Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHICKORY COMMONS - PDP - PDP110005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)1 Responses to Comments Hickory Commons PDP 10/24/2012 Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston Topic: Building Elevations Comment # 3 - RESPONSE : See note 2 on the revised elevations. Topic: General Comment # 1- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Comment # 2- RESPONSE : A meeting was conducted on September 25, 2012, with Courtney, Mike Gebo, PFA, and Zoning, where a list of appropriate uses were discussed and agreed upon. Comment # 4- RESPONSE : See revised site data sheet (1 of 6) Comment # 5- RESPONSE : Yes. Comment # 6- RESPONSE : Some of the uses will be designated as only allowed through a minor amendment process where parking impacts for those uses can be reviewed on a case by case basis. Comment # 7- RESPONSE : Loading of large trucks is intended to be infrequent. The uses approved only through minor amendment will include that would potentially have the most truck impacts, and can therefore be reviewed on a case by case basis. Comment # 8- RESPONSE : The units are intended to be live/work units where the same occupant runs the business space and occupies the residential space. Comment #9- RESPONSE : We have provided a dumpster enclosure with two 4-yard dumpsters, one for trash, and one for recycling. We have also provided a fenced area next to the loading dock for pallet storage. Comment #10- RESPONSE : The loading dock is now blocked from view of offsite areas by buildings, the fenced pallet enclosure, and shrubs. Comment # 11- RESPONSE : See note 16 on the revised site data sheet (1 of 5). Comment # 12- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment # 1- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Comment # 2- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingrich Topic: Construction Drawings Comment # 26- RESPONSE : This issue is now clarified on the resubmittal. Comment # 27- RESPONSE : Note changed to reflect 1’ contours. Comment # 28- RESPONSE : A stub will be provided for this property owner to the west if they decide to participate in the cost of the storm sewer. Topic: General Comment # 3- RESPONSE : A variance request has been prepared and submitted to Engineering. Comment #14- RESPONSE : We now propose a 7 feet easement along Hemlock. Comment # 20- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. 2 Comment # 24- RESPONSE : Troy Jones forwarded you an "email of intent" from Craig Forman on this issue shortly after staff review. Comment # 25- RESPONSE : The easements have been clarified on the sheets. See the diagram below to help clarify which easements are what. On that diagram, yellow is Utility Easement only; blue is Drainage Easement only, and pink is combined Utility & Drainage. The emergency access easement just overlaps the others. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan Topic: General Comment # 1- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment #2- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Comment #3- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Department: Internal Services 3 Contact: Jesse Schlam Topic: Erosion Control Comment # 1- RESPONSE : It is our understanding that we can wait until final compliance to address erosion control items. Contact: Mike Gebo Topic: General Comment #1- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Department: Light & Power Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General Comment # 2- RESPONSE : Utility coordination meeting on September 19th and additional plans have been sent and revised to address comments. Comment # 3- RESPONSE : Water meter pits and curb stops have been moved accordingly Comment # 4- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Department: Park Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston Topic: General Comment # 1- RESPONSE : Helen has been part of the email chain regarding the "email of intent" for the easement necessary on the trail ROW. Comment # 3- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Contact: Craig Forman Topic: General Comment # 2- RESPONSE : Agreed, and this is to be included in the easement documentation and development agreement. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: General Comment # 7- RESPONSE : A meeting was conducted on September 25, 2012, with Courtney, Mike Gebo, Ron Gonzales, and Zoning, where a list of appropriate uses were discussed and agreed upon. Comment # 8- RESPONSE : The emergency access easement and driveway has been widened out to 30’ Comment #10- RESPONSE : See revised notes on the site data sheet (1 of 5). Fire lines have been provided to each one of the buildings. Department: Stormwater Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: General Comment # 1- RESPONSE : The outfall location is within the City of Fort Collins right of way, but we understand that it drains to the Natural Area. We have contacted Daylan Figgs in Natural Resources and sent him the plan so that he can review and approve the design location. Comment # 4- RESPONSE : Noted, thank you. Comment # 6- RESPONSE : Noted, thank you. 4 Comment # 8- RESPONSE : Noted, thank you. Comment # 11- RESPONSE : We have added more information to the drainage plans and report to document the flows that will not make it to the detention pond. The proposed 100 year flows exiting the site undetained are less than the 100 year storm for the existing site. The proposed 2 year flows exiting the site undetained are more than 2 year storm for the existing site. The amount of flow in the 2 year storm is relatively small so we would either propose allowing this additional flow or providing some additional BMP’s such as a rain garden, sand filter, etc during final design. Comment # 12- RESPONSE : Noted, thank you. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County Topic: Building Elevations Comment # 20- RESPONSE : Routed. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment # 22- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Comment # 23- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Comment # 24- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment # 19- RESPONSE : See revised landscape plan. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment # 21- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Comment # 16- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Comment # 17- RESPONSE : Clarified. Topic: Site Plan Comment # 9- RESPONSE : Clarified. Comment # 18- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Department: Transportation Planning. Contact: Matt Wempe Topic: Site Plan Comment # 1- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Comment # 2- RESPONSE : Revised accordingly. Comment # 3- RESPONSE : Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Construction Drawings Comment # 4- RESPONSE : Noted, thank you. Comment # 6- RESPONSE : All water valves should be shown now. It is unclear what size the new fire lines will be. If they are 4” lines on the larger buildings, then water valves will be shown 5 on those lines. If they are only 2” lines, they will get a curb stop. We would like to work out those sizes in final design. Comment # 14- RESPONSE : Utility Coordination meeting was on September 19th and since that time we have worked with the individual service providers to meet there needs. In addition, the drive lane widened out from 26’ to 30’ which allowed for more room for all of the utilities. Comment # 15- RESPONSE : Water main has been extended to the south. A message was left with Ron Gonzales to discuss fire hydrant spacing, but we have not heard back from him yet. We anticipate that with the addition of the fire sprinkler systems to each of the units, the fire hydrant spacing is adequate. Comment # 16- RESPONSE : Fire lines have been added. As noted in Comment #6, we would like to wait until Final Design to add the pipe sizes.