The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About317 & 325 CHERRY ST., CHERRY STREET LOFTS - FDP - 29-03C - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)T , A [9/8/04] Building height - please note the actual height, not just what is allowed per the zone. Number: 6 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] [9/8/04] Storage closets .... are these part of the building 2 garages? Number: 7 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] [9/8/04] Please reference the modification file numbers on the site plan where noted granted as well as General Note #6... 29-03 and 29-03A Number: 8 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] [9/8/04] Eight (8) bicycle parking spaces are noted but I don't actually see them anywhere on the site plan. Please clarify. 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 H. Aspen City Planner Page 5 Number: 55 Created: 12/20/2004 [12/20/04] There are several pages missing in the text of the drainage report. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 62 Created: 1 /3/2005 [1/3/05] 1.The pages in the report containing the erosion control plan are missing. 2. Please utilize the new project schedule form (available from stormwater). 3. The site slopes to the north and east, what protects the east end of the project area? Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 59 Created: 12/27/2004 [12/27/04] Still no comments. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 56 Created: 12/21 /2004 [12/21/04] Maintain a minimum of 3 feet of separation between all taps (existing and proposed) on the existing water mains. Number: 57 Created: 12/21 /2004 [12/21/04] Maintain 4 feet minimum separation between the building envelopes and all water meter pits/ curb stops. Number: 58 Created: 12/21 /2004 [12/21/04] Coordinate site and landscape with the civil plans to reflect the same information. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: ZONING Number: 1 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] sheet 1 of 6 - same comment as below [9/8/04] sheet 1 of 5 Land Use Data Notes/site plan. Please reference the buildings as following Building 1 - Mixed -use, Bldg 2, New Garage, and bldg 3, Existing detached single family and note them as such on the site plan. Number: 2 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] [9/8/04] Note building dimensions, label the envelopes and building footprints. Number: 3 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/9/04] [9/8/04] The site plan shows foundation planting beds on the north and east side of bldg 2 yet nothing is shown on the landscape plan for this area. 12-9-04 - That's a lot of Boston Ivy - could you add some more variety, some shurbs, some color and species variations Buildings 2 and 3 do not meet landscaping requirements for foundation plantings or tree - stocking requirements. See article 3 for landscape requirements Number: 5 [12/9/04] Created: 9/8/2004 Page 4 what they will require for the undergrounding of their facilities. Can it be undergrounded? (Undergrounding is a LUC requirement.) Number: 40 Created: 9/15/2004 [12/10/04] [9/15/04] In the DA for this project, it will be noted that special paving in the ROW is the responsibility of the Developer/Owner, and that, should the City or other utilities need to work in the ROW under the paving, they will not be responsible for repaving the area except for the standard sidewalk. Number: 52 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/041 Building eaves are, not allowed over the ROW without approval and an encroachment permit. Please revise your plans to limit the building eaves to within your property lines or apply for the encroachment permit (there is a fee associated with this permit). Number: 53 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/04] Please note that no part of the patio wall is allowed within the ROW and add the ROW location to the sketch of the wall. Please note also that no part of the underground dumpster may be located within the ROW. Number: 61 Created: 1 /3/2005 [1/3/05] Please show how water will drain out of the underground trash enclosure. Topic: Site Plan Number: 11 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] The proposed parkway on Cherry falls short of the minimum 8'. Please revise. [9/10/04] Please provide dimensions for sidewalks and parkways meeting or exceeding LCUASS standards. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Electric Number: 51 Created: 12/9/2004 [12/9/04] The utility plan states "Existing electric cabinet, relocate underground." The developer has verbally indicated that the new electric service will be single phase which will make this statement possible at additional cost. However, if three phase power does become required, a location for a pad type (above ground) transformer will be necessary. Normal electric development charges plus costs to modify the electric utility system will apply. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 44 Created: 9/16/2004 [12/20/04] More information (spot elevations) are needed in this area to better clarify grading and to ensure drainage will work with an underground trash enclosure. Please make sure drainage will not enter the underground trash enclosure. Number: 54 Created: 12/20/2004 [12/20/04] The concrete pan has a very shallow slope and will be hard to construct as designed without any ponding locations. Please try to increase the slope for the pan. Page 3 Please provide additional offsite data/design so that it can be seen that what is proposed to be constructed for this project will work for the rest of the alley. Number: 17 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] The slope from the walk to the Cherry flowline is over 8%, which is the maximum. (9/10/04] The slope shown for the alley as it crosses the sidewalk is shown at 4.5%, but the maximum cross slope for a sidewalk is 2%. At the north edge of the walk, LCUASS allows for a larger than 0.4% grade break and a slope of up to 8%, if needed, down to the flowline. Number: 18 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] The contours end at the ROW line to the east, but need to continue on the property to the east to show that the proposed alley can be built without impacting that property. Spot elevations are also needed to show this. [9/10/04] Please show existing and proposed grading contours on the alley plan. Topic: General . Number: 12 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] 1 still have not received a soils report. [9/10/04] Due to the alley construction, a standard soils report is required. The one -page summary submitted is not sufficient. Number: 13 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] Improvements were made since the last round, but some revisions are still needed to meet scanability requirements. See green highlighted areas and double-check plans. [9/10/04] Please review LCUASS Appendix E for plan scanability requirements. In general: Behind any text must be plain white. Font size/pen width ratios must be met. Simplifying plans helps - less use of shading, speckling, cross -hatching, etc. Number: 20 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] Please improve the detail quality - it is very fuzzy- and add interim drawing 1606(a). Also, please provide additional information regarding the ramps (spot elevations) so that we know they can be properly constructed. This has been a problem in the past. [9/10/04] The City has just approved new details for pedestrian ramp construction. Please see attached. These details apply to all projects not yet constructed. Number: 21 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] [9/10/04] Please see plans and utility plan checklist for additional redlines and comments. Number: 22 Created: 9/10/2004 [12/10/04] A variance request for the driveway width was received and approved, please list this approval on the utility plans. [9/10/04] Minimum single family driveway width within the ROW is 12'. Currently, the driveway is shown at 9'. Please revise. Number: 38 Created: 9/15/2004 (12/10/041 The note on the pole says it is to be relocated. Where is it going? Please show on the plans. [9/15/04) There's an existing utility pole with guy wires along the alley in front of the proposed garage doors. Please research which utility(ies) is using the pole and determine Page 2 moor STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Forl Collins M. TORGERSON ARCHITECTS Date: 01/03/2005 TROY JONES 223 N. COLLEGE AVE FT. COLLINS, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 317 AND 325 CHERRY STREET, CHERRY STREET LOFTS PDP/FC #29-03B/C, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: General Number: 24 Created: 9/14/2004 [12/28/04] [9/14/04] Please show some context on at least your site plan. What is across Cherry St? Meldrum? What is to the south? Number: 26 Created: 9/14/2004 [12/28/04] [9/14/04] Garages need to have direct access to the living units. This is not shown on your site plan. Number: 60 Created: 12/28/2004 [12/28/04] Rick Lee of Building Inspection has offered comments which will be included with your redlines. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Alley design Number: 15 Created: 9/10/2004 (12/10/041 Initially, I stated that enough offsite design needs to be shown to prove that the alley segment to be constructed with this project would work with the eventual paving of the rest of the alley (this was an attempt to reduce the needed offsite design from the standard 500' length). The first round of review showed 100' offsite design, which did not answer this question. Now, even less information is shown than was shown before (only 13' of offsite design, and only 30' of offsite data). Previous existing grade lines showed a low point to the south that is no longer shown on the plans. The design shown does not provide for that low point to drain. Please provide existing elevations and preliminary design of the alley to the location where the alley is paved adjacent to Terracon. The design also only shows the centerline profile of the alley. This would be helpful if the flowline was in the center of the alley, but alone on a side -draining alley it does not help very much. Please provide the flowline profile as well as a profile of the west edge of the alley to verify flowline slopes and alley cross slopes (which should be between 2-3%, not 3-4%) will meet standards. Also, please provide the curb return profiles connecting the alley to Cherry Street, including the existing grade(s) being tied into. (9/10/04] The alley design provided brings up more questions than it answers: - further south, is the existing grade still this flat? - Does the whole alley drain south or is there a high point somewhere? - Does the proposed design need to drop in elevation so that minimum grades can be achieved further south? Page 1