceptable.
Response: Fire hydrant is a minimum of 8’ from the dry utilities.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Sanitary Sewer: there are a couple of manholes (S5 and S7) that
are shown to be located in the curb and gutter. These mh lids will need to be
placed or rotated such that they are not right in the curb and/or gutter.
Response: Sanitary MH S5 is moved out of the curb line. S7 is within the flat, zero height curb and
is needed there to provide proper utility separation.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: Dry Utilities: There are several areas where the dry utilities are still
shown to be too close to the sewer main or storm sewers. I recognize that the
team has done a lot of work to provide adequate separation between the sewer
mains and storm lines or buildings, but I still have some concern about the
placement of the dry utilities in some areas. The existing electrical switch
cabinet seems to be driving so much of the placement of all the utilities and it
seems like it would be worth considering moving that existing feature to free up
other issues. In addition, the proposed transformer location is still shown too
close to the sewer main. What can be done about these items? Also, gas
cannot typically be located in the same trench as other utilities, which is the way
you have it shown through the southerly part of the site. I have concerns about
how the dry utility layout is actually going to be built when the layout doesn’t
appear to follow industry standards.
There is an existing gas main that looks to be located ~7’ north of the edge of
pavement on Elizabeth. You are now showing the proposed sanitary sewer
main ~5’ north of the edge of pavement on Elizabeth. Please include the
existing gas main in Elizabeth on your utility plan and show a revised location for
the proposed sanitary sewer that meets separation requirements. In addition,
Engineering may have requirements about where manholes can be located in
the street relative to the wheel path along each lane.
Response: Utilities revised to provide appropriate separations.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/20/2017
11/20/2017: There is an existing tree located just south of the property line that
looks like it’s supposed to remain. However, there is a proposed storm pipe
going right through this area. Please reconcile.
Response: I believe the existing tree between trees #22, #23 and #24 is the tree you are referring to.
The utilities in this area are existing and are proposed to remain.