HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD PROSPECT SCHOOL SITE - FDP200003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSFort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentre view
February 14, 2020
Andy Reese
Northern Engineering
301 N. Howes
Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: PSD Prospect School Site, FDP200003, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of PSD Prospect School Site. If you have questions about any
comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your
Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 970-416-2744 or
via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970-416-2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific
project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 6
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 7
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There are notes that are missing information. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 8
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines for examples.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 9
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 10
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 11
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: There are matchline issues. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans - not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 12
02/11/2020.- FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Please revise the sub -title. See redlines.
Response: Subtitle has been revised.
Comment Number: 13
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL. -
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Please revise the Benchmark Statement as
marked. See redlines.
Response: The benchmark statement has been updated.
Comment Number: 14
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Was the bearing in the Basis Of Bearings
statement supposed to match the Subdivision Plat?
Response: Basis of Bearing has been updated.
Comment Number: 15
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: There are matchline issues. See redlines.
Response: Redline has been addressed.
Comment Number: 16
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
10
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Redline has been addressed.
Comment Number: 17
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Redline has been addressed.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
02/10/2020: 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.
There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
Response: Plans updated / revised.
Comment Number: 2
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
Response: Plans updated / revised.
Department: Larimer County Assessor
Contact: Megan Harrity, 970-498-7065, mharrity@larimer.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please confirm hat the new Lot 3 will be a split from parcel number
87150-00-009 / R0157996. With a Tax District of: 11080
Current Owners are:
CW SUBTRUST (.348249) WHITE ERIC S (.175943) ET AL
In addition Lots 1 and 2 will be created from all of parcel number 8715000904 /
R0157945. Tax District is: 1108
Current Owners are:
POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
Response: You are correct.
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
New Lot 3 is in a different taxing district from Lots 1 & 2 but it looks like there is
no overlap of parcel lines crossing tax district boundaries, so it should be just fine.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11
01/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
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
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
02/13/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
I have seen the irrigation plan and I have a file started for the site. What our
code requires is that the initial set of irrigation plans is submitted and approved.
Once the landscape and irrigation have been completed an "as -built' is created
by the landscape company who installed the irrigation system.
See page 5 section 4 of the attached document.
As long as I get the irrigation "as-builts" I will be able to sign off.
Response: Acknowledged.
12
Comment Number: 3
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
All submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit please let me know.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Dave Betley, 970-221-6573, dbetley@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/27/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Please add the City of Fort Collins Signature Block to Civil plans if the City
needs to sign these plans. It is still not clear if the plans need to be signed by the City.
Response: The signature block has been added — comment not applicable to offsite
submittal.
Comment Number: 2
02/01/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The right of way dedication on County Road 5/Main Street shown on the is
shown as 55 feet. This dedication includes on overlays the fifteen foot utility
easement that is required with an arterial. Should the right of way dedication be
40' with a fifteen foot utility easement? This would make the right of way width
fifty five feet. The general right of way dedication is 57.5 feet. The City is willing
to work with the City of Timnath on the right of way dedication.
Response: The ROW being dedicated with this project on County Road 5/Main Street is an
additional 40' with a 15' Utility Easement resulting in a symmetrical 140' ROW on CR5/Main
Street.
Comment Number: 3
02/02/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The southern edge of Prospect Road only has a two foot shoulder. The City
generally requires a four foot shoulder to prevent unraveling off the asphalt. This portion of the
roadway id not in the City's jurisdiction. The applicant should consider extending the shoulder.
Response: The shoulder is reduced on the south side of Prospect to reduce the amount
grading occurring in that area and keep the grading confined to the existing ROW.
Comment Number: 4
02/03/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Portions of the sidewalk located along the north side of Prospect Road are
located outside of the right of way. Access easements will need to be
dedicated to the cover the portions of the sidewalk located outside of the right of way.
Response: Access easements have been dedicated with plat.
Comment Number: 5
02/03/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It is not clear what spot elevations are given on the roadway grading plans. The
spot elevations have no labels, so it is difficult to determine the flow line grades.
Response: Descriptions have been added to some labels in an attempt to clarify what the
spot elevation is calling out.
Comment Number: 6
02/03/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The vertical curve on located on
2
Prospect at station 15+70.51 on page R2 of the Prospect Road Plan and
Profile only has a K value of 49.48. Please discuss this design issue and state
whether there needs to be a waiver, if it is acceptable.
Response: The vertical curve was truncated in an attempt to remove the vertical curve from
the pan. Design has been updated and the resulting flow line K value = 87.53, below the
required 110' required by Fort Collins. Please let us know if a waiver is needed.
Comment Number: 7
02/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
The driveway widths exceed the maximum driveway width of 36'. Please
discuss the requirements of the driveway and width an the design assumptions.
Response: Per LCUASS detail 707.1, driveways may be wider than 36' as long as no single
opening is greater than 36' and is divided by a median of at least 6'; design requirements
that are met in our design.
Comment Number: 8
02/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Sheet R5 (16 Of 45) on the civil plans shows a guard rail along Prospect Road.
this section of Prospect is not within the City, but for information, no details of
guard rail are included in the detail sheets. It is hard to determine if this guard
rail is proposed to be constructed with this set of plans? Is it existing?
Response: Guardrail is proposed — we are still waiting on confirmation as to whether it is
needed or not.
Comment Number: 9
02/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Drainage heading north on Main Street at the intersection of Prospect looks at
though it will flow into the drainage ditches. It appears that there may be a
problem with the erosion in heavy down pours at this location that could become
a maintenance issue. Can you please discuss this issue and the design
assumptions in this area. It is acknowledged that the City of Timnath prefers to
have a rural roadway section for Main Street.
Response: Riprap rundowns have been added.
Comment Number: 10
02/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please address drainage at on Main Street at the intersections with the access
located at the north side of the site. It appears there may be some erosion concerns at this intersection.
Response: Riprap rundowns have been added.
Comment Number: 11
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It does not appear that all of the details are included to construct the project?
The sidewalk detail provided, 403 does not appear to be the proper detail.
Also, are there different details for Prospect Road and County Road 5/Main
Street? It was my understanding that the Town of Timnath Utilizes the Loveland
details? Should there be two separate detail sheets, one for Prospect showing
compliance with Fort Collins Standards and one for The Town of Timnath?3
Response: All construction is being done per Timnath standards for both Prospect and
Main. Our details have been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 12
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
3
The Engineer has not provided an ultimate cross section to show that the future
roadway improvements can be completed. The roadway cross sections should
show the future right of way needs, existing and proposed, and required detail.
Response: Ultimate cross -sections are now provided, showing the requested labels.
Comment Number: 13
02/10/2020.- FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show the proposed slopes on the roadway sections. Will there be an
impact to the existing properties on the southern side of the roadway in the
intermediate or proposed condition?
Response: The proposed condition does not impact properties to the south, however the
Ultimate design will likely require additional ROW from those properties. Ultimate sections
have been provided for reference.
Comment Number: 14
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please update the plans to also show the opposite flowline for Prospect and
County Road 5. The plans should show that the intermediate and future
roadway design will work to minimize the amount of roadway reconstruction
does not adversely impact the properties opposite the school.
Response: Prospect south future flowline design now shown
Comment Number: 15
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show the proposed and intermediate drainage opposite the school site
to show that there will not be an impact to the properties opposite the school site.
Response: A drainage memo and exhibit describing the drainage on the south side of
Prospect has been provided.
Comment Number: 16
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show the impacts to access of the adjacent properties. It appears that
the roadway will be raised in portions and this could have an impact on
properties opposite the school site.
Response: The proposed condition does not impact properties to the south, however the
Ultimate design will likely require additional ROW from those properties.
Comment Number: 17
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please see redline comments.
Response: Redlines have been addressed. Please see redline responses.
Comment Number: 18
02/12/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
How will the School district address pedestrian traffic at the intersection of
County Road 5 and Prospect? There will be pedestrian traffic from the South
that needs to cross Prospect. It was agreed to in the meeting that there will be
a meeting including traffic and the City of Timnath to discuss the topic.
Response: Crosswalks and ramps have been added to the intersection.
4
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Signal plans were not submitted with this round of review. Once they are
available, we'll review.
Response: Redlines were provided and have been addressed.
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Signing and striping redlines will be provided by Friday 02/14/2020.
Response: Redlines were provided and have been addressed.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/05/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It is understood the site is proposing to meet Town of Timnath and New Cache
drainage requirements and a variance will be completed to this end rather than
meeting City of Fort Collins' requirements. Please submit completed variance
application with signatures from these parties in order for the variance to be
reviewed by the City of Fort Collins.
Note: Fort Collins is only performing a cursory review of the plans/report
submitted as it is expected these other parties are reviewing and accepting the
drainage design.
Response: Acknowledged. Variance application will be provided.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 3
02/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
If the roads are to remain under City jurisdiction rather than Timnath, then please
address all ESC comments provided on the reclined Roadway Plans.
Please adjust the escrow calculations after addressing all provided comments as appropriate.
Response: Redlines have been addressed and escrow updated.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, 9schlam@fcqov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 2
02/06/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some question about PSD's MS4 for this site and has it reviewed this project
have arisen. I had a question posed by Joe Erjavic with Crestone Consultants
about when is the school district required to implement the MS4 and directed
him to talk with PSD and the State to determine when the MS4 permit is
5
required to be pulled before or after the school is built. In the reg 61 it states that
if a site is designed for a maximum daily user... they need to pull a MS4 which
alludes to the school district needing an MS4 implemented before construction.
However, I am waiting to hear back from him on that information. If the school
district is not required to pull a MS4 before the construction of this school the
City would be obligated to review the full site for erosion control. This needs
clarification before we can be ok for this to move forward and if needed
reviewed for erosion control on the full site.
Response: This has been resolved — the site falls under the PSD MS4. Please let us know if
additional info is needed for confirmation.
Department: Town of Timnath Planning
Contact: Kevin Koelbel, 970-224-3211, kkoelbel@timnathgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please see attached redlines.
Response: Poudre School District remains unwilling to add shrub beds (approx. 14,000
sq.ft. area indicated on the plan) between the back of sidewalk and the ballfield fencing
along Main Street, as the District just does not have the manpower to adequately maintain
this large of footprint. The District has added irrigated bluegrass turf (previously native
seed) along this frontage, has committed to providing the required street trees and is
providing a green colored ballfield "windscreen" along the chain link fencing- full length, to
create this visual buffer into the site.
Department: Town of Timnath Engineering
Contact: Steve F Humann, 970-226-0577, shumann@tstinc.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please see attached redlines.
Response: Redlines have been addressed.
Department: East Larimer County Water District
Randy Siddens, 970-493-2044, rand vs@elcowater.ore
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
We are working directly with PSD and their engineer and have sent them
comments on the water lines for this project. At this point we are working out
some details and do not expect any issues.
Response: Acknowledged.
6
Department: Boxelder Sanitation
Contact: Brian Zick, brianz@boxeldersanitation.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/12/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please see attached letter.
Response: Comments provided were regarding the onsite plans - not applicable to offsite
submittal.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fc og u.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
It is understood the site will be de -annexed from the City of Fort Collins and
served electric from Xcel. Light and Power will not provide electric facilities to
the site or streetlights along the right- of -way. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01
02/11/2020: REQUIRED FIRE ACCESS
There appears to be some confusion on the part of the applicant regarding fire
lane requirements. Prior discussions have detailed plans for fire access
however this submittal does not call out fire lanes (Emergency Access
Easement) anywhere on the plat or plans. Plans will need to be revised to
define limits of EAE. Fire access requirements provided below for reference.
Response: Per discussions with PFA and PSD, it was determined that defined EAE were
not required for the onsite access.
Comment Number: 02
02/11/2020: 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:
> Fire lanes established on private property 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 20 feet 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.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum
7
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans.
> Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height.
Refer to Appendix D of the 2015 IFC or contact PFA for details.
Response: While EAE's are not provided, the fire access lanes all conform with the
requirements outlined above or use alternate access as discussed and agreed to with PFA.
Comment Number: 03
02/11/2020: SIGNAGE
Fire lanes are required to 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: It is our understanding that signage will not be required or will be at the option
of PSD.
Comment Number: 04
0211112020: GATE ACCESS
Gates shall be designed so as to be accessible by Poudre Fire Authority in the
event of an emergency. If details are not provided on the site plans, this
comment will be resolved at time of building permitting.
Response: Access control arms (3 locations) along the northern most east -west roadway,
the two (2) gates east of school at north and south ends of the fire lane and the two (2) gates
at the north and south ends of the exterior Continuing Technical Education (CTE) area west
of the school are accessible by PFA.
Comment Number: 05
02/11/2020.- ROOF ACCESS
Early discussions with the design team touched on the need to improve roof
access in areas exceeding 30' in height and where ladder trucks could not
provide support for roof operations. I've not seen any updated proposals from
the applicant regarding this early discussion but if details are not provided with
the site plan, this comment will be resolved at time of building permit.
Response: We understand this issue to have been resolved with the onsite plans. Please
let us know if additional info is needed for confirmation.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 13
2/11/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL — UPDATED
Please only use the following species for the double tree row (City right-of-way
specific): Catalpa, Chinkapin Oak, Choice City Elm, Texas red oak, Kentucky
Coffeetree, and Honeylocust. Please do not specify Sugar Maple in the right of
way along Prospect Road as they are sensitive to road salts.
Response: Tree species noted and the plans in the double row have been revised to
include only these species. Sugar Maple removed from the double row.
Previously Bur Oaks have been removed from PSD campuses because of
wasp issues with bur oak gall. Forestry recommends reconsidering their
placement near sports fields and other high -traffic areas.
Response: Bur Oaks removed from the plans and replaced with "approved" trees listed
below.
12/4/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide tree species information along Prospect Road (include tree
species behind the sidewalk) for City Forestry's review. There are also a
handful of other trees on the site that do not have species information identified
(shown as TBD). Please provide this information and update the plant list for final approval.
Response: Possible an old comment / reviewing an old set of plans...? For this re -
submittal, a complete "Onsite" Plant Schedule has been included/provided for your
information.
- In each tree group (12 trees total), please propose 2-4 different species per group to maintain diversity.
- Tree species to consider for double tree row: Catalpa, Chinkapin Oak,
Choice City Elm, Ginkgo, Kentucky Coffeetree, Texas Red Oak, and
Honeylocust. Canopy trees with oblong, oval, pyramidal, or vase -like crowns
should be considered. I'd like to stick to canopy shade trees behind the walk,
too. Down the line evergreen trees that can only be pruned up so high may
present visibility issues onto the school site. Ornamentals are tough to prune
over the sidewalk, especially if they have horizontal branching structure. We are
okay to propose ornamentals 15' from street lights if that conflict arises.
Response: Plans updated to included only these listed species.
Comment Number: 14
02/11/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
Forestry redlines are provided.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcqov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: Please revise the Benchmark Statement as marked. See redlines.
Response: Applies to onsite plans — not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 4
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: Was the bearing in the Basis Of Bearings statement supposed to match the Subdivision Plat?
Response: Applies to onsite plans — not applicable to offsite submittal.
Comment Number: 5
02/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UTILITY: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles
on the noted sheets. See redlines.
9