Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOUSKA AUTOMOTIVE - BDR120001 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)of the 90-degree bend. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970416-2313, nbeals fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please include mechanical/utility equipment on site plan and elevations with note on how they are screened/painted. 03/15/2012: Any utility/mechanical equipment attached to the building should be on the building permit plans with a note that indicates such equipment will be painted to match building. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/15/2012 03/15/2012: This is to note that no signage locations or size are approved with this BDR. Signs are approved through separate building permit after BDR approval. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: Clean up the site plan. Please remove all future changes and'notes. All that should be on there is existing and what will be completed at this time. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/23/2012: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheet Al. 02/21/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet Al. C mment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The lot lines shown on sheet Al between Houska Minor Subdivision & Houska South Subdivision are incorrect. It looks like they are still reflecting the proposed replat. Please remove these lot lines. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(&fc4ov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2012 In addition to the landscaping plans Water Conservation (Eric Olson) requires an irrigation plan. Also there may be additional regulations the applicant may not beware of so please contact Eric Olson 970 227-6704 for those regulations and any questions concerning the irrigation plan. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffin4ton(&fc4ov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/21/2012: There is a 10" sanitary sewer on the south edge of Riverside or may even be in or behind sidewalk. (A copy of the water/sewer map is included in the redlined drawings to show approximate location.) Show this sewer accurately on the plans 02/21/2012: Show the existing sewer along the Riverside frontage. It may impact the placement of street trees. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: Add the following Std Details: Typical water service; Tracer wire: Locator station. Comment Number: 11 03/21/2012: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/21/2012: Include the sanitary sewer line noted in Comment 6. 02/21/2012: Show the proposed water main and water and sewer services on the landscape plan and provide the required separation distances. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 8 03/21/2012: Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 02/21/2012: Extend the utility easement for the water main to a point a minimum of 10 feet south Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 03/20/2012 03/20/2012: Due to comment #4 this S-1 warehouse shall be fire sprinklered. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wlamarguea()fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/23/2012: The water quality section needs to be modified to the Urban Drainage Manual's bioretention detail. If the detail is problematic due to site constraints, please schedule a meeting with Stormwater to resolve. 02/21/2012: The water quality design needs to be revised per previous correspondence with Basil and Glen. You can submit the revisions when complete directly to Stormwater for a quick review to determine if the site water quali design-meeth- ft City's criteria. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The manhole det i is the City of Lovelands ory)sheet 8. Department: Technical Services `--� Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountyCa)fcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 4 03/23/2012: No comments. 02/21/2012: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/23/2012: There are still problems with the benchmark descriptions. 02/21/2012: Please correct the benchmarks on sheet 1 & 2. Please include descriptions for both benchmarks. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/23/2012: There are still line over text issues on sheet 4. 02/21/2012: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheet 4. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The lot lines shown on sheet 3-5 between Houska Minor Subdivision & Houska South Subdivision are incorrect. It looks like they are still reflecting the proposed replat. Please remove these lot lines. Topic: Landscape Plans Co ent Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The lot lines shown on sheet A3 between Houska Minor Subdivision & Houska South Subdivision are incorrect. It looks like they are still reflecting the proposed replat. Please remove these lot lines. 7. Please add these landscape notes. 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 ZI 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. Comment Number: 2 03/23/2012: Comments 3-23-12 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 The following comments are offered. 1. PI se confirm if underground utilities prevent planting street trees along Riverside in the way. 2. Thinleaf alder is not considered a very drought tolerant tree. Much better drought tolerant small trees are Bigtooth Maple Acer grandidentatum and Gambel Oak Quercus gambelii. They both do well on moderate to low water application. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, ronzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: The S-1 warehouse for auto parts exceeds 5,000 ft2 and is not fire contained; therefore, a fire sprinkler system is required for fire protection. A fire alarm system cannot be considered as a substitiute for this level of required fire protection. This building shall only be used for the storage of auto parts, and there shall not be any storage of hazardous materials, i.e. flammable/combustible liquids, corrosives or aerosols. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: A Knox key box is required for ease of opening the door of the fire sprinklered buildiing. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: Six inch numerals shall be put in place for an address that is visible from the street fronting the property or the fire lane. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 02/24/2012 02/24/2012: The previous comments apply. There is a new comment at this time. There must be a hydrant within 300 feet of the building that supplies 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: There are quite a few locations of line over text on the site and landscape plans that need to be cleaned up. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: There are still notes on the site and landscape plans that indicate that the row is to be dedicated by plat. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: A note on the site plan indicates that a fence is to remain along the new sidewalk section. Per standards a fence is to be a minimum of 2 feet behind the back of the sidewalk and can not remain or be placed within the row. I do not know for sure where the proposed row line is to be located. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: 1 don't think the bike rack location will work very well. Users of the sidewalk, include handicap patrons will most likely not be able to walk past the bike rack easily to get to the building. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan(a-fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 02/16/2012: Houska Automotive Forestry Comment 2-16-12 The Following Forestry Comments are offered. Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 1.Street trees would be required along Riverside. Do underground utilities or other constraints pose a limitation in meeting this standard? When street tree placement is constrained to be in standard location then locations back of sidewalk are closest available are pursued. A canopy shade tree at 30-40 spacing is the parkway is the standard. 2. Autumn Flame Maple is not adapted to the soils found in Fort Collins. Consider one of the following as a substitution (Bur oak, Greenspire Linden or Northern Catalpa). 3. Skyline Honeylocust should be specified as 2.0 inch caliper. 4. All trees should be specified as ball and burlap. 5. Landscape note #13 needs revision. Forestry and Traffic can provide information for the revision. 6. What form of irrigation is being provided in the dry land pasture seed mix area? Tree will this area will need irrigation. These are good drought tolerant trees. (Bur Oak, Honeylocust, Catalpa, Kentucky Coffeetree) Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 03/22/12:lf this lot is no longer a part of the proposal then this does not apply. 02/22/2012: 8. Near the comer where the sidewalk dips in some additional concrete/ sidewalk will need to be added so that a minimum of 7-8 feet of sidewalk exists where the sidewalk is attached. How wide is the existing attached sidewalk? The ramp at the comer of Myrtle and Riverside may also need to be replaced 6 if it doesn�t meet current ADA standards or needs repairs it will need to be replaced to standards. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 02/22/2012: 9. An off site easement to bring the water line onto the property at the NW comer of the Riverside Shopping Center is needed. Per the plat on file for the Riverside Shopping Center the utility easement does not go all the way to the property line, therefore to make this connection an off -site easement is needed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 03/22/12:This would now be where is the transformer location for the warehouse/parts building. I am still not seeing it labeled any place. 02/22/2012: 12. Where are the transformers for both buildings to be located? Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 02/22/2012: 13. Seethe redlines for other comments. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The plans are not matching. Per the responses on the utility plans Lot 1, Houska Minor Subdivision is no longer a part of the project, but it is being shown on the site and landscape plans. If this lot is no longer a part of this project this lot needs to be removed from the site and landscape plans. If is it to be a part of the project than this lot and the improvements identified on it need to be shown on the utility plans. Either direction is fine with me — the plans just need to match and correspondingly show what is a part of the project. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: The plans need to show the new easements that are to be dedicated. Not all of the easements are shown and labeled on the plans right now. It may also be helpful to provide a sheet (doesn't need to be a part of the approved utility plans) that shows what needs to be dedicated and vacated. This maybe especially helpful with the easement vacation requests to show what the vacation request is and what the proposed replacement dedication is. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: Although I know lot 1 is owned by the applicant, since it is no longer part of the project I would like at minimum a letter from them identifying that they are okay with the off -site work that is shown on these plans and will allow it on this lot and would grant an easement for the work if at such time they sold the lots and the improvements have not been completed. Legally an off -site temporary construction easement would be required, but since they have already applied for the building permit hopefully all of this work will get built prior to the lots changing hands. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 02/22/2012: 4. As I understand it the plat that was submitted for review has been withdrawn. Therefore all easement vacations and dedications will need to be done by separate document. a. Each easement vacation request has a TDRF of $400 for the processing of the easement. The recording fees will also need to be provided, but that amount will not be known until we know how many pages the document is. To get the process started for easement vacations I will the application and fee paid with information and drawings indicating the limits of the proposed vacations. Right now I see two vacation proposals based on the current plans. i. Emergency access easement — as dedicated on the Houska South plat ii. Portion of the utility and drainage easement adjacent to Riverside (shown on the site plan) — as dedicated on the Houska South plat b. Each easement dedication request has a TDRF of $250 for the processing and review of the dedication. As with the vacations the recording fees will also need to be provided once we know how many documents and pages there are. Dedication language was changed and updated within the last year, so please let me know if you need the current language. Based on the plans I see 4 dedications that will be needed. i. Row along Riverside. The additional row needed so that the new detached sidewalk and the existing sidewalk is all within row. ii. Emergency access easement. iii. Utility easement for the water main extension into the site. iv. Drainage easements for the new and existing storm pipes that are not currently within easements. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 03/22/12: Assuming that this area is no longer a part of the project than these do not need to be shown on the plans. 02/22/2012: 5. There are a couple of existing easements that are not being shown on the plans. The access and utility easement at the comer of Riverside and Myrtle. We also have documentation that a portion of a drainage easement that was dedicated by separate document occurred (1999). This easement is on lot 1 and has not been shown on the documents. Since the entire easement was not vacated I am assuming that the rest of it still remains and needs to be shown on the plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 03/12/12: The new sidewalk has now been labeled as being 5 feet in width. The sidewalk along a 4 lane arterial is supposed to be a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum parkway width of 10 feet. If this is not what is being proposed we would need to look at a variance to this standard and to be truthful I am not sure what the justification would be to not meet this along this stretch. 02/22/2012: 6. What is the width of the proposed sidewalk? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/22/2012 02/22/2012: 7. Additional row needs to be dedicated to accommodate the new sidewalk section that is being built and to bring the portions of the existing sidewalk that are outside of the row into the row. Dedicate row to the back of all sidewalks. 00, ty. of Fort Collins/100 March 26, 2012 Paul Leeper Heath Construction 141 Racquette Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Houska Automotive, BDR120001, Round Number 2 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax rcgov. com/developmentre view 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, Noah Beals, at 970-416-2313 or nbeals@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt, 970.221-6341, solt _fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/26/2012 03/26/2012: The applicant has been very responsive to Current Planning's first round of review comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/21/2012 03/26/2012: This is being carried over just for future information. 02/21/2012: There is existing solid wood fence (how high) on either side of the entry drive just east of the proposed Future Tire & Lube Building. Presumably the section of fence on the east side of the drive will remain permanently. How much of the fence adjacent to the future building will be removed when that building is constructed? Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/26/2012 03/26/2012: The Site Plan and the Landscape Plan now look alike, with the landscaping being shown on both plans. It is not appropriate to have the landscaping on the Site Plan. Please remove before recording the mylars.