HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEC LAKE AND SHIELDS - PDP - PDP180012 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - 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
September 14, 2018
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave.
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: NEC Lake and Shields, PDP180012, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for our 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.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970‑224‑6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: All of the following comments must be addressed prior to
scheduling the land use hearing.
Site and Landscape Plan: The project is not in compliance with the landscaped
parking lot setback requirement along Shields Street per LUC 3.2.2(J). This is
an average of 15 feet along the parking area, and a minimum of 5 feet at any
point. Additionally, the setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use areas may be
increased by the decision maker (beyond the metrics described above) in order
to enhance compatibility with the abutting use or to match the contextual
relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular use areas. The proposed design
needs attention to support a more consistent parking screen and separation
along Shields Street. Suggestions include a combination of increased
landscaped setback depth, berm to better define the edge, and landscape
selections that are more suitable for a four-season landscaped parking lot
perimeter.
RESPONSE: The parking lot has been shifted east to lose 4 spaces and get the 15’
average setback. This allows more room for adequate four-season landscape
screening and separation along Shields Street.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site and Landscape Plan: The design approach for the transition area between
the building and the back of the public sidewalk along Shields lack visual
interest and does not provide a reasonable assemblage of character defining
elements that would be consistent with the WCAP and LUC 3.2.1(H). Along the
length of the building frontage and extending north along the play area, the
frontage also lacks landscaping and landscape bed depth between the
sidewalk and the fence. This adds to the issue.
RESPONSE: The building was reduced in overall width by 4 feet. This allows a
landscape planting area that measures from 6.3’ to 7.5’. This will allow more room for
the variety of landscape you are looking for along the play yard frontage. In addition,
there will be a pre-engineered block wall in three locations to help the character and feel
as well.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: The landscape plans show calcs for 3.2.1E(5), but no line is
shown for the calculations similar to the diagram in the code, so it is unclear whether
this standard is being met or exceeded.
RESPONSE: A line has been added to clarify the landscape/parking calculations.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: The landscape plan proposes three leaved sumac that is too
close to the public sidewalk. Spacing and habit does need seem appropriate at
the location.
RESPONSE: The sumac has been switched for another plant variety.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: Landscape plan does not provide a sufficient amount of
evergreen shrub material, and to much reliance on perennial grass material.
RESPONSE: With the site layout revisions, additional space has been provided for
landscape. Additional evergreens have been added to the shrub beds and the
perennial grasses which were originally used due to the space constraints have been
significantly reduced.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: No landscaping provided for the detention pond other than the
seed mix? Is this a temporary pond?
RESPONSE: Additional planting has been added to the detention pond.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: Parking spaces facing Shields Street are only screened by a
single row of plantings.
RESPONSE: Now that we have shifted the parking to the east by 9’, the average
setback is 15’ as required by the LUC. This allows more room for plantings.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: Parking spaces facing Shields Street are only screened by
perennial grasses.
RESPONSE: Since we only had one foot to work with, that’s all that would fit. Now we
have more room to add more variety.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Landscape Plan: Shrubs and grasses appear to be planted too close to the
existing tree in the SW corner of the parking area.
RESPONSE: After a second site visit with Forestry on 9-28, the three trees in the
southwest corner of the site are to be removed and mitigated.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: HC van space is too far away from the accessible ramp shown on the
site plan.
RESPONSE: The HC van space has been shifted to be closer to the ramp.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: Fence legend does not match the fence shown on the site plan. Also
not entirely clear which fence segments are which fence types.
RESPONSE: The fence legend now has both types of fence listed and the linetypes
match. In addition, the pre-engineered block wall has been added to the legend to help
clarify.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: No drystack wall detail is shown that provides the general
specifications for the wall and pillar references noted on the civil plans.
RESPONSE: We now have the pre-engineered block wall detail on the landscape plan
sheets.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: Site plan should note that the building walkway is 7 feet and 8 feet,
not 6 feet.
RESPONSE: The walk notes have been changed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: Exposed concrete along the public sidewalk edge, this drop seems
like a hazard to the public.
RESPONSE: This pan has been removed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site Plan: Cannot easily tell on the site plan where the proposed dry stack wall is
located, and also not all of the columns are shown.
RESPONSE: The block wall locations are shown and labeled on the site plan. We
hatched them with a gray-scale to read better.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site details: No color is noted for either fence type.
RESPONSE: There are now notes on the fence details stating they are to be black.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Site details: No trash enclosure details have been provided.
RESPONSE: Trash enclosure elevations have been included with this submittal..
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
Lighting Plan: Lighting cut sheets are difficult to read, and unclear what
information on the cut sheets is pertinent. Also what is the height of the parking
lot poles from the ground to the lense?
RESPONSE: We made the lighting cut sheets larger, the catalog numbers in the lighting
fixture schedule. Also, the mounting heights for all light fixtures in the Luminaire
Locations Schedule, we added boxed note to call mounting heights to attention.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Add at least one more street tree south of the chokecherries
or as necessary to meet the spacing requirements. Also appears that at least
two additional street trees are required in the tree lawn area along the parking
lot frontage.
RESPONSE: Additional ROW trees have been added along Shields.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Difficult to tell which trees correspond with which symbol in the
plant legend.
RESPONSE: The plan and the legend are set to matching scales for clarity. The
plans are set to 20 scale.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Placement of assumed Shumard Oaks in the SW corner of
the site seems crowded and too close and also shrub selections underneath will
receive too much shade.
RESPONSE: Crabapples are shown in the SW corner of the site. The placement has
been adjusted. These trees continue to be shown in the turf rather than in a planting
area.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Why is the Redspire pear planted so close to the entrance
Sidewalk?
RESPONSE: There is a Pear planted in a shrub bed that is 9’x7’. I’ve confirmed that
it is centered in the shrub bed so it is not too close to the walk.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Site Plan: Offsite work is proposed on lot 2. Areas of grading are also shown
and the landscape plans don’t show how this is restored or treated. Unclear if
offsite LOI authorization had been provided to staff.
RESPONSE: There is a detention pond proposed on Lot 2, so we have added the
required detention pond landscaping.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: No trees are shown on the new lot 2 sidewalk and driveway
frontage per LUC 3.2.1(E)(5)(d)
RESPONSE: Trees have been added to this area.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Any required interior landscape island must be 8’ in the
smallest dimension per LUC 3.2.1(E)(5)(c) as explained at conceptual.
RESPONSE: The landscape area width is now 8’.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: Unclear how the project is proposing to meet the parking lot
perimeter tree spacing requirement in LUC 3.2.1(E)(4)(a).
RESPONSE: Both ROW tree planting has been provided along all perimeter streets. In
addition, informal groups of trees are included within the landscape areas, outside of the
ROW.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: For 3.2.1(E)(4)(b), show the required graphic depictions in the
form of color graphic sections and/or axonometric view details on the plans.
Exceed the 70% coverage standard at this location is recommended. Providing
shrub triangulation is recommended. See S. Whitcomb SPAR example.
RESPONSE: Shrub beds have been provided along the entire parking lot perimeter
with the exception of the adjacent walk on the north side of the parking lot (between the
building and the parking lot). All plant material selected is at least 30”.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Landscape Plan: We would like to see all plan symbols for existing trees include
a different block symbol that contains a noticeable trunk demarcation. This is a
recurring issue and the sites are too tight to include symbols that have no trunk
location. The proposed parking edge in the SW corner is assumed to be
unrealistically close to the existing tree trunk and surrounding root system.
RESPONSE: The trunks for the existing trees are drawn to scale.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Site Plan: The maximum number of parking spaces permitted for child care
centers is 4:1000 GSF per LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(h). No alternative compliance
provision exists for this standard. 42 parking spaces is the maximum permitted
per this standard, provided that the parking lot can be design per the landscape
and setback requirements. Additionally, because the project does not appear to
need this maximum amount of parking, this makes any proposed landscape
setback and foundation planting requirement modification difficult to justify.
RESPONSE: There are now 41 total spaces.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Site Plan: The proposed design submittal appears to disregard many
significant code provisions. Unclear why this was submitted without more
attention to the code requirements. A more active and proactive role in code
compliance would be appreciated by staff and will reduce the number of rounds
of review necessary.
RESPONSE:
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Site Plan: The project does not comply with LUC 3.5.3(B) which requires that
the street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian scale in order to
establish attractive street fronts and walkways. The street front arrangement is
not attractive.
RESPONSE: The building was reduced in overall width by 4 feet. This allows a
landscape planting area that measures from 6.3’ to 7.5’. This will allow more room for
the variety of landscape you are looking for along the play yard frontage. In addition,
there will be a pre-engineered block wall in three locations to help the character and feel
as well.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
Staff will be recommending a densely landscaped buffer yard along the
sidewalk frontage to the Hearing Officer, clear of walls and drainage structures
and a low landscape wall be provided along the building frontage, at 30 inches
in height, clear of the landscape buffer. Transition from sidewalk edge will need
to any drainage structure will need to be essentially flush. Please provide design
drawing concept to show a proposed transition in this area that includes a buffer
yard.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan shows dense planting in this area, as well as
locations of the pre-engineered block wall. The buffer area is now wider.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
The project is not in compliance with 3.8.11 Fences and Walls which require
visually interesting architectural elements be integrated. Extending the low wall
buffer concept along the length of the street frontage may satisfy this
requirement and also add separation and transition for the play areas. Need to
see concept details to comment further.
RESPONSE: The addition of a low wall and a larger landscape buffer will help. We
have added a section of this area to the landscape plan.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970‑221‑6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Include typical street sections for all adjacent roadways, that show
interim and ultimate conditions, as applicable.
RESPONSE: Typical street sections have been shown on the cover sheet. Will need
more clarification on the ultimate designs.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The basis of bearing being called out on the various plans does
not appear to be correct. Please verify and confirm or revise as necessary.
RESPONSE: Basis of bearing has been revised
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: See sheet C0.01 for various comments on notes.
RESPONSE: Redlines were not seen or passed on. I apologize and I am not purposely
trying to avoid this comment just saw it last minute.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The existing sidewalk along James Ct. needs to be called out for
removal.
RESPONSE: Sidewalk along James Ct that is getting removed is now hatched
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: There is an existing tree near the north site access that looks to
maybe be impacted by a storm sewer installation.
RESPONSE: An additional manhole has been added to allow for additional separation
from this tree.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Label all proposed lots and adjacent properties. Show all
proposed and existing lot and property lines as well.
RESPONSE: Shown on all sheets.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Depict existing infrastructure (walks and ramps especially) more
clearly on plans. It is a bit hard to follow how the proposed walks tie into existing
concrete and ramps at James Ct./Shields and Lake/Shields. Also, it needs to
be clearer that the existing walk along Shields will remain and how that ties
into proposed improvements.
RESPONSE: Portions of the walk along Shields Street will be getting removed and that
is depicted with the hatching. The portion of the walk that is staying has also now been
hatched and the proposed portion of the sidewalk that is getting replaced along Shields
Street has now been depicted on the horizontal control plan.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Will proposed drives and parking lots need to have heavy duty
paving where PFA will be using for access?
RESPONSE: Heavy Duty paving is now depicted on the horizontal control plan
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: It would be preferred that the west pedestrian ramp be installed at
the proposed site access to Lake St. with this project. Otherwise, when Lot 2
develops, the corner of the access will need to be torn out to install one then.
RESPONSE: Ramp and detached walk are now shown.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Show adjacent existing improvements, access locations, etc. This
will help staff be able to determine if proposed drive location for example, is in
the correct location to align with existing one on the south side of Lake St.
RESPONSE: Existing infrastructure is now included.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The TIS identifies a deficiency in the length of the westbound left
turn lane on Lake St. There may be an opportunity to lengthen the striped turn
lane to get closer to the required length.
RESPONSE:
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
09/12/2018: At final design ‑ we will need to see spot elevations and slope
labels on all pedestrian ramps. This is a request for all projects, from our
Engineering inspection staff.
RESPONSE: Spot elevations and slopes have been provided at all ramps.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: TDR Fees calculation needs to be reviewed. Please coordinate
with Todd Sullivan, Development Review Coordinator to get the additional fees
paid.
RESPONSE: We have re-calculated the TDR fees and CSURF will be providing a new
check.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Please see Engineering redlines (Utility Plan and Plat) for
additional comments.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Existing drainage infrastructure may need to have drainage
easements dedicated, since the property is being subdivided and multiple lots
will be draining into storm sewer, swales, etc.
RESPONSE: Easements have been dedicated
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The required ROW and utility easement for Lake St. will need to
be dedicated for the entire length of this development. This may impact the
proposed stormwater detention pond and easements on the south side of the
site.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and easements have been updated
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Lot 1 will need an access easement through Lot 2. Lots 1 and 2
will both need to have emergency access easements dedicated with this plat,
per PFA requirements.
RESPONSE: Access Easement has been added as well as the EAE.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970‑416‑4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: TRANSFORT ‑ The bus stop on Shields needs to be consistent
with Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard
s.pdf
Please see the Type III bus stop in Figure 12 & 13. The bus pad will need to be
constructed inside the sidewalk with a transit easement.
RESPONSE: As discussed, the existing sidewalk is to remain and a new 8’ walk is
being constructed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Tim Tuttle, 970‑221‑6820, TTUTTLE@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The project will need to contribute a proportional share of funding
for the NB right turn lane at Lake and Shields.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Work with the Engineering department for adjacent street
improvements along Shields and Lake.
RESPONSE: This has been determined.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Please align the access point with the driveway to the south.
RESPONSE: The offsite stuff to the south is not surveyed and was drawn in using a
combination of google earth and City GIS aerial photos. If these drive aisles need to be
perfectly aligned additional topo will be required. These are private drive aisles.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Please exchange all the riprap proposed on the site with
permanent erosional control matting. Riprap has been related to various
maintenance and safety concerns.
RESPONSE: Scour Stop was specified and sized. Please see Erosion Control Details
for detail and the calcs are included within the drainage report.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Drainage Easements are required for the detention ponds and
rain gardens.
RESPONSE: Easements have been provided.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Stormwater is ready for a hearing.
RESPONSE: Thank you.
Department: Water‑Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: The sanitary sewer connection needs to be into the main and not
through a manhole. Please revise.
RESPONSE: SS connection has been moved to connect to the main and not the
manhole.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970‑416‑4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Thank you for including luminaire schedule and selecting 3000K or
less fixtures supporting City Night Sky Objectives.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Based upon the species listed in the seed mix included on
landscape plan ‑ this is not considered a native grass seed mix. A list of
appropriate native seed mixes will be provided. Drill seed rate should be
minimum 15lbs/acre and double that for a broadcast application method.
RESPONSE: A seed mix has not yet been provided but the plans have been revised to
show the City of Fort Collins Upland Seed Mix. Please let us know if this is acceptable
and/or provide an updated seed mix if you would like it adjusted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Update seed mix notes to:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES
1. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE
SEED MIX SPECIES AND AS OUTLINED IN MUNICIPAL CODE 12‑130
THROUGH 12‑132. IN NATIVE AREAS THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE
TYPICALLY SATISFIED THROUGH SOIL SAMPLES SHOWING QUALITY OF
SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF TOP SOIL IN CODE 12‑131. THROUGH
LOOSENING THE TOP 8 INCHES OF SOIL AND APPLYING 4 INCHES OF
TOP SOIL THEN SOIL AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS CAN BE FULFILLED.
2. AFTER SOIL HAS BEEN PROPERLY PREPARED THEN SEED EVENLY
IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED OVER ENTIRE AREA. SEED
ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION
OF GRADING OPERATIONS.
3. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.
4. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED
(STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT
SHALL NOT BE USED).
5. GENERALLY DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER
SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH (OR
APPROPRIATE DEPTH FOR SELECTED SPECIES). WHEN USING
BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE
SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE
FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES.
6. PREPARE A WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS
ARE PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING
ACTIVITIES.
7. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED
STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS.
8. WHERE NEEDED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. IF IRRIGATION IS USED, THE IRRIGATION
SYSTEM FOR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE
TIME OF SEEDING AND SHALL ENSURE 100% HEAD‑TO‑HEAD
COVERAGE OVER ALL SEEDED AREAS. ALL METHODS AND
REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPROVED IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE
FOLLOWED.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER
IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS
NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER.
10. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED
IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING
OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS, DO NOT MOW LOWER
THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT
GROWTH. GENERALLY, MOW NO MORE THAN 3 TO 4 TIMES PER YEAR
DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD FOR WEED MANAGEMENT WHEN
NECESSARY.
11. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN
SEVENTY PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS REACHED WITH NO
LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL
DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES AND EROSION
CONTROL.
12. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE SEEDLING COVERAGE AND GROWTH
AT THE TIME OF FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED BY STATE AND
LOCAL AGENCIES. IF FINAL STABILIZATION IS NOT ACHIEVED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE AGENCY, THE DEVELOPER AND/OR
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL
CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SATISFY FINAL VEGETATIVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSEOUT.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Please ensure clear identification of which trees on the landscape
plans are mitigation trees, in particular. Thank you.
RESPONSE: Mitigation trees are marked with a dashed circle around each tree symbol.
Please refer to the landscape legend for this symbol. Please note, this method of
distinguishing mitigation trees was provided by Forestry.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: Environmental Planning is ready for Hearing. By Final Plan first
round all comments here should be addressed. Thank you.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018:
Please include the most recent street tree permit note on all landscape sheets.
The one used now is outdated.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018:
Please include the City of Fort Collins Tree Protection Notes to the landscape
plans.
RESPONSE: These notes have been added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018:
There appear to be some discrepancies on sheet 2 between the tree inventory
and mitigation plan.
‑ The existing tree schedule shows tree #4 to removed, but the tree symbol
does not show removal.
‑ The existing tree schedule shows tree #11 to be retained, but the tree
symbol and plan show the tree to be removed.
‑ Please update the following tree sizes and conditions:
o Tree # 1: Austrian Pine – 9.5”
o Tree #11: Austrian Pine – 10.5”
o Tree # 13: Hackberry – Fair Minus
o Tree #15: Green Ash – 11.5”
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018:
Prior to next submittal, please schedule an on‑site meeting with the City
Planner, City Forestry, City Engineer, Northern Engineering, and representative
from TB Group to discuss the sidewalk grading and installation around existing
trees that are to be retained and protected. A grading detail of the sidewalk
around these trees should be included on the utility and or landscape plans.
RESPONSE: This meeting was held on Friday 9.26.18 and the plans have been
adjusted per direction from Forestry and Engineering.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018:
Show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a
distinct symbol. Space trees if needed as follows.
Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign
Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees
RESPONSE: Symbols have been added to the landscape legend.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970‑224‑6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Existing Light & Power facilities adjacent to the site in Shields St.
are under the concrete just outside of the curb & pan. This duct bank is
encased in concrete. Bringing the feed from this to the new transformer will be
challenging and costly. Maybe more cost effective to directional bore across
the site from the switch cabinet, that is shown to be relocated, to the new
transformer location.
RESPONSE: The switching cabinet has now been shown to be placed in an
underground composite vault which has been accurately depicted on the Utility Plan
sheet
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Electric vault proposed to be relocated along Lake St. is an above
ground switch cabinet. If this is to remain in the parkway it will need to be
changed to an underground vault.
Relocating this piece of equipment will require an extensive outage to the
properties on the S. side of Lake St. and numerous cable runs to be removed
and re‑pulled. This will likely require much work outside normal business hours
and lead to additional costs.
RESPONSE: Please see above comment response.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be
at the expense of the owner/developer.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Any proposed Light & Power electric facilities or existing electric
facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within a
utility easement.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: A commercial service information form (C‑1 form) and a one line
diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all
proposed commercial buildings and multi‑family (commercial) buildings larger
than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C‑1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/development‑fo
rms‑guidelines‑regulations
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system
modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact
Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970‑221‑6700 or
ElectricProjectEngineering@fcgov.com. Please reference our Electric Service
Standards, development charges and fee estimator at the following link:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/05/2018
09/05/2018: Proposed transformer location appears to be out of access
according to Light & Powers Electric Service Standards.
Transformer locations need to be within 10’ of an asphalt surface accessible by
a line truck. A minimum clearance of 8’ must be maintained in front of the
transformer doors and a minimum of 3’ on the sides Transformer and meter
locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. Certain
building materials and or building design may require more clearance. Please
adhere to all clearance requirements in the Electric Service Standards at the
following link.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/development‑fo
rms‑guidelines‑regulations
RESPONSE: Transformer location has been moved and is now in compliance.
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970‑416‑2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/07/2018
9‑12‑2018 Staff review update
EAE will be shown in its entirety at next submission enabling access to the
hydrant and 150ft access requirement
An Autoturn exhibit will be used to verify entry from Lake Street.
Addressing will be provided at FDP for approval by PFA.
09/07/2018:
>At the city meeting the project team stated this would be designed as an E
Occupancy. Where the required facility room exits open into fenced playground
areas, gates with appropriate egress hardware will be provided where required.
>The required Fire Lane parallel to the south side of the facility will be designed
to provide the 150ft access to the northwest corner of the building.
RESPONSE: This has been depicted on the horizontal control plan
>The fire lane will be extended to the north to ensure access to the hydrant at
the entrance from James Ct.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
>The project team stated that the facility may be addressed from Lake Street. If
this is the case then in order to assist prompt emergency response the full
address shall be clearly visible on the south elevation of the building in 12"
letters and numerals.
>The full address, including street name shall be attached to the west elevation
in no less than 8" tall numerals
>The FDC is noted at the north part of the east elevation.
>Should there be any cooking activities that produce grease laden vapors then
an approved Class 1 Hood will be required.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/07/2018
09/07/2018:
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 dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access
Easement.
> Maintain the required 20-foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20ft in width, the full width shall
be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all‑weather driving surface capable of supporting
40 tons.
> Dead‑end roads shall not exceed 660' in length without providing for a second
point of access.
:
> 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 red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all
times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final
plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and
spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
RESPONSE: Signage is now shown on the horizontal control plan.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/07/2018
09/07/2018:
HYDRANT
A hydrant capable of 1500gpm at 20psi residual is required within 300ft of this
building along an approved emergency vehicle access way. The EAE shall be
extended from Lake street through the parking lot to ensure clear access to the
hydrant at the north west corner of the parking lot. The project team is
responsible for verifying the output and pressure of the existing hydrant.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/07/2018
09/07/2018:
EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE
IFC 510 & 1103.2: New & existing 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.
LOCAL EXCEPTION: PFA will waive the testing requirement and system
installation in all buildings less than 10,000 sq. ft. and any Type V construction
building less than 15,000 sq. ft. PFA policy P15‑510.1
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/07/2018
09/07/2018:
ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING
To assist with prompt emergency response the address will be on the west and
east elevations of this building since it is addressed off Shields but accessed
from Lake Street. Wayfinding signage, both number and street name, will be
required at the Lake St entrance to indicate correct access. Code language
follows:
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
>IFC 505.1.8: Buildings that are addressed on one street, but are accessible
from other streets, shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on
each side that is accessible form another street.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: A complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you
disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections
were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in
response letter.
RESPONSE: Noted.