HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIBERTY COMMON HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION - SPAR - SPA110003 - CORRESPONDENCE -s CDN 2528A-011
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: There is very small text & light text that won't scan well on sheet 1-2.01.
Text has been fixed on above sheet
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: Please correct the legal description on sheet 1-1.00.
Legal description has been fixed on above sheet
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: There is cut off text & light text that won't scan well on sheet 1-1.00.
Text has been fixed on above sheet
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: There are line over text issues on sheet 1-1.01.
Text has been fixed on above sheet
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington(.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: With the proposed building expansions, will there be a full service kitchen at the
school? If so, a grease interceptor is required.
There is not a kitchen in the building expansion, just classrooms in phase 1 and gymnasium in phase 11
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: Show and label curb stop on the water service to be installed in Phase ll.
This has been added to the phase 11 utility plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/2112011: Add a note for the abandonment of the 1" water service in Phase II to contact Fort
Collins Water Utilities (221-6700) to coordinate abandonment.
A note has been added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/2112011: See redlined utility plans for other comments.
The redlines have been addressed.
the building. so
CDN 2528A-011
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: The smaller detention pond/channel on the east side of the site does not meet the
City's Detention Pond Design and Landscape Standards. These "craters" have been
scrutinized by City Council and are not compatible with our standards.
The pond has been modified (grading and landscape) to be compatible with the new standards.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: Scour protection needs to be included in the design of the revised channel due to
the higher flows and the curvature of the channel.
Scour protection has been added to the plan to protect the channel slopes from erosion.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: There are several safety concerns with this site due to the proximity of the channel
and the school. The intake just east of the revised bridge is a concern and a kid safe grate
should be included here.
A trash rack (consistent with Urban Drainage Standards) has been added to the intake of the 30" storm
line.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: There needs to be .5 tol foot of freeboard to the bottom chord of the bridge.
The bottom chord of the bridge is at a 25.0, the 100-yr WSEL is 24.0
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: The landscape plan has a sidewalk on the northern side of the Phase 1 addition
that is not shown on the site plan and the utility plan. Please clarify which plan is accurate. This
sidewalk would create separation between the building and the channel, which a new retaining
wall would also be required.
The plans have been coordinated.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: Please add an overflow weir calc to show what the water surface elevation would
be if the new 30-inch storm sewer was plugged.
An overflow weir detail (part of the retaining wall) has been added to the plans and calcs have been added
to the drainage letter.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, icounty(a fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6
11/21/2011: No comments.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheets L2.01, L2.02, L2.03 &
L2.04.
Text has been fixed on all above sheets
CDN 2528A-011
c) The Erosion'Plan show surface roughening or slope tracking as prescribed in the short
narrative of the erosion controls needed. Is there a detail for that?
d) No description of the type of seeds used? Broadcast rates, ratios, etc.
Please see Sheet L2.02. Note T-1.02 for seed description
e) Velocity check dams? The channel going through the Site carries a lot of water flow during a
storm event, what methods of velocity reduction are used to prevent site erosion?
Rock check dams and slope protection have been added to the channel to prevent site erosion.
f) Slope stabilization? The sides of the slopes used in this project have slopes that are quite
aggressive to seed alone. Use of some sort of blanket or other BMP to prevent washing the
seed away, might be considered to attain vegetative stabilization in a shorter amount of time as
well as prevent the need for future reapplication of seeding.
A note and detail has been added to the plan to address slope protection.
g) Trash Storage on Site? PortaJohns? Or other pollutant sources on site? Define where they
are located and if there is any secondary containment BMPs that will be used. Please
remember to note on the detail sheet that toilets are to be staked down and located no closer
than 50ft from the nearest inlet or state waters.(as should be the case for any of the other
potential pollutant sources)
A note has been added to the erosion control plan to address the items that will be covered in the State
Stormwater Management Permit.
h) Is there any off site Inlet protection? To be realistic, sediment does leave the site at times
accidentally, especially from tracking pads, does the plans call out for any other inlet
protection, as a precautionary secondary containment for the site?
Off site inlet protection has been added to the plan.
i) Are there any Stockpiles on site? If not where is all the dirt going to go? If so what type of
BMPs will be implemented to stabilize the stockpile?
It is not anticipated to need stockpiles on site. Dirt removed for the pond realignment will be modified and
used as fill under the building.
In Phase 2 of the plan set:
a) Apply all of the Phase 1 issues
Phase I and 11 erosion control plans are now consistent to address the comments above.
b) Extend the Silt fence around the disturbed areas
Silt fence has been extended.
c) Inlet protection to the new storm infrastructure
Inlet protection has been added to the proposed storm.
Please Revise Accordingly and submit an in-depth Erosion Detail Sheet.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11 /22/2011
11/22/2011: The drainage swale running through the site carries flows from other properties and
from public streets. The City thinks it is not a good idea to have these flows in contact with the
building. Some separation should exist between the flows and the building. Also, the existing
drainage easement would need to be vacated with the proposed plan and a new drainage
easement dedicated within the limits of the 100-year water surface elevation of the pond/swale.
The new drainage easement can not be in contact with the proposed building and over any
footings of the foundation wall.
The pond has been shifted to the north and the 100-yr water surface elevation no longer is in contact with
Comment Number: 3—
CDN 2528A-011
Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
11/17/2011: ]believe afire hydrant and remote fire dept. connection were discussed.
Please see the attached diagram which shows the existing FDC connection, this will be maintained as the
building FDC connection for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Existing fire hydrant locations are shown in the
referenced diagram.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, aschlueter(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: Please schedule a meeting with Wes Lamarque and Basil Hamdan to discuss the
detention pond design standards adopted by City Council. As stated in one of the comments;
the plan shown does not meet those standards and in fact is an example of what the new
standards are trying to address.
A meeting was held with Basil Harridan. Additional grading and landscape has been added to the Phase 11
pond to follow the new standards.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: The channel and detention designed into the original Rigden Farm plan for this site
is being modified and as such there should be more buffering of the drainage facilities from the
buildings and active areas. The drainage facilities on this site provide conveyance and
detention for a larger drainage area and must be respected for the safety of the students.
The invert of the pond has been shifted to the north to provide more buffering of the drainage facility from
the building.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: The drainage easement will need to modified by approval of the Planning and
Zoning Board once an acceptable design is approved.
The drainage easement will be modified by separate document and submitted to the City Planner for
approval.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011:
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22/2011: In Phase 1 of the plan set:
a) The only BMPs applied to this site are consisting of 1 inlet protection and 1 tracking pad.
With any amount of dirt movement this would be ineffective at preventing any sediment
movement as well as any erosion protection.
Additional erosion protection has been added to the plan.
b) Why was there no silt fence or other types of barriers to minimize and direct traffic on and off
the site?
Additional erosion protection has been added to the plan.
CDN 2528A-011
would potentia y vacate portions of the access easement for the trail (with Larimer County
Recordation fees to record these documents also needing to be assessed.)
Duly noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/2312011: How will removal of the street tree along Limon Drive for the driveway approach be
addressed?
Please see Sheet L2.03 for new location of street tree
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: Two Development Construction Permits will be required prior to the
commencement of each of the two phases for construction.
Duly noted.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2011
11/09/2011: The existing high voltage power line along the southerly side of the building may
need to be relocated.
The high voltage power line and transformer will be relocated in Phase 2. The Site Utility drawings have
been revised for clarity.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/09/2011
11/09/2011: Power to phase 2 will need to be from the existing electric transformer, not a new
transformer as shown. The existing transformer may need to be changed to a larger one.
In phase 2 the transformer needs to be upsized to accommodate the added demand. The existing
transformer at the main entry will be removed in Phase 2 and a new transformer will be placed at the
North West corner of the site to service the entire building. The Site Utility drawings have been revised for
Clarity.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/09/2011
11/09/2011: Records indicate the existing electric service is 800 amps at 120/208 volt three
phase. Electric development and system modification charges will apply. Please coordinate
power requirements with Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700.
Noted.
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221.6635, rgonzales(a)poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
11/17/2011: A fire lane is required.
Please see the attached diagram which shows hydrant spacing and fire access. The Phase 1 addition is
within 150'-0" of Limon Drive and Kansas Drive. and the maximum slope of the grade along this path is 3:1.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
11/17/2011: Fire sprinklers are required.
Each phase of construction will be fully sprinkled.
N 40 CDN 252BA-011
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mviratanv fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: Please show the intended limits of removal for the trail going from Phase I to
Phase 11. I'm concerned that if the intention is to remove as little trail as possible from Phase I to
Phase II that the new portion of trail in Phase II would be poured at an acute angle. In addition,
with minimal removal limits, the joint spacing pattern would be awkward.
Please See Sheets L 1.01 & L 1.02 for location where trail will be tied into existing.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: Provide construction plan details for sidewalk, drive approaches, etc. in
accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards details. Please use the provided
metal sidewalk culvert detail in lieu of the version that's in LCUASS and the City's Storm
Drainage Criteria manual.
See civil plans and comments.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: The proposed rerouting of the trail to the north to Limon Drive was met with
questions from City transportation staff as a whole, wondering how perhaps it can be addressed
to the P&Z Board that the proposed realigned design is in keeping with the ODP for Rigden
Farm which the approved ODP more reflects the trail design as is in place today.
A meeting was held with staff on I M and it was determined that the current trail alignment was acceptable
based on site constraints. Resubmitted plans reflect any requested changes.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: The proposed placement of a retaining wall abutting the trail is of concern without
any shy distance (minimum of 2 feet would be needed) and in addition, the amount of drop off
that occurs (appears to be around 4 feet). Even with a 2 foot offset provided, it seems handrails
or some other type of barrier be provided in light of the drop off.
Handrail provided. See resubmitted plans.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: For the portion of trail built in Phase II that's abutting the parking lot, the trail width of
10 feet should exclude the curb and gutter section in the 10 foot width. Ideally though (if the trail
isn't intended to be used as part of the site program for pickup/drop-off) the trail should be
detached from the parking lot drive aisle (and perhaps the Type R inlet can then be placed
outside of the trail.)
This part of the trail measures 11 '-6" to curb. Please see Sheet L 1.01.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
11/23/2011: With the understanding from Stormwater comments that a vacation of a drainage
easement is required with an approved redesign of the drainage, please note that this is a $400
Transportation Development Review Fee to process the vacation, similar to a vacation that
so so CDN 2528A-011
9=.g
December 12, 2011 archistruction•
invw .....00.
Mr. Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins Current Planning
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Liberty Common High School Site Plan Advisory Review (Major Amendment), SPA110003,
Round Number 1, Letter Addressing Comments
Ted,
Please find enclosed herein our response to the review comments from City staff.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tshepard(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
1.Staff is concerned about the trail re -alignment. As proposed, it is not as convenient and
direct. from the overall neighborhood prospective. A more direct alignment is preferred.
A meeting was held with staff on 12/8 and it was determined that the current trail alignment was acceptable
based on site constraints. Resubmitted plans reflect any requested changes.
Comment Number:
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
2. The plans do not include a drop-off / pick-up circulation plan and the submittal did not include
a T.I.S. A circulation plan should be implemented so that traffic on Custer is minimized.
A circulation plan/diagram will be provided will this resubmittal.
Comment Number:
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
3. Bike racks are not shown. Please indicate the location and quantity.
Bike rack location provided on L1.01 and bike rack counts provided on sheet L1.00
Comment Number:
Comment Originated: 11/23/2011
4. Staff recommends that the walls of gymnasium be mitigated with day -lighting features. This
will help with internal illumination and soften the large exterior walls that are visible from public oft
streets. 0
The elevations have been revised to show windows on the North wall of the gymnasium.
The revised South Elevation matches the window pattern of the North elevation with
color patterns.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/2312011
11/23/2011: The sidewalk around the gym is not shown on all the plans.
Plans now show the correct walk alignment.C�
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100 1 Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 970.493.8747 1 Fax: 970.493.5869