Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout607 COWAN STREET - PDP - 35-99A - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)2. Seed has no C value (cover value). The vegetation that sprouts from it does. Until the seed becomes vegetation, you need to use mulch (which does have a C value) to attain the erosion control you are seeking. 3. Please submit an erosion control surety calculation sheet. 4. Please put a project schedule per City specifications on the plan. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 112 Provide stationing of proposed sanitary sewer services measured from the downstream manhole. 113 Maintain 10 feet minimum separation between the proposed storm sewer and the existing sanitary sewer main. Provide a profile for the proposed storm sewer and show all utility crossings on the profile. 114 Will and irrigation tap be needed for this development? If so show and label on the utility plans. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Topic: Utility Plans 42 REPEAT COMMENT Use all current City of Fort Collins standard details. 87 Repeat comment, Provide a 5 foot utility easement along the existing alley, either by a replat or by separate document. Include this in the next submittal for our review. 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. Yours Truly, Bob Barkeen City Planner Page 5 Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: Site Plan 33 Contact City Forester before removing any existing trees. Trees that are being proposed for removal may need to be mitigated. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez Topic: General 106 Will the 6' cedar fences that face Cowan street be gated?? Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage 57 Please provide details for all drainage structures including water quality outlet structure, valley pans, curb cuts, etc. 1/15/03 - Still need valley pan and curb cut details. 58 The water quality ponds need to be in drainage easements. This can be done with a replat or easement by separate document. Repeat Comment-7/31/02 & 1/15/03 115 Please show what landscaping will be in the water quality ponds on the Landscape Plan. 119 The water quality outlet structure detail shown is generally what we see in these type of situations. A slight modification that may be easier to construct and less likely to clog would be to not have the pipe with the orifices and have the orifices located on a metal plate bolted to the box with a notch cut out of the concrete. The metal plate can be bolted on the interior, with the well screen bolted on the exterior side of the box. This type of design is what we see for these type of outlet structures. 120 The inlet in the alley is not located at the low point (center) of the alley due to the sanitary sewer. The inlet needs to be located at a low point so water does not pond at this location. An alternate design may be required. One option for the alley is to have the whole width slope to the east. This would allow for the inlet to be located at the property line. Also the outlet could be a swale and sidewalk chase if the ponds could be raised. Please revise so there is no conflicts with other utilities. 121 Please include a storm sewer plan and profile with the next submittal if a pipe is to be used. 122 Please include more spot elevations to the west of the alley and show how the new alley grades will tie in with the existing contours. If there is ofisite grading, then an easement will be required from that property owner. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control 123 Third Review January 17, 2003 1. City of Fort Collins standard erosion control notes are not on the plan. In addition, several Lorimer County Urban Street standard notes on the plan contradict City notes (when you get them on the plan). Please delete those that do. Page 4 94 Please provide better labeling or a legend for utilities. 96 Please use an engineer's scale for Site, Landscape AND Utility plans. 1.13.03 - REPEAT 101 Note 23 is incorrect. Please provide the correct sight distance easement language (attached) or remove note if no sight distance easement is needed for this project. 1.13.03 - REPEAT Topic: Site Plan 98 A note has been made referring to the maximum number of possible trips generated, but I have not seen a Transportation Impact Study or memo to support this. 1.13.03 - REPEAT 99 Please label the ROW widths and sidewalk widths. 1.13.03 - REPEAT Topic: Utility Plans 62 Please see the redlined utility plan checklist for missing items, revise checklist and plans, and return with the next submittal. 1.13.03 - The checklist was not returned. Please update it and return it with the next submittal. 65 Please provide two benchmarks on the cover sheet not the Loveland Survey. 1.13.03 - Now no benchmarks have been provided. Topic: Utility Plans Sheet 7 These should be obtained from the Fort Collins Survey, Please provide 2 benchmarks. 78 Please show all street cuts and include the street cut note on this sheet. 1.13.03 - Please show street cuts to install the stormpipe and if one is needed to abandon the existing water service at the main. 81 The directional raps should align with the sidewalks as closely as possible, instead of being so far offset. 1.13.03 - REPEAT Department: Light & Power Topic: Plat 28 issue Contact: Doug Martine A 6 ff. easement is required along the south property line from the alley to the street. Topic: Site Plan 27 The site plan lists these as townhouses, but it appears this will be just one lot (condominimums). A plat was not included in the review package, but it appears a 6 ff. easement is planned along the alley. Light & Power will require this easement. Page 3 1.13.03 -Please note that this is needed for the alley design 75 The maximum grade break allowed is 0.4%. 1.13.03 - The only exception to this rule is at an inlet location, where a maximum 1 % break is allowed (0.5% on each side). Please revise. 108 There are a number of problems regarding the proposed intersection of the alley with Myrtle Street. In addition to what has been already stated above: 1. The grade break at the back of the sidewalk exceeds the maximum 0.4%. 2. The inlet should be placed at the centerline and lowest elevation of the alley. 3. It appears that the transformer box will be in the pavement section. Please reconfigure. 4. The sidewalk needs to be a minimum of 2' away from any obstructions (signs, grade increases or decreases, above -ground transformers, etc). 117 Please note that there are two types of alley designs allowed by the City: concrete with inverted crown, or asphalt with rollover curbs and draining to one side. If no other portion of this alley has been built with either style, then either may be chosen. If one style or the other has been used on this alley, then that style needs to be continued for the whole length of the alley. Topic: Detail Sheets 109 Please remove drawings 703 and 1607 since they do not apply to this project. Please remove drawing 701 if the existing curb and gutter does not match the new standard. If this is the case, please note that new c&g is to match the existing c&g. Topic: General 54 Please see redlined plans for additional comments. 110 An excessive amount of comments were not addressed with this submittal. Comments will continue to be repeated until they are addressed properly. ill Please return ALL redlines with every submittal. This includes site, landscape, and utility plans, as well as the utility plan checklist and drainage report and any other redlined items. 116 Please dedicate the standard 8' utility easement along the alley. 118 Please note that the City development review calls for 90% plans upon submittal of a project. Projects will not go to hearing until plans reach this stage, or they will be taken to hearing with a recommendation of denial. Topic: Grading/Erosion Control/Drainage plan 107 Retaining walls are not allowed within utility easements. Topic: Landscape Plan 93 It appears that Utility separation requirements from landscaping are not being met. 1.13.03 - REPEAT Page 2 III_% STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins MARK BRANNON Date: 1/22/2003 2701 ALCOTT ST., STE. 485 DENVER, CO 80211 i Staff has reviewed your submittal for MYRTLE COURT-607 COWAN ST-TYPE II #35-99, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Alley plan and profile 15 Please dedicate additional ROW at the corner of the Alley and Myrtle according to figure 7-12F. 7.18.02 - It appears that the ROW will be dedicated here, but unless this project includes a replat, all ROW and easement dedications must be done by separate document. Please provide a replat or provide legal descriptions and sketches of every easement/ROW dedication. The replat would be the recommended method. 1.13.03 - REPEAT, easements needed include utility and drainage easements onsite, and slope easements and temporary construction easements from neighboring properties for the construction of the alley. The driveway easements are no longer needed. 22 Please show how the new grading of the alley affects properties to the west and south (show spot elevations). (repeat 7.18.02) - The proposed lowering of the alley will definitely affect adjoining properties. Grading information to the west of the alley is required and easements from these property owners permitting re- grading of their properties will also be required. 1.13.03 - REPEAT 23 Please show how the alley will transition for inverted crown or side drained to flat at the sidewalk. (Repeat 7.18.02) - See figure 8-12 for the design of an alley intersection with inverted crown. An area inlet will be required. Repeat 1.13.03 - There is still not enough information to determine this transition. 69 There still appears to be private improvements within the ROW (gutter). Please remove these from the ROW (repeat). 1.13.03 - The note referring to a detail for a barrier curb is incorrect. This type of curb is only allowed on certain median Islands on arterial streets. No curb or gutter Is allowed within the ROW for use with a concrete alley. Please remove. 71 The maximum cross -slope in the alley is 3%. 1.13.03 - The slopes leading into the area inlet need to meet this requirement. 73 Please install a new driveway cut connecting the alley with Myrtle (20' wide to be consistent with the alley). 1.13.03 - The radii of the alley intersection with the street need to be called out to standard (See Chp. 8 - Intersections). 74 Please provide at least 100' of offsite information/design to show that what is being proposed will work with existing conditions. Page I 24,080 sf. Since the lot is 45,053 sf, the maximum floor area allowed is 22,526 sf. Theyll either need to reduce the size of the buildings or obtain a modification to 4.7(D)(1). Previous comment - building dimensions shown on A-2 donl scale out, Lot area must be at least twice as large as total floor area of buildings (each floor level and garage counts as floor area. basement is only thing that doesnl count). They indicate on A-1 that floor area is 1215 sf per unit. But does that include the garage. Since A-2 dimensions are not accurate, cant verify that standard is met. If the garages arenl included in the 1215 sf, and assuming th 1215 is accurate, it would appear that they have about 2000 sf too much building coverage. (4.7(D)(1)). 27 REPEAT COMMENT for 7-18-02 comments: Still not sure what the name of the development is. The Planning Department routing sheet states "Myrtle Court". The landscape plans state "Cowan Street Development". Sheets A-1 through A-2 state "Myrtle Court Townhomes". If they elect to use the latter, it should be renamed "Myrtle Street Condominiums" (again "townhome" is an industry term that indicates that each unit is sold with its own, individual lot. The name of the development cant be misleading or confusing). Previous comment - What is the name of this development? The cover sheet says "Myrtle Court Division". The individual sheets state "Cowan Street Development". And the Planning Department routing sheets states "Myrtle Court Replat". 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. Yours Truly, Bob Barkeen City Planner Page 3 Pedestrian ramps on site plan shown too far set back. Move forward and they should miss the stormwater inlet. This design works at several other locations in Old Town. 44 Landscape Plan and sheet 4 of 9 on Utility Plans do not reflect center pedestrian walkway to 4 compact parking spaces in alley. Make consistent with site plan. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: landscaping 25 REPEAT COMMENT from 7-18-02 comments: They have removed the noted planting notes. However, now they need to renumber the planting notes list so that they are sequential. For example, they deleted note #7 as requested, but the list now goes from #6 to #8. Previous comment - numerous "planting notes" on sheet L-2 seem to be contractual in nature and shouldn't be on our plans. For example, #'s 7,9,10,12, 16, 19, 20. All such notes should be removed. The City doesn't want to get involved in "enforcing" such things. 26 REPEAT COMMENT from 7-18-02 comments: The landscape notes list on sheet L-2 now needs to be renumbered sequentially since they removed the notes requested. Previous comment - Some of the "landscape notes" on sheet L-2 reference individual lots. Since there is no longer a replat proposed, and since this development is one parcel, such notes should be removed or clarified. Topic: parking 21 REPEAT COMMENT (12-24-02): Their 12-19-02 response letter indicates "see additional parking provided Ok, they show additional compact spaces, for a new total of 12 surface parking spaces. They need to change the "site data" table on sheet A-1 to. reflect this. They also need to clarify whether or not these are compact spaces, or simply down -sized "long term parking stalls" as described in Sec. 3.2.2(L)(3). (If they comply with the dimensions required by that section, then they aren't compact and shouldn't be labeled as such. Additionally, does the increased number of parking spaces provided mean that the 'loft" might be a bedroom? (I didn't get a revised floor plan sheet to review, so I don't know). If it can be used as a bedroom, then they should add a note to the "building data" on sheet A-1 indicating that there are potentially 16, 2 bedr. units. They should also revise the "building data" note regarding parking ratio required/provided to 1.75 spaces/unit. REPEAT COMMENT 7-18-02: Removing the closet from the "loft" doesn't mean that the loft won't be used as a bedroom. Their 7-10-02 response letter states that this loft is considered a bonus room/den. Why does a one bedroom apartment need a living room and a den? This is going to create enforcement problems regarding compliance with parking. We will monitor their marketing to ensure that these are marketed as 1-bedroom units Previous comment - Each dwelling unit appears to have 2 bedrooms. Need 1.75 parking spaces for each 2- bedroom unit, thus each 4-plex building needs 7 parking spaces. However, they are providing only 6 spaces per building. They'll either need to come up with 4 more parking spaces total, or reduce the number of bedrooms. If they do add 4 spaces, they should know that no building permits will be issued for basement finishes that include bedrooms. Additional bedrooms in the basement will increase the number of parking spaces required. (3.2.2(Iq(1)(a)) Topic: zoning 23 REPEAT COMMENT (12-24-02): Their 12-19-02 comments response letter explains their floor area calculation method, resulting in exceeding the allowable floor area by 481 sf. Even though this is less of a floor area overage than before, a modification will still be required. Also, they need to change the "occupiable floor area' and "garage floor area" figures in the "building data" table on sheet A-1 to reflect the figures in their 12- 19-02 response letter. REPEAT COMMENT 7-18-02: Since their revised plans indicate that the floor area of each unit is 1,505 sf (occupied floor area plus garage area), that means that the total building floor area of all 4 buildings is Page 2 (01111111111111ild-M STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Ci it of Dort. Collins Tomas Lang Architect Date: 1/22/2003 Mark Schlang A 5777 Rapp St �Y Littleton, CO 80120 Staff has reviewed your submittal for MYRTLE COURT-607 COWAN STREET PDP, #35-99A, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Karen McWilliams Topic: General 41 Existing house determined to lack significance for designation due to previous modifications/alterations, and may be demolished. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Bob Barkeen Topic: General 47 Building area must be reduces to meet the lot area ratio included in Section 4.7(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. 48 The scale of the plans will need to be changes from on architects scale to an engineering scale (except building elevations). The existing vegetation diagram should be changed to reflect the current site layout. A title sheet, similar to the utility drawings, should be included in the plan set, including a signature block for the owner and for the Planning and Zoning Board. An existing site map should be included with the drawing set. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General 29 Contact City Forester before removing any existing trees. Trees that are being proposed for removal may need to be mitigated. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez Topic: General 37 Fire Sprinkler Requirement: Three of the four buildings will be required to have fire sprinklers due to being out of access. The building which runs along Myrtle Street will not be required to have fire sprinklers. 97 UFC 902.2.1 38 Water Supply: Fire hydrants are required. Commercial buildings must be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute with a residual pressure of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2 39 Address Numerals: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum 6-inch numeral on a contrasting background. 97 UFC 901.4.4 46 Comments dated 2-25-02 (#37,38,39 above) concerning fire sprinklers, water supply and address requirements still pertain. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 42 Trans. Planning will coordinate with Stormwater Dept. to arrive at direction for developer. Existing storm sewer inlet in location where pedestrian ramp would be located. We will advise. 43 Paue I