HomeMy WebLinkAbout607 COWAN STREET - PDP - 35-99A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (5)Jun 18 03 03:4Gp SMS ENGINEERING INC (3031471—lGSO p.3
24.080 sf. Since the lot is 45,053 sf, the maximum floor area allowed Is 22526 sf. They11 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 dont 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 doesnT 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 orenT
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 Replay.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
It 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
Jun 10 03 03:46p SMS ENGINEERING INC (303)471-1650 p.2
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, #§ 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 - S9me 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). Of they comply with
the dimensions required by that sectior-L 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 hove 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. Theyll 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(K)(i)(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 "occuplable 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
Jun 18 03 03:46p
SMS ENGINEERING INC (303)471-1650 p.1
City of Fort Collins
Tomas Lang Architect
Mark Schlang
5777 Rapp St
Littleton, CO 80120
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Date: 1/22/2003
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 an 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
Topic: General
29
Contact City Forester before removing any existing trees.
mitigated.
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Trees that are being proposed for removal may need to be
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 (937,38,39 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
Page 1
Sediment/Erosion Control Comments
Myrtle Court
February 4, 2002
1. Please submit a sediment and erosion control report and plans that are in accordance
with City of Fort Collins Specifications for same. This should include a report,
calculations, and plans that contain required elements.
Second Review
August 7, 2002
1. Plan Index says sheet #3 is Grading and Erosion Control, it is not, and sheet 3 is
missing altogether.
2. No City Erosion Control notes on the plan.
3. No schedule on the plan.
4. How are you going to seed and mulch a small area like this when people are tromping
all over it with backhoes and loaders?
Third Review
January 17, 2003
1. City of Fort Collins standard erosion control notes are not on the plan. _ In addition,
several Larimer County Urban Street standard notes on the plan contradict City notes
(when you get them on the plan). Please delete those that do.
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.
Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
Department:. Water Wastewater
Date: January 14, 2003
Project: MYRTLE COURT-607 COWAN ST-TYPE 11 #35-99
All comments must be received by BOB BARKEEN in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
January 15, 2003
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
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.
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.
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.
/- 13-y 3
Date
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat X Site Drainage Report
Other—) Utility x Redline Utility X Landscape
Page 1
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%.
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 1 00'of offsite information/design to show that what is
being proposed will work with existing conditions.
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: Grading/Erosion Control/Drainage plan
107 Retaining walls are not allowed within utility easements.
Page 3
Project Comments Sheet
City of Fort Collins
Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: January 16, 2003
Project: MYRTLE COURT-607 COWAN ST-TYPE II #35-99
All comments must be received by BOB BARKEEN in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
January 15, 2003
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Katie Moore
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.
111 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: Landscape Plan
93 It appears that Utility separation requirements from landscaping are not being
met.
1.13.03 - REPEAT
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
Signature
Date
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat �_ Site Drainage Report Other
Utility _ Redline Utility __�_ Landscape
Page 1
122
Please include more spot elevations to the west of the alley and show how the new alley grades will be in with the
existing contours. If there is offsite grading, then a 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 Larimer County Urban
Street standard notes on the plan contradict City notes (when you get them on the plan). Please delete those that do.
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
Page 2
a�2�wProject Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
City of Fort Collins
Department: Stormwater Utility
Date: January 17, 2003
Project: MYRTLE COURT-607 COWAN ST-TYPE II #35-99
All comments must be received by BOB BARKEEN in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
January 15, 2003
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
57
Please provide details for all drainage structures including water quality outlet structure, valley pans, curb cuts, etc.
1115103 - Still need valley pan and curb cut details.
Thse water quality ponds need to be in drainage easements. This can be done with a replat or easement by separate
document. Repeat Comment-7/31102 & 1/15103
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 orrifices 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. Pleae 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.
Signature Irig-IQ tl)
Date
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIV,E COPIES OF REVISIONS
/Plat ___LSfte rainage Report Other
i ity ____Ledline Utility Landscape
Page 1
Topic: Parking
21. See additional parking provided.
Topic: Zoning
23. Unit sizes have been adjusted to meet lot coverage.
27. Noted. See corrected Title Cover sheet and Title blocks.
Thank you,
Mark
• Page 4
Department: Water Wastewater
Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Utility Plans
42. Noted.
87. Noted. Easement will be 6' per Light and Power. Documents and application to
follow under separate cover. Drawings currently indicate a total utility easement width
of 8'-9.
Topic: General
112. Noted
113. Noted
114. Noted.
Department: Advance Planning
Topic: General
41. Noted.
Issue Contact: Karen McWilliams
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Bob Barkeen
Topic: General
47. Building sizes have been adjusted to meet lot area ratio.
48. Noted.
Department: Natural Resources
29. Noted.
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
37. See site plan revisions per our telephone conversation.
38. Noted.
39. Noted.
49. Noted.
Department: Transportation Planning
Topic: General
42. Noted.
43. Noted.
44. Noted.
Department: Zoning
Topic: Landscaping
25. Noted. Will be updated in final issue.
26. See revised landscape drawings.
0 Page 3
Issue Contact: Mark Jackson
Issue Contact: Peter Bames
Topic: Site Plan
97. Noted.
98. Noted. The number trips presented is based on required parking and customary
use for projects of this scale and type. With twenty-four (24) parking spaces at an
estimated 5 trips a day per space, we derived 120 possible trip generations. As there
are sixteen (16) units with one car garages its is reasonable to assume that a
working individual and the associated vehicle would leave for work in the morning
and return in the evening. This is still well below the 120 trips per day maximum
presented for this project.
REPEAT The City of Ft. Collins stated prior to our first submittal that a traffic study
was not required due to the small scale of the project. Please indicate the
justification for a traffic study where the maximum number of parking is 24 spaces.
A letter was previously issued by the city also stating this conclusion. Due to the
length of time that has passed from the time of the initial submittal we have been
unable to locate this documentation. We will forward a copy once we have located
this correspondence.
Department: Natural Resources
Topic:
29. Noted.
Department: Storm water Utility
Topic: Drainage
57. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
58. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
115. Noted. See revised landscape drawings.
119. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
120. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
121. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
122. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
32. Noted. See revised civil drawings.
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. Noted.
4. Noted.
0 Page 2
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
im
� TOMAS • LANG
r_ a r c h i t e c t s
Memorandum
To:
Bob Barkeen — City of Fort Collins
Fax Noe
970.416.2020
From:
Mario Schlang
CC:
Mario Brannon
Date:
06/19/03
Re:
Correction Comments Myrtle Court / Cowan Street
Bob,
Please note the following response corresponding to staff project review comments
for the above referenced project dated January 15, 2003 and January 22, 2003.
Department: Engineering
Topic: Alley plan and profile
Topic: Detail Sheets
Topic: Grading/Erosion Control/Drainage
See Revised Civil
Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: General
54. Noted.
110. Noted.
111. See attached.
116. The owner will dedicate the easement under a separate application. See
attached.
118. Noted.
Topic: Landscape Plan
93. Noted. Plans have been coordinated with civil engineering drawings.
94. Noted.
96. Plans have been adjusted to reflect requested engineering scales.
TomasLang Architects, LLC 5777 South Rapp Street Littleton, Colorado 80120
303.795.3004 fax 303.795.3161