HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOUSKA AUTOMOTIVE EXPANSION - BDR - BDR150010 - CORRESPONDENCE - 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
December 29, 2015
Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Houska Automotive Expansion, BDR150010, 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, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Responses:
Ripley Design:
Apex Engineering:
Washburn Surveying:
Vaught Frye Larson Architects:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: SITE PLAN: 17' stalls with 5' walkways: 6 feet minimum is
required and is still tight, utilitarian, and barely functional. Need to explore
solutions for the three locations where this occurs.
Ripley Design: Walks have been widened to 7’
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: SITE PLAN: Recycle trailer parking: why not put that in a garage?
If it must be open, why is the wall 8' tall - what's the determining factor?
Ripley Design: Trailer cannot be inside building due to dust inhalation concerns. The screen wall
has been extended to 20’ tall to screen all equipment.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: SITE PLAN: Some drawing issues on sheet 2 - incomplete line
work.
Ripley Design: Drawings have been revised.
2
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: SITE PLAN: Any chance for any more-direct access to Albertsons
from Bldg 2?
Ripley Design: A walk has been added from the south end of building 2 to connect to the shopping
center.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Modification: needed for Bldg.3 Connecting Walkway.
Ripley Design: Modification request has been provided with resubmittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: ELEVATIONS: Label roof material and fix Building 1 and Building
2 labels.
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Labels have been fixed and roof material is called out on drawings,
as well as referenced on exterior finish schedule.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: ELEVATIONS: Is the lack of a trim cap on the 2nd story office
intentional? Is there any depth to those windows, either with recessing or with
trim?
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Elevations have been corrected to display trim cap on the 2nd
story
Office. There is no window trim provided. Windows are currently recessed 3” from the face of CMU.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: LANDSCAPE PLANS: See redlines per discussion. Some key
comments and questions involve parking screening and coordination of some
tree plantings with the architecture.
Ripley Design: Landscape plan has been adjusted per the comments in our meeting on 12/17
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Sheet 5 scale is wrong
Ripley Design: Drawings have been revised.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide scale for Vacinity Map on the cover sheet of the Utility
Plans
Apex Engineering: The Vicinity Map is now to scale.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide a north arrow on the cover sheet of the Utility Plans
Apex Engineering: North arrow is added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide the project benchmarks on the cover sheet of the Utility
Plans.
Apex Engineering: Project Benchmarks are added to cover sheet, in addition to the standard
location in the General Notes on sheet C2
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
3
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: LANDSCAPE PLANS: See redlines per discussion. Some key
comments and questions involve parking screening and coordination of some
tree plantings with the architecture.
Ripley Design: Landscape plan has been adjusted per the comments in our meeting on 12/17
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Sheet 5 scale is wrong
Ripley Design: Drawings have been revised.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide scale for Vacinity Map on the cover sheet of the Utility
Plans
Apex Engineering: The Vicinity Map is now to scale.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide a north arrow on the cover sheet of the Utility Plans
Apex Engineering: North arrow is added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Provide the project benchmarks on the cover sheet of the Utility
Plans.
Apex Engineering: Project Benchmarks are added to cover sheet, in addition to the standard
location in the General Notes on sheet C2
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please provide legend of symbols for all utility lines, ROW line, lot
lines and easement lines.
Apex Engineering: Additional symbols/lines have been added to the Legend
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please label all proposed, existing, and to be removed
utilities(Stormline, inlets, services, etc) on the Overall Utility sheet. See redlines.
Some of the lineweights are difficult to read. Please revise.
Apex Engineering: A Demolition Plan has been added to the set. Demolished items are now not
shown on subsequent sheets for proposed improvements.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Label sizes of water and sanitary sewer mains on the Overall
Utility Sheet.
Apex Engineering: Those labels are shown.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please label the total ROW width on Riverside Avenue
Apex Engineering: As discussed, the ROW line on the north side is not known exactly. The width of
the newly dedicated ROW, as previously discussed with and approved by Sheri, is shown.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: It appears that the landscape islands/curb encroaches into the
4
Emergency Access Easement. Please adjust these so that they provide the
required 20' access for emergency vehicles.
Apex Engineering: The emergency access easement has been revised.
Washburn Surveying: Easement had been revised.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Show final configuration of the site on the Overall Utility Plan. The
plans show existing sidewalk with the proposed sidewalk. Maybe add another
sheet to the Utility Plan that shows the existing conditions.
Apex Engineering: The demolished features have been removed from the topography base
mapping for all sheets except the Demolition Plan.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Label the 15' Public Utility Easement as just a "Utility Easement"
on the Utility Plan Sheet.
Apex Engineering: Easement renamed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Shared accesses need to be in an Access Easement. For this
property to be a legal lot, an access easement is need from Riverside Avenue
to the property. See Plat redlines. Detention ponds need to be in a drainage
easement. It appears that portions of the detention areas encroach into the 15'
Utility Easement and does not fall in a drainage easement. Please adjust
drainage easement boundaries. See redlines.
Apex Engineering: Easement revision made as requested.
Washburn Surveying: Easement had been revised.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please clearly define what portions of the 20' Emergency Access
Easement are being dedicated by the plat and by separate document on the
Utility Plans.
Apex Engineering: This is shown. Please see the Plat for more information if needed.
Washburn Surveying: Easement had been revised.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: The planning objectives state that all utility, stormwater systems
and driveway accesses will be completed with Phase 1. Please list all utilities
and infrastructure that will be completed in Phase 1 in the Utility Plan. A note or
table can be added to the Interim Grading Plan. Show that there will be two
phases on this sheet.
Apex Engineering: The improvements deferred until phase 2 are limited to buildings 2 and 3 and
adjacent sidewalk. All utility and drainage infrastructure will be constructed with Phase 1. A note to
this effect has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Since the existing driveway will be removed to the north of the site
on Riverside Avenue, continue the detached sidewalk being shown on the
property further north. See redlines. Label the width of the existing sidewalk to
the north.
Apex Engineering: Revised as requested.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Add the following street cut note to the Grading Plan and Overall
Utility Plan:
5
"LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE
DETEREMINEDIN THE FILED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR.
ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR
STANDARDS."
Apex Engineering: Note added.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please add the standard sidewalk repair note to the utility plan
and the site plan:
“Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well
as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due
to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort
Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of
completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.”
Apex Engineering: Note added.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: What is the maximum and minimum width of Riverside Avenue.
Will the proposed cross sections of Riverside work? It appears that the
proposed striping plan of Riverside Avenue won't be sufficient. Please work
with traffic operations to determine the feasibility of the striping plan.
Apex Engineering: The minimum with is 52.3’ Please refer to recent emails with Traffic and yourself
regarding this topic.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: The striping plan of Riverside Avenue shows solide lines for the
center turn lanes. An opening will be needed at Lemay Avenue and Mulberry
Street for the left turn lanes. See redlines.
Apex Engineering: Openings are added.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Change Detail 709 to D-10B instead. The City no longer uses this
deatail for a sidewalk chase.
Apex Engineering: Detail D-10C is used since the chase drains away from the paving.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: The landscape plan and the utility plans contradict what is
happening in the detention ponds. It appears that the detention pond is
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. Sidewalk standards require at least 1
foot of flat ground behind the walk.
Ripley Design: Detention pond provides 1’ of flat ground behind walk before sloping. Detention
pond is being coordinated with City Stormwater Department for mutual uses.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/16/2015: Add the following note to the plat:
"NOTICE:
ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE
6
AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES
LOCATIOED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF
THIS PLAT SHALL BE BOURNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY,
EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A POERPERTY
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR
SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS
AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES."
Washburn Surveying: Noted added.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/16/2015: Add owner and title commitement notes information on the plat.
Washburn Surveying: information updated
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/16/2015: Add the following note to the plat:
"There shall be no private conditions, covenants or restrictions that prohibit or
limit the installation of resource conserving equipment or landscaping that are
allowed by sections 12-120 - 12-122 of the City Code."
Washburn Surveying: Noted added
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Label all adjoining properties to the site.
Washburn Surveying: Adjoining properties have been added
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Drainage easement needs to extend further east to accomodate
the detention area. See redlines.
Washburn Surveying: Easement had been revised
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Show areas of floodplain/floodway on the plat.
Washburn Surveying: Shown on plat
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Show previous ROW/Easement dedications done for property to
the north on Lot 1. See redlines.
Washburn Surveying: Shown on plat
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: It appears that the existing Emergency Access Easement on Lot 1
is in the incorrect location. It is being depicted as being next to the property line,
however, there is a landscape area between the lot line and easement. This
easement can't be vacated by the plat until new emergency access is
constructed. This will need to be done by separate document.
Washburn Surveying: This is the existing location of the emergency access easement per Houska
South Subdivision
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/09/2015
7
12/09/2015: Please provide species lists for the turf and native seed mixes for
review.
Ripley Design: Turf species can be found in general landscape note #16 on sheet 6. Native seed mix
has been provided on sheet 6 as well.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/09/2015
12/09/2015: Thank you for providing the Ecological Characterization Study for
this site. The ECS recommends the following mitigation measure: "Additional
mitigation plantings would also need to be made to compensate for the loss of
non-significant and nuisance trees providing wildlife habitat value for songbirds.
Plantings of a mixture of native shrubs and trees around the perimeter, or within
undeveloped portions, of the proposed development would create higher quality
and more diverse songbird habitat than current existing conditions."
In addition to the screening and parking lot landscaping requirements for the
site, please provide additional shrub and/or tree plantings to meet the intent of
this recommendation. Please see comments from Clark Mapes for suggestions
on additional plantings thorughout the site to meet all relevant landscaping
standards and ensure compatability with the Springer Natural Area.
Ripley Design: Additional trees have been added per Clark’s comments to account for the loss of
existing canopy.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2015
12/09/2015: Will any additional lighting be provided on site? If so, please
provide a photometric plan and specifications for the light fixtures that will be
used. In regard to LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are harsher at
night and cause more disruption to circadian rhythms for both humans and
wildlife. Please consider a warmer color temperature (closer to 2700K), as well
as dimming capabilities, for any LED light fixtures.
Ripley Design: Photometric plan has been provided in PDF form. LED temperature has been set to
3000K.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
In place of the Lindens used in parking lot areas Honeylocust could be better
adapted to these locations that are dryer and exposed.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
Provide 20 upsized mitigation trees. The Hackberry are upsized but other trees
will also need to be upsized.
Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
For the bigtooth maple consider specifying them as 6-8 foot clump or
8
equivalent.
Ripley Design: Per phone conversation with City Forester, there are only 7 trees required to be
upsized. They have been designated on the plans as the street trees along Riverside.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
The first Hackberry from the curb cut is too close to the Sewer line (10 feet
separation needed) and may cause some site distance conflict. It appears this
tree will not work at this location and should be eliminated.
Ripley Design: Tree has been removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
Show locations of any street lights and if needed provide the tree separations
that meet the LUC standard LUC 3.2.1 K.
40 feet for Shade trees
15 feet for ornamental trees
Ripley Design: Street lights are shown on plans and street trees have been adjusted for proper
separation.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
List the percentage of trees used and adjust quantities to meet the minimum
species diversity standard in LUC 3.2.1 D 3. Hackberry is 50% of the trees but
will need to be reduced to 33%. Consider changing 3 or 4 of the Hackberry
along Riverside to Bur Oak.
Ripley Design: Species diversity table has been provided on sheet 6.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/15/2015
12/15/2015:
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design,
that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with
all of the adopted City
codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early
to mid-design stage for
this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning
conceptual review
meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to
call 416-2341 to schedule
a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans,
floor plans, and elevations
and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of
construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
9
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC.
2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential
chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial
chapter.
Houska – project specific concerns:
1. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
2. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min.
if building located within 1000ft to train tracks.
3. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are
required.
4. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
5. Low VOC interior finishes.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Thank you, we acknowledge.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Light & Power has primary cable with 3-phase capability running
along both the West and South sides of the property lines.
Apex Engineering: Thanks for the information.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site
charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this
10
development. Please reference our policies, development charge processes,
and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: For commercial services: 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
Apex Engineering: These will be provided with the Building permit application.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the
transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility
plans. Pad mount transformers must be no more than 10' from a paved surface,
have 8' clearance from the front and 3' clearance around the back and sides.
Apex Engineering: Transformer pad is now shown.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet
separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and
streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between
ornamental trees and streetlights.
Ripley Design: Trees have been adjusted for proper separation distances.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: 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.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: FIRE LANES
Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of every building.
Arterial roads cannot be used to measure access distances. As such, the
proposed site plan has provided a fire lane internal to the site. The proposed
plan appears to be compliant with the fire code with regard to construction
Phases 1 & 3. The out of access condition created in Phase 1 is approximately
65' which is allowable as the building will be equipped with a fire sprinkler
system. The building in Phase 3 is surrounded by a fire lane and is completely
compliant. The out of access condition created at the time of Phase 2 places
the entire building unit well over 600' out of access (as measured from points
internal to the property). In conjunction with the Phase 2 plan, the project team
will need to show how perimeter access can be ensured in perpetuity on the
south, east, and northeast portions of the site (ie. cross-property agreement,
never any obstructions such as fencing, etc.). Code language provided below.
> IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building
or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements
11
of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any
portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the
building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code
official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
Ripley Design: Owner has worked to reach out to adjacent property owner to negotiate a fire access
agreement, but the adjacent property owner has been unresponsive. The applicant cannot find any
existing agreement in place on the land. Per a meeting with Jim Lynxwiler applicant has provided a
man door in the south privacy fence to allow hose access to east side of building 2.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: SECURITY GATES
Access gates will require design review and approval. This will be applicable to
the vehicular access gate at the main entrance as well as the man gate just west
of Building 1. The vehicle access gate will require a rapid entry, Knox Key
Switch on the electronic entry pad or be equipped with an Opticon sensor
device so as be activated from a fire engine. As the man-gate is integrated into
the plan for fire access, it will need to be able to open from the inside without
keys or special needs. Code language provided below.
> 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.
2012 IFC D103.5: 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 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.
8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with
UL 325.
9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and
installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200.
Ripley Design: Gate code compliance has been noted and will be reflected in final construction
documents.
12
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: There is an existing underdrain pipe and
bioretention swale that was built as a part of the required improvments to meet
water quality requirements for the existing Houska site. If you plan to remove this
bioretention swale, then you will need to plan to replace the water quality
function for the existing site in some way.
Apex Engineering: As discussed, this swale is proposed to be expanded.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: The emergency spillway will need to be shown on
the plans.
Apex Engineering: The spillway is now shown.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: Provide details on the retaining wall.
Apex Engineering: The retaining has been removed from the pond.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: It looks like the 100-year water surface in the pond
backs up into the adjacent parking lot. Is this your intent? If so, the extents of the
100-year ponding surface needs to be clearly shown on the plans. Otherwise,
please revise the grading adjacent to the pond and provide some freeboard, or
show that the ponding depth is indeed captured within the detention pond
footprint.
Apex Engineering: The grading has been revised so the WQL WSE of 4961.00 is contained in the
pond itself.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: Provide an HY8 analysis for the pipe connecting the
two detention areas together to verify that its size is adequate. Callouts for the
length, size, and pipe material should also be shown.
Apex Engineering: The final size of this pipe will be coordinated with the masterplanned regional
WQL improvements.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: It is unclear if the LID requirements are being met
on this site. You’re providing permeable pavers but it doesn’t appear that there
are any other LID techniques being proposed for this site. The LID requirement
is as follows: 50% of any newly added impervious area must be treated using
an LID technique and 25% of any new paved areas must be treated using
permeable pavement. You are allowed to provide the 50% requirement through
the pavers alone, but you will need to show within the plans and/or drainage
report that you are routing 50% of the impervious area to the pavers.
Apex Engineering: A summary of LID treatment has been added to the Drainage Report.
Additionally, the drainage basins for the LID’s are shown on the Grading Plan.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: Are you providing an underdrain as part of the
13
subsurface drainage for the permeable pavement sections? The underdrain
needs to be shown with basic design parameters and daylight locations.
Apex Engineering: An underdrain is not proposed for Bioswale 1. The existing underdrain will be
used for Bioswale 2.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Grading Plan: See redlines for other minor comments.
Apex Engineering: Comment addressed.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Interim Grading Plan: The Phase One Site Plan shows pavers
being installed in the first phase but the Interim Grading Plan does not show any
pavers. Please clarify your intent. Please note that LID techniques will be
required to be installed with the first phase of buildings and improvements and
will be based upon the amount of newly added imperviousness and paved
areas proposed for the first phase.
Apex Engineering: The pavers have been removed from the proposed design. All LID’s are
proposed to be constructed with phase one, as described in the notes.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Interim Grading Plan: What is the proposed surfacing of the
interim parking lot?
Apex Engineering: Temporary asphalt paving.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Storm P&P's: Clarify the type of inlets proposed to be
reconstructed on Riverside? The plans show inlets behind the curb but also
include details for both types on inlets (behind the curb, much like a CDOT Type
R, and under the curb and gutter, much like a Type 13 combination inlet)
Apex Engineering:
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Storm P&P's: Hydraulic analysis is required for the storm pipes.
100-year HGL’s are required on the plans.
Apex Engineering: As discussed, 100-year HGL’s are not available for these existing City inlets and
pipes.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Storm P&P's Verify the sizes of the existing storm pipes shown on
the plans. Our system shows both to be 24” diameter, not 18” diameter.
Apex Engineering: The survey information provided by Washburn Surveying indicates that one of
these pipes is an 18-inch.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: A Basin Summary table is required on the drainage plan
Apex Engineering: The LID areas and basin information have been added to the Drainage Exhibit.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Complete detention pond information needs to be included on the
drainage plan: water surface elevations for the WQCV and the 100-yr event,
volume of the pond, release rates, etc.
Apex Engineering: This information is provided on the Grading Plan.
14
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: The Water Quality Outlet Structure detail shown on the detail
sheets includes information that may need to be updated to match the
information provided in the drainage report.
Apex Engineering: As discussed, the pond is being converted into a regional WQL pond.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Standard items required to be provided in a final drainage report
that were not included with this one are as follows:
- Hydrologic calculations – basin areas, imperviousness, C values, time of
concentration and runoff values, typical for the historic or existing condition and
for the proposed condition
- Hydraulic calculations – storm pipes, street capacity, HY8
- Detention Pond – validate the release rate from the pond and the pond
volume; water quality orifice plate calculations
- LID – An exhibit showing areas of the site that drain to each individual LID
feature. The maximum run-on ratios allowed for permeable paver areas is 3:1. If
providing volume-based LID features, volume calculations are required to be
included.
Apex Engineering: Much this needs to be coordinated with the regional water quality pond. The LID
areas and basin information have been added to the Drainage Exhibit.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Plat
- Drainage easements will be needed for the extended detention pond and also
for any other volume-based LID feature on the site.
- The proposed water meters need to be in a utility easement that is dedicated
on the plat.
Washburn Surveying: Easement had been revised and Utility Easement added for water meter.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/08/2015
12/08/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan
(Needs a Sequence Chart), Erosion Control Report (Was not submitted or was
not routed), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Was not submitted or was not
routed). Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater
will be required since the site is over an acre. If you need clarification
concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please
contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Apex Engineering: As discussed, the ESC report was submitted but not routed to you.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
15
12/10/2015: I didn’t see a benchmark referenced anywhere (I may have missed
it).
Apex Engineering: Benchmarks are located in note #40 of the City standard General Notes on sheet
C2. This information has been added to the cover sheet as well.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Please label all floodplain and floodway boundaries as requested
for the plat.
Apex Engineering: Labels revised as requested.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Building 1 is shown in the floodplain. Is that the intention? If so,
the finished floor as well as all electrical and heating systems, HAVC, etc. will
have to be elevated 18-inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The
BFE will probably be somewhere around 4961.5 ft. NAVD88. That will put the
finished floor, etc. at approximately 4963 ft.
Apex Engineering: No, that was not the intention. The building has been revised to remove it from
the City 100-year floodplain.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: If Building 1 is in the floodplain, critical use facilities (automotive
repair) will not be an allowable use. This will include hazardous material
storage and essential services
Apex Engineering: Building 1 has been moved outside the floodplain
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: When discussing the floodplain (B.7 on page 2), call out the
floodplain as being the City-regulatory Old Town 100-year floodplain and
floodway.
Apex Engineering: This language has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Reference the master plan information in the floodplain
discussion.
Apex Engineering: This language has been revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Include a copy of the FIRM panel, with the site highlighted.
Apex Engineering: A copy of the Firm panel has been added to the Appendix.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Describe the location of the floodway and floodplain in relation to
the property. Describe the location of the buildings, and their proposed use with
regard to the floodplain.
Apex Engineering: The property is not located in the Floodway, as discussed in B.7 and C.2.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Please show and label the floodplain and floodway boundaries on
the plat. They should be noted as the ‘City-regulatory Old Town 100-year
floodway’ and ‘City-regulatory Old Town 100-year flood plain’.
Washburn Surveying: Shown on Plat.
16
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
12/10/2015: Please label the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site
plan as requested for the plat.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please revise the title on all sheets to "Lot 1, Houska Automotive
Repair". See redlines.
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Title has been revised on all sheets.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Line over text issues have been resolved and double checked.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please change "Elevation" to "Architectural Elevations" on all
sheets. See redlines.
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: Sheets with “Elevation” have been changed to “Architectural
Elevations.”
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please revise the title on all sheets to "Lot 1, Houska Automotive
Repair". See redlines.
Apex Engineering: The project name has been changed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please remove the "Legal Description" & other crossed out text
as marked. See redlines.
Apex Engineering: Your comment was in conflict with a comment from Marc Ragasa. His comment
was to match the text under “Legal Description” to the proposed plat, i.e. Lot 1, Houska
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please provide the following information in the EXACT format
shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
17
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX’.
Apex Engineering: The entire project is on NAVD88 datum. The conversion to NGVD29 is not
relevant to my construction drawings. I have added a note indicating that the appropriate
conversion should be used.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Apex Engineering: Acknoledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: 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.
Apex Engineering: Coordinates for property corners have been provided.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Apex Engineering: Acknowledged.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please revise the title on all sheets to "Lot 1, Houska Automotive
Repair". See redlines.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please revise the title to "Lot 1, Houska Automotive Repair". See
redlines.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: A full review will take place when the Plat is submitted following the
City’s submittal requirements. Please make changes that are marked. If
changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written
response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on
redlined sheets and/or in response letter.
Washburn Surveying: A more final plat is being submitted.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the
aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at
jcounty@fcgov.com
Washburn Surveying: Sent, please note the monument record for the South Quarter may need
18
updating, we will be checking for a more current record and may have to have a new record.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: Please revise the title on all sheets to "Lot 1, Houska Automotive
Repair". See redlines.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/16/2015
12/16/2015: The legal description is not necessary. The title is the legal
description. See redlines.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Are access spacing requirements met between the two access
points?
Apex Engineering: The existing access does not meet spacing requirements to the existing
accesses on either side. The relocated access also does not meet requirements, however it more
evenly splits the difference between existing accesses which represents a net improvement.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: The re-striping along Riverside is shown as 10 ft lanes and a 10.5
min outside lane (next to curb). We indicated in our joint meeting that we need
to have at least 10 ft of asphalt in the outside lane, not including the pan. It is
unclear whether this is what is shown.
Apex Engineering: The typical section has been revised to show this more clearly.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015: Is there a potential for an access to the south? Or at least a
sidewalk?
Apex Engineering: A sidewalk has been added to the site plan. The developer has not received
replies to enquiries regarding vehicular access into the private property.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable
hydrozones, including a water budget chart that shows the total annual water
use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If
you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Ripley Design: Water budget chart has been provided on sheet 6
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
19
Ripley Design: Noted.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Correct floodway and floodplain labels per redlines.
Apex Engineering: Labels revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Proposed sewer service into the existing manhole must either tie
in just above the bench in the manhole or if the invert is proposed to be more
than 2’ above the invert of the manhole, then an outside drop is required. An
outside drop detail will also need to be added to the plans if that is the route you
decide to go.
Apex Engineering: As discussed, the invert for the service has been set to match crowns on the
main line.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Gate valves will be required on the two fire services you’re
proposing.
Apex Engineering: Valves are added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: If you are planning to install sand/oil interceptors for the new
buildings, they will need to be shown and approximately sized on the plans.
Apex Engineering: After coordinating with MEP, a san/oil interceptor has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: Add a traffic rated cleanout to the details for the sanitary sewer
Services
Apex Engineering: Added..
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: See redlines for other minor comments.
Apex Engineering: Redlines addressed.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: On The site and landscape plan please line up the loading space
of the handicap parking spot of building 3 with the sidewalk across the drive
aisle of building 1 and put in ramps from each sidewalk.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: On the plat please change the planning signature block to match
the signature block on the site plan set.
Washburn Surveying: Changed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
20
12/14/2015: There needs to be some trees alond the northeast of building 1.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: There needs to be a tree in the landscape island on the southeast
side of building 3.
Ripley Design: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: On sheet 9 (Elevation), on the South elevation of building 1&2 the
labels showing the divide of building 1 and building 2 are incorrect.
Vaught Frye Larson Architects: The Labels have been corrected.