Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER - PDP - PDP160015 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 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 June 10, 2016 Stephanie Van Dyken RIPLEY DESIGN INC 419 CANYON AVE SUITE 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Salud Family Health Center, PDP160015, 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Response in Red please contact: Stephanie Van Dyken Responses in Purple please contact: Thomas Beck Responses in Blue please contact: Cody Snowden Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please submit a striping plan for the full cross section of Laporte Avenue. This can be submitted electronically prior to the next formal round so that it can potentially be discussed and/or approved prior to the next submittal. Response: Striping plan was submitted and approved; added to Laporte Ave Plan & Profile sheet. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: To assure that future street improvements will meet LCUASS Standards the centerline, flowline, and full cross sections of all streets, except cul-de-sacs, shall be designed and continued for 500 feet beyond the proposed construction. The grade and ground lines of all Arterials (Laporte) shall be continued and additional 500 feet for a total of 1000 feet beyond the end of the proposed construction. Please include complete design for Salud Parkway and Laporte Avenue in the next submittal – include label or legend for limits of 2 construction vs. preliminary design/not to be constructed. Response: Per meeting with City Staff, street profiles were extended to show adequate tie-ins with adjacent existing streets. Laporte Ave flowline was extended east to show tie-in with existing Larimer Ditch #2 bridge crossing. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please show sight distance triangle for Laporte and Salud intersection so that the plans show where this lies in relation to the proposed ROW, existing features, etc. Response: Sight distance triangle added to civil plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Before final plans can be approved, offsite ROW dedication (1804 Laporte Ave) will need to be processed. Response: Salud Parkway was slightly realigned such that no offsite ROW dedication is required. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Additional comments will be made as additional information is submitted for review. Response: Acknowledged Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: An Ecological Characterization Study was completed in August 2015 and was submitted with the ODP for this project. The Larimer County Canal #2, a number of significant tree groves, and a raptor nest located in Tree Group A were all identified as significant natural resources. This development plan, and other development plans within the ODP, should aim to protect, buffer and enhance these features to the maximum extent feasible, per LUC section 3.4.1(C). To the extent that impacts to these resources are unavoidable, mitigation must be provided that replaces the resource value lost to the community in addition to mitigation that may be required to meet other sections of the code. The plans as currently presented do not adequately protect, buffer, and mitigate for impacts to the significant resources identified in the ECS. Specific comments are provided below; however, it would also be helpful to arrange a meeting prior to your next submittal to ensure that the project meets the requirements of section 3.4.1. Response: The original submittal did not include any mitigation on lots that will be developed in future phases. This submittal includes all of the lots; current and future. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 3 06/07/2016: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZ) for tree groups A, C, D, E & I (as identified in the ODP) and the Larimer County Canal #2 need to be delineated and labeled on all site, landscape, utility, and photometric plans. Response: NHBZ’s have been added to the site and landscape and utility plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please include the following note on all plan sheets that include the NHBZs: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones are intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones." Response: Note has been added. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please label the raptor nest in Tree Group A identified in the ECS. Please conduct a nesting survey using a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist as soon as possible (prior to the end of the nesting season) and submit the results of the survey to the City. A follow up survey will also need to be conducted prior to construction. If active use of the nest by a red-tailed or swainson's hawk is observed, a temporary protection buffer may apply during nesting season and would need to be shown on all plans. Response: Location and buffer are shown. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: On the Tree Mitigation Plan, please show the boundaries of the tree groves identified in the ECS so it apparent which trees from each grove would be removed. Response: Tree groves have been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Mitigation will be required for impacts to the tree groves to meet the standards in section 3.4.1, in addition to the mitigation requirements in section 3.2.1(F). Please show, either on the Tree Mitigation Plan or a separate sheet, all trees to be removed from Tree Groves K and E, regardless of whether they were considered "significant" per section 3.2.1(F). Please also include a calculation for the total acreage of tree canopy that will be lost from Tree Groves K and E and any other groves that were considered significant during the ODP process. Response: Calculations are shown on the natural habitat buffer zone sheet. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: It is not clear whether Tree Groves C and J will be impacted by this project. The site plan and tree mitigation plan show these tree groves as protected, but the demolition plan (utility plan set) shows these and other trees being removed that are not accounted for in the tree mitigation plan. Please clarify whether these trees will remain or not. Response: The trees will remain during this development. Tree group C and J will be impacted during future development. The natural habitat mitigation is shown with these plans but individual tree mitigation will occur at the time of future PDP’s when the trees are removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Does this project only include activities on Lot 4, or would there also be development on Lot 6? It appears that grading and construction 4 activities related to the detention pond will occur on Lot 6. If that is the case, then we will need to discuss protection, enhancement, and mitigation of impacts to natural features on that lot as well. Response: This PDP is for lot 4 however we are now showing all of the lots. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: What seed mix will be used in the detention area(s), along the Larimer County Canal #2, and any other areas to be disturbed? Within any buffer zones and the detention area, a mix of native grasses and perennials should be used. Please show areas to be seeded and provide seed mix details on the landscape plan. Response: The areas along Canal #2 and the low lying areas within detention areas will be using a wetland seed mix. Areas within buffer zones will be a native perennial and grass mix. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: The buffer along the Larimer County Canal #2 appears to be less than 50 ft in numerous locations. Please provide a calculation that compares the acreage that would otherwise be protected with a straight 50-ft buffer along the ditch with the acreage of the proposed buffer. An "averaged" buffer is generally acceptable instead of a straight 50 foot buffer; however, the buffer must still adequately protect the resource. In particular, the buffer on the southeast side of the bridge appears to be located at the top of bank for the canal, which does not meet the protection standards and will need to be extended farther to the north. Response: The buffer has been extended north. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: On the landscape plan, please label which trees are being counted as mitigation trees per section 3.2.1(F), versus trees that are required to meet other standards (parking lot islands, street trees, etc.). Response: Labeled trees designated as mitigation trees on landscape plan. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: At the time of Final Plan, a weed management and monitoring plan for the site will need to be submitted for review. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: The photometric plan should cover the entire site, beyond just the building and parking lot, and demonstrate that no light will spill over into any of the buffer zone areas, per section 3.2.4(D)(6) and the recommendations of the ECS. Response: Photometric plans have been extended to the 0.0 fc level. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: On the site lighting fixture details, please provide the detailed specifications that will be used for the light fixtures (e.g., color temperature, voltage, mounting, etc.). Please also provide the LED Lighting Facts for this fixture. The impacts of lighting on natural features are a concern on this site, so I need more information to ensure that habitat for nesting birds and other species is adequately protected. Response: See sheet E2. Items have been highlighted. 5 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please set a meeting with the Senior Environmental Planner, City Planner assigned to the project and the City Forester to review revisions to tree mitigation and how the mitigation for ecological value lost will be accounted for. It may beneficial to meet on site. Explore opportunity for greater habitat planting on the project. Response: A meeting was held with the planner and environmental planner so discuss habitat mitigation Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The trees shown to remove on the utility plans are not consistent with what is shown of the Tree Mitigation Plan. Utility plan needs to be edited to be consistent with the Tree Mitigation Plan. Response: Plans have been coordinated. Tree group J is shown to be removed on the utility plans but there needs to be discussion about the water line with City staff. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Place the same tree protection notes that occur on the Tree Mitigation Plan on the Utility Plan sheets C1.01 and C 1.02. Also reference on C1.01 and C1.02 to see Tree Mitigation Plan. Response: Added notes to Existing Conditions and Phase 1 Detail sheet, where tree mitigation occurs. Reference to Tree Mitigation Plan added to notes. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Mitigation trees need to be clearly identified. This should occur in the Plant Schedule and by direct label for each mitigation tree. Consider placing an M by each mitigation tree. In the Plant Schedule mitigation trees need to be identified as follows: Canopy Shade Trees -3.0 Inch caliper B&B Ornamental Trees – 2.5 inch Caliper B&B Evergreen Trees – 8 feet height Response: Mitigation trees added (total 23) specifications adjusted in callouts and schedule with distinguishing (M). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: List the percentage of each tree species used and check that quantities used meet the standard in LUC 3.2.1 D 3 Minimum Species Diversity. Response: LUC 3.2.1 D 3 Minimum Species Diversity requires tree count above 60 to have no more than 15% of one species represented, standard demonstrated within “TREE SPECIES DIVERSITY” sheet 6 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Ornamental trees should be listed as 1.5 inch caliper or equivalent which would be 10-15 gallon container. It appears appropriate to use gallon size for these 6 species and at the locations shown. Response: Plant schedule has been updated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Three Fastigiate English Oak are shown as street trees along Laporte Street. This species is not on the City Street List. Consider changing these three trees to either Bur Oak or Hackberry. Response: Replaced with Western (Common) Hackberry / Celtis occidentalis Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The Little leaf Linden shown as street trees should be specified as a cultivar in the plant schedule. Response: Replaced with the cultivar ‘Greenspire’ Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: It appears there may be some labeling errors for the native shrub/trees along the canal and possibly also in the parking lot area. Please review. Response: Plans have been adjusted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Forestry would like to confirm that the street extension is a public and not a private street? Response: Salud parkway will be a public street. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Show any street lights and stop signs on the street extension and adjust street tree locations to meet the LUC requirements. Provide a distinct symbol for street lights and stop signs and record what these symbols are in the Legend on the landscape plan. Street Lights: 40 Canopy Shade trees 15 feet ornamental trees Stop Signs: 20 feet Response: Stop sign location at Laporte Ave and Salud Parkway added to plans. Street light locations to be coordinated at final once layout is provided by City Electrical. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: If it is a public street place the 5 standard street tree notes and the information about getting a permit from Forestry before planting in large box with a border on the landscape plan. If needed these notes are available from the City Forester. Response: Notes have been added. 7 Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016 05/26/2016: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Salud project specific concerns: 1. This existing building would be going thru a change of occupancy and must 8 be brought up to current building code in certain areas. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Response: Acknowledged Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: System modification and capacity charges may apply. The existing electric panel sizes need to be documented prior to construction so the appropriate credit can be given for the capacity on site. Three phase service is readily available on site. Response: Acknowledged Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: FIRE LANES Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of the building, or facility as measured by an approved route around the building perimeter. For the purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road. > In order to meet minimum fire access requirements at this site, the private drive along the south side of the building and the parking lot on the west side of the building will need to serve as a fire lane. > All private roads serving as fire lanes shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement and labeled as such on the plat and plans. > Fire lanes are to be designed to minimum specifications. 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. Response: Emergency access easements added to provide coverage within 150’ to all portions along exterior of building. 9 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: CUL-DE-SACS The interim access plan includes a cul-de-sac at approximately 950' from Laporte Ave. This non-compliant condition would require a second point of access to Maple St. or other approval by the fire marshal. Any interim condition should also be detailed on future plans. Code language provided below. > 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). 6/9/2016: I spoke with the fire marshal regarding the dead-end cul-de-sac at approximately 950' in length. He is willing to accept this condition with the agreement that no further development of the outlying lots will be approved until the permanent street connection is made. Response: See Letter of Intent for Emergency Access Easement through property to the east. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: 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. Response: Proposed fire lanes to meet criteria. Fire access signage to be submitted with final plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: MARKING The limits of the fire lane shall be identified with signage or red curb. Future plans should be labeled with sign and/or red curb locations. Code language provided below. > IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be 10 provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Response: Acknowledged, to be provided with final Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: WATER SUPPLY A hydrant is required within 300' of any commercial building. The proposed utility plan appears to meet the minimum location requirement however it is the responsibility of the applicant to verify pressure and volume. Code language provided below. > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. Response: Temporary hydrant along Laporte Ave was recently tested and determined to have adequate pressure/flow per City staff. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST Along with the change of occupancy and full remodel of this 38,000 sq. ft., pre-existing building, an emergency communication system evaluation will be required. Code language provided below. > IFC 510: New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION PFA recommends naming the private drive at this time to assist with way-finding to other Lot. Code language provided below. > IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016 06/09/2016: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 11 This building will require a NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. Response: Acknowledged Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 Unless public street access will be provided from the west, the private drive south of the building must be a public street or street like private drive. If this is not feasible, a modification to the code standards must be submitted for the current layout, and with the addition of an attached sidewalk, 5' deep from the back of curb. Response: Walk has been added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 The street improvements on Laporte and Salud Parkway and proposed replatting require that the existing Salud parking lot be configured with parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping as well as a reconfiguration of the interior parking aisles. Other improvements are shown on other proposed lots and these proposed lots must also be shown as part of the PDP. Response: Existing Salud parking lot to be temporarily reconfigured during the remodeling of the future Salud facility with the intent that it will be demolished with this development plan. See phasing plans for more information. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 Many elements of the civil set and planning set are incongruous, such as buildings and drives which are shown to be removed, limits of the development, and removal of trees. Response: Plans have been clarified. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 More landscape detail is required showing the intent of the design for the hearing as well as addressing all areas that are disturbed or enhanced with buffer improvements. Please add a landscape design statement to the plans. Response: A rendered plan will be provided for hearing. A detailed landscape plan will be provided at final. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 Information from the PDP checklist is missing on the plans and more direct labeling is needed to provide information to the hearing officer. As an example, please directly label the buildings and their proposed/uses and resulting GSF's that are affected by the limits of the development. Response: Buildings have been labeled and PDP checklist has been reviewed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 The plans are difficult to read and it would help to clean up the linework and apply new lines, some bolder and with different linetypes, over the base 12 information, and then turn some of the base info off. Response: Plans have been revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 The trail design drops off south of Salud Parkway, the proposed design here is unclear. Show the context (Forney street, etc. so this is more clear, see redlines). Response: More detail has been added to surrounding property. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 With the buffer design, there's an opportunity to provide a sidewalk/trail connection needed to Lot 6 that could continue through Lot 3. Response: Buffers have been adjusted. The connection is no longer there. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 Areas on Lot 2 will need to be upgraded to meet current standards and this mainly includes paving vehicle use areas that are unpaved. Response: We are not submitting a development plan for Lot 2. The lot will be demolished and overlot graded. See phasing plans for more information. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 Is there a way to reconfigure the detention/WQ area so that it's more of a visual amenity for the clinic and also maximizes the buildable area of lot 6 (see landscape redlines). Response: Lot 6 is currently within the floodplain and therefore not developable at this time. The client has chosen to utilize this lot for detention. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 On the building elevation sheets, please provide a max dimension line to the roof peak on each elevation. The height to the roof peak on the elevations have been shown. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: A portion of this property is located in the City regulatory West Vine 100-year Floodplain and Floodway. Any improvements planned for within the floodplain and floodway boundaries must comply with Chapter 10 of City Code. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please add the floodplain and floodway boundaries to all applicable drawings so that it is clear what improvements impact the flood zones. Please contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. Response: This has been done. 13 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Per previous discussions with the applicant, a spillway from the ditch will be constructed that will shift the floodplain and floodway on the site away from the building and parking area. A CLOMR is required before construction permits can be issued for this site. After construction, an as-built survey is required for a LOMR on the site before the structure can be occupied. Please show the proposed floodplain and floodway lines on the site plan and drainage drawings so that it is clear what improvements will impact the flood zones. Response: We will submit a Floodplain Modeling Report and go through a City map revision process. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Nonstructural development (fill, parking lot, sidewalks, vegetation, stormwater outfalls, etc.) can be completed within the floodway as long it can be proven that the work will not cause a change in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or a change to the boundaries of the floodway or floodplain through a No-Rise Certification with supporting documentation and applicable floodplain modeling prepared by a licensed engineer registered in the State of Colorado. New parking areas in the floodway must be day-use only so that vehicles owners are onsite to move the vehicles to prevent them from becoming debris in the flood flows that block culverts and bridges and cause additional flooding offsite. Nonstructural development (fill, sidewalks, vegetation, etc.) is allowed in the floodplain with an approved floodplain use permit. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Any and all construction activities in the floodplain/floodway must be preceded by an approved Floodplain Use Permit, the appropriate permit application fees, and approved plans. Development review checklists and application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code prohibits critical facilities such as emergency or urgent care facilities in the floodplain. Per previous meetings with the applicant, if the structure is within the floodplain, the facility cannot be designated as an emergency or urgent care facility. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Please contact Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com with questions concerning development in the floodplain. Response: Acknowledged Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com 14 Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016 06/02/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. 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, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged, to be submitted with final Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please add an LID table to the Drainage Sheet. Response: This has been done. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The plan, as shown, has the future detention pond draining into and through the proposed detention pond at the northwestern corner of the site. The new state statute specifically precludes detention ponds in series. The future pond will need to have its own outfall or can be included in the volume calcs for the proposed detention pond, but can not be routed through it. Response: We will provide calculations at Final showing a full system (all interconnected ponds) draining within the State required drain time. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. Response: Plans updated to reflect redline comments Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The LID calculations presented show 16.4 acres for the LID design. What does this area include? Since the LID concept is intended to distribute treatment, the preference would be for the LID proposed with this development only treat Lot 4 and the adjacent street right-of-way. Response: Please see the revised report for clarification. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The SWMM model output does not include a schematic showing the area modeled and does not include any basin output. please include these items in future SWMM model output. Response: This has been included in the revised report. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 15 06/08/2016: The Drainage Report states that Basin F5 is to be included in the volume calculations for the proposed detention pond. The SWMM model does not appear to include this basin. The output from Comment 13 above may help clarify this. Response: Please see the revised report. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The output for the SWMM model show the HGL for Pond 2 is 1.5' lower than the HGL for Pond 1. This does not appear to be functional since Pond 2 is upstream of Pond 1. Are these elevations referenced to the site survey? If not, please revise the SWMM model to reference actual elevations. Response: Please see the revised SWMM model. Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: In general, this submittal is confusing in that it appears to include the drainage design for the entire area covered by the ODP but also revises some of the concepts presented in the ODP. If this submittal is just for Lot 5 then the design presented should just pertain to Lot 5. Does the ODP need to be amended to revise the drainage concepts that appear to be changing with the information presented in this submittal? Response: The drainage plan and report has been re-worked and drainage basins have been revised to provide more clarity. Please see the revised drainage plan and report. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please remove address from the plans. Address removed. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please change the Basis Of Bearings to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Updated Basis of Bearings to match Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: 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: Property corner Northing-Easting added in several locations on utility sheet. Will add to Horizontal Control Plan as well at final. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 16 06/08/2016: 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: Updated easements to match Plat. Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Should the plans be titled Lot 4, Salud Family Health Center? Response: Future development will not be Salud so there isn’t a need to specify a lot number. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The titles need to match the other plan sets. Ok Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please remove address from the plans. Address removed and they match the title.: Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: 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. Response: There is not a current lienholder. No Leinholder Title Block or Note added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: 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 emailed to Jeff on 9/30/16 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Please show lot dimensions on the inside of the boundary. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Please make the lot line text larger. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 17 06/06/2016: How does Lot 6 get access to public right of way? Response: Renumbered to Lot 3, access easement added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016 06/06/2016: The symbol size should match between the legend and the boundary. See redlines. Response: Revisions made Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: 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: Easements have been coordinated. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: ODP included a number of improvements on Laporte, staff would like some more details about what this PDP includes, and if any of these improvments are triggered. Response: Plans updated to reflect improvements along Laporte Ave. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016 06/07/2016: Adjacent street improvements (sidewalks, etc) will be needed. 18 The PDP does not reflect the adjacent street improvments, or how they tie into existing conditions. Response: Plans updated to reflect improvements along adjacent streets, including ties to existing conditions, curb and gutter, sidewalk, ramps, etc. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016 06/09/2016: 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: Acknowledged Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: See redlines for minor comments. Response: Plans updated to reflect redline comments Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please add utility line work to the Landscape Plan and ensure minimum separations are met. Response: Utilities have been added. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: Please provide elevations and plan of the trash enclosure. Sheet A32 shows the plan and elevations of the trash enclosure. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The landscaping plan needs a lot more detail. Is the parkway strip along Salud Pkwy going to be irrigated turf? Yes Foundation plantings are required around high use building walls. I believe all four sides are high use. Response: Plant beds have been shown as requested on the PDP check list. They have been darkened for clarity. Topic: Site Plan 19 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The parking counts are slightly off. The minimum required is 2 per 1,000 SF and max is 4.5 per 1,000 SF so the range should 78 spaces to 174 spaces. Response: Parking counts have been updated.