Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOFC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-06-02city of Fort C.411ins July 07, 2014 (Latest responses 1212412014) Brian Hergott City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: City of Fort Collins Utilities Customer Services Building, PDP140005, Round Number 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970,224.6134 - fax kgov, corn/developmentreview Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224.6189, siorson@fcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The gray brick conveys a cold feeling. Please try some different, more traditional, brick colors such as those used on the other civic buildings in the area. Perhaps blond and/or brown brick or more natural sandstone. Please provide a sample material board. What is the brick color of the Butterfly Building, perhaps the paint could be stripped and the color copied in the proposed building. • RNL RESPONSE. The color palette of the UAB includes more traditional red brick, including reused brick from the historic creamery building, as well as blond brick. Sandstone veneer panels are also included around the base of the building. A material board with specific product information has currently not been supplied as material selection is contingent upon project pricing currently under way. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The Civic Center Plan calls for use of Colorado Sandstone. The base floor of the building should use more local sandstone. Generally, the building should covey a sense of permanence and importance (Sec. 4.16(F)). Perhaps the columns (light gray brick) could be more pronounced. • RNL RESPONSE: As noted above, a sandstone veneer panel base has been incorporated into the building design. Comment Number: 7 05/28/2014: Please provide elevations of the "mechanical unit enclosure". Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 Page 1 of 15 Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Noted, thank you. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970.224-6189, slorson0fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2014 05/14/2014: One comment on the prlimin. plat for the Utilities Customer Svc Bldg., is to correct the section number in the subtitle of the plat. The section is labeled as Section 15 but is really in Section 11. It looks like the other references on the plat are correct as sec 11. Thank you, Megan Harrity Subs/Larimer County Assessor 970-498-7065 mharrity@larimer.org • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Section labeling has been corrected to reference section 11. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2014 05/15/2014: Xcel Energy Two gas services currently on property will need to be cut off prior to demolition.14" WC mas gas pressure in this location. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. It was confirmed with XCEL that three of the four existing services were cut off prior to demolition. A note has been added to Demolition Plan that states the existing gas service for the existing butterfly building shall be cut off prior to relocation Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416-2869, llynxvriler@poudre•fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/2712014: ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CODE COMPLIANCE As the building will have an automatic fire sprinkler system, general fire access to the UCS building's exterior is acceptable under the proposed development plan. However, due to site constraints as well as building height, fire code requirements relative to aerial fire apparatus access cannot be met either in the short-term or long-term plans for the site. It is recognized the site will not allow the placement of a 30' wide EAE spaced 15' from the building and adjacent to the longest side of the building. The current plan therefore creates a condition with firefighter access obstacles similar to those of high rise buildings. The intent of the fire code shall be preserved and as such, offsetting measures must be added so as to mitigate the current'out of access' condition. Further building design considerations are required to offset the lack of aerial fire apparatus access. These offsetting measures will ultimately require the approval of the fire marshal. Page 10 of 15 • RNL RESPONSE. Arch to coordinate with PFA to incorporate enhanced fire protection/access. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, Wamargue0fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: 1. Please address the red -lined comments on the Site Plan, the Plat, the Utility Plans, and the Drainage Report. 2. Floodplain modeling proving this project will not cause a rise in the floodway or change to the floodplain boundaries will be needed prior to plan approval. They should be included in the No -Rise Certification and Floodplain Use Permit and I would like to see them prior to mylars being signed. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Drawings were revised accordingly per city redlines and comments. All required floodplain modeling, No -Rise Certification, and Floodplain Use Permit will be provided as requested prior to mylar submittal. As discussed with Mark Taylor the COFC will allow a 0.049-ft rise. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please add text in the drainage report comparing the existing impervious area and flows with what is proposed. Please add any calculations to support numbers. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Drainage Report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please tie-in the south underdrain with the inlet bank along the north side of Laporte Ave. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Site design has been revised and therefore this comment no longer applies. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please show in the drainage report how the water quality mitigation and LID mitigation requirements are being met. Please separate the calculations to show each treatment method and how much site area each method is mitigating. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Drainage Report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: Please provide a drainage easement for all drainage features, including the bio- swale. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Proposed drainage easements/alignments are shown on plat, Horizontal Control Plan, and Utility Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 05/30/2014: The City would like the landscaping to be enhanced in the north water quality pond. LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The landscape plan has been revised to reflect Page 11 of 15 the relocation of the butterfly building, and the new building layout of the Utilities Administration Building. Landscaping with plant material that is appropriate for a water quality pond will be provided. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, icounty(a).fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 05/27/2014: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD 1988 vertical datum. Please state the project datum on sheets C000 & C001, and provide an equation to get from NAVD88 to NGVD29 unadjusted, i.e. NAVD88 = NGVD29 Unadjusted + _. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Two benchmarks and an equation between the NAVD88 and NGVD29 Unadjusted were added to Cover Sheet Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues on sheets C100 & C400. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Drawings were revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas on sheet C100. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Drawings were revised accordingly. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please correct the spelling of "Lighting" in the title. • RNL RESPONSE. Typo has been corrected, see Lighting Plan Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please make changes as marked. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: City redlines were addressed and Plat Page 12 of 15 was revised accordingly. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please add "COFC Utilities Customer Services Building" in front of the legal description shown on sheet SD1.1. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The annotation has been added to sheet SD1.1. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/2712014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Text masking has been incorporated to fix text legibility issues. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet LS1.2. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The noted text has been rotated 180 degrees. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970.221.6887, mwilkinson(cDfcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Sheet C200. The back -in angle parking needs to be removed as it is not allowed by City code. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Sheet C200. There are some changes shown on the adjacent street (Howes and LaPorte) in terms of parking without a clear understanding of how this impacts the street width, striping etc. Please provide a signing and striping plan that details how the width of the street will be used. For instance, there may not be enough street width to allow any kind of diagonal parking (head -in) on Howes. Will lanes need to be narrowed on LaPorte to accommodate the new parking? • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. An intersection detail showing current pavement striping has been provided. Since the back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated the proposed bump out has been reduced and does not impact the existing striping along Howes Street and LaPorte Avenue Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Short term parking signs may be needed along the LaPorte parking. This can be added at final. Page 13 of 15 • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Noted, thank you. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 07/02/2014: Traffic study has been received, reviewed, and the traffic operations elements of the study are accepted. The parking information has been forwarded to the planning staff for their use. 05/27/2014: No traffic impact study has been received. The study was requested and scoped, and traffic operations agreed to accommodate a shortened review time so the project could move forward with submittal, but no study has been submitted during the review timeframe. Traffic cannot recommend the project moving forward to hearing until this is received and reviewed. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffingtonA ftgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: A 3" water service seems large for this office building use. Provide water service sizing calculations for review. If a 3" is needed, provide the projected peak day water usage in gallons/day and projected annual water usage in gallons/year for use in calculating development fees and raw water requirements. • RNL RESPONSE. The proposed water service for the Utility Administration Building has been reduced to a 2 % -inch and MKK Consulting Engineers will provide calculations as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: How will water and wastewater service be provided to the Butterfly Building? • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. An existing % - inch water service on LaPorte Avenue will be used to service the relocated Butterfly Building. A new sanitary sewer service will be provided and connect to the existing sanitary sewer main in alley to the east. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Show all existing water and sewer lines extending to the site on the plans. (There are 5 or 6 water lines.) The lines which will not be used must be abandoned at the main. Include a note to coordinate abandonment with Water Utilities (416-2165). • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Existing water services to be abandoned are shown on Demolition Plan sheet C100. Existing water services to remain and used for irrigation and/or service to Butterfly Building are shown on Utility Plan sheet C300. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: See redlined utility plans for other comments. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. All city redlines were addressed and drawings were revised accordingly. Department: Zoning Contact: PeterBarnes, 970416-2355, pbarnes6fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 Page 14 of 15 • 05/16/2014: Show the building footprint dimensions. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Building footprint dimensions have been added to the site plan sheet SD 1.3. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: Is the 'mechanical unit enclosure' a building? Show the dimensions of the enclosure and distance to property line. If it's a building, include elevation drawings. If it's an enclosure, include a detail (elevation drawings, materials, height, etc). • R NL RESPONSE: See the elevation sheets for the mechanical unit enclosure. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: Reverse angle parking spaces are shown on Howes. I believe more discussion needs to occur regarding the appropriateness of these since they will be short-term customer parking. Using them isn't intuitive, and maybe more appropriate for long-term employee parking areas rather than short-term, where drivers will likely be blocking the travel lane of the street while they attempt to back into the space. Also, probably not desirable to have some designated as handicap spaces. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/16/2014: The plan shows 9 bike'racks'. Is each rack a multi -bike rack, or an individual bike rack? • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The selected bike racks are individual bike racks, 9 bicycle parking spaces are required for the 36,689 sq. ft. building. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 05/1612014: Need to add a notes table to plan indicating building use, building square footage (total and per floor), number of stories, overall height, number of bike parking spaces, etc. With regard to bike parking, at least 1 bike per 4000 sf. of floor area is required, with 20% enclosed. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: 9 bicycle parking spaces are required for the 36,689 sq. ft. building and have been provided at the north and south building entrances. Per COFC Utilities end user DD comments, all bike parking will be accommodated outside the building with the option to cover a portion of the bike racks. No formal bike storage is currently supplied within the building due to significant space constraints. Will covering 20% of the 9 parking spaces meet the requirement for enclosure? Page 15 of 15 tins January 21, 2015 Design Team Responses: April 29, 2015 (Final Plan) Brian Hergott City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Community Development and Neighborhood services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. corn/developmentreview RE: City of Fort Collins Utilities Customer Services Building, PDP140005, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Seth Lorson, at 970-224-6189 or slorson@fcgov.com. Department: Planning Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 05/27/2014 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015: The materials and colors need to be determined prior to public hearing. Please provide material details. It will be nice to see the difference between the sandstone (required material) and the cast stone (used on sills, lintels, and cornice). 05/27/2014: The gray brick conveys a cold feeling. Please try some different, more traditional, brick colors such as those used on the other civic buildings in the area. Perhaps blond and/or brown brick or more natural sandstone. Please provide a sample material board. What is the brick color of the Butterfly Building, perhaps the paint could be stripped and the color copied in the proposed building. • RNL RESPONSE: Material Board was provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Page 1 of 20 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01/12/2015: The rendering from June 5 shows a much more pronounced three dimensional cornice in the sense that this comment is addressing. We discussed the use of metal for the cornice which would be fine if it tied into other metal elements on the building. 05/28/2014: The cornices at the roof and the base level needs more architectural detail. Three-dimensional cornices. • RNL RESPONSE. Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 01/12/2015: This comment addresses some of the conversation from the Oct. 10 meeting. 07/07/2014: The new building design does a much better job of conveying the sense of permanence of a civic building. The Code requires use of local sandstone, please provide more details as to how it is being incorporated. The long horizontal entry/cornice element could use some greater detail, perhaps something above each column. The entry doors need to be better distinguished. What will the building look like with the City's typical logo on the facade? • RNL RESPONSE. Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on Hearing Approval.. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015 01/12/2015: The building appears to be the same as the last time we saw it. Many comments and recommendations were made at a meeting on Oct. 10 where we reviewed plans dated Sept. 25. Some of the comments were about the building design and provided a more pronounced entry feature that could tie in with the Butterfly Building. • RNL RESPONSE: Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on Hearing Approval. Page 2 of 20 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Landmark Preservation Commission weighed in on the building and site design at the Jan. 14 meeting. The following are my notes: - Replace the Dairy Gold sign or another sign with the same style. - Mark the existing footprint of the butterfly building with paving/landscaping. - Check the interior of the butterfly building for historic significance. - Utilize architects from the LPC to help with the design of the UAB building so it reflects on the butterfly building and the Op Services building: Per and Belinda volunteered. - Consider easier access to the butterfly building. - Landscaping should not hide the butterfly building. (Removal of landscaping and street trees does not comply with the Land Use Code but sensitivity in its design should be considered.) • RNL RESPONSE: Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval, Topic: Landscape Plans Comment.Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015 01/12/2015: The existing trees and mitigation plan should be on a separate page. Please provide a tree mitigation plan. See submittal requirements: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/pdp_submittal_req_l 1.18.14. pdf • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Please see added sheet SDI. 4. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015 01/12/2015: Please provide cut sheets for the proposed light fixtures. And, the photometric measurements need to measure at least 20 feet beyond the property line. The LUC standard (3.2.4(D)(8)) requires that light levels measured 20 feet beyond the property line not exceed 0.1 foot candles. Also, the light loss factor for measurement should be set at 1. • RNL RESPONSE: Cut sheets and revised photometric measurements where provided as part of the Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015 01/12/2015: The cover sheet should comply with the requirements outlined in the submittal requirements: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/pdp_submittal_req_l 1.18.14. pdf Including, parking counts (or an indication of what the requirements are and how they are being met), building height, signature blocks, building square footage, correct Floor Area Ratio etc... • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Sheet SD 1.1 has been revised to show parking counts and submittal requirements Page 3 of 20 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2015 01/12/2015: The trees to be removed do not need to be on the site plan. Removing them will clean it up a bit. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The existing trees to be removed have been deleted from the Site Plan Sheets. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slanaenberaeran_fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: Adequate information is not provided on the site plan to determine the proposed total square footage of the building. Once this information is provided I can determine if the TDRFees paid are correct. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The site design has been revised to mark the original Butterfly Building footprint in a contrasting paving color. Stairs have been added adjacent to the new Butterfly Building location for better access. Tree locations have been adjusted within the utility separations and land use code requirements to provide visibility of the Butterfly Building. Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, ts' gmund cgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/16/2015: Please pro ' e documentation from utility owners waiving the need for utility easements around the property. ADDRESS PRIOR TO HEARING 05/28/2014: Standard utility easements/alignments will be needed around the property. Current street standards specify 15ft utility alignments along Howes St and Laporte Ave, and 8ft utility alignments along the alleys. See redlines NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Submitted previously under separate cover to Siegmund. Comment Number: 4 0 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Engineering never received a copy of the Traffic Impact Study. Please submit and additional comments may follow after complete review of the TIS. ADDRESS PRIOR TO HEARING 05/28/2014: A Traffic Impact Study was not received as part of the PDP project submittal. Additional comments may apply after the TIS has been submitted and reviewed. • RNL RESPONSE: Traffic Study was provided as part of Feb. 17, 2014 Hearing Submittal. Page 4 of 20 • RNL RESPONSE: The mechanical unit enclosure elevations are shown on the main elevation sheets. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The cornices at the roof and the base level needs more architectural detail. Three-dimensional cornices. • RNL RESPONSE: The cornices are cast stone, the tone of which closely matches the sandstone veneer panel bases. The comice locations serve to break up the roofline and establish a hierarchy within the building massing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The roofline is 200 feet long, unbroken and unarticulated. The feel of the buildings mass will be reduced by breaking up the roofline. • RNL RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment Number 8. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/07/2014 07/07/2014: The new building design does a much better job of conveying the sense of permanence of a civic building. The Code requires use of local sandstone, please provide more details as to how it is being incorporated. The long horizontal entry/cornice element could use some greater detail, perhaps something above each column. The entry doors need to be better distinguished. What will the building look like with the City's typical logo on the facade? • RNL RESPONSE: Please see above responses. Regarding building signage, please provide the design team guidance as to whether the city would prefer a stand-alone monument sign south of the building or signage mounted on the building near the south entry. Given the amount of glazing and the articulation of the portico on the south elevation, a monument sign may be better incorporated. Secondary building signage will be included at the north entry of the building, see elevations for approximate location. Please provide any particular requirement for the wording/content of these signs. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 07/07/2014: Parking demand: The TIS shows 121 total employees, 73 already in downtown, equalling 48 new employees downtown. Parking Supply: Howes restriping creates 47 new spaces, and Civic Center Garage has 288 available spaces. Where are the 73 current downtown employees parking and will they move to a new parking area? How many staff members ride bikes or take transit? 05/28/2014: Please provide a separate narrative clearly outlining the amount of employees and how you will provide parking between restriping (#s before and after) and the parking garage. This will have to reflect the actual striping on Howes Street as determined by this staff review. • RNL RESPONSE: Per the previous reviews, a diagram depicting the restriping of Howes Street is attached, showing the preferred option that creates 47 parking spaces, this modification has been completed. The comment from 0710712014 confirms that the supplied TIS for this project calls for parking for 121 total employees with 74 already working downtown. The remaining 48 new Page 2 of 15 Comment Number: 6 0 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 05/28/2014: The seat walls along Laporte need to be set back a minimum of 2ft behind the public sidewalk. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The proposed seat wall location along LaPorte Avenue has been moved north to provide 2-feet horizontal separation from proposed back of walk. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01 /1412015: Please provide spot elevations of the existing alley off of Howes St to determine and document where surface water is draining. Also, please provide additional detail of the sidewalk and curb and gutter connection into the existing alley. If the existing alley does not meet ADA standards where the sidewalk ties in then a temporary sidewalk may be needed across the alley to tie into the existing sidewalk north of the alley. See redlines. ADDRESS AT FINAL 05/28/2014: How does the new detached sidewalk along Howes St tie into the exiting sidewalk to the north? The alley approach may need to be removed and replaced with this project. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Per meeting in field with Tyler Siegmund on 4116115 it was agreed to keep the current design as shown. It was decided to minimize improvementsfimpact to the existing alley at this time because with the master plan this alley is being removed. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: 4. The rop ed inset parking along Laporte Ave does not meet minimum cross slope st ards of 1.5% cross slope for reconstruct. (See station 12+50). The inner curb radii for the inset parking needs to be revised to provide minimum 15ft radii. Please revise. Also, please note on the plans that the inset parking will be constructed in concrete. See redlines. ADDRESS PRIOR TO HEARING NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Submitted previously under separate cover to Siegmund. Comment Number: 15 0 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The proposed sidewalk along Laporte Ave reverses slope at station 12+00. Please revise. ADDRESS PRIOR TO HEARING • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Submitted previously under separate cover to Siegmund. Comment Number: 16 9 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Please remove the decorative pavers from the Laporte Ave sidewalk at the alley entrance. See redlines. ADDRESS AT FINAL NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The proposed decorative pavers were removed. Page 5 of 20 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Please provide the existing FL elevation at the inlet on Howes at Laporte AND where the curb and gutter ties to existing curb and gutter along Laporte Ave. See redlines. ADDRESS AT FINAL • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Additional curb flow line information has been provided in this area. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Truncated domes will be required at the Laporte Ave alley crossing. ADDRESS AT FINAL • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Truncated domes have been provided. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Decorative pavers are proposed for the alley reconstruction off of Laporte Ave, adjacent to the property. For maintenance purposes, current City code does not allow pavers to be installed within the public right-of-way. Please submit a variance request and a cross-section of the proposed paver system for review. ADDRESS PRIOR TO HEARING • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Proposed decorative pavers have been removed from alley. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Additional survey points and profiles of the reconstructed alley off of Laporte Ave will be needed. ADDRESS AT FINAL • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Profiles have been provided for the reconstructed north -south alley off of LaPorte Avenue. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Please provide a detail of the new alley approach off of Laporte Ave. ADDRESS AT FINAL • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: A standard driveway detail has been provided on Detail Sheet. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Is the concrete forebay needed in the rear alley? Typically private drainage structures need to be placed on private property and not within the public right-of-way. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The drainage design has been revised therefore allowing the proposed concrete forebay to be removed. Page 6 of 20 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchananWcao, .corn Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01/13/2015: This comment is continued from 5/28/15. Please set up an onsite meeting with the City Forester. 05/28/2014: Please set up an onsite meeting with the City Forester (Tim Buchanan 2216361 tebuchanan@fcgov.com) to conduct an existing tree inventory and get information for the preparation of the mitigation plan. Other aspects of the project such as tree transplanting, placement and the rain garden tree details will also be discussed at this meeting. A separate landscape sheet should be provided for the existing tree inventory and mitigation plan. All existing trees should be identified as to species size and condition with intent to transplant keep in place or remove. The tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G with the table for specification 7 should be placed on the tree inventory and mitigation plan. Add specification describing how the tree transplanting will occur to the tree inventory and mitigation plan. These tree transplanting specifications should include such things as time of year, ball size, tree space size after care and other important details. Include the City of Fort Collins manager of the project in this meeting. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Please see sheet SD1.4 for tree mitigation plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01/13/2015: It appears the hackberry is quite close to the sidewalk where the sidewalks join. Evaluate if the tree can be moved a little further away from the sidewalk junction. 05/28/2014: Evaluate the trees planted near the corner of Howes and LaPorte for site distance. They are shown close to the corner and should be evaluated. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Noted hackberry has been relocated to provide adequate distance from sidewalk. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01/13/2015: This comment is continued from 5/28/14. The English Oak should be identified as the cultivar Skymaster. Also specifying the Honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust is still requested. Consider using Skymaster English Oak where the three Bur Oaks are currently shown along the edge of the pull out on LaPorte Avenue. The narrow and more upright form of Skymaster would appear to work better at this location. Bur Oak could work well where the two English Oak are currently shown. Page 7 of 20 05/28/2014: Species Selection: Linden trees have not done well in sidewalk cut outs in the Fort Collins area. Forestry recommends using Skymaster English Oak as pyramidal cultivar in place of the Boulevard Lindens. Ash trees should not be planted due to the threat from Emerald Ash Borer. The have been moved to the do not plant category on the Front Range Recommended tree list. Use a suitable substitution. Please specify honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Skyline Honeylocust has been specified, Skymaster English Oak has been specified along LaPorte Avenue. The English Oak trees have been replaced with Bur Oak. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01 /13/2015: This comment is continued from 5/28/15. Please check the current notes. It appears that the bullets 3-5 below still need to be added. Also the separation of 8 feet from drive ways or alleys needs to be added to the landscape note placed on the plan that includes separation distances. The table in LUC 3.2.1 7 will need to be placed on the tree inventory and mitigation sheet mentioned in comment number 2. All the tree protection notes in LUC 3.2.1 G will need to be placed on the Tree Inventory and Mitigation sheet 05/28/2014: Add the standard landscape notes. Standards notes can be obtained from Seth Lorson the city Planner for this project. Be sure to include the following as well as other standard notes on the -landscape plan. 4 The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a. depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. � A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. 6 Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. 6 The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. All tree pruning and removal shall be by a business holding a current City of Fort Page 8 of 20 Collins arborist licensee on the City Forestry Division bid list. t Per the code required tree utility separations in LUC 3.2.1 K. Street and ornamental trees shall be planted no closer than 40 feet and 15 feet respectively from street lights, no trees shall be planted within 10 feet from water and sewer main lines, 4 feet from gas lines, 6 feet from storm sewer lines, 6 feet from water and sewer service lines and 8 feet from driveway or curb cuts. Tree utility and traffic control separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street tree. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The standard notes have been added to plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: It appears that the east most existing honeylocust along LaPorte Avenue which is 13 inch caliper can be retained without significant construction impact. Review this tree for retention. This tree can be discussed at the on -site meeting with the City Forester that will be scheduled in the near future. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Per meeting on site the 13" Honeylocust will be retained. One parallel parking spot in conflict with tree has been removed from plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Tree Transplanting: Four impacted trees on this project are of a transplantable size. 2 Honeylocust located along LaPorte Avenue 2 Bur Oak located along Howes Street 1 Sensation Boxelder at the NE section of the site. Provide a transplant plan for these 4 trees. Evaluate as a first option incorporating them into the landscape plan at this location. Can the two honeylocust be utilized as street trees where two new honeylocust are shown along LaPorte Avenue? Can the two Bur Oak trees be utilized where the two English Oaks are currently proposed on the LaPorte Avenue side of the project? Please evaluate the feasibility of using these existing trees at these or other locations on the site. —LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The 4 transplantable trees are noted on the tree mitigation plan for transplanting off site. Page 9 of 20 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please explore adding additional street trees along Howes Street. The current plan shows only three street trees on Howes. Placing additional canopy shade trees along Howes Street appears limited by streetlight and utility locations. Street tree numbers could be increased by using ornamental trees which can be sited 15 from street lights and placed closer together. Two good xeric species to consider would be the following. Others may also be suitable. Canyon Maple tree form - Acer grandidentatum Gambel Oak tree form - Quercus gambelii. Evaluate the following street tree placement scheme along Howes Street. Keep the first two street trees north of LaPorte Street as canopy shade trees. Evaluate if an ornamental tree can be placed between the north canopy shade tree and the second street light. Evaluate if three ornamental trees at around 20-25 foot spacing can work between the middle and north streetlights along Howes street. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Street tree planting along Howes street has been adjusted with confirmation from Light and Power that the existing mid block flood light could be removed. Street trees have been increased from 3 to 6, including 2 Canyon Maple trees at the pedestrian crossing areas of LaPorte and Howes. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Additional species changes to review: Reducing the number of honeylocust used on the project is desirable. The two honeylocust shown along Howes street should be evaluated for a species change to either Chinquapin Oak or Shumard Oak. Amur Maple is not a favored ornamental tree for planting on City property in Fort Collins. Maintenance and survival issues have occurred locally. Evaluate changing the 5 Amur Maples to a cultivar of Peking Tree Lilac Syringa pekinensis. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Shumard Oaks have been specified to replace the Honeylocust trees along Howes Street. The Amur Maple trees have been exchanged for Peking Tree Lilac. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please list the percentage used of each tree species to the planting schedule. Review the Minimum Species Diversity standard in LUC 3.2.1 3 and make quantity adjustments if needed to meet this standard. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The percentages of trees specified has been listed on the landscape plan sheets. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: In the Planting Schedule please place Bullet Gall Resistant by the common name Bur Oak. LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Bullet Gall Resistant has been added to the Bur Oak plant list specification. Page 10 of 20 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Add these or equivalent landscape notes to describe how irrigation will be review and provided on the project. The irrigation system for landscaped areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Fort Collins Water Utilities. Irrigation plans to be reviewed as part of the construction permit review process. The irrigation system must be installed according to approved plans. All irrigated turf areas shall be irrigated with an underground automatic, pop-up irrigation system. All shrub and perennial beds shall be irrigated with permanent drip or bubbler system. Trees located in non -turf areas to be irrigated with a permanent drip or bubbler system. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The recommended notes have been added to the Landscape Plans. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224-6189, slorson fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 05/27/2014: Revised plans were discussed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at its May 14, 2014 meeting. The plans call for the historic Butterfly Building to be retained in its current location, and for the new Utilities Building to be moved farther to the north and to the west than previously shown, to provide more separation between the two buildings. Although no vote was taken, the Commission members were unanimously supportive of the revised plans. • RNL RESPONSE. Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01 /16/2015: Revised plans were reviewed by the LPC at its January 14, 2015 meeting, following presentations at the Commission's September 24, 2014 work session and October 8, 2014 meeting. • RNL RESPONSE. Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01 /16/2015: The Dairy Gold sign should be reconstructed to match the dimensions, placement and design of the sign as it appears in the c. 1965 parade photograph. Facilities should arrange with the Attorney's office to verify if the name "Dairy Gold" is still in use and/or is copyrighted, which will determine if the name could be used on the sign. • RNL RESPONSE. Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Page 11 of 20 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: The interior features of the Laboratory Building will need to be assessed to determine if they contribute to the building's historic or architectural significance and, if so, should be retained following the building's relocation. • RNL RESPONSE: To be reviewed by the City once the building's use has been established. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: Commission members liked the plinth or pedestal plaza concept. While it does raise the Laboratory Building above its original height, it also causes the building to stand out and be more visible. The original footprint of the Laboratory Building needs to be marked, likely through the use of different colored or textured pavers. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Please see revised site plan based on input from LPC and Planning. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: The plaza area needs to be better developed. Stairs leading to the Laboratory Building from the south (Laporte) side should be added. Additional 1960s-era landscaping should be developed, with hardscape, trees, and plantings evoking the era. This 1960s landscaping should be continued down the pedestrian spine between the Laboratory Building and 215 Mason for a distance. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Please see revised site plan based on input from LPC and Planning. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: The design of the Utilities Building does not reflect the historic context of the Old City Hall and the Laboratory Building. The Commission did not feel that the characteristics of either historic building were represented in the Utilities Building in any substantive manner, required to meet the compatibility standards of LUC Section 3.4.7 and which had been noted and promised at the October 8, 2014 meeting. The Commission established a subcommittee to work closely with Facilities to help ensure plans that will meet this standard. • RNL RESPONSE: Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Page 12 of 20 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: The Commission commented that the design of the Utility Building was not representative of the advanced technology that will be used in the building, and suggested the City consider this in the building's exterior architecture, taking design inspiration from the Laboratory and Old City Hall. • RNL RESPONSE: Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/21/2015 01/16/2015: At its October 8, 2014 meeting, the Commission noted that the relocation of the Laboratory Building does not by itself comply with the "maximum extent feasible" standard contained in LUC 3.4.7, but that this can be mitigated by drawing design inspiration from the Old City Hall and Laboratory Building. While no formal action was taken at the January 14, 2015 meeting, the Commission appears to be united in its comments that this has not occurred. • RNL RESPONSE: Revised renderings were provided as part of Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Elevations have been included in the Final Plan packet based on LPC and Hearing Approval. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland0fcyov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI All 17.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use Page 13 of 20 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4. 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Project specific concerns: 1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required. 2. New Green Code requires: a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. b. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. c. Low VOC interior finishes. • RNL RESPONSE: Noted. A pre -submittal meeting will be scheduled. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6162, dmartinefiftgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: A completed Commercial Service Information (C-1) form will need to be provided to Light & Power Engineering before the electric system can be designed. Even though this is (in part) a Light & Power building, normal electric development charges will apply. • RNL RESPONSE: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: After plans are final, an AutoCad (v.2008) drawing of the utility plan needs to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. • RNL RESPONSE: Noted. Page 14 of 20 employees are offset by the 47 parking spaces added through re -striping Howes Street and through the city employee subsidized parking in the Civic Center Garage, which currently has 288 available spaces. The 73 utility employees currently working downtown that commute to work by car park in the Civic Center Garage. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014:Why are you removing a couple White Oaks and putting trees in the exact same location? • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The White Oak trees along Howes Street are in poor condition. The site design includes street trees in other locations. We will confirm the condition of the trees with the city forester during an onsite meeting and determine if they are worth relocating. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: The windows shown on the site plan are in a different location than shown on the elevations. • RNL RESPONSE: The window locations have been coordinated between Architectural and Landscape disciplines. RE: Elevations. Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221.6501, tsieamundOfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Standard utility easements/alignments will be needed around the property. Current street standards specify 15ft utility alignments along Howes St and Laporte Ave, and 8ft utility alignments along the alleys. See redlines • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Proposed utility easements/alignments will not be required since all dry utility mains (telephone, electric, and gas) are located within adjacent public right-of-ways per meeting with XCEL, City Light & Power, Comcast, and Century Link on Thursday (6119114). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The current plans show parking modifications along Howes St with the addition of back in diagonal parking. This is not allowed by current City code. Currently, Howes St accommodates parallel parking adjacent to the site. If parking is proposed to change along Howes St please submit a plan that shows changes to the striping and lane layout along Howes St. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated and design drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated 5/28/2014 05/28/2014: A Traffic Impact Study was not received as part of the PDP project submittal. Additional Page 3 of 15 Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilvnxwilerQpoudre-fire.ora Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/14/2015 (active item from 05/27/2014): ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CODE COMPLIANCE As the building will have an automatic fire sprinkler system, general fire access to the UCS building's exterior is acceptable under the proposed development plan. However, due to site constraints as well as building height, fire code requirements relative to aerial fire apparatus access cannot be met either in the short-term or long-term plans for the site. It is recognized the site will not allow the placement of a 30' wide EAE spaced 15' from the building and adjacent to the longest side of the building. The current plan therefore creates a condition with firefighter access obstacles similar to those of high rise buildings. The intent of the fire code shall be preserved and as such, offsetting measures must be added so as to mitigate the current'out of access' condition. Further building design considerations are required to offset the lack of aerial fire apparatus access. These offsetting measures will ultimately require the approval of the fire marshal. • RNL RESPONSE. Alternative Means of Code Compliance approach was reviewed by PFA on March 23, 2015. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, j chlam fcao_ v.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2015 01/02/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. An Erosion Control Report has been submitted with FP Submittal. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamaraue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 01/13/2015: This includes the rain gardens south of the building. 05/30/2014: Pleae provide a drainage easement for all drainage features, including the bio-swale. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Drainage alignments (easements) have been provided for both water quality ponds on the north side and the four (4) rain gardens on the south side. Page 15 of 20 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/30/2014 01/13/2015: Repeat Comment. " 05/30/2014: The City would like the landscaping to be enhanced in the north water quality pond. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape area adjacent to the north water quality pond has been re -designed enhancing the plaza areas and planting. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please label the northern water quality pond Porous Landscape Detention on the plans. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The two water quality ponds on the north side have been labeled "Porous Landscape Detention". Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Underdrains are required for the southern rain gardens. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Underdrains for the southern rain garden has been included in the site plan. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountgJQfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/13/2015: No comments. 05/27/2014: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please change the sub -title to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The subtitle has been changed to match plat. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The sheet numbering does not match the index on sheet SD1.1, and is in conflict with the Existing Conditions sheet. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Sheet numbering has been revised to match the index. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please add "City Of Fort Collins" as marked to the sub -title. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The words "City of Fort Collins" was added to subtitle. Page 16 of 20 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/1312015: The benchmark statement in Note #4 is not necessary. If it is to remain, it must match the following format. PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED + X.XX • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The benchmark format in note #4 has been revised. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The lighter text and line work has been revised. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The alley north of the property was platted as 20'. Please explain the 25' alley. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The plat has been revised to reflect a 20-ft . wide alley. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please revise the dedication information for the alley north of the property. See redlines. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. The dedication information for the alley north of the property has been revised per redlines. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Howes Street was platted as 140' of right of way. We show a vacation at Book 69, Page 261, but please verify. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE. Howes Street right-of-way and filing information was revised per City redlines. Page 17 of 20 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/13/2015: This legal description needs to match the Subdivision Plat, or be replaced with "Lot 1, COFC Utilities Administration Building". 05/27/2014: Please add "COFC Utilities Customer Services Building" in front of the legal description shown on sheet SD1.1. • LOGAN SIMPSON: "COFC Utilities Customer Services Building"has been added to sheet SDI. 1. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/13/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON. All text has been masked. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/13/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. All text has been masked. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The sheet numbering in the index for the Existing Conditions, Landscape & Lighting plans does not match the titles on those sheets. See redlines. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Sheet numbering has been revised to match the index. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinsonfrDfcao_v.com_ Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please work with Transportation Planning (Aaron Iverson) to discuss the reduction of non -road space (parkway and sidewalk) to create parking along the front of the building. His original recommendation was that LaPorte be re -striped with slightly narrower lanes to provide enough space for the parking. This would keep the same number of lanes, keep the same width for sidewalk/parkway, and allow for larger bulbs to shorten pedestrian distances across LaPorte at the crossings. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Floodway/Floodplain issues were studied early on in the project with the decision being finalized that larger bulb outs were not an option as they would be in the floodway and change the mapping. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Will there be indoor bike parking? • RNL RESPONSE. Indoor bike parking for staff has been added to the first floor. Page 18 of 20 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 01/13/2015: The response for this comment indicated that an intersection detail has been provided. I can't seem to find that. Can you point mein the right direction? 05/27/2014: Sheet C200. There are some changes shown on the adjacent street (Howes and LaPorte) in terms of parking without a clear understanding of how this impacts the street width, striping etc. Please provide a signing and striping plan that details how the width of the street will be used. For instance, there may not be enough street width to allow any kind of diagonal parking (head -in) on Howes. Will lanes need to be narrowed on LaPorte to accommodate the new parking? • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Please see civil plans for the intersection detail. Howes Street parking was determined to remain parallel parking with the existing curb line to remain in place. The lanes on LaPorte will not be changed in width as the parking will be accommodated without restdping LaPorte. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6864, rbuffingtonDfcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: How will water and wastewater service be provided to the Butterfly Building? • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: Please refer to design drawings as proposed water and wastewater services are shown.. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wl�ue cgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 01/16/2015: Ready for a hearing Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals0fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Need to add Director of Community Developemtne and Neighborhood services and the Owners Certification signature blocks to sheet SD1.3 • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The signature blocks have been added to sheet SDI. 1. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Where are the catalog cut -sheets of the lighting fixtures? • RNL RESPONSE. Cut -Sheets were provided as part of the Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal. Page 19 of 20 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Where is the shadow and visual analysis for the building over 40ft in height. • RNL RESPONSE: Shadow and Visual Analysis was provided as part of the Feb. 17, 2015 Hearing Submittal, Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Sheet index should include all sheets not included in the utility plans or plat. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Sheet -index has been revised to include all sheets. Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2366, nbarnes fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 01/13/2015: Repeat comment additionally add dimensions for the Mechanical Enclosure 05/16/2014: Show the building footprint dimensions. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. Please see attached Site Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 01/13/2015: Please provide a bicycle parkin table. Are there not any bike racks located near the south entrance? Where are the enclosed bike spaces? 05/16/2014: The plan shows 9 bike'racks'. Is each rack a multi -bike rack, or an individual bike rack? • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Bicycle parking provides 6 bicycle spaces at the south building entrance, 12 bicycle spaces at the north entrance and 20 bicycle spaces within the interior of the building. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2014 01/13/15: Repeat comment 05/16/2014: Need to add a notes table to plan indicating building use, building square footage (total and per floor), number of stories, overall height, number of bike parking spaces, etc. With regard to bike parking, at least 1 bike per 4000 sf. of floor area is required, with 20% enclosed. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Please see attached Site Plan. Page 20 of 20 comments may apply after the TIS has been submitted and reviewed. • NL RESPONSE: TIS was completed and submitted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Profile and cross sections of Laporte Ave is needed to evaluate the curb and gutter and drainage modifications along Laporte. See redlines • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: A flow line profile and cross sections have been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The seat walls along Laporte need to be set back a minimum of 2ft behind the public sidewalk • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: All proposed seat walls/retaining walls along LaPorte Avenue and Howes Street are set back a minimum of 1-foot from existing right-of-way. Per structural engineer this will allow sufficient room for footing and ensure no encroachment on existing right-of-way. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: What is happening with the downspout and drainage off of the butterfly building? Plans call to remove the exiting sidewalk chase. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The existing butterfly building is being relocated and therefore this comment no longer applies. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Please remove the old power pole and overhead utility lines at the northeast corner of Laporte and Howes St. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The Demolition Plan sheet C100 is now showing removal of existing old power pole and overhead utility line. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: How does the new detached sidewalk along Howes St tie into the exiting sidewalk to the north? The alley approach may need to be removed and replaced with this project. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The proposed walk on the south side and the existing walk on the north side of the existing alley tie in pretty good. Knowing that in the future this public alley will be removed for the Civic Master Plan, does it make sense to improve the alley approach at this time? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: With the bump out at the Laporte and Howes corner an intersection detail is needed to evaluate the alignment and current pavement striping. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: An intersection detail showing current pavement striping has been provided. Since the back in diagonal parking along Howes Street has been eliminated the proposed bump out has been reduced and does not impact the existing striping along Howes Street and LaPorte Avenue. Page 4 of 15 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The existing handicap ramp at the northeast corner of Laporte and Howes will need to be removed and replaced as part of this project to meet ADA detection warning standards. • NORTHERN ENGINEERING RESPONSE: The existing handicap ramps are being replaced with new handicap ramps that meet ADA standards. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Is it intended to extend the 215 Mason streetscape finishes (colored concrete, pavers etc.) along the Laporte Ave property frontage? • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The site design intent is to integrate colored concrete paving finishes for the sidewalk along Laporte Ave, but will not be a continuation of the paving pattems of 215 Mason. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: By bumping in the curb/gutter along Laporte you are causing a pinch point along the sidewalk between the butterfly building stairs, tree grates, and the car doors. 2 frontage trees may need to be relocated. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The new site design has relocated the butterfly building and increases the area between the curb and the building. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenbergerAlfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: Adequate information is not provided on the site plan to determine the proposed total square footage of the building. Once this information is provided I can determine if the TDRFees paid are correct. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The building square footage has been provided in sheet SDI. 1, under the "Land Use Data" table. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iex(&fcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 05/27/2014: My only comment is regarding the proposed living wall. Planting only one species (the clematis) may hinder the success of this project. Consider choosing more than one species to increase the likelihood of success. We can provide more specific assistance on plant selection, if you would like. • RNL RESPONSE. The living wall is no longer part of the project scope. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchanan(rDfcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Will tree grates be used on this project? If so please specify. Page 5 of 15 • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Tree grates will not be used on this project, the trees planted along Laporte Ave. will be in planting areas without tree grate, which is the preferred method according to Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager Comment Number: 2 05/28/2014: Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 Please set up an onsite meeting with the City Forester (Tim Buchanan 2216361 tebuchanan@fcgov.com) to conduct an existing tree inventory and get information for the preparation of the mitigation plan. Other aspects of the project such as tree transplanting, placement and the rain garden tree details will also be discussed at this meeting. A separate landscape sheet should be provided for the existing tree inventory and mitigation plan. All existing trees should be identified as to species size and condition with intent to transplant keep in place or remove. The tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G with the table for specification 7 should be placed on the tree inventory and mitigation plan. Add specification describing how the tree transplanting will occur to the tree inventory and mitigation plan. These tree transplanting specifications should include such things as time of year, ball size, tree space size after care and other important details. Include the City of Fort Collins manager of the project in this meeting. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Logan Simpson has requested an onsife meeting with Tim Buchanan in order to meet the mitigation plan requirements for the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: The three maple trees shown to be transplanted are Sensation Boxelder and not Tatarian Maple. Please correct on the plans. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to reflect Sensation Boxelder rather than Tatarian Maple as the existing trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Evaluate the trees planted near the corner of Howes and LaPorte for site distance. They are shown close to the corner and should be evaluated. LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requirements for site triangle conditions have been met as shown by diagram in the 12-24-2014 submitted PDP site plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: If the scale is not already on the landscape plan please add. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: Scale annotation has been added to the landscape plan sheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Species Selection: Linden trees have not done well in sidewalk cut outs in the Fort Collins area. Forestry recommends using Skymaster English Oak as pyramidal cultivar in place of the Boulevard Lindens. Page 6 of 15 Ash trees should not be planted due to the threat from Emerald Ash Borer. The have been moved to the do not plant category on the Front Range Recommended tree list. Use a suitable substitution. Please specify honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to reflect the substitution of Skymaster English Oak for Boulevard Linden Trees. Kentucky Coffeetree, along with Hackberry trees have been chosen from the approved tree list to replace the Patmore Ash previously shown. Comment Number: 7 05/28/2014: Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 Identify the following features on the plan and provide the required tree utility separations. Streetlights: 40 feet between shade trees and streetlights. 15 feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. 20 feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. 6 feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 8 feet from driveways. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been updated with dimensions reflecting the required separation distances. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 05/28/2014: Identify the following features on the plan and provide the required tree utility separations on a final landscape plan. Streetlights: 40 feet between shade trees and streetlights. 15 feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. 20 feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. 6 feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 8 feet from driveways. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been updated with dimensions reflecting the required separation distances. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 Page 7 of 15 05/28/2014: Add the standard landscape notes. Standards notes can be obtained from Seth Lorson the city Planner for this project. Be sure to include the following as well as other standard notes on the landscape plan. • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. • The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. • All tree pruning and removal shall be by a business holding a current City of Fort Collins arborist licensee on the City Forestry Division bid list. • Per the code required tree utility separations in LUC 3.2.1 K. Street and ornamental trees shall be planted no closer than 40 feet and 15 feet respectively from street lights, no trees shall be planted within 10 feet from water and sewer main lines, 4 feet from gas lines, 6 feet from storm sewer lines, 6 feet from water and sewer service lines and 8 feet from driveway or curb cuts. Tree utility and traffic control separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street tree. • LOGAN SIMPSON RESPONSE. The City of Fort Collins standard notes have been added to the landscape and site plans. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970.416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 05/27/2014: Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City Page 8 of 15 codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI Al17.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4. 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Project specific concerns: 1. Fire -sprinkler systems are required. 2. New Green Code requires: a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. b. Low -flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. C. Low VOC interior finishes. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224.6152, dmartine Dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: A completed Commercial Service Information (C-1) form will need to be provided to Light & Power Engineering before the electric system can be designed. Even though this is (in part) a Light & Power building, normal electric development charges will apply. • RNL RESPONSE. Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: After plans are final, an AutoCad (v.2008) drawing of the utility plan needs to be sent to Page 9 of 15