HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET NORTH - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 4-97B - CORRESPONDENCE -Planning
The sidewalks with tree wells along the east side of Building C should be a
minimum of 8' to 10' wide. To accomplish this, the parking spaces next to this
sidewalk should be 17' deep with wheel stops.
2. Regarding the sidewalk along the east side of Building C, the Site Plan and
the grading plan are not consistent. The grading plan shows handicapped
ramps that are not shown on the Site Plan. This certainly changes the
"continuous flow" pedestrian movement (for the softball players) from the
south parking lot to the park.
3. A "flowing" pedestrian connection should be made along the north.side of the
parking adjacent to the park, just north of Building C. The traversing ramp
movement should not have to be made here.
4. Please see red -lined Site, Landscape, and Photometric Plans that are being
forwarded to the applicant for additional planning comments.
5. Per a comment from Katie Moore of Engineering: "Please note that under
the variance for parking setbacks along Mason Court, a minimum of 20' must
be maintained. Please reconfigure parking to meet this requirement."
This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this
time. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement
(from the date of this comment letter) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the
Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit.
Staff will be setting the agenda for the January 17, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board
public hearing at their project review meeting on the morning of Wednesday,
December 19, 2001. For any item to be placed on this agenda the development
plans must be considered to be at least 80% — 90% complete, with just minor issues
remaining to be resolved prior to or shortly after the public hearing.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this
project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341.
Y. rsTruC __
e�S O t``j -
Project Planner
cc: Cameron Gloss
Katie Moore
Wes Lamarque
Planning File #4-97B
Page 14
159
Re -align the water main at the SE corner of the building.
160
Move 6-inch water line on NW side of building into the drive as noted on the plans.
161
What is the elevation of the abandoned 36-inch storm sewer in Cherry Street at the
point of crossing with the 8-inch water main? If there is a conflict, remove
abandoned storm sewer 5 feet each side of water main and plug ends of storm
sewer with concrete.
162
The thrust block on the fire hydrant on Mason Court will not have undisturbed earth
behind it; therefore, restrain all joints between hydrant and the 12x12x8 tee on the
east side of Mason Court. Can hydrant be placed on east side of Mason Court?
163
Maintain 5 foot separation between raised planter boxes and water service/meter
p its.
164
See additional comments on plans.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
5
Need to show building envelope, footprint, dimensions and distance to property lines
11-16-01 - 1 still don't see the building envelopes being called out. Are the envelope
and footprint going to be the same. Please clarify.
The following comments were expressed at staff review on December 5tn:
Transportation Planning
1. All handicapped ramps are not shown on the Site Plan and they must be.
2. The proposed bicycle rack by the trash enclosure by Building B is not in a
good, visible, and secure location.
Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about his comments.
Water] Wastewater
Some of the previous comments have been overlooked and not addressed.
Page 13
22
Previous Comment: Provide fire flow calculations for this project as well as the
existing fire flow required for Martinez PUD.
23
Previous Comment: Provide all information necessary for the construction of the
proposed boring.
24
Previous Comment: Provide all information necessary for the construction of the
proposed sewer services (outside drop manhole detail, Inverts, etc.).
Topic: General
146
Place all water and sewer mains in roadways/drives when possible.
147
Provide elevation views for buildings "A" and "B" for our review. All individual
buildings must provide their own services.
148
Eliminate all unnecessary waterline fittings when possible.
149
Show all proposed water and sewer services on the overall utility plans ( including
proposed irrigation taps).
150
Lower storm sewer in order to allow water main to cross above storm sewer and to
prevent a lowering of water main.
151
Provide appropriate scales for all plan and profile views.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: utility plans
157
Plan sheet 13 includes details which appear to be for a subdrain. Is there a subdrain
on the project? What is this detail to be used for?
158
Plan sheet 13 includes a manhole base detail that is not a City standard detail.
What is this detail to be used for?
Page 12
Topic: Drainage
165
The proposed 48-inch storm sewer near Building C is within a few feet of the
building. Please investigate whether or not the waterline could be relocated farther
south, thus allowing for the storm sewer to be moved at least 10-feet from the
building. See Sheet 6. This may require an easement within the railroad easement
If this is not possible, an alternative would be to use water tight pipe like DIP, for the
area in front of Building C.
166
Please provide calculation & cross-section for area just west of Building C to verify
100-year flows will turn corner and not inundate the underground parking. See
drainage plan.
167
Please provide an outfall for the sub -basin south of the railroad tracks. The parking
lot drains to the east along the south side of the railroad tracks to a low lying area.
With some regrading to the south of the railroad tracks and the inlet in sub -basin 1d
enlarged, flows from the south parking lot may be able to dump into the box culvert
at this inlet.
Department: Transportation Planning. Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis
14
relocate bike racks to be next to the building entrances for Buildings A & B, do not
locate them next to the trash dumpster or out in the parking lot.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
18
Previous Comment: Show all water and sewer lines on the landscape plans and
provide the required landscape/utility separation distances.
19
Previous comment: Maintain 10 feet of separation between water mains and their
associated appurtenances and all other underground utilities.
20
Previous Comment: Curb stops and meter pits may not be located in sidewalks
(entry ways and traveled ways).
21
Previous Comment: Clearly define all abandonment's and relocations of existing
water/sewer lines (include note to coordinate abandonment's with city utilities).
Page 11
Department: Police Issue Contact:. Joseph Gerdom
92
Landscaping: Eastern parking lot is isolated by street. The additional use of
Hawthorns will increase isolation and potential for safety problems of users after
dark. Also, the plant material and location of parking lot will increase security issues
93
Lighting: Most of the entrances points into the buildings are under -illuminated. For
security, a minimum of eight (8) lux is recommended. Some areas are over
illuminated an may pose a nuisance to other properties.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
15
Please provide permission from the Parks Department for the water quality concept
to be implemented with this project after final design and approval. After approval,
please provide text description and design in Drainage Report for review.
90 -
Please provide an emergency overflow swale for the Howes Street Outfall at Cherry
Street and provide calculations to show that no buildings will be inundated.
112
Please provide swale cross -sections and calculations for all swales. (repeat
comment)
113
Please provide identifier for benchmarks. (repeat comment)
114
Please provide a P.E. signature and stamp for next submitted reports.
115
Erosion Control Comments:
Please provide calculations.
The BMP's noted in the report are not translated to the plan well or are not shown on
the plan -- please correct.
116
Please revise Q100 values in the plans and report. Incorrect intensity was used for
all Q100 calculations. Incorrect intensities were also used to calculate the Q2 but
the error was on the conservative side.
Page 10
it will be the responsibility of the developer to maintain the landscaping. The median
should be enlarged to provide adequate visibility, but not encroach on left turn
stacking lengths at either Mason or Howes or the movement of turning buses off of
Mason onto Cherry. The design should also take into consideration that Howes will
most likely be a 2-way street in the future. The ends should also be made less blunt.
It has also been suggested that this would be a good place for art in public places.
144
The design and construction of the median in Cherry needs to be completed with
this project. Please re -include the median in this plan set. Construction of the
median will most likely be required by the time of Certificate of Occupancy for the
buildings.
Department: PFA
Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
80
Per FCLUC3.5.2(C)(1), every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit
shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible.
Per FCLUC3.5.2(C)(1), every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit
shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonable feasible .
81
Per FCLUC3.5.2(C)(2), every building containing 4 or more dwelling units shall have
at least 1 building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a
full arterial or has on -street parking.
82
The private road west of Mason Court has been designated a fire lane under the
Martinez PUD; however, per FCLUC3.6.6(D)(4)(ii) Easements and
FCLUC3.6.2(L)(2)(a), this emergency access easement shall be properly recorded
as such.
84
Building B is out of access and required to be fire sprinklered.
85
Per 97UFC901.4.4, address numerals are required to be visible and legible from the
street fronting the property. Building C does not have street frontage, but fronts on
the Private Road.
86
A Knox Box (for building keys) is required for Building B.
87
All fire lanes shall be maintained in accordance with FCLUC3.6.6(D).
Page 9
Topic: sheet 6
138
Please show the street cut to be made on Cherry.
Topic: Site Plan
30
Please match easements with Utility plan and Plat.
36
Please see plan for additional comments.
41
Please show all ramps.
123
There is still an area where the 6' minimum sidewalk width is not being met where
cars overhang the sidewalk.
124
There is inadequate backing distance behind the westernmost garage south of the
railroad tracks.
126
Where is the public access easement(s) for the area south of the RR tracks?
127
The utility easement along the south side of Mason Court should be 9 feet per
LCUASS figure 7-917. Please provide this width.
128
Please note that for the certain portion of building A that crosses over the electric
easement, that the easement has been vacated above a certain elevation and that
portion of the building is permissible there.
156
Please use phantom lines for existing features so that a differentiation can be made
between what is existing and what is proposed. (This applies to all sheets)
Topic: utility plans
48
Please provide more information regarding the median shown in Cherry. Grading
information and cross-section(s) are needed. It is assumed that the developer will
build it. If landscaping is proposed, please include a line for irrigation, and know that
Page 8
119
Please include a legal description of the height limitation on the Light and Power
easement as it passes underneath the building.
120
Please verify that the gas company and light and power are amenable to the areas
where their exclusive easements are infringed upon.
121
Please provide a line for the Railroad to sign on.
Topic: Sheet 3
56
Please use phantom lines for existing features/buildings adjacent to site.
61
Please calculate sight distance easements needed using figure 7-16 (LCUASS) and
show on the plat and utility plans and site and landscape plans.
62 .
Drainage is not allowed over public sidewalks (7.7.4 and 9.4.11 A & B, LCUASS).
Please use under -walk pans as shown in detail 7-31.
65
Please label in writing that all driveways are concrete to the ROW.
134
Where are the sight distance easements?
135
Please show striping on Cherry Street. (repeat)
136
It appears that an offsite easement is needed for work to be done to the west of the
property just north of Cherry.
Topic: Sheet 4
69
Regarding general note 6: All easements should be shown on the utility plans.
Topic: Sheet 5
137
Where is MH A-1 shown on the plan view of the sanitary sewer?
Page 7
Topic: Landscape Plan
37
Please match with other plans/plat.
38
Landscaping in median in bulb of cul-de-sac needs to meet Sight distance easement
restrictions. Please see the attached form for restrictions and include these
restrictions on both the landscape plan and the plat.
39
Further sight distance easement areas should be identified for the next submittal.
Please note that landscaping in these areas needs to meet the restrictions as well.
See LCUASS Drawing 7-16 for calculation of sight distance easements. The 110'
shown is inadequate.
122
The building outlines/footprints don't seem to match from the Site plan to the
landscape plan.
Topic: Plat
42
Please correct wording as redlined and add Sight Distance Easement language.
44
please clearly label all existing and proposed easements and ROW.
45
Please label all adjoining properties.
46
These easements do not match what is shown on the site plan. Please coordinate.
47
Please see plat for additional comments.
117
Please dedicate a 9' utility easement along Mason Court as shown in LCUASS
Figure 7-9F.
118
Please add a note to the cover sheet referring to the vacation of old easements if
they are not shown on this plat (repeat).
Page 6
143
The driveway between buildings A and B may be 18' in width; the driveway between
buildings B and C may be 22' in width, and the driveway access off of Cherry must
be a minimum of 24' in width per the Variance Request approvals and denials.
145
The comments numbered lower than 117 are repeat comments.
152
Please refer to the redlined utility plan checklist for further comments.
Topic: Geotechnical Report
153
Subsurface report does not address issues as outlined in LCUASS 5.6:
1. Site location map does not address irrigation ditches, wet lands or other features.
2. Where are flow rates addressed, potential high water levels?
3. What is the potential source of the groundwater?
4. Are there any existing wells in the area?
5. Address ground water quality.
6. Address water flow calculations, how was pipe sized, what are recommendations
for construction of subdrain?
7. Identify the cone of influence as a result of the dewatering.
8. Where will subdrain(s) terminate?
9. Where is the log of the second boring number 61
Topic: Grading
75
Offsite grading/other work performed on Parks' land requires their approval. Please
provide a letter from the Parks department stating their approval of what is shown on
their property.
139
Please provide a detail of the retaining wall.
140
What is the elevation of the basement floor? (repeat)
154
Presently, new grading is shown under the railroad tracks. Shouldn't that be
adjusted so that the tracks are not affected?
Page 5
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Cover sheet
55
Sheet 2: please correct general notes as shown.
130
Please list the Developer and Owner of this project. (repeat)
131
Please lighten the vicinity map so that it is legible/reproducible.
132
Please show the indemnification statement separately from the signature block and
include only on the cover sheet.
133
Please provide a signature line for the railroad.
Topic: Drainage
155
Please provide a legal description and sketch of the required drainage area on
Parks' land. These will be used to file a Notice of Facility Location in lieu of an
Easement.
Topic: General
54
All sheets: Please see sheet for any additional comments.
74
Any work done within the RR ROW/easement requires approval by the railroad.
Please provide a letter of intent from the Railroad regarding these improvements
(grading, landscaping, pedestrian crossing, etc.).
141
Please provide the under -walk drain detail from LCUASS.
142
No design has been shown for the subdrains needed for building C per the soils
report. Please show how subdrains will tie into an approved discharge facility.
Page 4
106
Katie Moore of the Engineering Department offered the following comments at staff
review on December 5th:
1. The City is not granting the requested variance for the parking setback along
Cherry Street.
2. The subdrain/soils report is not sufficient.
3. Some confirmation from the Parks Planning Department is needed regarding
the necessary work on and impacts to the park.
4. The developers need to design the proposed median in Cherry Street at this
time. The City will direct the size (length, width, and height) of the median.
5. The sight distance information as provided may not be adequate.
6. The plans show proposed storm drainage over the sidewalks. This is not
permitted in the LUC.
7. A legal description of the drainage delineation is needed.
8. The easement on the south side of Mason Court needs to -be 9'-wide.
9. The west garage in the south parking lot does not have enough backing
room.
10. The electric easement under the "bridge" in Building A does not have enough
vertical clearance.
11. There is a gas easement within the railroad easement. This will require the
railroad to sign off the plans.
12. The propose landscaping in the center island in Mason Court presents some
sight distance concerns.
Please contact Katie, at 221-6750, if you have questions about her comments.
107
Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department indicated that the
bike racks for Buildings A & B should be relocated to more convenient locations
relative to building entries. Next to a trash dumpster is an especially poor location.
110
Current Planning's comments may be found on red -lined plans that are being
forwarded to the applicant.
Page 3
103
Craig foreman of Parks Planning offered the following comments:
The City will need to grant a construction easement to the developer for work
on the ramp and parking stalls that impact the park. Any disturbed areas in
the park need to be returned to the prior condition, i.e., sodding, irrigation
heads, etc.
2. The City will construct the path west of the new parking area. The existing
path to the east should be replaced by this project (Sheet 8 of 15, utility
plans).
Please contact Craig, at 221-6618, if you have questions about his comments.
104
Rick Lee of the Building Department indicated that the information submitted for
review suggests that multi -family housing will be provided. The Building Department
wants to inform the developer that they are currently enforcing the 1998 ANSI for
accessibility and a State statute, which requires that on common property one
accessible (Type A) unit for each 7 units, or fraction thereof, shall be provided.
Accessibility is required in most R-1 construction, so pay careful attention to the
requirements of ANSI and what items are required in a Type A dwelling unit. Another
more commonly missed component is the required fire -rated separation between
units and in attic spaces. This proposal includes mixed -use buildings, so please pay
careful attention to occupancy separation requirements of Table 3C.
105
Wes Lamarque of the Stormwater Utility offered the following comments at staff
review on December 5th:
1. This site is in a "no rise" floodplain. Please be aware of this as you design the
proposed median in Cherry Street.
2. Stormwater needs room to maintain the 48" sanitary sewer.
3. The proposed storm flows going over sidewalks is problematic. The Land Use
Code (LUC) does not allow this. Storm water chases will be necessary.
4. There are some grading concerns. The grading plan is hard to follow and
there appear to be too many layers on the drainage plan.
5. A grading license may be needed from the railroad.
Please contact Wes, at 416-2418, if you have questions about his comments.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
Wolff -Lyon Architects Date: 12/11/2001 W alu "`
c/o Korkut Onaran • �1n�-h
777 Pearl St., Suite. 210
Boulder, CO 80302 V, o t?�•�itgN+e�
` A
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal and revisions for MASON STREET NORTH . ��i2tiUh
(Major Amendment to the Martinez PUD), #4-97B, and we offer the following{5
comments:
ISSUES: •(� G'
Ca+tiw. 5 �•
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt o
101 "Cecl.•�x�s�st'c�i
Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (Public Service) offered the following comments:
1. The current gas dist. is pounds low system. PSCO will need new proposed
gas loads to determine if the existing system needs to be reinforced. The cost
to reinforce the gas system would be at the owners/developers expense.
2. Reinforcement costs would require City permits to cut the existing asphalt.
3. No trees may be planted within 4' (horizontally) of gas lines.
4. Utility Note #7, Sheet 4 of 15: PSCO has an existing gas main adjacent to
Lot 12. PSCO will need to extend the gas main to the east in the proposed 8'
wide easement to serve Buildings A & B.
5. The developer will need to provide sleeves to cross the 40' wide drainage
easement, with a minimum depth of 24".
6. Any relocation of existing gas lines will be at the owners/developers expense.
Please contact Len if you have questions about his comments.
102
The City's Technical Services Department indicated that the subdivision plat
closes.
GOMv�•et.��.
Page 1