Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE STORAGE - FDP - FDP160038 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview August 12, 2016 Sam Coutts RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. 419 CANYON AVE, STE 200 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Timberline Storage, MJA160003, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Comment Responses: Ripley Design, Northern Engineering Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: The drawings need to reflect the the upgrading of the (pink) access ramps along the property (at the northwest corner of Midpoint Drive and Sprecht Point Road, as well as the two existing driveways to remain at Midpoint Drive and Sprecht Point Road to current City/ADA standards with truncated dome detection. Please add this indication to the plans and include LCUASS detail 1607. A sidewalk permit will be required for the upgrades to the access ramps. Note that the depiction of the access ramps for the driveway out to Midpoint Drive doesn't appear to match how it was built (leads straight across, and not diagonal). Response: Access ramps were adjusted. LCUASS detail 1607 was included and all domes have been called out on grading and horizontal control sheets Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Please ensure that the property lines and lots 1 and 2 are identified on all plan sets. The grading plan of the civil set, as well as the site and landscape plan sheets are missing components of either the property lines or the lot numbers. I would want to verify whether the limits of grading for the project remain on-site or if off-site easements from abutting property owner(s) (and a letter of intent before hearing) is needed. Response: Property lines and lot numbers shown on site and landscape plans Response: Lots and property lines are included on grading plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: The site plan specifies a phasing of the buildings. Under that premise the civil drawings should be reflecting a phasing plan to understand what sort of on-site utility, drainage, and private roadway infrastructure would be built with which phase (or if all the utility, drainage, and private roadway infrastructure would be in place with the first phase.) Under this premise, the erosion control may need a corresponding phasing plan and securitization as part of the development agreement. Response: Phasing on Site Plan illustrates 2 phases w/ subphases in phase 1. Response: Phasing sheet has been included with civil plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Plat language appears to be outdated, please update this as noted in 3(n) of the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/subdivision_plat_final_submittal_r equirements_2016.pdf Response: Plat language has been updated Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: The plat appears to be vacating existing easements dedicated with the original Spring Creek Center P.U.D. and rededicating new easements, based upon a different access easement width to Lot 5 (30' instead of the original 40'), as well as a different utility easement width behind the right-of-way. Under this presumption, I believe the plat should be providing more clarification with labelling the existing easements north of the property as existing, and also a note on the plat indicating that all previous easements of record within the platted boundary are hereby vacated and rededicated as depicted. Response: Noted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: I would question the narrowing of the utility easement width behind the rights-of-way from 12 feet to 9 feet from the perspective that it doesn't appear to be of impact to the plan keep the same width (except possibly Building J) and there is at least one identified existing utility that is within the existing 12 feet but would be outside an easement if reduced to 9 feet (an electric line in proximity to the existing driveway that remains on Midpoint Drive.) We should have verification from all the utility providers that existing facilities aren't impacted by the reduced easement and would consent to in essence a vacation of 3 feet of existing utility easement as part of the replat. Response: Easement remains at 9’. Additional coordination is needed with utility providers. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/08/2016 08/08/2016: More detail is needed on the Landscape Plan including both scientific names and common names for all plantings and/or seed mixes. Note the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code [Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)], requires that to the extent reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water conservation materials and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use plants and grasses in landscaping or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native plants and wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators; songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are also encouraged. Please see City of Fort Collins website on Native Plants for further information and species references: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/native-plants.php Response: detailed landscape plan is provided with this submittal Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2016 08/08/2016: The Landscape Plan says: "meters shall be screened by shrub beds." However, details are not provided. If using shrubs for screening purposes, suggest: evergreen shrubs and/or medium to large deciduous shrubs. In planting table(s) separate shrubs list(s) into: evergreen; small deciduous; medium deciduous; large deciduous. Also include installation size (height and/or gallon size or both). Consider: P. mugo (Mops Mugho Pine or Shrubby Swiss Mountain Mugho Pine); P. Americana (American plum); P. virginiana (Chokecherry); C. sericea (Dogwood); R. aureum (Golden currant); C. nauseosus (Rubber rabbitbrush); A. alnifolia (Serviceberry). Response: Detailed landscape plan shows how meters are screened with larger Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2016 08/08/2016: Recommend contacting Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) for input regarding tree species recommendations for this development project. Response: Noted, Forester’s comments have been addressed Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2016 08/08/2016: THANK YOU for selecting 3000K or less LED fixtures in accordance with The American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) recommendations. For further information regarding health effects and night lighting please see: http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from-leds/ Response: You’re welcome. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Place the street tree notes, currently listed as notes 18-22, under a separate heading labeled Street Tree Notes. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Royal Red Maple is used in parking lot peninsulas. Norway maples can become stressed in these types of sites. Evaluate using a more adapted canopy shade tree in these locations. Response: Royal Red Maple has been replaced with shademaster honey locusts. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Show the locations of any stop sings with a distinct symbol or the stop sign. Check street tree placement to be at least 20 feet from any stop sign. Also show any locations of City street lights and if there will be any by the site then provide the LUC separation between street trees and lights. Response: Stop signs and street light locations have been shown and street trees have been adjusted accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: If there are any existing trees on the site then contact the City Forestry for an on-site inspection to review and obtain inventory information for a tree mitigation and protection plan. Response: No existing trees onsite. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Transformer location shown on the plans looks to be out of access from Midpoint Dr. This could be solved if a hard surface is extended from Midpoint Dr. to the transformer. Please coordinate the location with L & P Engineering. Transformer location must be within 10' of an all weather surface capable of supporting a line truck. Response: Fence has been changed to allow access to transformer from interior drives Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Any relocation or modification to the existing electric facilities will be at the owners expense. If Light & Power's existing electric facilities are to remain within the limits of the project they must be in a utility easement. Response: noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Electric Capacity Fee and Building Site charges will apply to this development. Please click on the following link for Estimated Light & Power charges and the Light & Power Fee calculator. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our Electric Service Standards 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: 07/26/2016 07/26/2016: FIRE CONTAINMENT: The project team acknowledges that all buildings over 5,000 sq. ft. will utilize Fire Containment. Fire Containment will be applicable to all buildings over 5,000 sq. ft. regardless of (conditioned and non-conditioned). Plans for fire containment shall be required at time of building permit. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/26/2016 08/10/2016: FIRE LANES The limits of the EAE as labeled on the current plat do not seem to be consistent with the limits of the EAE shown on the site plan. It is recommended that the Emergency Access Easement, along the southern portion of the site, be revised as per city staff meeting on 8/10/16. The outer loop drive aisle would be included as part of the EAE. Please contact me with any questions. See also next comment regarding access to water supply. Response: Emergency access easement has been modified accordingly Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/26/2016 08/10/2016: WATER SUPPLY A hydrant is required within 300' of any commercial building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. At this time, two unconditioned storage buildings remain just outside of access by definition. While no additional hydrants are being requested, the fire marshal would like to see what measures can be taken to improve hydrant access on the southern portion of the site. As discussed in the city staff meeting on 8/10/2016, providing a 20' wide emergency vehicle access gate off of Midpoint Drive at the existing curb cut would provide adequate water supply to the southern portion of the site. The gate would be posted with "Emergency Access Only" signage. Please contact me with any questions. Response: Emergency access only gate has been provided at existing curb cut Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: FIRE LANE MARKING The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets however the applicant should understand that additional signage may be required at time of inspection and final CO. Code language provided below. > IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE 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. Response: Fire lane signage to be placed on buildings as needed per emergency access easement alignment per site plan note #14 Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: The proposed building elevations do not provide enough articulation. Consider using cultured stone pillasters to break up the building where the downspouts are located. Also consider changes in roof height or roof form to further break up the mass of the building. Response: Building elevations have been modified to provide more articulation per meeting with Planning staff on 8/19. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: Please submit a sample of the culture stone proposed. Staff wants to ensure the stone used is of requisite quality. Response: Material sample provided at meeting with Planning staff on 8/19. Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: Thank you for the analysis of primary and secondary uses in and around Midpoint Dr. For this analysis to be compelte, however, staff needs the analysis performed for the entire E zone district in and around Prospect and Timberline. Please include the E zoned parcels north of Prospect and west of Timberline as part of an updated primary/secondary use analysis. Response: Analysis of uses in E zone district was provided prior to public hearing. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: Land Use Code section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) for full tree stocking requires that 50% of all trees used to meet this code requirement shall be canopy shade trees. None of the trees shown for meeting this standard are canopy shade trees. Please adjust the species mix to meet this code requirement. Response: Trees have been rearranged to meet 50% canopy requirement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: When you figure out the locations of light poles on Midpoint Dr and Specht Point Rd, you will need to adjust the locations of the street trees to ensure adequate spacing. Canopy shade trees must be at least 40' away from light poles. Response: Proposed light pole locations shown on plans and trees have been moved accordingly Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: Generally speaking, the level of detail provided thus far on the landscape plan is ok. With that being said, staff recommends putting some more detail on the shrub plantings. The shrubs will be providing a significant amount of screening and it is difficult to know how effective the shrub plantings will be in providing screening without further details. You could add more detail at Final Plan but these details could potentially hold up the project during that phase of the development review process. Response: Full landscape detail has been provided with this submittal Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/04/2016 08/04/2016: How much of a spread do the proposed trees and shrubs have? Given the amount of frontage the site has on public streets and private access drives, you should make sure to incorporate plants that have a wide spread to enhance the screening of the site. Coordinate with Tim Buchanan on species selection to provide the best year-round screening. Response: Tree spread ranges from 25-50’. Landscape screen has been coordinated with Planner prior to public hearing. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Erosion Control Report is acceptable. Erosion Control Plan has redlines that will need to be addressed. Erosion Control Escrow Calc. was not found pleased supply based on redlines from the erosion control plan. 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 Response: Escrow is now included and all redlines were addressed Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please revise the LID calculations per meeting on 8//8/16 with Northern Engineering. Response: LID exhibit now included in drainage plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: The Stormceptor can be used to treat the site's drainage to meet the standard water quality requirement, but not for LID mitigation. Response: Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please provide a LID exhibit and table in the report and on the drainage plan. Response: Table and exhibit are now found within the report (Appendix C for exhibit) Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Grass buffer treatment can be counted towards the LID requirement for the perimeter sub-basins. Response: Noted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Some additional data is needed to determine if the chambers have the required water quality and detention volume. Response: Additional steps were taking to ensure that proper WQ is being provided in the chambers. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Please revise the sub-title to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Sub-title now matches plat Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement 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¿. Response: This is now the format that the benchmarks are called out in. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. **Please Note: All redlines are electronic.** Response: All sheet tittles match sheet index Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. Response: A horizontal control plan has now been included and all property corners are called out Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: There are vertical datums that are incorrectly referenced. See redlines. Response: Vertical datum callouts have been adjusted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/10/2016 08/10/2016: Please correct the sheet numbering to match the other sheets. Response: Sheet updated. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please correct the range shown in the section corner descriptions. See redlines. **Please Note: All redlines are electronic.** Response: Range has been updated Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com Response: Monument records are now being provided Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please see the monuments marked that need to be upgraded. See redlines. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Plans updated Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines. **Please Note: All redlines are electronic.** Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: Plans updated Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: 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. Response: Plans updated Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Sidewalks are needed along the north frontage. Response: As mentioned in staff review, Planning would rather use this side of the site for screening. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: The submitted traffic study information has been reviewed and the conclusions accepted. Response: Noted. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2016 08/08/2016: 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 Response: Noted. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: The fire line needs to be 6 inches, not 2 inches. Response: Plans updated to callout 6 inches Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: The 1-inch water service is in conflict with a shade tree. Response: 1” water service was moved south but still remains in landscape island Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Further investigation is needed on the existing service for the car wash to the west of the site. Response: Noted Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2016 08/09/2016: Please include more detail in landscape plan for shrub locations and species. Response: Full landscape detail has been provided with this submittal.