Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6617 S. COLLEGE AVE. - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR150011 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)1 March 4, 2016 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner City of Fort Collins Phone: 970.221.6343 E-mail: tshepard@fcgov.com 6617 S College Avenue, BDR150011, Round Number 1 This letter is to address the City's BDR Review comments on the above referenced project. The following includes the review comments. Our response follows each comment and is in bold. All comments that require more information or revisions to the plans are also included in the plan sets. Hauser Architects Response: Project Architect Stewart and Associates Response: Project Surveyor Forbes Engineering Response: Project Civil Engineer SRB Response: Project Electrical Engineer Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, BJ DeForge Hauser Architects, PC 970.669.8220 2 Community 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 January 04, 2016 BJ DeForge HAUSER ARCHITECTS, P.C. 3780 E 15TH ST STE201 Loveland, CO 80538 RE: 6617 S College Ave, BDR150011, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: A public sidewalk will be required along South College Avenue. Hauser Architects Response: An 8 foot sidewalk was added along S. College Ave. Please note that no sidewalks exist on adjacent properties to the north and south. Forbes Engineering Response: Public sidewalk has been added Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: An additional street tree will be required in the parkway along S. College. Hauser Architects Response: Added. Please refer to Landscape Plan, Sheet L1. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: A connecting walkway will be required that connects the building entrance to the public sidewalk on S. College. Hauser Architects Response: A connection is provided to the building main entrance. The connection is from the south side of the main drive and crosses with a sidewalk ramp and a painted crosswalk. This provides access to the new accessible ramp located on the south 3 side of the building. Forbes Engineering Response: Sidewalk connection added. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: A connecting walkway needs to be stubbed to the west property line so that when Lot Two re-develops or changes use, then it will also be connected to the public sidewalk along S. College. This connecting walkway must be placed within an Access Easement. The purpose is to coordinate future re-development with the current project to avoid more difficult issues in the future. Hauser Architects Response: A new 5 foot wide sidewalk is provided on the south side of the new drive. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The plat indicates that the southerly property line for Lot 1 is not the south edge of the Emergency Access Easement but, rather, extends 7.09 feet beyond. What is the purpose of leaving a 7.09-foot wide strip along the south property line? Technically, this means that this strip needs to be landscaped which, given its location, would be difficult to irrigate and maintain. Why not place this strip within the boundary of Lot 3? Hauser Architects Response: The drive / EAE was moved south to the property line. Forbes Engineering Response: Easement now extends to common property line. Stewart and Associates Response: This has been revised, as the emergency access has changed, allowing the North line of Lot 3 to be on the South line of the emergency access easement, deleting any strip in between. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Additional landscaping needs to be added along the north side of the new Grow Barn. Hauser Architects Response: Additional landscaping was provided on the north side of the barn. It is very important to the building's production (grow facility) to provide plants that will not disturb or contaminate the growing plants. I went over the different plant species with the tenant and we decided to use grasses as these are less likely to damage any growing in the grow barn. Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The trash enclosure does not appear to be sized to include containers for recyclable materials. Please consult with the selected trash/recycle hauler as to the dimensions for a properly sized container(s) and enlarge the enclosure as necessary. Hauser Architects Response: The trash enclosure size was increased and a "man" door was provided on the back side. This increase allows room for (2) 95 gallon recycle carts. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Redline plans are available at the front counter. 4 Hauser Architects Response: Received. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: Proposed sidewalk along college is not shown on the plans. The project will be responsible for designing and installing an 8' sidewalk per CDOT's US-287 plan. The sidewalk should connect to the bus stop to the south. The sidewalk should comply with current ADA standards. Forbes Engineering Response: Added sidewalk Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The existing driveway will need to be reconstructed if it is not currently ADA compliant. Forbes Engineering Response: The walkways, not the driveway are ADA compliant Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/21/2015: Revise Construction Note D2 Forbes Engineering Response: Revised Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: As per previous comments, the site and landscape plans should reference the Ecological Characterization Study from a neighboring property for landscape enhancements along the ditch on the north end of the property. This ECS was emailed to the applicant, with tables 5 and 7 as references for seed mixes, as well as recommended trees and shrubs. Hauser Architects Response: This study was received and reviewed. The Louden Ditch referenced in this study is located off our properties and is approximately 25 feet south west of the south west corner of Lot 2. An exhibit was emailed to you 2/19 to clarify this. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please submit a revised landscape plan indicating roughly a 50' landscape buffer along the ditch on the north end of the property, with groupings of native plants to form habitat thickets within the buffer area. Hauser Architects Response: The north ditch is an abandoned irrigation spur that's no longer connected to Louden Ditch. Again, this was identified with the exhibit. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please add the following note to the site and landscape plans: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) is meant to be maintained in a 5 native landscape. Hauser Architects Response: The NHBZ is identified on the SW corner of Lot 2. Lot 2 is not a part of the BDR and landscaping shall not be required. Forbes Engineering Response: This does not apply to the construction set. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the buildings or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. SRB Response: Natural areas not applicable for this project. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: 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) for your LED light fixtures. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities. Hauser Architects Response: Refer to Photometric plan for exterior lighting cut-sheets. SRB Response: Exterior fixtures are specified with 3000K and 3500k color temperature lamping. Dimming exterior fixtures is not applicable. 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: Contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to evaluate and inventory exiting trees on the site and determine if any mitigation for tree removal is required. Hauser Architects Response: A meeting took place last fall with the Tennant (Dave Watson with Kind Care) and Ted Sheppard. Mitigation took place as result of this meeting. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: New development and system modification charges may apply. A link to our online electric fee estimator is below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator?id=3 Hauser Architects Response: Fees will be paid once the total service required is 6 determined. This will take place with the building permit submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: Please provide a one line diagram and a Commercial Service Form (C-1) form to Light and Power Engineering. It will need to be determined whether single or three phase power is required. The C-1 form can be found at the link below: SRB Response: A one-line diagram will be provided as part of the building permit design documents. A C-1 form will be provided by the contactor after permit drawings are issued. http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: If electric power lines cross between lots, then electric/utility easements will have to be utilized. Stewart and Associates Response: There is a utility easement in the emergency access easement that can serve all lots. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: d.) Please contact Todd Vedder with Light & Power Engineering Department if you have any questions at 970.224.6152. Please reference our Electric Construction, Policies Practices & Procedures to ensure requirements and policies are met. Hauser Architects Response: Acknowledged. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: c.) Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show these locations on the utility plans. Transformers need to have an 8’ frontal and 3’ side/rear clearance. It also has to be 10’ within a drivable surface and cannot be located under the drip zone of any trees. Forbes Engineering Response: The proposed sidewalk has been aligned to miss the existing transformer with the required clearances Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: FIRE LANES Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of all new and existing building perimeters. This distance is measured along an approved path of travel, which in this case, would be as a fire hose is laid from a parked engine around the building. The response letter dated December 2, 2015 indicates, "The entire perimeter of the new/existing building is within 150' from the fire 7 access easement," however my assessment indicates this condition has not been achieved at Lot 1 (which is approximately 55' out of access), nor for the existing building at Lot 2 (which is approximately 220' out of access). Please contact me should you require further assistance with code interpretation or fire lane design. 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 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. Hauser Architects Response: The Emergency Access Easement was revised. Full 150' coverage is provided around the new/existing buildings on Lot 1 and also the existing building on Lot 2. Please refer to the Emergency Access Plan on Sheet BDR2. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT The easement shall be dedicated and labeled as an Emergency Access Easement (EAE) rather than Fire Access Easement as currently shown on the plans. Hauser Architects Response: The EAE was revised. The cul-de-sac was eliminated and a "hammer-head" turn was provided. The western "leg" exceeds the maximum 150' maximum distance and we ask for a variance as this is our only option. To provide enough coverage this "leg" is 197.3' (exceeds the maximum distance by 47.3') A cul-de-sac would eliminate a large portion of the storage yard. Please refer to Sheet BDR 1 and refer to the Emergency Access Plan on Sheet BDR2. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Stewart and Associates Response: The plat already labeled it as an emergency access easement Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: CUL-DE-SACS Cul-de-sac turnarounds are required to be 100' in diameter to allow for continuous movement of fire apparatus. The proposed diameter is shown as 80' rather than 100'. One option would be to increase the diameter to 100'. Another may be to incorporate a hammerhead turning movement on site, allowable by code, rather than the circular turnaround. Depending upon design and placement, a hammerhead may also allow the out of access condition in Lot 1 8 to be reduced to an acceptable measure. Hammerhead turning movement will require 25' inside turning radii and a minimum "leg" of 50' each. Code language provided below. Special approval of the fire marshal will be required in order to reduce the diameter to 80'. > FCLUC 3.6.2(B): Cul-de-sacs are permitted only if they do not exceed 660 feet in length and have a turnaround at the end with a minimum outside turning radius of 50 feet (100 foot diameter). Hauser Architects Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS Fire lane specifications call for hard surfaces which shall be designed to carry 40 ton minimum load limits. The proposed gravel area overlapping with the Emergency Access Easement shown in the current plan is not allowed without special approval of the fire marshal. Fire lane specifications provided below. Forbes Engineering Response: Fire lans specifications have been added to the plan set 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. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Sheet C1.1 - Horizontal Control Plan - It is difficult to tell which buildings are existing and which ones are proposed on this plan. Consider using shading or hatching to differentiate existing site features with proposed ones. - Provide a separate Existing Conditions Plan to show the existing site features. 9 Forbes Engineering Response: Hatching has been added as suggested, though any contractor unaware of the difference between the existing and proposed buildings would not be hired. The existing conditions plan is provided in the drainage report and is not part of a construction set (it would just be redundant information with the site plan). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Sheet C2.0 – Utility Plan - Some layers are not very visible on this plan – please modify plot styles to make this plan more readable. - It is not clear which, if any, storm drains are existing and which ones are proposed. This plan needs to also clearly label all storm pipe sizes and inlet locations and sizes. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and lines darkened. Pipe information is on the C3.0 grading & drainage plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Sheet C3.0 - Grading Plan - Existing and proposed stormwater piping needs to be clearly labeled. - The outlet structure for the detention pond needs to be an extended detention outlet structure per Fort Collins standards. The updated strcture needs to be drawn in the plans to scale. - Detention pond information needs to be included in the plan. This info includes: 100-yr water surface elevation, water quality surface elevation, release rates, pond volume. - LID techniques need to be clearly shown and sized on the plans. Forbes Engineering Response: Stormwater pipes are labeled. The outlet structure has been updated. Detention pond information is included in the drainage report (see Proposed drainage plan D1.0), again redundant information and not something that the contractor needs for construction, it just clutters up the construction set. A bioretention sediment trap forebay has been included in the detention pond. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Drainage was analyzed using Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. This project lies within the City of Fort Collins and the drainage evaluation needs to be performed using the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and Fort Collins rainfall data. Forbes Engineering Response: The analysis has been changed to conform to the FCSCM, the Fort Collins rainfall data was used in the original report Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: The surface areas included in the Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Site Conditions exhibits need to be verified and coordinated with the Site Plan. Existing and Proposed impervious square footages also need to be included on these exhibits. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 10 12/14/2015: This report needs to clarify which basins are running through and into the detention pond. All site runoff needs to be captured into the extended detention basin. If not all stormwater runoff can be routed toward and captured in the detention basin, then over-detention will need to be provided so that the overall release rate from the site is not exceeding the 2-year historic rate. Forbes Engineering Response: The report clearly shows that SBA & SBB are detained by the pond with SBC sheet flowing undetained, it is also described in the narrative. The site has off-site flows (west side) and the pond has been sized for over-detention. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Fifty percent of the site runoff is required to be treated using the standard water quality treatment as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3-Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Forbes Engineering Response: Extended detention with WQCV was shown in the report though the outlet structure did not correspond, this has been revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Low Impact Development (LID) is required for this site. LID requires a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact-development Forbes Engineering Response: LID and LID detail has been added to the plan set Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: An LID exhibit needs to be included in the drainage report to show which areas of the site are contributing/draining to each LID feature. If you propose any volume-based LID systems such as bioretention areas, the WQCV calculations need to also be provided. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: Detention pond sizing calculations can be the Modified FAA method, but need to be done using Fort Collins Rainfall data. Typically, a spreadsheet that is not derived from UDFCD is utilized. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: The detention pond sizing needs to be based upon a 2-year 11 historic release rate from the site. This calculated release rate needs to be clearly shown how it was derived in the report. Forbes Engineering Response: The 2-year historic release rate and the calculations are shown in the report, see Existing & proposed stormwater run-off calculations provided in the report. Note, recommended runoff coefficients have been modified to suit Table R0-11 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: The proposed inlet requires hydraulic calculation to verify that the proposed size is adequate. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and added to drainage report Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: The proposed outlet structure needs to be an extended detention outlet structure with hydraulic calculations included. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: The proposed storm pipe profiles need to include the 100-yr hydraulic grade line in the profile view. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and added 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 (Has redlines), Erosion Control Report (Was not found or was not routed), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Was not found or was not routed). 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 Forbes Engineering Response: Revised per comments Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Topic: Construction Drawings 12 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015 all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. 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. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX’. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. 13 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines. Stewart and Associates Response: Labeled Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Stewart and Associates Response: Text over text issues fixed Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/22/2015: How does Lot 2 get access? Stewart and Associates Response: Lot 2 gets access from the emergency, vehicular, utility and pedestrian access easement Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please label the purpose of all easements. See redlines. Stewart and Associates Response: Easements labeled with purposes Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. See redlines. Stewart and Associates Response: All rights-of-ways labeled Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: 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. Stewart and Associates Response: There are no lienholders, this is owned by Mark Dings outright. Placing a statement on the plat is not necessary and completely ridiculous, although I did it anyway. It is obvious if there is no lienholder signature block, that there is no lienholder. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There is City plat language that is missing. Stewart and Associates Response: The plat language is already on the plat, directly below the Attorney's Certificate. Please look again. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com Stewart and Associates Response: Monument records have been emailed to Jeff County. These are available just as easily to City staff as they are to private business. Finding these monument records and emailing them to the City is really unnecessary and only drives up the cost to the client, when the City can easily obtain them. Topic: Site Plan 14 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Revised. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The information provided indicates an estimated 175 vehicle trips per day. What is the current number of trips per day? (We need to know what is changing.) Hauser Architects Response: The Average Trips per day was provided on Sheet BDR1, under Traffic Summary. Included is the existing, or current, average trips along with the proposed average trips. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: College Avenue is a state highway and is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). They may require a change in use permit for the access point (depending on the traffic numbers noted above). They will also indicated whether the access can stay full movement or if left turns need to be restricted in some way. Hauser Architects Response: A "right-in / right-out" island was added to the entrance off College Avenue. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Some adjacent street improvements may be needed (sidewalk?) Work with the engineering department on specifics. Hauser Architects Response: An 8' wide sidewalk and street tree was added.