HomeMy WebLinkAboutWARD ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - PDP - PDP160002 - CORRESPONDENCE -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
February 09, 2016
Arris Architecture
3436 New Castle Dr
Loveland, CO 80538
RE: Ward Alternative Energy, PDP160002, Round Number 1
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
02/02/2016: What color are you proposing for the canopy? White canopies tend to
stand out against landscaping. To minimize the visual impact of the canopy,
consider using a shade of blue so that the canopy is less obtrusive.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: If possible, please carry the CMU blocks for the pillars of the canopy all
the way to the top of the pillars.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Topic: General
02/05/2016: In discussing this project in further depth with Engineering, staff thought
that an ODP might make sense if the various improvements as part of this
development will be phased. We can discuss this in further depth when we meet to
discuss the process for this project.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/09/2016: During staff review the group discussed how best to process the
storage building on the County's lot. Staff would prefer to process the storage
building as part of this PDP. This will ensure the building meets all relevant
standards in the Land Use Code since the property is within Fort Collins city limits.
Should the County not want to participate in this process, their request will likely
have to proceed as a Site Plan Advisory Review under a separate project. Staff
would like to discuss this further with the applicant and the County to ensure each
portion of this project is processed appropriately.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/09/2016
Topic: Landscape Plans
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.
Page 1 of 15
01/27/2016: There are discrepancies between what is being shown on the plant list
and what is shown graphically on the landscape plan. Please revise the plant list to
match what is shown graphically.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/27/2016
01/27/2016: The PS symbol is used twice on the plant list. Please change the
symbol for one of the plant species so staff can confirm the plant list matches the
plan shown.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/27/2016
Topic: Lighting Plan
01/27/2016: The lighting proposed for the canopy greatly exceed the maximums
allowed per Land Use Code section 3.2.4(C). The maximum sustained level of light
under a fueling canopy is 20 foot candles.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/27/2016
Topic: Site Plan
02/01/2016: Staff is concerned with the layout of the site and how effectively the
canopy will be screened from Vine Dr. Since the intersection of Redwood and Vine
has been identified as a gateway to the North College Innovation District, the public
facing image of this project is critical. Staff recommends flipping the site plan so the
building is more prominent with more screening along the western property line.
This would also allow for the curb cut to be located further away from Redwood.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: The proposed site plan does not meet the build-to line standards
outlined in section 3.5.3(C)(2). This standard would require the building to be placed
between the sidewalk and the vehicle use area. The building could be no more than
15 feet setback from back of walk. Right now, this proposal would need a
modification to this standard in order to proceed. Staff will look at how well the
vehicle use area is screened to determine if the site plan meets the standard equal
to or better than what is required by code.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/05/2016: The development plan boundary isn't clear from my point of view. Isn't
there a plat that's to be created with this development plan that helps tie a
development plan boundary to, as well as conveys any easements/rights-of-way?
(There would appear the need for a cross access easement for the northern
driveway.) Establishing lot or lots that are to be developed can then identify
improvements to the associated lot or lots. In addition, it becomes more evident
where offsite work is proposed and whether offsite easements are required.
Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: The PDP site plan shows "new storage". Is this part of the project
development plan being entitled? Will the driveway aligning with Cajetan need to
function as two-way as a result, despite the site information indicating that the
driveway off of Redwood Street is enter only? It's also not clear to me why the
sidewalk improvements along Redwood Street aren't being extended north of the
existing termination today.
Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
Page 2 of 15
02/05/2016: The area west of the fuel center site but also bound by Redwood and
Vine (northeast corner) is shown on the civil plans as being developed as a
detention pond. I'm understanding that the detention pond location is potentially in
City right-of-way. Placing development requirements such as a pond, onto City
right-of-way, wouldn't be allowed.
Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: This area being developed as a detention pond also requires street
frontage improvements abutting the pond to be built as part of this development plan
(such as curb, gutter and sidewalk along Vine Drive, as well as roadway
improvements to Vine Drive, and the curb return and access ramp/sidewalk
improvements at the northeast corner of Redwood Street and Vine Drive.) Note that
as part of this design, the existing inlet at the northeast corner of Redwood and Vine
would appear to need to be moved in order to build the curb return for this area.
Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: Under the premise that the driveway out to Cajetan is intended to be for
two-way (exit), perhaps for future/existing development, a sight distance easement
for intersection sight distance looking southwest for northbound Redwood Street
would need to be shown on the plans and dedicated on the plat for areas not in
right-of-way. (Utilizing a distance of 660' per LCUASS table 7-16)
Comment Number: 120 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: A variance request for driveway spacing out to Vine Drive was
received. The outcome of the review of the project proposal and variance from
Transportation staff is that the access should still be moved further to the east,
ideally along the eastern boundary, or at the least the middle of the property.
Comment Number: 125 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: If the driveway access onto Vine Drive is intended to be exit only, why
does it need to be 40 feet in width not including the curb returns? It seems that the
design and appearance of the driveway won't function as exit only and should be
limited to closer to 20 feet in width.
Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: Discussion of Transportation staff expressed the concern that the left-in
off of Redwood results in the scenario where access to the site requires an
eastbound to northbound left turn at the Redwood/Vine intersection, but there is
currently no center turn at the intersection. Recognizing that there's likely limited
existing right-of-way to accomplish this center turn lane, the option of making the
driveway onto Vine Drive two way traffic with the center turn built east of the
intersection should be considered (with the driveway shifting to the east per a
previous comment, and still modifying the driveway to be no more than 36 feet, if
two way traffic).
Comment Number: 135 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: The asphalt paving on the civil plans shown should be providing
transitioned improvements to the east, rather than the abrupt transition. This would
also apply to the west, but would be moot with the construction of frontage
improvements in front of the pond.
Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
Page 3 of 15
02/05/2016: The asphalt paving shown along the initial "frontage" reflects that the
widened section does not drain to the curb and gutter, but drains towards the center.
This wouldn't meet LCUASS requirements for a crowned roadway, and would imply
that the roadway is not in its ultimate vertical design. The curb and gutter not being
in its ultimate condition also appears to be the case when comparing the spot
elevations on the grading plan with the ultimate curb and gutter preliminarily shown
in the ultimate design. The curb and gutter elevations appear to be a foot below the
ultimate design flowline. Please note that if it can be demonstrated that the frontage
improvements are built in accordance with the minor arterial standard to the ultimate
condition and are beyond the local street width (13' feet of pavement), then the
additional pavement beyond the local width would be eligible for street oversizing
reimbursement. If it cannot be demonstrated that the interim improvements fit in the
ultimate condition, then this would likely not be allowed and also then, there is no
street oversizing reimbursement for any building beyond the local width, and in
addition the local street portion of frontage improvements would need to be provided
to the City in-lieu of building improvements that would fit in the ultimate condition.
Comment Number: 145 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: The area behind the curb and gutter is showing a minor arterial design
of a 6 foot sidewalk detached 10 feet. Transportation staff is okay with a reduced
design here of utilizing a 5 foot wide sidewalk, detached 8 feet from the curb (in the
ultimate vertical alignment), matching the Redwood Street cross section.
Comment Number: 150 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: Who maintains the parkway and landscaping on Redwood Street
abutting the property? Is this being maintained by Old Town North, as the original
installer? Given that City code has the parkway maintained by the abutting property
(except the trees, which are maintained by the City), it may be worth ensuring that
coordination of maintenance of this area is understood, especially with the
modifications involved with the new driveway.
Comment Number: 155 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: What is the intention for the existing overhead pole, which appears to be
in the driveway for the connection out to Vine Drive? It should be removed with the
development.
Comment Number: 160 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: The site plan shows area lighting that may be in City public right-of-way.
The placement of private development lighting in right-of-way would not be allowed
unless otherwise permitted through an encroachment permit.
Comment Number: 165 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
02/05/2016: Should an ODP be considered with the apparent phasing of the overall
development? it might make it easier to understand how future development can
occur.
Comment Number: 170 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 4 of 15
02/03/2016: Thank you for submitting the ECS. As discussed at Staff Review on
2/3/16, the ECS did not sufficiently describe the current conditions on the project
site, including the proposed detention basin and area around the new storage units.
A field visit with the applicant’s ecological consultant will be necessary when the
ground is not frozen and free of snow in order to determine the extent of wetland
hydrology and vegetation. Please contact me to set up a time to visit the site under
such conditions, and I will coordinate with other City staff as needed, including
Forestry and Natural Areas. My contact information is kkimple@fcgov.com and
970-416-2401. An updated ECS will be required following this site visit.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: As the site's current design, as well as the location for the new storage
units, will appear to impact existing trees, a review of the trees will needed by the
City's Forester to determine a tree mitigation schedule, which could incorporate any
necessary habitat buffers and mitigation.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Furthermore, as per Rebecca Everette's comments from CDR150056,
the area labeled "new storage" is not likely an acceptable use within the buffer zone
for the ditch. The ECS does not describe this area in detail and further review will be
needed to evaluate the current conditions and buffer requirements, if this is to be the
location and extent of the new structures.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/02/2016:
Contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to inventory existing trees and
determine mitigation (Tim Buchanan, City Forester -221 6361). Existing significant
trees need to be retained to the extent reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016:
Show locations of any City streetlights and provide for the LUC separation between
street trees and City Street lights.
Canopy Shade trees: 40 feet between street tree and light
Ornamental tree: 15 feet between street tree and light
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016:
Change the English Oak shown as street tree to Bur Oak. This is a better adapted
street tree species.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016:
The Austrian Pine can have a 12-15 feet spread or more. The landscape area along
the east boundary landscape area and south of the building is about 5 feet wide. A
narrower conifer tree would work better in this location.
Consider using Skyrocket Rocky Mountain Juniper in this location. Its narrower
mature canipy spread would work better at this location.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Page 5 of 15
02/02/2016:
Use the City of Fort Collins standard notes on the plan. These notes include the
General Landscape Notes, Street Tree Notes and if there are existing trees then the
Tree Protection Notes. These notes are available from the City Forester or from
Clary Frickey the City Planner assigned to the project.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016:
Overhead electric and existing sewer Line conflicts with proposed tree locations:
Do not plant trees under the overhead electric lines or within the easement unless
they are smaller trees suitable for planting under or near the overhead electric line.
In some cases it is not advisable to plant outside the easement if adequate
separation from mature growth and lines cannot be achieved. Review any tree
planting that is proposed within the easement with a representative from the utility to
gain their approval. Proposed trees that appear that they will need to be changed to
a smaller species, eliminated or shifted to a different location are as follows:
2 - Kentucky Coffeetrees that are the south most trees of the three that are shown
are in conflict with the electric line. Also impacted from an existing sanitary sewer
line is the location of the north most Coffeetree. The standard is to provide 10 feet
separation between trees and sewer main lines and 6 feet between trees and sewer
service lines. Explore the following option to address these utility conflicts: Eliminate
the south Coffeetree under the electric line. Change the middle Coffeetree to a
Prairie Gem Pear. Move the north Coffeetree to the west into the lawn area to
provide for 10 feet or more separation from the sewer main.
1 - Austrian Pine which is the north most pine appears it will cause a conflict with
the electric line as it matures. By changing this pine to a Tannenbaum Mugho Pine,
which has a mature height around 15 feet, it would appear that the future conflict
with the electric line would be eliminated.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 6 of 15
02/01/2016:
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.
Ward alt energy – project specific concerns:
1. CNG station must comply with 2012 IFGC section 413 and IFC section 2308.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 7 of 15
02/02/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer
and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
Transformer must be within 10’ of an asphalt/concrete surface. Pay close attention
to the transformer clearances in the Electric Construction Policies, Practices &
Procedures.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees
and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between
ornamental trees and streetlights.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
02/02/2016: FIRE ACCESS & EASEMENT
An Emergency Access Easement is required for the site however I haven't been
able to locate an easement labeled on the plans. No Parking - Fire Lane signage will
also be required. Code language provided below.
MARKING
> 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
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.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Page 8 of 15
02/02/2016: SECURITY GATES (As applicable)
> 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.
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: PROJECT UPDATE?
Is the building labeled on the plans as "New Storage" being added to the county site
at this time?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: WATER SUPPLY
A hydrant is required within 300' of any commercial building. The existing county
shop currently has a hydrant on Vine approximately 165' from the building however,
reconfiguring the access plan for the site appears to place the nearest available
hydrant at approximately 700' to the east. Furthermore, the "New Storage" building
will most probably trigger a hydrant requirement when that is built. 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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
A separate address is required for the fueling site. 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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Page 9 of 15
02/02/2016: OTHER COMMENTS
Other PFA comments pertaining to CNG fueling facilities may be required at time of
building permit.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
02/03/2016: Sheet C5 - These plans indicate a stormwater outfall at the end of a
storm pipe at the northeast corner of Vine and Redwood. However, the site can’t
drain this way. The stormwater outfall strategy for this site needs to be revised.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C5 - Slope labels need to be added.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C5 - Floodplain lines need to be added if possible to show the
limits within the extents of your sheets.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C5 -Show other existing pipes on the property and show how
they are either going to be utilized for your revised stormwater drainage strategy or
how they are going to be removed.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C5 - See redlines for other comments.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Add a Drainage Basin Summary Table
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Add an LID Table
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Add floodplain lines if possible to show the limits within the
extents of your sheets.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Add drainage basin lines.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - The property boundary shown on this plan doesn’t match
the property boundary line shown on the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Label the 100-yr WSE line.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Indicate more clearly where the spillway is located, its
extents and spill depth.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C7 - Its hard to follow the various lines drawn on the Drainage
Exhibit – i.e. the LID basin line, the drainage easement line, the 100-yr WSE line.
Please label these more clearly or modify the line weight to make them more legible.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Page 10 of 15
02/03/2016: Sheet C11 – Please remove the City of Fort Collins water details and
replace them with the appropriate ELCO details.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C13 – You have proposed a Grass Buffer as an LID system for
this site. You’re also showing 3 or 4 point discharges into the grass buffer from the
drive aisle area. Because Grass Buffers are designed to accommodate overland
sheet flow rather than concentrated or channelized flow, I’m not sure a Grass Buffer
is the right LID for this site. Consider using a bio swale or some other means to
provide LID.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Topic: Drainage Report
02/03/2016: This project is located with the Northeast College Corridor Outfall
(NECCO) area and as such is subject to the requirements of that master planned
improvement, scheduled to be installed within the next 2 years. This site sits within
basin 361 and is required to limit the amount of runoff to existing condition runoff and
is also required to provide onsite water quality.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: There are fees associated with being within the NECCO area. In 2015
these fees were $5863 per acre. I will check to see if the fees have changed for
2016.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Hydrologic calculations required to be included in the drainage report
include existing runoff rates for the 2-yr and the 100-yr storms.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Extended detention pond release rate needs to match that of the
existing conditions.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Please extend the Modified FAA detention pond sizing worksheet to a
longer timeframe to see if you can get the pond to peak.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: The existing calculations in the drainage report utilize the Urban
Drainage spreadsheets to determine runoff coefficients and peak flow rates.
However, you need to utilize a spreadsheet that uses Fort Collins runoff coefficients
and rainfall data.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: The firmette shown in Appendix III should also show the location of the
site on the map.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Topic: General
02/03/2016: Volume 2, Chapter 10, Section 4.19 of the Fort Collins Amendments to
the UDSCM includes requirements for spill control for gas stations. A secondary
spill containment structure may need to be provided at this site. If implemented, the
spill control structure would need to protect the detention basin and LID measures at
the site as well as offsite areas such as creeks and tributaries.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Topic: Plat
02/03/2016: Plat - If there is supposed to be a plat with this project, I did not receive
a copy.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Page 11 of 15
Topic: Site Plan
02/03/2016: Site Plan - The Overall Site Plan indicates a project area that includes
the existing site and shows a new storage building and some other improvements
that arent shown or included in any of the other drawings within the Utility Plans.
Please make the limits of the Site Plan consistent with what is shown on the Utility
Plans. Also, please provide a note regarding the floodplain information. Simply
provide the same note that is included in the Utility plans.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
01/19/2016: Erosion Control Report was acceptable. Erosion Control Plan has
redlines on the returned materials. Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will need to
be produced as it was not located in the supplied materials. (Template can be found
at ww.fcgov.com/erosion) If you need clarification concerning this section, or if
there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/19/2016
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
02/01/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Topic: Construction Drawings
02/02/2016: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: Please add a Benchmark Statement to the cover sheet.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: 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 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’.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Page 12 of 15
02/02/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: 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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Topic: Landscape Plans
02/01/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Topic: Lighting Plan
02/01/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Topic: Site Plan
02/01/2016: Please add the correct legal description to sheet 1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: A portion of this project is on unplatted property and right of way. We
suggest that this be platted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
02/01/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/01/2016
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 13 of 15
02/02/2016: The TIS has been reviewed. Specific technical questions can be
forwarded to the traffic engineer.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: The text indicates that the relocated Vine access will be outbound only.
How will this be restricted?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
02/02/2016: No roadway improvements are shown on Vine Drive (i.e. a center turn
lane at Redwood). With all inbound site traffic using Redwood, how does this meet
the standard, or will a variance be requested?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/03/2016: Sheet C1 – Add an ELCO signature block and provide ELCO contact
information on the cover sheet as they are the water providers for this site, not the
City of Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C3 – Please label the waterlines within Vine Drive to indicate
which jurisdiction (ELCO or City) each line is in.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C4 - Provide sanitary sewer service line vertical design
information and tie-in information.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C4 - The plans show a significant rim adjustment to one of the
sanitary sewer manholes – please indicate what the existing and proposed rim
elevations are.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C4 - Coordinate with ELCO on the proposed new water service
and relocation of the hydrant.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C4 - The Utility Plan indicates dedicated ROW and utility
easement but it doesn’t go the entire length of the property frontage. Verify with the
Engineering Department on required extents of these dedications.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Sheet C4 - Floodplain lines need to be included on the plans if possible
to show the limits within the extents of these plans sheets.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/03/2016: ON the Cover sheet need to include owner certification and the
signature block for the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
Services.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Page 14 of 15
02/03/2016: On the Cover sheet the Sheet index needs to include all the sheets not
included in the Utility Plans and the Plat.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: The public sidewalk on the west side of the driveway should extend all
the way to Redwood street.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Where are the bike spaces?
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Are there lights on the enclosure?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: The canopy lights need to be recessed into the canopy. It is not clear
that is being met.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
02/03/2016: Signage is not approved with the PDP or Final Plan. Please remove
signage from the plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016
Page 15 of 15