HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2011-06-06 (2)F6rt of FINAL�r�s PLAN
Current
Planning REVISION
COMMENT
28i V. C'cxl{cz� Aye.
Fort Collins, Co 805-1-t
Fax 970-224-61 4 SHEET
DATE: July 20, 2010
TO: Engineering , I T ,
PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt
# 6-10/A FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM
2nd Round of Review
Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff
review meeting:
August 4, 2010
Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference
❑ No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS)
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _,Redline Utility _Landscape
Topic: Plat
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
(5/21/10] With this area no longer falling within the boundary of the plat but still being
constructed outside of the platted boundary, isn't an easement required from Parks for the
construction, and should an alignment/area be established as well?
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment
that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer
such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be
reserved to become public right-of-way).
Number: 123 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] The plat shows various alignments as "to be dedicated by this plat". It should be
verified that a "dedication" is in fact occurring. I believe these alignments are more intended
to be shown as "notice" for.
NE Response: The "to be dedicated by this plat" language has been removed from plat.
Number: 124 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Maintenance and repair language should be added to the plat for the public
infrastructure being installed.
NE Response: The maintenance and repair language will be added to plat.
Number: 125 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] The placement of inset parking off Mason Court is a recent proposal since the
submittal of the plans, at the moment, verification hasn't been officially made with Traffic
Engineering on if there are concerns with this. From an Engineering perspective, should this
be allowed, the inset parking should be built in concrete, not asphalt. Will this parking be
proposed to be 2 hour parking? If so, this needs to be approved by Parking Services and will
there be sufficient room for placement of 2 hour parking signs? Finally, as previously noted,
would Parks have any concerns with this construction as it appears to fall within their
property.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
Number: 126 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Per Ingrid Decker, the railroad easement shown to be "vacated" should be
changed to "abandoned" per the language of that document.
NE Response: Language will be changed from "vacated" to "abandoned".
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
Number: 120 Created: 5/19/2010
[5/19/101
To meet the minimum species diversity standard (3.2.1 D 3) no more than 15% of any one
species should be used. With 69 trees used on the project no more than 10 of a species
should be used. There are 4 species that exceed this number. This standard can be
achieved by making the following changes.
Page 6
1) Change the 10 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project to Skymaster English
Oak.
AECOM Response: There were only 9 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project, all of
which have been changed to Skymaster English Oak
2) Change the 6 Hotwings Tatarian Maple along the northwest side of the building to
Wavy Leaf Oak (Quercus undulata).
AECOM Response: Changed; see plans
3) Change 3 Bigtooth Maple northwest of the building to Wavy Leaf Oak.
AECOM Response: Changed; see plans
4) Change 11 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry to either Saskatoon Serviceberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia) or to Cornelian Cherry Dogwood (Corpus mas).
AECOM Response: Changed 10 (not 11) Autumn Brilliance Serviceberries to Cornelian
Cherry Dogwoods; one Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry was changed to Wavy Leaf Oak to
meet the minimum species diversity standard (3.2.1 D 3).
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Erica Saunders
Topic: General
Number: 155 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 The issue related to type "A" fencing has been resolved. City staff now agrees
that the fencing not be included.
AECOM Response: To clarify, this is in regard to the type "A" fencing previously required
west of the existing and proposed bike trail.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 89 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] The plans label the turnaround area as a gravel surface. To be able to
accommodate 40 tons, this may need to be recycled asphalt. Whatever material you use
must be able to accommodate 40 tons and be an all-weather surface.
NE Response: The PFA turnaround area pavement section will be changed to recycled
asphalt and pavement section detail will be added to drawings.
EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS: Instead of an Emergency Access Easement, please
label it an Emergency Access Alignment. All other parameters/requirements for the
Emergency Access Easement provided at conceptual review still apply.
NE Response: The term "easement" was changed to "alignment" on the previous submittal.
Number: 90 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/101 Please get together with me to discuss specific signage for this area, to convey to
the employees, public and firefighters that this area is to be unobstructed and used for
emergency vehicles.
Ron Kechter Response: In a meeting with Carie Dann, it was agreed that the signs shown
on the attached sign layout would be located at the positions shown on the attached sketch.
Page 7
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AREA: Thank you for the area on the west side of the building
where we can operate fire apparatus. To improve this, here are my suggestions:
- I suggest we also make this part of the Emergency Access Alignment, to prevent
museum folks from erecting outdoor displays and blocking our apparatus access.
Ron Kechter Response: An Emergency Access Alignment is being prepared for
recordation.
- This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
Ron Kechter Response. This will be accomplished with the Alignment.
- Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
Ron Kechter Response: Ina meeting with Carie Dann, it was agreed that the signs shown
on the attached sign layout would be located at the positions shown on the attached sketch
Number: 93 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] Please show FDC location.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Your note regarding the FDC location is confusing.
You were responding as if you were commenting on fire hydrants. There is only ONE FDC.
Please label the FDC and the fire line coming into the building.
NE Response: The utility drawings have been revised to show the proposed FDC location
on building.
Number: 129 Created: 5/25/2010
Just a reminder that any vegetation within 3 feet of the FDC and hydrants should be no taller
than ground cover.
NE Response: Noted.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: General
Number: 156 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Bicycle rack location has not been modified. Bicycle rack must be near the
entrance. Please consult with the landscape architect for redesign and appropriate location.
If needed I am available to meet with the applicant to resolve this issue.
AECOM Response: The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 69 Created: 3/23/2010
AECOM Response: The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
Page 8
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 110 Created: 4/6/2010
[5/26/101
[4/6/10] Bicycle rack location has not been modified.
If the entrance for people arriving by walking or bicycling is at the South East corner of the
building or main entrance, the main bicycle rack location must be near this entrance. If it
makes sense to provide some bicycle parking at the South West corner of the building for
night meetings the above comment is not intended to exclude additional bicycle parking at
the South West corner of the building. One possible location suggested by Advance
Planning can be seen sketched on site plan. The Landscape Architect will likely have an
attractive solution that fits the desires of both the applicant and the City.
There is an opportunity to provide bicycle parking facilitates protected from rain and snow.
Suggest providing some means of protection from the elements as this destination will likely
have high visitation by individuals and families on bikes.
AECOM Response: The bicycle rack location has been modified according to the
recommendations provided by the City of Fort Collins. Ron Kechter coordinated with David
Kemp, Steve Olt and Jennifer Petrik from the City of Fort Collins to identify an area that is
closer to the front entrance for bicycle parking. The recommendation was to relocate
approximately 10-12 bicycle parking spaces to the planting area that houses the transformer
boxes. The bike parking configuration near the trail has remained the same with a slight
reduction in the actual number of spaces, and room for possible bike parking expansion in
the future.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 46 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/25/101 There is still what looks like cut off text on Sheet LS1.1 of the Landscape Plans.
[3/23/10] There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.1.
AECOM Response: Corrected, See LS1.1
Topic: Plat
Number: 132 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The boundary & legal close.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 133 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The Fort Collins Discovery Museum needs access to Mason Court. See redlines.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
Number: 134 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Why is the Union Pacific signing the Subdivision Plat?
NE Response: The UP Railroad signature line will be removed from plat as City will seek
approval with UP Railroad by separate agreement.
Page 9
Number: 135 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad Company" is the wrong corporate
name. See redlines.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show "BNSF Railway"
Number: 137 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the "vacating railroad easement" say "per" rather than "by"?
NE Response: The term "by" has been replaced with "per" as shown on drawings.
Number: 138 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the word "existing" be added to Note #5 on the Subdivision Plat?
NE Response: The word "existing" will be added to note 5 on plat.
Number: 139 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Is the 5' existing utility easement along Cherry Street being vacated?
NE Response: This easement was recorded between Comcast and previous property
owner for and existing TV cable line that meanders back and forth along the property line so
this easement will not be vacated.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 140 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please change the Railroad name to reflect the Subdivision Plat, on Sheet SD1.2
of the Site Plans.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show "BNSF Railway".
AECOM: Corrected, see SD1.2
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 157 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] The description of City of Fort Collins #461on Sheet C001describes the same
corner, but does not match Sheet C000.
NE Response: The benchmark callout on sheet C001 has been revised to match
benchmark callout on sheet C000.
Number: 158 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad" is the wrong corporate name.
Please change "Burlington Northern Railroad" to "BNSF Railway" on Sheets C100, C200,
C300, C400 & C500.
NE Response: The drawings will be revised to show `BNSF Railway".
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 164 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Please provide an erosion control surety calculation in the drainage report.
NE Response: Erosion control surety calculation has been provided.
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 159 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Since the maintenance access road crosses the floodway, a no -rise certification
will be required. This will involve pre- and post -construction survey to show that the grades
have not changed, along with a no -rise certificate (see floodplain forms website for a copy of
this form http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php). The pre -construction information
Page 10
will be required at the time of the floodplain use permit and the post -construction information
will be required at the time of CO.
NE Response: The proposed two -rut maintenance road has been removed from drawings.
The existing north -south public trail that is situated west of the site will be used for city
maintenance. The existing 8-ft wide trail north of the proposed PFA apparatus area will be
modified to a new 10-ft wide heavy duty trail to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. If
necessary Hensel Phelps (general contractor) will provide a pre and post construction
surrey of trail that is within the floodway to ensure that the elevations along the trail did not
change by more then 0.04feet (1/2 inch). Please see note 6 on sheet C101 and note 7 on
sheet C401.
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 130 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 The Howes Outfall water quality study by Ayres will not be done at this time. Per
previous discussions, the portion of the site from the floodway line north should be
preserved for a future water quality pond.
NE"Response: A note has been added to grading plan (sheet C401) and drainage/erosion
control plan (sheet C501) stating "area reserved for future regional water quality pond(s)".
Number: 131 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please provide a maintenance access road parallel to the trail from the end of the
fire access to the trail on the north. The maintenance access road can be a combination of
existing paved trail/ access road or a separate access road along side of the trail. Please
make the maintenance access road full width gravel and not just two wheel tracks to follow.
Some signage and gates may be needed to direct maintenance staff.
NE Response: A 10-foot wide public trail will be provided from PFA Apparatus Area north to
the existing Poudre Trail.
Number: 146 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please clarify if basin 6 is draining to the north or the south. The drainage calcs show this basin draining to the north.
NE Response: Proposed basin 6 drains south into proposed roof drain system which then
drains north into proposed water quality pond on north side of the site.
Number: 148 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD water quality elevation should be at 71.80 in order to meet the volume
requirement. The PLD would still average less than 12-inches of depth, which is required.
Please revise.
NE Response: The PLD water quality elevation has been revised to meet volume
requirement.
Number: 149 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Please revise the water quality elevation (Elev. B) on the water quality outlet
structure detail located on sheet C604 per redlines.
NE Response: The water quality elevation (elev. B) on the water quality outlet structure
detail has been revised.
Number: 150 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The proposed drainage calculations were not included in the report.
NE Response: The drainage calculations have been added to the drainage report.
Page 11
Number: 151 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD volume requirement was given a 20% contingency. This is only required
for extended detention calcs per volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Manual.
NE Response: The PLD volume has been revised to reflect no contingency.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic; Water/Wastewater
Number: 136 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Revise the note at the 2-inch water service connection as shown on the redlines.
NE Response: Note has been revised.
Number: 142 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The site wall on the west side of the building as shown on Sheet C300 does not
agree with Sheet S01. What is the shortest distance between the site wall and the 12-inch
water main? How accurate is the water main location in that area?
NE Response: The distance between proposed retaining wall and existing 12-inch water
line is approximately ten feet. The existing 12-inch water line has been located by the City
in a couple of places (please see pothole locations on sheet C100). Hensel Phelps will
locate the existing water line during construction to help prevent any constructability
problems
Number: 143 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Add lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
NE Response: Lengths have been added to water main and is reflected on drawings.
Number: 144 Created: 5%25/2010
[5/25/101 If the proposed water main is to be PVC, add Std Details 25 and 30.
NE Response: Standard details 25 and 30 have been added.
Number: 145 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Due to site topo and grading, provide a profile of the 8-inch water main.
NE Response: A profile for the proposed 8-inch water main has been provided.
Number: 147 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Storm line A must have all joints within 10 feet of the water main encased.
NE Response: Notes and details have been added to drawings to indicate concrete
encasement of proposed storm sewer at water main crossing.
Number: 152 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Delete Std Detail 26. The existing water main is NOT cathodically protected.
NE Response: Standard detail 26 was removed from plans.
Number: 153 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] See red -lined plans for other comments.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 154 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Return red -lined utility plans with the next submittal.
NE Response: Noted.
Page 12
Be sure and return all red -lined plans if/when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-10/A
Page 13
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
OZ Architecture
c/o David Schafer Date: 6/4/2010
1805 29th Street, Suite 2054
Boulder, CO 80301
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - FINAL
PLANS, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: General
Number: 172 Created: 6/3/2010
[6/3/10] The Property Boundary as shown on the Final development plans (Subdivision
Plat, Site Plan, etc.) is different than the boundary shown on the PDP plans that were
approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on April 29th. There is an area at the southwest
corner of the building where sidewalk and vehicle/bicycle parking improvements are now
outside of the project's Property Boundary. The City has concerns about its ability to sign the
Subdivision Plan and Site Plan because of this. The ability to request, approve, and sign
mylars could possibly be delayed somewhat.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 28 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] There still are "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan, making scanning of the plan
difficult.
[3/22/10] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling
cannot be read very well. Please change.
Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] Still need the easements labeled.
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2010
(5/26/10] Still need to label.
[3/22/101 Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan
Number: 165 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] There appears to be one Serviceberry sitting right on a retaining wall on the west
side of the building, see red -lined Landscape Plan.
Number: 166 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] It is very difficult to follow the ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence alignments on
the Landscape Plan.
Number: 167 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] In the lower right-hand corners of Sheets LS1.0 and LS1.4 of the Landscape
Plans please move the name MASON COURT down to the centerline of the street, just to
read better.
Page 1
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 128
Created: 5/25/2010
(5/25/10] With the additional vehicle parking spaces being added to the site, now 86 instead
Of 71, will the school buses no longer be parked on -site while awaiting the school kids?
Number: 160
[5/26/101 The numbers in the TOTAL LAND AREA table naSheet /SD1.011of the Site Plan
appear to be 'but of whack". Assuming the square footages to be OK, then the acres and
Vs do not check. Please see the red -lined Site Plan.
Number: 161
[5/26/10] What has happened to the fence types and detaiills that p/ ev/o0usly were on the
plans (Site Plan)?
Number: 162
[5/26/10] Please label the retaining walls on the Site PI nr, at lea t/on/2010 Sheet SD1.3.
Number: 163
[5/26/10] On the north side of the building, the Building Envelope should be expanded to
include the Future (Building) Expansion, see red -lined Site Plan.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 72
[5/21/10] The resubmitted drawings brings back the placement23/2010 of /a sidewalk within Mason
Street North LLC property and would as a result require an access easement from MSN,
LLC in addition to the utility tie-in on their property previously noted.
[4/8/10] The revised drawings negate the need for a letter of intent from Mason Street
North, LLC for the purposes of sidewalk installation, however a letter of intent is still needed
for the storm line tie-in.
[3/23/10] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer
work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property
owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the
sidewalk maintenance?
Number: 77
Created: 3//2010
[5/21/101 The final repayment amount has been determined by Dean Kli gner in
Engineering to be $2,375.40 (plus inflation) as was required with Cherry Street Station. The
additional frontage being platted that is west of what was the Cherry Street Station project is
not subject to an additional repayment amount and the removal of College Avenue frontage
eliminates a College Avenue repayment obligation.
[4/7/10] Carried over for reference upon verification of the final agreed to property boundary
for the project.
[3/23/10] The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of
BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry
Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the
effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on this
project, with the additional Cherry Street frontage west of that portion also needing to be
included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College
Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the
frontage on Mason Court.
Page 2
F ort
Collins
FINAL PLAN
Current
Planning REVISION COMMENT
__-`�� SHEET
DATE: July 20, 2010
TO: Technical Services
PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt M v
# 6-10/A FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM
2nd Round of Review
Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff
�Tiy� �°z'✓�,�-,e� �LE�,�� �.�.oreview meeting:
August 4, 2010
. cJ� ScIGGEST THAT THE 8v�un/D�Q2f� Sfi�EET&21) ge- S5AIe6T 3 j To 1AvSu,4eL-r
TNA T 7H€ GuA��✓r'�c' S SHEEr rO S..) /S c✓i 7W T'H C Co VO ASMC.6-r&/-
OTkee 5a pets AtD No T F AzvTry Aoow
ote -Please identify your redlines for future rApromeo
❑ No Problems
X Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS)
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
)(Plat �_(Site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility ,Redline Utility ,Landscape
ns
Number: 121 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] With the reduced plat boundary a couple questions come to mind:
1) Should the Discovery Museum be pursuing easements/alignments from City Parks for
the offsite construction taking place on Parks property (concrete trail, landscape wall,
portions of a parking lot, drive approach to Mason Court, etc.)
2) Is there or will there be agreements established regarding sidewalk maintenance that
falls on Park property but is in front of this project?
3) Similar to #1, does Park need to give permission for the construction of parking stalls
off of Mason Court onto Park property, which is currently being looked at?
Number: 122 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any off -site work on UP railroad property
by the construction of a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the property? The current
submittal seems to show that a fence is instead being installed with some grading taking
place off of the platted property within presumably UP property, which would seem to again
require an off -site easement.
Number: 168 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Further follow-up on the inset parking being looked at on Mason Court has the
following outcome:
- The City will allow the installation of inset parking as shown in concept on the drawing
submitted by Northern Engineering.
- Traffic Engineering requires a 30' separation from the first stall to Cherry Street, which
is being provided in the drawing.
- Engineering requires that the inset parking be done in concrete, which Ron indicated
support in doing so, the plans should be revised to reflect this.
Two-hour vs. non -regulated parking:
In checking with Randy Hensley, Manager of Parking Services this area could be two-
hour parking that Parking Services would then enforce. It should first be verified (by the
Museum) with surrounding uses (such as Dazbog) whether two-hour parking is
desired. Their desire/needs will dictate how the parking should be enforced. The costs
for making this area two-hour will be that of the Museum.
Number: 169 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] The following agreements should be provided prior to approval of mylars (drafts of
these easements/agreements should be provided as soon as possible for review, which may
need review by Paul Eckman):
- The apparent existing access easement on Mason Street North LLC property
- The construction easement that will be needed from Mason Street North LLC property
to construct the sidewalk and storm connections within their property.
- The agreement with Parks to construct the inset parking proposed off Mason Court.
- The agreement with Parks to construct and establish the legal right of the driveway that
goes out to Mason Court.
The agreement with Parks that allows the construction of the sidewalk, storm
connection, parking stalls, connecting walkway, landscape wall, and concrete
trail/emergency access.
The establishment of an emergency access alignment for the concrete trail/emergency
access (can be delayed until C.O.).
Page 3
The agreement from Union Pacific Railroad for the offsite construction on their
property.
Number: 170 Created: 5/28/2010
(5/28/10] With the construction plans showing an approval block by North Weld, please
ensure that they sign off on mylars prior to routing to the City.
Number: 171 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/101 Please ensure construction details are provided for the inset parking off of Mason
Court (concrete joint detail, thickness of concrete section, etc.)
Topic: Plat
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/101 With this area no longer falling within the boundary of the plat but still being
constructed outside of the platted boundary, isn't an easement required from Parks for the
construction, and should an alignment/area be established as well?
[4/8/101 Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/101 The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment
that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer
such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be
reserved to become public right-of-way).
Number: 123 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/101 The plat shows various alignments as "to be dedicated by this plat". It should be
verified that a "dedication" is in fact occurring. I believe these alignments are more intended
to be shown as "notice" for
Number: 124 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] Maintenance and repair language should be added to the plat for the public
infrastructure being installed.
Number: 125 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/101 The placement of inset parking off Mason Court is a recent proposal since the
submittal of the plans, at the moment, verification hasn't been officially made with Traffic
Engineering on if there are concerns with this. From an Engineering perspective, should this
be allowed, the inset parking should be built in concrete,
proposed to be 2 hour parking? If so, this needs to be approved not asphalt. Will this parking be
aking Services and w
there be sufficient room for placement of 2 hour parking signs? Finallllyras previously noted, ill
oedill
would Parks have any concerns with this construction as it appears to fall within their
property.
Number: 126 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] Per Ingrid Decker, the railroad easement shown to be "vacated" should be
changed to "abandoned per the language of that document.
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
Number: 120 Created: 5/19/2010
[5/19/10]
To meet the minimum species diversity standard (3.2.1 D 3) no more than 15% of any one
species should be used. With 69 trees used on the project no more than 10 of a species
Page 4
should be used. There are 4 species that exceed this number. This standard can be
achieved by making the following changes.
1) Change the 10 Chinkapin Oaks on the east edge of the project to Skymaster English
Oak.
2) Change the 6 Hotwings Tatarian Maple along the northwest side of the building to
Wavy Leaf Oak (Quercus undulata).
3) Change 3 Bigtooth Maple northwest of the building to Wavy Leaf Oak
4) Change 11 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry to either Saskatoon Serviceberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia) or to Cornelian Cherry Dogwood (Cornus mas).
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Erica Saunders
Topic: Generai
Number: 155 Created: 5/26/2010
(5/26/10] The issue related to type "A" fencing has been resolved. City staff now agrees
that the fencing not be included.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 89 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/101 The plans label the turnaround area as a gravel surface. To be able to
accommodate 40 tons, this may need to be recycled asphalt. Whatever material you use
must be able to accommodate 40 tons and be an all-weather surface.
EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS: Instead of an Emergency Access Easement, please
label it an Emergency Access Alignment. All other parameters/requirements for the
Emergency Access Easement provided at conceptual review still apply.
Number: 90 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] Please get together with me to discuss specific signage for this area, to convey to
the employees, public and firefighters that this area is to be unobstructed and used for
emergency vehicles.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AREA: Thank you for the area on the west side of the building
where we can operate fire apparatus. To improve this, here are my suggestions:
- "Strengthen" the language on the Site Plan and write something like "22x60 Clearance
-
for PFA Apparatus Access Area" (without the quotes).
I suggest we also make this part of the Emergency Access Alignment, to prevent
museum folks from erecting outdoor displays and blocking our apparatus access.
- This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
- Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
Number: 93 Created: 3/24/2010
[5/25/10] Please show FDC location.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Your note regarding the FDC location is confusing.
You were responding as if you were commenting on fire hydrants. There is only ONE FDC.
Please label the FDC and the fire line coming into the building.
Page 5
Number: 129 Created: 5/25/2010
Just a reminder that any vegetation within 3 feet of the FDC and hydrants should be no taller
than ground cover.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: General
Number: 156 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Bicycle rack location has not been modified. Bicycle rack must be near the
entrance. Please consult with the landscape architect for redesign and appropriate location.
If needed I am available to meet with the applicant to resolve this issue.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 69 [5/26/10] Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Suggest contacting DK Kemp the bicycle coordinator at dakem regarding input on bicycle rack style and quantity of bicycle parking facilities. There is an
opportunity to develop a design that is unique to the Discover Science Center. Bicycle rack
needs to be closer to entrance. Current location is further away than vehicle parking. With
current location cyclist will park in areas not intended for bike parking. Any changes that
address Clark Mapes comments on building entrance orientation may affect the location of
the bicycle rack.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 110 [5/26/10] Created: 4/6/2010
[4/6/101 Bicycle rack location has not been modified.
If the entrance for people arriving by walking or bicycling is at the South East corner of the
building or main entrance, the main bicycle rack location must be near this entrance. If it
makes sense to provide some bicycle parking at the South West corner of the building for
night meetings the above comment is not intended to exclude additional bicycle parking at
the South West corner of the building. One possible location suggested by Advance
Planning can be seen sketched on site plan. The Landscape Architect will likely have an
attractive solution that fits the desires of both the applicant and the City.
There is an opportunity to provide bicycle parking facilitates protected from rain and snow.
Suggest providing some means of protection from the elements as this destination will likely
have high visitation by individuals and families on bikes.
Department: Technical Services
Topic: Landscape Plan Issue Contact: Jeff County
Number: 46 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/25/10] There is still what looks like cut off text on Sheet LS1.1 of the Landscape Plans.
[3/23/10] There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.1.
Topic: Plat
Number: 132 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The boundary & legal close.
Number: 133 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The Fort Collins Discovery Museum needs access to Mason Court. See redlines.
Page 6
Number: 134 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Why is the Union Pacific signing the Subdivision Plat?
Number: 135 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad Company" is the wrong corporate
name. See redlines.
Number: 137 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the "vacating railroad easement" say "per" rather than "by"?
Number: 138 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Should the word "existing" be added to Note #5 on the Subdivision Plat?
Number: 139 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Is the 5' existing utility easement along Cherry Street being vacated?
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 140 Created: 5/25/2010
(5/25/101 Please change the Railroad name to reflect the Subdivision Plat, on Sheet SD1.2
of the Site Plans.
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 157 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] The description of City of Fort Collins #461 on Sheet COO describes the same
corner, but does not match Sheet C000.
Number: 158 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] We believe that "Burlington Northern Railroad" is the wrong corporate name.
Please change "Burlington Northern Railroad" to "BNSF Railway" on Sheets C100, C200,
C300, C400 & C500.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 164 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Please provide an erosion control surety calculation in the drainage report.
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 159 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Since the maintenance access road crosses the floodway, a no -rise certification
will be required. This will involve pre- and post -construction survey to show that the grades
have not changed, along with a no -rise certificate (see floodplain forms website for a copy of
this form http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php) . The pre -construction information
will be required at the time of the floodplain use permit and the post -construction information
will be required at the time of CO.
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 130 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The Howes Outfall water quality study by Ayres will not be done at this time. Per
previous discussions, the portion of the site from the floodway line north should be
preserved for a future water quality pond.
Page 7
Number: 131 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 Please provide a maintenance access road parallel to the trail from the end of the
fire access to the trail on the north. The maintenance access road can be a combination of
existing paved trail/ access road or a separate access road along side of the trail. Please
make the maintenance access road full width gravel and not just two wheel tracks to follow.
Some signage and gates may be needed to direct maintenance staff.
Number: 146 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please clarify if basin 6 is draining to the north or the south. The drainage calcs
show this basin draining to the north.
Number: 148 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD water quality elevation should be at 71.80 in order to meet the volume
requirement. The PLD would still average less than 12-inches of depth, which is required.
Please revise.
Number: 149 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Please revise the water quality elevation (Elev. B) on the water quality outlet
structure detail located on sheet C604 per redlines..
Number: 150 Created: 5/25/2010
(5/25/10] The proposed drainage calculations were not included in the report.
Number: 151 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The PLD volume requirement was given a 20% contingency. This is only required
for extended detention calcs per volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Manual.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 136 Created: 5/25/2010
(5/25/10] Revise the note at the 2-inch water service connection as shown on the redlines.
Number: 142 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] The site wall on the west side of the building as shown on Sheet C300 does not
agree with Sheet S01. What is the shortest distance between the site wall and the 12-inch
water main? How accurate is the water main location in that area?
Number: 143 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Add lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
Number: 144 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] If the proposed water main is to be PVC, add Std Details 25 and 30.
Number: 145 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Due to site topo and grading, provide a profile of the 8-inch water main.
Number: 147 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Storm line A must have all joints within 10 feet of the water main encased.
Number: 152 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Delete Std Detail 26. The existing water main is NOT cathodically protected.
Page 8
Number: 153 Created: 5/25/2010
(5/25/10] See red -lined plans for other comments.
Number: 154 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/10] Return red -lined utility plans with the next submittal.
Be sure and return all red -lined plans if/when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Yours Truly,
A&Rtw
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-10/A
Page 9
F6 Collins
Current Planning
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, 0) 80522-05�t)
fi .t: 970-224-01?'4
DATE: May 7, 2010
TO: Engineering
FINAL PLAN
COMMENT SHEET
PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt
# 6-10/A FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY
MUSEUM
Please return all comments to the project planner no later than
the staff review meeting:
May 26, 2010
Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference
❑ No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS)
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other.
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: May 28, 2010
Project:
FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE 11 AND FINAL PLANS
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the
staff review meeting:
May 26, 2010
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/10] The resubmitted drawings brings back the placement of a sidewalk within Mason
Street North LLC property and would as a result require an access easement from MSN,
LLC in addition to the utility tie-in on their property previously noted.
[4/8/10] The revised drawings negate the need for a letter of intent from Mason Street
North, LLC for the purposes of sidewalk installation, however a letter of intent is still needed
for the stormline tie-in.
[3/23/10] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer
work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property
owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the
sidewalk maintenance?
Number: 77 Created: 3/23/2010
(5/21/10] The final repayment amount has been determined by Dean Klingner in
Engineering to be $2,375.40 (plus inflation) as was required with Cherry Street Station. The
additional frontage being platted that is west of what was the Cherry Street Station project is
not subject to an additional repayment amount and the removal of College Avenue frontage
eliminates a College Avenue repayment obligation.
(4/7/10] Carried over for reference upon verification of the final agreed to property boundary
for the project.
[3/23/10] The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of
BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry
Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the
effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on this
project, with the additional Cherry Str et frontage west of that portion also needing to be
�j.
—
SignatureZ D to
L CHECK HEREOF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
✓ Plat Site Drainage Report Other
—� Utility Redline Utility ✓Landscape
Page I
included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College
Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the
frontage on Mason Court.
Number: 121 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] With the reduced plat boundary a couple questions come to mind:
1) Should the Discovery Museum be pursuing easements/alignments from City Parks for the
offsite construction taking place on Parks property (concrete trail, landscape wall, portions of
a parking lot, drive approach to Mason Court, etc.)
2) Is there or will there be agreements established regarding sidewalk maintenance that falls
on Park property but is in front of this project?
3) Similar to #1, does Park need to give permission for the construction of parking stalls off
of Mason Court onto Park property, which is currently being looked at?
Number: 122 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any offsite work on UP railroad property by
the construction of a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the property? The current
submittal seems to show that a fence is instead being installed with some grading taking
place off of the platted property within presumably UP property, which would seem to again
require an off -site easement.
Number: 168 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Further follow-up on the inset parking being looked at on Mason Court has the
following outcome:
- The City will allow the installation of inset parking as shown in concept on the drawing
submitted by Northern Engineering.
- Traffic Engineering requires a 30' separation from the first stall to Cherry Street, which is
being provided in the drawing.
- Engineering requires that the inset parking be done in concrete, which Ron indicated
support in doing so, the plans should be revised to reflect this.
- Two-hour vs. non -regulated parking:
In checking with Randy Hensley, Manager of Parking Services this area could be two-hour
parking that Parking Services would then enforce. It should first be verified (by the Museum)
with surrounding uses (such as Daz Bog) whether two-hour parking is desired. Their
desire/needs will dictate how the parking should be enforced. The costs for making this area
two-hour will be that of the Museum.
Number: 169 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] The following agreements should be provided prior to approval of mylars, (drafts
of these easements/agreements should be provided as soon as possible for review which
may need review by Paul Eckman):
- The apparent existing access easement on Mason Street North LLC property
- The construction easement that will be needed from Mason Street North LLC property to
construct the sidewalk and storm connections within their property.
- The agreement with Parks to construct the inset parking proposed off Mason Court.
- The agreement with Parks to construct and establish the legal right of the driveway that
goes out to Mason Court.
- The agreement with Parks that allows the construction of the sidewalk, storm connection,
parking stalls, connecting walkway, landscape wall, and concrete trail/emergency access.
Page 2
Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet
Selected. Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: July 29, 2010
Project:
FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the
staff review meeting:
August 04, 2010
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 122 Created: 5/21/2010
[7/27/10] The agreement for the offsite construction will be needed prior to sign off on the
construction drawings.
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any offsite work on UP railroad property by
the construction of a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the property? The current
submittal seems to show that a fence is instead being installed with some grading taking
place off of the platted property within presumably UP property, which would seem to again
require an off -site easement.
Number: 170 Created: 5/28/2010
[7/27/10] Carried over for reference.
[5/28/10] With the construction plans showing an approval block by North Weld, please
ensure that they sign off on mylars prior to routing to the City.
Number: 179 Created: 7/27/2010
[7/27/10] Prior to sign off on the construction drawing mylars we'll need to see the temporary
construction easement with the UP railroad in place and the agreement from Mason Street
North for the construction of the sidewalk (assuming this is viewed as necessary after
Ingrid's email on the subject). Signature on the constrction drawings from Park will signify
their approval.
Number: 182 Created: 7/28/2010
[7/28/10] The increase in the area being platted from the previous review will result in a
slight increase in the required TDR Fee, whic Sheri Langenberger will coordinate through
the charge number. _ `-� -�
D to
REVISIONS
Plat Site Drainage Report Other
Utility Redline Utility Landscape
Page 1
- The establishment of an emergency access alignment for the concrete trail/emergency
access (can be delayed until C.O.).
- The agreement from Union Pacific Railroad for the offsite construction on their property.
Number: 170 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] With the construction plans showing an approval block by North Weld, please
ensure that they sign off on mylars prior to routing to the City.
Number: 171 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] Please ensure construction details are provided for the inset parking off of Mason
Court (concrete joint detail, thickness of concrete section, etc.)
Topic: Plat
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
(5/21/10] With this area no longer falling within the boundary of the plat but still being
constructed outside of the platted boundary, isn't an easement required from Parks for the
construction, and should an alignment/area be established as well?
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment
that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer
such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be
reserved to become public right-of-way).
Number: 123 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] The plat shows various alignments as "to be dedicated by this plat". It should be
verified that a "dedication" is in fact occurring. I believe these alignments are more intended
to be shown as "notice" for
Number: 124 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] Maintenance and repair language should be added to the plat for the public
infrastructure being installed.
Number: 125 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] The placement of inset parking off Mason Court is a recent proposal since the
submittal of the plans, at the moment, verification hasn't been officially made with Traffic
Engineering on if there are concerns with this. From an Engineering perspective, should this
be allowed, the inset parking should be built in concrete, not asphalt. Will this parking be
proposed to be 2 hour parking? If so, this needs to be approved by Parking Services and will
there be sufficient room for placement of 2 hour parking signs? Finally, as previously noted,
would Parks have any concerns with this construction as it appears to fall within their
property.
Number: 126 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] Per Ingrid Decker, the railroad easement shown to be "vacated" should be
changed to "abandoned" per the language of that document.
Page 3
Fort Collins FINAL PLAN
r� COMMENT SHEET
J -i
�S. 15 -rt- C S'UMI T,,e 4-s C—,�- E� A-r-o ns& C FA G--� Y
VA C -rc-v ?
DATE: May 7, 2010
WE- 1, S-0-6 JVoT ao-ATer> (AT( LrT"y jgtAA!S, i,J GdlGL N � Ta
FcJi5w ' H6-M,
TO: Technical rvices
-r�ie-e>c 6 sr1q. w �' 1,o-P/C5 G/K� GI�TD�f1�XTo.J SH�sr GS �./ of"
FH r< 1,AWD 5 6",6 /Ot Ax/5 .
PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt M V
. �f-1 6 8 o-U.i v>Pr 0- Y '3 G r- & A L. 6" S 6' • > ��r7
TEE oeT L�o4bt45 r7rsco-rE,ey irlc�s�1�J
.566 Q'5P1_ ?&X 5 .
# 6-10/A FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY
3, t 15 TKO U,&AJ ,4i9c4 r, G MUSEUM aa�✓� 5,,� oGAT 7
¢, /eo,% IW49 �f����(�;-_✓�n'7NA-T �3u�2��vGrov �nJo�T,cl�',e�✓ ?9�c�a�� �%v�,-��/�vY "is ��
W
Please return all comments to the project planner no later than
the staff review meeting:
5youL n 11 ./E k1A 64 rl.vG �q/�eo�4� vG-mE�!'r $A Y 11�Ee " ,0 ft 7-90te
May26,2010 su�-
�O. 5 k1 &u c r, T� t- w Dv-c) cY i sTA.) � ,, ,ig E A-�� r � Te /V a -re 5 OAJ r16
vWrF
P` V+ 5r �No e -.Please identify your redlines for future reference
Ft.&*s E Gfd A-nlC. a TH r, N 119-� E -ra J2��Le�- T N� su S —
`7tVt5(om PLAN) oN 6HEET" SD I,1. D "fKE St-t"ar P�A�r5.
No Problems
® Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS)
InIGM 1 -SA c_
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat ysite _Drainage Report _Other
Utility Redline Utility Landscape
4
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
OZ Architecture
c/o David Schafer Date: 4/08/2010
1805 291h Street, #2054
Boulder, CO 80302
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM, PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - TYPE 2, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: General
Number: 118 Created: 4/8/2010
[4/8/10] This item is scheduled for discussion at the Planning & Zoning Board public hearing
on April 15, 2010. The comments expressed in this letter must be addressed with the Fort
Collins Discovery Museum, Final Plan submittal for review following the public hearing.
Topic: Natural Resources
Number: 115 Created: 4/8/2010
[4/8/101 Natural Areas & Museum staff would like to develop a "Wild Zone" (a natural play
area for children) in the area north of the maintenance road and south of the Poudre River
Trail. This area is also shown as a potential location for a future water quality pond. Natural
Zone" and the Water Quality Pond could be compatibleAreas would like to work with Stormwater on the design of this area. We think the "Wild
. The restoration of this area is
critical to the transition from the museum area to the river. The ultimate design of this area
will influence the design/location of the pipe from the proposed water quality pond south of
the maintenance road into this area.
What is the purpose of the Type "A" fence along the west side of the trail? I can see benefits
for protecting the wetlands and wildlife, but I also see the aesthetic and wildlife benefits of
removing the fence. Natural Areas would like to be a part of a discussion about the need for
this fence.
The Natural Features Buffer zone plant list should include some shrubs, and shrubs
should/could be planted along the west side of the trail to enhance the edge of the trail and
enhance the habitat along the wetland. Shrubs should also be included in the restoration of
the buffer area north of the museum area. Natural Areas staff can help identify the
appropriate shrub species to be used.
Topic: Parks Planning
Number: 116 Created: 4/8/2010
[4/8/10] The actual boundary for the north and west sides of the Fort Collins Discovery/
Museum plat will be determined and finalized during the Final Plan review process.
Stormwater has a need for water quality pond improvements in the area north of the
Discovery/Museum proposed fee fence line. The Discovery/Museum development has
plans in this area to place "features". The Discovery/Museum would like to have this area
included in their plat boundary. During the Discovery/Museum's final outdoor design
process the Stormwater water quality pond needs and the "feature" needs in this area are to
Page 1
be coordinated with agreed upon site design documentation as part of the final design
process.
Realign the gas line to eliminate crossing Park property at entrance of the museum, this are
need to be fully reserved for our future sign location. See attached PDF 1. (Pg C300)
The existing sidewalk connection from Lee Martinez park to the proposed re -alignment of
the bike/pedestrian trail is at 5% grade (pg C400), please revise grading to provide for a
maximum 3% connection of this existing walk to the proposed regraded walk per original
comment #1 dated 3/19/10.
Remove tree from existing sidewalk (pg LS1.0) and move east. Remove proposed tree on
park property at proposed sign location. See attached PDF 2.
Will easements for sewer, telephone and gas line need to be established for crossing park
property to the west and the Mason Court property even further west than our finger of land?
See attached PDF 1.
(Pg c401) Park planning prefers utility access road to connect to existing pedestrian
pathways at a 90 degree angle to either trail but not at a 45 to the existing intersection of the
Poudre Trail and north south sidewalk. Will this utility access be gated, how and where?
Topic: Traffic
Number: 117 Created: 4/8/2010
[4/8/10] As I mentioned to Marc Virata, we will take care of the crosswalk through our
normal maintenance program. It will be done some time this summer when we are out
doing our annual crosswalk painting. I'll also have somebody go out and check the signs
sometime within the next week or so. I'm not clear what the consultant means regarding the
relocation of a sign but we'll look at it and see if something needs to be fixed.
Regardless, there should not be any requirements of the developer related to the crossing.
Joe Olson
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/8/10] The revised drawings negate the need for a letter of intent from Mason Street
North, LLC for the purposes of sidewalk installation; however, a letter of intent is still needed
for the storm line tie-in.
[3/23/10] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer
work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property
owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the
sidewalk maintenance?
Number: 75 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/7/10] Acknowledged of the intent to resolve with the next submittal. Please note that 15'
is the standard required (the LCUASS standard is not a minimum. From my perspective it
seems awkward to be implementing a radius that's apparently larger than the radius at the
Cherry/Mason Court intersection (with both the driveway and Mason Court having the same
30' width). It seems that there's justification of a variance to have the driveway radius be at
Page 2
the same radius of the Mason/Cherry intersection, but to have it larger would be difficult to
justify. In terms of emergency services requirements, I've checked with Carie Dann with PFA
and she is amenable to the driveway radius being reduced to match that of the
Mason/Cherry intersection.
[3/23/10] The use of a 25' radius for the drive approach onto Mason Court is required to be
15' per Table 8-2 of LCUASS. The radius should be reduced (as a suggestion, if the
driveway intersected Mason Court closer to 90 degrees, the turning movement off Mason
Court would perhaps be smoother.)
Number: 77 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/7/10] Carried over for reference upon verification of the final agreed to property boundary
for the project.
[3/23/10] The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of
BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry
Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the
effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on this
project, with the additional Cherry Street frontage west of that portion also needing to be
included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College
Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the
frontage on Mason Court.
Number: 78 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion with further submittals.
[3/23/10] As a heads -up, per an earlier email I had sent on 2/3/2010, the following approach
shall be used in lieu of a development agreement for the project:
- A development agreement will not be done for the project.
- Instead of a DA, needed provisions that would have been in a development agreement
will be placed on the plat.
- These provisions needing to be placed on the plat are specific to concerns regarding
on -going maintenance/"running with the land" types of provisions. Items that would
pertain to construction of the development should not be included.
There are a few standard conditions in the typical development agreement that will be
included on the plat after consultation with Paul. I'm also understanding that there will
be special condition type language added to the plat pertaining to at least stormwater
and natural areas. Finally repays for public streets fronting the project would likely need
to be included on the plat.
Number: 96 Created: 3/25/2010
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion with the potential of a revised
platted boundary.
[3/24/10] Sheri Langenberger calculated an additional $573.25 required for the TDR fee
(see attached) based upon mainly the finding of a higher building square footage than what
was indicated on the TDR fee application. Given that there may be some changes reducing
the area being platted, there could be some savings to offset the additional amount owed.
Page 3
Number: 119 Created: 4/8/2010
[4/8/10] Can differing lineweights be utilized to differentiate between existing and proposed?
While distinguishing between the two is for the most part labeled, having it visually indicated
would also be preferred.
Topic: Piat
Number: 79 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/8/10] Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] The platted boundary seems to show areas that may require the signature of one
or both railroad companies on the plat. Confirmation from the appropriate City attorney who
will be certifying the plat should be coordinated as soon as possible to understand what may
be needed from the railroad companies in order to meet the requirements for the City
attorney to sign off on the plat. The indication of a railroad easement to be vacated by this
plat appears to be odd if intending to truly "vacate" as this would imply signature from that
railroad company being needed.
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/8/101 Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/23/10] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment
that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer
such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be
reserved to become public right-of-way).
Number: 83 Created: 3/24/2010
14/8/101 Carried over for reference and future discussion.
[3/24/10] Technical Services has raised the question as to whether the original Mason
Street north of Cherry has ever been vacated. If this is truly right-of-way, given the
conveyance of the property to the Discovery Museum, we should probably check with the
City Attorney's Office on whether this portion potentially being right-of-way and then
conveyed to the Discovery Museum is problematic or not. Should that be viewed as
problematic, a vacation process of Mason Street should perhaps proceed as soon as
possible.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 108 Created: 4/6/2010
[4/6/10] ADA ramps are labeled but not drawn at all labeled locations. Please see red -lines.
Number: 109 Created: 4/6/2010
[4/6/101 Revised TIS recommends relocation of an existing sign and restriping. City Traffic
Operations has agreed to address these recommendations this summer with routine
maintenance. No action required by applicant.
Number: 110 Created: 4/6/2010
[4/6/10] Bicycle rack location has not been modified.
If the entrance for people arriving by walking or bicycling is at the South East corner of the
building or main entrance, the main bicycle rack location must be near this entrance. If it
makes sense to provide some bicycle parking at the South West corner of the building for
night meetings the above comment is not intended to exclude additional bicycle parking at
the South West corner of the building. One possible location suggested by Advance
Page 4
Planning can be seen sketched on site plan. The Landscape Architect will likely have an
attractive solution that fits the desires of both the applicant and the City.
There is an opportunity to provide bicycle parking facilitates protected from rain and snow.
Suggest providing some means of protection from the elements as this destination will likely
have high visitation by individuals and families on bikes.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 44 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/7/10] Sheets L1.1, L1.2 & L1.3 of the Landscape Plans still have some line work that is
on the light side. This will not scan or copy.
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have line work that is too light, and will not copy or scan well.
Number: 45 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/7/10] Sheet L1.1 still has some minor line over text issues.
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have line over text issues.
Topic: Plat
Number: 114 Created: 4/7/2010
[4/7/10] Knowing that the boundary of the plat is going to change, we have not reviewed
this version of the plat.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 113 Created: 4/7/2010
[4/7/10] Floodplain is ready for a hearing.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 65 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/6/10] (Repeat comment)
[3/23/101 Show water/sewer lines more predominantly on the landscape plan and add a
note regarding the separation distance requirements of plantings from water/sewer lines
(Trees 10 feet, Shrubs 4 feet).
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 54 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/7/101 Can be resolved at final.
[3/23/10] Riprap rundowns are no longer allowed as shown from the north drive loop into
the water quality pond. This can be a concrete chute or an inlet with a pipe extending to the
toe of slope.
Number: 112 Created: 4/7/2010
[4/7/101 Stormwater is ready for a hearing
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 55 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/6/10] At final, note will be reviewed/revised as needed.
Page 5
[3/23/101 It's my understanding that portions of the 12-inch water main have NOT been
located. Has the main been located at the tie-in points?
Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/6/10] Will be reviewed at final.
[3/23/10] Is there a conflict at either of the points where the storm sewers cross the existing
water main?
Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2010
[4/6/10) Show and label on utility plan.
[3/23/10] Is a separate irrigation tap planned?
Number: 111 Created: 4/6/2010
[4/6/10] Revise note on north F Hydr as shown on redlined plans.
Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you submit Final Plans for review after the
Planning & Zoning Board public hearing on April 15, 2010.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970)221-6341.
Yours Truly,
hj� W_
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-10
Page 6
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Cityof Fort Collins
OZ Architecture Date: 3/26/2010
c/o David Schafer
1805 29th Street, #2054
Boulder, CO 80302
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM, PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - TYPE 2, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: Building Elevations
Number: 39 Created: 3/23/2010
(3/23/10] The building and site plan should have a much clearer and stronger pedestrian
orientation to the corner of Mason Court and Cherry Street. That is by far the most
important pedestrian linkage and corner. The building overtly de-emphasizes this
relationship with the location of the entrance and the overall massing and design. Let's
discuss this.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Building Elevations
Number: 23 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] The proposed Discovery Museum is a relatively contemporary building in this
older part of Fort Collins. This comment relates to both the architectural design and the
materials. There is a statement in Section 3.5.1(B) Architectural Character that says: "New
developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the
established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary".
Please provide a brief explanation of how this building complements other buildings in the
area, or visa versa.
Number: 24 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] The proposed building materials are as follows:
precast concrete
stucco
metal planting trellis
metal panels (gray)
spandrel glass
Without a doubt there are existing buildings in the area containing precast concrete, stucco,
and spandrel glass materials; however, are there any metal panels or metal planting trellises
on buildings in the area? The metal planting trellises (with live greenery) up against the
precast concrete walls is a good effect but the significant metal panels on the tower portions
of the building may not be duplicated anywhere in the area.
Number: 25 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] The heights of the various portions of the building will be consistent with existing
and proposed buildings in the area. There are 2-story buildings, 3-story buildings, and 4-
story buildings that provide similar heights to the 21'-6", 30'-8", and 49'-0" heights proposed.
Page 1
The north building in Penny Flats, yet to be built, will be 5 stories in height, similar to the 58'-
6" tower height on the Discovery Museum.
Number: 26 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Staff agrees with the analysis provided in the Special Height Review Request for
the portions of the building in excess of 40' in height. The views to and through the site will
be minimally impacted, with the view of only one small area of foothills from properties east
of North College Avenue that will be impacted. The shadows from the building will be
completely contained on -site with the exception of 9 a.m, and 3:00 p.m. on December 21st.
In the morning there will be shadows cast over natural areas to the west and north of the
building for a short period of time; and, in the afternoon there will be shadows cast over a
short stretch of railroad tracks, off -site to the east, for a short period of time. On -site lighting
will be sensitive to the surrounding natural areas environment and no other buildings will be
adversely affected by the shadows cast by the Discovery Museum building. The building will
be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and privacy will not be compromised by this
facility.
Topic: Generai
Number: 16 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Richard Stiverson of Owest indicated that they have no problems with or
concerns about this development proposal.
Number: 17 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Statement of Planning Objectives:
page 10 - "parking area contains 68 spaces" ... Should this be 71 parking spaces?
pages 10 & 11 - references 11 part-time employees as FTE's (being full-time
employees). Is this not contradictory?
Number: 22 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] The property that the Discovery Museum will be located on is, and supposedly will
continue to be, owned by the City of Fort Collins. This is indicated on the application and in
the Statement of Planning Objectives. However, would it be possible to provide information
about the actual operators of the facility? Also, what is/are the funding source(s) for the
Discovery Museum?
Number: 84 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no problems with
or concerns about this development proposal.
Number: 85 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] After lengthy discussion at staff review on Wednesday morning, March 24th, it
was determined that the Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan could
possibly go to the Planning & Zoning Board on April 15, 2010 if certain additional information
is provided in a timely manner. However, there appears to be a significant difference of
opinion between several City departments and the development team about the
property line for the Discovery Museum as currently shown on the Site Plan and
Subdivision Plat and the ultimate property line. If this cannot be resolved soon it
would be inappropriate for this development proposal to go to the Board in April. The
issue could be difficult to resolve between PDP approval and Final Plan approval.
Page 2
Topic: Plat
Number: 177 Created: 7/27/2010
[7/27/10] For clarity purposes, the newly added third page of the plat should switch pages
with the second page.
Number: 183 Created: 7/28/2010
[7/28/10] It is suggested that the Comcast easement shown on the plat be changed to a
utility alignment. Confirmation was made with Comcast that they do not ultimately need an
exclusive easement and a general utility easement dedicated to the City would be fine.
Page 2
Number: 86 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] After further thought about documents to re -submit by Wednesday, March 31 st (or
as soon thereafter as possible) here are the numbers of each document:
12 Site Plans
8 Landscape Plans
4 Building Elevations Plans
11 Subdivision Plats
9 Utility Plans
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 27 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is
legible. It is difficult to identify the driveways and parking lots amidst the landscaping.
Number: 28 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/101 There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling
cannot be read very well. Please change.
Number: 29 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/101 Please darken the line weights for the various items under the LEGEND.
Number: 30 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled
as to what they are, presumably storm drains.
Number: 31 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please add the required standard note about installing or securing the
landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy (see red -lined Landscape Plan, sheet #LS1.3).
Number: 32 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/101 The fences are very difficult to see on the Landscape Plan.
Number: 33 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/101 Please label the adjacent streets, Mason Court and Cherry Street, on the
Landscape Plan.
Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
Number: 35 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please label the building (Fort Collins Discovery Museum) on the Landscape Plan.
Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/101 Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan.
Number: 88 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] Street trees (canopy shade trees) must be provided along the property's frontages
on Cherry Street and Mason Court (at 30' to 40' spacings) per Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the
Land Use Code. Please see red -lined Landscape Plan sheet #LS1.4.
Page 3
Topic: Natural Resources
Number: 87 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] Mark Sears of the Natural Resources Department offered the following comments:
The maintenance access road to the river will need to line up with the existing road
north of the Poudre trail.
2. Could the water quality pond drain north in a pipe under the maintenance road and
then through a depressed area, perhaps a drainage swale and then in a pipe under the
Poudre trail, then again in a swale to the river?
Number: 98 Created: 3/26/2010
Environmental Planner (Dana Leavitt) comments:
Add "Natural Feature Buffer Line" to the following plans:
• Plat, sheets 1 & 2
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
• Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
• Lighting Plan
2. Add "Natural Feature Buffer Zone" in the buffer areas to the following plans:
• Plat, sheets 1 & 2
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
• Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
• Lighting Plan
The Natural Feature Buffer line is to include the Poudre River 300' buffer, the wetland
buffer (which is to be defined as the west edge of the bike trail) and the fox den buffer.
Buffer lines are only shown on the project property.
3. Show the edge of the wetlands on all sheets.
4. Add 'Limits -of -Development" (LOD) line per the full extent of development activities
(from site, landscape and utility plans) on the following sheets:
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
• Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
5. Add the note "Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses in a
buffer zone" to Plat, Site, Landscape and Utility Plans.
6. Add Environmental Planner signature block to the following plans:
Utility Plans, sheets C100, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
Page 4
7. All plant material in the buffer zones shall consist of native plant species common to
the existing habitat.
8. Provide a separate plant list and seed list for the buffer zone plants.
9. Remove all Siberian Elm and Russian Olive trees within the buffer zone, excluding any
wetlands areas.
10. Additional plant material is required between the bike trail and the edge of the wetlands
to enhance the buffer zone such that the landscape improvements, along with the
removal of nuisance trees, performs equal to or better than the performance standards
in Section 3.4.1(E) of the LUC.
11. Lighting shall not extend into the buffer zone.
12. The 2 parking lot pole mounted lights next to the natural feature and buffer zone are
required to have a house side shield on the fixture. Provide product information on the
fixtures.
13. Remove references to the 300' Poudre River buffer and the 100, wetland buffer from all
plans.
14. Provide construction details for proposed fences adjacent to natural feature buffer
zones.
15. Add buffer zone distances to all sections on SD5.1.
16. Add tree protection notes to the Utility Plan set, sheet C001.
17. All comments can be addressed during Final Plan Review.
Topic: Parks Planning
Number: 15 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] From: Craig Foreman, Park Planning and Development:
1. Lee Martinez Community Park Sign — Staff has been working with the development
team to site a new sign for the park in the appropriate location off Cherry Street. The
site proposed for the sign appears to have a conflict with a proposed telecom line. A
storm water line in the location may be able to be worked around. The proposed
relocation of the sidewalk running east/west in this area needs to remain at existing
location. This sidewalk will need a flat connection, maximum 3%, to the proposed re-
graded trail running north/south. Discussion needs to continue on this important sign
for the park.
2. The sidewalk proposed between Cherry Street and the Discovery Center building has
been discussed about becoming an attached walk along Disc. Court drive. This
seemed to be a good decision and opens up some land for the Discovery sign. It is
proposed the sidewalk be widened to 10' from back of curb if attached, due to the
amount of anticipated traffic and for snow removal.
Page 5
3. The Discovery development team has been informed that they may be able to attach to
the existing Lee Martinez irrigation system for their outdoor landscape water needs.
This would be a cost savings to the project in not having to establish a new tap for their
landscape needs. This item can be coordinated with Bill Whirty for the physical
connection and cost sharing items.
4. The development team agreed to supply power for a light to new park sign from their
electrical system.
5. The parking needs for park and trail users will be addressed at a later date since the
programming of the Discovery Museum is unknown at this time. Once the
programming and associated parking needs are more defined; then the ability for
shared parking for park and trail user can be determined.
6. Staff is working with Ingrid in the City Attorney's Office to determine the legal for the
Discovery Museum building and affected land around the building for its "lot".
7. Park Maintenance will work with the Discovery Museum team on documentation as to
"who does what" on the landscape areas around the building and improvements, such
as boardwalks, etc., for their long term operation and maintenance.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 18 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Several things under LAND USE DATA on the Site Plan cover sheet:
Zoning is POL & CCR (unless the triangular area between the railroad tracks & Cherry
Street and the area between the parking lot and North College Avenue area removed
from the within property boundary). Nothing is proposed in either of the aforementioned
areas except trees in the triangular area. The only thing to be aware of in the CCR
District is Section 4.20(D)(4)(a) Landscaping/Vegetation Protection, which states:
"The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced using
plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of the site and
landscape improvements." It might be a stretch to say that this triangular area, at the
corner of Cherry Street and North College Avenue, is in the "River corridor".
The Gross Land Area and the Net Land Area numbers appear to be reversed. The Net
is larger than the Gross as shown.
Number: 20 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Overall Site Plan, Sheet SD1.2:
Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is
legible. There are numerous labels for things that are not readable.
Please distinguish between the 2 zoning areas (POL & CCR) on the plan.
Number: 21 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Site Plan, Sheet SD1.3:
Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is
legible. There are numerous things that are not readable.
Page 6
The entries into the building, on all sides, are difficult to find on this plan.
Please better delineate the dividing line between the asphalt paving and the gravel
paving for the driveway on the east/northeast side of the building.
There is fiber optic cable in an easement running diagonally through the south end of
the property. Is this facility intending to connect to and utilize this cable?
A detail or details is/are needed for the retaining walls on the west side of the building.
If striping is proposed for the pedestrian crosswalk at the entry drive to the facility, the
question is: Could more substantial enhancement be provided here?
" There is no intent to physical control (gate, etc.) entry into the facility's parking lot, is
this correct?
Will the amount of building, walls, and patio as shown be allowed within the 100'
wetland buffer?
Does the 100' wetland buffer actually end in the planting area at the southwest corner
of the building, as shown?
The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled as
to what they are, presumably storm drains.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: Genera!
Number: 71 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The project shows offsite grading work on what appears to be UP Railroad
property. The offsite work would require a letter of intent from UP prior to scheduling a public
hearing per the PDP submittal requirements. Alternatively, the project could be designed to
show no off -site work which would then negate the letter of intent requirement.
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer
work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property
owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the
sidewalk maintenance?
Number: 73 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Please indicate on the construction and site plan drawings the width of the
sidewalk along Mason Court that is to be added.
Number: 74 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Please show the drive approach out to Mason Court being in concrete to the back
of sidewalk (this should also be reserved out on the plat as right-of-way).
Number: 75 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The use of a 25' radius for the drive approach onto Mason Court is required to be
15' per Table 8-2 of LCUASS. The radius should be reduced (as a suggestion, if the
Page 7
driveway intersected Mason Court closer to 90 degrees, the turning movement off Mason
Court would perhaps be smoother.)
Number: 76 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] There may be a desire by the developer's consultant to seek separate
entitlements of first rough grading for the property, and then the remaining utilities,
hardscape, building, and final grading with a second entitlement. This appears to be
Possible, though an expanded City staff should meet with the consultant team to verify what
the requirements will be for a final approval for grading only.
Number: 77 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of
BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry
Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the
effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on this
project, with the additional Cherry Street frontage west of that portion also needing to be
included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College
Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the
frontage on Mason Court.
Number: 78 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] As a heads -up, per an earlier email I had sent on 2/3/2010, the following approach
shall be used in lieu of a development agreement for the project:
- A development agreement will not be done for the project.
- Instead of a DA, needed provisions that would have been in a development agreement
will be placed on the plat.
These provisions needing to be placed on the plat are specific to concerns regarding
ongoing maintenance/"running with the land" types of provisions. Items that would
pertain to construction of the development should not be included.
There are a few standard conditions in the typical development agreement that will be
included on the plat after consultation with Paul. I'm also understanding that there will
be special condition type language added to the plat pertaining to at least stormwater
and natural areas. Finally repays for public streets fronting the project would likely need
to be included on the plat.
Number: 96 Created: 3/25/2010
[3/24/10] Sheri Langenberger calculated an additional $573.25 required for the TDR fee
(see attached) based upon mainly the finding of a higher building square footage than what
was indicated on the TDR fee application. Given that there may be some changes reducing
the area being platted, there could be some savings to offset the additional amount owed.
Number: 97 Created: 3/25/2010
[3/25/101 The following are the items that I believe should be resolved prior to the public
hearing for the project:
#71/#72 - either a letter of intent from UP Railroad/Mason Street North, LLC or revise
the drawings to no longer show work being done outside of the property.
Page 8
#79 - the establishment of the platted boundary (as a result of the staff review
discussions), reflected on all the drawings.
#82 - further follow-up on the findings of the TIS with direction on whether the need for
a crossing improvement on Cherry Street is needed (and if so, what will it be and
how/who will construct?) or the findings of the TIS are amended or changed to indicate
the improvement isn't required.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 81 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] It appears that street trees aren't being provided along the Cherry, Mason, and
College fronting the property?
Topic: Plat
Number: 79 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 The platted boundary seems to show areas that may require the signature of one
or both railroad companies on the plat. Confirmation from the appropriate City attorney who
will be certifying the plat should be coordinated as soon as possible to understand what may
be needed from the railroad companies in order to meet the requirements for the City
attorney to sign off on the plat. The indication of a railroad easement to be vacated by this
plat appears to be odd if intending to truly "vacate" as this would imply signature from that
railroad company being needed.
Number: 80 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment
that would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer
such that the City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be
reserved to become public right-of-way).
Number: 83 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/10] Technical Services has raised the question as to whether the original Mason
Street north of Cherry has ever been vacated. If this is truly right-of-way, given the
conveyance of the property to the Discovery Museum, we should probably check with the
City Attorney's Office on whether this portion potentially being right-of-way and then
conveyed to the Discovery Museum is problematic or not. Should that be viewed as
problematic, a vacation process of Mason Street should perhaps proceed as soon as
possible.
Topic: TIS
Number: 82 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Should through the conclusion of the analysis of the TIS result in some sort of
pedestrian crossing improvement on Cherry Street, the design and specifications of such an
improvement will need to be shown on the construction and site plan drawings.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz
Topic: Light & Power
Number: 37 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Due to asbestos contamination in the area additional construction costs will apply.
Page 9
Number: 38 Created: 3/23/2010
Remove landscaping around existing electric equipment and proposed new transformer.
Maintain a clearance of 8' from operating doors and 3' from sides of equipment. See
provided sketch for removal areas.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 89 Created: 3/24/2010
EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS: Instead of an Emergency Access Easement, please
label it an Emergency Access Alignment. All other parameters/requirements for the
Emergency Access Easement provided at conceptual review still apply.
Number: 90 Created: 3/24/2010
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AREA: Thank you for the area on the west side of the building
where we can operate fire apparatus. To improve this, here are my suggestions:
"Strengthen" the language on the site plan and write something like "22x60 Clearance
for PFA Apparatus Access Area" (without the quotes).
I suggest we also make this part of the Emergency Access Alignment, to prevent
museum folks from erecting outdoor displays and blocking our apparatus access.
This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
Number: 91 Created: 3/24/2010
FACP: Your note should say that the fire alarm control panel will be located in the fire riser
room, not fire entry room. The NE door that provides access to the FRR shall be labeled on
the exterior of the building, "Fire Riser Room" (no quotes). Please get with me for specific
size and color of sign.
Number: 92 Created: 3/24/2010
FACP MAIN ENTRY: Per previous discussions, we will require a full -function FACP located
near the main entrance to the building.
Number: 93 Created: 3/24/2010
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Your note regarding the FDC location is confusing.
You were responding as if you were commenting on fire hydrants. There is only ONE FDC.
Please label the FDC and the fire line coming into the building.
Number: 94 Created: 3/24/2010
EXISTING HYDRANT: Please show and label the existing fire hydrant on Mason Court.
Number: 95 Created: 3/24/2010
RADIO AMP SYSTEM: I'm concerned about the SF of the building (-47,288 SF) in relation
to our requirement for public -safety radio amplification (50,000 SF). I don't want this to be
brought up in the future and you be required to install an amplification system at that time,
when it would cost less to do it now. Please contact Ron Gonzales at PFA, 219. 5316.
Page 10
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: 19 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] The TIS states "another pedestrian improvement that should be considered as
part of the Museum project development is the installation of additional crossing
improvements across Cherry Street in the eastern crosswalk of the Cherry/Mason street
intersection." Please provide discussion and analysis of the impacts and mitigations that
may be involved to provide the additional improvements this project should fund. That
review should include as a minimum the impacts to westbound traffic flow, The need for a
west bound left turn lane at Mason upon conversion to 2-way traffic, would changes to the
median drive further changes due to the existing RR gate structure and possible setback
requirements, and ped volume analysis of the future ped volume the project will generate
that warrants the project funding these additional improvements.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 66 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Suggest contacting Daz Bog to discuss parking.
Number: 67 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The TIS and project plans are not consistent. Please reconcile so project plans
and TIS are consistent. Pedestrian crossing improvements may not be required based on
the Pedestrian Level of Service criteria; however improving the crossing Level of Service
would be advantageous given the use and proximity to the Transit Center. An enhanced
crosswalk similar to Maple and Mason would improve the Level of Service without interfering
with a future left turn lane from Cherry onto Mason.
Number: 68 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] ADA ramps are not shown on plans. Please show ADA ramps.
Number: 69 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Suggest contacting DK Kemp the bicycle coordinator at dakemp@fcgov.com
regarding input on bicycle rack style and quantity of bicycle parking facilities. There is an
opportunity to develop a design that is unique to the Discover Science Center. Bicycle rack
needs to be closer to entrance. Current location is further away than vehicle parking. With
current location cyclist will park in areas not intended for bike parking. Any changes that
address Clark Mapes comments on building entrance orientation may affect the location of
the bicycle rack.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 44 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or scan well.
Number: 45 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The landscape plans have line over text issues.
Number: 46 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.1.
Page 11
Topic: Plat
Number: 40 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The boundary & legal close.
Number: 41 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The emergency access easement on the plat, needs to be defined.
Number: 47 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] BNSF Railway will need to sign the plat for the easement vacation, or be vacated
by separate document.
Number: 48 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] What is the Union Pacific RR ROW area across our property? It is not defined.
Number: 49 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Has Mason Street been vacated?
Number: 50 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The subtitle of the plat needs to be revised. (See plat)
Number: 51 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Please define the type of the 20' easement alignment on the north side of the
property.
Number: 52 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Does the City have title to the triangular parcel between the BNSF, UPRR &
Cherry Street?
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 42 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The site plans have line over text issues.
Number: 43 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10) The site plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or scan well.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 99 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] Please show floodplain lines more prominently on the Site Plan sheet SD1.3
Number: 100 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] Please add the note redlined on the Landscape plan sheet LS1.3
Number: 101 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] Please verify RR elevation vs. College Ave elevation. Use higher of low points.
Please see conceptual comment #2.
Number: 102 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] Please revise number and dates for the FEMA map references on the plat and in
the text of the drainage report.
Page 12
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Cixyoi.� Cotiins
OZ Architecture Date: 6/4/2010
c/o David Schafer
1805 29th Street, Suite 2054
Boulder, CO 80301
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - FINAL
PLANS, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: General
Number: 172 Created: 6/3/2010
[6/3/10] The Property Boundary as shown on the Final development plans (Subdivision
Plat, Site Plan, etc.) is different than the boundary shown on the PDP plans that were
approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on April 29th. There is an area at the southwest
corner of the building where sidewalk and vehicle/bicycle parking improvements are now
outside of the project's Property Boundary. The City has concerns about its ability to sign the
Subdivision Plan and Site Plan because of this. The ability to request, approve, and sign
mylars could possibly be delayed somewhat.
Ron Kechter Response: This issue will be resolved with an Ordinance that is being taken
before the City Council on July 6, 2010 that will exempt a portion of the Site form the
requirement of Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code. City Staff believes that the City
has already acquired title to an absolute fee interest in the Parcel through the legal doctrine
of "adverse possession". Staff will proceed with the quiet title action, based upon the
adverse possession, to obtain record ownership of the Parcel.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 28 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] There still are "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan, making scanning of the plan
difficult.
AECOM Response: Corrected per redlines provided; see plans
[3/22/10] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling
cannot be read very well. Please change.
AECOM Response: Corrected; see SD1.3
Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] Still need the easements labeled.
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Corrected; see plans
Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2010
[5/26/10] Still need to label.
[3/22/10] Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Added to landscape plan LS1.4; see also site plan SD1.3
Page 1
Number: 103 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/101 Please see Floodplain Review checklist for items not found on plans or drainaaa
report.
Number: 104 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] A no -rise floodplain certification is required for the wetland concept plan since it is
in the floodway.
Number: 105 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/10] It is suggested in the Wetland Concept Plan to move the foot bridge out of the
floodway if possible so you do not have to deal with a breakaway design and a no -rise
certification.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 65 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Show water/sewer lines more predominantly on the landscape plan and add a
note regarding the separation distance requirements of plantings from water/sewer lines
(Trees 10 feet, Shrubs 4 feet).
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 53 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The flows for the southern half of the site do not have volume water quality
treatment per initial discussions with Stormwater staff. A low flow pipe was discussed to
carry the flows to the water quality pond on the north side of the building.
Number: 54 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Riprap rundowns are no longer allowed as shown from the north drive loop into
the water quality pond. This can be a concrete chute, or an inlet with a pipe extending to the
toe of slope.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 55 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] It's my understanding that portions of the 12-inch water main have NOT been
located. Has the main been located at the tie-in points?
Number: 56 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 The Utility does not have 2.5-inch water meters. Either 2-inch or 3-inch meters
are available. The water service from the main through the meter pit must be the same size
as the meter. At a point 5 feet downstream of the meter, the service size may be increased
to minimize hydraulic losses.
Number: 57 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Move the location of the meter pit as noted on the plans.
Number: 58 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Show and label the curb stop which must be within 2 feet of the meter pit.
Page 13
Number: 59 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Include the storm sewer shown in the north part of the site on the overall utility
plan.
Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Is there a conflict at either of the points where the storm sewers cross the existing
water main?
Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Is a separate irrigation tap planned?
Number: 62 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Label the invert elevation of the sewer service connection to the manhole.
Number: 63 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Re-route the gas line to eliminate the low angle crossings of the existing sanitary
sewer.
Number: 64 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] See redlined utility plans for other comments.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: ZONING
Number: 1 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Sheet SD1.3 - A 7' building envelope in referenced. Would like to see it noted on
the plan all around the building - A dashed line would be fine to differentiate that from the
building envelope.
Number: 2 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Please remove topo lines from final site plan
Number: 3 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] What are the dimensions of the bus/RV parking space along the east side.
Number: 4 Created: 3/10/2010
(3/10/10] On the site plan please darken up the lines denoting the parking stalls.... Very
faint.
Number: 5 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] 1 don't see any handicapped parking spaces being called out. Please show their
location and note their dimensions. NOTE - HC spaces need an HC sign at the head of the
space between 3 and 5' tall.
Number: 6 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Please note on the site plan where Type A and Type B fences will be located.
Plans only state "Proposed Fence" but not what type.
Number: 7 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Note the building dimensions and setbacks to property line on the site plan.
Page 14
Number: 8 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Just a suggestion: Strategically place some more benches along the walking
paths. I only see a couple of them called- out near the entrance of the building.
Number: 9 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10) Trash dumpster and recycle bins need to be within an enclosure, constructed to
match the main building.
Number: 10 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/101 Parking lot/drive aisles can't be gravel. Need to be of an approved hard surface.
Number: 11 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10) Page LS1.3 Please add a note to the General Planting Notes regarding
installation of landscaping prior to issuance of a CO. 3.2.1(1)(4)
Number: 12 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] Please label the streets on the landscape plan as you did on the Site Plan
Number: 13 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10] I'm questioning the large number of ornamental grasses that are being called out.
Although the initial year they will look great, a year or two into their growth, I feel that it will
just look overgrown and proper maintenance/thinning etc won't take place.
Number: 14 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/101 Elevations: Elevations need to comply with section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code.
In my opinion this does not blend with the architecture of the area... no stone, no brick, very
few windows. It resembles an industrial type use building.
Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
85,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Of particular note is General Comment #
page 2 regarding the ultimate property line and the Planning & Zoning Board hearing o
April 15`h n
Youfs Truly,
de vVe Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
Craig Foreman
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-10
Page 15
:y STAFF
PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
Response to PDP Review comments 03/33/10
OZ Architecture -
c/o David Schafer
i805 29th Street, #2054
Boulder, CO 80302
Date: 3/26/2010
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM, PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - TYPE 2, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: Building Elevations
Number: 39 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/2o] The building and site plan should have a much clearer and stronger pedestrian orientation
to the corner of Mason Court and Cherry Street. That is by far the most important pedestrian
linkage and corner. The building overtly de-emphasizes this relationship with the location of the
entrance and the overall massing and design. Let's discuss this.
OZ response to item 39:
The proposed building and site features are designed to support a strong pedestrian connection to
the Mason Street corridor.
The building purposely steps down towards the West to create a welcoming pedestrian scale
associated with existing and proposed paths. Further, over -sized walkways are directed to an
entrance at this portion of the building.
In response to the reviewers concern, this South-western entrance has been emphasized by
repeating, at a more pedestrian scale, the forms and materials of the entry element. Hence above
the glazing we propose a raised element, clad in metal, that signals this entry.
Furthermore, in order to promote a welcoming pedestrian experience, we propose to increase the
wall glazing that is adjacent this entry.
AECOM response to item 39:
In follow up meetings with AECOM, Clark Mapes with Advanced Planning and the citys Project
manager Ron Kechter, a stronger pedestrian presence and connection from Mason Court is
provided in revised plans. As a part of this pedestrian design improvement, the parking drive aisle
width, bus drop off and parking stalls were reconfigured to preserve egress requirements for bus
and emergency vehicles.
Page 1
q
k4tY 4-w-
•w.,r
nwNY�
�CM h'4YI��✓pY
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Building Elevations
Number: 23 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/so] The proposed Discovery Museum is a relatively contemporary building in this older part of
Fort Collins. This comment relates to both the architectural design and the materials. There is a
statement in Section 3.5.s(B) Architectural Character that says: "New developments in or adjacent
to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such
areas by using a design that is complementary". Please provide a brief explanation of how this
building complements other buildings in the area, or visa versa.
Number: 24 Created: 3/22/2020
[3/22/1o] The proposed building materials are as follows:
* precast concrete
* stucco
* metal planting trellis
* metal panels (gray)
* spandrel glass
Without a doubt there are existing buildings in the area containing precast concrete, stucco, and
spandrel glass materials; however, are there any metal panels or metal planting trellises on
buildings in the area? The metal planting trellises (with live greenery) up against the precast
concrete walls is a good effect but the significant metal panels on the tower portions of the building
may not be duplicated anywhere in the area.
Page 2
OZ response to items 23, AND 24:
The design team's goal aligns with the objective stated in Section 3.5.i(B) that "new developments
shall be compatible with the established architectural character"...with "a design that is
complementary."
With respect to the above staff comments, the submitted building design proposes to achieve this
in the following manner:
WALL MATERIAL
The proposed building seeks to complement the masonry and storefront heritage of downtown
with an exterior wall that combines glazing with architectural precast panels. Echoing the scale and
rhythm of the area, these panels are so' wide. The panels are of a warm tone that compliment the
brick, precast and stucco elements of the area.
These precast panels be partially clad with a cable/wire system that supports the growth of vines.
This is done to reflect the unique natural context within which the building sits, and will yield a
facade that further reflects its ever -changing natural context.
METAL FEATURES
The architecture of downtown Fort Collins includes many buildings that use metal as either accents
within their facades ---or even as entire enclosures. This reflects the agricultural heritage of Fort
Collins. Such structures are found in even closer proximity to the Downtown College Avenue core
than the Discovery Museum site.
As is typical of the area, the proposed buildingemploys metal paneling in a strategic areas
(approximately 8% of the entire enclosure) in order to high -light the facility's entry.
This metal siding will be non -reflective, and detailed in a sophisticated manner that is consistent
Atu
Page 3
Cxarnpie or metal panels to emphasize entry in Downtown Ft Collins
SELECTIVE GLAZING:
A primary role of the Museum is the preservation of Fort Collins history within controlled
environments. The City of Fort Collins also requires a High-performance building.
As a result, windows are necessarily somewhat restricted in quantity in order to minimize harmful
UV infiltration and solar gain.
Windows are however selectively used in large expanses at key areas; including the South -facing
public facade and entries, where glazing is used in the entire ground floor, typical of Downtown
Fort Collins storefronts.
run giazmg at ground floor entry with non -reflective metal enclosure above entry.
Number: 25 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/lo) The heights of the various portions of the building will be consistent with existing and
proposed buildings in the area. There are 2-story buildings, 3-story buildings, and 4-story buildings
that provide similar heights to the 21'-611, 3o'-8", and 49'-o" heights proposed. The north building in
Penny Flats, yet to be built, will be 5 stories in height, similar to the 58'-6" tower height on the
Discovery Museum.
OZ response to item 25: This item does not appear to require a response.
Page 4
Number: 26 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Staff agrees with the analysis provided in the Special Height Review Request for the
portions of the building in excess of 40' in height. The views to and through the site will be
minimally impacted, with the view of only one small area of foothills from properties east of North
College Avenue that will be impacted. The shadows from the building will be completely contained
on -site with the exception of 9 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December 21st. In the morning there will be
shadows cast over natural areas to the west and north of the building for a short period of time;
and, in the afternoon there will be shadows cast over a short stretch of railroad tracks, off -site to
the east, for a short period of time. On -site lighting will be sensitive to the surrounding natural
areas environment and no other buildings will be adversely affected by the shadows cast by the
Discovery Museum building. The building will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and
privacy will not be compromised by this facility.
OZ response to item 25: This item does not appear to require a response.
Topic: General
N u m be r:16 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/1o] Richard Stiverson of Qwest indicated that they have no problems with or concerns about
this development proposal.
OZ response to item 16: This item does not appear to require a response.
Number:17 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/10] Statement of Planning Objectives:
NE -response to item 17: Noted.
* page 10 - "parking area contains 68 spaces"... Should this be 71 parking spaces?
OZ response to item 17: The Statement of Planning objectives have been revised to state 71 spaces
* pages 10 & 21- references 11 part-time employees as FTE's (being full-time employees). Is this
not contradictory?
OZ response to item 17: The Statement of Planning objectives document has been revised to call
out part time employees separate from FTE's.
Number: 22 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/1o] The property that the Discovery Museum will be located on is, and supposedly will
continue to be, owned by the City of Fort Collins. This is indicated on the application and in the
Statement of Planning Objectives. However, would it be possible to provide information about the
actual operators of the facility? Also, what is/are the funding source(s) for the Discovery Museum?
City of Ft. Collins response to item 22: —The property will continue to owned by the City of Fort
Collins. The operators of the facility will be the Partnership comprised of the City of Fort Collins
and the Non Profit Corporation, formerly the Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science
Center. The sources of funding are: BOB (Building on Basics) City Tax Initiative, Grants and
Corporate and Private Donations.
Number: 84 Created: 3/24/2020
[3/24/1o] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no problems with or
concerns about this development proposal.
NE response to item 84: Noted.
Page 5
Number: 85 Created: 3/24/203.0
[3/24/10] After lengthy discussion at staff review on Wednesday morning, March 24th, it was
determined that the Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan could possibly go to
the Planning & Zoning Board on April 15, 2010 if certain additional information is provided in a
timely manner. However, there appears to be a significant difference of opinion between
several City departments and the development team about the property line for the Discovery
Museum as currently shown on the Site Plan and Subdivision Plat and the ultimate property
line. If this cannot be resolved soon it would be inappropriate for this development proposal to
go to the Board in April. The issue could be difficult to resolve between PDP approval and Final
Plan approval.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 85 —This issue will be completely resolved through a meeting of
the parties this Friday, April 2, 2010.
Number: 86 Created: 3/24/2020
[3/24/10] After further thought about documents to re -submit by Wednesday, March 31st (or as
soon thereafter as possible) here are the numbers of each document:
* 12 Site Plans
* 8 Landscape Plans
* 4 Building Elevations Plans
* 11 Subdivision Plats
* g Utility Plans
OZ response to item 86: The requested drawings and comment responses will be submitted by the
end of the day Wednesday, March 31st.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 27 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is
legible. It is difficult to identify the driveways and parking lots amidst the landscaping.
OZ response to item 27: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Number: 28 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] There are numerous "line-overs" on the Landscape Plan where the plant labeling cannot
be read very well. Please change.
AECOM response to item 28: Corrected, see plans
Number: 29 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please darken the line weights for the various items under the LEGEND.
AECOM response to item 29: Corrected, see plans
Number: 30 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled as to
what they are, presumably storm drains.
AECOM response to item 30: Corrected, see plans
Page 6
Number: 31 Created: 3/22/2010
(3/22/10] Please add the required standard note about installing or securing the landscaping prior
to Certificate of Occupancy (see red -lined Landscape Plan, sheet #LS1.3).
AECOM response to item 31: Corrected, see plans
Number: 32 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/1o] The fences are very difficult to see on the Landscape Plan.
OZ response to item 32: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Number: 33 Created: 3/22/203.0
[3/22/10] Please label the adjacent streets, Mason Court and Cherry Street, on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM response to item 33: Corrected, see plans
Number: 34 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please label the Railroad Easements on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM response to item 34: Added, see plans
Number: 35 Created: 3/22/2010
13/22/10] Please label the building (Fort Collins Discovery Museum) on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM response to item 35: Added, see plans
Number: 36 Created: 3/22/2010
[3/22/10] Please label the Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails on the Landscape Plan.
AECOM response to item 36: Added, see plans
Number: 88 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/101 Street trees (canopy shade trees) must be provided along the property's frontages on
Cherry Street and Mason Court (at 30' to 40' spacings) per Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code.
Please see red -lined Landscape Plan sheet #LS1.4.
AECOM response to item 88: Added, see plans
Topic: Natural Resources
Number: 87 Created: 3/24/2010
[3/24/20] Mark Sears of the Natural Resources Department offered the following comments:
1. The maintenance access road to the river will need to line up with the existing road north of
the Poudre trail.
NE response to item 87(1): The proposed maintenance road alignment has been revised to line up
with the existing maintenance road that is north of the existing Poudre Trail.
2. Could the water quality pond drain north in a pipe under the maintenance road and then
through a depressed area, perhaps a drainage Swale and then in a pipe under the Poudre trail, then
again in a swale to the river?
NE response to item 87(2): The outfall for the proposed water quality pond north of the site has
been revised to discharge north into the existing depressed area as recommended
Page 7
,
Number: 165 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] There appears to be one Serviceberry sitting right on a retaining wall on the west
side of the building, see red -lined Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: Corrected per redlines provided; see LS1.4
Number: 166 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] It is very difficult to follow the ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence alignments on
the Landscape Plan.
AECOM Response: The ornamental iron and 3-rail wood fence line types have been
changed to delineate fence types per legend
Number: 167 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] In the lower right-hand corners of Sheets LS1.0 and LS1.4 of the Landscape
Plans please move the name MASON COURT down to the centerline of the street, just to
read better.
AECOM Response: Corrected, see LS1.0 and LS1.4
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 128 Created: 5/25/2010
[5/25/101 With the additional vehicle parking spaces being added to the site, now 86 instead
of 71, will the school buses no longer be parked on -site while awaiting the school kids?
OZ Response: The school buses will be parked on site while awaiting the school kids.
When school buses are not anticipated these spaces will be used for general parking.
When school buses are anticipated the museum staff will cordon off the area using cones to
save the spaces for bus parking only.
Number: 160 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 The numbers in the TOTAL LAND AREA table on Sheet SD1.1 of the Site Plan
appear to be "out of whack". Assuming the square footages to be OK, then the acres and
Ws do not check. Please see the red -lined Site Plan.
AECOM Response: Data has been adjusted for new property boundary. Additional
information included to explain how calculations were derived
Number: 161 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] What has happened to the fence types and details that previously were on the
plans (Site Plan)?
AECOM Response: Fence types still shown. Fence detail was photo, not detail and
removed. Detail added for breakaway 3 rail fence per city standards. Fence detail for 6'
steel fence not provided and not required per FDP submittal.
Number: 162 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] Please label the retaining walls on the Site Plan, at least on Sheet SD1.3.
AECOM Response: Wall labeled in addition to legend call out shown previously
Number: 163 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/10] On the north side of the building, the Building Envelope should be expanded to
include the Future (Building) Expansion, see red -lined Site Plan.
AECOM Response: 7' building envelope extended beyond future building expansion line
Page 2
Number: 98 Created: 3/26/2o10
Environmental Planner (Dana Leavitt) comments:
1. Add "Natural Feature Buffer Line" to the following plans:
• Plat, sheets 1 & 2
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SD1.3
AECOM response to item 98 (1): Added, see plans
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
AECOM response to item 98 (1): Added, see plans
• Utility Plans, sheets C1oo, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
• Lighting Plan
MEG response to item 98(1): The buffer line will be added tothe Lighting Photometric Plan.
NE response to item 98(1): The proposed Natural Buffer Line and Zone were added to all specified
sheets.
Add "Natural Feature Buffer Zone" in the buffer areas to the following plans:
• Plat, sheets 1 & 2
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SDI-3
AECOM response to item 98 (2): Added, see plans
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LSi.2, LS1.4
AECOM response to item 98 (2): Added, see plans
• Utility Plans, sheets C1oo, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
• Lighting Plan
MEG response to item 98(2): The buffer line will be added to the Lighting Photometric Plan.
NE response to item 98(2): The proposed Natural Buffer Line and Zone were added to all specified
sheets.
The Natural Feature Buffer line is to include the Poudre River Soo' buffer, the wetland buffer (which
is to be defined as the west edge of the bike trail) and the fox den buffer. Buffer lines are only
shown on the project property.
AECOM response to item 98 (2): Noted
3. Show the edge of the wetlands on all sheets.
OZ response to item 98(3): This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
4. Add 'Limits -of -Development" (LOD) line per the full extent of development activities (from
site, landscape and utility plans) on the following sheets:
AECOM response to item 98 (4): Addressed in printing
• Site Plan, sheets SD1.2, SDi.3
AECOM response to item 98 (4): Added, see plans
• Landscape Plan, sheets LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4
AECOM response to item 98 (4): Added, see plans
• Utility Plans, sheets C1oo, C200, C201, C300, C400 & C401
NE response to item 98 (4): The "Limits of Disturbance" line was revised to be called out "Limits of
Development" and is shown on all specified sheets.
Page 8
S. Add the note "Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses in a buffer
zone" to Plat, Site, Landscape and Utility Plans.
AECOM response to item 98 (5): Added, see general landscape notes
6. Add Environmental Planner signature block to the following plans:
Utility Plans, sheets C1oo, Czoo, C201, C300, C400 & C401
NE response to item 98(6): Environmental Signature line was added to all specified sheets.
7. All plant material in the buffer zones shall consist of native plant species common to the
existing habitat.
AECOM response to item 98 (7): Noted
8. Provide a separate plant list and seed list for the buffer zone plants.
AECOM response to item 98 (8): Added, see LS1.3
9. Remove all Siberian Elm and Russian Olive trees within the buffer zone, excluding any
wetlands areas.
AECOM response to item 98 (9): Noted and added per redlines
10. Additional plant material is required between the bike trail and the edge of the wetlands to
enhance the, buffer zone such that the landscape improvements, along with the removal of
nuisance trees, performs equal to or better than the performance standards in Section 3.4.1(E) of
the LUC.
AECOM response to item 98 (1o): Noted and added per redlines: Clarification with Environmental
Planner on 3-26-2010 for the proposed re -vegetation density was to replant trees and shrubs at an
equal or greater density of the existing cottonwoods and understory in the natural feature buffer
zone between the bike trail and the wetland edge. That density was field verified to be a total of
six cottonwood trees and three understory shrubs. Verification of buffer planting requirements
based on field conditions is requested of the Environmental Planner prior to FDP —see comment 17
11. Lighting shall not extend into the buffer zone.
MEG response to item 98(13.): Pole lights near the buffer zone will be equipped with a house side
shield to prevent light from entering the buffer zone.
12. The 2 parking lot pole mounted lights next to the natural feature and buffer zone are required
to have a house side shield on the fixture. Provide product information on the fixtures.
MEG response to item 98(12): Pole lights near the buffer zone will be equipped with a house side
shield to prevent light from entering the buffer zone. A fixture cut -sheet will be provided.
13. Remove references to the 300' Poudre River buffer and the too' wetland buffer from all plans.
AECOM response to item 98 (13): Noted, wetland buffer removed from plans. Soo' river buffer
reference to be removed by FDP pending clarification of reviewer's intent— see comment 17
14. Provide construction details for proposed fences adjacent to natural feature buffer zones.
AECOM response to item 98 (14): Noted, to be addressed in FDP
Page 9
15. Add buffer zone distances to all sections on SD5.i.
AECOM response to item 98 (15): Added only to sections relevant to the natural feature buffer
zone, see SD5.1
16. Add tree protection notes to the Utility Plan set, sheet Cool.
NE response to item 98 (z6):: The tree protection notes have been added to sheet Coos
17. All comments can be addressed during Final Plan Review.
AECOM response to item 98 (17): Noted
Topic: Parks Planning
Number: lS Created: 3/19/2010
[3/1g/1o] From: Craig Foreman, Park Planning and Development:
1. Lee Martinez Community Park Sign — Staff has been working with the development team to
site anew sign for the park in the appropriate location off Cherry Street. The site proposed for the
sign appears to have a conflict with a proposed telecom line. A storm water line in the location may
be able to be worked around. The proposed relocation of the sidewalk running east/west in this
area needs to remain at existing location. This sidewalk will need a flat connection, maximum 3%,
to the proposed re -graded trail running north/south. Discussion needs to continue on this
important sign for the park.
NE and AECOM response to item 15 (1): The sidewalk alignment (existing and proposed) has been
revised and the proposed telephone alignment has been revised in this area to allow ample room
for proposed Community Park Sign.
2. The sidewalk proposed between Cherry Street and the Discovery Center building has been
discussed about becoming an attached walk along Disc. Court drive. This seemed to be a good
decision and opens up some land for the Discovery sign. It is proposed the sidewalk be widened to
1o' from back of curb if attached, due to the amount of anticipated traffic and for snow removal.
AECOM response to item 15 (2): In a follow up meeting with Clark Mapes and Kathleen Benedict it
was decided to protect existing sidewalk alignment in place in lieu of re -designing to an attached
1o' curb.
3. The Discovery development team has been informed that they may be able to attach to the
existing Lee Martinez irrigation system for their outdoor landscape water needs. This would be a
cost savings to the project in not having to establish a new tap for their landscape needs. This item
can be coordinated with Bill Whirty for the physical connection and cost sharing items.
AECOM response to item 15 (3): Noted, City of Ft. Collins response to item 15(3): This connection to
the irrigation system for Lee Martinez Park will be coordinated with Bill Whirty with Parks
Maintenance.
4. The development team agreed to supply power for a light to new park sign from their
electrical system.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 15(4): The Discovery Museum project team will provide the
requested power to the new sign for Lee Martinez Park, once the location has been determined.
Page 10
S. The parking needs for park and trail users will be addressed at a later date since the
programming of the Discovery Museum is unknown at this time. Once the programming and
associated parking needs are more defined; then the ability for shared parking for park and trail
user can be determined.
OZ response to item 15Q5): Agreed.
6. Staff is working with Ingrid in the City Attorney's Office to determine the legal for the
Discovery Museum building and affected land around the building for its "lot".
OZ response to item 15(6): This item does not appear to require a response.
7. Park Maintenance will work with the Discovery Museum team on documentation as to "who
does what" on the landscape areas around the building and improvements, such as boardwalks,
etc., for their longterm operation and maintenance.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 15(7): Parks Maintenance and the Discovery Museum will
develop a written agreement as to the responsibilities for landscape operation and maintenance
within the Museum boundaries.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 18 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/1o] Several things under LAND USE DATA on the Site Plan cover sheet:
* Zoning is POL & CCR (unless the triangular area between the railroad tracks & Cherry Street
and the area between the parking lot and North College Avenue area removed from the within
property boundary). Nothing is proposed in either of the aforementioned areas except trees in the
triangular area. The only thing to be aware of in the CCR District is Section 4.2o(D)(4)(a)
Landscaping/Vegetation Protection, which states: "The natural qualities of the River landscape
shall be maintained and enhanced using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor
in the design of the site and landscape improvements." It might be a stretch to say that this
triangular area, at the corner of Cherry Street and North College Avenue, is in the "River corridor".
AECOM response to item 18: In a review with the projects city representative, Ron Kechter, the
project was confirmed to be POL with the exception of the appendage to the East that we will be
eliminating from the Plat and the triangle, which we will be retaining, but with only landscaping and
street trees showing in our submission.
* The Gross Land Area and the Net Land Area numbers appear to be reversed. The Net is larger
than the Gross as shown.
AECOM response to item 18: Corrected, see plans
Number: 20 Created: 3/19/2010
[3/19/1o] Overall Site Plan, Sheet SD1.2:
* Please bring the line weight for the background information up slightly so that it is legible.
There are numerous labels for things that are not readable.
OZ response to item 2o: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
* Please distinguish between the 2 zoning areas (POL & CCR) on the plan.
AECOM response to item 18: Corrected, also see previous response to number 18
Page I
Number: 21 Created: 3/19/2010
(3/1g/1o] Site Plan, Sheet SD1.3:
* Please bring the line weight forthe background information up slightly so that it is legible.
There are numerous things that are not readable.
OZ response to item 21:-This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
* The entries into the building, on all sides, are difficult to find on this plan.
OZ response to item 21: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
* Please better delineate the dividing line between the asphalt paving and the gravel paving for
the driveway on the east/northeast side of the building.
AECOM response to item 21: Corrected, see plans
* There is fiber optic cable in an easement running diagonally through the south end of the
property. Is this facility intending to connect to and utilize this cable?
NE response to item 21: At this time the need for fiber optic services are not known.
* A detail or details is/are needed for the retaining walls on the west side of the building.
AECOM response to item 21: Noted, to be addressed in final compliance
* If striping is proposed for the pedestrian crosswalk at the entry drive to the facility, the
question is: Could more substantial enhancement be provided here?
Fox Higgins response to item 21: Please see response to item 1g on page 11
* There is no intent to physical control (gate, etc.) entry into the facility's parking lot, is this
correct?
OZ response to item 21: That is correct.
* Will the amount of building, walls, and patio as shown be allowed within the'loo' wetland
buffer?
AECOM response to item 21. Yes, a review with Environmental Planner Dana Levitt in conjunction
with the natural features buffer line and zone identified in resubmittal allow for the design as
submitted.
* Does the too' wetland buffer actually end in the planting area at the southwest corner of the
building, as shown?
AECOM response to item 21: Yes, the buffer ends at the Howes outfall structure however, at the
request of the environmental planner references to the too' buffer have been removed from plans
and replaced with "Natural Features Buffer Line" to combine the bike trail grading offset, buffer
and river setbacks into a limit of Natural Features Buffer Zone per Environmental PDP redlines.
* The pipes at the south/southwest and north sides of the building should be labeled as to what
they are, presumably storm drains.
AECOM response to item 21: Corrected see plans
Page 12
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Created: 3/23/2010
Number: 71
[3/23/1O] The project shows offsite grading work on what appears to be UP Railroad property. The
offsite work would require a letter of intent from UP prior to scheduling a public hearing per the
PDP submittal requirements. Alternatively, the project could be designed to show no off -site work
which would then negate the letter of intent requirement.
NE response to item 71: A proposed retaining wall has been located along the east property line to
prevent grading on railroad property.
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer work on
property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property owner should be
provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the sidewalk maintenance?
City of Ft. Collins response to item 72: A letter of intent will be obtained from the Mason Street
North, LLC that will also address sidewalk maintenance.
Number: 73 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/101 Please indicate on the construction and site plan drawings the width of the sidewalk along
Mason Court that is to be added.
AECOM response to item 71: This sidewalk will not be added per discussions with parks and
advanced planning. See response to Number 15, item #2.
Number: 74 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Please show the drive approach out to Mason Court being in concrete to the back of
sidewalk (this should also be reserved out on the plat as right-of-way).
NE response to item 74: The proposed driveway was revised to reflect being all concrete to back of
walk. The reservation of public right-of-way along Mason Court if desired by the City will be
addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata.
Number: 75 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1O] The use of a 25' radius for the drive approach onto Mason Court is required to be 15' per
Table 8-2 of LCUASS. The radius should be reduced (as a suggestion, if the driveway intersected
Mason Court closer to go degrees, the turning movement off Mason Court would perhaps be
smoother.)
AECOM response to item 75: A 25' radius is allowable per review of LCUASS with civil engineer.
The added radius is required to facilitate turning for emergency PFA vehicle to north bike trail from
Mason Court.
NE response to item 75: The 25-foot radii were used for a WB-65 (per client' request) truck turning
movement. If a variance for the larger radius is required it will be addressed in final compliance as
discussed with Marc Virata.
Number: 76 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] There may be a desire by the developer's consultant to seek separate entitlements of first
rough grading for the property, and then the remaining utilities, hardscape, building, and final
grading with a second entitlement. This appears to be possible, though an expanded City staff
Page 13
should meet with the consultant team to verify what the requirements will be for a final approval
for grading only.
NE response to item 76: A rough grading permit will no longer be required.
Number:77 Created:3/23/2010
[3/23/101 The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of BNR) was
previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry Street. The dollar
amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the effects of inflation). Please be
aware that this obligation would be carried over on.this project, with the additional Cherry Street
frontage west of that portion also needing to be included. In addition, it appears repays would be
required for the frontage along College Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of
Mason Street North for the frontage on Mason Court.
City of Ft. Collins response to item,77: We will work with Engineering to determine the amounts of
the repays for Cherry Street, both along the triangular property and the property to the West. We
will also work with the developer of Mason Street North for the frontage on Mason Court to
determine the repay amounts there. The property along College Avenue will be removed from the
project Plat, since it has no value to the project, so there will be no repay involved there.
Number: 78 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/1ol As a heads -up, per an earlier email I had sent on 2/3/2010, the following approach shall be
used in lieu of a development agreement for the project:
- A development agreement will not be done for the project.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 78: We will work with Engineering to determine the appropriate
language to place on the Plat that will cover what is normally in the Development Agreement.
- Instead of a DA, needed provisions that would have been in a development agreement will be
placed on the plat.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 78: We will work with Engineering to determine the appropriate
language to place on the Plat that will cover what is normally in the Development Agreement.
- These provisions needing to be placed on the plat are specific to concerns regarding ongoing
maintenance/"running with the land" types of provisions. Items that would pertain to construction
of the development should not be included.
NE response to item 78: The provisions and special conditions language will be added to plat in
final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata.
- There are a few standard conditions in the typical development agreement that will be
included on the plat after consultation with Paul. I'm also understanding that there will be special
condition type language added to the plat pertaining to at least stormwater and natural areas.
Finally repays for public streets fronting the project would likely need to be included on the plat.
NE response to item 78: The provisions and special conditions language will be added to plat in
final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata.
Number: 96 Created: 3/25/2010
13/24/101 Sheri Langenberger calculated an additional $573.25 required forthe TDR fee (see
attached) based upon mainly the finding of a higher building square footage than what was
Page 14
indicated on the TDR fee application. Given that there may be some changes reducing the area
being platted, there could be some savings to offset the additional amount owed.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 96: After this Friday, when we determine the actual boundaries
of the Discovery Museum property, we will work with Engineering to determine the final amount of
the TDR fee.
Number: 97 Created: 3/25/2010
[3/25/10] The following are the items that I believe should be resolved prior to the public hearing for
the project:
* #71/#72 - either a letter of intent from UP Railroad/Mason Street North, LLC or revise the
drawings to no longer show work being done outside of the property.
NE response to items 71 & 72: A proposed retaining wall has been located along the east property
line to prevent grading on railroad property. Ron Kechter will be providing the "Letter of Intent" for
offsite storm sewer connection along Mason Court.
* #79 - the establishment of the platted boundary (as a result of the staff review discussions),
reflected on all the drawings.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 79—This issue will be completely resolved through a meeting of
the parties this Friday, April 2, 2010.
* #82 - further follow-up on the findings of the TIS with direction on whether the need for a
crossing improvement on Cherry Street is needed (and if so, what will it be and how/who will
construct?) or the findings of the TIS are amended or changed to indicate the improvement isn't
required.
Fox Higgins response to item 82: See response to Traffic Operations comment item 3.9. The
current recommendation is to reapply the faded crosswalk marking and to relocate one existing
sign to better identify the crosswalk on the east leg of the Cherry / Mason intersection. It is likely
that these recommendations can be accomplished as part of normal roadway maintenance
operations by City crews.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 81 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/101 It appears that street trees aren't being provided along the Cherry, Mason, and College
fronting the property?
AECOM response to item 81: Corrected, see plans
Topic: Plat
Number: 79 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The platted boundary seems to show areas that may require the signature of one or both
railroad companies on the plat. Confirmation from the appropriate City attorney who will be
certifying the plat should be coordinated as soon as possible to understand what may be needed
from the railroad companies in order to meet the requirements for the City attorney to sign off on
the plat. The indication of a railroad easement to be vacated by this plat appears to be odd if
intending to truly "vacate" as this would imply signature from that railroad company being needed.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 79: BNSF Railway will be added as a signature on the plat, if it is
determined by the research being done by the City Attorney's Office that it is necessary
Page 15
Number: 8o Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The plat should be showing the establishment of a right-of-way area/alignment that
would correspond to the back of sidewalk for Mason Court. (Upon property transfer such that the
City no longer owns the area within the platted boundary, this section would be reserved to
become public right-of-way).
NE response to item 8o: The reservation of public right-of-way along Mason Court if desired by the
City will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Marc Virata.
Number: 83 Created: 3/24/203.0
[3/24/io] Technical Services has raised the question as to whether the original Mason Street north
of Cherry has ever been vacated. If this is truly right-of-way, given the conveyance of the property
to the Discovery Museum, we should probably check with the City Attorney's Office on whether this
portion potentially being right-of-way and then conveyed to the Discovery Museum is problematic
or.not. Should that be viewed as problematic, a vacation process of Mason Street should perhaps
proceed as soon as possible.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 83: It is my understanding that Gary with North Engineering,
Don with Land Title and Wally with Technical Services have determined a resolution for this
vacation of the Mason Street Right -of -Way.
Topic: TIS
Number: 82 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Should through the conclusion of the analysis of the TIS result in some sort of pedestrian
crossing improvement on Cherry Street, the design and specifications of such an improvement will
need to be shown on the construction and site plan drawings.
Fox Higgins response to item 82: It is anticipated that the recommended crosswalk marking
reapplication will be accomplished by City crews to City standards. We also anticipate that the
recommended sign relocation will be accomplished by City crews. If necessary, a note detailing
these recommendations can be added to the appropriate plan sheet for this project.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz
Topic: Light & Power
Number: 37 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/2o] Due to asbestos contamination in the area additional construction costs will apply.
OZ response to item 37: This item does not appear to require a response but the warning has been
noted.
Number: 38 Created: 3/23/2010
Remove landscaping around existing electric equipment and proposed new transformer. Maintain
a clearance of 8' from operating doors and 3' from sides of equipment. See provided sketch for
removal areas.
AECOM response to item 38: Corrected, see plans
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 89 Created: 3/24/203.0
EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS: Instead of an Emergency Access Easement, please label it an
Emergency Access Alignment. All other parameters/requirements for the Emergency Access
Easement provided at conceptual review still apply.
Page 16
NE response to item 89: The labeling was changed from'easement" to "alignment".
Number: go Created: 3/24/2010
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AREA: Thank you for the area on the west side of the building where we
can operate fire apparatus. To improve this, here are my suggestions:
- "Strengthen" the language on the site plan and write something like "22x6o Clearance for PFA
Apparatus Access Area" (without the quotes).
AECOM response to item go: Strengthened, see plans and section
- I suggest we also make this part of the Emergency Access Alignment, to prevent museum
folks from erecting outdoor displays and blocking our apparatus access.
NE response to item go: The drawings have been revised to show the proposed 22-ft x 6o-ft PFA
Apparatus Access Area within the Emergency Access Alignment.
- This area needs to be clear to the sky (no overhead obstructions).
OZ Response to item go: Noted
- Let's get together to confirm sign language and placement for this area.
OZ Response to item go: Noted
Number: 91 Created: 3/24/2010
FACP: Your note should say that the fire alarm control panel will be located in the fire riser room,
not fire entry room. The NE door that provides access to the FRR shall be labeled on the exterior of
the building, "Fire Riser Room" (no quotes). Please get with me for specific size and color of sign.
OZ response to item gi: The Design Team will make sure that we will label the room Fire Riser
Room as noted in the comment above and will review the text and sign size and color with the
Poudre Fire Department.
Number: 92 Created: 3/24/2010
FACP MAIN ENTRY: Per previous discussions, we will require a full -function FACP located near the
main entrance to the building.
OZ response to item 92: The FACP is located in the northeast corner of the building. Remote
access will be available at the entry.
Number: 93 Created: 3/24/2010
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Your note regarding the FDC location is confusing. You were
responding as if you were commenting on fire hydrants. There is only ONE FDC. Please label the
FDC and the fire line coming into the building.
OZ response to item 93: This will be labled in the architectural floor plans
Number: 94 Created: 3/24/2010
EXISTING HYDRANT: Please show and label the existing fire hydrant on Mason Court.
OZ response to item 94: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Number: 95 Created: 3/24/2010
RADIO AMP SYSTEM: I'm concerned about the SF of the building (-47,288 SF) in relation to our
requirement for public -safety radio amplification (50,000 SF). I don't want this to be brought up in
Page 17
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 72 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/10] The resubmitted drawings brings back the placement of a sidewalk within Mason
Street North LLC property and would as a result require an access easement from MSN,
LLC in addition to the utility tie-in on their property previously noted.
Ron Kechter Response: Review of this by Real Estate Services and the Attorney's Office
deemed that no Temporary Construction Easement was necessary for the sidewalk or the
storm sewer connection. We will provide notification to Mason Street North LLC of the
upcoming work.
[4/8/10] The revised drawings negate the need for a letter of intent from Mason Street
North, LLC for the purposes of sidewalk installation, however a letter of intent is still needed
for the storm line tie-in.
[3/23/10] The project appears to show some offsite sidewalk and potentially storm sewer
work on property owned by Mason Street North, LLC. A letter of intent from that property
owner should be provided prior to hearing. Will that property owner be agreeing to the
sidewalk maintenance?
Number: 77 Created: 3/23/2010
[5/21/10] The final repayment amount has been determined by Dean Klingner in
Engineering to be $2,375.40 (plus inflation) as was required with Cherry Street Station. The
additional frontage being platted that is west of what was the Cherry Street Station project is
not subject to an additional repayment amount and the removal of College Avenue frontage
eliminates a College Avenue repayment obligation.
Ron Kechter Response: This repayment will be consummated, once Dean determines the
exact amount, including inflation.
[4/7/10] Carried over for reference upon verification of the final agreed to property boundary
for the project.
[3/23/10] The triangular portion of property on the southeast corner of the site (south of
BNR) was previously under an obligation to repay the City for the construction of Cherry
Street. The dollar amount was for $2,375.40 (plus a percentage added to recognize the
effects of inflation). Please be aware that this obligation would be carried over on this
project, with the additional Cherry Street frontage west of that portion also needing to be
included. In addition, it appears repays would be required for the frontage along College
Avenue, and a repay may be required from the developer of Mason Street North for the
frontage on Mason Court.
Number:.121 Created: 5/21/2010
[5/21/10] With the reduced plat boundary a couple questions come to mind:
1) Should the Discovery Museum be pursuing easements/alignments from City Parks for
the offsite construction taking place on Parks property (concrete trail, landscape wall,
portions of a parking lot, drive approach to Mason Court, etc.)
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through signature of the Utility Drawings and the Plat by Parks.
Page 3
the future and you be required to install an amplification system at that time, when it would cost
less to do it now. Please contact Ron Gonzales at PFA, gig. 5316.
OZ Response to item 95: The Design Team has contacted Ron Gonzales and started the
coordination effort in order to test the building at the appropriate stage of construction to verify if
an amplification system° s required.
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: ig Created 3/19/2010
[3/ig/1o] The TIS states "another pedestrian improvement that should be considered as part of the
Museum project development is the installation of additional crossing improvements across Cherry
Street in the eastern crosswalk of the Cherry/Mason street intersection." Please provide discussion
and analysis of the impacts and mitigations that may be involved to provide the additional
improvements this project should fund. That review should include as a minimum the impacts to
westbound traffic flow, The need for a west bound left turn lane at Mason upon conversion to 2-
way traffic, would changes to the median drive further changes due to the existing RR gate
structure and possible setback requirements, and ped volume analysis of the future ped volume the
project will generate that warrants the project funding these additional improvements.
Fox Higgins response to item 1g: This comment relates to a recommendation in the Draft Traffic
Impact Study that suggested consideration of crosswalk enhancements across Cherry Street in the
eastern crosswalk of the Mason / Cherry intersection. This recommendation was made, in part
based on prior communications with and comments by staff where crossing enhancements of
Cherry Street were discussed. Since the staff comments were provided we have had additional
communication with Ward Stanford, and understand that staff has concerns regarding the traffic
operational impacts along Cherry Street of a raised median or an enhanced treatment such as a
HAWK signal, particularly given the proximity to the railroad crossing and the future conversion of
Mason Street to two-way traffic. Since then we have estimated that there will be only 8 to 10
pedestrians per hour using this crosswalk during the peak museum access times. A relatively low
volume such as this would not typically warrant the installation of a pedestrian signal or a raised
median refuge, particularly when the Pedestrian Level of Service in the area is LOS A.
On this basis we have revised our recommendation for this crosswalk to include restriping of the
faded crosswalk pavement markings and relocation of the eastbound pedestrian crossing location
sign to the east side of the intersection (currently on the west side of the intersection where there is
no marked crosswalk across Cherry St.). With these improvements in place, we recommend that
the City monitor pedestrian crossings and safety issues in this area to determine if more aggressive
pedestrian crossing treatments are warranted in the future.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 66 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/101 Suggest contacting Daz Bog to discuss parking.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 66: The project team is working on possible_ solution for parking
for Daz Bog that will be presented to the owner. However, it must be understood that the parking
that Daz Bog customers are currently using on City property has been done without any agreement
between the City and Daz Bog.
Page 18
Number: 67 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 The TIS and project plans are not consistent. Please reconcile so project plans and TIS are
consistent. Pedestrian crossing improvements may not be required based on the Pedestrian Level
of Service criteria; however improving the crossing Level of Service would be advantageous given
the use and proximity to the Transit Center. An enhanced crosswalk similar to Maple and Mason
would improve the Level of Service without interfering with a future left turn lane from Cherry onto
Mason.
Fox Higgins response to item 67: See response to Traffic Operations comment item ig.
Number: 68
Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/lol ADA ramps are not shown on plans. Please show ADA ramps.
NE and AECOM response to item 68: The proposed handicap ramps are shown on drawings.
Number: 69 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Suggest contacting DK Kemp the bicycle coordinator at dakemP@fcgov.com regarding
input on bicycle rack style and quantity of bicycle parking facilities. There is an opportunity to
develop a design that is unique to the Discover Science Center. Bicycle rack needs to be closer to
entrance. Current location is further away than vehicle parking. With current location cyclist will
park in areas not intended for bike parking. Any changes that address Clark Mapes comments on
building entrance orientation may affect the location of the bicycle rack.
AECOM response to item 69: DK was contacted and provided city standard racks as well as contact
information for local design builder should a custom rack be pursued in the future. The standard
"high roller" rack is now shown on the plans. Additionally, bike parking capacity was increased to
30.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 44 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1ol The landscape plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or scan well.
OZ response to item 44: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Number: 45 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1ol The landscape plans have line over text issues.
AECOM response to item 45: Corrected, see plans
Number: 46 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/1ol There is text that is "cut off' on the tree tables on landscape plan LS1.1.
AECOM response to item 46: Corrected, see plans
Topic: Plat
Number: 40 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/1ol The boundary & legal close.
NE response to item 40: Noted.
Number: 41 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1ol The emergency access easement on the plat, needs to be defined.
NE response to item 41: The Emergency Access Alignment will be defined in final compliance
Page 19
Number: 47 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 BNSF Railway will need to sign the plat for the easement vacation, or be vacated by
separate document.
City of Ft. Collins response to item 47: BNSF Railway will be added as a signature on the plat, if it is
determined by the research being done by the City Attorney's Office that it is necessary.
Number: 48 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/3.01 What is the Union Pacific RR ROW area across our property? It is not defined.
NE response to item 48: Property line along Union Pacific (UP) Railroad has been revised to exclude
UP right-of-way.
Number: 49 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] Has Mason Street been vacated?
City of Ft. Collins response to item 49: Please see Item #83 above.
NE response to item 49: A note has been added to plat regarding the vacation of Mason Street as
discussed with Wally Muscott.
Number: So Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] The subtitle of the plat needs to be revised.(See plat)
NE response to item 5o: The subtitle of the plat has been revised.
Number: 51 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/2340] Please define the type of the 2o' easement alignment on the north side of the property.
NE response to item 51: The 20-foot utility alignment will be defined in final compliance.
Number: 52 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] Does the City have title to the triangular parcel between the BNSF, UPRR & Cherry
Street?
City of Ft. Collins response to item 52: Yes, the City does have title to the triangular piece of
property to the South.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 42 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] The site plans have line over text issues.
AECOM response to item 42: Corrected, see plans
Number: 43 Created: 3/23/203.0
[3/23/1o] The site plans have linework that is too light, and will not copy or scan well.
OZ response to item 43: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: F/oodp/ain
Number: 99 Created: 3/26/203.0
[3/26/1o] Please showfloodplain lines more prominently on the Site Plan sheet SDI-3
AECOM response to item 99: Addressed in printing
Page 20
Number: ioo Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/io] Please add the note redlined on the Landscape plan sheet LSi.3
AECOM response to item zoo: Added, see plan LS1.3
Number: zo1 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/zo] Please verify RR elevation vs. College Ave elevation. Use higher of low points. Please see
conceptual comment #2.
NE response to item zoi: The top of the existing railroad along the north side will be surveyed in
final compliance to verify existing elevations (the city's two foot aerial topo shows the existing
railroad elevation along the north side to be 4964-feet). Based on our current topographic
information the top of the existing railroad along the south side is 4969-feet. Also as we have
previously mentioned and shown on our.drawings the highest elevation along the lowest part of
College Avenue is 4964.6-feet and since the lowest proposed building finish floor elevation is 4973-
feet we are confident that in case of floodwater backing up the floodwaters will overtop College
Avenue before flooding the proposed building. Any additional revisions to drainage report in
regards to the above information will be addressed in final compliance as discussed with Glen
Schlueter and Marsha Hilmes Robinson.
Number: sot Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/io] Please revise number and dates forthe FEMA map references on the plat and in the text
of the drainage report.
NE response to item sot: FEMA map references have been updated on the plat.
Number:103 Created: 3/26/203.0
[3/26/zo] Please see Floodplain Review checklist for items not found on plans or drainage report.
NE response to item 103: Items on Floodplain Review Checklist will be addressed in final
compliance as discussed with Marsha Hilmes Robinson.
Number:104 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/3.o] A no -rise floodplain certification is required for the wetland concept plan since it is in the
floodway.
AECOM response to item 104: The concept plan referred to was not pursued or submitted with the
PDP for review
Number: zo5 Created: 3/26/2010
[3/26/zo] It is suggested in the Wetland Concept Plan to move the foot bridge out of the floodway if
possible so you do not have to deal with a breakaway design and a no -rise certification.
AECOM response to item so5: The concept plan referred to was not pursued or submitted with the
PDP for review. No footbridges are designed for this submittal.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 65 Created: 3/23/2010
(3/23/101 Show water/sewer lines more predominantly on the landscape plan and add a note
regarding the separation distance requirements of plantings from water/sewer lines (Trees zo feet,
Shrubs 4 feet).
AECOM response to item 65: Lineweight addressed in printing and notes added, see plan LS1.3
Page 21
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 53 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] The flows for the southern half of the site do not have volume water quality treatment per
initial discussions with Stormwater staff. A low flow pipe was discussed to carry the flows to the
water quality pond on the north side of the building.
NE response to item 53: The proposed bio-swales shown along the south side of site will be
designed according to USDCM Volume 3 criteria for a PLD. Preliminary calculations have been
completed which show a 12-hour required volume of 0.04 ac-ft which has been met with the
preliminary grading plan as discussed with Basil Harridan, Glen Schlueter, and Wes Lamarque.
Number: 54 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Riprap rundowns are no longer allowed as shown from the north drive loop into the water
quality pond. This can be a concrete chute, or an inlet with a pipe extending to the toe of slope.
NE response to item S4: The proposed riprap rundown has been replaced with a drainage inlet and
storm pipe.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 55 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/201 It's my understanding that portions of the 12-inch water main have NOT been located.
Has the main been located at the tie-in points?
NE response to item 55: The existing 12-inch water line has been field located in a couple of places
by the City. Notes will be added to drawings at connection points where exact location is not
known.
Number: 56 Created: 3/23/2010
13/23/101 The Utility does not have 2.5-inch water meters. Either 2-inch or 3-inch meters are
available. The water service from the. main through the meter pit must be the same size as the
meter. At a point 5 feet downstream of the meter, the service size may be increased to minimize
hydraulic losses.
NE response to item 56: The drawings have been revised to reflect a 2-inch water meter.
Number: 57 Created: 3/23/2010
(3/23/101 Move the location of the meter pit as noted on the plans.
NE response to item 57: The water meter location has been revised.
Number: 58 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/101 Show and label the curb stop which must be within 2 feet of the meter pit.
NE response to item 58: The proposed curb stop has been labeled.
Number: 59 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Include the storm sewer shown in the north part of the site on the overall utility plan.
NE response to item 59: The proposed storm sewer north of the site has been added to utility plan
sheet
Page 22
Number: 6o Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/201 Is there a conflict at either of the points where the storm sewers cross the existing water
main?
NE response to item 6o: The proposed storm sewer crossing on the north side has been eliminated
and any potential vertical conflicts for proposed storm sewer on the south side will be addressed in
final compliance.
Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] Is separate irrigation tap planned?
NE response to item 61: Yes a separate irrigation tap is being proposed.
Number: 62 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] Label the invert elevation of the sewer service connection to the manhole.
NE response to item 62: The proposed invert elevation has been added to drawings.
Number: 63 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/1o] Re-route the gas line to eliminate the low angle crossings of the existing sanitary sewer.
NE response to item 63: The proposed gas line has been realigned at the existing sanitary sewer
crossings.
Number: 64 Created: 3/23/2010
[3/23/10] See redlined utility plans for other comments.
NE response to item 64: Noted.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: ZONING
Number: 2 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] Sheet SD1.3 - A 7' building envelope in referenced. Would like to see it noted on the plan
all around the building - A dashed line would be fine to differentiate that from the building
envelope.
AECOM response to item 1: Addressed in printing
Number: 2 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] Please remove topo lines from final site plan
AECOM response to item 2: Noted, will remove topo from final compliance drawings on site plan.
Number: 3 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] What are the dimensions of the bus/RV parking space along the east side.
AECOM response to item 3: Added, dimensions, see plans
Number: 4 Created: 3/10/2020
13/10/101 On the site plan please darken up the lines denoting the parking stalls.... Very faint.
OZ response to item 4: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Page 23
Number: 5 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] I don't see any handicapped parking spaces being called out. Please show their location
and note their dimensions. NOTE - HC spaces need an HC sign at the head of the space between 3
and 5'tall.
OZ response to item 5: This is a printing issue and will be resolved for the re -submittal.
Number: 6 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/1o] Please note on the site plan where Type A and Type B fences will be located. Plans only
state "Proposed Fence" but not what type.
AECOM response to item 6: Noted in legend
Number: 7 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/1o] Note the building dimensions and setbacks to property line on the site plan.
AECOM response to item 7: These are dimensioned from the southwest quadrant of the building to
the west and south property lines on sheet SD1.3
Number: 8
Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] Just a suggestion: Strategically place some more benches along the walking paths. I only
see a couple of them called- out near the entrance of the building.
AECOM response to item 8: Noted and addressed in conjunction with comment #39 page 1. A
stronger pedestrian presence at the west entry is reinforced with additional seating.
Number: g Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] Trash dumpster and recycle bins need to be within an enclosure, constructed to match the
main building.
OZ response to item g: An enclosure for the trash and recycle bins has been provided and will be
constructed to match the main building.
Number: to Created: 3/i0/2010
[3/10/1o] Parking lot/drive aisles can't be gravel. Need to be of an approved hard surface. .
AECOM response to item 1o: Addressed during review meeting as acceptable per PFA for north
turnaround outside of parking area.
Number: 11 Created: 3/10/2020
[3/10/1o] Page LS1.3 Please add a note to the General Planting Notes regarding installation of
landscaping prior to issuance of a CO. 3.2.10)(4)
AECOM response to item 11: Noted in General Planting Notes LS1.3
Number:12 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/1o/1o] Please label the streets on the landscape plan as you did on the Site Plan
AECOM response to item 12: Noted
Number:13 Created: 3/10/203.0
[3/1o/1o] I'm questioning the large number of ornamental grasses that are being called out.
Although the initial year they will look great, a year or two into their growth, I feel that it will just
look overgrown and proper maintenance/thinning etc won't take place.
AECOM response to item 13: Noted. Ornamental grasses are being utilized where utility
easements do not allow for deciduous shrub planting.
Page 24
Number:14 Created: 3/10/2010
[3/10/10) Elevations: Elevations need to comply with section 3.53 of the Land Use Code. In my
opinion this does not blend with the architecture of the area... no stone, no brick, very few
windows. It resembles an industrial type use building.
OZ response to item 14Please reference the response to items 23 and 24 and the beginning of the
document.
Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please
feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341.Of particular note is General Comment #85, page 2 regarding
the ultimate property line and the Planning & Zoning Board hearing on April �5tn
Yours Truly, .
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Ron Kechter, Operations Services
Marc Virata
Craig Foreman
AECOM
Northern Engineering
CDNS file #6-io
Page 25
2) Is there or will there be agreements established regarding sidewalk maintenance that
falls on Park property but is in front of this project?
Ron Kechter Response: The sidewalks and trails on Parks property will be maintained by
Parks.
3) Similar to #1, does Park need to give permission for the construction of parking stalls
off of Mason Court onto Park property, which is currently being looked at?
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be part of this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a separate DCP
will be used for this construction.
Number: 122 Created: 5/21 /2010
[5/21/10] Wasn't the previous iteration removing any off -site work on UP railroad property
by the construction of a retaining wall along the eastern portion of the property? The current
submittal seems to show that a fence is instead being installed with some grading taking
place off of the platted property within presumably UP property, which would seem to again
require an off -site easement.
Ron Kechter Response: We are working with UPRR to obtain a Temporary Construction
Easement for this work.
NE Response: The UP Railroad signature line will be removed from plat as City will seek
approval with UP Railroad by separate agreement.
Number: 168 Created: 5/26/2010
[5/26/101 Further follow-up on the inset parking being looked at on Mason Court has the
following outcome:
- The City will allow the installation of inset parking as shown in concept on the drawing
submitted by Northern Engineering.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
- Traffic Engineering requires a 30' separation from the first stall to Cherry Street, which
is being provided in the drawing.
NE Response: Noted.
- Engineering requires that the inset parking be done in concrete, which Ron indicated
support in doing so, the plans should be revised to reflect this.
NE Response: Noted.
- Two-hour vs. non -regulated parking:
In checking with Randy Hensley, Manager of Parking Services this area could be two-hour
parking that Parking Services would then enforce. It should first be verified (by the Museum)
with surrounding uses (such as Dazbog) whether two-hour parking is desired. Their
desire/needs will dictate how the parking should be enforced. The costs for making this area
two-hour will be that of the Museum.
NE Response: Noted:
Page 4
Number: 169 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] The following agreements should be provided prior to approval of mylars (drafts of
these easements/agreements should be provided as soon as possible for review, which may
need review by Paul Eckman):
- The apparent existing access easement on Mason Street North LLC property.
Ron Kechter Response: The existing access easement for the storm sewer will be provided.
- The construction easement that will be needed from Mason Street North LLC property
to construct the sidewalk and storm connections within their property.
Ron Kechter Response: Review of this by Real Estate Services and the Attorney's Office
deemed that no Temporary Construction Easement was necessary for the sidewalk or the
storm sewer Connection. We will provide notification to Mason Street North LLC of the
upcoming work.
The agreement with Parks to construct the inset parking proposed off Mason Court.
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
- The agreement with Parks to construct and establish the legal right of the driveway that
goes out to Mason Court.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
- The agreement with Parks that allows the construction of the sidewalk, storm
connection, parking stalls, connecting walkway, landscape wall, and concrete
trail/emergency access.
Ron Kechter Response: Per discussions with Engineering and Parks, this will be
accomplished through Parks signature on the Utility Drawings and the Plat.
- The establishment of an emergency access alignment for the concrete trail/emergency
access (can be delayed until C.O.).
Ron Kechter Response: This will be done.
- The agreement from Union Pacific Railroad for the offsite construction on their
property.
Ron Kechter Response: We are working with UPRR to obtain a Temporary Construction
Easement for this work.
Number: 170 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] With the construction plans showing an approval block by North Weld, please
ensure that they sign off on mylars prior to routing to the City.
NE Response: Noted.
Number: 171 Created: 5/28/2010
[5/28/10] Please ensure construction details are provided for the inset parking off of Mason
Court (concrete joint detail, thickness of concrete section, etc.)
Ron Kechter Response: The proposed offsite parking along the east side of Mason Court
will not be completed with this set of drawings. Per discussions with Engineering, a
separate DCP will be used for this construction.
Page 5