Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GREEN SOLUTION - PDP/FDP - FDP150045 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (5)July 18, 2016 Ryan Mounce Project Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 810 North College Avenue – Retail Marijuana Store and Cultivation Facility FDP Comment Response Letter The following are the responses to the FDP Review letter, dated February 23, 2016, for the above referenced property. For ease of review, we have provided all of the original comments with the response in italics below. If no response is provided, the comment has been noted or addressed and reflected in the design. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ryan Mounce, 970-224-6186, rmounce@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 On the site plan, add a dashed property line separating the driveway parcel to the north of your site from the main property of the liquor store (814 N College Ave). Manhard Response: A dashed line has been added as requested. Comment Number: 12 Per the conditions of approval from the public hearing, please provide information on any agreements for access to the project's parking and driveway areas. Manhard Response: Documentation has been provided. The access to the site is to be clarified via the Development Agreement. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Book 1371 Page 58 contains what appears to be a joint tenancy agreement between the Wells and Bickels. We don't know that this fulfills the condition for access. Please verify that this document pertains to the current landowners and does in fact grant access and emergency access. 02/17/2016: Please submit a letter of intent from the property owner to the north which indicates that they will be granting a temporary construction easement and an emergency access easement. Manhard Response: Documentation has been provided to the City Attorney. The access to the site is to be clarified via the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 11 The owner's acknowledgement can be removed from the utility plan set. Manhard Response: The owner’s acknowledgement has been removed, as requested. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 32 The calculated runoff data provided in Appendix B shows that you are increasing the 100- year runoff amounts in the developed condition. You will need to show that you aren’t increasing the amount of runoff in the developed condition 100-year storm or you need to provide onsite detention with a 2-year historic release rate. Page 3 – The flow rates table showing pre-development and post-development rates includes information that doesn’t match what is calculated/shown in Appendix B. Please update this table. Manhard Response: The table has been corrected to show the change in runoff for both the 2-year and 100-year storm events. Comment Number: 36 Page 4 – Specific Details section includes information that is now outdated and needs to be updated to describe your current design. Also, I think the historical path is to the southeast corner of the site. Please verify. Manhard Response: The drainage report has been updated to reflect the current design. Comment Number: 37 Page 4 – Drywell – We need to discuss this system in further detail. There are several things that I have questions/comments about: o Why have the sump manhole that is intended to collect sediment? Isn’t that what the Filterra system is supposed to do? o The 2-36 inch pipes are intended to provide volume storage for the 2-year storm but this isn’t wanted or necessary. We don’t want this system to act as an inadvertent detention or retention system. The intent of the drywell is to provide a place for the stormwater to gravity drain. The drywell detail shown in the plans should be a single manhole with gravel material that provides good percolation rates and that extends down far enough into material that also has good percolation rates. The percolation information and the bore log information provided in the geotech report don’t seem to match. o The 4-inch HDPE outflow pipe needs to be at least a 6-inch pipe. We do not allow any pipe sizes less than 6-inch. Manhard Response: The drywell design has been modified as discussed. The 4 inch pipe has been changed to 6-inch, as requested. Comment Number: 38 The summary tables on both the Existing Drainage Map and the Proposed Drainage Plan look like they need to be updated. Also, an LID table needs to be included on the Proposed Drainage Plan. Manhard Response: The drainage maps have been updated. The LID table has been included on the Proposed Drainage Plan. Topic: General Comment Number: 23 Sheet 5: Please indicate what sort of curb or pan is going through the trash enclosure area. Are you continuing the curb or transitioning to a crosspan? Manhard Response: The plans have been revised to show the transition of the curb and gutter to a valley gutter to convey stormwater through the trash enclosure area. Comment Number: 39 Sheet 5: Please provide curb type information in the plans. It’s unclear if you’re proposing inflow (catch) curbs or outflow (spill) curbs in some places. Also, Detail 701 on sheet 12 is for a 2 foot wide gutter and you’re showing a 1 foot gutter, so you will need to provide a different detail for a 1 foot gutter. Manhard Response: Additional information has been provided showing the transition points between catch and spill curbs. A detail has been added to sheet 12 of 13, showing the 1 foot curb and gutter section. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 21 There are line over text issues. See redlines. Manhard Response: Line over text issues have been addressed for clarity. Comment Number: 29 All benchmark statements must match on all sheets Manhard Response: Corrected. Comment Number: 30 There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Manhard Response: Corrected. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 24 Manhard Response: Symbols and legend are consistent. Comment Number: 31 There are line over text issues. See redlines. Manhard Response: Corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 32 Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Manhard Response: This information has been revised as requested. Comment Number: 33 There are line over text issues. See redlines. Manhard Response: Corrected. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Thank you for adding the note. However, it looks like the proposed sewer service is located in almost the same location as the existing service. Why not just use the existing service and save yourself an excavation on adjacent property? Manhard Response: The sanitary service connection has been revised to connect 5’ to the west of the property line. Manhard Response: Details have been added to Sheet 12 of 13. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Please update the landscape plans with the current storm sewer system and re-check that all separation requirements are still being met. Manhard Response: The landscape plans have been updated and separation requirements have been met. Please contact me at (303) 531-3223 or jrentz@manhard.com if you have any questions related to the above responses. Sincerely, Manhard Julie Rentz Project Engineer