Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout800, 808 & 814 W. PROSPECT RD. MIXED-USE (OBSERVATORY PARK) - PDP - 41-02A - CORRESPONDENCE - (39)Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call meat (970) 221-6750. Sincerel Ted Shepard Chief Planner Page 8 Number: 23 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04] Please show a handicap ramp at the crosswalk at the entrance off of Prospect. Number: 24 Created: 5/11/2004 [5/11/04] Note - the van accessible handicap space needs to be signed as such. Number: 25 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04] Show the building envelope and footprint and label on the site plan. Number: 26 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04] A tree is being shown in the middle of the bike parking area - is this correct? Will there be racks set on concrete, is the tree in a grate, please clarify. Number: 27 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04] Landscaping is only being shown around a portion of the parking lot perimeter, please note the rest and call out the plants and counts. Staff is concerned that at the neighborhood meeting of January 13, 2004, the project was described as follows: "The mix of bedrooms and dwelling units has changed. Instead of 30 two -bedroom dwelling units, there would be 66 one -bedroom units and six two -bedroom units for a total of 72 dwelling units. Instead of 60 bedrooms, there would now be 78 bedrooms. There would be 111 parking spaces." Now the project consists of 61 two -bedroom units for a total of 122 bedrooms, an increase of 44 bedrooms. In addition, in response to questions about adequate parking, the applicant responded by stating that the former 78 bedrooms would be served by 111 parking spaces, an excess of 33 spaces on a per -bedroom basis. Now, the 122 bedrooms will be served by only 108 parking spaces. While this number complies with the minimum requirement, it does not represent the excess of parking spaces as promised. This is a very sensitive issue with the neighborhood group. Since the bedroom and parking relationship has changed significantly, another neighborhood meeting should be held, prior to public hearing. The Site Plan still indicates that there will be 42 parking spaces off -site. Please revise. Be sure that the architectural elevations are up to date and clearly show the elevator entrance, the stairwell entrance, and the entrance to the corner mixed -use space. Page 7 Number: 35 Created: 5/18/2004 Please provide TOW and BOW elevations for all retaining walls periodically along the length. Number: 36 Created: 5/18/2004 Please label proposed contours on the grading plan. Number: 37 Created: 5/18/2004 Please provide a stage -storage table in the drainage report for the detention pond. Number: 38 Created: 5/18/2004 Please provide a flared -end section detail and revise water quality outlet details per redlines. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 42 Created: 5/19/2004 [5/19/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Topic: Site and Landscape plans Number: 41 Created: 5/19/2004 [5/19/04] Show all water and sewer lines on the landscape plans and maintain the required landscape/utility separation distances. Coordinate landscape plan with the civil plans. Topic: Utility plans Number: 39 Created: 5/19/2004 [5/19/04] Place all water and sewer main in a drive or public street. Sanitary sewer line which extends to this building must be a private service. Provide a copy of the offsite utility easement for the sanitary sewer line for our review. Number: 40 Created: 5/19/2004 [5/19/04] Extend proposed water main in the roadway of Prospect Road to the westerly most point of this development. Place a fire hydrant and gate valve at the end of the extension. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: Zoning Number: 21 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04] Site plan - General Notes — please check for typographical errors. Number: 22 Created: 5/11 /2004 [5/11/04) Why does the parking count state 42 spaces as being off -site - they all appear to be on -site to me. Please review Page 6 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 44 Created: 5/20/2004 1. Your report states that "silt fencing will surround areas of the proposed construction", yet the plan indicates silt fencing only along Prospect. What is protecting the properties to either side and the rear? 2. What is the protection during utility line installations on Prospect, the storm sewer, and the sanitary line to Lake? 3. Your schedule indicates the tracking pad to go in a month after construction begins. Isn't this a little late? 4. How is the pond to be utilized as a sediment trap, by overexcavation or outlet protection? Please add details to the plan to explain your intention. 5. The re -vegetation costs in your cost estimate need to be revised to the current $775/acre for less than 5 acres, $725/acre for more than 5 acres. Topic: Site and Landscape plans Number: 31 Created: 5/18/2004 The proposed.drainage basins are redirecting flows when compared to historic drainage patterns. This is increasing the flow to Prospect Rd. The 2-year historic rate for basin H2 and H3 is .7 cfs. The pond is releasing at 1.1 cfs, plus basin 5 is free releasing. When sub -basins free release and are not able to flow into the detention pond, the 100-year developed flow is normally subtracted from the allowable site release rate to obtain the pond release rate. A meeting needs to be scheduled to discuss options for the quantity detention requirement. Number: 32 Created: 5/18/2004 The maximum allowable depth for detention in a parking lot is 12-inches, which is being exceeded. Please revise. Number: 33 Created: 5/18/2004 The F.F. elevation for the building needs to be 1 foot above the 100-year WSEL of the detention pond. Please revise. Number: 34 Created: 5/18/2004 The time of concentration calculation are incorrect according to some calculations done in our office. See drainage report. Please revise. Page 5 Number: 69 Created: 5/21/2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The driveway design onto Prospect Road needs to be designed to City standards. This includes the proper curb radius, access ramps, and driveway width. Topic: Utility plan cover sheet Number: 12 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Why is there a new mercer ditch signature box? Number: 13 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please provide typical street sections for Prospect, existing and proposed. Number: 14 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please provide the name, address, and phone number for the project developer and owner (at final). Topic: Utility plans Number: 15 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please provide details for any retaining walls. If retaining walls are over 6' tall, then a building permit is required for the wall (work with Building and Zoning on that permit). Number: 16 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] See detail 707 for the correct construction of the driveway. The driveway radii should be dimensioned and meet LCUASS standards. Number: 17 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Minimum driveway width for multifamily serving this many units is 28, and the current driveway width shown is 24'. Please revise. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 5/5/2004 [5/5/04] The previous submittal for this site required 3-phase power. If 3-phase is still required, the developer will be required to provide off -site easement(s) and coordinate a location for a pad type transformer. If this proposal needs single phase power, the developer must also coordinate a transformer location. It is suggested that the transformer location be coordinated prior to plat approval as an on -site easement will be required. Normal electric development charges will apply. Contact Doug Martine at 224-6152. Page 4 Number: 61 Created: 5/21/2004 [5/21/04) Comment inserted from Tom Reiff: [5/19/04] Please show how the new sidewalk transitions into the existing sidewalks to the east and west of the site. Number: 62 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff. [5/19/04] Please include the location of Prospect .Lane on the plan sets. Number: 63 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment From Tom Reiff: [5/19/04] According to the applicant's planning objectives, the path out to Lake Street will serve as a connection for bikes and pedestrians from the proposed development to CSU. To safely accommodate both bikes and peds and to meet the City's design standards the path needs to be a minimum eight feet in width (LUC 3.6.3 & 3.2.2). Number: 65 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The utility easement in which the bike/pedestrian path is located should also be identified as a public access easement. Number: 66 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The submitted TIS is incorrect in stating that there are no bicycle destinations within a quarter mile. According to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Manual, public schools are considered a destination which includes CSU. Since there are no on -street bike lanes connected to this site to satisfy the LOS, it would be acceptable to allow the proposed path connection to Lake Street and its bike lanes to satisfy the bike LOS to CSU. However, it must be designed to City standards so it can safely accommodate both bikes and pedestrians. Number: 67 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] There needs to be a 2 foot setback / buffer between the walkway along the eastern edge of the development and the landscape retaining wall. Suggestion: instead of creating a troublesome landscape maintenance issue in the 2 foot setback, it is recommended that the walkway be paved up to the edge of the retaining wall. This would also connect to the bike/ped path that leads out to Lake Street. . Number: 68 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] It appears that the intent of this building is to serve future CSU students. If this is the case it is recommended that additional bike parking be provided in near the building's west entrance to not only serve future residents but also visitors. This would meet the city standards for a bike rack location and could be accommodated in the additional space that will be present once the parking stalls are pulled back further. Page 3 Number: 70 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Please resubmit the variance request for driveway spacing on Prospect with a revision addressing the spacing from Prospect Lane. Number: 71 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] The developer's financial responsibility for the project's local street portion of Prospect will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Topic: Grading plan Number: 18 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please label the new grading contours. Topic: Plat Number: 10 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please correct the plat language (as redlined). And please correct the vicinity map. Number: 11 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] The required radii for emergency access easements are 25' for the interior and 50' for the exterior, measured from the same centerpoint. The exterior radius is currently shown as 45' and should be revised. Topic: Site and Landscape plans Number: 7 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Show the emergency access easement. Number: 8 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] The ROW dedication shown for Prospect Road is shown as 14' on the site plan, but 21' on the plat, and is required to be 21'. Please,match plans, and label and dimension the new and existing ROW on the site plan. Number: 9 Created: 5/6/2004 (5/6/04) Please place street trees in their ultimate location, approximately 4' from the south edge of the sidewalk in its ultimate location. Topic: Transportation Number: 60 Created: 5/21 /2004 [5/21/04] Comment inserted from Tom Reiff: [5/19/04] The sidewalk along Prospect needs to be placed at the back of the new right-of-way and the street trees need to be planted in the parkway. Also the minimum width for a sidewalk is 6 feet along a 4- Lane Arterial and the landscape retaining wall needs to be setback two feet from the edge of the back of sidewalk. Suggestion: instead of creating a troublesome landscape maintenance issue in the two -foot setback, it is recommended that the sidewalk be paved up to the edge of the retaining wall. Page 2 ® STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof Fort Collins EASTPOINT STUDIO Date: 05/24/2004 DON BROOKSHIRE 3207 KITTERY CT. FT. COLLINS, CO 80526 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 800, 808 AND 814 W. PROPSECT ROAD EXPANDED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT PDP, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 3 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] The required parking setback required per LCUASS is 75, which should be measured from the location the ultimate curb will be built on Prospect (14' south of the new ROW). Staff would not support a variance to this standard. Number: 4 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] An engineering variance is required to reduce the standard 4-lane arterial ROW requirement from 11 5'to 102'. Staff will support the variance, but the engineer needs to submit it.per LCUASS. . Number: 5 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] The sidewalk should be placed against the ROW, and should be a minimum of 6' wide, with transitions to the existing walks east and west of the project occurring along this project's frontage. Number: 6 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] The retaining wall near the ROW should be placed a minimum of 2' from the ROW. The 2' between the ROW and retaining wall may either be landscaped or be paved as additional width for the sidewalk. Please provide details for retaining walls, including a cross-section showing the railing to be put on top of the wall. Additionally, permission must be obtained from each utility to place a retaining wall in a utility easement. Number: 19 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for further comments. Number: 20 Created: 5/6/2004 [5/6/04] Please re -submit the existing soils report since this is a new and enlarged project. Page 1