Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY COURTHOUSE OFFICES - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 37-98C - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)12.18.01 TO: Project Planner FM: Clark Mapes, Advance Planning RE: Larimer County Courthouse Offices Comments and Questions City staff acknowledges that some of our questions may be for the purpose of increasing our understanding of the project, rather than reassessment of project decisions. Question: Does the "secondary entrance" make sense, with its relationships to: 1) the Civic Center Spine/Mountain Avenue Crosswalk, 2) parking on Mountain Avenue, and 3) the Mountain/Mason intersection? The reason for this question is that City Staff had expected to see a stronger, more formal orientation to the Civic Center Spine/crosswalk, forming a clear terminus to it. As a related benefit, we envisioned this naturally creating a stronger orientation to the Mountain/Mason corner than what is shown, since the spine is east of center on the blocks. Another related benefit would be a more direct relationship to visitor parking on Mountain Avenue. In short, we had expected this entrance to be a primary entrance, and be a formative, driving aspect of the design. As is, we understand that the Mountain entrance is secondary, and is apparently configured as a residual result of the primary orientation to the parking lot and Canyon Avenue. Staff understands that grade -wise, the entrance configuration is also partly a result of loading docks facing Mason Street. Would it be worth exploring more formal design alternatives? If not, and the current informal design is necessary, then a second sidewalk out to the Mountain Avenue sidewalk is suggested as shown on the enclosed plan, to add symmetry to the design and directness to the building access. Staff acknowledges the major outstanding questions about the viability of the Civic Center Spine as a driving factor in building siting. Question: Comments: Relationship to Oak and Howes on -street parking. See enclosed plan for suggested linkages to add directness, urban geometry, and more generous islands through the parking lots. Pedestrian Movement at Canyon Corner. See enclosed plan for suggested details to reduce indirectness. West Side of Building. This looks like the place for an urban sidewalk with trees, in cutouts or grates, rather than a narrow foundation planting strip. Both the scale of the building and the definition of pedestrian space suggest that trees will have more effect than whatever plants could be placed right up against the building. Oak/Mason Corner Access. See enclosed plan. 6. Sheet C5 — Note 6 indicates that the 8-inch fire line and the 3-inch water services are to be deflected under the proposed sanitary sewer. No proposed sanitary sewer is shown. In addition, the existing sewer is greater than 8 feet deep in this area (a large storm sewer to be constructed by the City is noted). Please clarify. Note 6 also refers to a typical profile shown on sheet C%, however, none is included. Please provide elevations of the storm sewer and determine if joint deflection of the water lines is appropriate, or if a water main lowering should be designed and detailed on the plans. 7. Sheet C5 — Correct the dimension lines on the water meter vault detail as shown on the redlined plans. If you should have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at 221.6750. Sinc rely, B b Barkeen City Planner C. Traffic Operations 1. A traffic study should be performed for this project. Quick look at the possible trips generated indicated a high number possible, easily requiring a TIS. If one has been done please provide a copy to me. 2. Please be in contact with the City's Traffic Operations department on any signal pole, cabinet, or wiring needs. Stormwater: 1. Since this site is adjacent to a stormwater capital project that will be undertaken this summer by the City of Fort Collins, it is recommended that construction activities on the site be coordinated with the City. The project manager for the storm drainage project on Mason is Jay Rose, at 221-6700. Please contact Jay to get more details on project schedule and to coordinate construction of the improvements associated with this project along Mason St. with the construction of the storm drainage improvements. 2. Please make sure that the elevation that is being proposed for the tie in point for the 24" storm sewer proposed by this project works with the elevation of the 48" storm sewer associated with the City project. Please note that a manhole is required at the connection point as none was shown on the preliminary plan. It might be a.good idea for the City to go ahead and install such a manhole and a stub for this site to"tie into. Coordination with City staff Gay Rose) on this issue is strongly recommended. 3. The inlets and storm sewer system associated with this project should be designed to convey the entire 100-year flows from his site to the 48" pipe to be built by the City Water/Wastewater Sheet C3 — On the west side of the existing two-story building, notes 24 and 23 appear to refer the existing water service to the building, therefore, it is unlikely that there is a fire hydrant (Note 15) at the end of the line. 2. Sheet C3 — At the northeast corner of the existing one-story building, a fire hydrant is shown (Note 15). This appears to be an error. 3. Sheet C5 — The general notes indicates an 8-inch sewer service and plan view indicates a 6-inch sewer service. Please clarify (typically sewer services are 4 or 6 inch). 4. Sheet C5 — The fire line is shown connecting to the 8-inch sanitary sewer in Mason Street. Correct the connection to the 8-inch water main. 5. Sheet C5 — Please provide detailed instructions regarding the abandonment of the 3- inch water service and the 8-inch sanitary sewer stub. 5 21. Street cut areas should extend to the edge of the parking lane or bicycle lane (whichever is applicable) at a minimum. The proposed 5' looks to be too narrow. 22. Please design accesses to Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards. 23. Driveways should be labeled as concrete to the ROW line. 24. Curb return radii for driveways intersecting arterial streets should be 20' per LCUASS Table 8-2. 25. Driveways should intersect public streets at 90-degrees +/- 10-degrees for 25 feet measured from the edge of curb inward toward the site. (LCUASS 9.4.2) 26. Please show existing driveways across the street from the proposed driveways. 27. None of the proposed access points meet separation requirements under LCUASS Table 7-3. Detail Sheet: 28. Please eliminate repeated and/or unnecessary details. 29... Please provide details of proposed retaining walls. Grading Plan: 30. Please show drainage arrows. 31. No more than 500 square feet of sheet flow is allowed over public sidewalks. (LCUASS 9.4.11 a & b, and 7.7.4) It appears that this is not being met at the driveways. Please re -grade and/or provide under -sidewalk drains. Drainage Plan: 32. It seems that the drainage basin lines do not quite match what is shown on the grading plans at the southeast driveway and to a lesser degree at the northeast driveway. Site and Landscape plan: 33. Please show utilities on this plan for verification that separation requirements are being met. (LCUASS 2.2.3) 34. Please label and dimension all easements and ROW. n 3. Please provide the standard general notes as attached. 4. Please complete and submit a Utility Plan Checklist with your next submittal. The Checklist will help clarify additional needed information. 5. Please exclude site and landscape plans from the utility plan set. They should be filed separately. 6. Please darken gray lines so that they are legible/reproducible. 7. The warning note presented along the bottom of each sheet is inappropriate for utility plans. Please alter or remove it. 8. Any damaged existing curb, gutter or sidewalk will need to be replaced. 9. Was a geotechnical report submitted? 10. Is a basement being proposed? If so, what is its finished floor elevation? 11. Please see redlined plans for additional comments. 12. Easements should be provided either by separate document(s) or by a replat. Overall Utility Plan: 13. Please show/label all easements and ROW (easements and ROW should be shown on all sheets). 14. Please dedicate easements as necessary/required for utilities, PFA, etc. The parking lot and sidewalk areas outside of ROW should be placed in a -public access easement. 15. Please show how the project will be phased. 16. Please show how the mid -block sidewalk connection on Mountain will align with the north -south sidewalk to the Courthouse to the north. 17. Please show striping on adjacent streets. Street Improvement Plan: 18. Please show how the proposed flowline profiles will tie into the existing flowline. 19. Please label street area to be cut as follows: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs are to be in accordance with City street repair standards. 20. Please provide a minimum of 2 cross -sections on Mason and one on Howes showing how new and existing slopes will work together. 3 C. the Mountain/Mason intersection? The reason for this question is that City Staff had expected to see a stronger, more formal orientation to the Civic Center Spine/crosswalk, as illustrated in the Civic Center Master Plan, forming a clear terminus to it. As a related benefit, we envisioned this naturally creating a stronger orientation to the Mountain/Mason corner than what is shown, since the spine is east of center on the blocks. Another related benefit would be a more direct relationship to visitor parking on Mountain Avenue. In short, we had expected this entrance to be a primary entrance, and be a formative, driving aspect of the design. As is, we understand that the Mountain entrance is secondary, and is apparently configured as a residual result of the primary orientation to the parking lot and Canyon Avenue. Staff understands that grade -wise, the entrance configuration is also partly a result of loading docks facing Mason Street. Would it be worth exploring more formal design alternatives? If not, and the current informal design is necessary, then a second sidewalk out to the Mountain Avenue sidewalk is suggested as shown on the enclosed plan, to add symmetry to the design and directness to the building access. Staff acknowledges the major outstanding questions about the viability of the Civic Center Spine as a driving factor in building siting. 2. Relationship to Oak and Howes on -street parking. See enclosed plan for suggested linkages to add directness, urban geometry, and mote generous islands through the parking lots. 3. Pedestrian Movement at Canyon Comer. See enclosed plan for suggested details to reduce indirectness. 4. West Side of Building. This looks like the place for an urban sidewalk with trees, in cutouts or grates, rather than a narrow foundation planting strip. Both the scale of the building and the definition of pedestrian space suggest that trees will have more effect than whatever plants could be placed right up against the building. 5. Oak/Mason Corner Access. See enclosed plan. Engineering: General Comments: 1. It is the City's intent to have Howes and Mason become 2-way streets. Considerations should be made for this in the plans. 2. Please provide the standard 3.5" by 4.5" City signature block on the lower right-hand comer of all utility plan sheets. Commu_ _y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins December 18, 2001 Matt Lafferty Latimer County Planning Division P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 Re; Latimer County Courthouse Office Building Dear Matt, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Latimer County Courthouse Office Building at 200 West Oak Street. The City of Fort Collins is offering these preliminary comments and red -lined plans based on the information submitted to the City on November 21, 2001. The project has been subsequently submitted to the City as a Site Plan. Advisory Review. Staff and referral agency comments received from the site plan advisory review process will be forwarded to Latimer- County as soon as they are available. The City of Fort Collins has scheduled this item for review by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on January 17,-2002. Current Planning: 1. - .Canopy street trees should be provided along Mason Street, within the tree lawn of the detached sidewalk. 2. The Current Planning Department has been anticipating a meeting to be held with Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and the design team to discuss issues related to the project. To date, this meeting has not been scheduled. Due. to the condensed time frame of the review process, this meeting should occur as soon as possible to avoid possible delays with the referral process. Advanced Planning: City staff acknowledges that some of our questions may be for the purpose of increasing our understanding of the project, rather than reassessment of project decisions. Question: Does the "secondary entrance" make sense, with its relationships to: a. the Civic Center Spine/Mountain Avenue Crosswalk, b. parking on Mountain Avenue, and 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020