HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 CHERRY ST., CHERRY ST. STATION - PDP - 9-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - (15)Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 80 Created: 7/7/2005
[7/7/05] Please call out the size and type of all storm lines on the utility and grading plans.
Topic: Variance Request
Number: 81 Created: 7/7/2005
[7/7/05] 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.
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
[7/11/05] 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.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 2 Created: 3/3/2005
[6/28/05] The removal of the tandem spaces is noted. The typical parking stall depth shown
on the parking plan is only 175, but the code requires an 18' stall depth for long term
residential parking. The 26' drive aisle exceeds the minimum 24' 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 required 27 parking spaces in reality. One other parking related note - the parking data
on Sheet 1 of 10 states that 31 spaces are required. Actually, 27 parking spaces are
required.
[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 space #T-2, they may have a considerable wait to get
to or from space #7. They may need to reduce the number of dwelling units.
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 me
at (970) 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Anne Aspen, City Planner
Page 5
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic. General
Number: 79 Created: 7/6/2005
[7/6/05] LUC calls for min of 1.0fc for building surrounds. Also, all of ramp should be at 1.0fc
and trash enclosure should have min of 0.5 fc for all sides.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan
Topic: Drainage Plan
Number: 82 Created: 7/7/2005
[7/7/05] Please show basin areas on the drainage plan, provide a hydrology summary table
as well as a detention summary table.
Topic: Erosion Control
Number: 68 Created: 7/5/2005
[7/5/05]
Sediment/Erosion Control Plan Comments
Cherry Street Station
July 5, 2005'
1. The "Grading and Erosion Control Notes" on plan sheet #2/7 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?
6. Seeding/mulching costs in the surety calculation are outdated, please use current
costs.
Topic: Maintenance of line in the sidewalk area
Number: 83 Created: 7/7/2005
[7/7/05] 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.
Topic: Tank Design
Number: 84 Created: 7/7/2005
[7/7/05] Please modify the tank design such that the tank does not hold water on a regular
basis.
Page 4
Department: Engineering 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
[7/5/05] 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).
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
Topic: fare
Number: 64 Created: 3/25/2005
[7/11 /05]
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.
Page 3
+ 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.
Number: 71 Created: 7/6/2005
[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.
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 prokchop design acceptable.
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.
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.
Number: 75
Created: 7/6/2005
[7/6/05] Provide the legal description on the cover page.
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."
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.
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.
Page 2
,�ZAOM
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
M TORGERSON ARCHITECTS Date: 07/11/2005
TROY JONES
223 NORTH COLLEGE AVE.
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for 120 CHERRY ST- CHERRY ST. STATION PDP,
TYPE I, and we offer the following comments:
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 aournd area" on the parking plan in an attempt to address this
issue, but the safety and convenience concerns remain.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Topic: General
Number: 27 Created: 3/18/2005
[7/5/05] 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.
[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.
+ There is no provision for any guest parking. This is not a specific requirement of the
Code.
+ 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.
Page 1