HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPOONS - PDP/FDP - FDP150011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity 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
February 17, 2015
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave
Bethoud, CO 80513
RE: Spoons- Lightfield Enterprises, Inc., FDP150003, 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, Clay
Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/06/2015
02/06/2015: Please add an icon to the landscape plan that indicates trees/vegetation to be
removed and/or mitigated for, if applicable.
Response: To the best of our knowledge no existing trees were located on survey. Offsite trees
have been located on landscape plan.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/06/2015
02/06/2015: Please update the sheet numbers for the plat. The cover sheet and plat are both
labeled sheet 1 of 2.
Response: The sheet numbers for the plat have been updated.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The civil plans (both) seem to be inaccurately labelling existing and proposed right-of-
way along Midpoint Drive and should coincide with the plat.
Response: The civil plans now accurately label existing and proposed right-of way along Midpoint
Drive.
Page 11 of 11
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The civil plans (both) need to build the driveway approaches in accordance with
LCUASS Drawing 707 with concrete to the property line, not as if it was a street intersection (add
LCUASS Detail 707 and remove the detail shown as "D-14" on sheet C7.0.
Response: The civil plans are now in accordance with LCUASS Drawing 707.1 (Detached sidewalk)
and the detail “D-14” has been removed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The civil plans (both) need to remove the detail shown as "D-6" on sheet C7.0.
02/10/2015: Please show the installation of a Type III barricade at the termination of the sidewalk
along Midpoint Drive at the eastern boundary of lot 17.
Response: The detail “D-6” has been removed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: For the sawcut/street repair sheet(s), please add street repair note: "Limits of street cut
are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All
repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards."
Response: The note has been added to the utility plans.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The culvert crossings of the sidewalk along Midpoint Drive for both lots should reflect
widening of the sidewalk as indicated in the construction detail.
Response: The widening of the sidewalk now reflects the construction detail.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Why is the site currently fenced off? The fence encroaches onto Midpoint Drive right-
of-way and would need to be moved back (unless otherwise permitted). The fencing appears to
particularly be a concern with visibility for drivers exiting the driveway onto Midpoint Drive directly
northwest of the Spoons project (2572 Midpoint Drive) and I believe is a safety issue.
Response: The fence issue has been resolved.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Under the premise that there will be either: 1) one master "Developer" entity that will
be specified, or 2) both LLC's of each lot listed "collectively as the Developer" in one development
agreement for both lots, the concept of combining the two different lots (and owners) under a single
development plan is acceptable. If it is desired to have two distinct development agreements, one
for Lot 17 and one
for Lot 18, then the combined development plan will need to be split into two.
Response: Noted, the plans have been combined with one Master Cover Sheet, Phasing Plan and
Detail Sheets. For the purposes of the project’s congruity, Spoons has been labeled as phase I and
LEI as phase II
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: There are two distinct civil plans submitted, one for Lot 17 (Lightfield Enterprises) and
one for Lot 18 (Spoons). With the previous comment in mind regarding whether this is two
Page 12 of 11
development plans or one, under the premise that both lots are under one development plan, the
two civil plans would need to be attached and combined as one set. A "master cover sheet" would
then be created to tie the two development plans together with an overall title that matches the site
plan ("Spoons - Lightfield Enterprises Inc.") Standard details in the details sheet wouldn't need to be
duplicated (potentially saving sheets).
Response: Noted, the plans have been combined with one Master Cover Sheet, Phasing Plan and
Detail Sheets. For the purposes of the project’s congruity, Spoons has been labeled as phase I and
LEI as phase II
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Under the premise of a unified An additional phasing plan sheet created specifying
one lot as Phase 1, the other as Phase 2 is then recommended such that each lot "stands on its
own" from a construction perspective, otherwise infrastructure for both lots would need to be
constructed and tied together at the same (this would also allow erosion control deposits to be
posted per phase). Separate development construction permits (DCP's) would be required under a
phased premise, but again would not require that all the infrastructure be completed for both phases
for the lead development to proceed.
Response: Noted, the plans have been combined with one Master Cover Sheet, Phasing Plan and
Detail Sheets. For the purposes of the project’s congruity, Spoons has been labeled as phase I and
LEI as phase II
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: In general the plans need to reflect the property line/right-of-way with the 3 feet of
right-of-way dedication shown on the plat. This would have the property line (presumably) shown as
coinciding with the back of sidewalk.
Response: The plans now reflect right-of-way with the required 9 feet instead of 3 (per Plat comment
No. 15) of right-of-way dedication.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Please label the sidewalk width (5 feet) along Midpoint Drive on the civil sheets and
the parkway strip between the sidewalk and street (both on the civil and site/landscape plan).
02/11/2015: The various civil, plat, site/landscape, building elevation plans should all have the
same title.
Response: The sidewalk and parkway have been labeled in the horizontal control plans
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The plat title should match the title of the site and civil plans, such as
"Spoons - Lightfield Enterprises Inc."
Response: The plat title now matches the title of the site plan.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The plat doesn't need to have the lot numbers carry over as lots 17 &
18 and should be indicated as Lots 1 & 2.
Response: The lots are now properly labeled.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: The plat should be reflecting at least a 9 foot utility easement behind the dedicated
Page 13 of 11
right-of-way.
Response: The plans now reflect right-of-way with the required 9 feet instead of 3 (per Plat comment
No. 15) of right-of-way dedication.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: I would suggest that the emergency access easement on lot 18 follow the full drive
aisle width (including radius) along the southwest corner of the building. I've seen PFA look for
additional emergency access easement dedicated in the past when part of the driving area for a
prescribed fire lane falls outside of an emergency access easement. Similarly the emergency
access easement along lot 17 may need to be widened to include more of the drive aisle width (not
the parking stall area).
Response: Noted.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: The project owes an additional $391.56 for the Transporation Development Review
Fees. The building square footage and acerage on the application doesn't match the plans
submitted utilizing the information on the plans submitted additional TDRFees are owed.
Response: Noted. There was a mistake in the acreage calculation.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015:
Please add these additional street tree notes.
1. Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of
the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval
of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase.
2. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor.
Response: Notes above have been added to the existing ‘Street Tree Notes’ text box.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015:
If there are any existing significant trees on the site then contact the City Forester for an on-site
meeting to conduct a tree inventory and assign mitigation values.
Response: To the best of our knowledge no existing trees were located on survey. Offsite trees
have been located on landscape plan.
02/11/2015:
Evaluate feasibility for placement of additional trees at the following locations:
1. Placing trees at around a 40 foot spacing in the landscape area at the northwest edge of the
Spoons site along the one way drive
2. Check feasibility of adding an upright ornamental tree such as Chanticleer Pear or Red Barron
Crabapple in the planting bed at the front of the Spoons site near the corner of the building by the
one way drive.
3. Evaluate the benefit of adding a group of three conifer trees in the front landscape area along the
Page 14 of 11
border of the two sites. Perhaps placing two trees on one site and
one on the other using an evergreen tree such as Tannenbaum Mugo Pine, Islei Fastigiate Spruce
or another appropriate conifer tree would provide beneficial texture contrast to the dominance of
deciduous trees.
4. Is it feasible to have two canopy shade trees in the landscape area at the north east edge of the
Lightfield Building where one is currently shown?
5. Determine if it is feasible to add a tree in the landscape peninsula area at the northeast part of
the Spoons building toward the back where currently only shrubs and cobbles are shown.
Response: Per above Several trees have been added where feasible
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter
locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Response: Luke was contacted (02/13/15: 12:30 PM) in regards to obtaining the as-built locations.
But we never received them.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form
can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference
our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Noted.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
02/13/2015: SECURITY GATES
> IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be
approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means
of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained
operational at all times.
Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria:
1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet.
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person.
4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or
repaired when defective.
5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel
for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official.
6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock,
unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box
Page 15 of 11
containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location.
7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code
official prior to installation.
Response: 20’ accessible security gates have been proposed in the Utility/Fire Lane plan on the civil
plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
The fire lane shall be engineered to support 40 tons throughout. The limits of the Emergency
Access Easement shall meet minimum fire lane specifications with the exception that the surface be
a hard surface throughout. The fire marshal has approved the area enclosures to be surfaced with
road base rather than hard surfacing, provided all other fire lane specifications are being met and
that all areas are being adequately maintained and remain unobstructed at all times. Fire lane
specifications provided below for reference.
FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria
already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following
general requirements:
> Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead
clearance.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved
area for turning around fire apparatus.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans.
> Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times.
> Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height. Refer to Appendix D
of the 2012 IFC or contact PFA for details.
International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC
3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments.
Response: A fire lane plan has been combined with the utility plan on the civil construction
documents.
02/13/2015: FIRE LANE MARKING
The fire lane shall be signed appropriately throughout with NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signage to
define the limits of the EAE. Code language provided below.
> IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that
include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to
identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are
designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or
repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility.
Response: Fire lane marking has been completed and is detailed on the utility/fire lane plan on the
civil plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: WATER SUPPLY
It is understood from the applicant that a hydrant is being added to the Lightfield site because the
nearest hydrant does not meet minimum fire flow requirements for the site. There is also a hydrant
Page 16 of 11
currently shown on the Spoons site which I understand will be removed from future plan sets
because the building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
Response: This comment is not applicable as the client has chosen to install a hydrant as shown on
the utility plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall have a Knox Box installed. The location and
size of the Knox Box shall be reviewed and approved at time of building permit. Code language
provided below.
> IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: Poudre Fire Authority requires at least
one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an approved, exterior location (or locations) on every
new or existing building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall
be positioned 3 to 7 feet above finished floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or closest door to
the fire alarm panel. Exception can be made by the PFA if it is more logical to have the box located
somewhere else on the structure.
Response: This comment is not applicable as the client has chosen to install a hydrant as shown on
the utility plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: FDC
Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall have a Fire Department
Connection installed. Code language provided below.
> IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards.
Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and
recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the
FDC shall be approved by the fire department.
Response: This comment is not applicable as the client has chosen to install a hydrant as shown on
the utility plans.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: Ready for a hearing.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: Please see redlines for comments.
Response: Redlines have been addressed as needed.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
Page 17 of 11
02/10/2015: The sheets for each lot need to be combined, and the sheets renumbered. These will
be filed all together in one set of plans.
Response: The sheets have been combined and renumbered.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: We recommend that the plan sets be combined into one set.
Response: The sheets have been combined into one set.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: Please add the legal description as a sub-title to the plans, and remove
the legal description from the cover sheet.
Response: Legal description has been added as a sub-title to the plans and has been removed from
the cover sheet.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on each sheet.
Response: Titles now match sheet index.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the
following information in the EXACT format shown below.
Response: The benchmark statement is now shown in the correct format.
If your project is started on NAVD88 datum:
1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum:
2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM)
BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed.
NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
+ X.XX’
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
Response: Benchmark statements match on all sheets.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: Sheets C1.1 & C1.2 are labeled as cover sheets. Please change the
titles.
Response: Sheets C1.1 and C1.2 are now displayed as general notes.
Comment Number: 8
Page 18 of 11
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: Please verify that all easement information is correct. All easement
information needs to match the Subdivision Plat.
Response: All easement information is correct and is reflected on the subdivision plat.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: The right of way information for Midpoint Drive on sheet
C2.0 does not match the Plat. See redlines.
Response:
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project
boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner
values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and
adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values.
Response: The right of way information for Midpoint Drive now matches the plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: All text cutoff issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: LIGHTFIELD: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: All text rotating issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: Please add the legal description as a sub-title to the plans, and remove the
legal description from the cover sheet.
Response: Legal description is now a sub-title.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on each sheet.
Response: Titles now match sheet index.
Comment Number: 16
02/10/2015: SPOONS: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the
following information in the EXACT format shown below.
Response: The benchmark statement is now shown in the correct format.
If your project is started on NAVD88 datum:
1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum:
2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM)
BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
Page 19 of 11
If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed. NOTE: IF NAVD
88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
+ X.XX
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets.
Response: All benchmark statements now match.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: Sheets C1.1 & C1.2 are labeled as cover sheets. Please change the titles.
Response: Sheets C1.1 and C1.2 now have new titles.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: Please verify that all easement information is correct. All easement
information needs to match the Subdivision Plat.
Response: All easement information is correct.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: SPOONS: The right of way information for Midpoint Drive on sheet
C2.0 does not match the Plat. See redlines.
Response: The right of way information for Midpoint Drive now matches the plat.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: SPOONS: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary.
We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the
property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with
coordinate values.
Response: Coordinates have been given for the property boundary in addition to the building
corners.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: SPOONS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: All line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: SPOONS: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: All text rotation issues have been resolved.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: All line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: All text rotation issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
Page 20 of 11
02/11/2015: Please verify that all easement information is correct. All easement information needs
to match the Subdivision Plat.
Response: Easement information now matches the plat.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: All line over text issues have been resolved.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please change the name to Prospect Industrial Park, Fourth Filing.
Response: Plat title revised
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please change the Notice Of Other Documents from "Engineering
Department" to "City Clerk". See redlines.
Response: Note changed
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a signature block. If not,
please add a note stating there are none, and include response in written comments.
Response: Lineholder block added, we will determine if two are needed.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please add new title commitment information as available.
Response: Title commitment info added.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please add the following note to sheet 1, for explanation of the naming. The previous 2
replats for the Prospect Industrial Park plat recorded at Larimer County Clerk & Recorder were titled
“Replat Of Lot 15, Prospect Industrial Park” and “Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 19 Replat”. By City of
Fort Collins standards these should have been named Prospect Industrial Park, Second Filing and
Prospect Industrial Park, Third Filing, respectively. By City requirements, this plat has been named
“Prospect Industrial Park, Fourth Filing”
Response: Note not added due to change in subdivision name.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Fixed
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: What does the hatched area represent? Please add the hatch &
description to the legend. See redlines.
Response: Hatch area defined.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please add distances as marked. See redlines.
Response: Distances marked.
Page 21 of 11
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please renumber the Lots as marked. See redlines.
Response: Lots renumbered.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please correct the numbering of sheet 2. See redlines.
Response: Sheet numbers revised.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: The legal description will need to change, as the Subdivision Plat name is changing.
Response: The legal description has changed.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: All line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Please verify that all easement information is correct. All easement information needs
to match the Subdivision Plat.
Response: All easement information is correct.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2015
02/10/2015: Now that these two lots are combined in their submittal, it would be our preference that
they work together to share a driveway.
Response: Noted, the driveways are lining up with existing driveway across the street. For
operational and circulation purposes, it is preferred that the driveways be kept separate.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/13/2015
02/13/2015: Ready for a hearing.
Response: Noted.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015
02/11/2015: Will the trash enclosure for Spoons be the same as the trash enclosure shown for
Lightfield? Trash enclosures over 6 feet tall require separate building permits.
Response: Yes, they will match the building.
Page 22 of 11