HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 CHERRY ST., CHERRY ST. STATION - FDP - 9-05A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -12/21/2005 13:49 9702254139
PAGE 01/01
�UIVITEDST9.►TES
POS7'dL SERI/!CB
Dec 212005
M Jeannette,
In regards to the mailboxes for the proposed Cberry Street Station at 100-120 Ch( ry
St; we are considering your request that they be in the wall on the front of the build'.:g.
Normally we prefer the box to be installed outside by the sidewalk, however in sons
cases we allow the mailboxes to be placed on an exterior wall or in the lobby of the
building. If the mailboxes are in the lobby, it is preferable if the lobby is open to th<
public and does not require a private key. in any case, considering the location of tk
Cherry Street Station and the limited access for a delivery vehicle, we would most 1 rely
allow delivery to the front wall or lobby of the building. The specific arrangement i ould
have to be agreed upon when we have the final plans to work with.
Thank you,
Bonnie Ham
RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
From STAFF REPORT by Anne Aspen on September 8, 2005
"In order to receive Final Plan approval, the applicant shall revise the development plan to
address each of the following issues:
• Parking lifts must accommodate typical cars like SUVs and cars with roof racks or
cargo boxes.
• Parking space dimensions must comply with the standards in Section 3.2.2 (L)
• Site lighting must meet code including all luminaries featuring full cut-off and shielding
to reduce glare.
Response:
A. See response to Peter Barnes comment # 2 above.
B. The underground parking garage has been redesigned to comply with all Long Term
parking stall dimensions, per LUC 3.2.2 (L) (3).
C. The lighting plan has been revised to satisfy this condition.
Page 8
[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.
Response: Per discussions with Roger Buffington the proposed fire hydrant is to remain.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 2 Created: 3/3/2005
16/28/05] The removal of the tandem spaces is noted. The typical parking stall depth shown
on the parking plan is only 17.5', 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.
[3W5] 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.
Response: We have revised the layout to ensure that all parking stalls are at least 18 feet
deep. Additionally, we've added more dimensions to our parking layout drawing to clarify
that the spaces are designed in conformance with the "Long-term" space size requirements.
Parking lifts will be as specified (or equivalent) on Sheet 3 of 10 in this submittal. Heights of
specific parking spaces designed to be as listed in the following chart.
Parking Spaces
Up to V-9"
V-9" to 6'-3"
6'-3" to 12'-1"
25 - 28
4
11 - 22
6
6
7-10
2
2
3-6
2
2
1, 2, 23, 24
1
4
Totals 14 10 4
100% of researched cars (including Chevrolet, Toyota and Honda) with roof racks or cargo
boxes as well as several models of sport utility vehicles are accommodated in parking
spaces with a height of up to 5-9". Additionally, 80% of researched models of mini -vans,
mid and full-sized pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (including Chevrolet, Ford,
Mercury, Lincoln, Land Rover, Dodge, Jeep, Toyota and Cadillac) are 6'-Y tall or under and
are therefore accommodated as shown on the chart above.
Also, refer to response to comment #70 above.
Page 7
Response:
• Drawing has been revised accordingly.
• Drawing has been revised showing silt fence around perimeter of property.
• A legend is shown on cover sheet.
• A note was added to Utility Plan addressing this concern.
• A note has been added to Grading Plan addressing this issue.
• Seeding/Mulching cost has been updated in surety calculation.
Topic: Maintenance of line in the sidewalk area
Number: 83 Created: 7/7/2005
[717/051 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.
Response: A note has been added to grading plan addressing this concern.
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.
Response: A valve is located at the bottom of the tank, which will allow water to be released
at any time. A maintenance schedule that will be the developer's responsibility to drain the
tank and a note will be added to the drawings and Developer's Agreement addressing this
issue.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 80 Created:.7/712005
[7/7/05] Please call out the size and type of all storm lines on the utility and grading plans.
Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly.
Topic: Variance Request
Number: 81 Created: 7/7/2005
[717/05] 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.
Response: Drainage report has been revised to include variance.
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
Page 6
Fire Marshal that if a code defined "high-rise" package was to be
installed in the building, PFA could and would support the development
of this site.
owners have agreed to install the "high-rise" package of engineered
systems, less the fire pump and standpipe provisions. PFA concurred.
The only reason for a fire pump would be if the city water pressure was
not adequate enough to support the fire sprinkler system.
Thanks again ... hope you can enjoy your vacation ... bye now
Ron Gonzales
Assistant Fire Marshal
Poudre Fire Authority
970. 416. 2664
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
Number: 79 Created: 7/6/2005
[7/6/05] LUC calls for min of 1.Ofc for building surrounds. Also, all of ramp should be at 1.Ofc
and trash enclosure should have min of 0.5 .fc for all sides.
Response: This has been addressed in the current submittal. Refer to sheet LP1.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan
Topic: Drainage Plan
Number: 82 Created: 7/7/2005
[7f7/05] Please show basin areas on the drainage.plan, provide a hydrology summary table
as well as a detention summary table.
Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly.
Topic: Erosion Control
Number: 68 Created: 7/5/2005
[7/5/05]
Sediment/Erosion Control Plan Comments
Chevy 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.
Page 5
as to where it is in the real and legal world, (curb and gutter, sidewalk, easement/private
property, etc:)
Response: The sanitary sewer connection is within FC Park Planning and Development
property and a Letter of Intent from Craig Forman has been sent to Marc Virata. The letter
of intent from the Railroad for this sewer to cross railroad right-of-way has also been
forwarded to Marc Virata. The proposed gas connection is within the existing right-of-way
along Cherry Street and therefore a Letter of Intent isn't necessary. The gas connection has
been shown in relation to curb, gutter, and sidewalk on sheet 4 of 7 of the Utility Plan set.
Number: 85 Created: 7/8/2005
[7/8/05] A variance request will be required for grade of the driveway into thp, 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.
Response: A variance has been submitted and approved.
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).
Response: A note has been added to grading plan that reference perimeter drain system.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
Topic: fire
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 wofking space on Cherry St for the full complement of response
vehicles to properly and adequately stage to conduct a safe operation.
Response: Ron Gonzales has forwarded coorespondence to Anne Aspen regarding the
resolution of this issue. The e-mail is quoted as follows:
Subject: RE: Cherry St Station
Date: Thu, 21. Jul 2005 09:03:29 -0600
From: Ron Gonzales <r onzalesaooudre-fire.ore>
To: 'Anne Aspen' <AAspen(@*Roy.eom>
CC: 'Kevin Wilson' <kmwilson@ooudre-fire.ore>.'Mikal Torgerson' <mikalQarchitex.com>
Anne,
Thanks for allowing us to process this... here's the resolution for this
project...
Because the access to this project site is poor, the PFA could not
support the development. I have negotiated with the developer and the
Page 4
Response: We intend to have mail boxes in the building lobby. The applicant has
coordinated the location of the CBUs with Bonnie at USPS. Documentation of the current
arrangement is attached.
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.
Response: John Hamburg with Comcast informed Interwest Consulting Group that since the
majority of this development is residential (except for a small office space) that Comcast will
extend whatever conduits and cables necessary to service this building. Comcast has also
agreed to work with the Railroad Company to obtain required permits triggered by extending
the Comcast line.
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.
Response: Because a plat is not required, the we have decided not to replat.
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.
(323/051 Per the City's Traffic Engineer, the entrance design shall include construction of a porkchoprchannelization
median to direct access as right-in/right-out to the extent possible.
Response: The porkchop is depicted on page 5 of 7 of the Utility Plan set. We have
coordinated with Eric Bracke prior to hearing on this issue. Eric said that the project
wouldn't be required to construct the porkchop at this time, however money would need to
be escrowed for the cost to retro-fit the installation of it in the future should conditions
warrant the need for it. Such an arrangement, Eric said, should be specified in the
development agreement.
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.
M31051 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.
Response: Please see sheet 4 of 7 of the Utility Plan set.
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
Page 3
[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.
Response: The applicant's proposal satisfies the LUC parking requirements on -site,
therefore satellite parking is not proposed.
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 porkch6p design acceptable.
Response: The above stated requirements were satisfied to the planner's satisification prior
to hearing. The current submittal incorporates all of these changes made.
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.
Response: The specified commercial use (internet service provider) is located in the
basement. Refer to sheet 3 of 10.
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..
Response: This information is included with this submittal. Refer to the lighting plan, sheet
LP1.
Number: 75 Created: 7/6/2005
[7/6/05] Provide the legal description on the cover page.
Response: This information has been added. Refer to sheet 1 of 10.
Number: 76 Created: 7/6/2005
[716/05) 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."
Page 2
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
120 CHERRY ST — CHERRY ST. STATION PDP
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning
Topic: General
Number: 70
Date: 12/28/2005
Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss
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 around area" on the parking plan in an attempt to address this
issue, but the safety and convenience concerns remain.
Response: The applicant staged a demonstration at the Civic Center Parking Structure
during the week of July 18, 2005, which was attended by Peter Barnes, David Averill,
Cameron Gloss and Mark Virata and during which, the applicant successfully displayed the
parking design is both safe, convenient, and efficient for users. Verbal conversations with
Anne Aspen indicated that if all of the above staff members agreed that the layout satisfies
the Land Use Code, then she will concur with her co-workers on this issue.
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.
(3r181051 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, eflScignt
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 packing. This is not a specific requirement of the Code.
+ There is a lack of sufipent 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.
+ 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.
Response: This italicized language above was a carry over reference from the March 18`"
comments on the issue. Please see the response to comment #70 above.
Number: 71 Created: 7/6/2005
Page 1