HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACIFIC COAST SUPPLY WAREHOUSE - FDP200019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Dev. andNeighborhood Services 281 North College AvePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewFebruary 26, 2021ZP Site Submittal
3 Response 3-10-21Jeanne Fielding ZP Architects Engineers2727 Bryant Street,Suite 610Denver, CO 80211RE: Pacific Coast Supply Warehouse, FDP200019, Round Number 2Please see the following
summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Pacific Coast Supply Warehouse. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 9702216695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Summary:Department:
Planning ServicesContact: Kai Kleer, 9704164284, kkleer@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021 FOR HEARING: It appears that
lighting levels measured at 20 feet beyond the property line on both the west and south parts of the site exceed the maximum foot candle ratings of 0.1. For next round of review please
make the property line more legible and indicate the 20foot boundary around the site.ZP Response: Photometric Plan has been revised to lower light levels 20’ beyond the West and South
PL by relocating the 20’ ht poles. The exist. South LP will be removed and relocated with a new pole to the north and east to not exceeding max.FCbeyond the PL. the North pole light
has been shifted to the east to meet the same requirements.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021 FOR HEARING: The Calculation Summary on sheet E0.2 indicates
a MAX of 24.21. It is not clear what this is referring to because I do not see anywhere on the photometric overlay that shows a 24. maximum lighting level cannot exceed 20 footcandles.
Please revise areas of the lighting plan out of compliance with this specification.ZP Response: The 24.21 max was an initial assumed FC for the exist wall packs on the exist. Warehouse
Bldg. 2. Calcs have been adjusted for those fixtures to 15.26. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021 FOR HEARING: Please submit a material board that demonstrates
the colors/materials used in both the fence and building. Preferred colors of fencing are beige or green, it will be important to work with Environmental Planning staff to verify the
color spec. The fence column is required to be split face CMU or brick, please update column details.ZP Response: Digital Material Board is shown on the coloredBuilding Elevations A2.1C/A2.2C
that are in addition to the B & W FDP Bldg. Elevations. The fence mas. column detail has been clarified noting split face cmu.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021
FOR HEARING: It is recommended to provide at least a 12” overhanging eaves for the storage warehouse and for the pumphouseZP Response: The standard Pre-Eng Mtl Bldg. Eave with Gutter/DS
detail will be used on the North Elev. The South Elev has a 20’ Overhang canopy.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021 FOR HEARING:It appears that there
may still be issues related to parking and fence placement on the south side of the site. The fence is allowed to be built within the 9 foot utility easement, however, it must be setback
from the future sidewalk by 2 feet. Work with engineering to determine if the fence could be built on the property line or twofeet behind. More descriptive callouts are needed to figure
out what the finished condition of this area will be. Will parking be maintained through an encroachment permit, what's going on with the fence? etc...ZP Response: South property line
ROW dedication has been adjusted for the new 57’ ROW/28.5’ for PCS half. The ROW dedication per Plat of 13.5’ will be added to the exist. 15’ Row. The new fence line has been adjusted
to outside the 28.5’ R.O.W. with a 2’ Fence SB per the 57’ Local Connector ROW Cross Section to within the 9’ Utility Easement per discussion.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated:
02/23/202102/23/2021 FOR HEARING:There are several redlines related to landscaping, land use table, fencing, architecture. Please revise plans in accordance with these edits.ZP Response:
Plan Redlines have been picked up.
Landscaping: Plant quantities have been adjusted for 40’ max tree stocking spacing and 80’ I-25 Landscape buffer requirements per LF for the full 394’ LF. A Request for Modification
is included to allow the shrub plant material to be counted in other areas outside of the 80’ buffer zone to satisfy the south section and not have to redo all the existing South Lot
frontage landscape buffer zone. Required shrub count of 10/25 LF has been incorporated and spread thru out the site for the most visual impact. Existing and Proposed Land Use of Wholesale
Distribution has been added to the Land Use Table. Fencing Col. Mas has been called out as split face and Material colors have been referenced on the colored Bldg. Elevations/Material
Schedule sheets.Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Dave Betley, 9702216573, dbetley@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/22/202102/22/2021:
FOR APPROVAL: The right of way dedication for the southern public right of way will classify for a Local Connector Street. The right of way dedication will be 57 feet overall (28.5-foot
half street improvement with a 9 foot utility easement beyond the right of way).ZP Response: Plans have been corrected to show the new 28.5’ R.O.W. dedication per Plat, 13.5’ additional
to the exist 15’. The new South PL is shown accordingly along with the new 9’ Utility easement interior to the new South PL. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/22/202102/22/2021:
FOR APPROVAL: The applicant has left the parking within the right of way. The applicant will need to apply for a major encroachment permit for the parking to remain. The applicant
will need to apply for this permit through Engineering Inspections. Please contact Jason Martin at 9702162779.ZP Response: A Major Encroachment Permit application is intended to be
completed with the DA Development Agreement to allow the exist. south parking to remain until the ROW is improved in the future.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/22/202102/22/2021:
FORAPPROVAL: It does not appear that the previous redlines were submitted to address the comments from engineering. Please supply the response from the previous submittal for the
City review record.ZP Response: Previous Comment Response 1 for Site Submittal 2 has been provided again for City Review.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021:
FOR APPROVAL: Deferral of the improvements for the public access in the public right of way will be written into the Development Agreement. Future permits will need to evaluate the
requirement of installing the public improvements.ZP Response: Noted.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/23/202102/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The right of way on the plans
should be called out as being dedicated per the plat and not as future dedication.ZP Response: Note corrected to call out R.O.W. Ded. per Plat.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated:
02/23/202102/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There are two signature blocks for the City Engineer on the plans. Is there a reason for the second signature block? The Utility signature block
is the standard block per LUCASS standards. The second signature block should be removed.ZP Response: Second signature block has been removed.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated:
02/23/202102/23/2021: FOR APPROVAL: In coordinating with the City Engineer and our inspections Group, it was determined that if the fencing is being moved, it should be relocated
outside of the right of way as dedicated. The relocation of the fence should be located two feet away from the location of the future sidewalk. The sidewalk is generally located adjacent
to the right of way line.ZP Response: Fence now shown in final location 2’ inside the new South PL/ROW within the 9’ Utility easement.Contact: Morgan Stroud, 9704164344, mstroud@fcgov.comTopic:
GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/06/202010/06/2020: FOR APPROVAL:The parking and fencing along the southern property line encroach into the public rightofway
currently, and will further encroach with the additional rightofway dedication. These should be moved back into the property and out of the rightofway. The parking may be allowed to
stay if a major encroachment permit is obtained for it if ultimate frontage improvements along the southern road are not constructed.ZP Response: A Major Encroachment permit is planned
to be included with the Development Agreement to allow the exist. Parking to remain until the South Access Rd is improved to the future ROW and at that time will be relocated within
the PCS PL.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/06/202010/06/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please see my redlines for additional comments.ZP Response: Redlines have been picked
up.Department: Outside AgenciesContact: Todd Sullivan, 9702216695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/202010/01/2020: CDOT,
Tim Bilobran, timothy.bilobran@state.co.us I don't have any large scale concerns and we will issue a new access permit. Keep in mind though that this site probably needs to stay in its
current use. If it ever redevelops substantially, CDOT is going to take the position of "The accesses are two close together and fail spacing on a 45 mph section. Only 1 of the 2 access
points should be utilized".ZP Response: ZP has discussed Submittal 1 CDOT comments with Tim Bilobran/CDOT and there are no specific issues requiring modifications if the exist ROW ditch
and discharge are not modified.Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment ControlContact: Basil Hamdan, 9702221801, bhamdan@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment
Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/202102/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.52 was updated to include fees for
Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number
of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed
for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 1 lot, 3.34acres of disturbance, 1 year from demo through build out of construction
and an additional 2 years until full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $1,172.09.Based on 1 bioretention facility the estimate
of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee is $ 315. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. The fee will need to be provided at the
time of erosion control escrow.
ZP Response: Fees will be provided.FOR APPROVAL:Thank you for addressing most of the comments provided previously. Please add the note provided on the redlined plan to the Erosion Control
Plan.ZP Response: Note 8 was added to the Erosion Control notes.10/02/2020: FOR APPROVAL:The Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan is hard to decipher due to multiple layers being
turned on, please consider turning off the ones that are not needed for this plan in order to reduce the clutter.ZP Response: Plan Information has been simplified to only that needed.The
per acre cost of seeding in your reseeding escrow calculation is too high, a more realistic cost for this area would be around $3,000 per acre, that would reduce the amount if escrow
needed.ZP Response: Cost Estimate has been revised using $3000/acre for seeding.Please include a legend for the ESC measures that are shown on the ESC plan on the plan itself not just
on the cover for the plan set.ZP Response: The ESC Legend has been included on the ESC Plan also.Please include all the standard City of Fort Collins notes in the utility plan set, to
include the City of Fort Collins standard erosion and sediment control notes. These can be found on our website at:https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fcscmappendixf.pdf?1549566342ZP
Response: Standard notes have been included in the Utility Plans.Please add a note to the ESC plan stating that all permanent stormwater control measures including the bioretention basin
will be built at the end of the construction sequence in order to minimize the potential of the sediment loading of these measures due to site construction activities.ZP Response: Note
has been added.Please add a note to the ESC plan stating that all permanent stabilization will be done in accordance with the landscape plan associated with this site development.Please
provide a construction detail for all construction control measures that are to be used on this site.ZP Response: Erosion Control details are included on C2.5, C2.6, C2.7.Please provide
sediment control measures for the work proposed in the frontage road drainage ditch.ZP Response: Sediment control is shown along the Frontage Rd ROW/Ditch.How will construction traffic
from this site be separated from the existing parking lot and roads to prevent construction traffic from causing mud and debris track out? Please use construction fencing to separate
the existing developed site form the construction site where appropriate.ZP Response: Construction fencing has been added separating the current bldg. locations.Department: Stormwater
EngineeringContact: Dan Mogen, 9703055989, dmogen@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/24/2021: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED:Thank you
for showing the easement area on the plat; this area appears to be adequate to cover the proposed facilities. Please update proposed easement to be a "drainage easement" with standard
easement language.10/05/2020: Please provide drainage easement for the proposed rain garden, detention pond, and associated outfalls.ZP Response: Plat updated to show drainage easement
including bioretention rain garden, detention pond and outfalls.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED:Please provide hydraulic
calculations showing proposed infrastructure is sized to convey 100year storm runoff to the proposed detention pond.10/05/2020: Please provide hydraulic calculations showing sizing
of the proposed inlets and culverts.ZP Response: 100 year storm runoff calculations and calculations for inlets and culverts were provided. All reference to 2 year calculations has been
removed.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL NOT ADDRESSED:10/05/2020: Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance
with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 3792602(8). More information on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a spreadsheet to show compliance
is available for download at http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at (970)3055989 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this requirement or for
assistance with the spreadsheet.ZP Response: Compliance with statute 37-92-602(8) shown with compliance spread sheet. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/19/2021:
FOR APPROVAL UPDATED:There are still many areas/notes on the plans that are not legible. Please see redlines for select examples and update as needed throughout.10/05/2020: There
is opportunity to greatly clarify the utility plans by limiting the amount of information on each sheet. Please review and show information where it is most appropriate rather than
showing most information on most sheets. Please provide an existing conditions/demo plan to clarify the site today and how it will be changing.ZP Response: Plans edited to improve legibility
and a Site Demo Plan has been included.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED :It appears that rock mulch and seed mix are proposed.
Landscaping in the detention pond is also unclear as multiple hatching layers appear to be active. Is rock mulch intended in addition to seed mix? Please clarify for both the rain
garden and detention areas.Please note: Plantings are encouraged in rain gardens and enhance both overall appearance and function.10/05/2020: Please clarify the proposed landscaping
in the rain garden.ZP Response: Poche hatching and plantings edited for clarity.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/05/202002/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED:Please see
updated redlines.10/05/2020: Please see redlined drainage report and utility plans. I encourage you to reach out with any questions or to review potential revisions, and I would be
happy to set up a meeting or conference call to do so.ZP Response: ZP/City Interim coordination has been done and Utility Plan redlines adjusted accordingly.Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 10/05/202010/05/2020: INFORMATION:Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon future submittals as plans are clarified and additional details
are discovered about the existing/proposed conditions.ZP Response: Understand there may be additional comments on further reviews.Department: Light And PowerContact: Austin Kreager,
9702246152, akreager@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/06/202010/06/2020: INFORMATION:Light and Power would like to remind you that all
of our facilities must have a ten foot clearance away from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We also require a three-foot clearance away from all other utilities with
the exception of communication lines.ZP Response: Elec. Utility clearances have been shown. 10’ clear to water, wastewater, Storm and 3’ to all communication, tele. fiber.Comment Number:
3 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/26/2021: INFORMATION:This information can be provided prior to permit sign off. Thank you10/06/2020: FOR APPROVAL:For the new building,
please provide a one-line diagram and a C1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utilsprocedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C1Form.pdfZP
Response: One-line diagram and C-1 form will be provided at the time of Bldg Permit submittal.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/06/202010/06/2020: INFORMATION:Electric
Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development.ZP Response: Noted.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/06/202010/06/2020:
INFORMATION:You may contact Austin Kreager, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 2246152. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdfYou
may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopers.ZP Response: Noted.Comment Number:
6 Comment Originated: 02/26/202102/26/2021: FOR APPROVAL:Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a minimum of an 8' clearance from the front
side and a 3' clearance around the sides and rear. (1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the sides and rear.) Your current plans do not provide this access to the existing transformer
on site.ZP Response: Trash Enclosure has been removedand asphalt paving extended to within 10’ of the existing transformer. Per Elec., a new transformer is not needed to serve the new
Storage Whse Bldg.3 and has been removed from the drawings.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/202102/26/2021: FOR APPROVAL:The proposed transformer location under
the building's overhang will pose problems for us in the future with replacing the transformer if it fails. Please provide a location that is not under the overhang and is not in danger
of being struck by vehicles coming in and out of the building.ZP Response: Upon further review, a new transformer is not necessary to serve the new bldg. and has been removed with electrical
service coming from the existing transformer to the new wall mount Main Bldg Service.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/26/202102/26/2021: FOR APPROVAL:The proposed
routing of our primary line going from the existing transformer to the proposed transformer location is running underneath your trash enclosure. This route will not work for us as if
the line fails, we will not be able to access our facilities. Please provide an alternate route that meets separation requirements from other utility lines as well as the bioretention
area.ZP Response: Both the new transformer and the trash enclosure have been removed.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/26/202102/26/2021: FOR APPROVAL:Your plat shows
the vacation of an easement that runs west to east across your site. This easement cannot be vacated due to existing electric facilities located within that easement. Please make this
correction for your next submittal. Thank you.ZP Response: The exist. East/West Utility Easement has been verified to contain exist. underground elec and will remain and not be vacated.Department:
Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/19/202102/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please change
'Natural Area Buffer Notes' on LP2.1 to 'Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Notes' so that the language is consistent throughout the plan set.ZP Response: Note Title has been changedto read
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Notes.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/19/202102/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In the table under Note 4 of the Natural Area Buffer Notes,
the buffer area calculations should be based off of the 50' buffer applied to the dripline of the American plum patch, not the ditch. This will rectify the required/provided square
footage discrepancy.ZP Response: Area calculation corrected to drip line and calculations are now consistent. Department: ForestryContact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.comTopic:
Landscape PlansComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: RESOLVED10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVALThere is substantial spacing between the trees planned for
the perimeter along NE Frontage rd. as well as the perimeter along the north side of the property. To meet the full tree stocking requirements laid out in the Landuse Code section 3.2.1,
please add additional trees from the list mentioned above in comment 5: Kentucky coffetree (Gymnocladus dioicus), Texas red oak (Quercus buckleyi), or chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii).
The spacing requirements for trees are stated below:1520’ between ornamentals or ornamental and shade trees3040’ between shade treesZP Response: Four additional trees have been added
along north building SB and West building frontage tobring landscaping into 40’ max. tree stocking compliance.Department: PFAContact: Jim Lynxwiler, 9704162869, jlynxwiler@poudrefire.orgTopic:
GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/202010/07/2020: FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMInformation: The "Fire Protection and Water Supply Requirements" letter submitted
by Veritas Fire Engineering and dated, July 31, 2020 is currently under review by Assistant Fire Marshal Greg Kimble and Fire Marshal Jerry Howell.ZP Response: An updated report has
been submitted to PFA per a review mtg. to establish further criteria. Report is dated 2-11-21. Awaiting comment from PFA.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/07/202010/07/2020:
FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE CONNECTION Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side
of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of fire service line and FDC shall be approved by the fire
department and the location labeled on Utility Plans.ZP Response: A FDP has been shown on the NE corner of the new bldg.. outside the proposed fire spklr rm and pump house.Contact:
Marcus Glasgow, 9704162338, mglasgow@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/22/202102/22/2021: PERIMETER ACCESSThe proposed perimeter access
appears to be closed off by a fence on the NE corner of the building and SW corner of the building. Mangates will be required for firefighter perimeter access at these two locations.ZP
Response: Aman gate is shown at the NE corner and the SW corner of Bldg. 3. Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: Building ElevationsComment
Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/25/202102/25/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:If both sets of Elevation Plans are going to be filed, please give them different sheet numbering.
Giving the colored versions an "A" after the current sheet number would be fine with us.ZP Response: Colored elevations with the material schedule have been added to the end of the FDP
set with sheet no. A2.1C, A2.2CComment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/25/202102/25/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are labels in the darker colors that will be hard for
a scanner to see. See redlines.ZP Response: Labels have been moved off the colored drawing or blocked out.Topic: Construction DrawingsComment Number: 11 Comment Originated:
10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:Please revise the subtitle to match the subtitle on the Subdivision Plat. Please note that the Subdivision Plat may change.ZP Response:
Set Subtitle has been revised to match the Plat.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please revise the subtitle as marked. See redlines.ZP Response: Subtitles have been revised to match the
Plat.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:Please revise the legal description to match the legal description on the Subdivision
Plat. Please note that the Subdivision Plat may change.ZP Response: It is understood that the Plat Legal Description is being reviewed and may change for the east PL 30’ and 60’ Access
easements.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.ZP Response: Bench Mark for this site is set from NAVD88 so reference to NGVD29
has been taken off.Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please add the missing value for the Datum Equation. See redlines.ZP Response:
Bench Mark for this site is set from NAVD88 so reference to NGVD29 has been taken off.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement
in the EXACT format shown below.ZP Response: Bench Mark Note has been added to the Utility Plans for NAVD88.PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:PLEASE
NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.IF NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) =
NAVD88 DATUM X.XX’.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:There are text over text issues. See redlines.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL
APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021:
FOR FINAL APPROVALUNRESOLVED:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There is text that needs to be masked.
Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/25/202102/25/2021: FOR FINAL
APPROVAL:There are spelling issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Topic: Landscape PlansComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021:
FOR FINAL APPROVALUNRESOLVED:There are line over text issues. See redlines.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great
effort to fix these issues.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUNRESOLVED:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in
hatched areas. See redlines.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort
to fix these issues.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:There are text over text issues. See redlines.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL
APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/25/202102/25/2021:
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are spelling issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021:
FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED: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.ZP Response: As discussed, Plat has picked up City Comments 2 with the exception of the further research being done
to clarify the 30’ and 60’ access easements, East property line adjacent to this and updated legal description. These items are still in progress with the Surveyor, Title Co, PSC Land
Attorney and City Staff and will be incorporated as soon as resolution is agreed upon.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: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.ZP Response: As discussed,
Plat has picked up City Comments 2 with the exception of the further research being done to clarify the 30’ and 60’ access easements, East property line adjacent to this and updated
legal description. These items are still in progress with the Surveyor, Title Co, PSC Land Attorney and City Staff and will be incorporated as soon as resolution is agreed upon.Topic:
Site PlanComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:Please revise the subtitle to match the subtitle on the Subdivision Plat. Please
note that the Subdivision Plat may change.ZP Response: Titles have been revised to match the updated Plat Title.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please revise the subtitle as marked.
See redlines.ZP Response: Titles have been revised to match the updated Plat Title.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:Please
revise the legal description to match the legal description on the Subdivision Plat. Please note that the Subdivision Plat may change.ZP Response: Revised Legal Description is awaiting
resolution from the Plat issues and will be updated at that time.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.ZP Response: Revised Legal
Description is awaiting resolution from the Plat issues and will be updated at that time.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVALUNRESOLVED:There
are line over text issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.ZP Response:
ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/06/202002/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all
text in hatched areas. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.10/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in
hatched areas. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/25/202102/25/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There
are spelling issues. See redlines.ZP Response: ZP has taken great effort to fix these issues.Department: Internal ServicesContact: Russell Hovland, 9704162341, rhovland@fcgov.comTopic:
Building Insp Plan ReviewComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/28/202009/28/2020: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:2018
International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local
amendments2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
with local amendments2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of ColoradoCopies of current
City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building.Accessibility: State Law CRS 95 & ICC/ANSI A117.12017.Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.Frost
Depth: 30 inches.Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of ZP Response:
Site Specific Wind Design Loads used for this Site in Ft. Collins, East of I-25 per the Front Range Gust Map, Category II is 115 mph, Exposure C.Seismic Design: Category B.Climate Zone:
Zone 5Energy Code: 2018 IECC commercial chapter, required if bldg is conditioned.ZP Response: Applicable Codes will be followed.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · Highpile storage above 12ft must
comply with the Fire Code.ZP Response: As discussed, No high-pile storage is proposed.· Commercial occupancies must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet between other
buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.ZP Response: Required SB have been maintained to meet NR exterior wall and opening fire resistive requirements.·
City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA13 sprinkler system per IBC chapter 9 or when building exceeds 5000 sq.ft. (or meet fire containment requirements).ZP
Response: bldg. will be provided with a dry fire spklr system and on site underground storage per review with Poudre Fire Authority.· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation
values is required for buildings using electric heat.ZP Response: Bldg will be proposed under Low Energy Use Bldg as discussed.· A City licensed commercial general contractor is required
to construct any new commercial structure.ZP Response: A licensed GC will be used for construction of this project as required.Building Permit PreSubmittal Meeting: Please schedule
a presubmittal meeting with Building Services for this project. PreSubmittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new 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 middesign stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants
of new projects should email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a presubmittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss
code issues of occupancy, square footage, type of construction, and energy compliance method being proposed.ZP Response: 2 Preliminary Code review mtgs have occurred with respect to
code and Low Energy Use Bldgs under the 2018 IECC.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/05/202010/05/2020: A storage polebarn in the SE corner of the property was built
without the required building permit and is built on the ELCO water line easement. This building must obtain an approved afterthefact permit or be removed/moved.ZP Response: Shed is
shown removed.