Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLORADO IRON & METAL - PDP - 20-09 - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)Response: We are proposing that the outlet structure be inside Inlet A4. This may be a little usual, but we feel there is enough room to put the outlet structure in this inlet. This will allow a single outlet structure to control both detention areas. This will also force the water quality volume into the western detention area. Please note that this area is lower than the detention area towards the east. This will allow contaminants such as rust to be collected in the western detention area. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 49 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/13/09] Label the clean -outs on the sewer service as" traffic rated". Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: Zoning Number: 1 Created: 4/30/2009 [10/8/09] Based on narrative in follow-up letter regarding parking maximum's please submit alternative compliance request. Parking is based on the principle use which is industrial and fabrication and recycling fall under the "industrial" use category Response: The "use" is a combination of Light Industrial Metal Fabrication, Recycling Facility, and Office Uses. It is very different from pure "Industrial," in that there are not only employees but also a fair amount of customers that need to be accommodated with parking. Therefore, the most similar use listed in the table in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) is "Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry', which account for both industrial type workers, and the low intensity customer type traffic that would be generated with both the metal fabrication and recycling customers. This would limit us to no more than 2 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The PDP has 37,050 square foot of building area, therefore our maximum number of parking spaces is 74. We are only proposing 69 spaces, therefore we comply with the standard. Number: 3 Created: 4/30/2009 [10/8/09] Of those HC spaces, one needs to be van accessible with an overall width of 16' and signed as "Van Accessible" Response: See revised plane Pace 8 Response ''lease see the submitted letters of intent Number: 48 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/16/09) Half of Buckingham street along this sites frontage that will still drain to the off - site existing detention pond needs to be detained as well. Does the existing pond account for these flows? Please provide documentation if so. Response: Detention for half of Buckingham is provide in our proposed pond Number: 69 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] The east detention pond is also a metal scrap stock pile area. This stock pile will take up volume as well as be a water quality concern. This issue needs to be discussed further and a solution agreed upon before the public hearing. Response: The material stockpiled in this area is scrap metal, most of which is iron or steel. If this stockpile were located elsewhere, it would still drain to a detention/water quality pond, so the location of the stockpile may be irre. In this case, the eastern detention area is higher in elevation than the western area. This will cause rust to collect in the western area, where is will stay put until maintenance is performed. Number: 70 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] The outfall for this site is proposed to drain into the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County needs to approve this outfall location. The County owns and maintains this channel. Response. Acknowledged. Number: 71 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] Please provide documentation to back up the 20% reduction in volume and reduced drainage easement for the existing detention pond. Response: The drainage area to the existing pond is 14.75. The drainage basin to the new detention pond is 3.15 acres. This represents a reduction of approximately 21%. Wording to this effect has been added to the Drainage Report Number: 72 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/091 The slope of the detention pond bottom should be 2% or .5% with a drainage pan. Response: Acknowledged. We hope to make a 2% slope work. If 2% cannot be made to work at final, a pan will be shown at that time. Number: 73 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/091 The City's standard water quality outlet structure needs to be incorporated into the design. P'ac 7 gesoo-ise Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Plat Number: 62 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] If the area at the northwest corner of the property is to be dedicated as ROW. then it must be included in the outer boundary. Number: 63 Created: 10/1412009 [10/14/09] There are line over text issues on the plat. Response: Please see the revised pla Number: 64 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The boundary and perimeter legal description close. Response: Acknowledged, Topic: Site Plan Number: 65 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The site plan needs to include the legal description of the property. Response: See revised site plan Topic: Utility Plans Number: 66 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The legal description on the utility plan cover sheet is incomplete. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 67 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] There are several line over text issues. Fesporse: Since the Preliminary Plans do not get scanned for City archival purposes, we will defer some of these line over text issues until final. Number: 68 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] Two details on sheet 9 have text that is illegible. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 46 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/16/09] A letter of intent for the off -site drainage easement required for the outfall pipe needs to be provided before the public hearing. Paee 6 Response: We are not proposing any work on the north side during the interim condition. The south side of the street is being improved along out frontage, and ties in vertically at the centerline of the street. Number: 59 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Two benchmarks need to be provided, so far only one has been identified on the plans. Response See the revised plat Topic: Landscaping Number: 16 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Now shown on the utility plans, but is still not labeled as to if it is temporary or permanent. Response: The office trailer has now been labeled as permanent. Topic: Plat Number: 18 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat — I included copies of the prior plat of this site and the plat for the New Belgium site to the north. Response: The plat has been revised accordingly. Number: 52 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] A drainage easement between the two ponds along the south property line is needed for the drainage pipe that is proposed. Response: See the revised plans Topic: Site Plan Number: 50 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Notes 1 and 2 regarding the building timing conflict. Response These notes have heec reviesed. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik Topic: General Number: 60 Created: 10/13/2009 [10/13/09] Please include an emphasized pedestrian crossing between the sidewalk and the building such as a raised crossing Response. -nis has now peen provided. Number: 61 Created: 10/13/2009 [10/13/09] Bike facilities/parking have been included in plans. No issues. Pauc> suppose to be issued for anything in an easement. The utilities will probably have an issue with this wall over their lines and the footings adjacent to the lines. Response: We have specified wrought iron fencing instead of the wall where it crosses the easement. Number: 53 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] The building square footages have changed since the last review. The application fees (TDRF) increased due to the increase in the size of the buildings. The project owes an additional $349. This can be paid at the time of final submittal with the final submittal fees. Response: We will pay this difference at final as requested Number: 54 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] A gate at the south end of the property to accommodate the access easement through the site needs to be provided. This connection goes through the detention pond — how is the access to be maintained across the pond? Is this access still needed? If not will need something from the adjacent property owners identifying they no longer need it and verification from PFA that they no longer need it. Response: The pond has been removed from this area of the site, and the proposed access is very similar to the existing access. We are maintaining an emergency access to the south on general principal. Number: 55 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] It looks like the existing fire hydrant and the widened driveway are too close together. Response: We are now showing this existing valve and fire hydrant to be relocated towards the south, Number: 56 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12109] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. Response: Please see the submitted letter of intent for this easement. Number: 57 Created: 10/12/2009 110/12/09] Add some notes to Buckingham plan and profile sheet. Identify the location of the curb openings to be built with this project. Label the locations of future curb inlets or curb openings. Label at which station curb and gutter is to start. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 58 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] What are you intending to build on the N side of the road? Need to show what grading will occur to accommodate these planed improvements. Page 4 Number: 25 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. Response. Acknowledged. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [10112/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW corner of the site will tieback into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. Response: Acknowiedgcc �n Ol for this offsite grading is being submittec Number: 28 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Thanks for the reply — This design needs to be shown at minimum grades or at least close. The design you have shown would likely never be built due to the 1.5 — 2 foot drop in the centerline of the road. It is doubtful that the road section could drop this much without the waterline needing to be lowered. So it is very doubtful that the road would ever be rebuilt with the design you have shown. If you are going to show a possible future profile it needs to be something that might occur. A profile following minimum grades is something that would likely be built. Response: The south side ties into the existing curb/gutter on the east end of the project at station 24+82.36, and terminates in a transition/taper on the west end. Both of these tie into existirc well Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 110/12/09] Still applicable. Response. Vve wia provide at final. Number: 31 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Still applicable Response: We will provide at final. Number: 51 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] The site plan shows that there is a desire to place a 12 foot high wall over the 30 foot wide utility easement that runs adjacent to the building. This is a problem. A 12 foot high wall is considered a structure and will require a building permit — a building permit is not Page 3 [10/22/09] Please show % of trees. Response: The requested percentages are now shown. Topic: Site Plan Number: 36 Created: 5/13/2009 [10/22/09) All addressed but no more context has been shown. Response: We have added more off -site context. Number: 75 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Please be consistent with "trash" vs. "dumpster" enclosure. The label says one thing the detail says another. Response: We have revised the plans to consistently call this a "dumpster enclosure " Number: 76 Created: 10/22/2009 110/22/09] Take landscape info off the Site Plan, trees, turf, mulch... Leave paving details on though. ?esporse- Revlse� is ec, JesteC Number: 77 Created: 10/22/2009 (10/22/09] Please show easement on site and landscape plans. Response: Revised as requested. Number: 78 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Are roll -off moved into building #2? If so how do they get in? Response: The roll -offs are not intended to ever go into building #2, they just are located c. x, " I:, Pn^I qep?r?te' f.O-r 1 ,o �t dd'-i7 by a lA^C�cr,?nn J ^rod Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] [5/12109] See plans for additional redline comments. Response: Redline comments have been addressed. See revised plans. Page 2 Response to Comments Colorado Iron & Metal PDP Date: 3/19/2009 ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle Topic: Fencing Number: 79 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] The tall fencing is warranted for buffering. The 10' fence along the west side of the lot extending from the building front to the front of the lot needs to meet code requirements though. Section 3.8.11 C states that "fences or walls shall be no more than 4' high between the front building line and front property line." A modification of standard would be required for the 10' fencing, with justification meeting the criteria set forth in 2.8.2 or the fence needs to meet standards. Response- VVe are going to nearing on March 24' for this modification request as part of the minor amendment application. If approved, the 10 foot fence will be an existing condition at such time that the PDP is approved, and as such, we assume the minor amendment's r cdific,ntion Wifl suffice. Topic: General Number: 74 Created: 10122/2009 / [10/22/09) Please show Revision Dates on all Plans. Response. Revosed as requested. Topic: Landscaping Number: 37 Created: 5/13/2009 [10/22/09] Has Tim Buchanan been involved in deciding which trees stay and go? Raised walk, see Section 3.2.2(E)5. Response: Raised walk has been provided. We didn't receive any comments from Tim Buchanan Number: 80 Created: 10/22/2009 Page I