The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6617 S. COLLEGE AVE. - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR150011 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS1 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 May 20, 2016 Bj Deforge HAUSER ARCHITECTS, P.C. 3780 E 15TH ST STE201 Loveland, CO 80538 RE: 6617 S College Ave, BDR150011, Round Number 3 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: 10 Comment Originated: 05/17/2016 05/17/2016: The utility plans still show the walkway between lots 1 and 3, but your response to the comment letter indicates that this walkway was eliminated from the plans. Is it possible to keep the walkway as shown on the utility plans? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/17/2016 05/17/2016: Consider adding a small landscaped island to define the western end of the parking area. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2016 05/16/2016: Please add LCUASS ramp details to C3.3 for public pedestrian ramps. 2 Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: No changes on behalf of Light & Power as of 5/18/2016. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: FIRE LANE MARKING The limits of the fire lane shall also be identified along the length of the Emergency Access Easement in Lot 2. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: HYDRANT RELOCATION Relocation of the hydrant will require fire department review and approval. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General 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. 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. 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: 3 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact-development 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. 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. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Sheet C3.0 – the proposed grade contours on the grading plan indicate that there is a 38 contour at the outlet structure, which tells me that the highest level that water can pond in the detention basin is to elevation 38 rather than the 38.6 that you have designed to. Please either revise the grading plan or revise the calculations. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Sheet C3.2 – Detail #3 – the 8” drain pipe detail shows inverts that aren’t going to work. Please revise. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Sheet C3.2 – Detail #2 – 100-yr HGL still needs to be provided on this detail. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Sheet C3.2 – Detail #1 – Please clarify if you’re proposing an 8” or 12” outlet pipe. Water quality orifice calculations still need to be provided. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: The report indicates that the 2-yr historic release rate is 2.84 cfs, but I can’t determine how you came up with this value. The Existing Drainage Sub-basins exhibit in the report indicates that the 2-yr historic flows from each basin are: 2.06 cfs, 0.32 cfs and 0.29 cfs. The 0.29 cfs is subtracted from the allowable release because its released undetained from the site, so the remaining release rate is 2.38 cfs. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: The initial Time of Concentration equation is still incorrect. Please revise the rational method calculations with the correct Ti equation. (This equation is provided on the Time of Concentration sheet of the template spreadsheet that I sent you.) It looks to me like these revised time of concentration amounts may show higher runoff values (including in the historic condition) so you will also need to update the detention sizing calculations too. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: The report indicates that there is ½’ of freeboard provided in the detention pond, but it looks to me like there is no freeboard. It also looks like the pond depth shown on the grading plan (up to elevation 38) is not the same as what you assume in your volume capacity calculations (elevation 38.6). These two items need to be reconciled. 4 Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Water quality orifice calculations still need to be provided. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Sizing calculations for the rain garden still haven’t been provided. Raingardens can easily be sized using the UD-BMP.xlsm spreadsheet. If you can’t find this file on the UDFCD website, please contact me and I can send it to you. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: An LID exhibit still needs to be provided showing how you’re meeting the ordinance requirements. An exhibit with a calculation table should be able to show that 75% of the impervious areas on the site are draining into the rain garden. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: The pipe capacity diagrams shown in the plans don’t match what is shown on the plans. Also, please ensure that the detention pond outlet pipe can convey the 2-yr historic release rate (~2.38 cfs). Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016 05/12/2016: Since there are still several items that have either not been provided or still do not seem to be accurate, I would suggest that we have a meeting (or at least discuss the comments over the phone) to review remaining items and to make sure that the comments being provided are understood and so that further direction can be provided if needed. Please call Heather McDowell at 224-6065 to set up a meeting. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/08/2015 05/16/2016: The submitted erosion control plan and escrow calculation were acceptable. The erosion control report was significantly lacking the materials to justify it meeting the criteria. The report was missing the following materials 1) Existing Percent vegetation 2) The closest receiving waters and the paths to those waters. 3) Identify Potential Pollutant source and then describe the means to control those sources. Specifically the identified 13. a)Disturbed and stored soils b) vehicle tracking of sediment c) management of contaminated soils d) loading and unloading operations e) outdoor storage activities f) equipment maintenance and fueling g) significant particulate generation h)routine maintenance activities i) on-site waste management j) concrete washing k) dedicated asphalt or concrete batch plant l)non industrial waste sources 4) No mention of the vegetation method including the soil types, seed mixes, soil amendments or mulches. 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 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 5 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 clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/23/2016 05/18/2016: Please add bearings & distances as marked. See redlines. 03/23/2016: Please add distances as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: Please label the Point Of Commencement & Point Of Beginning. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: There are spelling issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: Please show record & measured lot dimensions. See redlines. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: Please make changes to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision as marked. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/18/2016 05/18/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat.