HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIR CARE COLORADO - PDP - 2-10 - CORRESPONDENCE -Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Sinc�erel
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Page 6
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 41 Created: 2/3/2010
[3/16/10] There are minor line over text issues on site plan sheet Al. 1
[2/3/10] There are many line over text issues on the site plan.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 53 Created: 2/5/2010
[3/18/10] Reminder comment.
[2/5/10] A drainage easement is required for the limits of the water quality mitigation.
Number: 71 Created: 3/18/2010
[3/18/10] Stormwater and Floodplain departments are ready for a hearing.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez
Topic: Zoning
Number: 58 Created: 3/15/2010
[3/15/10] No Comments
Please add the following General Notes:
1. Refer to Utility Plan for location of utilities and drainage facilities.
2. Developer shall ensure that the Landscape Plan is coordinated with the
plans done by other consultants so that the proposed grading, storm
drainage, or other construction does not conflict nor preclude installation
and maintenance of landscape elements.
3. Sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed in compliance with Americans
with Disabilities Act. Handicap accessible routes shall slope no more than
1:20 in direction of travel and no more than 1:48 cross slope.
4. Building -mounted and pole -mounted light fixtures must feature fully
shielded luminaries.
5. Pole -mounted light fixtures and shade trees shall be properly separated so
tree foliage does not block illumination.
6. Trees shall be kept a minimum of four feet from gas lines.
7. Signage shall comply with City of Fort Collins Sign Code.
8. Rooftop and ground -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened
from public view.
Page 5
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 26 Created: 2/2/2010
[3/16/10] Please show the new fire hydrant location (moved away from the building) on the
site plan. It's correct on Sheet C200. I realize this was a recent change so I know the plans
will be updated. This is just a reminder. Thanks.
WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having
jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum
requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include:
• Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to
the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter
• Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced
not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
• Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual' pressure, spaced
not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler
systems.
Minimum clearance around a hydrant is 36 inches; this includes distance from buildings,
curb face and landscaping (excluding ground cover).
PLEASE NOTE: You can eliminate the hydrant shown on the far, "west" side of the
structure. The other two hydrants shown on Sheet C200 WILL be required, with a slight
location change for one of them. The FDC would best be located on the south side of the
building, near the hydrant shown off the south corner of the building. However, that south
hydrant should be moved to the other side of the drive aisle, on the landscape peninsula, so
that it's on the same side of the drive as the FDC. That way, an engine can support the
sprinkler system (hydrant and FDC) without blocking the drive and cutting off access to other
apparatus. The hydrant is needed to support the automatic fire sprinkler system. The
second hydrant, shown on the north side of the building, is needed due to the square
footage of the structure. The single, existing hydrant located across the frontage road would
not be adequate to fire fire in a 15,000-SF building.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik
Topic: General
Number: 67 Created: 3/17/2010
[3/17/10] Bicycle parking facilities should be located nearer the entrance. The current
location will not likely to be used by cyclists.
Number: 68 Created: 3/17/2010
[3/17/10] There appears to be a conflict between sidewalk and CA TV utility vault. Please
correct to show no conflict.
Number: 69 Created: 3/17/2010
[3/17/10] Please submit striping plan for review
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Elevation Plan
Number: 59 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] There are minor line over text issues on elevation plan A3.0
Page 4
Number: 62 Created: 3/16/2010
[3116/10] The sidewalk connections to the North and South will need to be properly
terminated with Type III Barricades. Please show these barricades on the Utility Plan set.
Number: 63 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] On the Southern edge of the site where the proposed sidewalk dead -ends to the
adjacent property it is shown through an existing CATV box. Unless you are proposing to
move the box, the walk will need to be re-routed so it does not interfere with the box.
Please leave a minimum of 2 feet between the sidewalk and the existing box as a shy -
distance.
Number: 64 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] 1 have provided Appendix E-4 from LCUASS. Please look very carefully at the
Utility Plan requirements and note what is required prior to hearing and especially what is
required at final. Since, I did not receive a utility set with this round of review, issues are
more likely to arise at final, so please review the requirements to ensure a smooth final
round of review. I would very much encourage a round of Final review with Engineering (at a
minimum) due to the outstanding issues and concerns.
Number: 65 Created: 3/16/2010
(3/16/10] Since the Frontage Road is not a city roadway and the services being affected by
the street cuts are also not City lines please modify the Street cut note to the following. I
apologize for the confusion; however since neither the street nor the lines are City property
the note will need to be modified.
"Limits of street cuts are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the
appropriate governing bodies' inspector. All repairs are to be in accordance with their street
repair standards."
Number: 66 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] Engineering is okay with going to hearing.
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
Number: 70 Created: 3/18/2010
[3/18/10] The American Lindens used in the native seed mix area are not considered very
drought tolerant. Bur Oak, Kentucky Coffeetree or Catalpa would have better long term
survival.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric
Number: 1 Created: 1 /20/2010
[3/15/10]
[1/20/10] Light & Power engineering will need a Commercial Service Information (C-1) form
completed outlining the characteristics of the electric service. Will also need to coordinate
the location for the electric transformer. Depending on the electric load, the most likely
transformer will be 84" wide x 73" deep, plus 3 ft. clearance on 3 sides and 8 ft. clearance in
front. Please contact Light & Power engineering at (970)221-6700 for more details.
Page 3
V
[1/28/10] On the Grading Plan, please include spot elevations for all lot corners, and finish
floors/top of foundation elevations.
Number: 10 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] With this round of review, I will not be able to confirm if less than 750 sq. ft. is
draining through the drive entrances since a grading sheet was not submitted. If the
proposed swale between the parking and sidewalk is approved by Stormwater a sidewalk
chase will be needed where it crosses the walk.
[1/28/10] According to the Larimer Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), no more than
750 sq. ft. may drain across/through a drive entrance measured from behind the ROW line.
It appears that with the current design, much more than 750 sq. ft. is proposed to drain
through both drive entrances. If the grading can not be altered to bring the drainage area
down to below 750 sq. ft. a curb/sidewalk chase will be required. Also, CDOT may also have
a maximum drainage area that may be less than the 750 sq. ft. in LCUASS.
Number: 12 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward. A Grading Plan was not included with this submittal;
therefore I am not able to confirm any changes have been made.
[1/28/10] On the grading plan, please show the entire frontage road including any existing
drive entrances across the street from this project.
Number: 13 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward. The full Utility Set was not submitted with this round of
review so I can not confirm this comment has been addressed.
[1/28/10] The drive entrance proposed will be required to be built according to Standard
Drawing 707 in LCUASS. Provide Drawing 707 in the utility plan set.
Number: 16 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward as a reminder.
(1/28/10] The proposed driveway location must be approved by CDOT and will require a
CDOT access permit.
Number: 17 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward as a reminder.
[1/28/10] Signature blocks from Elco and Boxelder may be required for their approval of the
project because their services are being impacted. Also, CDOT may require a signature
block on the Utility Plans.
Number: 60 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] According to the re -submittal documents, the access easement for the proposed
sidewalk will be dedicated with the plat. If this is the case, please label that easement on the
Utility Plan/Set, it is not currently shown.
Number: 61 Created: 3/16/2010
[3/16/10] What is the proposed grading behind the sidewalk? I did not receive a grading
sheet with this submittal so I have now way of knowing what is proposed. The grade is
required to be flat for at least 1 foot behind the sidewalk before any significant grade change
can take place such as the proposed swale. Also, a sidewalk chase will need to be installed
where the swale crosses the walk. The chase will not need to be per the City of Fort Collins
Standard Detail, however we can certainly provide it if needed.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
a
BRIAN OJALA Date: 3/19/2010
ENTASIS GROUP
12365 HURON ST., #400
WESTMINSTER, CO 80234
Staff has reviewed your submittal for AIR CARE COLORADO PDP - TYPE I (aka Envirotest)
(RE:INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK LOTS 15 & 16 REPLAT), and we offer the following
comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Andrew.Carney
Topic: General
Number: 5 Created: 1 /26/2010
(3/16/10] Comment carried forward.
[1/26/10] This project is subject to any CDOT requirements and permits regarding the
ROW, access points, and/or turn lanes.
Number: 6 Created: 1 /26/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward.
[1/26/10] Please refer to Transportation Planning's comments regarding sidewalk
requirements. Any sidewalk will need to be in either the ROW or an access easement. If the
easement is not dedicated on the plat associated with this project it will need to be
dedicated by separate document and will be subject to all associated fees.
Number' 7 Created: 1/26/2010
[3/16/10] Comment carried forward. I will provide the Development Construction Permit
(DCP) Application with this round of review. Once completed and returned to me I will be
able to begin the permit itself. As the project approaches final approval we will be able to
schedule a DCP meeting which are held on Wednesday afternoons. Please refer to the DCP
Application and Brochure for more information the the DCP process.
[1/26/10) This project will need a Development Agreement as well as Development
Construction Permit prior to starting work on site. I have provided the Development
Agreement information sheet with this round of review. Once completed and returned to me
I will be able to start the Development Agreement language. When the project is closer to
final design, we will begin work on the Development Construction Permit.
Number: 8 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10] With this round of review I only received the Utility Plan Sheet from the Utility Plan
Set, not the full set, so I am only able to comment on the Utility Sheet, therefore I am not
able to confirm if the following comment has been addressed.
[1/28/10] Please include all of the City of Fort Collins General Notes. Numbers 26, 41, 47, &
48 were not included in the Utility Plans. If they do not apply to this particular project they
still must be included.
Number: 9 Created: 1 /28/2010
[3/16/10) Comment carried forward. A Grading Plan was not included with this submittal,
therefore I am not able to confirm any changes have been made.
Page I