Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLORADO IRON AND METAL - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2012-09-27Conceptual Review Comment Responses - Colorado Iron and Metal P.D.P. ITEM: 903 Buckingham — Colorado Iron and Metal MEETING DATE: April 14, 2008 APPLICANT: Troy Jones MTA Planning & Architecture 171 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 LAND USE DATA: Request for 3 separate and distinct phases: Phase 1 would be to change the use of the existing industrial building at 903 Buckingham to light industrial without any proposed site changes. Phase 2 would be a lot line adjustment. Phase 3 would be a PDP to move the outdoor activities of the Colorado Iron & Metal currently on East Mulberry to the site. The property is within the City of Fort Collins and is zoned I —Industrial District. The following departmental agencies have offered comments for this proposal. COMMENTS: Zoning Contact Info: Peter Barnes, 416-2356, pbarnes(c)fcgov.com 1. Permitted Uses: Light industrial recycling and outdoor storage are permitted uses in the (— Industrial district subject to a Type I (Administrative) Review. Phase I could be done as a minor amendment, but staff recommends that you seek approval for all three phases as a Type I review at the outset. If you choose to seek minor amendment approval for Phase I only, you run the risk that Phase II and II I may not be approved. Response: Phase 1 and 2 have already been accomplished. Phase 3 is this PDP, which is for the site and building reconfigurations and upgrades necessary for the metal recycling business. 2. The gravel base shown on the west of the site must be asphalt unless it meets one of the criteria for an exception as listed in definition of "off-street parking area" in Section 5.1.2. If this is not possible, you may request a modification of standards. Response: We have revised the proposed site plan, and now all vehicular use areas are proposed to be paved. Current Planning Contact Info: Anne Aspen 221-6206, aaspen(aifcgov.com The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm Number: 25 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW corner of the site will tie back into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. Response: Acknowledged. An LOI for this offsite grading is being submitted. Number: 28 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Thanks for the reply —This design needs to be shown at minimum grades or at least close. The design you have shown would likely never be built due to the 1.5 — 2 foot drop in the centerline of the road. It is doubtful that the road section could drop this much without the waterline needing to be lowered. So it is very doubtful that the road would ever be rebuilt with the design you have shown. If you are going to show a possible future profile it needs to be something that might occur. A profile following minimum grades is something that would likely be built. Response: The south side ties into the existing curb/gutter on the east end of the project at station 24+82.36, and terminates in a transition/taper on the west end. Both of these tie into existing well. Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Still applicable. Response: We will provide at final. Number: 31 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Still applicable Response: We will provide at final. Number: 51 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] The site plan shows that there is a desire to place a 12 foot high wall over the 30 foot wide utility easement that runs adjacent to the building. This is a problem. A 12 foot high wall is considered a structure and will require a building permit — a building permit is not Page 3 suppose to be issued for anything in an easement. The utilities will probably have an issue with this wall over their lines and the footings adjacent to the lines. Response: We have specified wrought iron fencing instead of the wall where it crosses the easement. Number: 53 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/121091 The building square footages have changed since the last review. The application fees (TDRF) increased due to the increase in the size of the buildings. The project owes an additional $349. This can be paid at the time of final submittal with the final submittal fees. Response: We will pay this difference at final as requested. Number: 54 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Agate at the south end of the property to accommodate the access easement through the site needs to be provided. This connection goes through the detention pond — how is the access to be maintained across the pond? Is this access still needed? If not will need something from the adjacent property owners identifying they no longer need it and verification from PFA that they no longer need it. Response: The pond has been removed from this area of the site, and the proposed access is very similar to the existing access. We are maintaining an emergency access to the south on general principal. Number: 55 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] It looks like the existing fire hydrant and the widened driveway are too close together. Response: We are now showing this existing valve and fire hydrant to be relocated towards the south. Number: 56 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. Response: Please see the submitted letter of intent for this easement. Number: 57 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Add some notes to Buckingham plan and profile sheet. Identify the location of the curb openings to be built with this project. Label the locations of future curb inlets or curb openings. Label at which station curb and gutter is to start. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 58 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] What are you intending to build on the N side of the road? Need to show what grading will occur to accommodate these planed improvements. Page 4 W Response: We are not proposing any work on the north side during the interim condition. The south side of the street is being improved along out frontage, and ties in vertically at the centerline of the street. Number: 59 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/091 Two benchmarks need to be provided, so far only one has been identified on the plans. Response: See the revised plat. Topic: Landscaping Number: 16 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Now shown on the utility plans, but is still not labeled as to if it is temporary or permanent. Response: The office trailer has now been labeled as permanent. Topic: Plat Number: 18 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat — I included copies of the prior plat of this site and the plat for the New Belgium site to the north. Response: The plat has been revised accordingly. Number: 52 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] A drainage easement between the two ponds along the south property line is needed for the drainage pipe that is proposed. Response: See the revised plans. Topic: Site Plan Number: 50 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Notes 1 and 2 regarding the building timing conflict. Response: These notes have been reviesed. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik Topic: General Number: 60 Created: 10/13/2009 [10/13/09] Please include an emphasized pedestrian crossing between the sidewalk and the building such as a raised crossing. Response: This has now been provided. Number: 61 Created: 10/13/2009 (10/13/09] Bike facilities/parking have been included in plans. No issues. Page 5 Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Plat Number: 62 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] If the area at the northwest corner of the property is to be dedicated as ROW, then it must be included in the outer boundary. Response: Number: 63 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] There are line over text issues on the plat. Response: Please see the revised plat. Number: 64 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The boundary and perimeter legal description close. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Site Plan Number: 65 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The site plan needs to include the legal description of the property. Response: See revised site plan. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 66 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] The legal description on the utility plan cover sheet is incomplete. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 67 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] There are several line over text issues. Response: Since the Preliminary Plans do not get scanned for City archival purposes, we will defer some of these line over text issues until final. Number: 68 Created: 10/14/2009 [10/14/09] Two details on sheet 9 have text that is illegible. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 46 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/16/09] A letter of intent for the off -site drainage easement required for the outfall pipe needs to be provided before the public hearing. Page 6 Response: Please see the submitted letters of intent. Number: 48 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/16/09] Half of Buckingham street along this sites frontage that will still drain to the off - site existing detention pond needs to be detained as well. Does the existing pond account for these flows? Please provide documentation if so. Response: Detention for half of Buckingham is provide in our proposed pond Number: 69 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/091 The east detention pond is also a metal scrap stock pile area. This stock pile will take up volume as well as be a water quality concern. This issue needs to be discussed further and a solution agreed upon before the public hearing. Response: The material stockpiled in this area is scrap metal, most of which is iron or steel. If this stockpile were located elsewhere, it would still drain to a detention/water quality pond, so the location of the stockpile may be irre. In this case, the eastern detention area is higher in elevation than the western area. This will cause rust to collect in the western area, where is will stay put until maintenance is performed. Number: 70 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] The outfall for this site is proposed to drain into the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County needs to approve this outfall location. The County owns and maintains this channel. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 71 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] Please provide documentation to back up the 20% reduction in volume and reduced drainage easement for the existing detention pond. Response: The drainage area to the existing pond is 14.75. The drainage basin to the new detention pond is 3.15 acres. This represents a reduction of approximately 21 %. Wording to this effect has been added to the Drainage Report. Number: 72 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] The slope of the detention pond bottom should be 2% or .5% with a drainage pan. Response: Acknowledged. We hope to make a 2% slope work. If 2% cannot be made to work at final, a pan will be shown at that time. Number: 73 Created: 10/16/2009 [10/16/09] The City's standard water quality outlet structure needs to be incorporated into the design. Page 7 Response: We are proposing that the outlet structure be inside Inlet A4. This may be a little usual, but we feel there is enough room to put the outlet structure in this inlet. This will allow a single outlet structure to control both detention areas. This will also force the water quality volume into the western detention area. Please note that this area is lower than the detention area towards the east. This will allow contaminants such as rust to be collected in the western detention area. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 49 Created: 5/15/2009 [10/13/09] Label the clean -outs on the sewer service as" traffic rated". Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: Zoning Number: 1 Created: 4/30/2009 [10/8/09] Based on narrative in follow-up letter regarding parking maximum's please submit alternative compliance request. Parking is based on the principle use which is industrial and fabrication and recycling fall under the "industrial" use category. Response: The "use" is a combination of Light Industrial Metal Fabrication, Recycling Facility, and Office Uses. It is very different from pure "Industrial," in that there are not only employees but also a fair amount of customers that need to be accommodated with parking. Therefore, the most similar use listed in the table in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) is "Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry", which account for both industrial type workers, and the low intensity customer type traffic that would be generated with both the metal fabrication and recycling customers. This would limit us to no more than 2 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The PDP has 37,050 square foot of building area, therefore our maximum number of parking spaces is 74. We are only proposing 69 spaces, therefore we comply with the standard. Number: 3 Created: 4/30/2009 [10/8/09] Of those HC spaces, one needs to be van accessible with an overall width of 16' and signed as "Van Accessible" Response: See revised plans. Page 8 City of Fort Collins �. Current Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 fax DATE: April 24, 2009 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT COMMENT SHEET PROJECT PLANNER: Emma McArdle # 20-09 COLORADO IRON AND METAL PDP - TYPE Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: May 13, 2009 Note --Please identifv your redlines for future reference No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) A Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape F6rt of Curren- Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 - fax DATE: April 24, 2009 TO: Technical Services SHEET PROJECT PLANNER: Emma McArdle # 20-09 COLORADO IRON AND METAL PDP - TYPE I Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: �, l ozr�✓,�i9Rf� &0565, Zt,,SE5,ear A✓r-1Icf/ DNE2f-F1-6C73 May 13, 2009 AYE T 'rGE �` �s.STi9 r����r o�oFi✓.✓EzSN'P /�D 5t! 3DI ✓�SiD-rJ Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference 3, Pr,�rsE ar�� -rk6 ❑ No Problems Eg Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) 4, 5eA_1� �,J� ISSaES O�J t���1D5eA-�E SrTE P�A�S`r. PEAT, �4GE S, f � � CH.4wlG� SctBTi41'G�, e .✓a re o,� r7_/F,PeA Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _XSite _Drainage Report _Other Utility Redline Utility -,Landscape Department: Engineering Date: May 12, 2009 Project: COLORADO IRON AND METAL PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Emma McArdle in Advance Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: May 13, 2009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] See plans for additional redline comments. Number: 23 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] Is the sidewalk shown along the frontage of the property the existing sidewalk? Number: 24 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] Need to label the drainage pans and widths. Number: 25 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. Number: 27 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] This project is shown tying into an existing detention pond to the south and east of the site. From what I could find on the existing plats and documents that we have on file a drainage easement does not exist to tie these two sites together. A prior plan seemed to indicate that an easement existed, but I didn't find a record of it in our files. If it exists please provide a copy of the recorded document. If it doesn't exist an off -site drainage easement(s) will need to be dedicated and a letter or letters of intent from the adjacent property(ies) will be needed prior to being able to schedule the hearing. Number. 2-8 Created: 5/12/2009 1�01 Signature Ll Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS 2 Plat Z Site Drainage Report Other �2 -_ Utility Redline Utility_ Landscape Page 1 [5/12/09] For the south profile to the east of the site. What is being shown? It looks as if you are tying into the existing curb and gutter in the plan view, but the profile appears to be all new and not matching the existing grade. Number: 29 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The street cross section provided is incorrect. Buckingham is considered a Minor Collector Street in this section. Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] A soils report will need to be submitted with the final submittal. Number: 31 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] A striping plan will need to be submitted with the final plans. Topic: Landscaping Number: 14 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The parking spaces on the east side of the property straddling the property line are not currently shown existing or to be constructed on the utility plans. To construct these a construction easement will be needed from the adjacent property owner. You might also want an easement or agreement with them regarding the use of the spaces. Number: 15 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] There are several GATES indicated on the plans. Are these new or existing and is there any other fence that is new or existing? Currently as labeled there is only gates and no fences on the site. Number: 16 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The office trailer is not shown on the utility plans. Is this a temporary or permanent structure? Number: 17 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The truck scale has not been shown on the utility plans. Topic: Plat Number: 18 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The plat indicates that there is 58 feet of existing row on Buckingham Street. From prior plats and that dedicated by separate document last fall I calculate that it is 76 feet in width. Number: 19 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] Label the additional row that was dedicated last fall by this property. Number: 20 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] The very west portion of the property — row needs to be dedicated so that it is in line with the rest of the property. Number: 21 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/091 What part of the drainage and access easement is proposed for vacation? And before the access easement can be vacated need to see some sort of verification that x- access is not necessary for the property to the south. Page 2 2. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards, and Division 4.28 I —Industrial District. 3. When developing your plans for submittal, pay particular attention to the following sections of the Code: • 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection (you will need to protect existing trees, provide street trees and planting beds, etc. to current standards) • 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (parking maximums, dimensions, HC accessible parking requirements, etc.) • 3.2.4 Site Lighting • 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling enclosures • 4.28 (E)(2)(b) and (c) Industrial District Building Design Standards • 4.28 (E)(3) — Industrial District Site Design Standards 4. 1 will have more detailed comments once I have more detailed plans to review. 5. An exhaustive list of submittal requirements for this type of project is available at http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/project-dev-plan.pdf. There is a submittal checklist at http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/pdp.pdf. Please let me know if you have any questions about the requirements for your submittal. 6. You will need to set up an appointment to submit your application with the Development Review Center front counter at 221-6750. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. 7. Please note that postage rates have been raised as of January 2006. The fee for the APO labels will now be $.75 per label. APO labels must be generated for an area 800 feet out from each property line. Response: The developer acknowledges all of the above comments. Engineering Contact Info: Randy Maizland, 416-2292, rmaizland(aHcgov.com Larimer County Road Impact Fees and a City Street Oversizing Fee will apply to this project. You may contact Matt Baker at (970) 224-6108 for an estimate of the fees. Response: Acknowledged. 2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fees will apply to this project. You can get more information about these fees at http://fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Acknowledged. 3. The Transportation Impact Study requirement may be waived. Contact Ward Stanford at 221-6820 or wstanford@fcgov.com to discuss. Response: A TIS is required for the project, and is included in the submittal packet. 2 Number: 22 Created: 5/12/2009 [5/12/09] A detention easement needs to be dedicated for the new pond area and overflow path. Page 3 Department: Engineering Date: October 12, 2009 Project: COLORADO IRON AND METAL PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Emma McArdle in Advance Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: October 14, 2009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] [5/12/091 See plans for additional redline comments. Number: 25 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW corner of the site will tie back into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. [5/12/09] Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. Number: 28 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Thanks for the reply — This design needs to be shown at minimum grades or at least close. The design you have shown would likely never be built due to the 1.5 — 2 foot drop in the centerline of the road. It is doubtful that the road section could drop this much without the waterline needing to be lowered. So it is very doubtful that the road would ever be rebuilt with the design you have shown. If you are going to show a possible future profile it needs to be something that might occur. A profile following minimum grades is something that would likely be built. Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X Plat Y, Site Drainage Report Y_ Other I :Er5 i Utility >,f_ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 (5/12/091 For the south profile to the east of the site. What is being shown? It looks as if you are tying into the existing curb and gutter in the plan view, but the profile appears to be all new and not matching the existing grade. Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Still applicable. [5/12/09] A soils report will need to be submitted with the final submittal. Number: 31 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Still applicable [5/12/09] A striping plan will need to be submitted with the final plans. Number: 51 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/091 The site plan shows that there is a desire to place a 12 foot high wall over the 30 foot wide utility easement that runs adjacent to the building. This is a problem. A 12 foot high wall is considered a structure and will require a building permit — a building permit is not suppose to be issued for anything in an easement. The utilities will probably have an issue with this wall over their lines and the footings adjacent to the lines. Number: 53 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] The building square footages have changed since the last review. The application fees (TDRF) increased due to the increase in the size of the buildings. The project owes an additional $349. This can be paid at the time of final submittal with the final submittal fees. Number: 54 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] A gate at the south end of the property to accommodate the access easement through the site needs to be provided. This connection goes through the detention pond — how is the access to be maintained across the pond? Is this access still needed? If not will need something from the adjacent property owners identifying they no longer need it and verification from PFA that they no longer need it. Number: 55 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] It looks like the existing fire hydrant and the widened driveway are too close together. Number: 56 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. Number: 57 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Add some notes to Buckingham plan and profile sheet. Identify the location of the curb openings to be built with this project. Label the locations of future curb inlets or curb openings. Label at which station curb and gutter is to start. Number: 58 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] What are you intending to build on the N side of the road? Need to show what grading will occur to accommodate these planed improvements. Number: 59 Created: 10/12/2009 Page 2 [10/12/091 Two benchmarks need to be provided, so far only one has been identified on the plans. Topic: Landscaping Number: 16 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Now shown on the utility plans, but is still not labeled as to if it is temporary or permanent. [5/12/09] The office trailer is not shown on the utility plans. Is this a temporary or permanent structure? Topic: Plat Number: 18 Created: 5/12/2009 [10/12/09] Repeat — I included copies of the prior plat of this site and the plat for the New Belgium site to the north. [5/12/091 The plat indicates that there is 58 feet of existing row on Buckingham Street. From prior plats and that dedicated by separate document last fall I calculate that it is 76 feet in width. Number: 52 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12109] A drainage easement between the two ponds along the south property line is needed for the drainage pipe that is proposed. Topic: Site Plan Number: 50 Created: 10/12/2009 [10/12/09] Notes 1 and 2 regarding the building timing conflict. Page 3 Colorado Iron & Metal Response to Comments 9/30/2009 ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle Topic: General Number:34 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Is this property under single ownership? If multiple owners please provide information on each. Response: The entire property is owned by GTG Investments. The ownership is a bit confusing because there were two lot -line adjustments that were done recently. Peter Barnes was involved in the review of the lot -line adjustments. Let me know if you need further clarification. Number:35 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] When do you expect facilities to be up and running? Response: The offices and fabrication shop are already up and running. These uses were approved by a minor amendment about 9 months ago. This PDP proposes site improvements to bring the outdoor uses of the Colorado Iron & Metal business to the site. The construction will be in 2 phases, as shown on the site plan. The first phase will commence immediately after the final compliance approval. The timing of the construction of the second phase depends on market conditions, but will most likely be within 3 years. Number:39 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Is recycling done on site? Are the Roll -offs for the public to bring recycling? Response: Recycling is collected on -site and bailed into bulk loads and shipped to Denver. The intent is that the roll -offs are available for public recycling drop-offs, and are reflected in the traffic study. Note the roll -offs will be in the construction phase 2. Number:40 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Is the north parking lot for employees, customers, all? Or will west parking be maintained for employees? Please make clear on plans what the plan is, reference note. Response: All parking areas are for all users, including employees and customers. Note that there is no longer any "temporary" parking being proposed. All proposed parking is permanent, however some is proposed in the first construction phase, and some is proposed in the second construction phase. Number: 50 Created: 5/13/2009 [5/13/09] The proposed additions to the existing building will enhance the character of the building. Response: Thank you. Thank you very much. Topic: Landscaping Number:37 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Please address the following issues on the Landscape Plan: Are there any trees to be removed? Response: Yes. There are a few trees being removed. See the sheet 4 of 9 of the resubmittal called the "Existing Tree Plan". Hard to decipher sidewalk, label or use fill. Response: See revised submittal. Full stocking of trees not met in front of Building 2. Recycling Roll-ons in place of potential landscaping, may need mod. of standard. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. There is a fence and gate shown, what type please describe. Response: Please see the new fence and gate details on sheet 5 of 9, the "Fencing Plan". Parking lot perimeter trees and street trees are not adequate, there needs to be shrubs and trees between sidewalk and parking lot. There are too many street trees, street lights are not shown, street canopy/shade trees need to be 40' from street lights. Response: Please see revised landscape plans. Landscape islands shall have a shade tree with at least 80 s.f. of ground to support. Response: Please see revised landscape plans. Is there fencing along the sides and rear of the property? Response: Yes. Please see sheet 5 of 9, the "Fencing Plan". Show existing street lights Response: Street lights are now shown. Show where bike parking is. Response: The bike parking is now shown near the northwest corner of building #1.. Is the walk through the parking lot raised? Response: We hadn't intended it to be raised, unless it is required to be, which we are thinking it is not. Let us know if we are mistaken. Please label existing trash enclosure. Will this still be used? Response: Please see the resubmittal. Yes, the existing trash enclosure is intended to be used, however it will be moved. Topic: Lighting Plan Number:38 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Where are the existing street lights? Is there no lighting at the north entrance? Response: Street lights are now shown on the revised submittal. See the revised lighting plan. Topic: Planning Objectives Number:33 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] Please provide a short summary paragraph of what you are proposing. Explain the uses please. Response: The outdoor industrial yard has the uses of "Heavy Industrial", and "Recycling Facility". The big building's uses are "Light Industrial (Metal Fabrication)", "Recycling Facilities", and "Offices." Building 2 (as named on the site plan) has a use of "Recycling Facility". Building 3 is partially a machine shop which is an accessory use to the Heavy Industrial and Recycle Facilit, and partially a use of "Recycling Facility". 2 Topic: Site Plan Number:36 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/091 Please add the following to the Site Plan: North Arrow on Vicinity and Site Plan Percentage and square footage of driveway and parking Percentage and square footage of landscaped area Show # of spaces and decipher handicap Where is bicycle parking? Please label existing and proposed s.f. on footprint Show some context, what is beyond these boundaries (150') What is the proposed treatment of the perimeter, fencing? Please label land uses, heavy ind, recycling... What are Recycling Roll-ons? What is happening with the temporary parking spaces on the west side of the building? Response: See the revised submittal for answers to most of these questions. Recycling Roll -offs are the same type of containers that the City uses for public recycling drop-offs. They are called roll -offs because the truck that picks them up is a flat bed truck that has a hydrolic tilting bed that the container rolls onto and off of when loading and unloading the container from the truck. We are no longer proposing any temporary parking. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number:41 Created:5/13/2009 Pending [5/13/09] No comment. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number:13 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] See plans for additional redline comments. Response: Acknowledged. Number:23 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Is the sidewalk shown along the frontage of the property the existing sidewalk? Response: The existing sidewalk is being removed and a new detached sidewalk is included in the plan. Number:24 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/091 Need to label the drainage pans and widths. Response: Acknowledged. Number:25 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. Response: Acknowledged. This will be provided at final. Number:26 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. Response: Acknowledged. Number:27 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/091 This project is shown tying into an existing detention pond to the south and east of the site. Fron- what I could find on the existing plats and documents that we have on file a drainage easement does not exist to tie these two sites together. A prior plan seemed to indicate that an easement existed, but I didn't find a record of it in our files. If it exists please provide a copy of the recorded document. If it doesn't exist an off -site drainage easement(s) will need to be dedicated and a letter or letters of intent from the adjacent property(ies) will be needed prior to being able to schedule the hearing. Response: This easement was shown on the construction drawings for the adjacent property, but for some reason was not included on the plat. This easement was later provided by separate instrument. Number:28 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] For the south profile to the east of the site. What is being shown? It looks as if you are tying into the existing curb and gutter in the plan view, but the profile appears to be all new and not matching the existing grade. Response: The east end of the interim street improvement ties in to the right (south) existing flowline/curb and gutter in plan view. The profile also ties in at this point. Towards the east, past the interim improvements, the ultimate flowline diverges from existing because the existing flowline profile in this area does not meet the minimum slope requirement. This design will allow for both a tie to existing or future reconstruction of this portion of the street to meet current minimum standards. Should this section of street be built in the future, the designer would have the choice of either using a design that meets current standards, or asking for a variance from the minimum slope requirement. Our proposed design will allow either case. Number:29 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] The street cross section provided is incorrect. Buckingham is considered a Minor Collector Street in this section. Response: Acknowledged. Number:30 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] A soils report will need to be submitted with the final submittal. Response: Acknowledged. This will be provided at final. Number:31 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] A striping plan will need to be submitted with the final plans. Response: Acknowledged. This will be provided at final. Number:32 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Technical Services had the following comments - 1. Boundary Closes, legal closes, but which one reflects the limits of the property? 2. Please remove "PDP" from the title and statement of ownership and subdivision. 3. Please add the legal description to the site plan. 4. Scanning issues on Landscape, Site and Plat. 5. Please change subtitle. See note on the Plat for changed verbiage. ll Response: See revised plat. Topic: Landscaping Number:14 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] The parking spaces on the east side of the property straddling the property line are not currently shown existing or to be constructed on the utility plans. To construct these, a construction easement will be needed from the adjacent property owner. You might also want an easement or agreement with them regarding the use of the spaces. Response: They are no longer proposed to be parking spaces. They are intended to remain the same as the existing condition, which is loading and unloading zones used by both properties. Number:15 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] There are several GATES indicated on the plans. Are these new or existing and is there any other fence that is new or existing? Currently as labeled there are only gates and no fences on the site. Response: See sheet 5 of 9, the "Fencing Plan." Number:16 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] The office trailer is not shown on the utility plans. Is this a temporary or permanent structure? Response: See the revised submittal. Number:17 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/091 The truck scale has not been shown on the utility plans. Response: See the revised submittal. Topic: Plat Number:18 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] The plat indicates that there is 58 feet of existing row on Buckingham Street. From prior plats and that dedicated by separate document last fall I calculate that it is 76 feet in width. Response: See the revised plat. Number:19 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Label the additional row that was dedicated last fall by this property. Response: See the revised plat. Number:20 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] The very west portion of the property — row needs to be dedicated so that it is in line with the rest of the property. Response: See the revised plat. Number:21 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] What part of the drainage and access easement is proposed for vacation? And before the access easement can be vacated need to see some sort of verification that x-access is not necessary for the property to the south. Response: See the revised plat. We continue to have an access easement to the property to the south. Number:22 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/091 A detention easement needs to be dedicated for the new pond area and overflow path. 5 Response: See the revised plat Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Rob Irish Topic: General Number:9 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/091 Please show existing transformer on site plan. Also, show existing electric oval vault adjacent to this site on Buckingham. Coordinate with Light & Power if either of these will need to be relocated. Response: See the revised Site & Landscape plans. Number:10 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be at the owner's expense. Response: Acknowledged. Number:11 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Owner will need to submit a C-1 form and One -Line diagram for any increase or change in power requirements. If a new transformer is needed owner will need to coordinate a transformer location within 10' of an all weather driveover surface with Light & Power. Response: Acknowledged. Number:12 Created:5/12/2009 Pending [5/12/09] Owner is responsible for Electric Capacity Fees and Building Site charges for the unpaid area where the Infultration/Detention Pond will be and any additional increase in power requirements. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: Fire Number:42 Created:5/14/2009 Pending REQUIRED ACCESS: Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. 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: • Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. • Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. • Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. • Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structures are three or more stories in height). If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet. NOTE: Please contact me to determine specific EAE location. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D Response: Acknowledged. Cd 4. Buckingham is classified as a minor collector. The total right-of-way dedication needed for a minor collector is 76 feet. You will be responsible for dedicating half of the right-of-way, or 38 feet, plus a 9 foot utility easement behind the right-of-way. Response: The additional ROW was dedicated through separate instrument as part of phase 1, which has been completed. 5. Any damaged sidewalk, gutter or curb will need to be repaired or replaced. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored in like kind at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. 6. Utility plans, a Development Agreement (DA), and a Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be prepared for this project. A plat is not required but may make sense depending on how many easement dedications you need to make. Each dedication by separate document has a fee whereas all easements are included in the plat fee. Response: A plat is included in the submittal. 7. Any public improvements must be made according to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Response: Acknowledged. 8. You will need to fill in the sidewalks where they are discontinuous along your frontage. Any new sidewalks must be designed to meet current standards including a detached profile and to the proper width. If the existing sidewalk is not wide enough to meet ADA standards or if it is in poor repair, you will be required to repair, widen or replace it altogether. Response: Acknowledged. 9. The previous owner was required to post a bond for frontage improvements. The City no longer collects bonds. The developer will need to design and build frontage improvements and provide preliminary off -site design to tie into the church site to the east. Response: Acknowledged. 10. You will need to provide some length of concrete or asphalt at the most westerly drive approach to prevent drag out from the site out to the road if you are successful in your request for modification. Response: We are now proposing to pave all vehicular use areas, as well as the most westerly drive approach. Poudre Fire Authority Contact Info: Carie Dann, 416-2869, cdann(cD-poudre-fire.org K Number:43 Created:5/14/2009 Pending HMIA: The requested Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis is excellent. Thank you. Response: No, thank you. Number:44 Created:5/14/2009 Pending FUEL TANK: The proposed diesel/gasoline tank is required to meet all applicable requirements set forth in the 2006 IFC. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number:45 Created:5/15/2009 Pending [5/15/091 Retention ponds are only allowed after all other options for detention have been exhausted. There is still the option of expanding the existing detention pond, which detains the existing site. Also, groundwater in this area is most likely higher than the 12-foot deep proposed retention pond, which would make this pond not feasible. In general, retention ponds need to still have an outfall. This could be percolation only if a soils report confirmed acceptable percolation rates. A backup option would also be required, like a gravity or pumped delayed release to an irrigation ditch. Response: The retention pond has been changed to a detention pond with a discharge pipe. Please see the revised drainage plan and report. Number:46 Created:5/15/2009 Pending [5/15/09] Drainage easements are required for all ponds and other drainage improvements. The proposed drainage pan along the east side of the property would need a drainage easement for the on -site and off - site portions. For any off -site drainage easements, a letter of intent is required before the public hearing. Response: The pond and the pan along the eastern drive aisle are located within proposed drainage easements. Please see the revised plat. Number:47 Created:5/15/2009 Pending [5/15/091 Please include all hydrology calculations in the drainage report. Please compare existing flows with proposed flows as well. Response: Acknowledged. Number:48 Created:5/15/2009 Pending [5/15/09] All detention calculations need to include half of Buckingham Street along the site's frontage. Response: The western portion of Buckingham drains to the new detention pond. The eastern portion drains through existing drainage systems to the existing pond located behind the building to the east. This pond was designed for the entire project site, so the drainage basin for the existing pond will be substantially reduced with the project. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: WaterMastewater Number:49 Created:5/15/2009 Pending [5/15/09] The sewer service for the proposed building must connect at a manhole. Response: Acknowledged. 7 Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: Zoning Number:1 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] Parking. The maximum number of parking spaces is based on the number of total employees. 63 proposed spaces exceeds what is allowed. If you are seeking "alternative compliance", please review section 3.2.2(K)(3) for the process to request alternative compliance Response: Note that the maximum parking of .75 spaces per employee refers only to industrial employees and is silent on the recycling customers. Because it is silent on a maximum for recycling facilities, we assume there is no maximum for that portion of the project. Also, the parking code is silent regarding customer parking for the fabrication portion of the business, which also need quite a few parking spaces. Our assumption is that this interpretation avoids the need for alternative compliance, however if City staff disagrees, we can provide an alternative compliance request to take to hearing. Number:2 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] Please show bicycle parking and locate near the main entrance. Response: See the revised submittal. Number:3 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] Handicapped parking spaces are based on the overall number of parking spaces. 34 Parking spaces would require 2 handicap spaces, 63 parking spaces would require 3 handicap spaces. Of those HC spaces, one needs to be van accessible with an overall width of 16' and signed as "Van Accessible" Please note parking stall dimensions on the site plan and label all HC spaces. Response: See the revised submittal. Number:4 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/091 On the site plan please show and label the new building envelope since there is proposed changes to the north side. Response: See the revised submittal. Number:5 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] There are some parking spaces to the East that seem to be located on two lots. Are they part of this development? Response: We are no longer proposing parking. The existing use of shared loading zones will remain. Number:6 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] Please show building height at the top roof line on the elevation drawings. Response: Please see the revised elevations. Number:7 Created:4/30/2009 Pending [4/30/09] How will trash and recyclables be handled? Will there be an exterior enclosure? If so please note location on site plan and provide an elevation on the elevation sheets. Response: See the trash enclosure on sheet 2 of 9 in plan and elevation on the site plan. Number:8 Created:5/1/2009 Pending [4/30/09] Please note colors, materials etc of the buildings on the elevation drawings. Response: Please see the revised elevations. of ,,F,�`ortrt_ Collins---1 January 21, 2010 Troy W. Jones, AICP Chief Planner MTA Planning and Architecture 171 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Subject: Colorado Iron and Metal, PDP #20-09 Dear Mr. Jones, In Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/currentpfanning The City of Fort Collins has reviewed and approved your request for a sixty (60) day extension to the Colorado Iron and Metal, PDP. This project was last reviewed by Staff on October 14, 2009, and comments were returned to the applicant on October 22, 2009. Based on this extension, a Re -submittal, addressing the last round of Staff comments, must be submitted to the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Office no later than March 22, 2010. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to give me a call at 970-221-6765. 2inrJ. , ush, AICP Director of CDNS cc: Emma McArdle Sheri Langenberger Susan Joy Colorado Iron and Metal, PDP #20-09, Project File Page 1 of 2 Sheri Langenberger - RE: Colorado Iron & Metal Question From: "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> To: "'Sheri Langenberger"' <sangenberger@fcgov.com> Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:00 PM Subject: RE: Colorado Iron & Metal Question Sheri, Understood. Our intent will be to proceed without proposing any construction work on that property to the east, with the understanding that the PDP grants no right to use the paved area on that neighbor's property. The only off -site improvements will be on the property to the south and the property to the west, both of which we have obtained letters of intent. Troy From: Sheri Langenberger[mailto:slangenberger@fcgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:52 AM To: Troy Jones Cc: Emma McArdle; Peter Barnes Subject: Re: Colorado Iron & Metal Question Troy The change in note is fine. The applicant just needs to understand that if access easements do not exist on the neighboring property than this property has no right to use that pavement even if they have access to it. And placing a note on these plans indicating it is shared use does not make it a shared use area without the consent of the neighbor. No paving or other construction work will be allowed outside the boundaries of this plat, so if paving or construction work is shown or is needed the applicant will at least need to get a construction easement. Sheri >>> "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> 3/16/2010 8:54 AM >>> Sheri, Regarding note 17 on our PDP general notes which states, "17, THE EXISTINU C❑NDITI❑N HAS PAVED PARKINCI AREAS THAT STRADDLE THE EASTERN PR❑PERTY LINE. AND ARE HAVE SHARED ACCESS WITH THE ADJACENT PR❑PERTY, THEREE❑RE IS THERE IS N❑ APPLICABLE SIDE L❑T LINE SETBACK BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE VEHICULAR USE AREA,", on your redlines, you commented "easements in place for this?" We want to avoid the need to get this easement. We would like to change the term "paved parking areas" in the note to say "paved vehicular use areas". The existing condition is that the pavement straddles the property line. There's no existing easement in place regarding the shared nature of the paved area, however this shared paving exists primarily to provide the neighboring property access to their dust collectors. We are dedicating an access easement on our plat that will allow this neighbor access to his dust collectors. Except for the occasional wide truck turns, that may encroach on the neighbors property, we are not specifically intending to use this paved area beyond our site boundary. We can accommodate our wide turns on our property if we need to, so we feel we do not need an easement in this case. Do you agree? Troy file:HCADocuments and Settings\slangenberger\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BA215F4FC I CFC... 3/19/2010 6 "Coll ins Current Planning P(t 13c�� �ti(1 F(wt Collin,,. 0) 80522-0581t DATE: March 24, 2010 TO: Technical Services REVISION COMMENT SHEET PROJECT PLANNER: Emma McArdle S I . Tl-1 E �uicnt a /�,R-Y �' PEfLt w►�-rr�R. L�6 G A-L G4oSf' . # 20-09 COLORADO IRON AND 11 METAL PDP - TYPE I `.�NEETS 3 T 4` HAVE AkWJo R_ It tJE irV 6 P_ ­re-,11 I- 15.5 ae S . 3rd Round of Review TKE~�E ►4 R 6-r L.C. M 11Jo Q G- J N E v ✓&Oe i 'EJkT t SS a -CS v xJ -rA E U-r1 L4 -rV FLA �-, pGeA�Se v %%x ?HE TEytT 0 �1 TN�6 WAreR. M ETEfZ a>F-rF*1 L. gH ► 4 o F T'i£ `'-r"irY PLAw s' PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: April 7, 2010 Note -Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems Gm */ kr� Name (pl ase print) Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat 7YSite _Drainage Report _Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: April 6, 2010 Project: COLORADO IRON AND METAL PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Emma McArdle in Advance Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 07, 2010 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] [5/12/09] See plans for additional redline comments. Number: 25 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] May need separate sheets showing what is to be done with each phase. Need to show how sidewalks from the buildings will be constructed out to the public sidewalk through Phase 2 for Phase 1. How will the street drainage go through Phase 2 until the parking lots are built? Are swales to be constructed? [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10]Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. [10/12/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW corner of the site will tieback into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. [5/12/09] Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] Still applicable. [5/12/09] A soils report will need to be submitted with the final submittal. Number: 31 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] Still applicable Signature Created: 5/12/2009 e Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS L lx Plat /X� Site Drainage Report _ Other YQ�7�C 1 _ Utility L Redline Utility ;x, Landscape Page 1 [5/12/09] A striping plan will need to be submitted with the final plans Number: 53 Created: 10/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] The building square footages have changed since the last review. The application fees (TDRF) increased due to the increase in the size of the buildings. The project owes an additional $349. This can be paid at the time of final submittal with the final submittal fees. Number: 56 Created: 10/12/2009 [4/6/10] Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. [10/12/09] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. Number: 81 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Is there any fencing or other improvements that are to be installed with the minor amendment that need to be removed with this project? You might want to at least note what they might be. Number: 82 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Please note what material the raised crosswalk is to be. Number: 83 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Final will need to show what erosion control will be needed for Phase 2. Number: 84 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Since the north flowline is not existing. Please show the proposed north flowline, to the east of the site, with the minimum .5% grade. The centerline and south flowline appear to be existing so they are okay to be shown at the .4%. Number: 85 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] The concrete sidewalk culvert should be used since water is entering the site from the roadway. I taped a copy of this detail to the plans. Topic: Landscaping Number: 89 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] What landscaping is in Phase 1 and what is in Phase 2? Topic: Site Plan Number: 86 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] The site plan is not showing the screening fence on the north side of the parking lot. If planning doesn't feel that this is to be shown on the site plan — I am okay with that. Number: 87 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Where will the handicap parking be with Phase 1? Currently all the handicap parking is shown in the front lots that are identified as Phase 2. Number: 88 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] What is to be built to connect the buildings to the public sidewalk with phase 1? Page 2 Response to Comments (4-20-11) Colorado Iron and Metal PDP ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle Topic: Fencing Number: 93 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Please see the redlined Fencing Plan. There are several things that I need clarification on: -Darken line weight of fencing; there is barely a difference in some places, - What is happening along the east property line? Is there fencing? -Either label something's or take them off this plan completely, the grayed out items should only be the basics. RESPONSE: Please see the revised fencing plan. There is no fence existing or proposed along most of the east property line, except there is an existing chain link fence on the southerly 155 feet of the east property line, which will remain. Topic: General Number: 98 Created: 4/29/2010 [4/29/10] Please clean up plan sets to show curb/gutter info everywhere, currently it is missing in some areas. RESPONSE: See revised plans. We aren't proposing curb and gutter at all paving edges, so where it's not shown, it's not proposed. Number: 99 Created: 4/29/2010 [4/29/10] Let's discuss the addition of notes regarding phasing; there is two options to address parking lot landscaping. I want to make sure that staff reviews the parking lot and landscaping even if the entry feature is not built. So the parking lot shall either be tied to a certificate of completion or the CO of the entry feature. RESPONSE: The intended phasing has changed since the last round of review. I have broken out phase 1 landscaping from phase 2 landscaping in the landscape table. Number: 100 Created: 4/29/2010 [4/29/10] The entry feature does not show the entry door very clearly; let's get a little definition on this elevation. RESPONSE: The entry feature is no longer being proposed. Topic: Landscaping Number: 80 Created: 10/22/2009 [4/6/10) Please make them add up to 100% [10/22/09] Please show % of trees. Page 1 Number: 76 Created: 10/22/2009 [4/6/10] Either take it all off or show all existing, there is some still there, west of the building. [10/22/09] Take landscape info off the Site Plan, trees, turf, mulch... Leave paving details on though. RESPONSE: See revised site plan. Landscaping has been removed. Only planting beds and yard areas are identified. Number: 90 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Either show all existing landscaping or don't show any, grey it out so I know it is existing, landscaping added in the minor amendment should be included also if you choose to show it. RESPONSE: See revised site plan. Landscaping has been removed. Only planting beds and yard areas are identified. The minor amendment landscaping was never planted. Number: 91 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Will any of the fencing that will be added through the minor amendment stay? Page 3 RESPONSE: The minor amendment landscaping was never planted. Number: 92 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Please show me what the minor amendment is approving with lighter line weights. RESPONSE: The owner decided not to proceed with constructing the minor amendment improvements, but rather wait to move the scrap operations over to the site and make the necessary improvements until the PDP final plan is approved. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: Genera/ Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/091 [5/12/09] See plans for additional redline comments. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. UANumber:25 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] May need separate sheets showing what is to be done with each phase. Need to show how sidewalks from the buildings will be constructed out to the public sidewalk through Phase 2 for Phase 1. How will the street drainage go through Phase 2 until the parking lots are built? Are swales to be constructed? [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. RESPONSE: Grading Plans have been prepared for each phase. Phase Two is a relative small amount of work. All the street, utility and stormwater improvements are included in Phase One. The items included in Phase Two are two parking lots surfaces and a few site features such as fences. Number: 26 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10]Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. v [19/12/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW corner of the site will tieback into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. [5/12/09] Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Number: 30 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] Still applicable. (� [5/12/09] A soils report will need to be submitted with the final submittal. RESPONSE: Please see the submitted soils report. Olt —Number: 31 Created: 5/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] Still applicable Papa d FIRE SPRINKLERS: Poudre Fire Authority fire -sprinkler requirements are based on type of occupancy, type of construction and size of the structure. I will need information specifying whether welding occurs within the structure(s); what type of hazardous materials are used or stored inside or outside; and whether these amounts of hazardous materials exceed the Maximum Allowable Quantities. (This is what determines type of occupancy.) The PFA database shows 903 Buckingham St. as having a fire sprinkler system; however, it needs to be determined if this system is adequate for the type of occupancy/occupancies that Colorado Iron and Metal Works would be. Response: Acknowledged. 2. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Toxic, corrosive, or reactive materials, or flammable/combustible liquids (as defined in the Uniform Fire Code) if used, stored, or handled on site, must have a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis (HMIA) completed and supplied to the Planning Department and the Fire Department. (What do you have? How much? How do you prevent it from being a public threat?) FCLUC3.4.5 Response: Please see the attached HMIA. 3. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: • Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter • Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter • Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. Response: Acknowledged. 4. WATER SUPPLY: These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Response: The existing building is equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 5. REQUIRED ACCESS: Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's jurisdiction when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route (from a public street) around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall: • Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. • Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. • Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. • Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane. 4 P-15112109] A striping plan will need to be submitted with the final plans. RESPONSE: A Signing and Striping Plan is provided for the ultimate and interim conditions. The ultimate striping is very close to the locations of the existing striping, therefore the interim striping plan calls for simply replacing the striping removed with construction. This will avoid any short lane transitions and maintain a consistent striping condition along Buckingham. Number: 53 Created: 10/12/2009 [4/6/10] [10/12/09] The building square footages have changed since the last review. The application fees (TDRF) increased due to the increase in the size of the buildings. The protect owes an additional $349. This can be paid at the time of final submittal with the final submittal fees. RESPONSE: The square footages have changed once again, and therefore we are proposing less square footage than originally proposed. The entry feature on building #1 is no longer being proposed. The existing building will continue to have the same 30,000 foot print as its existing condition. Building 2 is now proposed to be 4,000 square feet. Building 3 is now proposed to be 2,000 square feet. Number: 56 Created: 10/12/2009 [4/6/10] Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. [10/12/09] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Number: 81 Created: 4/6/2010 (�-[4/6/10] Is there any fencing or other improvements that are to be installed with the minor amendment that need to be removed with this project? You might want to at least note what they might be. RESPONSE: The minor amendment was never implemented or constructed, and is no longer intended to be used. 4Number: 82 Created: 4/6/2010 -[4/6/101 Please note what material the raised crosswalk is to be. RESPONSE: This will be stamped concrete, as is now noted on the plans. Number: 83 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] Final will need to show what erosion control will be needed for Phase 2. RESPONSE: The erosion control for phase two is shown on the Phase Two Grading Plan. Because the Phase One Grading Plan is a little busy, the erosion control for phase one is located in its traditional place on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Number: 84 Created: 4/6/2010 Page 59 [4/6/10] Since the north flowline is not existing. Please show the proposed north flowline, to the east of the site, with the minimum .5% grade. The centerline and south flowline appear to be existing so they are okay to be shown at the .4%. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Number: 85 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] The concrete sidewalk culvert should be used since water is entering the site from the roadway. I taped a copy of this detail to the plans. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscaping Number: 89 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] What landscaping is in Phase 1 and what is in Phase 2? This has been updated in the Hearing Plan Set (4/12/10). RESPONSE: The landscape planning matrix has been updated to show quantities of plantings in each phase. Both the site plan and landscape plans have the phase 2 areas called out with a dark outline. Topic: Site Plan Number: 86 Created: 4/6/2010 [4/6/10] The site plan is not showing the screening fence on the north side of the parking lot. If planning doesn't feel that this is to be shown on the site plan — I am okay with that. RESPONSE: See the revised fencing plan. Number: 87 Created: 4/6/2010 dl'[4/6/10] Where will the handicap parking be with Phase 1? Currently all the handicap parking is shown in the front lots that are identified as Phase 2. RESPONSE: Please see revised parking layout. Number: 88 Created: 4/6/2010 (}� [4/6/10] What is to be built to connect the buildings to the public sidewalk with phase 1? RESPONSE: Please see the revised site plan and grading plan. Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 97 Created: 4/7/2010 [4/7/10] Sheets 3 & 4 of the Landscape Plans have minor line over text issues. RESPONSE: Revised. Topic: Plat Number: 64 Created: 10/14/2009 [4/7/10] The boundary & perimeter legal close. [10/14/09] The boundary and perimeter legal description close. Page 6 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 67 Created: 10/14/2009 [417/101 There are still minor line over text issues on the Utility Plans. [10/14/09] There are several line over text issues. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Number: 68 Created: 10/14/2009 [4/7/10] Please fix the text on the Water Meter Detail on Sheet 9 of the Utility Plans. [10/14/09] Two details on sheet 9 have text that is illegible. RESPONSE: The water meter is no longer proposed, so that has been removed from the plans. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 70 Created: 10/16/2009 [4/7/10] Reminder comment. [10/16/09] The outfall for this site is proposed to drain into the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County needs to approve this outfall location. The County owns and maintains this channel. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will coordinate directly with the County on this. Number: 71 Created: 10/16/2009 [4/7/10] OK for hearing. Can discuss during final compliance. [10/16/09] Please provide documentation to back up the 20% reduction in volume and reduced drainage easement for the existing detention pond. RESPONSE: The drainage basins for the existing pond and the proposed new pond are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Number: 72 Created: 10/16/2009 [4/7110] OK for final compliance. [10/16/09] The slope of the detention pond bottom should be 2% or .5% with a drainage pan. RESPONSE: This slope has been revised to 2%. Number: 73 Created: 10/16/2009 [4/7/10] OK for final compliance. [10/16/09] The City's standard water quality outlet structure needs to be incorporated into the design. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 94 Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Created: 4/6/2010 Page 7 [4/6/10] An additional note may be needed on the fire hydrant relocation. It will be field checked soon to determine if needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: Zoning Number: 4 Created: 4/30/2009 [417/1 0] [4/30/09] On the site plan please show and label the new building envelope since there is proposed changes to the north side. RESPONSE: See revised site plan. We are no longer proposing an addition on the north of the existing building. Page 8 Response to Comments Colorado Iron & Metal, Final Plan June 1, 2011 Department: Current Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6206, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Number: 14 Created: 05/18/2011 05/18/2011: Please take PDP off all the title blocks. No need to change it to FDP or Final Plan, we do not need this on the recorded plan. Response: We have modified the drawings as requested. See revised submittal. Number: 15 Created: 05/18/2011 05/182011: Signature block for Current Planning Director should be Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Response: Modified as requested. See revised submittal. Number: 19 Created: 05/182011 05/182011: What is happening with the phase 2 areas until phase 2 is built? I either need a clear note on the site and landscape plans telling me this or potentially another plan showing this if it cannot be described adequately. Response: We have now included a sheet entitled "Phasing Plan" that clarifies the phasing. Also, note that the landscape schedule calls out which phase the various plantings are in. Number: 6 Created: 05232011 05232011: This is asking about fencing, the response referred to landscaping in the Minor Amendment. Will the fence that was proposed to go in front of the existing building stay? It doesn't appear in the plan. Comment #91 [4/6/10] Will any of the fencing that will be added through the minor amendment stay? Response: None of the minor amendment improvements, including the fencing, was ever installed. The owner decided not to proceed with the approved minor amendment. The intent is to proceed with improvements as shown in this full blown development approval rather than to proceed with any of the improvements approved by the minor amendment. Number: 8 Created: 05232011 05/232011: Just wondering how the area between this facility and the neighboring property to the east will be handled? Is there shared security around both facilities? Comment #93 [4/6/10] Please see the redlined Fencing Plan. There are several things that I need clarification on: -Darken line weight of fencing, there is barely a difference in some places, - What is happening along the east property line? Is there fencing? -Either label something or take them off this plan completely, the grayed out items should only be the basics. Response: The intent is that the neighboring property owner will be offered the opportunity to tie into the fencing scheme, however it is intended that that property owner seek his own building permits for such fencing. If that property owner chooses not to tie in, our intent is to bring our portion of the fence to the property line. We were told in an earlier submittal that if we show the fence on the neighbor's property, we would need to get an easement in order to do so. Rather than that, we'd like to just leave the fence to the neighbor to decide whether or not he wants to tie in. Number: 12 Created: 05/23/2011 05/2312011: We either need some really good notes describing this or separate plans. Comment #99 [4/29/10] Let's discuss the addition of notes regarding phasing, there are two options to address parking lot landscaping. I want to make sure that staff reviews the parking lot and landscaping even if the entry feature is not built. So the parking lot shall either be tied to a certificate of completion or the CO of the entry feature. Response: The intent is that both the entry feature (the center entry on the existing building) and the northeast parking lot will be in the last construction phase. Please see the new sheet called "Phasing Plan." I believe the information on this sheet will clarify the issue. Number: 13 Created: 05/23/2011 05/23/2011: If there is no entry feature then you need to work on redirecting traffic to the other door. Now it is very unclear where you enter the building the way the design is proposed. I am concerned about getting rid of this as it was part of the plan that was approved at hearing. Please reconsider or let's talk about options. [4/29/10] The entry feature does not show the entry door very clearly, let's get a little definition on this elevation. Response: We are fine adding the center entry as requested. Please see the "Phasing Plan" sheet for the interim entry and walkway condition. Number: 24 Created: 05/24/2011 05/242011: I'm very concerned about the removal of the entry feature. I strongly suggest reconsidering this as the whole plan leads you to this feature. I'm happy to sit down and discuss options if you like. Response: We are fine adding the center entry as requested. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 21 Created: 05/182011 05/182011: The entry feature is highlighted by the landscaping design. Need to figure out what you are doing here. 9 Response: Please see the newly created phasing plan, and the revised landscape plan. Number: 22 Created: 05/18/2011 05/182011: What about landscaping in the detention pond? Response: Although the original PDP was submitted prior to the adoption of the new detention pond landscaping standards, we're happy to add a few trees as requested by Wes Lamarque.See the revised landscape plan. Number: 23 Created: 05232011 05/232011: 1 don't like that landscaping in front of building #1 is in phase 2. Response: We now propose the shrubs within the planting bed in front of the building #1 to be in phase Topic: Site Plan Number: 16 Created: 05/18/2011 05/182011: Please label existing vs. proposed buildings. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 17 Created: 05/182011 05/182011: Some of the surfaces aren't labeled. Please check for consistency, some sidewalks have the same fill but in lighter colors. Are some existing? Or should they be the same? If you don't want to call out the fills each time, a legend will help. Response: Please see revised plan set. Number: 18 Created: 05/182011 05/182011: lam confused by the easement callouts. Can you have the callouf identify both edges of the easement not just one? See plan for clarification. Response: Please see revised plan set. Number: 20 Created: 05/182011 05/182011: What color is the dumpster enclosure? To match building materials? Response: The intent is to match the color of the existing building. Please see revised dumpster enclosure details. Number: 1 Created: 05232011 051232011: This should have been addressed prior to hearing, it may have been my error not noticing that it was not addressed. It obviously is unnecessary at this point, but please be aware in the future we do need more context show on plans. Comment #36 from previous letter. [4/6/101 1 asked in my original comment to show at least 150' of off -site context, it is still not shown. You will need to change the scale of the drawings to do this. 1 [10/22109] All addressed but no more context has been shown. [5/13/091 Please add the following to the Site Plan: North Arrow on Vicinity and Site Plan Percentage and square footage of driveway and parking Percentage and square footage of landscaped area Show # of spaces and decipher handicap Where is bicycle parking? Please label existing and proposed s.f. on footprint Show some context, what is beyond these boundaries (150) What is the proposed treatment of the perimeter, fencing? Please label land uses, heavy ind, recycling,& What are Recycling Roll-ons? What is happening with the temporary parking spaces on the west side of the building? Response: Acknowledged. Number: 11 Created: 05/23/2011 05/23/2011: If there are no curb and cutter to be installed in the parking lot, then you need wheel stops to maintain the sidewalk widths. Please show these on the plans. Comment #98 [4/29/10] Please clean up plan sets to show curb/gutter info everywhere, currently it is missing in some areas. Response: We are now showing wheel stops as requested. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Carney, 970-221-6501, acamey@fcgov.com Topic: General Number: 2 Created: 05/17/2011 0&18/2011: Comment carried forwarded, Please dearly show phase lines on the v utility/grading/etc sheets to dearly delineate what is included in each phase. [4/6110] May need separate sheets showing what is to be done with each phase. Need to show how sidewalks from the buildings will be constructed out to the public sidewalk through Phase 2 for Phase 1. How will the street drainage go through Phase 2 until the parking lots are built? Are swales to be constructed? [10/12/09] Repeat at final will need to provide phasing plans showing what is to be built, graded and installed with each phase. [5/12/09] IF you are planning on phasing construction you will need to include phase lines and notes as a part of the final plans. Response: Grading Plans are provided for each phase, and notes have been added to the plans to define the phasing. Number: 3 Created: 05/17/2011 05/1812011: To finalize the off -site grading/slope easement, a legal description and an exhibit showing the easement will need to be submitted and reviewed. Also, a Deed of dedication will need to be completed and submit along with the TDRF easement dedication fee and the applicable recording fees to record the final document with Larimer County. [4/6/10]Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. [10/12/09] Need to show how the grading at the SW comer of the site will tie back into existing grades. It appears that off -site grading or construction easements will be needed. Letters of intent to grant these easements will need to be provided prior to the project being scheduled for hearing. [5/121091 Few grade lines at the property lines do not tie to anything. Response: We have included this easement (with diagram) in our re -submittal. Number: 4 Created: 05/17/2011 05/18/2011: To finalize the off -site drainage easement and the Emergency Access Easement, a legal description and an exhibit showing the easement will need to be 4' submitted and reviewed. Also, a Deed of dedication will need to be completed and submitted along with the TDRF easement dedication fee and the applicable recording fees to record the final document with Larimer County. \ [4/6/10] Letter of intent received. Final easement will be needed prior to approval of plans. Processing and filling fees will be due for the processing and filing of off -site easements. [10/12/09] An off -site easement for the storm pipe is needed with this design. A letter of intent from the off -site property owner(s) is needed prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. Response: Our Emergency Access Easement is contained entirely on -site, and is dedicated by the plat. We have included the offsite drainage easement (with diagram) in the re -submittal. Number: 5 Created: 05/17/2011 05/18/2011: 1 did not see this detail included in the utility plan. Please include it (should be detail D-126) and call it out on the utility sheet. [4/6/10] The concrete sidewalk culvert should be used since water is entering the site from the roadway. I taped a copy of this detail to the plans. Response: This detail is located on sheet C13. Number: 6 Created: 05/17/2011 05/18/2011: On the utility and grading sheets, show the extent and boundary of the off -site dt—grading and drainage easements and simply call them out as being dedicated via separate document. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 7 Created: 05/17/2011 05/18/2011: On the grading sheets, finish grade elevations are needed for all streets, lot (\ comers, and finish floors/top of foundation of buildings for all lots. Several spot locations V are missing. R G 0 Re onset Acknowledged. Number: 8 Created: 05/23/2011 05/18/2011: Please provide the following statement on the grading sheets. "The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum elevations required for protection from the 100-year storm." Response: Acknowledged. Number: 9 Created: 05/23/2011 0&23/2011: On sheet C8, it does not appear that the proposed flowline and centerline grades are shown, please display the preliminary design for the flowline and centerline in this location. The minimum grades need to be carried out to the full 500' off site. A Response: As we discussed on the phone, the south curb/gutter and sidewalk east of th� site are already constructed. The proposed future ultimate improvements in this area consist of construction of the north half of the street. Therefore, the south flowline and centerline will not change with tl a ultimate future condition. Number: 10 Created: 05/23/2011 05/23/2011: To finalize the project, both a Development Agreement (DA) and a Development Construction Permit (DCP) will be needed. To begin both please contact (j Andrew Carney (221-6501, acarney@fcgov.com) to obtain applications for both documents, as well as, more information regarding both processes. \� Response: Acknowledged. ^ Number: 11 Created: 05/23/2011 • . 05/23/2011: To finalize the emergency access easement, a legal description and afi exhibit showing the easement will need to be submitted and reviewed. Also, a Deed of dedication will need to be completed and submitted along with the TDRF easement dedication fee and the applicable recording fees to record the final document with Larimer County. Response: Our Emergency Access Easement is contained entirely on -site, and is dedicated by the plat. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 04/28/2011 04/28/2011: The project still owes $349 that remains due from the PDP submittal Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. If a fire lane is not provided, all buildings out of access (exceeding the 150-foot requirement) shall be equipped with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system. 97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 Response: Acknowledged. 6. ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 97UFC901.4.4 Response: Acknowledged. Stormwater Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 221-6065, aschlueter(uD-fcgov.com The applicant indicated that the move to this location would be phased. If there are areas to be paved that will increase the imperviousness area greater than 1000 square feet, a drainage and erosion control report and construction plans would then be required and must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. Only a grading plan is required when there is between 1000 and 350 square feet of new imperviousness. There are no requirements for less than 350 square feet. Response: Please see the submitted drainage and erosion control report. 2. Should there need to be a detention area, the two-year historic release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre in the Dry Creek basin. Water quality treatment is required as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 — Best Management Practices (BMPs). Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment, but all BMPs are encouraged in addition to the extended detention. The detention areas need to contain enough volume for runoff from the impervious areas so using the area for scrap metal pile would take up that volume. The pond could be oversized to accommodate the scrap metal, but that would be a hard thing to judge of when the pile is too big. If extended detention is to be used for water quality treatment, it can be included in a water quantity pond but should be separate from any scrap metal pile if the plan is to use the pond for scrap metal storage. Separate water quality treatment can be provided onsite or the outlet to the existing pond to the southeast could be modified to treat the runoff; however, the water quality capture volume would need to include all the area draining into the larger pond. The applicant's engineer needs to check the drainage reports for Van Works to verify where detention is being provided and the outfall for the system. Response: Acknowledged. 3. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 05/10/2011 05/10/2011: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 05/19/2011 05/19/2011: Some of the existing tree locations appear that they may not be accurate. The applicant can meet on site with the City Forester to determine species of existing trees. This information can be included in the tree mitigation notes. Trees species to be transplanted to the parkway strip along Buckingham should be suitable species for street trees. See the City of Fort Collins Street Tree list. Some appear to be evergreen trees that would not be suitable as street trees. A landscape note should include information that the method and timing of transplanting trees would follow industry standards and recommendations. A Patmore Green Ash is shown as one of the new street trees. Green Ash is not on the City street tree list. Select a species from the list such as Greenspire Linden or Skyline Honeylocust. Response: Tim and I met out on -site this week, and we have revised the existing trees sheet and landscape plan accordingly. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@kgov.com Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: Owner is responsible for additional square footage charges that were not previously paid by the Vanworks Sub 2nd Filing. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 2 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: Contact Light & Power with any change in power requirements. Owner will need to submit a C-1 form and a One -line diagram to Light & Power for any additional increase in power requirements. Electric Capacity Fees and Building Site charges will apply for any increase in power. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 3 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be at the owner's expense. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Carle Dann, 970-219-5337, CDANN@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 05/18/2011 05/182011: WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: - Commercial and multi -family dwellings 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter - Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter - Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. PLEASE NOTE: No existing hydrants are shown on the plans. The existing hydrant near the entrance to the site meets the distance requirements for the existing structure and the phase 2 proposed building. However, we need to meet to discuss and resolve water -supply issues for the phase 3 structure. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B Response: We are showing a new hydrant to serve the proposed building #2 in addition to the existing hydrant. Number: 2 Created: 05/18/2011 05/182011: REQUIRED ACCESS Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. 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: - Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. - Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. R - Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. - Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (26 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structure is three or more stories in height). If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet. with a Knox KNOX PADLOCKS: The two proposed gates, if locked, must be equipped Padlock. PFA sells these padlocks for cost in the Fire Prevention Bureau. ALSO, the proposed EAE is acceptable. Approved signage (NO PARKING - FIRE LANE) must be installed prior to CO. Appendix D 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Response: We are platting an emergency access easement loop through the site. Number: 3 Created: 05/18/2011 05/18/2011: FIRE SPRINKLERS No fire line is shown on the utility plan. Response: The existing fire line to the existing building has been added to the plans. Number: 4 Created: 05/18/2011 05/18/2011: ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). If the numerals are mounted on a side of the building other than the side off of which it is addressed, the street name is required to be posted along with the numerals. At such time buildings 2 and 3 are approved and constructed, we can discuss addressing of these buildings. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Response: Acknowledged. Number: 5 Created: 05/18/2011 05/18/2011: FDC CLEARANCE: The fire sprinkler connection must be clear of all vegetation (other than ground cover) and any other obstruction, within 36 inches. Please note this clearance for the planting areas. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 6 Created: 05/18/2011 05/18/2011: OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS: All existing and proposed structures shall meet requirements for type of occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering L Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Number: 6 Created: 06/19/2011 05/19/2011: Drainage Report: -Please change Major Basin Description paragraph to reflect that the project is within the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. -Please include site on the FEMA FIRMETTE and flood risk figure in the appendix. Response: Acknowledged. Plans: Please include note on plans indicating the project site is within the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. Response: Acknowledged, Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: The final signed off -site drainage easement is required before signing of mylars Response: Acknowldeged. Number: 2 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: Written approval is required from Larimer County for the outfall draining into the Lincoln Channel before signing of mylars. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 3 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: An analysis of the emergency spill is needed up to Lincoln Avenue. The City requires that the spill get to a right-of-way without inundating any structures. Response: The spill path to the existing west borrow ditch along Lemay Avenue has been added to the plans. Generally, the spill is towards the east and into the existing detention pond for the site. Number: 4 Created: 05/17/2011 05/17/2011: A drainage easement is required for the limits of the detention pond and outfall storm sewer. Response: Acknowledged. We are currently finalizing the easements, which will be dedicated via separate instrument. Number: 5 Created: 05/192011 051192011: Please provide a detail for the outfall into the Lincoln Channel, including erosion protection. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 7 Created: 05/192011 05/192011: Please add a note on the site plan that the detention pond can not be used for metal stockpiling. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 8 Created: 05/192011 05/192011: To meet the detention pond landscape standards, please add a few trees along the perimeter of the detention pond that lies next to the property boundary. Response: OK. See the revised landscape plan. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Number: 6 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Construction Drawings Number: 7 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: Please correct the north arrow on sheet C9. Response: The north arrow has been removed, since the sheet only shows sections views. Topic: Easements Number: 10 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: The Drainage Easement legal description does not dose. Response: Please see the revised legal description and diagram. Number: 11 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: The boundary of Lot 9-A on the Drainage Easement does not match the plats we have on file. Response: A boundary line adjustment was done in accordance with Section 1.4.7(B) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in coordination with Peter Barnes on 6/9/2008. 11 Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 5 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Number: 1 Created: 05/17/2011 05/172011: The boundary and legal close. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 2 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: The reception number for the 11' of Buckingham Street ROW will need to be added prior to mylars. Response: OK. Please see the revised plat. Number: 3 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: Please correct the typos in the 5' utility easement description, and in the adjoining subdivision plat names. Response: OK. Please see the revised plat. Number: 8 Created: 05/172011 051172011: Please "clean up" the area where the Emergency Access Easement & Drainage Easement cross. Response: OK. Please see the revised plat. Number: 9 Created: 05/17/2011 05/172011: Should "Fredrick Land Surveying" be in Survey Note #2? Response: The surveyor originally on the project, however they went out of business. Please see the revised plat. Topic: Site Plan Number: 4 Created: 06/172011 05/172011: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Traffic Operation 19 Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Number: 1 Created: 05/17/2011 05/172011: Provide a separate water service from the water main in Buckingham to Bldg 2. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 2 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: Show the sanitary sewer crossings in the storm profile. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 3 Created: 05/172011 05/172011: Add standard details for the water service and the meter pit. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 04292011 04292011: Building #3 has been relocated a considerable distance from where it was shown on the PDP. Is this still considered to be "consistent with the PDP" as required be Sec. 2.5.2(H) Response: I checked article 5 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the term "consistent' is not defined. Dictionary.com defines the term as follows: con•sist•ent adjective /ken sistent/ 1. (of a person, behavior, or process) Unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time - manufacturing processes require a consistent approach 2. Compatible or in agreement with something - the injuries are consistent with falling from a great height 3. (of an argument or set of ideas) Not containing any logical contradictions - a consistent explanation The proposed location of the proposed building moved, however both locations are in the rear yard of a large industrial complex. There is no change in character, or substantial change or effect, nor do there appear to be any logical contradictions as a result of the different location. I suggest that the new location is therefore consistent with the PDP approval. Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Number: 4 Created: 05/26/2011 05/26/2011: Sheet C10: Please cleanup the signing and striping plans so the curbs, and new lane lines stand out from the existing info. Please minimize the grey scale of the station line and markings. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 1 Created: 05/26/2011 05262011: Please move Relocated Tree # 11 further west. It is within the sight triangle of the east access drive. Response: OK. See revised landscape plan. Number: 2 Created: 05262011 051262011: Please verify that the Patmore Ash shown just west of the middle access drive is not within the sight triangle for the west access. Response: OK. See revised landscape plan. Number: 3 Created: 05262011 0526/2011: Please move the Hackberry shown just east of the west access out of the sight triangle area. Response: OK. See revised landscape plan. Topic: Offsite Work Number: 5 Created: 05262011 05/262011: Lemay is to be down -graded to a residential street someday. Since that plan is unfunded and development continues to be proposed in the area it causes the need for City transportation staff to debate the issue with each new development proposal. The debate is whether it is appropriate to require typical improvements at the Lemay/Buckinham intersection. Per Figure 8-1 of LCUASS a left turn lane is required on Lemay at Buckingham and since this development's traffic will impact that intersection it would have the responsibility to construct the north bound left turn lane. The Church proposed near the intersection had the responsibility placed on it when it was in the City development process. The Church has yet to be constructed and as such I feel I'm left with no alternative than to require the same responsibility from this project. This item will be discussed at our next Transportation Coordination meeting. Until the requirement is removed, LCUASS requires a north bound left turn lane at Lemay/Buckingham and would be this projects responsibility to provide. Response: It is our understanding that after further discussion, this comment has been removed by Ward Stanford. 1'4 Topic: Site Plan Number: 2 Created: 04/29/2011 04/292011: Label buildings as "proposed" and "existing". (They're labeled on the Penang plan, but not on the site plan). Label the width of the drive aisle. Response: OK. See revised site plan. 16; 4. The city wide development fee is $4,420/acre ($0.1015/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.ft. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. This fee is to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. The monthly fee information is available on the City's web site at fcgov.com. The section of the code that addresses the monthly fees is Sec. 26-514. Jean Pakech at 221-6375 will calculate the fees if you provide her with a proposed site plan. Response: Acknowledged. 5. This site is in the FEMA 500-year Cache La Poudre River floodplain. The only floodplain regulation that applies to this site is no life -safety or emergency response critical facilities are allowed in the 500-year floodplain. There are no floodplain regulations related to this use. Water Wastewater Contact Info: Roger Buffington, 221-6854, rbuffington(&-fcgov.com Existing mains: 12-inch water main in Buckingham, 24-inch sanitary sewer in N/S alignment in an easement on the west side of the site. Response: Acknowledged. 2. The domestic water service to the site is a 1-inch, and the fire line is a 6-inch. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Maintain/provide a 30 foot easement (15 feet each side) for the 24-inch sanitary sewer. Response: Acknowledged. 4. If any additional connections to sewer are needed, these connections must be made at a manhole. Response: Acknowledged. 5. If an increase in size or number of water service(s), development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Credit will be given for the existing service to the building. Response: Acknowledged. Light and Power Contact Info: Justin Fields, afieldsCa�fcgov.com filling in for Rob Irish, 224-6167, rirish(cDfcgov.com Existing service: There is existing 3-phase 208 service. Response: Acknowledged. 2. C-1: You will need to fill out a C-1 form with your project development plan. The form is attached. A Response: Acknowledged. 3. Fees: Regular development fees will not be assessed on 903 Bukingham, since they were paid previously by Vanworks. If service is extended to 827 or 813 Buckingham regular development fees will apply. Capacity charges or credits may apply, depending on the new power requirements. There will likely be some system modifications which will be your responsibility. This work may include upgrading the transformer to meet the new service requirements. Response: Acknowledged. 4. There are currently separate meters for different parts of the building. You may want to consolidate these into one meter if the space will be used by just one business. Response: Acknowledged. Environmental Planning Contact Info: Dana Leavitt, 224-6143, dleavitt(cD-fcgov.com Tree protection: Existing trees on the property may require protection during construction or mitigation if they must be removed. Please contact Tim Buchanan, City Forester at 224- 6361 or tuchanan@fcgov.com and me to arrange a site visit to review and evaluate the site. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Trash and recycling: Any trash enclosures proposed for the project (for office trash and recycling etc, not for metal recycling operations) shall comply with Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code. Please review The City of Fort Collins Design Considerations Guidance Document found that http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/enclosure-guidelines08O4.pdf to determine the size and appropriate design. Response: Acknowledged. 7 Response to Comments Colorado Iron & Metal PDP Date: 3/19/2009 ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle Topic: Fencing Number: 79 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09) The tall fencing is warranted for buffering. The 10' fence along the west side of the lot extending from the building front to the front of the lot needs to meet code requirements though. Section 3.8.11 C states that "fences or walls shall be no more than 4' high between the front building line and front property line." A modification of standard would be required for the 10' fencing, with justification meeting the criteria set forth in 2.8.2 or the fence needs to meet standards. Response: We are going to hearing on March 24th for this modification request as part of the minor amendment application. If approved, the 10 foot fence will be an existing condition at such time that the PDP is approved, and as such, we assume the minor amendment's modification will suffice. Topic: General Number: 74 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Please show Revision Dates on all Plans. Response: Revised as requested. Topic: Landscaping Number: 37 Created: 5/13/2009 [10/22/09] Has Tim Buchanan been involved in deciding which trees stay and go? Raised walk, see Section 3.2.2(E)5. Response: Raised walk has been provided. We didn't receive any comments from Tim Buchanan. Number: 80 Created: 10/22/2009 Page 1 [10/22/09] Please show % of trees. Response: The requested percentages are now shown. Topic: Site Plan Number: 36 Created: 5/13/2009 [10/22/09] All addressed but no more context has been shown. Response: We have added more off -site context. Number: 75 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Please be consistent with "trash" vs. "dumpster' enclosure. The label says one thing the detail says another. Response: We have revised the plans to consistently call this a "dumpster enclosure." Number: 76 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Take landscape info off the Site Plan, trees, turf, mulch... Leave paving details on though. Response: Revised as requested. Number: 77 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Please show easement on site and landscape plans. Response: Revised as requested. Number: 78 Created: 10/22/2009 [10/22/09] Are roll -off moved into building #2? If so how do they get in? Response: The roll -offs are not intended to ever go into building #2, they just are located next to it, and separated from the building by a landscaped area. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2009 [10112/09] [5/12/09] See plans for additional redline comments. Response: Redline comments have been addressed. See revised plans. Page 2