Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPENNY FLATS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2007-04-20DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS INFORMATION This document has been prepared with input from the reviewing agencies that will be involved in the development of Block 33. This has been prepared prior to any plans being submitted, so it is to be used as a sort of preliminary "heads -up" about what we will be looking for when we do our staff review. More specific comments will be available at the time of conceptual and staff review. Reviewing Agencies: • City of Fort Collins Development Review TAC, Including DDA • BNBSF Railroad • Colorado Historical Society CITY OF FORT COLLINS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (TAC) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Members: Ken Waldo (Project Mgr.) Advance Planning (970)221-6753 kwaido@fcgov.com Anne Aspen (Assistant Project Mgr.) Current Planning (970)221-6206 aaspen@ Marc Vista, Engineering (970)221-6605x7188 mvirata@ Roger Buffington, Water/Wastewater/Stonnwater (970)221-6854 rbuffington@ Doug Martine, Light and Power (970)224-6152 dmarUne@ Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning (970)224-6140 kbracke@ David Averill, Transportation Planning (970)416-2643, daverill@ Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations (970)221-6820 wstanford@ Joe Gerdom, Police jgerdom@ Mike Chavez, PFA (970)416-2869 mchavez@ Carol Tunner, Advance Planning (Historic Preservation) (970)221-6597, ctunner (Paul Eckman, City Atty.'s office) (970)416-2476 weckman@ (Chip Steiner, DDA) (970)484-2020 steinco@frii.com REVISION COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: October 12, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05 Penny Flats (Block 33) PDP — Type II Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 26, 2005 Nate - ❑ No roblems ' ' roblems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: October 12, 2005 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05 Penny Flats (Block 33) PDP — Type II Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 26, 2005 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference �(f No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) K•ram v- Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other 6a _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Conins Project Comments Sheet iz Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: November 2, 2005 Project: PENNY FLATS (BLOCK 33) PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Anne Aspen in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: October 26, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Vlrata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 21 Created: 8/19/2005 [10/26/051 Carried over for reference to be addressed in detail after a public hearing. [8/19/05] Cutoff walls will be required for the use of the water quality basin areas in right-of- way to help reduce possible damage to the pavement subsurface caused by water infiltration into the pavement subsurface. Number: 23 Created: 8/22/2005 [10/26/05] The response indicated sidewalk chases were provided where appropriate. I'm seeing this provided in one location (southeast corner of Lot 2) but not in the other locations. How does the roof drain tie into the sidewalk chase? Does the roof drain on the northeast corner of Lot 1 drain directly onto a stairwell? [8122/051 It appears the roof drains are intended to surface discharge. Additional information is needed to demonstrate that if this is the case, flows won't be directed to cross a sidewalk. It would appear that there are opportunities to tie these into storm drain lines rather than surface discharge. Number: 49 Created: 8/23/2005 (10/26/05] A variance request was received and will be evaluated. It is not anticipated to be of concern, however there may be design details to be worked out with a final compliance submittal. The grading plan sheet should indicate the use of concrete for the inset parking along Maple as was indicated along Mason. [8/23/051 The street design of the parking along Maple on the west side of the pedestrian spine is not to standard with street flows being directed to a concrete pan behind the parking rather than to the curb and gutter section adjacent to the sidewalk. A variance requiest would be required for evaluation. This should be a further topic of discussion to consider design alternatives. Signature it 2 6 s Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS (/Plat —Site ainage Report Other_ %--Utility Redline Utility Landscape Pale 1 Number: 117 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/051 Add a note regarding street patching: "Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the street curs are made." Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 8/19/2005 [10/26/051 The response indicated that plans have been modified to clarify that doors will not open in right-of-way. I'm not seeing this and would like to follow up on this item. Perhaps a note can be added to the elevations indicating that doors shall not swing out into right-of-way. (8/19/05] With buildings 5 and 6 being built to the Maple right-of-way, please clarify the intent with regards to door access from Maple as it is not evident from the building elevations as to whether the doors are recessed from the right-of-way and/or are inset. Doors are not allowed to swing out into the right-of-way. Number: 20 Created: 8/19/2005 [10/26/05] The response indicated that a detail has been provided on the landscape plan with bike racks. The landscape plan shows the bike racks in plan view but no detail, instead a planting bed curb detail is provided. [8119/05] Please provide more detail information (beyond C5 of the construction plan set) as to the vertical depth of the planting bed for the street trees. I'm not aware of a situation in which landscaping and street trees are situated in an urbanized setting (without a grass parkway) of attached sidewalks where grates are not utilized to help ensure a smooth walking surface. How is the pedestrian less likely to inadverdently step in this landscape bed and possibly turn an ankle, trip, etc? A similar concept of these water quality beds were proposed on another project where a 1 foot drop to the planting bed was proposed, which looks like may not be occuring here. In that case, we wanted to explore the option of providing barrier curb with notches in the curb at location in order to provide the visual aspect of not being able to walk in this area unlike most other areas downtown where sidewalk grates are placed over the trees. Further discussion is needed. Number:57 _ Created: 8/25/2005 [10/26/05] The construction drawings showed phasing on the grading plan with regards to buildings, pedestrian spine, and parking structure. The phasing plan should also show how utilities are installed per phase as well as access. Of concern for example, does PFA need the entire parking structure built across Lots/Phases 1 & 2 to ensure through access to Cherry Street? The building numbers should be shown on this sheet for clarity. (Perhaps a new sheet should be created instead of using the grading plan.) [8125/05] With the project intending to be phased, a phasing plan for the public improvements is required to be created on the construction drawings. Number: 58 Created: 8/25/2005 [10/26/05] The response letter did not indicate addressing the bicycle crossing concern. This can be addressed however with the final plan submittal. [8/25/05] The crossing of the sidewalk over the railroad track along Mason Street will need to be designed. In addition, please incorporate a design along the flowline for Mason that creates a safer crossing for bicyclists crossing the railroad track. Number: 59 Created: 8/25/2005 Page 2 (10/26/05) [8125/051 Offsite work is being show along the Trolley Barn which requires a letter of intent prior to hearing and easement/alignment (as appropriate) after hearing. Number: 119 Created: 10/26/2005 [10126/051 A letter of intent is required from the railroad company for the work being done within their easement on the northeast corner of the site. Number: 123 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26105] Please amend the site plan note regarding the alley right-of-way to state "vacation petition pending" instead of "vacation pending". Number: 124 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/05] The three variance requests will be evaluated with decisions forthcoming. Number: 125 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/05] The following items should be addressed prior to hearing: #13 verification on doors not swinging out into ROW (add a note?) #23 verification of roof drain outlets not affecting public sidewalk, in some cases sidewalk chases were not provided? #57 verification with PFA on phasing plan concepts (not possibly having an emergency access easement built to connect from Maple to Cherry) #118The plat shows an easement reserved for the railroad within the platted boundary. As a result, the railroad company will need to sign off on the plat. Perhaps it would be of benefit to revise the platted boundary to not include the railroad easement? #119 A letter of intent is required from the railroad company for the work being done within their easement on the northeast corner of the site. #120 The "right of way easement" document should be checked for verification as "right-of- way" cannot be vacated by plat, only an "easement". I'm not sure what this is. #121 It's my understanding that the sale of the property to the developer will not occur until after the plat has been filed. As a result, easements shown on the plat cannot be "easements" per se, the plat will thus need to be revised. #122 1 will need to follow up with the City Attorney's Office on whether the maintenance and repair guarantee language is appropriate to be included in the plat given that the "undersigned" can only be the City. Topic: Plat Number: 118 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/05] The plat shows an easement reserved for the railroad within the platted boundary. As a result, the railroad company will need to sign off on the plat. Perhaps it would be of benefit to revise the platted boundary to not include the railroad easement? Number: 120 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/05] The "right of way easement" document should be checked for verification as "right-of-way" cannot be vacated by plat, only an "easement". I'm not sure what this is. Number: 121 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/051 It's my understanding that the sale of the property to the developer will not occur until after the plat has been filed. As a result, easements shown on the plat cannot be ..easements" per se, the plat will thus need to be revised. Page 3 Number: 122 Created: 10/26/2005 [10/26/05] 1 am in discussion with the City Attorney's Office on whether the maintenance and repair guarantee language is appropriate to be included in the plat given that the "undersigned" can only be the City. If this language is removed from the plat, we would likely want to have it included in the purchase agreement as a restriction. Page 4 FINAL PLAN I COMMENT SHEET Citvof Fort Collins . ia� r�.rt �".atitart� DATE: March 31, 2006 TO: Technical Services / PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen/ #32-05A Penny Flats Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: April 26, 2006 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference No Problems 211'p� roblems or Concerns (see below or attached) �7uv nJDRFz L. U�� iy GU ll J � C I OL""1 Name (please print) I CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline utility _Landscape cityCity of�� FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET citvof Fort Collins DATE: March 31, 2006 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05A Penny Flats Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: April 26, 2006 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference 0 No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) .Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape CiTy of F1 J1. Qei k, "4 *NProject Comments Sheet fir'' Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Date: May 8, 2006 Project: PENNY FLATS (BLOCK 33) PDP AND FINAL PLANS - TYPE I All comments must be received by Anne Aspen in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: May 03, 2006 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 21 Created: 8/19/2005 [5/5/06] Carried over as noted in ID 20. [10/26/05] Carried over for reference to be addressed in detail after a public hearing. [8/19/051 Cutoff walls will be required for the use of the water quality basin areas in right-of- way to help reduce possible damage to the pavement subsurface caused by water infiltration into the pavement subsurface. Number: 49 Created: 8/23/2005 [5/5/06] Carried over pending resolution of ID 166. [10/26105] A variance request was received and will be evaluated. It is not anticipated to be of concern, however there may be design details to be worked out with a final compliance submittal. The grading plan sheet should indicate the use of concrete for the inset parking along Maple as was indicated along Mason. [8/23/051 The street design of the parking along Maple on the west side of the pedestrian spine is not to standard with street flows being directed to a concrete pan behind the parking rather than to the curb and gutter section adjacent to the sidewalk. A variance request would be required for evaluation. This should be a further topic of discussion to consider design alternatives. Number: 166 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Please provide a concrete scoring and joint pattern detail for the concrete areas of inset parking along Maple Street and Mason Street. Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS A— Plat r Site Drainage Report Other_ _ Y Utility _A� Redline Utility X Landscape Page 1 Number: 167 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] The construction plans seem to show additional utility work (fiber optic and xcel) that results in additional street patching than what is reflected on the demo and grading plans. Please revise the patching limits accordingly. Number: 168 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Provide a detail for truncated domes at access ramps--1607(a). Number: 169 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] For transitions from inflow to outfall gutter, please specify a transition length and indicate on the plan set (such as along Mason Street). Please demonstrate with spot elevations that positive flowline drainage is being maintained along this area to ensure no pooling of water can take place. Number: 170 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Indicate the property line on the grading plan. Number: 171 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] There are locations along Maple Street and Howes Street where cross slopes along the street do not meet our 2-3% requirement. Howes Street is notably out of compliance where the neckdown is being incorporated. Please look at the cross slopes along these two streets. Additionally, please provide cross slopes (existing and proposed) along these two streets at 50 foot intervals and at several points along each of the neck downs to help ascertain how much of the cross slope concerns are due to existing conditions verses caused by the design. Number: 172 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Storm Line #9 has inadequate cover from the top of the pipe. An acceptable remedy to this (in consultation with the pavement management engineer) would be to have concrete pavement over this area, extending the existing concrete section south of the pipe. The asphalt to concrete transition originally proposed would have caused some concern from our perspective, so the use of concrete over the pipe would accomplish two concerns. Number: 173 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Please provide a construction drawing illustrating the subsurface area of the buildings to help illustrate how the parking structure area is situated in relation to right-of- way and easements as well as how elevations are continued from the entrances of the parking garage(s) to the basement. Number: 174 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] I'm not following the spot elevation shown for the underground parking access. For instance on Sheet C10, spot elevations at the entrance of the garage are shown at 83.45, then heading north (shown on C9) spot elevation are shown presumably further into the garage at 82.36, it doesn't appear that there is slope to head down into the basement (perhaps ID 174) will clarify this? Number: 175 Created: 5/5/2006 [5/5/06] Given the work previously done with utilities, it may be of benefit for the developer/engineer to provide additional approval blocks for Comcast, Xcel, and Qwest, plus adding Light and Power to the City approval block. This is not a requirement but again Page 2 ADVANCE PLANNING ISSUES (Carol Tunner and Clark Mapes) • Historic Preservation Issues (Carol Tunner): Carol states that she does not want to lose the parking lot to the south of the trolley barn. Logistically, on the interior, the east elevation does not lend itself at all to an entrance. It was never a people entrance, only for the original trolleys to come off the railroad. It was very quickly turned into a two-story wall of small rooms, still existing. Today, all that space is a floor -to -ceiling climate controlled artifact storage room for the museum. Also, the city did a $15,000 study to turn the barn into a museum, and the new proposed "best entrance" according to Aller-Lingle Architects was on the south side into that parking lot. The City received two Transportation Enhancement grants in relation to the trolley barn. The MPO office may have a say on what happens to the barn, if anything. Design Ideas and Guidelines (Clark Mapes (970)221-6225, cmapes@): o An 80-foot wide Civic Center Spine has been planned through the middle of the block. o The Downtown Strategic Plan recommends that retail fronts face on the East-West street (Maple) with maximum pedestrian amenity. Vehicle access is recommended off of the N-S streets. o Face the sun if possible and a provide a great streetscape on Maple o Upper stories can face the park, take advantage of long views to the north o Step buildings back above 2 stories, with no part above 5-6 stories o Determine massing by sensitivity to historic and pedestrian relationships and shading, with particular attention to highlighting the Trolley Barn o Internal vs external corridors? External can allow light on two sides vs. one side; internal is much more efficient. o Use brick, with particular attention to highlighting the Trolley Barn CURRENT PLANNING ISSUES (Anne Aspen) • Scale: Because of the site context, building scale is an important consideration. Nearby residential development is low — a maximum of two and one-half stories. The Trolley Barn is 18 feet tall, rising to 26 feet at the parapet. Civic Center buildings on the blocks to the south rise to four and five stories. Block 33's strategic position between these downtown elements suggests a careful transition, with lower building elements on the north and west, and higher, more intensive development to the south and east. If there are mixed -use commercial components, they should be sited on the south or east, along the Maple or Mason Street frontages. Buildings over 40 feet in height will be subject to a special height review. This is essentially an additional level of information that will be required in your submittal to include a shadow analysis, and a photo simulation of the views, etc. as described in Land Use Code (LUC) 3.5.1(Gx1). Buildings over 4 stories or 56 feet will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Green Building Practices: Building practices that conserve energy and materials and conform to LEED green building and/or sustainability standards are strongly encouraged. Environmental / Natural Resources: Poudre Valley REA had to do clean up on the site because they stored telephone poles (creosote) on the site. They got a may be of benefit to the developer and engineer as these facilities are being shown on the drawings. Number: 176 Created: 5/5/2006 [515/08] In verification with the Pavement Management Engineer, the series of patching along Howes needs to be expanded from each extent of the patching occurring fully across the street as the patches are less than 75 feet apart per our criteria in 25.7.28.6 of LCUASS. In addition, the patching presently shown on Maple needs to involve the entire half width at a minimum per the same section. Further analysis of the patching will be made with the additional patching expansion for the previously mentioned fiber optic and gas lines. Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 8/19/2005 [5/5/06] Per discussion at staff review, please add a note on the building elevations regarding the inset doors along Maple. [10/26/05] The response indicated that plans have been modified to clarify that doors will not open in right-of-way. I'm not seeing this and would like to follow up on this item. Perhaps a note can be added to the elevations indicating that doors shall not swing out into right-of-way. [8/19/05] With buildings 5 and 6 being built to the Maple right-of-way, please clarify the intent with regards to door access from Maple as it is not evident from the building elevations as to whether the doors are recessed from the right-of-way and/or are inset. Doors are not allowed to swing out into the right-of-way. Number: 20 Created: 8/19/2005 [515/061 Given the discussion at staff review regarding the possible payment to Stormwater in -lieu of providing water quality, the comment is deferred at this time. Should the water quality planter be used along Maple Street, additional information on the detail dimensioning the depth and slopes of the soil from the sidewalk edge should be provided. [10/26/05] The response indicated that a detail has been provided on the landscape plan with bike racks. The landscape plan shows the bike racks in plan view but no detail, instead a planting bed curb detail is provided. [8119/051 Please provide more detail information (beyond C5 of the construction plan set) as to the vertical depth of the planting bed for the street trees. I'm not aware of a situation in which landscaping and street trees are situated in an urbanized setting (without a grass parkway) of attached sidewalks where grates are not utilized to help ensure a smooth walking surface. How is the pedestrian less likely to inadvertently step in this landscape bed and possibly turn an ankle, trip, etc? A similar concept of these water quality beds were proposed on another project where a 1 foot drop to the planting bed was proposed, which looks like may not be occurring here. In that case, we wanted to explore the option of providing barrier curb with notches in the curb at location in order to provide the visual aspect of not being able to walk in this area unlike most other areas downtown where sidewalk grates are placed over the trees. Further discussion is needed. Number: 57 Created: 8/25/2005 [5/5/06] With the phasing plan for utilities now being shown, there is a general question as to how each phase as it develops will tie into existing conditions. Please provide more 7etailed phasing showing how each successive phase of development ties into the existing -.onditions. The demo plan should be shown in phases as well. 3/26/05] The construction drawings showed phasing on the grading plan with regards to uildings, pedestrian spine, and parking structure. The phasing plan should also show how Page 3 utilities are installed per phase as well as access. Of concern for example, does PFA need the entire parking structure built across Lots/Phases 1 & 2 to ensure through access to Cherry Street? The building numbers should be shown on this sheet for clarity. (Perhaps a new sheet should be created instead of using the grading plan.) [8/251051 With the project intending to be phased, a phasing plan for the public improvements is required to be created on the construction drawings. Topic: Plat Number: 122 Created: 10/26/2005 [5/5/06] If Coburn Development Inc. is comfortable with replacing "undersigned" with Coburn Development Inc. in the maintenance and repair guarantee language, we're satisfied and can consider this issue resolved. [10/26/05) 1 am in discussion with the City Attorney's Office on whether the maintenance and repair guarantee language is appropriate to be included in the plat given that the "undersigned" can only be the City. If this language is removed from the plat, we would likely want to have it included in the purchase agreement as a restriction. Page 4 RECEIVED JUL 0 6 2006 TO: S7tYrrN�l//�Tt/Z <GcEv�k.Es� FROM: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer DATE: June 22, 2006 RE: REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY Attached for your review and comment is a sketch showing alley right-of-way bisecting Block 33 of the City of Fort Collins. In conjunction with the redevelopment proposal for Block 33 known as Penny Flats, the City is proposing that the alley right-of-way be vacated and retained as a pedestrian access, utility, and drainage easement. Please sign and return any comments to Marc Virata in the Development Review Center by July 5, 2006 or email: mviratana•fceov.com with your comments. Responses not received by this date will be assumed as no concerns to the proposed vacation. Please call at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Thank you. A NOPROBLE//MS as 16,-9 as -tAc R ° re�¢T awl al11lf' ea.5e-W-0` '��I !PROBLEMS/CONCERNS AS FOLLOWS: &,/ %--S' O6 TO: ' Wia��,�rw,fS�Cw-V FROM: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer DATE: June 22, 2006 RE: REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY Attached for your review and comment is a sketch showing alley right-of-way bisecting Block 33 of the City of Fort Collins. In conjunction with the redevelopment proposal for Block 33 known as Penny Flats, the City is proposing that the alley right-of-way be vacated and retained as a pedestrian access, utility, and drainage easement. Please sign and return any comments to Marc Virata in the Development Review Center by July 5, 2006 or email: mvirata@fc og v.com with your comments. Responses not received by this date will be assumed as no concerns to the proposed vacation. Please call at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Thank you. NO PROBLEMS PROBLEMS/CONCERNS AS FOLLOWS: Alley, vacation, Block 33, City of Fort Collins A i-i-L'EWED JUN 2 9 Z006 TO: XCEL FROM: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer DATE: June 22, 2006 RE: REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY Attached for your review and comment is a sketch showing alley right-of-way bisecting Block 33 of the City of Fort Collins. In conjunction with the redevelopment proposal for Block 33 known as Penny Flats, the City is proposing that the alley right-of-way be vacated and retained as a pedestrian access, utility, and drainage easement. Please sign and return any comments to Marc Virata in the Development Review Center by July 5, 2006 or email: mvirataafcgov.com with your comments. Responses not received by this date will be assumed as no concerns to the proposed vacation. Please call at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Thank you. k--'NO PROBLEMS PROBLEMS/CONCERNS AS FOLLOWS: Da✓io-AcRe d�s�/ot Alley vacation,. Block 33, City of Fort Collins FINAL PLAN REVISION COMMENT Citv of Fort Collins uiren!: P'= SHEET DATE: June 22, 2006 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05A Penny Flats (Block 33) PDP — Final Plans SECOND ROUND OF FINAL PLAN REVIEW Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: July 12, 2006 THIS PROJECT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE REGULAR TAC MEETING TIME (1:30 — 3 pm) ON JULY 12 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference U" o Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) z �� \ ,-I C i�-t r2 i oe, Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other 6a _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape C ty ofC ty F FINAL PLAN REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: June 22, 2006 TO: Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05A Penny Flats (Block 33) PDP — Final Plans SECOND ROUND OF FINAL PLAN REVIEW Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: July 12, 2006 THIS PROJECT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE REGULAR TAC MEETING TIME (1:30 — 3 pm) ON JULY 12 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference C/ ) 'f 4 c i3 i S cu p ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility Landscape ON of Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: July 12, 2006 Project: PENNY FLATS (BLOCK 33) PDP AND FINAL PLANS - TYPE I Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 166 Created: 5/5/2006 RK [7/11/06] The concrete joint pattern detail is too faint to be noticed on the grading plan sheets. Please provide a more noticeable lineweight/linetype (also, remove the existing striping to prevent confusion). Provide a typical dimensioning of the pattern length and width. In checking with our Engineering Inspector, please also indicate the use of expansion joints between the gutter pan/spill gutter and the concrete pavement section as well as specifying the use of expansion joints on the concrete pavement section at intervals not to exceed 100 feet. In addition, it should be indicated that these areas shall adhere to the City's concrete pacing standards and that all joints are to be sealed. [5/5/06] Please provide a concrete scoring and joint pattern detail for the concrete areas of inset parking along Maple Street and Mason Street. Number: 171 Created: 5/5/2006 C , v [7/11/06] A variance request was received. In general, we'd like to do some further investigation of the rideability and maintainability of the street section in response to the cross slope information provided. If there is excessive undulation along the travel way as a jpCle-4 result of the neckdowns in conjunction with inlet locations and existing grades, perhaps the design should look at a quarter crown situation where the grades steepen up along the parking areas but are less steep along the travel way. Providing flowline and centerline n elevations along Maple and Howes will help in the review of how the street systems will I07 function. [5/5/06] There are locations along Maple Street and Howes Street where cross slopes along the street do not meet our 2-3% requirement. Howes Street is notably out of compliance where the neckdown is being incorporated. Please look at the cross slopes along these two streets. Additionally, please provide cross slopes (existing and proposed) along these two streets at 50 foot intervals and at several points along each of the neck downs to help ascertain how much of the cross slope concerns are due to existing conditions verses caused by the design. Number: 173 Created: 5/5/2006 cot" [7/111061 The information shown specifies 8% grades behind the sidewalk, which is steeper than I had thought the applicant was looking to achieve. Per our discussion at the staff 7,11 !. Dat / CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility _-Ir Landscape Page 1 closure letter but it is still possible that contamination could be encountered during excavation for underground parking or foundations. ENGINEERING ISSUES (Marc Virata) • Railroad: BNR still uses the railroad track that cuts across the northeast comer of the site and getting BNR to relocate it would be a City expense that isn't likely to get any support. Years ago this was looked at by Engineering and the cost to have this relocated elsewhere was several million dollars. We're more apt to just wait and see as eventually this entire section of railway could be abandoned. Having said all that, If BNR were to no longer use this or the tracks along Mason Street in general, this particular section of track that cuts along the northeast comer of Block 33 may still be of importance to maintain. It currently serves as a "Y" to allow BNR to turnaround their freight and if BNR were to vacate, we may still want to look at keeping this section for the purpose of creating a turnaround for the potential Mason Corridor transportation system. WATER/WASTEWATER/STORMWATER ISSUES (Roger BufflngtordGlen Schlueter) • Stormwater Outfall: The Howes Street Outfall bisects the site from north to south. It is wider (25 feet) than the normal alley right-of-way (20 feet). The combined easement of 45 feet presents both a limitation on use of the property for full development, and a site design challenge/opportunity. The alignment of the easement corresponds to the Civic Center spine, which is planned to be 80 feet wide, and offers a clear visual and pedestrian connection between civic buildings to the south and residential development at Martinez Park to the north. Nevertheless, there is an unusually large part of the site where no improvements may be constructed, and future outfall maintenance may disrupt the property. • Water/Wastewater. Existing facilities include 6-inch water main in Cherry, 12- inch water main on the east side of Mason, 1 6-inch water main and 12-inch sanitary sewer in Maple and 4-inch water main and 6-inch sanitary sewer in Howes. When water demands and wastewater flows for the proposed development have been determined, existing mains will be evaluated to determine if replacement of any lines will be required. LIGHT AND POWER ISSUES There is an existing underground substation tie circuit in the alleyway, including a pad -type switch. This is a major concrete encased multi -conduit, multi cable high voltage (13,800V) system. Relocation of this system, if required will be extremely costly for the developer. • Light and Power will need a plat, site plan, a utility plan, and to have location(s) for pad -type electric transformers coordinated with L&P Engineering. In addition, L&P will need electrical bad information for all structures. This includes number of dwelling units for residential and a completed C-1 form for each non-residential electric service. By ordinance, residential users must be individually metered, and all meters must be outdoors and accessible to meter readers. • Normal electric development charges will apply. For those lots which currently have electric service, the portions of the development charges relating to lot area and property frontage along dedicated streets will not apply. There is a development fee estimator calculator on the web site http:fcgov.com, then pick Departments, Utilities, Electric and Development Fee Calculator. If you have any questions, please call Doug Martine. review on 7/12, additional information will be provided and reviewed by the City for possible concerns. [5/5/06] Please provide a construction drawing illustrating the subsurface area of the buildings to help illustrate how the parking structure area is situated in relation to right-of- way and easements as well as how elevations are continued from the entrances of the parking garage(s) to the basement. Number: 189 Created: 7/11/2006 [7111/061 The street patching shown needs to be expanded for the patching along Maple Street between the crosswalk and the fiber optic line in accordance with our patching repair standards (25.7.2.B.6 of LCUASS). This may also be the case for the patching along Maple Street between the crosswalk and the fiber optic line needing to be connected (see Sheet C7), provided that patching is needed for the access ramp instead of a clean edge being maintained to pour the concrete against. Number: 199 Created: 7/1112006 O <17/11/061 The handicap parking stall along Maple Street will need to be widened to accommodate loading on either side, which will result in the losing of a parking spot. This is part of a standard set forth by Parking Services in the downtown area and is implemented on the various block faces downtown. (Per staff review discussion on 7/12, the location of the parking spot should ideally be at the southeast corner of the site.) m x Number: 201 Created: 7/12/2006 [7/12/06] The access ramp on the south side of Maple Street tying into the crosswalk across Maple should be revised to not have the flare on the east side and mimic the curb transition on the west side for consistency. Number: 202 Created: 7/12/2006 v� [7/12/06] Provide additional information and clarity regarding the modification/additions to existing inlets along Maple and Cherry. For the new inlets along Cherry please call out the type and distinguish them in linetype from the existing for clarity. Also, how will these connect to the existing inlets? Z Number:203 Created:7/12/2006 [7/12/061 On Sheet C25 the crosswalk information is a little confusing for the crosswalk along Maple, is it intended to lineup with the access ramp on the north side of Maple? Why is it shown cutting into the sidewalk section? In general is it being verified that the crosswalk locations tie into the existing access ramps across the street in all areas? We should follow up with Transportation Planning to look at the crossings individually if they don't line up from existing to proposed access ramps. oe Number:204 Created:7/12/2006 [7/12/061 Per verification with Traffic Engineering, the use of striping for parallel parking along Mason Street should be removed as the City doesn't maintain this. Topic: General rjt� Number:20 Created:8119/2005 17/10/06] On Sheet C30, please remove the water quality planter detail as the use of these particular water quality features I understand is no longer being implemented. [5/5/06] Given the discussion at staff review regarding the possible payment to Stormwater in -lieu of providing water quality, the comment is deferred at this time. Should the water Page 2 quality planter be used along Maple Street, additional information on the detail dimensioning the depth and slopes of the soil from the sidewalk edge should be provided. [10/26/05] The response indicated that a detail has been provided on the landscape plan with bike racks. The landscape plan shows the bike racks in plan view but no detail, instead a planting bed curb detail is provided. [8/19/051 Please provide more detail information (beyond C5 of the construction plan set) as to the vertical depth of the planting bed for the street trees. I'm not aware of a situation in which landscaping and street trees are situated in an urbanized setting (without a grass parkway) of attached sidewalks where grates are not utilized to help ensure a smooth walking surface. How is the pedestrian less likely to inadvertently step in this landscape bed and possibly turn an ankle, trip, etc? A similar concept of these water quality beds were proposed on another project where a 1 foot drop to the planting bed was proposed, which looks like may not be occurring here. In that case, we wanted to explore the option of providing barrier curb with notches in the curb at location in order to provide the visual aspect of not being able to walk in this area unlike most other areas downtown where sidewalk grates are placed over the trees. Further discussion is needed. 6 Number:57 Created:8/25/2005 [7/11/06] The construction phasing drawings now shown do help clarify. A concern frye,°'h regarding the phasing plan sheets is that the successive phasing numbers should not show the proceeding street phasing work. As an example, it would be beneficial to know if with C +, the construction of Phase 2, how much pavement in and around the handicap stall that was previously installed with Phase 1 needs to be removed for Phase 2. By showing Phase 1's patching limits on Phase 2, this information cannot be verified. Add a note regarding requiring a sawcut between patching areas of successive phases. [5/5/06] With the phasing plan for utilities now being shown, there is a general question as to how each phase as it develops will tie into existing conditions. Please provide more detailed phasing showing how each successive phase of development ties into the existing conditions. The demo plan should be shown in phases as well. (10/26/05] The construction drawings showed phasing on the grading plan with regards to buildings, pedestrian spine, and parking structure. The phasing plan should also show how utilities are installed per phase as well as access. Of concern for example, does PFA need the entire parking structure built across Lots/Phases 1 & 2 to ensure through access to Cherry Street? The building numbers should be shown on this sheet for clarity. (Perhaps a new sheet should be created instead of using the grading plan.) (8/25/051 With the project intending to be phased, a phasing plan for the public improvements is required to be created on the construction drawings. Topic: Plat Number: 190 Created: 7/11/2006 [7/11/061 The standard certificate of dedication language on the plat has been discussed by City legal staff and it was concluded that it doesn't seem to be appropriate given that the City is singing the plat as an owner. Please replace the Certificate of Dedication language on the plat with the following, which appears to better state the situation regarding the City's ownership of the property: "The easements as laid out and designated on this Plat shall be reserved by the City of Fort Collins from any conveyance of the land described herein to Penny Flats, LLC, provided, however, that reservation of said easements does not impose upon the city a duty to maintain the easements so reserved." Page 3 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ISSUES • Please take the approved full Mason Transportation Corridor (MTC) Master Plan into consideration for the site planning/land use and traffic/transportation analysis efforts. This site is ideal for transit -oriented development opportunities and will be well -served by the MTC system and other local transit lines accessing the Downtown Transit Center. For example, if ground floor retail is being considered, it would be ideal along the Mason Street frontage with direct access to the comer of Mason/Maple. • Also, keep in mind that the MTC plan recommends that Mason and Howes be converted back to two 2-way streets, rather than the current one way couplet. This should be addressed in the TIS for this development. • Also related to the TIS, the intersection of Mason/Cherry was recommended to be signalized in the future as part of the prior North College Improvement Project - thus providing better access to the adjacent developments/downtown and to improve bike/ped crossings of Cherry for access to the Poudre River trail. Will this traffic signal analysis be part of the TIS for this site development project? • In reference to Engineering's comment, it is important to keep the railroad "y' open in order to serve as a turnaround mechanism for future regional commuter rail operations. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ISSUES • A TIS will be necessary for this development. Contact Eric Bracke for a scoping session prior to the TIS creation. • All TIS requirements can be found in Chapter 4 of the LCUASS. • The TIS will need to review the development o undercurrent one-way and possible future 2 way conditions on Mason and Howes Streets. o with a future signal at Mason and Cherry. • Other aspects the Traffic Department will be reviewing are parking lot access and layout, onsite and offsite circulation, pedestrian crossings, and sight distance at accesses and intersections. POLICE ISSUES (Joe Gerdom) • General Design Guidelines: 1. Access Control/Define Space a. Through building and landscape design (hardscape and plant materials), delineate public, commercial, and residential spaces. b. Clearly separate residential and non-residential access points. 2. Surveillance a. Provide security for residential parking. This may be achieved by various means including restricted access, observable from external and internal sources, and adequate lighting levels. b. Provide good visual connections among all parking/loading, public use areas, and adjacent circulation (streets and sidewalks). Specific Standards 1. Lighting. Standards are in 3.2.4 Site Lighting 2. Landscaping Project Comments Sheet S City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Date: August 26, 2005 Project: PENNY FLATS (BLOCK 33) PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Anne Aspen in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: August 24, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 10 Created: 8/18/2005 [8/18/05] Please show the existing driveways directly across the site from the streets bounded by the site in order to document how the proposed access points are to align/offset from driveways across the street which will be used as a basis for evaluating any variance requests regarding driveway separation. Number: 11 Created: 8/18/2005 [8/18105] Given that the plans specify tapping. into utilities that are on offsite (i.e., south side of Maple and west side of Howes) please document property line boundaries and easement locations as verification of whether any offsite easements are required. Number: 12 Created: 8/18/2005 [8/18/05] Indicate existing tree locations along the south side of Maple and Howes in order to identify any potential conflicts with utility installation occurring on the south side of Maple as referenced in the previous comment. Number: 21 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19105] Cutoff walls will be required for the use of the water quality basin areas in right-of- way to help reduce possible damage to the pavement subsurface caused by water infiltration into the pavement subsurface. Number: 23 Created: 8/22/2005 [8/22/05] It appears the roof drains are intended to surface discharge. Additional information is needed to demonstrate that if this is the case, flows won't be directed to cross a sidewalk. It would appear that there are opportunities to tie these into storm drain lines rather than CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site -YDrainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility a— Landscape Page 1 Number: 49 Created: 8/23/2005. [8/23/051 The street design of the parking along Maple on the west side of the pedestrian spine is not to standard with street flows being directed to a concrete pan behind the parking rather than to the curb and gutter section adjacent to the sidewalk. A variance request would be required for evaluation. This should be a further topic of discussion to consider design alternatives. Number: 50 Created: 8/23/2005 [8123/05] Please specify the placement of Type III barricades at the termination of the sidewalk heading west along Cherry and north along Howes Street, given that it is proposed not to build sidewalk along the not a part area of Block 33. Number: 51 Created: 8/23/2005 [8/23/051 The drive aisles connecting the site to Cherry Street has a drive aisles grade of 10 /o which exceeds our requirements. Per Figure 8-17 of LCUASS, a maximum of 4% is allowed for a distance of 65 feet from the flowline of Cherry Street. Number: 52 Created: 8/23/2005 [8/23/051 Why is the access ramp at the southwest corner of Cherry Street and Mason Street proposed out to the corner of the intersection rather than directional north -south and east -west? Number: 67 Created: 8/26/2005 [8/26/05] The amount of street patching shown on sheet C2 does not seem consistent with the utility connections shown on sheet C4 as numerous utility connections are shown on Maple, Mason, and Howes that are beyond the limits of patching shown. With the amount of street cuts necessary, a major pavement impact fee would be levied (and the fee tripled if the street is less than 5 years old). There may be an opportunity to waive the fee with a mill and inlay of half the street width, however this will be evaluated further upon revised information on the level of street cuts necessary to serve the development. Number: 68 Created: 8/26/2005 [8/26/05] Please remove instances of the word "alley access" for the drive aisles between the buildings, as these are private ("private drive" access). Number: 69 Created: 8/26/2005 [8/26/05] On the signature block, "Water Utility" and "Wastewater Utility" should be combined into "Water & Wastewater Utility". Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19/05] With buildings 5 and 6 being built to the Maple right-of-way, please clarify the intent with regards to door access from Maple as it is not evident from the building elevations as to whether the doors are recessed from the right-of-way and/or are inset. Doors are not allowed to swing out into the right-of-way. Number: 15 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19/051 The main pedestrian spine down the middle of the property is interesting with regards to the portions within Cherry Street and Maple Street. Why are the access points designed to appear as driveway connections (with curb radii) intersecting these streets? It Page 2 would seem that these "driveway approaches" could be eliminated and access ramps Provided, reducing the amount of "street" type area a pedestrian would have to cross and being in more keeping with our access ramp requirements. It appears that it may encourage drivers to believe that vehicles can enter. Number: 16 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19/051 The Statement of Planning Objectives and the document "Penny Flats: Block 33. Fort Collins, CO - Requested Engineering variances" listed four variance requests. Only the first variance regarding driveway cuts and street separation requirements is an "Engineering" variance request. Engineering variance requests (such as #1) are required to be prepared and signed by a professional engineer licensed in Colorado and meet the requirements set forth in 1.9.4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Number: 20 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19/051 Please provide more detail information (beyond C5 of the construction plan set) as to the vertical depth of the planting bed for the street trees. I'm not aware of a situation in which landscaping and street trees are situated in an urbanized setting (without a grass parkway) of attached sidewalks where grates are not utilized to help ensure a smooth walking surface. How is the pedestrian less likely to inadvertently step in this landscape bed and possibly turn an ankle, trip, etc? A similar concept of these water quality beds were proposed on another project where a 1 foot drop to the planting bed was proposed, which looks like may not be occurring here. In that case, we wanted to explore the option of providing barrier curb with notches in the curb at location in order to provide the visual aspect of not being able to walk in this area unlike most other areas downtown where sidewalk grates are placed over the trees. Further discussion is needed. Number: 24 Created: 8/22/2005 [8/22/051 1 believe a subsequent utility coordination meeting would be beneficial with the layout now routed for review. Aside from aspects regarding servicing the site, the various structures within the alley right-of-way (intended for vacation and retained as a utility easement in the future) are located over various utilities and maintaining access to these may be an issue. Number: 25 Created: 8/22/2005 [8/22/051 The address kiosk shown on the site and landscape plans needs to be relocated outside of the Maple Street right-of-way. Please provide a detail as to what the design of the kiosk comprises. Number: 42 Created: 8/23/2005 [8/23/051 1 was going to raise a general question regarding the operation of the driveways off of Maple with regards to the close proximity of the angled parking spots to the driveways and the ability of turning movements as a result. It seems ID 26 speaks to this issue with greater detail. Number: 57 Created: 8/25/2005 [8/25/051 With the project intending to be phased, a phasing plan for the public improvements is required to be created on the construction drawings. Number: 58 Created: 8/25/2005 Page 3 [8125/051 The crossing of the sidewalk over the railroad track along Mason Street will need to be designed. In addition, please incorporate a design along the flowline for Mason that creates a safer crossing for bicyclists crossing the railroad track. Number: 59 Created: 8/25/2005 (8/25/051 Offsite work is being show along the Trolley Barn which requires a letter of intent prior to hearing and easement/alignment (as appropriate) after hearing. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 14 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/19/05] The landscape plan does not reflect the removal of 13 trees as specked in the demo plan of the construction documents. Please indicate this information on the landscape plan and whether the existing trees are to be relocated/eliminated, etc. Has City Forestry been made aware of the tree removal? Number: 18 Created: 8/19/2005 [8119105] 1 question the use of Russian Sage plantings around the driveway openings leading to the parking garages. With a mature height up to 5' and width of up to 4', this creates a probably visibility issue for pedestrians and vehicles in these conflict areas. While I concur with the use of landscape areas, this plant choice doesn't seem well suited for the intent cited in the response to the Conceptual Review comments: "To mitigate potential automobile/pedestrian conflicts at the garage drive exits we are installing low elevation planting beds in on either side of the ramp exits to push pedestrian circulation away from the buildings at these locations. This will give drivers the opportunity to view pedestrians approaching the ramp exit and also allow pedestrians to see cars approaching before they actually cross the path of travel." Our sight distance easement criteria specifies plantings not to exceed 24 inches in height. I'd like to explore different species or different planting types in these areas, such as groundcover. Number: 19 Created: 8/19/2005 [8/191051 In addition to -the previous comment, the use of planting material in excess of 2 feet where the driveways intersect the adjacent street is problematic from a sight visibility aspect of drivers seeing pedestrians while turning into the driveways and likewise pedestrians seeing a turning vehicle. 3.6.3 of the City's Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines outlines the requirement. The use of grasses that mature to 5 feet high and shrubs of similar height in these areas is of concern. This issue perhaps is in conjunction with ID 26 as the diagonal parking provides the same visibility concerns. Please see the redlined landscape plans. Number: 22 Created: 8/22/2005 [8/22/05] The landscape plan specifies a water meter location along Maple Street that appears equally split between the sidewalk and water quality basin/landscape area. This would appear to be a conflict. Page 4 REVISION COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: October 12, 2005 TO: Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Anne Aspen #32-05 Penny Flats (Block 33) PDP — Type I1 Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 26, 2005 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape