Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOCK 24 CHERRY STREET STATION - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2006-09-20COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: March 2, 2005 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #9-05 120 Cherry St., Cherry St. Station PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Anne Aspen no later than the staff review meeting: March 23, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference [ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site Drainage Report other. Utility Redline Utility _Landscape City of�� Should during the course of building design the drain system as proposed needs to be altered, a revision to the drawing will be needed. [7/8/05] The construction drawings will need to show how the perimeter drain system noted in the soils report will outlet (how it ties into the storm system). Number: 113 Created: 1 /30/2006 [1130/061 The perimeter drain system encroacning onto the proposed utility easement along Cherry Street is problematic in that we don't have an encroachment permit mechanism within an easement, only right-of-way. Hs wiili 41 12, a three dimnesional utility easement appears to be needed to call out the area below the stairwell and above the perimeter drain system as an easement and the utility providers need to provide input and acceptance on this. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 114 Created: 1/30/2006 [1 /30/061 The level of design provided on the plans for the utility connections south of the site across Cherry Street was discussed at length within Engineering. With this being the first review of "final" construction drawings, we will not support the information provided for the various utility connections as being adequate. Please refer to 25.1.6 of LCUASS requiring field locating and verifying elevations of all utilities on construction plans. Approximate location of utilities with field verification after plan approval will not be accepted. The boring "designs" shown need to specify profiles and clearances from other utilities. Please also note that the plans do not show a storm pipe crossing across Cherry Street that will cross the gas connection shown across Cherry Street. Number: 115 Created: 1 /30/2006 [1/30/061 The street cut on Cherry Street for the water main is not shown correctly per patching standards with the patching needing to be shown at right angles to the direction of travel. Please expand the patching area. Number: 116 Created: 1 /30/2006 [1/30/061 Add the following note: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the cuts are made. All repairs are to be in accordance with City standards." Number: 118 Created: 1/30/2006 [1/30/061 HDPE pipe is not allowed in right-of-way. Contech A-2000 is an acceptable material. Number: 119 Created: 1 /30/2006 [1/30/061 The underdrain pipe for the tree wells will require an encroachment permit for its location in the right-of-way. For where it ties into the outlet of the storage tank, is this area proposed as a utility easement? Number: 120 Created: 1 /30/2006 11/30/061 Indicate the amount of street patching proposed with the gas tie in within the street. Page 2 DEED OF DEDICATION FOR EASEMENTS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the undersigned, TOJO, LLC and North College Lofts, LLC, both known as Colorado Limited Liability Companies, ("the Grantors"), in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration, does hereby dedicate, transfer and convey to Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. , the mailing address of which is 1201 University Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521, for public use, forever, a permanent utility easement over, across and upon the real property legally described on Exhibit "A-1" and depicted upon Exhibit "A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The above described easement shall be used only for utility purposes. The Grantors reserve the right to use said easement for the construction, repair, maintenance and replacement of a stairwell, steps, stormwater underdrain, and stormwater outlet ("the Improvements"),as shown on Exhibit A-3. It is understood that the Grantors will be responsible for the repair of any damage to the Improvements caused by any public utility authorized to use the easement if not caused by negligence. The City of Fort Collins will be allowed access onto the site for general inspection purposes. GRANTORS: TOJO, LLC, a Colorado Li it Company By: `may i Manager, TOJO, LLC North College Lofts, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Compa By: Manager, o ollege Lofts, LLC STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before this day of M"eAu , 2Q06, by „tun as Manager of TOJO, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company an as Manager of North College Lofts, LLC„ a Limited Liability Company. Witness my hand and official seal. Carol P. Miller, Notary Public State of Colorado My Commission Expires 7/27/2008 My Commission expires: NotaryPublic tI O TA R y- Q i Conceptual Review Responses Cherry Street Station Zoning 1. We acknowledge that the proposed uses are subject to type 1 review. 2. We have referred to 3.2.2(K) of the LUC for parking standards. Engineering 1. We acknowledge that the Latimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees will apply to the project. 2. We have contacted Eric Bmcke. See the attached waiver of the TIS. 3. We acknowledge that the left turn from northbound College Avenue to Cherry Street will eventually be eliminated. 4. The right-of-way width is already 100 feet wide, therefore no additional street dedication will be necessary. 5. We propose to keep the utility easement width along the property frontage at 5 feet wide. 6. We acknowledge that utility plans, a development agreement, and a development construction permit will be required for this project. 7. We intend to avoid cutting into Cherry or College if possible. Our first preference is to bore under Cherry Street. 8. Weren't the improvements to Cherry/College all east of our site? We are discussing this repay with Matt Baker. 9. The ramp has been carefully designed to comply with requirements and safety concerns. 10. The ramp has been carefully designed to comply with requirements and safety concerns. 11. Ron Gonzales has been contacted. 12. We acknowledge that we will be responsible for sidewalk improvements on Cherry Street. 13. We have designed all public improvements in accordance with LCUASS. Light and Power 1. We don't need 3 phase power. We intend to bore under Cherry to tie into single phase on the south side of Cherry. 2. same as 1 above. 3. The transformer location has been coordinated with Light & Power. 4. The transformer type has been coordinated with Light & Power. Water/Wastewater 1. We intend to connect to the 30" sewer main north of the BNSF railroad ROW, and acknowledge that need to bore under the railroad. 2. We intend to connect to the 8" water main on the south side of Cherry Street. 3. We are in negotiations with BNSF to obtain the proper permission to bore under their ROW. 4. We acknowledge that Water/Wastewater does not recommend to put water, wastewater and electric in the same bore under the tracks. 5. We acknowledge that we will need separate service for residential and commercial unless deed restrictions are imposed. 6. We have coordinate the drainage of the indoor parking with Water/Wastewater. 7. We acknowledge that development fees and rights are due prior to building permit. Stormwater 1. We acknowledge that the site is in the Old Town drainage basin, and that the new stonnwater development fees will need to be paid at the time of building permit. 2. We have included a drainage and erosion control report and construction plans prepared by Interwest Consulting Engineers. 3. We have met with Basil Hamdan and Kevin McBride a couple of times and have come to an agreement on how to address the water quantity and water quality detention requirements. Our submittal reflects these agreed upon solutions. 4. We acknowledge that the inlets in Cherry Street at College and Mason can be used as an outfall. 5. Garage runoff will be put into the sanitary sewer. Transportation Planning 1. David Averill has been contacted, and our submittal includes his requested information. Current Planning 1. We acknowledge that our PDP must comply with Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC, and has been designed accordingly. 2. We have referred to the LUC on line as requested. 3. We have paid particular attention to landscaping, access, circulation, parking, building standards, and development standards. 4. We look forward to submitting these detailed plans. 5. We will make an appointment for submittal. Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning City of Fort Collins 2e OctoberX, 2004 Mikal Torgerson 223 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Mikal: For your information, attached is a copy of the Staff's comments for your proposal for a mixed -use mostly residential project on the north side of Cherry St. between College and Mason, which was presented before the Conceptual Review Team on October 18, 2004. I The comments are offered by staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. I will be coordinating the review process for this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, please feel free to call me at 970-221-6750. Sincerely, Anne H. Aspen City Planner Cc: project file Project Planner Cc via email: Gary Lopez Katie Moore David Averill Bruce Vogel Glen Schlueter Roger Buffington 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS of Fort Collins ITEM: mixed -use mostly residential project on the north side of Cherry St. between College and Mason MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: October 18, 2004 Mikal Torgerson M Torgerson Architects 223 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 LAND USE DATA: Request to develop a new 3 story 13,000sf mixed -use residential building with below grade parking. The property is within the City of Fort Collins and is currently zoned CCR — Community Commercial — Poudre River District. The following departmental agencies have offered comments for this proposal based on a conceptual plan which was presented to the review team. COMMENTS: Zoning Contact Info: Gary Lopez, 416-2338, glopez@fcgov.com Mixed -use dwelling units are a permitted use in the CCR District and would be subject to a Type I (Administrative) review. Please refer to 3.2.2 (K) for minimum parking standards for this project. Engineering Contact Info: Katie Moore, 221-6605, kamoore@fcgov.com 1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees for this site will apply. Street oversizing fees will be approximately $1120 per dwelling unit. Contact Matt Baker at (970) 224-6108 for an updated estimate of the fees for this kind of use. 2. A Traffic Impact Study will be required for this project to determine access points. The access point may be right -in -right -out only. Because of the RR crossings, there is not enough room for a left turn lane. Contact Eric Bracke at (970) 224-6062 for a scoping meeting. 3. The left turn from northbound College Ave. to Cherry St. will eventually be eliminated. 4. Right -of way may need to be dedicated along Cherry, which is a collector with parking. The ROW is 76', half of which you will be responsible for dedicating from the centerline of Cherry. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2Q N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5. Since your proposed building placement won't allow for the standard utility easement, you'll need to get approval from all the utilities for your plan. Additionally, a utility coordination meeting is recommended. 6. Utility plans, a Development Agreement, a Development Construction Permit and plat will need to be prepared for this project. 7. Any utility connections across College or Cherry through open trenching will incur triple street out fees because of the recent street improvements. Talk to Lance Newlin about street cut fees and whether that is a better option than jack and bore in this situation. Lance can be reached at 416-2011 or Inewlin@fcgov.com. 8. A repay may be due for Cherry St. road improvements. Contact Matt Baker to discuss, at 224-6108. 9. Because of the proposed driveway to underground parking, this project is reminiscent of the Cortina project. A major difference is that Cortina sits on a local street with very low volumes, and this project is effectively on an arterial. A very close look will need to be taken at the design of the ramp to the underground parking. This ram p should be located fully outside of the ROW for Cherry Street, and significant attention should be paid to sight distance issues: will drivers coming up the ramp be able to stop in time to avoid hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk? Will visibility be adequate to ensure the safety of the motorists entering and exiting the structure? Will cars be able to stop and wait to exit without blocking the sidewalk for significant periods of time? 10. The driveway into and out of your underground parking lot needs to be straight for 25' to ensure vehicle and pedestrian safety. The ramp must be floodproof. 11. Contact Ron Gonzales at the Poudre Fire Authority at 416-2864 for their requirements before submitting your PDP. 12. The developer is responsible for sidewalk improvements on Cherry St. 13. All public improvements need to be made in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Light and Power Contact Info: Bruce Vogel, 224-6157, bvogel@fcgov.com 1. This is a tough spot for development because it is isolated from utilities. There is existing 3 phase available to the northeast but it is across the RR tracks. You can bore under the tracks with a RR permit, but you will likely need an 8" or bigger bore because of the river rocks and poor soil. 2. If you don't need 3 phase, there is existing single phase across Cherry to the south, for which you'd need to pothole all the other utilities and bore under Cherry, which is likely to be costly. 3. The transformer location will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. 4. If you will need 50kva or under, we can locate the transformer in a vault. If over 50kva, it'll need to be pad mounted. Water / Wastewater Contact Info: Roger Buffington, 221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com 1. There is an existing 30" sewer main located on the north side of the Burlington Northern Railroad line. A 6-inch sanitary sewer is located in Cherry Street to the east of the Union Pacific Railroad. 3 2. There is an existing 8" water main on the south side of Cherry. There is a 24" main on the north side of the site maintained by Weld Co. 3. Whichever sewer main you tap into, you will need a permit to bore under the RR tracks. 4. It is not recommended to put water, wastewater and electric in the same bore under the tracks even if large. 5. You will need separate service for residential and commercial tenants. You might be able to eliminate this requirement if you add a deed restriction to prevent restaurants and laundries from being commercial tenants. 6. You will need to work with the City on issues around discharge points for the drains in the indoor parking. Factors that will influence whether it is treated as wastewater or stormwater will depend on the elevation and layout of the parking, the overall grading, etc. 7. Water conservation standards apply to this project. 8. Development fees and rights are due prior to receiving Building Permit. Stormwater Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com 1. This site is in the Old Town drainage basin where the new development fee is $4,150.00/acre which is subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. This fee is to be paid at the time the building permit is issued and is charged only when there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 350 square feet. 2. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. 3. Onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity, and extended detention is required for water quality treatment. Parking lot detention is allowed as long as it is not deeper than one foot. If there is 5000 square feet or less of new imperviousness, water quantity detention is not required nor is water quality extended detention. The applicant thought that Basil had said water quantity detention would not be required but that was before he knew the site does not drain north directly into the Poudre River. Since the railroad tracks prohibit drainage toward the river, the site actually drains into Cherry St., so onsite detention is required. Also, roof top detention and a green roof were discussed as options. Water quality treatment is required for normal roof drainage as well as driveways and other impervious areas. 4. There are inlets in Cherry Street at the corners of College and Mason. Either one can be used as an outfall. 5. Containment of garage runoff from cleaning operations needs to be considered since that type of water is not allowed to be discharged into the storm sewer. Transportation Planning Contact Info: Dave Averill 416-2643, daverill@fcgov.com 1. Please contact David directly for his comments on the transportation aspects of your proposal. 0 Current Planning Contact Info: Anne Aspen 221-6206, aaspen@fcgov.com 1. This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards, and Division 4.16 Community Commercial — Poudre River District. 2. 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 3. When developing your plans, pay particular attention to the following sections of the Code: • 3.21 Landscaping • 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking • 3.5.1 Building Standards • 3.5.3 Mixed -use Institutional and Commercial Buildings • 4.16 (D) Development Standards for the CCR District. 4. 1 will have more comments once I have more detailed plans to review. 5. You will need to set up an appointment to submit your PDP application with Ginger Dodge at 221-6750. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Please let me know if you have any questions about the requirements for your submittal. 5 N L m w PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: March 2, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #9-05 120 Cherry St., Cherry St. Station PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Anne Aspen no later than the staff review meeting: March 23, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 61, Name (jlehse print)' CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of FoH Collins Project Comments Sheet 16 9 a aq_ Selected Departnenis City of Fort Collins Department: Stormwater Utility Date: March 24, 2005 Project: 120 CHERRY ST- CHERRY ST. STATION PDP, TYPE II All comments must be received by Anne Aspen in Current Plainning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 23, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Drainage Number: 55 Created: 3/2212005 [3/22/05] Please provide a calculation and a narrative showing that thedeveloped undetained flows from the site going to the north do not exceed histodcmnofif. Topic: infiltration Boxes Number: 57 Created: 3/2212005 [3/22/05] Please specify to what depth will the gravel be carried in the infitrartion boxes, cut- off wall should extend at least 3 feet below the tree grade planting level in o rder to make sure that infiltration will not affect road base. Please show that the undedyin g soil is pervious enough to percolate in order to make sure that these boxes will not cause any damage to the roadway by directing flows toward the street subgrade. Topic: Ramp Elevation Number: 63 Created: 3/20005 [3124/05] The ramp only has a 0.2 feet rise from the flowline elevation before starting to go down to the garage level. Please make sure that the ramp has a more pronounced rise before starting to go down to the garage elevation in order to make surelhat no street flows would enter the garage. A minimum 6" rise is required or more depending o r1 depth of flow in the gutter. Topic: Tank Design Number: 56 Created: 3/2212005 [3/22/051 It seems that with the currentdesign the tank will be partiallylilled constantly, please provide a drain that is can be connected to the outlet in orderlomake sure that the tank is empty on a regular basis. ECK HERtl YOU WISH TO REC PIES OFRE! 3 L24 -ate Date VISIONS LI/� � p Site r Report Other —T/i]ti►ity edline Utility andscape Page 1 please provide a design that would minimize the potential for clogging of the outlet structure, since the orifice is so small. Page 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS CURRENT PLANNING 281 NORTH COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 06/22/2005 ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: Genera! Created: 3/18l2005 Number: 27 (3/18/05] There are interesting ideas in your parking scheme. The platform lifts are a great solution to some of your parking Constraints. But taken together, all of the minimally standard and substandard aspects you propose in your parking lot do not meet the intent of the Land Use Code as spelled out in Section 3.2.2(A). The lot is not safe, efficient or convenient for the users. + About half of the stalls are dimensioned with the smallest measurements allowable as defined in long-term parking which is allowable for residential parking. Thirteen spaces are lift style, twelve spaces are triple tandem style, and four spaces are double tandem style. The parking requirement for the proposed 18 units, 16 of which are 2 bedroom and two of which are 1 bedroom is 31 spaces. + With 31 spaces total, 2 handicap spaces are required by 3.2.2 (K)(5)(d). Only one handicap accessible space is shown. + There is no provision for any guest parking. This is not a specific requirement of the Code. + As Zoning surmises elsewhere in this comment letter, with the high number of cars in tandem and the limited maneuvering space, and the likelihood that most residents will come and go according to a regular work schedule, there is not sufficient room for safe, convenient and efficient access to parking in this configuration with this many units. Also, since all of the units are declared to be 1 or 2 bedroom, the triple tandem spots are problematic in that no one neighbor would control all three spots, so one neighbor would have to call another neighbor (or two) to jockey cars in the morning. The applicant has stated that the triple spaces would not be split up among neighbors. If this is the case, these extra spaces should not be counted, even if the modification were approved, towards the required number of spaces. + There is a lack of sufficient backing space for spaces 5-18. It is likely in this scheme that the spaces would be full since so few are provided and that backing for the 13 spaces numbered 5-18 would occur in the handicap loading area which also serves as the only pedestrian access from the parking to the units, which is clearly not safe, efficient or convenient. + Though the plans are unclear as to exactly how many units are to be provided and whether there will be commercial space, there are no commercial or retail parking spaces offered or space for employees. Several of the intended commercial uses listed on the cover page would functionally need a drop-off or loading zone which is not provided on site. Because the proposed parking scheme as described in the submittal impairs the intent of the Land Use Code in that it is not safe, efficient or convenient, Staff will not support the modification. Response: In the previous round of review, we had requested a modification to the parking standards. We are no longer requesting this modification and have redesigned the parking configuration to satisfy the quantities required in the code for 15 two -bedroom units. We propose 28 parking spaces, only 27 are required. We have revised the parking layout to now provide for space for backing manuvers. Page 1 We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 28 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18105] There are no bike facilities shown on the site plan. The developer is required by LUC 3.2.2.C(4) to provide for bike facilities for at least 5% of the number of parking spaces. Additional requirements are laid out in the following three sections. Response: We have provided, a bike rack as part of this submittal as requested. Number: 29 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] No photometrics were submitted with this project. A lighting plan with photometrics will be required in accordance with LUC 3.2.4(B) and C. Design standards follow in Section (D). Response: We have provided a photometric lighting plan as part of this submittal as requested. Number. 34 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] There is not sufficient information to determine safety of pedestrians where the streetscape intersects with the drive ramp into the parking garage. Please add information on where the ramp starts to the site plan and indicate clearly what happens on the edges of the ramp. Is it a curb? Is it a low wall? The issue of pedestrian safety is addressed in Sections 3.2.2.C.(2), 3.2.2.C.(5)(b), 3.2.2(D)(1) and 3.2.2.(E)(5). Response: Additional information to determine safety of pedestrians where the drive ramp crosses the sidewalk has been provided as requested. Number. 36 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] Please refer to redlines for additional comments. Please return redlines when you resubmit. [3/25/05] Please provide floor plans with your resubmittal to verify compliance with the standards pertaining to mezzanines. Troy was going to get me a copy of the correspondence that outlined those issues but I have not received anything yet. Response: We have referred to the redlines. We have provided floor plans to clarify the issues pertaining to mezzanines with this submittal. Topic: Zoning Number: 17 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/16/051 The following reviewers indicate that they have no problems or concerns with this project: Park Planning, Streets and Water Conservation. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 18 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/16105] Building inspection forwarded me comments which I will include in your redline packet. Response: Acknowledged. Number. 19 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/161051 Xcel Energy comments that: + PSCO has an existing 1 1/4" PE gas main that lays approximately 11' east of the west property line off College Ave. between Cherry and Maple St. new sidewalk and streets. Page 2 +PSCO will need a city of Fort Collins permit to open up College and tap main and pothole Cherry St. to enable PSCO to directional bore across Cherry St. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering issue Contact: Marc Virata topic: Building Elevations Created: 3/18/2005 Number: 37 [3/18/061 Sheet 6 of 8 showing the east elevation does not indicate the proposed stairwell entrance on the south side of the building. Response: We have revised the elevation to show this stairwell entrance. topic: General Created:3/17/2005 Number: 20 (3117/051 The site plan (Sheet 2 of 8) and construction plan set do not coordinate with regards to the pedestrian space in front of the building along Cherry Street. The site plan shows hatching that implies east of the new driveway, existing sidewalk is to be removed and replaced with a larger decorative sidewalk hatching up to the building. The construction plan set shows the existing concrete sidewalk remaining with a decorative type of brick walk behind the existing sidewalk. Please clarify the intent of the new and proposed pedestrian area and if new additional sidewalk is proposed within right-of-way that is not standard concrete, who will be maintaining this (DDA?) Response: We have revised the site plan and the construction plan set to be coordinated on this issue. The sidewalk will be standard concrete that well be saw -cut between the building and the existing sidewalk. The existing sidewalk is to remain as -is. Number: 21 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/171051 The portion of the stairwell component along Cherry that extends into right-of-way is of issue. These permanent structures are not allowed in public right-of-way and should be shifted to the north to place everything (including footers for the retaining wall) outside of right-of-way. Response: We have revised the stairwell to be entirely outside the Cherry Street right-of-way. Number: 22 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/05] The infiltration planter boxes being located in right-of-way are problematic. The City Engineer is willing to allow this but there are some general concerns. The 1-foot drop in height from the surrounding grade to the planting area (as specified on the detail sheet 7 of 7 for the construction plan set) is a safety concern being located within a pedestrian plaza and adjacent to the existing walk. Tree grates should be provided to eliminate the issue of the grade change. If the "proposed plantings" shown in the detail is Intended in addition to the street tree, I'm not sure if plantings can be selected that would grow through the tree grates? In lieu of tree grates, we may consider design alternatives of a barrier curb with notches to allow drainage to pass through, but the use of tree grates to prevent the 1 foot drop is preferred. Also, please ensure that the depth of the cut-off wall(s) for the planter boxes is at minimum three feet deep to reduce potential issues of the drainage affecting the pavement subsurface. Response: We have decided not to proceed with the infiltration component of the planter boxes. The tree wells will be standard tree wells. Tree grates are now proposed for our tree wells. Number: 38 Created: 3/1812005 [3/18/05] A utility coordination meeting might be beneficial to discuss utility servicing on site as well as getting utilities to the site considering railroad lines surround the property on two sides. Page 3 Response: We met with Basil Hamdan and Kevin McBride on December 14, 2004, at 700 Wood Street, to discuss detention and water quality issues. Then, at 9:30 a.m. on January 27, 2005, at 700 Wood Street, we (Interwest and MTA) met with Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy, Len (not sure last name) from Qwest, Monica Moore from Light and Power, to discuss dry utility coordination. We then met with Stormwater staff on 10:30 a.m., at 700 Wood Street, to discuss stormwater issues. Number: 39 Created: 3/1812005 [3/18/05] The plans (site plan, construction plan, landscape plan, and drainage exhibit in the drainage report) do not indicate what is to occur in the right-of-way west of the proposed driveway entrance to the parking garage. Is this to be left in the current condition? Why not provide turf and street trees? Response: We propose to utilize the existing sidewalk west of our driveway. We propose to put dryland grasses between the sidewalk and our loading zone. We propose shrubs along the south edge of the loading zone. Number: 40 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] Given that there is no parking allowed along Cherry Street, I question how a modification to reduce the number of residential parking spaces can be supported. The Policy Statement CCD-1.19, cited in the modification request notes that in reducing parking standards, "on -street parking should be maximized", which can't be provided here given the configuration of Cherry Street. In my view, this citation weakens the argument to support the modification as no on -street parking exists for quite a distance from the property. Given the limited parking for the residents and guests (even if the modification were denied), the follow note should be added to the site plan and plat: Parking Note: Initial buyers of the development will be notified that they are buying into a configuration with limited (or no) guest and overflow parking, that households with more than two cars will have very limited on - site parking, and that the City accepts no responsibility to solve the parking problem at any point in the future. Response: We have withdrawn our parking modification request. We have added the Parking Note to the site plan notes. The property was already platted with the original town plat. We are not proposing to replat, therefore there's not a new plat on which to put this note. Number: 41 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] While the LUC has a maximum parking requirement for commercial, it seems appropriate to question where drop off and pick-up of patrons and/or employees, as well as load and unload items for delivery. 100% in total transit, bike, & pedestrian with 0% vehicular appears unrealistic. As an example, will the child and dog care uses specified for this building expect to see patrons drop off their child and/or dog via bike, transit, or walking and not by way of vehicle? How will postal delivery service function? Where will a pizza delivery vehicle/UPS park? It seems appropriate to look into providing additional inset widening for drop-off, another possibility is to provide satellite parking (Taco John's parking lot?) If the manner in which drop offs and deliveries are handled is by stopping on Cherry Street, this is of concern considering it blocks a through lane of traffic. If the driveway/ramp down to the parking garage becomes the default, having vehicles back-up onto Cherry Street against the flow of traffic is also problematic. Response: We have backed off most non-residential uses, however we have one that remains. A fiber optic trunk line runs along our side of Cherry, so we have specified that the only non-residential use is an internet service provider. We have talked to an end user who is very interested. They will only have one employee at the site for an hour or two a couple times a week. There offices will be elsewhere. They will really just have computer and internet equipment at the site, and a desk to maintain the equipment. We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata, and Anne Aspen on April 26, 2005 at Page 4 2:30 p.m., in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave., and worked out that we can provide a loading zone off the west side of our drive aisle with this scenario. Number: 42 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] While a soils report was not submitted and not required through Engineering, it seems odd that one isn't being done at this time given the high groundwater in the area (the Block 33 soils report indicated finding groundwater in various locations at depths as high as 6.5 feet below the existing surface) and the use of a below grade parking structure and infiltration planter boxes in the right-of- way. Also, with the site being next to two railroad lines, wouldn't there be a benefit in conducting a soils investigation now if there may be some underground contamination? The construction of the parking garage and any potential associated dewatering will need to designed in such a way that groundwater is not discharged onto public right-of-way. Any attempts to dewater the site should be verified that the groundwater is not contaminated or that another party has groundwater rights. Response: We have provided a soils report with this submittal. Number: 58 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 Please remove any indication of a street number for the project on the drawings. The project will be assigned a Cherry Street address upon completion of the final plan. All drawings should only be titled "Cherry Street Station". Response: We have revised the drawings to accommodate this comment. Number. 59 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23105] Referring back to #41, with the lack of parking being provided for the commercial uses (which meets code), Transportation Services would like to receive written confirmation from the Developer that the proposed design lacking commercial parking is the Developer's decision and that the Developer acknowledges that the City shall be under no obligation to provide parking for the development at any point in the future. Response: We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2005 [3123/05] Per the City's Traffic Engineer, the entrance design shall include construction of a porkchop/channelization median to direct access as right-in/right-out to the extent possible. Response: We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata and Anne Aspen at 2:30 p.m. on April 26, 2005, in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave. At this meeting we discussed that we will be required to design the pork chop, not build it with the project, but escrow the money to build it, in the event it becomes warranted. The submittal reflects this solution. Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/051 Please ensure the site and construction plans show properties and access points across Cherry Street. The driveway for Taco John's is not evident on the construction plans. Response: The access drive to Taco John's has been added to the plans. Number: 65 Created: 3/25/2005 [3125/05) Representatives of Transportation Services discussed the Cherry Street design and it was fully agreed (including Traffic Engineering) to allow inset parallel parking (not diagonal parking) along Page 5 Cherry Street. The inset parking area will need to be used EXCLUSIVELY for pick-up/dropOff & loading/unloading operations and will need to be designated as such (no designated parking spaces will be allowed, even short term). Furthermore, Transportation Services is generally concerned if the project were to proceed without providing the inset parking as vehicles would otherwise be utilizing the bikelane and travel lane for parking/drop-off/pick-up maneuvers. The start of the transition on the e east side to provide the inset parking shall occur in front of the property, not in front of the railroad property. This inset parking does not need to "bump -out" prior to the driveway leading to the parking garage; the inset area can continue into the driveway per the City's Traffic Engineer. Response: We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata, and Anne Aspen on April 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave, and worked out that we can provide a loading zone off the west side of our drive aisle with this scenario. Number: 66 Created: 3/26/2005 [3126/051 The comment was raised at staff review from Advance Planning suggesting moving the location of the street trees adjacent to the street. Should this design be utilized instead of the present proposal of putting the trees behind the existing attached sidewalk, Engineering may have additional concern and comments with regards to #22 as this change will result in the infiltration planter boxes being directly adjacent to the flowiine of the street which raises pavement maintenance and degradation concerns that are minimized in the present design with the sidewalk separation. This comment applies whether street trees ate adjacent to inset parking or bikelanes. Response: We intend to keep the tree wells in the location behind the existing sidewalk. We plan to have standard tree wells rather than the infiltration concept within them. Department: Light & Power issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General Number: 15 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] The drawings show this addressed as 100 Cherry St., but the project comment sheet identifies it as 120 Cherry St. Response: We have taken off all reference to an address. Topic: Utilities Number: 10 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7105] If the developer chooses to jack/bore conduits across Cherry St., the bores will need to be one 4" and one 2" conduit, a minimum of 36" deep, and be inspected by Light & Power at the time of installation. Normally these facilities would be installed by the Utility at the developer's expense. It is acceptable for phone and/or CATV to be in the same trench/bore with electric. Response: Acknowledged. Number. 11 Created: 3/7/2005 [31`7/05] Light & Power will need electrical load information. This includes a Commercial Electric Service Information (C-1) form for each commercial service, including one for any fire pump if required, and the electric service size for each residential unit, typically 150 amps or less, or 200 amps. Residential units must be individually metered. Response: Acknowledged. We will have our mechanical engineer contact Light and Power to determine electrical load information. Number: 12 Created: 30/2005 [3/7/05] The parking garage drawing shows an elevator. Although the response from Conceptual Review comments states that 3-phase power will not be required, virtually all elevators do require 3 phase power. Also, the parking platform lifts may require 3-phase power. Additional costs to the developer will be incurred to bring 3-phase from appx. 300 ft. south of Cherry St. Page 6 Response: Yes, you are right, we will need 3 phase power. We plan to connect to 3 phase power in the existing alley approximately 300' south of Cherry Street. Number: 13 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] If a fire pump is required, close coordination with Light & Power Engineering is encouraged while the building is still in the design stage. There are issues that can substantially affect the monthly power cost to test and operate a fire pump. Response: We spoke to Doug Martine about this issue, and plan to coordinate with our sprinkler system designer about this. Thank you for the heads -up. Number. 14 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] A streetlight plan has been sent to Anne Aspen via inter -office mail for forwarding to the applicant. Street tree locations may need to be modified to provide required clearance between trees and streetlights. Response: We have shown the new planned streetlight in the location shown on the "street light plan." We have provided required separations from it to our proposed trees. Canopy trees are at least 40' away, and ornamental trees are at least 15 feet away. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: fire Number: 64 Created: 3/25/2005 The Poudre Fire Authority has reviewed this submittal from various aspects of safety. The PFA CANNOT support this proposed edifice for the following reasons: 1. this triangular shaped bldg has railroad tracks on two of its facades. As such, there is no access available for aerial operations to be conducted within a safe distance margin. 2. the restricted height of this edifice allows for sprinklers and standpipes, but does notallowfor the requirements of all the necessary fire engineered systems of a high-rise bldg. This presents additional burdens on firefighters. 3. there is not sufficient working space on Cherry St for the full complement of response vehicles to properly and adequately stage to conduct a safe operation. Response: We have coordinated these comments with Ron Gonzales and it is our understanding that PFA does now support the proposed PDP for the following reasons: Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires "that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building be located less than 150' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility', or else fire apparatus access roads need to be provided around the building. Since an engine parked on Cherry Street can easily drag a 150' hose around the northwest side and 134' hose around the east side of the building and meet one another, the entire first story of the building is clearly located within 150' of fire apparatus access, and as such, no access roads are required to be provided around the building. In addition, this project also complies with Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5 B which states: "Buildings three or more stories in height must have access to a 30' unobstructed access roadway on at least one (1) side (blank walls excluded) for aerial operations." As mentioned above, we are providing access to the entire south facing side of our building, and therefore comply with this policy as well. In addition, we have withdrawn our modification of height limits request, and redesigned our building to qualify as a 3-story building, which is now proposed to be approximately 69 feet in height. Page 7 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Created:3/23/2006 Number. 62 [3/231051 Need photometric plan to evaluate lighting and landscaping. Response: We have provided a photometric plan with this submittal. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamden Topic: Drainage Created: 3/22/2005 Number: 55 [3/22/05) Please provide a calculation and a narrative showing that the developed undetained flows from the site going to the north do not exceed historic runoff. Response: A historic calculation and narrative has been provided in the drainage report Topic: Infiltration Boxes Number: 57 Created: 3l22/2005 (3/221051 Please specify to what depth will the gravel be carried in the infiltration boxes, cut-off wall should extend at least 3 feet below the tree grade planting level in order to make sure that infiltration will not affect road base. Please show that the underlying soil is pervious enough to percolate in order to make sure that these boxes will not cause any damage to the roadway by directing flows toward the street sub -grade. Response: We are no longer proposing infiltration boxes as part of our tree wells. Topic: Ramp Elevation Number: 63 Created: 3/2412005 (3/24/05] The ramp only has a 0.2 feet rise from the flowline elevation before starting to go down to the garage level. Please make sure that the ramp has a more pronounced rise before starting to go dbwn to the garage elevation in order to make sure that no street flows would enter the garage. A minimum 6" rise is required or more depending on depth of flow in the gutter. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment. Topic: Tank Design Number: 56 Created: 3/22/2005 13/22/051 It seems that with the current design the tank will be partially filled constantly, please provide a drain that is can be connected to the outlet in order to make sure that the tank is empty on a regular basis. Please provide a design that would minimize the potential for clogging of the outlet structure, since the orifice is so small. Response: We have provided a 12" low flow drain pipe at the bottom of the proposed tank. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracks Topic: traffic Number: 9 Created: 3l3/2005 (313/05] Access to the site is going to be difficult. The developer should assume that a right-in/right- out access will be allowed on Cherry Street - not full movement. Response: We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata and Anne Aspen at 2:30 p.m. on April 26, 2005, in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave. At this meeting we discussed that we will be required to design the pork chop (to facilitate right-in/right-out movement), not build it with the project, but escrow the money to build it, in the event it becomes warranted. The submittal reflects this solution. Page 8 iaProject Comments Sheet CityofFortCollins Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: March 28, 2005 Project: 120 CHERRY ST- CHERRY ST. STATION PDP, TYPE II Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Building Elevations Number. 37 Created: 3/1812005 [3118105] Sheet 6 of 8 showing the east elevation does not indicate the proposed stairwell entrance on the south side of the building. Topic: Genenl Number. 20 Created: 3/17/2005 13117/05] The site plan (Sheet 2 of 8) and construction plan set do not coordinate with regards to the pedestrian space in front of the building along Cherry Street. The site plan shows hatching that implies east of the new driveway, existing sidewalk is to be removed and replaced with a larger decorative sidewalk hatching up to the building. The construction plan set shows the existing concrete sidewalk remaining with a decorative type of brick walk behind the existing sidewalk. Please clarify the intent of the new and proposed pedestrian area and If new additional sidewalk is proposed within right-of-way that is not standard concrete, who will be maintaining this (DDA?) Number. 21 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/05] The portion of the stairwell component along Cherry that extends into right-of-way is of issue. These permanent structures are not allowed in public right-of-way and should be shifted to the north to place everything (including footers for the retaining wall) outside of right-of-way. Number: 22 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/05] The infiltration planter boxes being located in right-of-way are problematic. The City Engineer is willing to allow this but there are some general concerns. The 1 foot drop in height from the surrounding grade to the planting area (as specified on the detail sheet 7 of 7 for the construction plan set) is a safety concern being located within a pedestrian plaza and adjacent to the existing walk. Tree grates should be provided to eliminate the issue of the grade change. If the "proposed plantings" shown in the detail is intended in addition to the street tree, I'm not sure If plantings can be selected that would grow through the tree grates? In lieu of tree grates, we may consider design alternatives of a barrier curb with notches to allow drainage to pass through, but the use of tree grates to prevent the 1 foot drop is preferred. Also, please ensure that the depth of the cut-off wall(s) for the planter boxes is at minimum three feet deep to reduce potential issues of the drainage affecting the pavement subsurface. Number. 38 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] A utility coordination meeting might be beneficial to discuss utility servicing on site as well as getting util ' to tho4te considering railroad lines surround the property on twp side Signore CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other o•-az k Utility Redline Utility 1 Landscape Page 1 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averiil Topic: General Number: 51 Created: 3/22I2005 [3122/05] There appears to be no provision for the required amount of bicycle parking provided with this submittal. Please refer to LUC section 3.2.2 C 4 (a,b,&c) for specifics regarding the number of spaces required, as well as general guidelines to assist you in siting bicycle parking on this site. Response: We now have a bike rack proposed near the front entrance of the building. Number: 52 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 Please provide more detail on how the applicant proposes to provide crossing priority for pedestrians at the entrance to the underground parking structure. This appears to be a potential point of conflict between peds using the sidewalk and vehicles that are exiting/entering the garage and will need some attention. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment. Number: 53 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22105] In reference to Engineering Staffs comment above (#22) Please keep transportation planning abreast of any changes to the planter box design in the public ROW. Thanks. Response: We are no longer proposing infiltration boxes as part of our tree wells. The tree wells will now have standard tree grates. Number: 54 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 In general, I have concerns regarding the proposed parking amounts as well as the configuration of said parking with this submittal. I look forward to the applicants response(s) to comments 27, 40, and 41 from other departments. Response: We have withdrawn our parking modification and rearranged our parking configuration. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: General Number: 50 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/051 What uses will be allowed in the commercial space? Separate water/sewer services normally required for the commercial and residential uses. Response: We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. If we have any water or wastewater needs, it would be a small bathroom with a sink and a toilet. Topic: Utilities Number: 43 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Change the water main across Cherry to an S-inch through the fire hydrant swivel tee and fire line valve. Response. The drawings have been revised per this comment. Number: 44 Created: 3/20/2005 [3120/05] Reconfigure the fire hydrant/fire line arrangement as shown on the redlines. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment. Number: 45 Created: 3/20/2005 Page 9 [3/20/05] Field locate the 6-inch water main in Cherry and revise plans to reflect the actual location and alignment. This may affect the tie-in of the proposed water main. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment. Number: 46 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Add note to core drill existing manhole for sewer service connection. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment. Number: 47 Created: 3/20/2005 [3120/05] Provide copy of the railroad permit for the sewer service crossing. Railroad may need a detail of the crossing showing casing etc. Response: We have applied for the permit. The Railroad has required that we obtain liability insurance for conducting this operation. We are in the process of obtaining the insurance policy. We would be happy to provide a copy of the permit as soon as it has been issued to us. Number. 48 Created: 3/20/2005 [3120/05] Runoff from driveway ramp may NOT discharge to the sanitary sewer. Response: Acknowledged. Number. 49 Created: 3/20/2005 (3/20/05] Provide water demand/Water service sizing calculations. Response: We have coordinated with our mechanical engineer, and his conclusion is that we need a 2" water service. Department: Zoning Topic: Zoning Number: 16 [3/16/05] The property does need to be platted and bounds. Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Created: 3/16/2005 The original legal description is just that of a metes Response: Actually, the property was platted as part of the original town plat Subsequently, two railroad tracks were constructed on the block. The property is a metes and bounds description because of the railroads having come through the block, however, it has been platted. It's our understanding, properties that have technically already been platted can't be required to plat. The development review application fees are $2000 higher if we plat, so we aren't intending to replat. We have included a diagram that looks like a plat in our utility plan set. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 1 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Applicant should provide letter from trash hauler, wherein the trash hauler agrees that a truck can "back down the basement access ramp" as stated in General Note #8. Response: Please see the attached letter from Waste Management verifying that they can serve our dumpster in its current configuration. Number. 2 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Since there is very little room in the basement parking lot to "shuffle" cars around to get to the buried tandem spaces, I question the usefulness of having them, especially the tandem spaces that are 3 deep. I would recommend that the parking modification not be approved. For instance, If someone wants to leave or access space #7 at the same time that someone is trying to leave from Page 10 space #T-2, they may have a considerable wait to get to or from space V. They may need to reduce the number of dwelling units. Response: In the previous round of review, we had requested a modification to the parking standards. We are no longer requesting this modification and have redesigned the parking configuration to satisfy the quantities required in the code for 15 two -bedroom units. We propose 28 parking spaces, only 27 are required. We have revised the parking layout to now provide for space for backing maneuvers. Number: 3 Created: 3/3/2005 [313/05] Label the street on the plans. Is parking allowed on Cherry in this block? If not, where are customers and employees going to park? Even though we don't require parking for commercial uses, we should be concerned if there is not adequate street parking. Response: Parking is not allowed on Cherry Street? We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an Internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 4 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Show building footprint dimensions on site plan. Response: See the revised site plan Number: 5 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Where are the 6 bike parking spaces referenced in the parking notes? Response: See the revised site plan, the bike parking is now located at the southwest corner of the building. Number. 6 deleted Created: 3/3/2005 Number: 7 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Dimension property lines on site plan. Response: See the revised site plan. Number: 8 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3105) General note #9 discusses the building height criteria found in 3.5.1(G)(1)(a). Have they also submitted the shadow and visual analysis required by 3.5.1(G)(1 Xb)? Response: We have included submittal documents for a special height review in this submittal. Page I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 120 CHERRY ST — CHERRY ST. STATION PDP Date: 12/28/2005 ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss Topic: General Number: 70 Created: 7/5/2005 [7/5/05] The revised parking area design does not adequately address staffs previous concerns about safety and convience for users. In particular, parking spaces 7-10 and 13-22 cannot accommodate safe backing and turning manuevers required for standard -sized vehicles (dimensions as noted by the applicant on submitted plans). Staff acknowledges inclusion of a "backing turn around area" on the parking plan in an attempt to address this issue, but the safety and convenience concerns remain. Response: The applicant staged a demonstration at the Civic Center Parking Structure during the week of July 18, 2005, which was attended by Peter Barnes, David Averill, Cameron Gloss and Mark Virata and during which, the applicant successfully displayed the parking design is both safe, convenient, and efficient for users. Verbal conversations with Anne Aspen indicated that if all of the above staff members agreed that the layout satisfies the Land Use Code, then she will concur with her co-workers on this issue. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: General Number. 27 Created: 3/18/2005 [7/51051 The revised plan addresses the safety of the pedestrians and provides for backing movements but it still does not meet the LUC criteria for safety, convenience and efficiency. Please note Cameron and Peter's comments on the subject. Staff would like to meet with you and your parking consultants about potential solutions. Staff to be included are Cameron Gloss, Anne Aspen, Marc Virata, Peter Barnes and Dave Averill. f3r18/051 There are interesting ideas in your parking scheme. The platform lifts are a great solution to some of your parking constraints. But taken together, all of the minimally standard and substandard aspects you propose in your parking lot do not meet the intent of the Land Use Code as spelled out in Section 3.2.2(A). The lot is not safe, efficient or convenient for the users. + About half of the stalls are dimensioned with the smallest measurements allowable as defined in long4aml parking which is allowable for residential parking. Thirteen spaces are lift style, twelve spaces are triple tandem style, and four spaces are double tandem style. The parking requirement for the proposed 18 units, 18 of which are 2 bedroom and two of which are 1 bedroom is 31 spaces. + There is no provision for any guest perking. This is not a spec requirement of the Code. + There is a lack of sufficient backing space for spaces 51& It is likely in this scheme that the spaces would be full since so few are provided and that backing fa the 13 spaces numbered 5-18 would occur in the handicap loading area which also serves as the only pedestrian access from the narking to the units, which is clearly not safe, efficient or convenient. + Though the plans are unclear as to exactly how many units are to be provided and whether there will be commercial space, there are no commercial or relay pecking spaces offered or space for employees. Several of the intended commercial uses listed on the cover page would functionally need a drop-off or loading zone which is not provided on site. Response: This italicized language above was a carry over reference from the March 18t' comments on the issue. Please see the response to comment #70 above. Number: 71 Created: 7/6I2005 Page 1 [7/6/05] If you choose to provide some of your parking in a satellite lot across Cherry, you may need to provide for the safe crossing of Cherry. Response: The applicant's proposal satisfies the LUC parking requirements on -site, therefore satellite parking is not proposed. Number: 72 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] In order to go to hearing, you will need to accomplish the following prior to scheduling: design an acceptable parking scheme; produce LOI's for offsite easements; show the south side of Cherry including the gasline tie in, etc.; and apply for and be accepted for a variance for the south frontage storm water to not be treated. Also, all of this hinges on PFA's support of the project. We will verify that Eric finds the porkchop design acceptable. Response: The above stated requirements were satisfied to the planner's satisification prior to hearing. The current submittal incorporates all of these changes made. Number: 73 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] It is not clear on the floor plans where the commercial space is for the internet service provider. Please call out. Response: The specified commercial use (internet service provider) is located in the basement. Refer to sheet 3 of 10. Number: 74 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] All lighting must be fully shielded/have full cutoff. The specs for luminaire B are unclear. How will it be mounted, What's the wattage, what's the LLF, needs to be full cutoff. All calculations should be based on an LLF of 1.0. Response: This information is included with this submittal. Refer to the lighting plan, sheet LP1. Number: 75 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] Provide the legal description on the cover page. Response: This information has been added. Refer to sheet 1 of 10 Number: 76 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] Carl Jenkins of the USPS responds that: "Centralized delivery of a minimum of 2 centralized box units (one industry type III and one industry type 1) are required. Revise plan to show the required CBU locations as approved by the USPS. In all cases, the CBUs must be located in the public right-of-way or a designated easement. Be advised that the responsibility of purchase and maintaining the CBUs with the concrete pads is that of the owner/developer/builder/HOA. Prior to occupancy within the development, approved mail receptacles will be in place. Delivery agreement will be in place prior to any delivery of mail. Contact Carl Jenkins, Growth Coordinator, US Postal Service, 301 Boardwalk, Fort Collins, CO or phone (970)22-4130 for more information." Page 2 Response: We intend to have mail boxes in the building lobby. The applicant has coordinated the location of the CBUs with Bonnie at USPS. Documentation of the current arrangement is attached. Number: 77 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] John Hamburg of Comcast comments that: Comcast will need developer to provide a 2" conduit from the west under the railroad tracks. We also need a dedicated utility easement outside of road right-of-way along south side of proposed project. Response: John Hamburg with Comcast informed Interwest Consulting Group that since the majority of this development is residential (except for a small office space) that Comcast will extend whatever conduits and cables necessary to service this building. Comcast has also agreed to work with the Railroad Company to obtain required permits triggered by extending the Comcast line. Number: 78 Created: 7/6/2005 [7/6/05] Wally Muscott comments that though a plat is not required for this project, it is highly recommended to avoid boundary conflicts in the future. Response: Because a plat is not required, the we have decided not to replat. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number. 60 Created: 3/23/2005 (715/051 At the time of finalizing comments, verification of the pork chop median design with Traffic has not taken place. This will be verified and if any concerns exist, can be worked out after a public hearing. Please note that the access ramp design at this driveway entrance will likely need to be refined, but can be addressed after a public hearing. (323i051 Per ihb Cltys Traffic Engineer, fhe entrance design shall include wisirwoon of a porkchapthannel¢ation median to direct access as right-in/right-Out to the extent possible. Response: The porkchop is depicted on page 5 of 7 of the Utility Plan set. We have coordinated with Eric Bracke prior to hearing on this issue. Eric said that the project wouldn't be required to construct the porkchop at this time, however money would need to be escrowed for the cost to retro-fit the installation of it in the future should conditions warrant the need for it. Such an arrangement, Eric said, should be specified in the development agreement. Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2005 [7/5105] This was only shown apparently by way of right-of-way/easement widths, not as constructed. Please ensure this is reflected on the plans, including the associated curb and gutter along the south side of Cherry Street. 1323r051 Please ensure the site and constrocbon plans show properties and access points across Cherry Street. The driveway for Taco John's is not evident on the construction plans. Response: Please see sheet 4 of 7 of the Utility Plan set. Number: 69 Created: 7/5/2005 [715/05] Have letters of intent been received from the offsite property owners where utility work is shown? The sanitary sewer connection north of the site and the gas connection to the southeast are in areas that may need easements (the gas connection has no information Page 3 as to where it is in the real and legal world, (curb and gutter, sidewalk, easement/private property, etc.) Response: The sanitary sewer connection is within FC Park Planning and Development property and a Letter of Intent from Craig Forman has been sent to Marc Virata. The letter of intent from the Railroad for this sewer to cross railroad right-of-way has also been forwarded to Marc Virata. The proposed gas connection is within the existing right-of-way along Cherry Street and therefore a Letter of Intent isn't necessary. The gas connection has been shown in relation to curb, gutter, and sidewalk on sheet 4 of 7 of the Utility Plan set. Number: 85 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] A variance request will be required for grade of the driveway into the parking garage in accordance with the criteria in LCUASS Figure 8-17. Given the nature of the design, a variance request can be supported, the request should be sent for approval and evaluation prior to a hearing for the project. Response: A variance has been submitted and approved. Number: 86 Created: 7/8/2005 [718/05] The construction drawings will need to show how the perimeter drain system noted in the soils report will outlet (how it ties into the storm system). Response: A note has been added to grading plan that reference perimeter drain system. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: fire Number: 64 Created: 3/25/2005 [7/11105] The Poudre Fire Authority has reviewed this submittal from various aspects of safety. The PFA CANNOT support this proposed edifice for the following reasons: 1. this triangular shaped bldg has railroad tracks on two of its facades. As such, there is no access available for aerial operations to be conducted within a safe distance margin. 2. the resticted height of this edifice allows for sprinklers and standpipes, but does not allow for the requirements of all the necessary fire engineered systems of a high-rise bldg. This presents additional burdens on firefighters. 3. there is not sufficent working space on Cherry St for the full complement of response vehicles to properly and adequately stage to conduct a safe operation. Response: Ron Gonzales has forwarded coorespondence to Anne Aspen regarding the resolution of this issue. The e-mail is quoted as follows: Subject: RE: Cherry St Station Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:03:29 -0600 From: Ron Gonzales <rRonza1cm@poudre-fireore> To: 'Anne Aspen' <AAsoenia)fceov c0m> CC: 'Kevin Wilson' <kmwil oAooudre-tire org>_ 'Mika] Torgerson' <mikal chitex com> Anne, Thanks for allowing us to process this... here's the resolution for this project... Because the access to this project site is poor, the PFA could not support the development. 1 have negotiated with the developer and the Page 4 Fire Marshal that if a code defined "high-rise" package was to be installed in the building, PFA could and would support the development of this site. Owners have agreed to install the "high-rise" package of engineered systems, less the fire pump and standpipe provisions. PFA concurred. The only reason for a fire pump would be if the city water pressure was not adequate enough to support the fire sprinkler system. Thanks again... hope you can enjoy your vacation ... bye now Ron Gonzales Assistant Fire Marshal Foudre Fire Authority 970.416.2964 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Created:7/6/2005 Number: 79 [7/6/05] LUC calls for min of 1.0fc for building surrounds. Also, all of ramp should be at 1.Ofc and trash enclosure should have min of 0.5 fc for all sides. Response: This has been addressed in the current submittal. Refer to sheet LP1. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Drainage Plan Created: 7/7/2005 Number: 82 [717/05] Please show basin areas on the drainage plan, provide a hydrology summary table as well as a detention summary table. Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Topic: Erosion Control Created: 7/5/2005 Number: 68 [7/5/05] Sediment/Erosion Control Plan Comments Cherry Street Station July 5, 2005 1. The "Grading and Erosion Control Notes" on plan sheet #217 are incorrect, please delete and replace with the correct notes. 2. What will protect Cherry Street from pipeline and other constructions there until hard surfaces are installed? 3. There should be a legend on the erosion control sheet to indicate the BMP's being used. 4. What protection is being provided for the sewer connection on the northwest side of the BNSF railroad tracks? 5. Seeding and mulching is mentioned as a BMP in the report, where is this on the plan? calculation are outdated, please use current costs. 6. Seeding/mulching costs in the surety Page 5 Response: Drawing has been revised accordingly. • Drawing has been revised showing silt fence around perimeter of property. • A legend is shown on cover sheet. • A note was added to Utility Plan addressing this concern. • A note has been added to Grading Plan addressing this issue. • Seeding/Mulching cost has been updated in surety calculation. Topic: Maintenance of line in the sidewalk area Created 7/7/2005 Number: 83 [717/05] The City typically maintains the pipes that are in the rights of way. However, since the lines in the sidewalk area will not be to typical City standards (minimum of 15", RCP) the City will not agree to maintain these lines, especially, since the HDPE line, is the outlet for the site's private detention facility. Please add a note stating that owner/developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of these lines. Response: A note has been added to grading plan addressing this concern. Topic: Tank Design Created: 7/7/2005 Number. 84 [7/7/05] Please modify the tank design such that the tank does not hold water on a regular basis. Response: A valve is located at the bottom of the tank, which will allow water to be released at any time. A maintenance schedule that will be the developer's responsibility to drain the tank and a note will be added to the drawings and Developer's Agreement addressing this issue. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 80 Created: 7f7/2005 [717/05] Please call out the size and type of all storm lines on the utility and grading plans. Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Topic: Variance Request Number: 81 Created: 7/7/2005 [7f7/05] Please submit a variance request for the sidewalk area in front of the building not to have water quality treatment. This can be done in the drainage report. Response: Drainage report has been revised to include variance. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 67 Created: 7/5/2005 [7/5/05] No further comments. Please route all future submittals. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 87 Created: 7/11/2005 Page 6 [7/11/051 Eliminate the proposed fire hydrant on site. Maintain 10 feet of separation between the water services and thrust blocks. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Response: Per discussions with Roger Buffington the proposed fire hydrant is to remain. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Created: 3/3/2005 Number: 2 16/28/051 The removal of the tandem spaces is noted. The typical parking stall depth shown on the parking plan is only 17.5% but the code requires an 18' stall depth for long term residential parking. The 26' drive aisle exceeds the minimum 2N required, so there is a little extra room to make up the difference. However, the dimensioned parking platform lift detail would seem to preclude SUV's, minivans, or any vehicle with a roof -mounted rack from parking on these platforms due to the height restriction. Therefore, unless the tenants are restricted from owning such vehicles, I would think that there may not be enough usable parking spaces to meet the demand, and while 28 spaces are shown, I doubt that there are the n Sheet 1 of 10 states that 31 spaces other llrelated parking data are required. Actually, 7 parking paces are o required. /3W5j Since there is very little room in the basement parking lot to "shulfie"oars around to get to the buried tandem spaces, I question the usefulness o(having them, respeciallynetspacessomeone t i ould eave or access space#7 recommend Same that the marling modification not be appm time that someone is trying to leave from space #T-2, they may have a considerable wait to get to or from space V. They may need to reduce the number of dwelling units. Response: We have revised the layout to ensure that all parking stalls are at least 18 feet deep. Additionally, we've added more dimensions to our parking layout drawing to clarify that the spaces are designed in conformance with the "Long-term" space size requirements. Parking lifts will be as specified (or equivalent) on Sheet 3 of 10 in this submittal. Heights of specific parking spaces designed to be as listed in the following chart. Up to 5'-9" 5'-9" to 6' 3" I 6'-3" to 12'-V l00% of researched cars (including Chevrolet, Toyota and Honda) with roof racks or cargo boxes as well as several models of sport utility vehicles are accommodated in parking spaces with a height of up to 5'-9". Additionally, 80% of researched models of mini -vans, mid and full-sized pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (including Chevrolet, Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Land Rover, Dodge, Jeep, Toyota and Cadillac) are 6'-3" tall or under and are therefore accommodated as shown on the chart above. Also, refer to response to comment #70 above. Page 7 Number. 39 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/051 The plans (site plan, construction plan, landscape plan, and drainage exhibit in the drainage report) do not indicate what is to occur in the right-of-way west of the proposed driveway entrance to the parking garage. Is this to be left in the current condition? Why not provide turf and street trees? Number: 40 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] Given that there is no parking allowed along Cherry Street, I question how a modification to reduce the number of residential parking spaces can be supported. The Policy Statement CCD-1.19, cited in the modification request notes that in reducing parking standards, "on -street parking should be maximized", which can't be provided here given the configuration of Cherry Street. In my view, this citation weakens the argument to support the modification as no on -street parking exists for quite a distance from the property. Given the limited parking for the residents and guests (even if the modification were denied), the follow note should be added to the site plan and plat: Parking Note: Initial buyers of the development will be notified that they are buying into a configuration with limited (or no) guest and overflow parking, that households with more than two cars will have very limited on -site parking, and that the City accepts no responsibility to solve the parking problem at any point in the future. Number: 41 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] While the LUC has a maximum parking requirement for commercial, It seems appropriate to question where drop off and pick-up of patrons and/or employees, as well as load and unload items for delivery. 100% in total transit, bike, & pedestrian with 0% vehicular appears unrealistic. As an example, will the child and dog care uses specified for this building expect to see patrons drop off their child and/or dog via bike, transit, or walking and not by way of vehicle? How will postal delivery service function? Where will a pizza delivery vehicle/UPS park? It seems appropriate to look into providing additional inset widening for drop-off, another possibility is to provide satellite parking (Taco John's parking lot?) If the manner in which drop offs and deliveries are handled is by stopping on Cherry Street, this is of concern considering it blocks a through lane of traffic. If the driveway/ramp down to the parking garage becomes the default, having vehicles back-up onto Cherry Street against the flow of traffic is also problematic. Number. 42 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/051 While a soils report was not submitted and not required through Engineering, it seems odd that one isn't being done at this time given the high groundwater in the area (the Block 33 soils report indicated finding groundwater in various locations at depths as high as 6.5 feet below the existing surface) and the use of a below grade parking structure and infiltration planter boxes in the right-of-way. Also, with the site being next to two railroad lines, wouldn'tthere be a benefit in conducting a soils investigation now if there may be some underground contamination? The construction of the parking garage and any potential associated dewatering will need to designed in such a way that groundwater is not discharged onto public right-of-way. Any attempts to dewater the site should be verified that the groundwater is not contaminated or that another party has groundwater rights. Page 2 RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL From STAFF REPORT by Anne Aspen on September 8, 2005 "In order to receive Final Plan approval, the applicant shall revise the development plan to address each of the following issues: • Parking lifts must accommodate typical cars like SUVs and cars with roof racks or cargo boxes. • Parking space dimensions must comply with the standards in Section 3.2.2 (L) • Site lighting must meet code including all luminaries featuring full cut-off and shielding to reduce glare" Response: A. See response to Peter Barnes comment # 2 above. B. The underground parking garage has been redesigned to comply with all Long Term parking stall dimensions, per LUC 3.2.2 (L) (3). C. The lighting plan has been revised to satisfy this condition. Page 8 12/21/2005 13:49 9702254139 PAGE 01/01 untirevsra�s sre sErrwce Dec 212005 Eli Jeannette, In regards to the mailboxes for the proposed Cherry Street Station at 100-1.20 M ry St; we are considering your request that they be in the wall on the front of the build'' g. Normally we prefer the box to be installed outside by the sidewalk, however in soar, cases we allow the mailboxes to be placed on an exterior wall or in the lobby of the building. If the mailboxes are in the lobby, it is preferable if the lobby is open to the public and does not require a private key. In any case, considering the location of tk Cherry Street Station and the limited access for a delivery vehicle, we wouldmost t I Quid allow delivery to the front wall or lobby of the building. The specific arrangement have to be agreed upon when we have the final plans to work with, Thank you, Bonnie Ham Number: 58 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 Please remove any indication of a street number for the project on the drawings. The project will be assigned a Cherry Street address upon completion of the final plan. All drawings should only be tltied "Chevy Street Station". Number. 59 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/05] Referring back to #41, with the lack of parking being provided for the commercial uses (which meets lode), Transportation Services would like to receive written confirmation from the Developer that the proposed design lacking commercial parking is the Developer's decision and that the Developer acknowledges that the City shall be under no obligation to provide parking for the development at any point in the future. Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/05] Per the City s Traffic Engineer, the entrance design shall include construction of a porkchop/channelization median to direct access as right-in/right-out to the extent possible. Number. 61 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23105] Please ensure the site and construction plans show properties and access points across Chevy Street. The driveway for Taco John's is not evident on the construction plans. Number. 65 Created: 3/25/2005 [3/25105] Representatives of Transportation Services discussed the Cherry Street design and it was fully agreed (including Traffic Engineering) to allow inset parallel parking (not diagonal parking) along Chevy Street The inset parking area will need to be used EXCLUSIVELY for pick-up/drop-off & loading/unloading operations and will need to be designated as such (no designated parking spaces will be allowed, even short term). Furthermore, Transportation Services is generally concerned If the project were to proceed without providing the inset parking as vehicles would otherwise be utilizing the bikelane and travel lane for parking/drop-off/pick-up maneuvers. The start of the transition on the east side to provide the inset parking shall occur in front of the property, not in front of the railroad property. This inset parking does not need to "bump -out" prior to the driveway leading to the parking garage; the inset area can continue into the driveway per the City's Traffic Engineer. Number. 66 Created: 3/25/2005 [3/25/05] The comment was raised at staff review from Advance Planning suggesting moving the location of the street trees adjacent to the street. Should this design be utilized instead of the present proposal of putting the trees behind the existing attached sidewalk, Engineering may have additional concern and comments with regards to #22 as this change will result in the infiltration planter boxes being directly adjacent to the flowline of the street which raises pavement maintenance and degradation concerns that are minimized in the present design with the sidewalk separation. This comment applies whether street trees are adjacent to inset parking or bikelanes. Page 3 Project Comments Sheet Citv of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: July S, 2005 Project: 120 CHERRY ST- CHERRY ST. STATION PDP, TYPE I Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2005 [7/5/05] At the time of finalizing comments, verification of the pork chop median design with Traffic has not taken place. This will be verified and if any concerns exist, can be worked out after a public hearing. Please note that the access ramp design at this driveway entrance will likely need to be refined, but can be addressed after a public hearing. [3/23/05] Per the City's Traffic Engineer, the entrance design shall include construction of a porkchop/channelization median to direct access as right-in/right-out to the extent possible. Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2005 [7/5105] This was only shown apparently by way of right-of-way/easement widths, not as constructed. Please ensure this is reflected on the plans, including the associated curb and gutter along the south side of Cherry Street. [3/23/05] Please ensure the site and construction plans show properties and access points across Cherry Street. The driveway for Taco John's is not evident on the construction plans. Number: 69 Created: 7/5/2005 [7/5/05] Have letters of intent been received from the offsite property owners where utility work is shown? The sanitary sewer connection north of the site and the gas connection to the southeast are in areas that may need easements (the gas connection has no information as to where it is in the real and legal world, (curb and gutter, sidewalk, easement/private property, etc.) Number: 85 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] A variance request will be required for grade of the driveway into the parking garage in accordance with the criteria in LCUASS Figure 8-17. Given the nature of the design, a variance request can be supported, the request should be sent for approval and evaluation prior to a hearing for the project. Number: 86 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] The construction drawings will need to show how the perimeter drain system noted in the soils report will outlet (how it ties into the storm system). Da e CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat A- Site -1— Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility _�-- Landscape Page I Ciiv of '7ort Collins FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET DATE: D�, , ... , . 28, 2005 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #9-05A Cherry Street Station (120 Cherry Street) PDP — Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: January 25, 2006 Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape ia City of Fort Collins FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: DecQmher ?$_ ?M5 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #9-05A Cherry Street Station (120 Cherry Street) PDP — Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: 1� a 4V 255 2N6 V Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) G(, ante (pl ase print) ECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS i'lat _Site _Drainage Report _Other I 'tility _Redline Utility _Landscape igiaProject Comments Sheet City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Engineering CHERRY ST- CHERRY ST. STATION PDP AND FINAL PLANS, TYPE I Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 112 Created: 1/30/2006 [1130/061 The proposed utility easement along Cherry Street appears to be situated such that the stairwell entrance into the building will lay over the easement. This is somewhat problematic in that there is no encroachment permit mechanism in place for items in a utility easement. The utility easement will need to be defined in three dimensions vertically (which relates to ID 113). The affected utility providers will need to sign the plans indicating their acceptance of this compromised utility easement and the impact of having a structure over the easement needs to be verified. The exact boundary of this easement needs to be verified as private utilities (such as the underdrain pipe for the tree wells) cannot be within this easement. Number: 117 Created: 1/30/2006 [1/30/06] Please note that the several onsite and offsite easement dedications are each subject to a transportation development review fee of $250 each. Please begin the process of exhibits for review of these various easements. Number: 121 Created: 1/30/2006 [1/30/06] The gas tie in shown on the plans is within CDOT right-of-way and will require a utility permit. Number: 122 Created: 1/30/2006 [1/30106] Provide evidence of vacation of the CDOT temporary construction easement prior to any approval of the plans. Number: 123 Created: 1/30/2006 [1/30/061 Provide the permit from the railroad for the utility connection prior to any approval of the plans. Number: 124 Created: 1/30/2006 [1130/06] Provide the easement from the City for the utility connection on Park property prior to any approval of the plans. Topic: Perimeter Drain System Number: 86 Created: 7/8/2005 [1/30/061 In discussing the information provided within Engineering, the note on the plan and subsequent drain detail spec will not suffice. An actual design of the perimeter drain system is needed W#h: m conslDxrion drawings from the engineer to establish a design. e cC Dad CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ _ V Utility Redline Utility A -Landscape Page I