HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIBERTY COMMON HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION - SPAR - SPA110003 - CORRESPONDENCE - (4)e
Department: Technical Services
Contact Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountY(a�fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
11/21/2011: There are line over text issues on sheet 11.01.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(affcaov.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: 11121/2011
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.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wiamaraue(a)fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/22/2011
11/22011: 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
11/2212011: 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
11122/2011: Please add an overflow weir calc to show what the water surface elevation would
be if the new 30-inch stone sewer was plugged.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: JeffCounty, 970-221-6588, jcountvCa).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'tscan 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
11/2112011: There is cut off text & light text that won'tscan well on sheet 1-1.00.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wiamargue(affcaov.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.
b) Why was there no sift fence or other types of barriers to minimize and direct traffic on and off
the site?
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.
e) Velocity check dams? The channel going through the Site carries a lot of water flow during a
stone event, what methods of velocity reduction are used 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.
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)
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?
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?
In Phase 2 of the plan set:
a) Apply all of the Phase 1 issues
b) Extend the Silt fence around the disturbed areas
c) Inlet protection to the new storm infrastructure
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.
0
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(a)fcoov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/21/2011: No comments.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartineMcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/21/2011
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.
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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2011
11109/2011: 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.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforemanta7.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/09/2011: No comments
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, ronzales aOpoudre-fire.ora
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/17/2011: A fire lane is required.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/09/2011
Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
11117/2011: Fire sprinklers are required
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2011
11/17/2011: 1 believe afire hydrant and remote fire dept. connection were discussed.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, wlamargue(alfcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-2214%7, mvirata(&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
11/2312011: 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
11/2312011: How will removal of the street tree along Limon Drive for the driveway approach be
addressed?
Comment Number: S 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.
Department: Environmental Planning
q
Foret of
November 23, 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
�ound Nurr}�er 1 ll
ease seele following summary of comments from City staff and outsic
of the above referenced project. If you have questions Ali -
submittal tar
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner
tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343,
Topic: General
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins. CO 80522
970.221.6760
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. corWdevelopmentreview
110003,
agencies for your
lyou may contact the
Ird; at 970-221-6343 or
Comment Number.Y •1 �'qp'Comment Originated:
11/23/2011
Staff is concerned about tl ejtrail re-alignmentAszproposed, it is not as convenient and direct.
from 66 overall neighborhood prospective. A more direct alignment is preferred.
1
Comment N mbar.: 2rV
L Comment Originated:
11/23/2011
The plans do ndt;inciude a drop-off / pick-up circulation plan and the submittal did not include a
r, I.S�,;A circulation 'Ian should be implemented so that traffic on Custer is minimized.
Comment Number: 3 �IiYV Comment Originated:
11/23/2011
Bike racks a"re_not shown Please indicate the location and quantity.
Comment Number 4 4 Comment Originated:
11/23/2011
Staff recommends that the walls of gymnasium be mitigated with day -lighting features. This will
>l, Ali/
"help with,_intemal illumination and soften the large exterior walls that are visible from public
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirataMcaov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings