Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 CHERRY ST., CHERRY ST. STATION - PDP - 9-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - (18)Anne AsPen - RE_: Cheny_St. Station _ . _ _ _ Page 3 the building. There is a fiber optic trunk line directly in front of this building along Cherry Street, which would make this a perfect location for such a use. This use would be a small office (a couple hundred square feet) with mostly computer equipment, and one desk. The ISP's regular office would be located a few blocks south of here in the Rocky Mountain Building at Oak and Canyon. This use in our building would recieve no deliveries, no mail, and no customers. An employee would come to the site to maintain the computer equipment maybe for a few hours each day. This employee will have a parking space in the underground parking garage. I had a follow-up conversation with Eric Bracke about this user, and he said that he's a little worried that if this user goes out of business or moves, a different end user would go in to that space that would have the commercial loading zone issues that he was originally worried about. I told him that we would be willing to specify on the plans that this speck use is the only non-residential use allowed, and in the event that the use discontinues for 12 months or more, the space converts to the accessory use of residential storage. Anyway, I hope we can resolve this issue between us all via an e-mail conversation, however if a meeting is necessary, we would be happy to have one. Ann and Marc, what are your thoughts on all this? Troy Jones CC: mikal@architex.com Anne Aspen - RE: Chevy S(Station- - -- . _ _ -- _ - -- _ - _ - - -_- - Page 2; The discussion was as follows: Issue #1) There needs to be a place for service and delivery vehicles to pull -off of Cherry Street as they are serving or delivering to this building. My understanding is that City staff would like the project to widen out Cherry for a short distance to provide a loading zone pull-out lane in front of the building. We would prefer to provide this delivery/service loading zone west of our drive aisle ramp rather in front of the building. Eric said that the main reason he has been pushing for it to be configured as a pull-out along Cherry Street is because he's worried that the commercial component of the building will generate a lot of loading zone usage (UPS, Fed Ex, Couriers, customers, etc.). He said that a loading zone west of our drive aisle would work if such a loading zone only . needed to serve residential uses, but the commerical use triggers the need to have the Chevy pull-out. I asked Eric if we were to eliminate the commercial component of the project, and make it all residential, would we still need the Chevy pull-out. He said he would allow our loading zone to be west of our drive ramp rather than along Chevy Street if the commercial component was eliminated from the building program. He also suggested that we should involve Marc Virata in the conversation, but contended that it's primarily a traffic operations issue. Issue #2) The pork chop at the drive aisle. Eric is willing to allow us to escrow for the cost of the pork chop and put it in as a stipulation in the development agreement that it will need to be constructed if and when it is determined (by Traffic Operations) that turning movements in and/or out Of the project become a problem. In this scenario, we would, of course be required to provide designs of the pork chop in the utility plan set. This design would need to include a walkway through the pork chop. Having said all that, we have found an end -user that would like to operate an ISP (Internet Service Provder) as the non-residentail component to Anne Aspen - RE: Cheny St. Station_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. - ..Page 1 From: Anne Aspen To: Eric Bracke; Marc Virata; Troy Jones Date: 04/21 /2005 9:56:50 AM Subject: RE: Cherry St. Station Troy, This would be better addressed at the time of submittal since it is difficult to visualize the changes as written and also because with these sorts of issues, there may be impacts to other aspects of the project that may not be "visible" in this sort of limited dialogue. The whole purpose of staff review is to have such a dialog and involve every department that may be impacted. If you wish to also hold a meeting, you may, but the comments from staff review will be more comprehensive. Anne >>> "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> 04/21 8:52 AM >>> Anne, We really hope to address all outstanding comments and have a resubmittal worthy of going to hearing. To that end, we'd like to know whether our proposed loading zone solution is going to work prior to resubmitting. I thought an easy way to discuss this issue might be an e-mail dialog. We would be happy have a face to face meeting with you all if necessary. I was thinking that at least you, Marc, and Eric would need to be involved in the discussion. Can you think of anyone else you'd like to involve on this issue? Troy —Original Message — From: Anne Aspen [mailto:AAsoen(cDfcoov.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:26 PM To: troy0architex.com; Eric Bracke; Marc Virata Cc: mikalltDarchitex.com Subject: Re: Troy, Got your email. To answer, we'll address these issues at the time of resubmittal. Thanks, Anne >>> "Troy Jones" <trovCcDarchitex.com> 04/19 1:03 PM >>> Eric, Anne, and Marc, Eric and I had a converstion last week about the loading zone pull-out that is being requested along Cherry Street in our comments. This e-mail is an attempt to summarize that conversation and continue the discussion involving also engineering and planning. Eric, please correct me if my summary is not accurate according to your recollection.