HomeMy WebLinkAboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER LOT 4 - FDP200011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - 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
November 14, 2016
Stephanie Van Dyken
RIPLEY DESIGN INC
419 CANYON AVE SUITE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Salud Family Health Center, PDP160015, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about
any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through
the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: The following comments can be resolved at final plan. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Please show the bike lanes in the local commercial (Salud) and
arterial (Laporte) cross sections on cover sheet. Updated street sections
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Please include flowline profiles for Salud in next submittal. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Salud Pkwy design: 75 foot vertical curve (crest) is too short per
LCUASS Figure 7-17. Also: the horizontal curve closest to Laporte radius is
too small ¿ needs to be 275 feet per LCUASS Table 7-3. A variance request
letter may be submitted to request a shorter radius. Updated vertical and horizontal curve lengths
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: The temporary turnaround will require a temporary access
easement per LCUASS Figure 7-27. Temporary access easement added
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Please include intersection grading details for the Laporte/Salud
intersection. Include elevations where there are dots in LCUASS Figure 7-27.
Please also include crown transition length and elevations. Intersection grading details added
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Salud Parkway does not meet LCUASS street naming criteria
(Chapter 13, Table 13-2) to be a “parkway.” We will update the naming convention at final.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Who are the others that will be designing the bridge? Contech, details added
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/20/2016
06/20/2016: The building square footage and the total acreage being platted
were not included in the TDRF calculations. Based on the first submittal an
additional $12,879.75 is due for the PDP TDRFee.
Response: Please advise if this has been paid.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: Staff still has concerns about the amount and type of mitigation
proposed on the plans, and will not be ready for hearing until these concerns are
resolved. See below for more detailed comments.
Response: Mitigation was added and the project was approved at hearing.
06/07/2016: An Ecological Characterization Study was completed in August
2015 and was submitted with the ODP for this project. The Larimer County
Canal #2, a number of significant tree groves, and a raptor nest located in Tree
Group A were all identified as significant natural resources. This development
plan, and other development plans within the ODP, should aim to protect, buffer
and enhance these features to the maximum extent feasible, per LUC section
3.4.1(C). To the extent that impacts to these resources are unavoidable,
mitigation must be provided that replaces the resource value lost to the
community in addition to mitigation that may be required to meet other sections
of the code.
The plans as currently presented do not adequately protect, buffer, and mitigate
for impacts to the significant resources identified in the ECS. Specific
comments are provided below; however, it would also be helpful to arrange a
meeting prior to your next submittal to ensure that the project meets the
requirements of section 3.4.1.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: Thank you for labeling the nest and temporary LOD on the plans.
Can you clarify whether a nesting survey was conducted? If so, please submit
the results to me.
Response: The raptor nest was located in the ECS
06/07/2016: Please label the raptor nest in Tree Group A identified in the ECS.
Please conduct a nesting survey using a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist
as soon as possible (prior to the end of the nesting season) and submit the
results of the survey to the City. A follow up survey will also need to be
conducted prior to construction. If active use of the nest by a red-tailed or
swainson's hawk is observed, a temporary protection buffer may apply during
nesting season and would need to be shown on all plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: Thank you for providing a sheet that details the proposed Natural
Habitat Buffer Zones and tree grove mitigation, including the detailed
calculations in the table. This is helpful in understanding what is proposed.
As determined during the ODP process, tree groves A, C, D, E, K and I were
considered significant and would require protection and/or mitigation. As such,
any loss of tree canopy from these groves needs to be mitigated with additional
tree canopy on the site (like for like). Based on the landscape plan and
calculations table, it appears that the additional areas proposed for mitigation
within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones will only be seeded with a native seed
mix. Native seed areas are not comparable to tree canopy, in terms of
ecological value.
Since 37,660 sf of tree canopy will be removed from the significant tree groves,
the same amount of new tree canopy needs to be provided on the site. Some
new tree canopy is provided within the Larimer Canal No. 2 buffer, but
additional plantings should be provided in the other buffer zones, as well.
Please provide enough plantings within the various buffer zones to account for
the tree canopy lost (as estimated at full maturity for the new plantings). Both
trees and shrubs can count toward mitigation. Please update the calculations
table to specifically show how much tree canopy is lost, how much tree canopy
is proposed to be added, and the square footage of any additional buffer zone
areas (native seed only).
Response: Mitigation was added and the project was approved at hearing.
06/07/2016: Mitigation will be required for impacts to the tree groves to meet
the standards in section 3.4.1, in addition to the mitigation requirements in
section 3.2.1(F). Please show, either on the Tree Mitigation Plan or a separate
sheet, all trees to be removed from Tree Groves K and E, regardless of whether
they were considered "significant" per section 3.2.1(F). Please also include a
calculation for the total acreage of tree canopy that will be lost from Tree Groves
K and E and any other groves that were considered significant during the ODP
process.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: Seed mix details still need to be provided.
Response: Seed mix labels have been added
06/07/2016: What seed mix will be used in the detention area(s), along the
Larimer County Canal #2, and any other areas to be disturbed? Within any
buffer zones and the detention area, a mix of native grasses and perennials
should be used. Please show areas to be seeded and provide seed mix details
on the landscape plan.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: Kept for reference.
06/07/2016: At the time of Final Plan, a weed management and monitoring
plan for the site will need to be submitted for review.
Response: Cedar Creek will complete the weed management plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/26/2016: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones still need to be delineated and
labeled on the photometric plan.
Response: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones are shown on the plan
06/07/2016: The photometric plan should cover the entire site, beyond just the
building and parking lot, and demonstrate that no light will spill over into any of
the buffer zone areas, per section 3.2.4(D)(6) and the recommendations of the
ECS.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: Please add the following note to all plans that show the raptor nest
and temporary LOD. The nest site, LOD and note should all be added to sheets
C1.00-C1.05, C2.00, and C3.00 of the utility plan set. The updates to the utility
plans can occur at the time of Final Plan.
"No construction or development activities shall occur within 450 feet of any
active red-tailed hawk nest sites during the period from February 15 through
July 15."
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones are difficult to distinguish on the
utility plan set. Please show these areas more prominently to ensure they are
not impacted during development. This comment can be addressed at the time
of Final Plan.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: On sheets 3 and 5 of the site/landscape plan set, please change
"Natural Area Buffer Notes" to "Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Notes" for
consistency.
Response: Revised
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: The legend is cut off on sheet 5 of the site/landscape plan set.
Response: Revised
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: Within a natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)
(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the
buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Only native tree
and shrub species should be planted within the buffer zones, including along
Larimer Canal No. 2. Please replace the skyline honeylocust and tower poplar
trees shown within the buffer zones with cottonwood, hackberry, plum,
chokecherry, serviceberry or other native tree species.
Response: Trees have been replaced
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: The quantity of tree and shrub plantings within the Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone along the Larimer Canal No. 2 is adequate to meet the buffer zone
standards.
However, the plantings in the buffer zones around/near tree groves C and I do
not meet the buffer zone performance standards, both in terms of quantity and
quality of plantings. Please provide additional plant material (native trees and
shrubs) to these areas in accordance with this standard. Species information
needs to be provided prior to hearing. These buffer zones would be ideal
locations to accommodate the additional mitigation needed for the lost tree
canopy (see comment 6).
Response: Mitigation was added and the project was approved at hearing
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: The buffer zone near Tree Group C still does not follow logical
boundaries on the site and will be difficult to delineate, maintain and inspect on
the site. Please revise the boundary to more closely correspond to grading,
planting beds, natural topography, or other features that provide delineation on
the site.
Response: For this FDP, the existing tree line on the west will remain. During the future PDP of lot 3 further delineation will be
made.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/28/2016:
Continued:
In tree grove J the utility plans show these trees to be removed but on the tree
mitigation plan they are to retain. Provide consistency between plans. What is
the status of relocating of the proposed water line. Relocating the proposed
water line will protect many significant trees. These items need to be clarified
before final plan.
06/08/2016:
The trees shown to remove on the utility plans are not consistent with what is
shown of the Tree Mitigation Plan. Utility plan needs to be edited to be
consistent with the Tree Mitigation Plan.
1. Revised site note to read “trees to be reevaluated during future pdp” on landscape plans.
2. Utility plans will be resubmitted with updated tree mitigation information.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/28/2016:
Continued:
For final plan show street light locations and provide tree the LUC tree light
separations.
06/08/2016:
Show any street lights and stop signs on the street extension and adjust street
tree locations to meet the LUC requirements. Provide a distinct symbol for
street lights and stop signs and record what these symbols are in the Legend on
the landscape plan.
Street Lights:
40 Canopy Shade trees
15 feet ornamental trees
Stop Signs:
20 feet
1. Street light and stop sign information added to the landscape plan.
2. Landscape plans revised to show street light locations and appropriate separation requirements.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/28/2016
10/28/2016:
Clarify if the two existing trees in the existing parking lot off Laporte Avenue can
actually be retained? On the plan it looks like they will be impacted. Also Tree
group O on the west side of the parking lot does not appear to have any existing
trees in the ballooned area.
1. The two trees will remain within the landscaped area. They will be reevaluated at the time of future
PDP.
2. Tree Group O is located on the adjacent property and will not be impacted by the development of this
site.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/28/2016
10/28/2016:
Tower Poplar and Honeylocust are shown in the proposed Natural Area Buffer
Zone near or in tree group E. Since these are non-native trees changing them to
a native species such as Plains Cottonwood or Lance-leaf Cottonwood would
be appropriate. Evaluate using these native cottonwood in the place of these
two non-native trees in the natural area buffer zone.
1. The Tower Poplar and Honeylocust have been changed to Plains Cottonwood trees.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/28/2016
10/28/2016:
Tree Mitigation:
Where Serviceberry and Chokecherry are shown as mitigation trees specify
them as 15 gallon multi-stem. This is the way they are offered in the trade and
the 10-15 gallon size would be equivalent to a 2.5 inch caliper ornamental tee.
1. The listed sizes of the Serviceberry and Chokeberry mitigation trees has been revised to 15 gallons.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/26/2016
10/28/2016:
Comment kept for reference -- Jason Holland
05/26/2016:
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design,
that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with
all of the adopted City
codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early
to mid-design stage for
this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning
conceptual review
meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to
call 416-2341 to schedule
a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans,
floor plans, and elevations
and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of
construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC.
2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential
chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial
chapter.
Salud ¿ project specific concerns:
1. This existing building would be going thru a change of occupancy and must
be brought up to current building code in certain areas.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416-2341
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
06/08/2016: System modification and capacity charges may apply. The
existing electric panel sizes need to be documented prior to construction so the
appropriate credit can be given for the capacity on site. Three phase service is
readily available on site. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 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.
Response: Lights are now shown
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge
processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the
transformer 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. Acknowledged
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: I have a few minor comments that can be addressed with the final
plan review, but otherwise the project is ready for hearing from my perspective. I
need confirmation that other staff is okay for hearing and a similar approach
with the final plan review. The main comment I have is to consider/clarify if
portions of the trail connection should be temporary, and the timing of the trail.
This can be addressed at final.
Response: TBD
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/25/2016
10/25/2016: Please see attached letter from the ditch company.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: A portion of this property is located in the City regulatory West Vine
100-year Floodplain and Floodway. Any improvements planned for within the
floodplain and floodway boundaries must comply with Chapter 10 of City Code.
The following floodplain comments can be resolved with the Final Development
Plan. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Please add the floodplain and floodway boundaries to all
applicable drawings so that it is clear what improvements impact the flood
zones. Please contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at
banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. Added to all sheets
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Per previous discussions with the applicant, a spillway from the
ditch will be constructed that will shift the floodplain and floodway on the site
away from the building and parking area. A CLOMR is required before
construction permits can be issued for this site. After construction, an as-built
survey is required for a LOMR on the site before the structure can be occupied.
Please show the proposed floodplain and floodway lines on the site plan and
drainage drawings so that it is clear what improvements will impact the flood
zones. Please see revised drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Nonstructural development (fill, parking lot, sidewalks, vegetation,
stormwater outfalls, etc.) can be completed within the floodway as long it can be
proven that the work will not cause a change in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
or a change to the boundaries of the floodway or floodplain through a No-Rise
Certification with supporting documentation and applicable floodplain modeling
prepared by a licensed engineer registered in the State of Colorado. New
parking areas in the floodway must be day-use only so that vehicles owners are
onsite to move the vehicles to prevent them from becoming debris in the flood
flows that block culverts and bridges and cause additional flooding offsite.
Nonstructural development (fill, sidewalks, vegetation, etc.) is allowed in the
floodplain with an approved floodplain use permit. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Any and all construction activities in the floodplain/floodway must
be preceded by an approved Floodplain Use Permit, the appropriate permit
application fees, and approved plans. Development review checklists and
application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
. Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code prohibits critical facilities
such as emergency or urgent care facilities in the floodplain. Per previous
meetings with the applicant, if the structure is within the floodplain, the facility
cannot be designated as an emergency or urgent care facility. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
06/07/2016: Please contact Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854,
hhansen@fcgov.com with questions concerning development in the floodplain.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/02/2016
10/25/2016: Repeat, saw note and will look for material submittal at FDP
06/02/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan,
Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon
the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since the
site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control
section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Acknowledged
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/24/2016:
06/08/2016: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. Updated per redlines
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/24/2016:
06/08/2016: The SWMM model output does not include a schematic showing
the area modeled and does not include any basin output. please include these
items in future SWMM model output. Please see revised report and SWMM schematic in Appendix
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/24/2016:
06/08/2016: The output for the SWMM model show the HGL for Pond 2 is 1.5'
lower than the HGL for Pond 1. This does not appear to be functional since
Pond 2 is upstream of Pond 1. Are these elevations referenced to the site
survey? If not, please revise the SWMM model to reference actual elevations. SWMM revised
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/24/2016
10/24/2016: Please add a discussion in the Drainage Report talking about the
temporary pumped outfall from the detention pond. A variance form will need to
b included in the report prior to final acceptance. Please see revised text and added variance form
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet
titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Updated
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Updated
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: There are match line issues. See redlines. Updated
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines. Updated
Topic: General
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 10/28/2016
10/28/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/27/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
06/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/06/2016
10/27/2016: This was not addressed.
Response: Not that we are aware of.
06/06/2016: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a
signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include
response in written comments.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please add new title commitment information as available. You
could be potentially liable for any documents recorded since this date. Acknowledged
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please move the "Unplatted" out of the sub-title. See redlines. Updated
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please add arrows to define the easements & distances as
marked. See redlines. Updated
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Is the area marked along Salud Parkway part of Lot 7, or is it a
separate Tract? We would suggest a separate detail to show this area. See
redlines. Added “Lot 7” callout to area.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See
redlines. Added information
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please add "Shaded Area" to the 24' Emergency Access
Easement label. See redlines. Added shaded area
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please add a line table. Added
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please correct the broken line along the south right of way of
Laporte Avenue. See redlines. Corrected
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/27/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are still incorrect. See
redlines.
06/08/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/27/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
06/08/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please rename the Planning Set to "Lot 4, Salud Family Health
Center". This will help with filing/tracking on the City side.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please remove the last paragraph of the legal description. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: Please revise the sheet numbering on all sheets. See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/25/2016: Is the current proposal consistent with the ODP phase I short
range plan? 06/07/2016: ODP included a number of improvements on
Laporte, staff would like some more details about what this PDP includes, and if
any of these improvments are triggered.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2016
10/25/2016: We will need a plan showing striping of Laporte to ensure bike
lanes will fit in the proposed cross section. 06/07/2016: Adjacent street
improvements (sidewalks, etc) will be needed. The PDP does not reflect the
adjacent street improvments, or how they tie into existing conditions. See C4.02
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016
10/28/2016: Comment kept for reference -- Jason Holland
06/09/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/24/2016:
06/08/2016: See redlines for minor comments. Updated per redlines
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016
10/24/2016: Proposed utilities have been added, but existing utilities are still
not shown. There appears to be a conflict with the proposed sewer service.
06/08/2016: Please add utility line work to the Landscape Plan and ensure
minimum separations are met.
Response: Plans have been revised.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/26/2016
10/26/2016: Some detail needs to be provided on the foundation plantings.
Response: Foundation plantings have been added