The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLIBERTY COMMON HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION - SPAR - SPA110003 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)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. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(a)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. 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 II. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: 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. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: See redlined utility plans for other comments. The new drainage easement can not be in contact with the propu;A building and over any footings of the foundation wall. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyCa)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. 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 L2.01. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: Please correct the legal description on sheet 1-1.00. 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. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a)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 II. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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 nite that this is a $400 Transportation Development Review Fee to process the vacation, similar to a vacation that would potentially vacate portions of the access easement for the trail (with Larimer County Recordation fees to record these documents also needing to be assessed.) Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 11/23/2011: How will removal of the street tree along Limon Drive for the driveway approach be addressed? 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. City of F&tColhns Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com./developmentreview November 28, 2011 Michael Chalona Liberty Common School 2620 E. Prospect Ave. Ste 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Liberty Common High School Site Plan Advisory Review (Major Amendment), SPA110003, Round Number 1 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard 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. 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. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 3. Bike racks re not shown. Please indicate the location and quantity. 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 streets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 11/23/2011: The sidewalk around the gym is not shown on all the plans.