Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6617 S. COLLEGE AVE. - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR150011 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 April 27, 2016 Meaghan Overton, Associate Planner City of Fort Collins Phone: 970.416.2283 E-mail: moverton@fcgov.com 6617 S College Avenue, BDR150011, Round Number 2 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 March 25, 2016 BJ Deforge HAUSER ARCHITECTS, P.C. 3780 E 15TH ST STE201 Loveland, CO 80538 RE: 6617 S College Ave, BDR150011, Round Number 2 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, Meaghan Overton, at 970-416-2283 or moverton@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970-416-2283, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 03/23/2016: The revised site plan does not appear to include a connecting walkway from the building to the public sidewalk. In addition, there is no walkway delineated from the parking lot to the building entrance. Please clarify and clearly show a walkway from the public sidewalk along S. College to the main entrance of the building, and from the parking lot to the main entrance of the building. The walkway shown along the property line of Lot 3 does not meet the requirement for a connecting walkway from S. College to the building entrance for Lot 1. Hauser Architects Response: A 6 foot wide sidewalk was added. This connects the public sidewalk to the main entry. The walkway from the parking to the main entry is defined better on the site plan. This 5 foot wide walkway is concrete and is located north of the parking area. The accessible walkway continuous from the parking area and turns to an accessible ramp on the south side of the building. This ramp leads to the front covered, concrete patio. The walkway from Lot 3 to Lot 1 was eliminated. Forbes Engineering Response: Sidewalk connection added. 12/23/2015: A connecting walkway will be required that connects the building entrance to the public sidewalk on S. College. Hauser Architects Response: Provided. See response above. 3 Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 03/23/2016: A walkway is now shown within an easement along the property line of Lot 3, stubbed to the west property line of Lot 1. Note that this walkway and any other connecting walkways must be 6 feet wide, instead of the 5 feet currently proposed, as required in Section 3.2.2(C)(5) of the Land Use Code. Hauser Architects Response: The sidewalk was revised to a 6 foot wide walk Forbes Engineering Response: Sidewalk width changed to 6' 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: Provided. See response above. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 03/23/2016: The width of the access/emergency/utility easement shown on the plat does not match the easement noted on the site and landscape plans. As currently shown, the walkway along the property line of Lot 3 is not included in the easement on the plat. Please adjust the plat to reflect the boundaries of the easement as shown on the site and landscape plans. Hauser Architects Response: The Plat, Site Plan and Landscape plan was coordinated and the same linework appears on each document. 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: This was addressed. Refer to previous comment. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 03/23/2016: Additional landscaping has been added. Please clarify whether Fountain Grass or Feathergrass will be planted - the Landscaping Schedule notes Fountain Grass, but the Latin name Pennisetum alopecuroides refers to Feathergrass. Hauser Architects Response: I sent you an email on April 6 to clarify the following: "We use the Plant Guide from Colorado Nursery & Greenhouse Association (CNGA) and I'm changing the plant to Feather Reed Grass ( Calamagrostis x acutiflora)according to CNGA." Your email response accepted this change / clarification. 12/23/2015: Additional landscaping needs to be added along the north side of the new Grow Barn. Hauser Architects Response: Provided. Please refer to previous comment and response. 4 Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 03/23/2016: Redlines are available at the front counter. 12/23/2015: Redline plans are available at the front counter. Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: Comments from the South Fort Collins Sanitation District and the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District indicate that the issues and concerns from the last round of review (letter dated 12.22.15) have not been addressed. The District requires another round of review. Please see letter dated 3.21.16, sent to you via email. A copy of this letter is also available at the front counter. Forbes Engineering Response: Comments from SFCSD have been addressed. Hauser Architects Response: Comments received and our Civil Engineer will contact Mr. Terry Farrill, P.E. to address his comments. Below is a summary of our Civil Engineer's response to the letters; 1. “All water services to the proposed lots 2 and 3 are to be abandoned”, water services to proposed lots are themselves proposed and something that doesn’t exist generally doesn’t need to be abandoned. The buildings on the west side of the property being used by Thermal Concepts (which will become lot 3) probably have a water service and I don’t believe they will want it abandoned. 2. Regarding the fire line and emergency access easement, the construction plans clearly state that the fire line is NOT to be used for domestic use. A reduced principle Back-Flow-Prevention-Device has been added to the plans and the note for this has also been modified to conform to the latest comment about being installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements. And as far as I know the emergency access easement issues have been addressed (not sure how this is his concern). If the fire line becomes the property of the FCLWD, then I suppose the easement will have to be on the District’s standard easement form, I thought that PFA or the property owner becomes the one that maintains the fire line? 3. “Is sanitary sewer required for the proposed lots 2 & 3?”, no & yes. Lot 2 will not have a sewer service as it is a detention pond and lot 3, as mentioned previously, is an existing business which probably has an existing service (in fact, I would imagine the district has been applying fees to this address for quite some time). 4. This comment has to do with the property not within the service area of SFCSD, which is odd since there is an existing 8” sanitary sewer stub on the property (in the ROW) and if not into this where else has the sewer been discharged to? 5. This comment indicates that maybe the district has not been supplied a set of the construction plans? Hauser Architects Response: We contacted Mr. Farrill and requested a meeting with his department and the Fire Department. We feel a meeting will be more productive than exchanging emails and plan revisions. Mr. Farrill has not set up the meeting yet but we hope this is done during this re-submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review 5 Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2016 03/18/2016: A development agreement will need to be recorded with final project approval. Upon your request I will send you an information sheet to be filled out and returned to me. Once I have received that I will put together a DA for your review and signature. Hauser Architects Response: We received this form and we will send it back once they are complete. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2016 03/18/2016: Before starting any construction on the site, a development construction permit must be obtained. Upon your request I will send you the application along with some more information about the DCP permit process. Hauser Architects Response: We received this permit and we will send it back once the application is complete. 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: I met with Ralph Zentz on April 13, 2016. We analyzed (2) trees. The tree on S. College (Honey Locust, 30" dia. and 4 mitigation points) will remain. A centrally located tree (Ash, 5" dia. and 0 mitigation points) was inspected and this tree removal will be determined during construction. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: Add the newly developed City Planning Department General Landscape notes and the tree protection notes to the landscape plan. These notes are available from the City Planner or from the City Forester. Hauser Architects Response: Notes received and added to the Landscape Plan. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Hauser Architects Response: Comments addressed with submittal 2. 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 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 6 whether single or three phase power is required. The C-1 form can be found at the link below: 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. 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. 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. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Hauser Architects Response: We received the following comments, from Jim Lynxwiler via email on March 28; 03/28/2016: SIGNS The full limits of the fire lane have not yet been labeled in the latest set of plans. The preferred fire lane signage as shown in LCUASS Sign Detail 1418 is "Fire Lane - No Parking" however the words "by order of the fire marshal" shall be omitted and replaced with directional arrows as typical. Code language provided below. Ø IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent FIRE LANE - NO PARKING signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. Hauser Architects Response: Sign detail and sign revisions are located on sheet BDR2. 03/28/2016: SECURITY GATES Gates blocking fire lanes shall be approved and meet minimum standards as provided below. Ø 2012 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. 7 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. Hauser Architects Response: These requirements were added to sheet BDR2. Any items that don't meet the conditions above will be adjusted in the field. 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 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. 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. 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). 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. 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: 4 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Your response indicated that a "bioretention sediment trap forebay" has been included in the detention pond, please show this element on the grading plan instead of the erosion control plan, as this is not an erosion control measure, its a stormwater quality measure. 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. 9 Forbes Engineering Response: Bioretention forebay details have been moved to the grading plans - LID techniques need to be clearly shown and sized on the plans. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: It looks like runoff is now calculated using City of Fort Collins rainfall data, but the detention basins have been sized using UDFCD criteria and rainfall. Please use your own mass balance spreadsheet to calculate detention volumes. The City has a template for this if you need it. Please contact Heather McDowell at 224-6065 for the file. 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: Revised & re-calculated using COF Criteria Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Existing and proposed impervious areas still need to be provided somewhere in the plans. This is needed to calculate stormwater fees. Fees are based upon additional amount of imperviousness. 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: Existing & proposed impervious area have been added to the construction set Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Please clarify in the narrative of the report what the allowable release rate is from the site (2-yr historic rate minus undetained basins) 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 2-year release rate has been added to the narrative Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: The LID ordinance has been updated to the following requirements: Option A: no less than 75% of any newly developed or redeveloped areas must be treated using one or a combination of LID techniques Option B: no less than 50% of any newly developed or redeveloped areas must be treating using one or a combination of LID techniques; and permeable pavement must cover 25% of driveable surfaces. Please include calculations and an exhibit showing how you meet the percentage requirements. The bioretention calculation can be done using the UDFCD RG spreadsheet. 10 Forbes Engineering Response: Size of the LID has been updated 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 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Your response indicated that this was provided in the updated drainage report but I could not find it. Please provide. 12/14/2015: The proposed inlet requires hydraulic calculation to verify that the proposed size is adequate. Forbes Engineering Response: Added Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Please include the wq orifice sizing calculations. 12/14/2015: The proposed outlet structure needs to be an extended detention outlet structure with hydraulic calculations included. Forbes Engineering Response: Added Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 03/15/2016: Your response indicated that this was provided but I did not see it. Please provide. 12/14/2015: The proposed storm pipe profiles need to include the 100-yr hydraulic grade line in the profile view. Forbes Engineering Response: That layer was turned off, it has now been turned on Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/08/2015 3/9/2016: The submitted erosion control plan sheet has redlines that need to be addressed based upon the changes to the plan. The erosion control report was to the pre 2012 (old) standards. The Storm Drainage Criteria manual was updated back in December of 2012; since that time, all materials have met those standards. Please reference the accompanying document provided in the erosion control report to help meet current standards for an eroison control report. Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will also need to be provided and example of that escrow calculation and the accompanying document can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion 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 11 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: The redline comments have been addressed Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: Not all plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was addressed. Hauser Architects Response: Full (2) sheet sets provided. Not sure what happened. 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. 12/22/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Forbes Engineering Response: Noted and revised Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: This has not been corrected. 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: Benchmark datum note has been added Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Hauser Architects Response: Corrected. 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 12 Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: Please add distances as marked. See redlines. Stewart and Associates Response: Provided. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: The outer boundary of the plat needs to include the 26 feet of right of way to be dedicated. The legal description needs to be revised as well. Stewart and Associates Response: Provided. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 03/23/2016: Please remove Notes 4 & 5. They are not appropriate for subdivisions. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/23/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. 12/22/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 03/22/2016: You'll need to obtain a change in use permit from CDOT. Let me know if you have questions how to do that. Hauser Architects Response: The application and supporting files were sent to CDOT. 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.