HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE HUB ON CAMPUS - PDP - PDP160038 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2)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
March 10, 2017
Sam Coutts
RIPLEY DESIGN, INC.
419 CANYON AVE, STE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Hub on Campus, PDP160038, 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.
Comment Summary:
Comment Responses: Ripley Design, Kimley-Horn, Ware Malcomb, ESC, Core Spaces
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
03/08/2017: The response indicated a letter of intent from the property owner to
the west was being provided, but didn't appear in my submittal. The letter should
be indicating an OK in concept for the various work being done on their property
that provides access and emergency access to this development. It appears
additional letters of intent from other offsite property owners would also be
needed.
Response: Only one LOI is needed from the owner to the south. We have been in good contact and
will be provided prior to hearing.
12/23/2016: Vehicular access to/from Elizabeth Street occurs through a private
drive with an access easement but on property owned by the property owner to
the west of the site. The City should be provided with information from the
developer regarding discussions with that adjacent property owner to
understand whether agreements are being made for ongoing
access/maintenance of this drive aisle. Note that the traffic study recommends
the placing of a stop sign at the intersection of the private drive and Elizabeth,
and the plans reflect this along with the striping of turn lanes at the intersection,
how might this be potentially coordinated with this project? It should also be
looked at in providing no parking signage and a white informational sign,
indicating "Begin private maintenance".
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
03/10/2017: Further discussion with Planning/Engineering/PFA/GIS is intended
to occur to fully resolved this.
Response: We are no longer accessing off the private drive
12/23/2016: It should be verified from a City and PFA perspective on whether a
potential naming of the offsite private drive with a street name is contemplated
or required as part of this development.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
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).
Response: easement provided
12/23/2016: The cross section for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan (ETC) specifies an area behind the curb of 12 feet. While
acknowledging that the plan would appear to show the road narrowing and the
future implementation of the corridor plan under this premise would then be at
12 feet, the concern at this time is that the project isn't funded to implement the
plan, and there may be the realization that the narrowing of the roadway isn't a
cost effective approach to implement the ETC. As a result, we would want to
ensure that an equivalent sidewalk area of 12 feet behind the curb is provided
at this time, instead of the 10 feet shown, requiring the offset of the landscape
wall and plaza area 2 feet further south than presently shown. (As Figure 16-1 of
LCUASS requires the horizontal clearance of 2 feet from the back of sidewalk
to a wall, this additional 2 foot of widening also accomplishes the horizontal
clearance requirement from walls to a sidewalk). Additional right-of-way
wouldn't necessarily need to be dedicated, we would be OK with the first 2 feet
of the 15 foot utility easement also being an access easement.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
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).
Response: Offsite improvements are required south of the project on the Matador Apartment property.
Improvements are limited to utility work and regrading. In addition, offsite sanitary work is required within
the Private Drive with the intention of the City taking ownership over the sanitary line. These proposed
improvements are shown within the provided plan set.
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: 9 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
03/08/2017: Carried over as unresolved.
Response: Retaining wall at the property line has been removed.
12/23/2016: Please provide the existing (or to be constructed) information for
the surrounding properties. What will the Elizabeth Street frontage
improvements for this property tie into on either side?
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
03/08/2017: We'll need additional info on the amount of area sheet flowing
across the Elizabeth Street sidewalk. We require that no more than 750 square
feet area of sheet flow behind the sidewalk.
Response: At the northwest corner of the site, pervious pavers are proposed to the right of way line. A
ridge line is created to limit the area graded to the right of way to less than 750 square feet. Similarly, the
area at the northeast corner of the site is primarily pervious pavers and we’ve added a storm inlet at the
very northeast corner of the property to capture any additional runoff.
12/23/2016: Please provide a cross-section of the area proposed for
emergency access. Is it intended to use detail D-54 provided in the details
sheets of the civil plans, utilizing a curb to define the edge? The plans don't
indicate this, however the plans show grass pavers in areas and these aren't
defined in that detail though provided in the Grasspave2 detail. It seems the
intent is to build these as inverted crowns with the area above the underdrain
serving as the low point, but the details sheet don't necessarily reflect this. There
should be some information regarding whether a liner and/or cut-off walls are
intended to be used in conjunction with the underdrain. Historically, we have
concerns about the use of liners in utility areas as these liners may be cut by the
utility providers during maintenance/replacement of the utility infrastructure,
causing concern that the infiltration of drainage then finds a different path than
the intended underdrain.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/23/2016
03/08/2017: Carried over as unresolved with the plat utilizing a different name
and the civils using "Ft." instead of "Fort" on the planning documents.
Response: Plat and utility plans are coordinated regarding the name of the project.
12/23/2016: The different plans have several different titles for the project (Plat:
"Core Fort Collins Subdivision", Site Plan: "The Hub on Campus", Civil: "The
Hub Colorado State") We'd prefer utilizing the same name on all the documents
for electronic "searchability".
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: The traffic study does not appear to take into account the road diet
for Elizabeth Street west of City Park (going down to one lane in each direction,
instead of the existing two lanes in each direction). Are the implications to the
data and/or conclusions that would need further analysis/clarification as a result
of the future planned road diet as part of the Elizabeth Enhanced Travel
Corridor Plan?
Response: Traffic study revised to address future road dieting on Elizabeth Street.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: The staff review brought up the potential that the emergency
access points off of Elizabeth Street might also be looked at as a
loading/unloading area for a commercial use. We would need to have additional
information on this for consideration and ideally be addressed in the traffic
study. Traffic Operations had left the room prior to this discussion, but I suspect
they may have concerns with this as well. Overall, I'm unsure at this point if City
Transportation staff would be in support of loading operations to occur off of
Elizabeth Street.
Response: Commercial vehicles will enter the site off of Elizabeth Street at the northwest corner of the
property and will load within the parking structure of the main building. See truck routing exhibits included in
the submittal for both fire and truck access.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: The existing sanitary manhole along Elizabeth appears to be in the
travel path for the pedestrians. Ideally it's location would be shifted in a manner
such that it's not in the pedestrian travel path. If that can't be accomplished, then
a pedestrian/ADA compliant lid should be used.
Response: A pedestrian/ADA compliant lid is proposed for the structure located within the Elizabeth Street
pedestrian travel path. Lid type is noted in the structure table on the utility plan sheet.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/05/2017
03/05/2017: Thank you for working diligently and creatively to address all
Environmental Planning comments and meet LUC standards without
modification requests or alternative compliance. One reason the City of Fort
Collins has a well-planned, popular and economically vibrant community is due
in part to a robust development review process and standards including high
environmental standards.
Response: Due to further site changes the landscape plan was redesigned. It is anticipated that
these changes will trigger an alternative compliance landscape plan, so that request has been
submitted with this application.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/05/2017
03/05/2017: Photometric plan clearly and easily calls out 3000K or less
luminaires. Thank you; this makes any enforcement easier if and when issues or
complaints occur post construction.
Response: Updated Photometric attached
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/05/2017
03/05/2017: Excellent progress on landscape plans. Remember all public
street trees require a free tree permit prior to installation and that landscaping
shall be inspected prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, or, a security
shall be provided at 125% of cost of hardscape and softscape. Security is
released once all hardscape and softscape installed according to approved
plans.
Response: noted
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/09/2017:
Continued:
Please update the tree mitigation table to reflect the status/reason for removal
for trees #33 and #34. For example, tree #33 states that it is to be removed
because of a parking structure conflict; since the tree is to be retained, please
delete this statement. Additionally, please show trees #35 and #36 as removed
on the plans, since these trees were removed as a part of the Uptown Plaza
project.
Response: Plans updated, no offsite trees are to be removed
12/21/2016:
Trees #33, 35, and 36 are off-site, but are shown as ¿to be removed¿ by the
project. The adjacent property owner, where the trees are located, must provide
written approval for the removal of these off-site trees. Please provide written
approval to the Project Planner, Jason Holland.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
03/09/2017:
Please list the caliper sizes of the mitigation trees to be planted. Please add a
note on the plans that reads:
Mitigation trees shall be sized as follows:
- Shade tree = 3” caliper
- Ornamental tree = 2.5” caliper
- Evergreen tree = 8’ height
Response: all proposed trees shall be upsized for mitigation
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
03/09/2017:
Please provide for the correct number of Mitigation Trees, both in the Tree
Mitigation Summary Table and on the Landscape Plans. Forestry counted 30.5
mitigation trees to be provided – please round this up to 31 trees. Also, only 30
mitigation trees were shown on the Landscape Plans. Please provide for 1
additional mitigation tree on the plans.
Trees 35 and 36 were removed by Uptown Plaza. Mitigation is not required for
these tree removals because they were completed by another project.
Response: Tree #2 is now being removed, the total mitigation requirement is 33
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
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.
Response: It is not possible to save tree #2 as it is too close to the building foundation and the
entrance canopy would require severe pruning. Tree #1 remains and is an easier condition to
protect. A section can be provided if needed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
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
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).
Response: See comment response above
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2017
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.
Response: Street trees have been located along flowline in tree grates. It might be worth a meeting
between Water, Planning, Forestry, Environmental Planning and the Applicant to resolve this issue.
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.
Response: Will comply. We have been in contact with the City throughout the process and can
schedule and supplementary meetings as needed.
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.
Response: Will comply. Building is currently designed to comply with 2015 I-codes
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.
Response: Will Comply. Building is designed to comply with all codes listed above
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.
Response: WILL COMPLY. A sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA 13, “Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems”, will be provided throughout the Subject Project (The project will
be designed in compliance with IBC Chapter 403, “High Rise Buildings”. IBC Section 403.3 requires
that high rise buildings and structures be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems throughout
accordance with IBC Section 903.3.1.1. IBC Section 903.3.1.1 requires that where provisions of the
IBC require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance
with NFPA 13.).
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.
Response: WILL COMPLY. When we evaluate the Subject Project for compliance with CRS 9-5, we
find that the project achieves more than 1,000 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.
Response: NOT APPLICABLE: It is our understanding that the Subject Project site is located more
than 1,000 ft from 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.
Response: Comment noted. Rear lot electric will be used to power the site.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges
and system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this
development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate
of charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: System modification charges will apply to remove/relocate
existing electric infrastructure on the site. Due to the existing electric system
that will need to be modified, modification charges will be substantial. Light and
Power has primary electric lines existing running north/south through the middle
of the site and along the rear property line. It appears that these lines will need
to be relocated as part of this project. The relocated lines will need to be
placed within a utility easement on the site. Please note that there is a 10ft
minimum separation requirement with electric lines and other utility main lines.
Relocation and system modifications will be at the expense of the
developer/owner of the project. Please contact me to discuss.
Response: Comment noted. Electric lines that are relocated will be within utility easements. Proposed
electric lines provide 10’ of separation from public utility lines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Commercial service information forms (C-1 forms) and a one line
diagrams for the commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted
to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: WILL COMPLY. C-1 form has been completed and attached.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered.
Response: Comment noted. Residential units will be metered individually.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan,
utility plans, and landscape drawings before final design of the electric facilities
will begin.
Response: Comment noted. AutoCAD of the site, utility and landscape drawings will be submitted to Light
& Power prior to final design of site facilities.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if
you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies,
construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/22/2016
12/22/2016: It is anticipated that a new vault will need to be placed along the
frontage of the property to relocate the 3phase primary electric lines. Please
show a new vault in the sidewalk on the plans.
Response: New vault shown in sidewalk on the plans.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS
> The applicant will be required to amend the existing off-site EAE through
Uptown Plaza to realign with the new fire lane plan.
> The applicant will be required to dedicate an off-site EAE through Fairview
Plaza if one does not already exist.
Response: Emergency access no longer uses Uptown Plaza
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: AUTOTURN EXHIBIT
Due to redesign of the fire lane through Uptown Plaza, it is unclear if fire
apparatus can complete the required turning movements within that site;
especially at the landscaped, parking end-cap. An AutoTurn exhibit through
Uptown Plaza, The Hub, and Fairview Plaza is requested.
Response: Autoturn exhibits have been provided to PFA for the current emergency access
alignment. Per meetings with Jim Lynxwiler and Bob Poncelow these movements have been
accepted.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS
Please adjust the fire lane signage plan per PFA redlines.
Response: Fire lane signage adjusted per the PFA redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: PAVERS
Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable
of supporting 40 tons. Private drives incorporating pavers as surface for fire
lanes shall provide geotech information confirming the paver design can handle
fire truck loading. A note shall be added to the civil plans.
Response: Note added to plans regarding 40 ton loading on pavers. Specification included with
resubmittal.
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:
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/04/2017
03/04/2017: ALTERNATIVE MEANS & METHODS
Where project size and scope and/or site constraints conflict with fire code
compliance, the intent of the fire code may be met via alternative means and
methods, as approved by the fire marshal. As per IFC 104.8 & 104.9, the fire
marshal may allow this approach when perimeter access and/or aerial
apparatus access requirements cannot be met on the site plan. A written plan to
meet the intent of the code via alternative means and methods will need to be
submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow for review and approval prior to final
plans approval.
Response: See itemized hi-rise code requirement provision letter attachment.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
03/06/2017: Please look at ways that the project can provide additional green
screening along the southern portion of the project.
The LUC does specifically state that street trees can be used to satisfy tree
stocking requirements, but not private trees on adjacent properties. There could
be more discussion about how the tree stocking could be alternatively complied
with, but I would suggest writing the alternative compliance request to be more
holistic, addressing the fact that you are providing an entire landscape plan that
alternatively complies, and then address the criteria in Section3.2.1(H). The
elements that would be helpful to focus on would not be an urban vs. suburban
discussion but rather screening, foundation plantings, transitioning, softening of
the paved areas that are not associated with the parking garage.
A low wood fence or gabion wall fence with evergreen vines, planted along
portions of the perimeter could help with the alternative landscape plan. The
preference would be to do this in combination with additional trees that are
incorporated into the site perimeter or within a dedicated planning easement on
adjacent properties to the west and south.
Response: An alternative compliance request has been provided for the landscape plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Prior to hearing, minor amendments must be submitted, reviewed
and acceptable for the development¿'s proposed changes to neighboring
properties. Please also coordinate with Engineering on any letters of intent
required by adjacent properties prior to hearing.
Response: Minor amendment is no longer needed for any adjacent properties
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: As the design progresses, the plans need to clarify and show that
any proposed east/west access is limited to emergency vehicles only, and also
pedestrian/bike access if that can be provided.
Response: Per PFA, an emergency access only gate has been provided
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Mezzanine: Modification no longer applies due to building/unit
adjustments.
Response: Updated mezzanine plan provided, no modification is needed.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Elevations:
Please sharpen up the images used to show materials.
For the cement board panel system, how are these attached and does the
panel system provide a clean, quality appearance.
For the concrete garage paneling system, we need more comfort level with the
design approach here. The representative photos show a different type of panel
system. Provide details that clarify the pattern, texture and character of the
garage’s concrete walls.
Response: IMAGES SHARPENED. See attached submittal package for revised package and images.
Panel mechanically fastened to wall substrate. Fasteners blend into finish material. The panels will
provide a clean, quality appearance. Images for the garage have been updated and sharpened for
clarity with close ups for more detailed views of precast panel pattern. Samples of all building
materials will be available to staff to provide further clarity on pattern, shape, size, and texture.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Along the south PL, the main building now has open parking stalls
that face south. Please provide headlight screening somewhere along the
south.
Response: There is an existing fence on the southern property line. A shrub bed has also been
provided to the extent feasible by existing utilities.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: For the bike racks, show a vignette for the locations in each unit
type. Can be typicals.
Response: See attached submittal package for vignettes of bike racks in typical units.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Please provide building floor plan vignettes for each level of the
proposed main building, in the same way that the parking structure shows each
floor. Can be provided as a separate exhibit.
Response: See attached submittal package for vignettes of general floor plan breakdowns by use.
Please note, some unit floor plans are still being finalized for full building permit submittal.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Please incorporate one additional tree along the Elizabeth
frontage, for a total of 5 trees for the property frontage to satisfy the street tree
code requirement. As a fallback 4 trees would be okay if there are reasonable
constraints.
Response: 5 street trees have been provided
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Can you please list all of the offsite easements that are changing,
and clarify if the width is changing and/or changes in easement designations
proposed? Please provide a simplified exhibit that clarifies which utility lines
and easement lines are existing and how these are changing. Sheet 10 of 12
has most of this but it’s difficult to see how proposed off-site easements are
changing. Also it appears that the two existing trees west of Matador will be
affected by the utility re-routing but the proximity is not shown on the plans or the
mitigation plan or landscape plan.
Response: There is now only 1 offsite easement on the Matador Apartments property being
requested, see plat.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Shadow analysis only needs to address 3.5.1 and only for the
portion of the building that is taller than 40 feet.
Response: It is our opinion that both analyses need to be provided to P&Z in order to be prepared
in the event of an appeal, so all 4 sheets remain.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: The Uptown Plaza drainage report shows a restricted release
(0.45 cfs) at the manhole near the bioswale on your property. This restricted
release rate is controlled by an orifice plate that is installed within the manhole
and is for their underground detention system on their site. Therefore, your site
cannot tie into their storm line upstream of the manhole with the orifice plate in it.
You will need to find another way to connect into their storm system.
Response: Connection is no longer being made to the manhole at the west side of the property.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Exhibits in the report need to be provided in a size and format that
is readable.
Response: Exhibits in the report are printed full size.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: All runoff calculations need to be provided.
Response: Runoff calculations for areas and runon areas are provided in the report.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: All LID run-on areas need to be specifically shown on the exhibit.
Response: LID run-n areas are shown on the chart on the proposed drainage plan.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Page 2 Predevelopment Conditions: The property is not located
within a City of Fort Collins regulatory floodplain. Please correct the text here.
Response: Text revised to not list site in the floodplain.
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: Time of concentration reduced to 5 minutes and hydrologic calculations provided for 2 year and
200 year storms.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Grading Plan: Drainage along the northwest retaining wall needs
to be detailed further. This can be provided in final design.
Response: Retaining wall removed along the northwest corner of the site. Other walls onsite provide
grading details.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Drainage 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.
Response: Comment noted. Storm sewer will be private and maintained by the owner.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
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: Bioswales revised to show min 2’ bottom and runon ratios revised as well.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Drainage Plan: Please note that underdrains are required for LID
systems. The underdrains will need to be shown with these plans and will need
to daylight and/or tie into the overall storm drainage system at the site.
Response: Underdrains are shown for the LID systems on the storm plan.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Drainage Plan: Offsite Basin 2 looks to drain into the offsite
extended detention pond. This drainage report analysis will need to verify that
this basin is not draining more than the existing condition to that pond.
Response: Offsite area has been reduced and has negligible effect on the existing pond system.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: For the existing storm sewer pipe along the property
frontage, the manhole lid should be buried and the existing 10-inch PVC that
extends west from that manhole shall be replaced with a 15-inch RCP pipe to
the next upstream manhole.
Response: Manhole noted to be buried and a new 15” storm sewer pipe has been extended to the
manhole at the northeast corner of Uptown plaza.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: What are the bioswale plantings for the Uptown Plaza property?
The landscape plan for Uptown Plaza will need to be modified to accommodate
this projects plans. Those landscape plans will need to be reviewed and
approved in conjunction with these plans.
Response: No modifications are being made to the Uptown Plaza property
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2016
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
Response: Erosion control plans, reports and escrow calculation will be emailed as noted above.
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
03/10/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: CORRECTED. See attached submittal package for revised package and images.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: CORRECTED. See attached submittal package for revised package and images.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
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.
Response: Titles changed to “The Hub on Campus” on all sheets.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
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.
Response: Subtitles changed as noted above.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: Please make changes to the Benchmark Statement as marked.
See redlines.
Response: Benchmarks revised as noted in the 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
03/10/2017: Please spell out "Fort". See redlines.
Response: “Fort” is spelled out on the plans and in the titles.
12/21/2016: The title in the title blocks must match the main title.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
Response: Benchmarks match on all sheets.
12/21/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.
12/21/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Text masks provided where necessary.
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
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.
Response: Easement descriptions match 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: 11 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: This has not been addressed.
Response: Utility and drainage on Pott’s PUD removed from the plat.
12/21/2016: It appears that based on the Pott's P.U.D. that there is already a
Utility & Drainage Easement in the area marked. Please verify, and if so, label
as such and remove offsite easement line work. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: Reception numbers noted on the plans.
12/21/2016: Please show all reception numbers. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: Subdivision names added to the plat for surrounding properties.
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: 14 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: Missing noted added to the plat.
12/21/2016: Please add the missing note "There shall be no private....of the
City Code.".
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/21/2016
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: Note #2 revised.
12/21/2016: Please make changes to Note #2 as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
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
03/10/2017: This has not been corrected.
Response: 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
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.
Response: Easements match the 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: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2017
03/08/2017: Please include signing and striping plan with final submittal.
Response: Signing and striping eliminated from the private drive. If still required for fire sign submittal, we
can provided at final submittal.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
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.
Response: Traffic study revised per comments and discussion.
12/20/2016: 12/14/2016: The traffic study has been received and reviewed.
There are a few refinements needed for the next submittal.
At Shields and Elizabeth: The TIS shows the existing overall LOS at Shields
and Elizabeth as LOS F. That would potentially invoke Adequate Public
Facilities constraints through our Land Use Code and as such this should be
double checked. Also, the TIS recommends removal of split phasing to improve
operations. In the past this strategy was not possible/beneficial due to
geometric constraints (shared through/left lanes) and pedestrian calls (on the
north side crosswalk almost every cycle). The conclusions also list
recommended changes to auxiliary turn lane lengths. Unless you¿re proposing
to construct those, the assumptions in the study (especially in the short term)
should reflect the actual turn lane lengths. Please call so we can discuss the
timing, existing LOS, ped calls, and what improvements are possible or
anticipated with the current underpass project that can be assumed.
At Shields and Elizabeth, please include movement and approach LOS
information.
Any movements / approaches that do not meet LOS standards will require
variance letters.
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: Much of this info could not be obtained from The District, however an updated parking
study has been submitted. It is our understanding the study only needs to prove that TOD
standards are appropriate for our project. It is not required to prove that .75 spaces / bed is the
appropriate standard for the TOD.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Demo Plan: Please note that any water or sewer services to be
replaced or abandoned will need to be abandoned at the main. Per my redline
on this sheet, please add a note regarding proper service abandonment
procedures.
Response: Water and sewer lines to be replaced are noted to be abandoned at the main line.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2016
12/19/2016: Landscape Plans: Trees are required to be located a minimum of
10’ from utility mains. Along the front of the building the proposed trees will need
to be relocated as they are in very close proximity or on top of the existing
sewer and storm mains.
Response: Trees have been moved 10’ off any proposed public lines. There are a number of lines in
the Elizabeth ROW that make this standard impossible to meet, however planning and forestry still
require street trees. Smaller ornamental trees have been provided as a compromise.
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: Only one LOI is needed from the owner to the south. We have been in good contact and
will be provided prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: Water meters are required to be drawn to scale. See
details 16 and 17 for appropriate water meter sizing for 2-inch and 4-inch size
meters. Also please note that all water services shall have a minimum of 5-foot
separation from each other, this includes a 5-foot separation from the edge of
the meter vaults to the service lines.
Response: Water meters are provided in vaults for water service lines with proper separation.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: Please note that there is no need for sanitary sewer
manholes where the sanitary sewer services connect to the main. Please just
connect the 6-inch services to the 10-inch main with a wye connection.
Response: Manholes removed and replaced with wye connections.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: The lower levels of the parking garage should be
drained to a sand-oil interceptor, which ties into the sanitary sewer system. You
should show a sewer service to the garage for this purpose.
Response: Sand and oil interceptor noted for garage structure 19 in the utility plan set and is noted in the
structure table.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: There are several notes on this page that appear to be
for another jurisdiction. Please remove these and only keep the notes that are
specific to CoFC or this project. Also, please add a note that states that All
unused water or sewer services associated with this property will be required to
be abandoned at the utility main, per City of Fort Collins standards and
specifications. Contractor shall coordinate with City of Fort Collins Utilities Field
Operations Department, (970) 221-6700, during abandonment procedures.
Response: Noted added to the utility notes on the plan sheet.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Utility Plan: For the Utility Crossings, please note that we require a
minimum of 18-inches of vertical separation between utilities. This can easily be
corrected for water crossings. Also, we will work with you on separations
between storm and sewer crossings, but your design will need to show that you
are maximizing the separations as much as possible.
Response: 18” separation shown for all water crossings and sewer and storm crossings maximized as
much as possible.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: Details Sheets: Please add the appropriate water meter details.
Also, you don’t need Detail 18 for cathodically protected mains.
Response: 10” water meter detail not found in Fort Collins details but meter vault noted on drawings.
Details can be submitted with final review. Detail 18 removed from the plan set.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
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?
Response: Street trees are now located directly adjacent to the curb
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: There are also several trees shown for the Uptown Plaza property
that look to be too close to the proposed sanitary sewer main. The landscape
plan for Uptown Plaza will need to be modified to accommodate these project
plans. Those landscape plans will need to be reviewed and approved in
conjunction with these plans.
Response: The proposed sanitary line in that area is now deemed private, and remains on our
property. The public portion of the sewer runs up the private drive.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: The Site Plan shows steps and walls within the 15-foot utility
easement. Please note that walls with any sort of footer or foundation that
extends into the subgrade are not allowed within the utility easements.
Response: In order to keep finished floor elevation of the building, walls are needed. The owner will
agree to maintain any changes that occur to the walls due to City utility maintenance.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2017
03/06/2017: It appears as though there is a proposed light pole located very
close or on top of the sanitary sewer main. Please note that separation
requirements also apply to light poles.
Response: Light Pole moved
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2016
12/16/2016: LUC 3.2.4(D)(8) Light levels measured twenty (20) feet beyond the
property line of the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public
rights-of-way) shall not exceed one-tenth (0.1) foot-candle as a direct result of
the on-site lighting. The light levels on the west, north and east sides are
exceeding this requirement.
Response: CORRECTED. See updated photometric plan attached.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016
12/20/2016: Bicycle parking must include a mixture of fixed rack and enclosed
parking. Residential must be at least 60% enclosed and 40% fixed rack. Retail
must be 20% enclosed and 80% fixed rack.
Response: 24 fixed spaces are located on Elizabeth, 12 fixed spaces are provided in the rear of the
main building, and 12 spaces are provided on each floor of the parking structure. In addition, there
is one space per bed in the units.