HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY II PDP AND APU - PDP130031 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSFort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
/cgov. com/developmentreview
October 13, 2014
Dennis Messner
Dennis R. Messner, P.E.
1355 N. Cleveland Ave., Ste #1
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Whitman Storage Facility II and Addition of a Permitted
Use, PDP130031, Round Number 1
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, Noah
Beals, at 970-416-2313 or nbeals@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(d)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013:
Illustrations would be helpful to show existing conditions vs. proposed and how it meets the criteria
of the APU. I would also suggest including a context map within the revised APU submittal that
shows surrounding uses. I would also revise the request to directly align with the requirements of
screened from view per Section 3.5.1(1) of the Land Use Code, the chain link fence is not an
acceptable screen and the solid metal fence should be extended along the east lot line.
Response: The 9' tall screening fence proposed is to be provided along all sides
of the proposed area to be developed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
Indicate the surface material for the storage lot on the plan.
Response: The surface material of the open storage area is to be gravel and/or
recycled asphalt and has been so noted on the plan.
the APU criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code.
Response: Additional exhibits are being included with the APU to give a visual
reference from an aerial perspective and horizontal images.
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(Mcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The application is confusing, it appears that the previous APU was cut and pasted into this APU
request. Some things that were necessary with the previous application are not necessary with
this one and some things needed with this one are not included. Please revise the submittal to
update it with the current proposal.
Response: APU request has been revised to reflect the specific site, i.e., Lot 3,
Block 1. Lynn acres.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The site plan and landscape plan should clearly delineate what is existing and what are the
proposed improvements.
Response: The Site Plan and Landscape Plan show the requested site with only
enough of the existing site to show how the two are connected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The elevations should only include the items that are being proposed and not what already is
approved and existing.
Response: The Elevation Plan shows only the proposed screen fencing.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The Fencing and Landscaping that was approved for the first APU should be the starting point for
the proposal of the required screening for the area of the new APU.
Response: The fencing used for the initial storage facility is being used with minor
modifications.
Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.2.1(E)(6) Screening for areas of low visual interest such as open
storage is required. This screening shall be established on all sides.
Response The screening is to be used on all sides.
Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.2.1
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
LUC 3.2.1(D) Full tree stocking is required in landscape areas within 50 of a structure.
Response The screening for this proposal is not within fifty feet of existing or
proposed structures. Therefore tree stocking is not anticipated.
The fence should include more articulation on all sides and such articulation should be big enough
to accommodate tree stocking.
IJ
Response: More articulation has been added to the fence.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013'.
The landscape plan will need to include details of the size of the plantings at time of installation.
Response: The landscape plan includes the size of plantings at installation.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
LUC 3.8.11(B) Chain -Link is prohibited to be used for required screening.
Response: Chain link fencing is not being used for screening
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013:
The project owes an additonal $905 for the PDP TDR Fees. Per the site plan the site is 6.82 acres
not 3.2 as indicated on the application.
Response: The PDP TDR Fee has been determined based upon the major
modification area of 3.2 acres. If it is to include the additional existing area for the
minor amendment, then the $905 applies, if not, no added fee is required.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-221-6501, tsiegmundCcbfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
It appears the utility and drainage easements referenced on the site and grading plans are existing.
Do any additional easements need to be dedicated as part of this project for the detention ponds
ect.? There is a process to dedicate easements by separate document. Please contact me for
information about dedicating easements by separate document or visit
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php. for additional information.
Response Appropriate easements for emergency access and stormwater
detention and other drainage facilities will be provided by deed of dedication.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
All of the notes on the site plan are outdated and should reflect the existing conditions on the site.
It appears the notes reflect the original submittal for Whitman Storage Facility. Please update the
notes to reflect Whitman Storage Facility Il.
Response: The plan has been separated into the previously approved PDP with
minor amendment indicated for the access to the proposed site and a major
modification for the second storage facility site.
41
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
Per the existing Development Agreement for Whitman Storage, section D.3 identifies the
developers responsibility for construction of the local street portion of the public streets adjacent to
the property, prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The developers responsibility for
Aaron St and Cherylen St at the rear of the property still remain but will not be built or designed as
part of this project approval. A new development agreement will need to be recorded as part of this
project to identify the developers responsibility of the public streets adjacent to the site but design
and construction of the public streets will be delayed until such time as the City deems the
improvements necessary or with additional changes to the property that will require issuance of a
building permit.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
Please update note #19 on the Cover Sheet to reference Whitman Storage Facility II dated August
2013.
Response: Date of Cover Sheet has been brought current.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
Please revise note #48 on the Cover Sheet- there are no requested or approved variances as part
of this project- Whitman Storage Facility ll.
Response: The Utility Plan notes have been revised to indicate that no variances
are being requested.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(cbfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
An Ecological Characterization Study, in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the
Land Use Code, was not submitted with this PDP - please submit the required ECS (as outlined in
my conceptual review comments).
Response: An Ecological Characterization Study was previously submitted.
In addition to the typical requirements outlined in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, the ECS
should address the wetland that was filled (0.365 acres), how the wetland will be mitigated for, the
concurrence of the Army Corps of Engineers of the findings (in written form, email or letter), and
the grading/landscaping required to achieve the ecological goals of the filled wetland.
Response: Referrence to wetlands mitigation is no longer an issue.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
The current grading and landscape plan for the wetland is insufficient - the wetland grading and
proposed plant material will need to be determined after the ECS has been submitted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
Is there lighting proposed in the storage area? If so, none can spillover into the wetland area or the
buffer around the wetland.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan will need to be submitted at the time of final plans, with a
security, e.g., an escrow or bond, to ensure that the mitigation will be accomplished.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
How will adverse impacts, e.g., from fuel spills, be addressed on the site so as not to impact the
Prairie Dog Meadows Natural Area?
Response: Fuel spills are addressed as a part of the Stormwater Management
Plan.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchanan(@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Response: The comments stated refer to the approved PDP. No changes are to
be made other than providing connection with the proposed site.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013:
Street Tree comments: Please use Greenspire Linden in place of Redmond Linden along Skyway.
The first street tree west of the curb cut is too close to the curb cut.
Are the gaps in the row of street trees for street lights? If they are then show locations of street
lights. If not provide a continuous row of street trees.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013:
Planting note number 2 could be changed to as follows:
Turf areas at street to be irrigated with automatic pop-up irrigation. Trees and shrubs to be irrigated
with low volume drip system.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013:
Plant List Comments:
There are three Blue spruce shown on the plans but only two listed in the plant list.
The Rocky Mountain Junipers are trees. Place them in the Evergreen tree category on the Plant
List.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013:
Please set up an on -site meeting with the City Forester to review existing trees to be retained.
Significant trees should be identified as to species size and condition.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/O1/2013:
Electric development charges will apply for all additional site being developed, plus for any new or
additional power requirements. Please coordinate with Light & Power Engineering at
(970)221-6700.
Response. No electrical service is required for the proposed site.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, lynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
FIRE LANES
The proposed RV storage building remains out of fire access. It is not clear if the proposed fire lane
will provide access to all portions of the outdoor storage area. Further access details are requested
including vehicle turn around and bridge load limits.
06 IFC 503.1.1: Fire Lanes shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. When fire lanes cannot be
provided, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is
equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire -sprinkler system.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/0112013:
GENERAL FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
Shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Road
base (meeting minimum loads of 40 ton) is approved for outside storage areas.
Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area
for turning around fire apparatus.
Bridges shall be rated to carry fire apparatus. The load limits shall be posted on the bridge.
Shall be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times.
11
2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC
3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
SECURITY GATES
06 IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be
approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means
of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained
operational at all times.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
VEHICLE STORAGE
Buildings used for indoor storage of vehicles to be built in accordance with the IBC.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013:
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
06 IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be
visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch
numerals on a contrasting background.
Response: Comments are mainly in reference to the existing approved PDP. The
requirements will be met at the time that the structure is permitted. The capacity
of the existing drainage culvert is sufficient to allow for fire apparatus.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque(oMcc- ov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013:
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. (Requirements added to the packet
of Materials from Stormwater) Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet
requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow /
Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions
please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email at jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be provided with the FDP.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013:
The storm sewer along the north side of the property is very shallow and currently damaged. This
conveyance, which is required to convey 87 cfs needs to be improved to City standards.
Response. Conveyance of the 87 cfs offsite flow to be determined at FDP.
PA
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013:
Please include forebays in the drainage and detention design. Please coordinate with the City on
the design of these forebays.
Response: Forebay to be included at FDR
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013:
Please discuss the drainage of off -site basin 2 and how it is conveyed through the site in the text of
the drainage report.
Response: The offsite basin 2 is conveyed through the undeveloped portion of the
site.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: i Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
No comments.
Response: All comments to be addressed at Final.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
The titles of sheets 4 & 5 shown in the index on sheet 1, do not match the titles on each of those
sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/0212013:
Benchmark 48-94 is no longer in the Vertical Control Network. Please replace it with another
benchmark.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
There are line over text issues on sheets 2, 3, 4 & 5. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10102/2013:
There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on sheets 2, 3, 4 & 5. Text should be read from
the bottom and/or the right side of the plan sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013: There are text over text issues on
sheet 3. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
There are line over text issues on sheets 2, 4 & 5. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated
180 degrees on sheet 4. Text should be read from the bottom and/or the right side of the plan
sheets. See redlines.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
There are line over text issues on sheet 1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013:
There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on sheet 1. Text should be read from the bottom
and/or the right side of the plan sheets. See redlines.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes(Mcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The request for an addition of permitted use to this CL zoned property requires a Type 2 review.
Response It is understood that the APU request in the C-L Zone requires a Type 2
review.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
Clearly label Sheets 2 and 3 as Existing Development. Delineate and label on Sheet 1 the portion
that is the existing, approved development to be amended.
Response: The plans have been separated to indicate the minor amendment to
the existing PDP and the major modification to the proposed PDP.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The site plan, Sheet 1, indicates that the use of Lot 3 of the existing Whitman
Storage Facility development plan (the previously approved plan) is for RV's, Boats, Vehicle and
Truck Storage. The actual approved use of that lot was just for RV's, Boats, and truck storage. It
didn't include 'vehicles'. If storage of vehicles such as cars is intended to be added as an allowed
use on the existing development, that needs to be clearly stated in the narrative and on the
amended development plan.
Response: Clarification has been made as to the uses to be allowed on each
site.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/20/2013:
The 9' tall solid metal fence should be installed along the south side of the lot for screening instead
of the proposed 8' tall chain link fence. Residential development exists adjacent (nearby) to the
south side of the development. Also, it looks like the 9' tall metal screen fence along the east lot
line is proposed for only about 1/2 of the length of the east lot line. An 8' tall chain link fence is
proposed for the other half of the east lot line. Since the outdoor storage area is required to be