HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/07/2013 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 20DATE: May 7, 2013
STAFF: Jason Holland
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the February 25, 2013 Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Project
Development Plan at 621 South Meldrum Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 13, 2013, an Administrative Hearing was held to consider approval of the Project Development Plan at
621 South Meldrum Street. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on February 25, 2013 to approve the
proposed Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard, with two conditions.
The two conditions are as follows:
a. The Modification of Standard (reduction in setback from five feet to three feet) shall apply to the rear 78
feet of the lot only.
b. If access to neighboring properties is required for construction, the Applicant and/or Owner shall obtain
appropriate easements.
On March 19, 2013, the Appellants submitted an Appeal of the Hearing Officer’s Decision. The Appellants assert that
the Hearing Officer considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and that the Hearing
Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.
Retaining walls and parking setbacks are a subject of this Appeal. The Applicants request to construct a multi-family
building containing four units and four off-street parking spaces to be accessed from the alley. The proposed plan
includes several retaining walls ranging in height from 1 to 2.5 feet. The proposed parking lot design requires one
Modification of Standard to reduce the required parking setback from 5 feet to 3 feet.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
ASSERTIONS OF APPEAL
The Appellants assert that the Hearing Officer considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading
and that the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellant.
The Appellants state:
“We seek to reject #120020 PDP approval because concerns presented by Alan Skowron at the
public hearing were not addressed. Alan stated concern of the wood retaining wall (on property line,
w/in 3 feet of existing house, irrigation/swale/plantings on top). The wall presents significant risk to
our house & property from rot/decay. Jeff’s engineer responded that the wall will be structurally sound
because ‘deadmen’ will be installed. They did not address the issue of rot”.
“Alan felt that he did not have the time or opportunity to adequately present concerns. Less than 10
minutes (of 50 minutes) were open for public discussion; most occupied by general discussion
unrelated to Alan's concerns. Alan/Eric only learned about the wall proximity to our house and wall
details only three days before the hearing by closely interrogating documents from the COFC website.
We therefore provided additional information documenting these concerns, risks and record of
correspondence w/Jeff. Please see accompanying document register.”
“We seek the following outcomes from our Appeal: 1) Redesign wall to reduce rot/decay risk and pull
wall back from property line to accommodate proper structural footings and base course without any
construction or structural encroachment on 625 S. Meldrum Property; OR: Redesign wall to reduce
rot/decay risk, provide legal agreement accepting full liability in perpetuity for the wall and damage
May 7, 2013 -2- ITEM 27
caused by it, and provide detail of requested easement (to facilitate wall construction and proper
footings/base course) on 625 S. Meldrum property to our satisfaction to obtain permission for
easement. 2) Jeff acknowledged during hearing that he is now planning for additional parking on the
ditch. Minimum required parking can be provided per zoning, TOD requirements without encroaching
into setback. We object to the setback standard reduction from 5 feet to 3 feet.”
1. The Hearing Officer’s Findings for the Modification of Standard request are located on page 4 of the Decision.
The Hearing Officer states:
“With a condition as to scope, the Modification of Standard meets the applicable requirements of
Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code.
a. The Modification would not be contrary to the public good.
b. The Modification will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is
requested equally well or better than the standard without modification, because the Modification
is minor and the overall project provides high quality, high performing architecture that is sensitive
to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
c. The Modification would result in a substantial benefit to the City, because it accommodates off-
street parking that would otherwise be infeasible, and off-street spaces will reduce on-street
demand and thereby benefit neighbors without any adverse impacts.
d. The Modification will not diverge form the standards of the Code except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire PDP. The Modification
provides appropriate massing, scale, detail, and articulation. The landscape area, in combination
with the privacy fence, provides a softened landscape edge interior to the parking area while
mitigating the visual impact to the property to the south. Additionally, the Modification is along the
parking drive isle, and not directly adjacent to the parking spaces, where impact of a reduced
setback would be greater”.
2. Mr. Herman Feissner, engineer for the applicant, responded to the Appellants’ assertion regarding the
retaining wall on page 14 of the written testimony, stating:
“So, in response to some of the concerns that have been raised about the swale and the retaining wall
along the south property line, approximately one-third of the total roof area of the structure would be
draining to this area. The roof drains for this section of the property, or this section of the structure,
would be connected to a below grade system. So that means that that water coming off the roof will
stay in a pipe, it’ll go into a pipe below grade all the way to the curb in Meldrum.” Mr. Feissner
continued on page 14, stating “You won’t see it on the surface, no. The only water you’ll see on the
surface in that area…or water on the surface, would just be from a very small local area, it would be
from the sidewalk adjacent to the building and the landscaping in that area. So, the flows in that area
are negligible.”
3. During the Hearing, the Hearing Officer asked for public testimony. There was no time limit discussed for
public testimony during the Hearing.
4. Notice of the Hearing was mailed to the affected property owners on January 30, 2013, 14 days prior to the
Hearing. The notice provided a link to the hearing documents on the City website.
SUMMARY
The Hearing Officer included as a Condition that if access to neighboring properties is required for construction, the
Applicant and/or Owner shall obtain appropriate easements. The Hearing Officer concluded that the P.D.P. and
Modification of Standard were in compliance with the applicable standards of the Land Use Code.
May 7, 2013 -3- ITEM 27
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Amended Notice of Appeal
3. Administrative Hearing Officer Decision, February 25, 2013
4. Staff Report Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, with attachments:
1. Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Utility Plan
4. Plat
5. Statement of Planning Objectives
6. Applicant’s Modification of Standard Request
7. Letter from adjacent property owner
8. Engineering Certification letter
9. Notice of Administrative Hearing
5. Applicant Presentation at the Administrative Hearing
6. Citizen materials presented at Administrative Hearing
7. Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing
8. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Amended Notice of Appeal -
Alan Skowron, filed March 19,
2013
ATTACHMENT 3
Administrative Hearing Officer
Decision,
February 25, 2013
1
2/25/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\BDR DEVELOPMENT\DECISION.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: February 13, 2013
PROJECT NAME: BDR Four Unit Multi-Family
621 South Meldrum Street
CASE NUMBER: Project Development Plan #120030
APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis
The Birdsall Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
OWNER: Big Deal Real Estate, LLC
Jeff Eggleston
2519 Ridge Creek Road
Fort Collins, CO 80528
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to demolish an existing 626 square foot single-family home located at 621 South
Meldrum Street and construct a multi-family building containing four units. The existing
residence, which was built in 1910, has been functioning as a college student rental. The site is
approximately 0.22 acres or 9,513 square feet, and is bisected by the Arthur Ditch. The ditch is an
underground concrete water canal approximately 13 feet wide in a 33 feet wide easement. The
property abuts a 20 foot alley to the west.
The proposed multi-family building is two stories in height with approximately 4,900 total square
feet and will contain four three-bedroom/two bathroom dwelling units. Gross overall density of
the project is 18.2 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide four off-street parking spaces
to be accessed from the alley. The property will be re-platted to include new easements. The site
is in the (N-C-B) Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, and falls within the TOD
(Transportation Overlay Development) zone.
One Modification of Standard is requested. The modification request addresses Section 3.2.2(J)
of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Code"), which requires that any vehicular use area
containing six or more parking spaces or 1,800 or more square feet shall be set back from the side
lot line a minimum average of five feet.
2
2/25/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\BDR DEVELOPMENT\DECISION.DOCX
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved with conditions.
ZONE DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B)
Transportation Overlay Development (TOD)
HEARING:
The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:00 p.m. on February 13, 2013, in
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
The following persons attended the hearing and each of them testified:
From the City: Jason Holland
From the Applicant: Cathy Mathis, Ian Shuff, George Schock, Jeff Eggleston, Herman
Feissner
From the Public: Alan Skowron
The Hearing Officer accepted the following documentary evidence: (1) the Planning Department
Staff Report; (2) the application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the
applicant and the applicants' representatives to the City of Fort Collins (the "City"); and (3) a
written statement from Alan Skowron. The Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City’s
formally promulgated polices are all additional evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. The PDP and Modification were processed in accordance with Division 2.2 of the Code,
and no neighborhood input meeting was required or held.
3. Mr. Skowron testified on behalf of the property at 625 South Meldrum and presented
concerns about construction methods, particularly relating to the fence and wall between the
properties. The Applicant and Mr. Skowron resolved some of those concerns at the hearing and
agreed to continue discussions to resolve the remainder of those concerns prior to construction.
4. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards contained in
Article 3 of the Code.
a. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscape and Tree Protection, because the
plan calls for new trees, with certain caliper sizes that exceed the minimum requirements,
to provide adequate replacement for existing trees that are proposed to be removed. The
City Forester reviewed the plan for tree replacement and mitigation and recommended
approval. The PDP provides the required quantity and diversity of trees and landscape
plantings. Building foundation and parking lot landscaping is enhanced; shrub and ground
cover planting beds are provided in excess of the minimum coverage requirements with
3
2/25/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\BDR DEVELOPMENT\DECISION.DOCX
predominately low-water-use plant selections. Overall water use of 9.7 gallons per square
foot is significantly less than the required maximum of 15 gallons per square foot. The
parking lot perimeter and interior will be screened with trees, shrubs and a privacy fence
that provide significant screening and appropriate transition between the property and
adjacent residences.
b. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking, because
the property is in the TOD Overlay Zone, so there is no minimum parking requirement for
multi-family dwellings. Five off-street parking spaces are provided, and the parking
access and location at the rear of the property is designed in conformance with the TOD
standards. Bicycle facilities comply with the minimum requirements, with seven covered
and five uncovered spaces. The Modification of Standard addresses the parking lot
setback established by Section 3.2.2(J).
5. The PDP complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 4 of the Code for the
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) zone district.
a. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(B)(2)(a)(3), Permitted Uses, because multi-
family dwellings of up to four units, located in a street-fronting principal building, are a
permitted use in the N-C-B zone.
b. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(D)(1), Density, because the proposed density
will be 4,948 gross square feet on a lot of 9,513 square feet.
c. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), because the
building footprint is located almost entirely within the front 50% of the lot, so an exact
FAR percentage was not required.
d. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(D)(6)(a-e), Dimensional Standards, because
the lot width is 50 feet, the building setbacks are at least 15 feet from the front lot line, five
feet from the side and five feet from the rear alley, and the building height is only two
stories, which is less than the allowed three stories.
e. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(E)(1), Building Design, because the exterior
walls are constructed at right angles to the lot, the second floor does not overhang the
lower front or side of the building, the front porch is limited to one story, the roof pitch be
between 2:12 and 12:12, and the front building façade features building entrances with a
one-story architectural porch that is compatible in quality and scaled appropriately in
comparison with nearby residences.
f. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(E)(2)(a)(1), Building Height, because the
structure does not exceed the maximum building height.
g. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(E)(2)(b)(1), Eave Height, because the structure
is in the front of the lot, where eave heights in excess of 13 feet are permitted.
h. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(E)(4), Landscape/Hardscape Material, because
not more than 40% of the front yard is covered with inorganic material.
4
2/25/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\BDR DEVELOPMENT\DECISION.DOCX
i. The PDP complies with Section 4.9(E)(6), Access, because parking is accessed
from the alley and is not located between the building and the street.
6. With a condition as to scope, the Modification of Standard meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code.
a. The Modification would not be contrary to the public good.
b. The Modification will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
Modification is requested equally well or better than the standard without modification,
because the Modification is minor and the overall project provides high quality, high
performing architecture that is sensitive to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
c. The Modification would result in a substantial benefit to the City, because it
accommodates off-street parking that would otherwise be infeasible, and the off-street
spaces will reduce on-street parking demand and thereby benefit neighbors without any
significant adverse impacts.
d. The Modification will not diverge from the standards of the Code except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire PDP.
The Modification provides appropriate massing, scale, detail and articulation. The
landscape area, in combination with the privacy fence, provides a softened landscape edge
interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the south.
Additionally, the Modification is along the parking drive isle, and not directly adjacent to
the parking spaces, where the impact of a reduced setback would be greater.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The PDP and the Modification of Standard are approved as submitted, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The Modification of Standard (reduction in setback from five feet to three feet)
shall apply to the rear 78 feet of the lot only. The setbacks on the remaining portion of the
lot shall remain as provided in the Code.
b. If access to neighboring properties is required for construction, the Applicant and/or
Owner shall obtain appropriate easements.
DATED this 25
th
day of February, 2013.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Administrative
Hearing Officer,
Hearing held February 12,
2013
COLLEGE AVE
OLIVE ST.
MAGNOLIA ST.
MULBERRY ST.
MYRTLE ST.
MASON ST.
HOWES ST.
MELDRUM ST.
SHERWOOD ST.
WHITCOMB ST.
LOOMIS ST.
REMMINGTON ST.
MATHEWS ST.
PETERSON ST.
WHEDBEE ST.
SMITH ST.
MOUNTAIN AVE.
CANYON AVE.
RIVERSIDE AVE.
LAUREL ST.
UNIVERSITY AVE.
GRANT AVE.
WASHINGTON ST.
MAC ST.
PLUM ST.
LOCUST ST.
ELIZABETH ST.
GARFIELD ST.
NORTH DR.
SOUTH DR.
WEST DR.
EAST DR.
OVAL DR.
C0.00
C0.00 COVER SHEET
C0.01 GENERAL AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES
C3.00 OVERALL GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN
OWNER/APPLICANT
Big Deal Real Estate Inc.
Jeff Eggleston
2519 Ridge Creek Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80528
970.566.3000
SITE ENGINEER
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
Nick Haws, PE, LEED, AP
200 South College Avenue, Suite 10
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.221.4158
C1.00
NOVEMBER, 2012
SURVEYOR
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
Gary Gilliland, PLS
200 South College Avenue, Suite 10
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.221.4158
BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 11, BLOCK 86, PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
C0.01
No.
Revisions: By: Date:
DESIGNED BY: SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
� � � � � � �� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
A. GENERAL NOTES
1. All materials, workmanship, and construction of public improvements shall meet or exceed the standards and specifications set forth in the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and applicable state and federal regulations. Where there is conflict between these plans and
the specifications, or any applicable standards, the most restrictive standard shall apply. All work shall be inspected and approved by the
City of Fort Collins.
2. All references to any published standards shall refer to the latest revision of said standard, unless specifically stated otherwise.
3. These public improvement construction plans shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval by the City of Fort Collins
Engineer. Use of these plans after the expiration date will require a new review and approval process by the City of Fort Collins prior to
commencement of any work shown in these plans.
4. The engineer who has prepared these plans, by execution and/or seal hereof, does hereby affirm responsibility to the City of Fort Collins, as
beneficiary of said engineer's work, for any errors and omissions contained in these plans, and approval of these plans by the City of Fort
Collins Engineer shall not relieve the engineer who has prepared these plans of all such responsibility. Further, to the extent permitted by
law, the engineer hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Fort Collins, and its officers and employees, from and against all
liabilities, claims, and demands which may arise from any errors and omissions contained in these plans.
5. All sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water line construction, as well as power and other “dry” utility installations, shall conform to the Local
Entity standards and specifications current at the date of approval of the plans by the Local Entity Engineer.
6. The type, size, location and number of all known underground utilities are approximate when shown on the drawings. It shall be the
responsibility of the Developer to verify the existence and location of all underground utilities along the route of the work before commencing
new construction. The Developer shall be responsible for unknown underground utilities.
7. The Developer shall contact the Utility Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) at 1-800-922-1987, at least 2 working days prior to beginning
excavation or grading, to have all registered utility locations marked. Other unregistered utility entities (i.e. ditch / irrigation company) are to
be located by contacting the respective representative. Utility service laterals are also to be located prior to beginning excavation or grading.
It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to relocate all existing utilities that conflict with the proposed improvements shown on these
plans.
8. The Developer shall be responsible for protecting all utilities during construction and for coordinating with the appropriate utility company for
any utility crossings required.
9. If a conflict exists between existing and proposed utilities and/or a design modification is required, the Developer shall coordinate with the
engineer to modify the design. Design modification(s) must be approved by the City of Fort Collins prior to beginning construction.
10. The Developer shall coordinate and cooperate with the City of Fort Collins, and all utility companies involved, to assure that the work is
accomplished in a timely fashion and with a minimum disruption of service. The Developer shall be responsible for contacting, in advance,
all parties affected by any disruption of any utility service as well as the utility companies.
11. No work may commence within any public storm water, sanitary sewer or potable water system until the Developer notifies the utility
provider. Notification shall be a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencement of any work. At the discretion of the water utility
provider, a pre-construction meeting may be required prior to commencement of any work.
12. The Developer shall sequence installation of utilities in such a manner as to minimize potential utility conflicts. In general, storm sewer and
sanitary sewer should be constructed prior to installation of the water lines and dry utilities.
13. The minimum cover over water lines is 4.5 feet and the maximum cover is 5.5 feet unless otherwise noted in the plans and approved by the
Water Utility.
14. A State Construction Dewatering Wastewater Discharge Permit is required if dewatering is required in order to install utilities or if water is
discharged into a storm sewer, channel, irrigation ditch or any waters of the United States.
15. The Developer shall comply with all terms and conditions of the Colorado Permit for Storm Water Discharge (Contact Colorado Department
of Health, Water Quality Control Division, (303) 692-3590), the Storm Water Management Plan, and the Erosion Control Plan.
16. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage facilities located on private property. Maintenance of
onsite drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s).
SOUTH MELDRUM STREET
(100' RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(PER PLAT OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS)
20' ALLEY
(PER PLAT OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS)
LOT 12, BLOCK 86
OWNER: LINFIELD,
JAMES E.
LOT 10, BLOCK 86
OWNER: SKOWRON
FAMILY LIMITED
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
9513 sq.ft.
0.22 ac
NORTH LINE OF
LOT 11, BLOCK 86,
PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF
BLOCK 76, 77, 85, 86, 87
(BASIS OF BEARINGS)
N89°44'08"W (M) 189.89' (M)
WEST (R)
190' (R)
N00°28'19"E (M) 50.10' (M)
NORTH (R)
50' (R)
EAST (R)
190' (R)
S89°45'54"E (M) 189.48' (M)
S00°00'27"W (M) 50.20' (M)
SOUTH (R) 50' (R)
LOT 21, BLOCK 86
OWNER: RAJA
PROPERTIES LLC
LOT 22, BLOCK 86
OWNER: SPIERS,
JOHN W III
SHERWOOD
GREENS CONDOS
FORT COLLINS
POINT OF
BEGINNING
NE CORNER OF
LOT 11, BLOCK 86,
FND3
4" METAL ROD SOUTH (R)
S00°00'27"W (M)
100.41' (M)
100' (R)
NORTH (R)
N00°28'19"E (M)
200.41' (M)
200' (R)
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
ARTHUR DITCH EASEMENT
(33'± WIDE)
8' UTILITY
EASEMENT
9' UTILITY
EASEMENT
ARTHUR IRRIGATION DITCH
C
�
�
� �
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
21' APPROXIMATE
ASPHALT PATCHING
LIMITS
1-STORY ALUMINUM
BUILDING TO BE
REMOVED
WOOD
GARAGE
TO BE
REMOVED
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / /
/ / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / /
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / /
S. MELDRUM STREET
(100' PUBLIC ROW)
ALLEY
(20' PUBLIC ROW)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
ROW LINE
EXISTING 4' WALK 4' WALK EXISTING 4' WALK
/ / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
NORTH
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
20 0 20 Feet
20
40 60
GRAPHIC SCALE:
LEGEND:
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'� �����.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
ST
SS
C
� �
W
F EM
CO
CO CO
W
GM
E E E
E E
G G G G G
21'%%P APPROXIMATE
ASPHALT PATCHING
LIMITS (SEE NOTE 7)
S. MELDRUM STREET
(100' PUBLIC ROW)
ALLEY
(20' PUBLIC ROW)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
ROW LINE
8'%%P APPROXIMATE
ASPHALT PATCHING
LIMITS (SEE NOTE 7)
PROPOSED
MULTIFAMILY
BUILDING
NOTES:
1.THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE
APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF
THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
2.ALL WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EDITION.
3.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT
TO SCALE.
4.UTILITY SERVICES ARE SHOWN IN A SCHEMATIC FASHION ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL
BE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGE IN THE FIELD.
5.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL
SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
6.FIRE LINES SHALL BE STUBBED INSIDE THE RISER ROOM AND CAPPED 1' ABOVE THE
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION.
7.LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD
BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY
STREET REPAIR STANDARDS.
8.EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SHALL BE EXAMINED PRIOR TO CONNECTION TO
DETERMINE THE EXISTING QUALITY OF THE SERVICE LINE.
9.INSTALL 1" METER PIT AND CURB STOP WITH 1{}" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE BEGINNING 5'
FEET BEYOND.
No.
Revisions: By: Date:
DESIGNED BY: SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
VT
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
IF
CO
CO CO W
EXISTING 4' SIDEWALK 4.5' SIDEWALK EXISTING 4' SIDEWALK
S. MELDRUM STREET
(100' PUBLIC ROW)
ALLEY
(20' PUBLIC ROW)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SF SF SF SF SF
SF
SF
SF SF
SF SF
SF
SF
SF
SF SF
SF
SF
W
A A
B B
FFE=3.27 FFE=1.77
W
1'-2.5'
3' WALK @ 2% 6"
VARIES
VARIES
PAVING
NORTH
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
20 0 20 Feet
20
40 60
GRAPHIC SCALE:
LEGEND:
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'� �����.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
5013
PROPOSED CONTOUR 93
PROPOSED SWALE
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 33.43
PROPOSED GRADES
NOTES:
1:4
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (47.45)
EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE W/ MH ST �
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING INLET GRATE
acres
A
0.63 0.12
0.79
acres
B
0.66 0.10
0.83
ALLEY
(20' PUBLIC ROW)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
CO
CO CO
S. MELDRUM STREET
(100' PUBLIC ROW)
B
ROOF
ROOF
POND A
A
ROOF
LOT 11
BLOCK 86
PROPOSED
MULTIFAMILY
BUILDING
ROOF
No. Revisions:
By: Date:
REVIEWED BY:
N. Haws
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
��� ���� �� ������������
������ ������ ��� ������ ��
� P����������� E������� ��
��� ������ �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
12.19.12
200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010
F��� C������, C������� 80524
E N G I N E E R I N G
� � � � � � ��
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
Page 1
November 14, 2012
BDR 4-Plex PDP
Statement of Planning Objectives
The BDR 4-Plex PDP is located at 621 South Meldrum Street, between West Myrtle Street
and West Laurel Street. The .22-acre lot currently consists of a single family residential
home. The residence has been functioning as a college student rental. The existing home,
which was built in 1910, would be taken down and replaced with a four-plex building
containing three-bedroom/two bathroom units. The building will be two stories in height and
will contain approximately 4,900 sq. ft. The project will provide 4 off-street parking spaces,
thus alleviating the on-street parking issues that occur near campus. The proposed
landscape for the site will consist of low water use native planting with a private flagstone
courtyard.
The site is in the N-C-B zoning district and in the West Side Neighborhood Plan Residential
Redevelopment Buffer Area, as well as within the TOD Overlay district. According to the
Purpose Statement contained within Article 4 of the Land Use Code, “The Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a transition between residential
neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have
been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.”
The area surrounding the BDR 4-Plex PDP contains a mix of single-family homes, CSU
dorms and some medium density student housing. The site is ideal for this type of density
as it provides a transition between the single family neighborhoods to the west in the N-C-L
Zone and more intensely developed area to the east. The proposed project is located within
walking and biking distance to downtown, the Mason Street Corridor (MAX), Campus West
and the CSU Campus, thus representing a reduction in the amount of cars on the streets.
There are existing transit stops on Laurel Street and the CSU Transit Center is 2 blocks
away.
An alley accessed, paved parking lot at the backside of the lot will contain 4 parking spaces,
bike racks and a trash enclosure. Sidewalks are provided from the building’s main
entrances to both the alley and Meldrum Street.
.
Page 2
(i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by
the proposed plan:
This proposal meets the applicable City Plan Principles and Policies:
Principles and Policies Community-Wide:
Land Use Principles and Policies
BDR 4-Plex PDP meets almost all of the principles and policies outlined in
City Plan. The project will provide a compact urban redevelopment project
that is in an ideal location between less intense and more intense uses,
provides much-needed student housing, is within walking distance to many
destinations and is within the West Side Neighborhood Subarea Plan.
The project is designed to be complimentary in style, character, and scale to
the existing buildings within the N-C-B District.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed BDR 4-Plex PDP project meets the
intent and policies of the West Side Neighborhood Plan and the
Transportation Overlay District (TOD).
Transportation
The location of this project at the north end of campus, near downtown and
Campus west, its proximity to the Mason Street Corridor and that its residents
will be Colorado State University students will promote and support the idea
of a predominance of the daily trips of the residents of this project utilizing
alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking) or public transportation.
The recent bicycle lane re-striping and improvements on West Laurel Street
will help to encourage safe cycling. It is visualized that a resident of this
project could sustain a lifestyle without the use of an automobile.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed BDR 4-Plex PDP project meets the
intent and policies of the Fort Collins Bikeway Program Plan, Pedestrian
Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and the Mason Street Transportation
Corridor Plan
Community Appearance and Design
The BDR 4-Plex PDP project is designed to enhance the streetscape by
providing two attractive buildings that are an architectural asset to the area.
No new streets are planned for this project.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed project meets the intent and policies
of the West Side Neighborhood Plan and the Mason Street Transportation
Corridor Plan
Housing
The BDR 4-Plex PDP project provides a housing project targeted towards
Colorado State University students. The residents of this project will utilize
the existing bus system and the Mason Street corridor for transportation to
and from destinations in the City. In addition, the City promotes higher
Page 3
density housing near public transportation, shopping, and in designated
neighborhoods and districts.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed BDR 4-Plex PDP project meets the
intent and policies of the Colorado State University Master Plan, the West
Side Neighborhood Plan and the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan
Environment
BDR 4-Plex PDP does not displace areas of significant habitat or natural
area. The type of project that is proposed supports the principals and policies
of City Plan. The residents are expected to utilize alternative transportation
and public transportation for the majority of their daily trips.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed pBDR 4-Plex PDP roject meets the
intent and policies of the Fort Collins Bikeway Program Plan, Pedestrian Plan
and the Air Quality Policy Plan
Open Lands
BDR 4-Plex PDP is a redevelopment of an existing site, creating no adverse
impact on the City Plan Principles and Policies.
Growth Management
BDR 4-Plex PDP supports the City Plan Principles and Policies of Growth
Management as an infill project. Additionally, the site is within a subarea plan
that will protect the character of the surrounding area.
Principles and Policies Districts:
Neighborhoods
This project meets the Principles and Policies of the Existing Neighborhoods
in that it follows the infill/redevelopment standards. The building is designed
to be compatible with the surrounding area and will protect the existing
neighborhood character.
Related Plans and Policy: The proposed BDR 4-Plex PDP project meets the
intent and policies of the Pedestrian Plan, West Side Neighborhood Plan and
the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan
The proposed BDR 4-Plex PDP project meets the intent and policies of the
Fort Collins Bikeway Program Plan, Pedestrian Plan, Transportation Master
Plan, Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan
Economic Health
Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic
areas within the community as defined in the Community and
Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies.
Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and
Redevelopment
Page 4
The BDR 4-Plex PDP will provide a compact urban redevelopment project
that is in an ideal location, is within walking distance to many destinations and
is within a targeted infill area
Environmental Health
Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality
The residents of BDR 4-Plex PDP are expected to utilize alternative
transportation and public transportation for the majority of their daily trips.
Community and Neighborhood Livability
Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas
identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map.
Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
The BDR 4-Plex PDP will provide a compact urban redevelopment project
that is in an ideal location, is within walking distance to many destinations and
is within a targeted infill area. The project is designed to be complimentary in
style, character, and scale to the existing redevelopment within the N-C-B
District.
Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income
levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area.
Policy LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas
Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods
The BDR 4-Plex PDP provides an opportunity for redevelopment of an
existing lot and the design of the building will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income
levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area.
Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations
BDR 4-Plex PDP embodies a variety of housing types and densities in the
neighborhood that are well-served by public transportation and close to
employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities.
Principle LIV 22: The design of residential neighborhoods should
emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its
context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community.
Policy LIV 22.2 – Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design
The BDR 4-Plex PDP is a smaller multi-family designed to reflect the
characteristics of the existing single family residential neighborhood. The
building has distinct covered front door entrances orienting to the street and
sidewalks, private outdoor space, and individual identities.
Transportation
Page 5
Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents
to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be promoted.
Policy T 8.1 – Support Active Transportation
Policy T 8.2 – Design for Active Living
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and
convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities.
Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops
Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities
The location of the BDR 4-Plex PDP will promote and support the idea of the
residents utilizing alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking) or
public transportation. There is an existing Transfort stop to the east of the site
on Laurel Street as well as the CSU Transit Center within two blocks of the
project. There are bike lanes and sidewalks on Laurel Street.
(ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and
features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated
buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project.
There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of
the site. There are several existing mature trees on the site that will have to
be removed and possibly mitigated. The team will meet with the City
Forester to assess the existing trees and landscaping.
(iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and
private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future
ownership of all or portions of the project development plan.
The residential units will be owned by the building developer/owner and will
be for rent units targeted towards college students.
(iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and
industrial uses.
n/a
(v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by
the applicant.
At this time the BDR 4-Plex PDP project is not proposing any variance from
the City of Fort Collins criteria.
(vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the
applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these
regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require,
or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is
required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be
described.
At this time the project is not proposing any variance from the City of Fort
Collins criteria.
Page 6
(vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or
disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife
are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated.
There are not existing wetlands, natural habitats or features currently located
on site. There are existing trees within the site which would be preserved
and/or mitigated with this proposed PDP. There are some trees within the
interior of the site which would be removed with this proposed PDP. We will
meet with Tim Buchanan, City Forester to have an assessment of the existing
trees completed.
(viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the
neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held.
There was no neighborhood meeting.
(ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have
had during Conceptual Review.
The project is called BDR 4-Plex PDP. The project has been referred to as
621 S. Meldrum PDP. It is expected that a marketing name will be selected
at some point during the development review process.
January 18, 2013
Administrative Hearing Officer
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Big Deal Four Plex PDP
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use
Code.
Background
The Big Deal Four Plex PDP is located at 621 South Meldrum Street, between West Myrtle Street
and West Laurel Street. The .22-acre lot currently consists of a single family residential home.
The residence has been functioning as a college student rental. The existing home, which was
built in 1910, will be taken down and replaced with a four-plex building containing three-
bedroom/two bathroom units. The building will be two stories in height and will contain
approximately 4,900 sq. ft. Gross overall density of the project is 18.2 dwelling units per acre.
The project will provide 4 off-street parking spaces to be accessed from the alley. The site is in
the N-C-B zoning district and in the West Side Neighborhood Plan Residential Redevelopment
Buffer Area, as well as within the TOD Overlay district.
This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification
Code Language: Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more
parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from
the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or
uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according
to the following table:
Minimum average of
entire landscaped setback
area (feet)
Minimum width of setback
at any point (feet)
Along an arterial
street
15
5
Along a
nonarterial street
10
5
Along a lot line 5 5
Big Deal Four Plex Modification of Standards
1-18-13
Requested Modification: The property has several physical constraints. It is a narrow, 50’ wide lot
and the existing Arthur Ditch runs diagonally through the site, thus causing the parking area to be
pushed towards the alley. In addition, requirements for stormwater detention and water quality on
the back portion of the site requires an extended detention area. This area is alredy tight at 6’
wide, thus requiring the need for retaining walls in order to achieve the needed depth for the pond.
Other challenges include achieving/accommodating the required 24’ wide drive and parking stall
depth. Given the above, we respectfully request that the Big Deal Four Plex project be allowed to
have setback of 3 feet instead of 5 feet along the south property line
Justification
We feel that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following
reasons:
The proposed plan provides landscape and a solid privacy fence along the south property
line, thus providing additional screening of the vehicle use area.
The parking lot is only 1,974 square feet. The area where we are requesting relief is only
50 feet long, which is relatively small compared to other parking lots.
The width of the landscape area in the proposed alternative plan is short by 2 feet.
We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product in an infill site with a price point
that the market desires and that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a
criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the
neighborhood.
We look forward to working with you during this process and will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Cathy Mathis, APA
Project Manager, The Birdsall Group
January 15, 2013
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
RE: Big Deal Four Plex
625 South Meldrum Street | Temporary Construction Easement/Agreement
Dear Tyler:
The following addresses Comment Number: 7 (Big Deal Four Plex, PDP120030, Round Number 2),
which reads:
01/04/2013: A letter of intent from the owner of 617 S Meldrum was received with this
submittal. A letter from the owner of 625 S Meldrum must be received prior to hearing.
12/04/2012: A temporary construction easement/agreement from the adjacent property owners will
be required for the concrete retaining wall construction on the north and south property lines.
The proposed retaining wall and fence will be constructed as shown in the attached exhibits. Based
on a site evaluation and conversation with a landscaping contractor, we feel it is reasonable to
construct the proposed retaining wall and fence without a temporary construction
easement/agreement from the adjacent property owner(s) at 625 South Meldrum Street.
Please feel free to contact me at 970.568.5417 with questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Herman Feissner, PE
Project Engineer
Enclosures: (4)
ATTACHMENT 5
Applicant Presentation at the
Administrative Hearing
February 13, 2013
ATTACHMENT 6
Materials submitted by
Citizens at the Administrative
Hearing
February 13, 2013
ATTACHMENT 7
Verbatim Transcript of the
Administrative Hearing
February 13, 2013
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
BDR Four Unit Multi-Family, 621 South Meldrum Street
PDP #120030
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Kendra L. Carberry
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jason Holland, City Planner
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER KENDRA L. CARBERRY: I will go ahead
2 and call this hearing to order. My name is Kendra Carberry, I’m the Hearing Officer for the City
3 of Fort Collins. This project is entitled BDR Four-Unit Multi-Family, 621 South Meldrum
4 Street, Project Development Plan Number 120030. I believe the first thing we do is have the
5 staff report, is that correct?
6 CITY PLANNER JASON HOLLAND: That’s right, I’ll go ahead with my presentation
7 now. First, I just wanted to give a brief background information on the project.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Could you state your name for the record.
9 MR. HOLLAND: Sure, Jason Holland, the project planner with the City of Fort Collins.
10 This is a request to demolish an existing 626 square foot single-family home, located at 621
11 South Meldrum Street, and construct a multi-family four-plex building. The existing residence
12 was built in 1910 and has been functioning as a college student rental. The proposed building is
13 two stories in height and is approximately 4,900 square feet, and will contain three-bedroom,
14 two-bathroom dwelling units. And, as I said, a total of four units. The site is zoned NCB –
15 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone district, and it falls within the TOD, Transportation
16 Overlay Development zone. And, one modification of standard accompanies the project
17 development plan request. I submitted a full staff report into the public record with the project.
18 The result of the staff report is a recommendation that the project is in compliance with all
19 applicable standards of the Land Use Code and with the procedures outlined in the Land Use
20 Code. And, in addition to that, the staff report outlines one modification of standard, and we find
21 that the modification is in compliance with the standards outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land
22 Use Code, and we are also recommending the modification be approved.
23 Lastly, I just wanted to point out some of the features…some of the key features of the
24 project that we feel were an important part of our recommendation. We felt that, first of all, that
25 the project had a very traditional feel with the character of the proposed architecture, and that it
26 fit with the established character of the neighborhood and of the street, and was compatible with
27 the neighborhood. The overall form is well-articulated with recesses and projections, and the
28 recesses and projections really help control the overall massing and help scale down the building.
29 Additionally, the secondary elements that are used such as the bay windows and the porch
30 elements that you can see here, the projected dormer, the different roof lines that come down on
31 the side of the building, all really help to scale the building down and are very appropriate…and
32 the significant treatment along the sides of the building, along the side property lines in particular
33 really helps scale down the building and reduce the overall massing. And, you can see that,
34 especially shown in the back, that there are some pretty deep recesses here that step the building
35 back at the back, and that really helps to reduce the massing. Overall, we felt that it was a very
36 good job with the articulation all the way around, and then there’s a number of really nice
37 elements, brackets and so forth that we asked for, and porch elements, that really help give a
38 good street appearance and a good people scale, street scale, to the building that really echoes
3
1 some of the detailing that you see in the other buildings along the street.So, that’s…that was
2 some of the main focus of the approval was to make sure that the building was compatible and
3 that the impacts of the project were mitigated. And, that concludes my staff presentation.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Great, for the record, I do have copies of the staff report as well as
5 what I believe to be the application materials as well. Is that correct?
6 MR. HOLLAND: That’s correct.
7 MS. CARBERRY: And I have…those as well. I guess we’ll go ahead and hear from the
8 applicant now.
9 MR. JEFF EGGLESTON: Good evening, my name is Jeff Eggleston and I grew up in
10 Fort Collins, Colorado. I went to CSU and…kind of been involved in rental property
11 management and real estate probably over the last eight to ten years, and me and my sister and
12 my brother-in-law, we actually own this house together in an LLC and we thought it’d be a great
13 idea to do something with the house because it’s pretty outdated and it’s small, and it’s in such a
14 great location less than half a block from campus. So, with the zoning, we could put up to
15 twenty-four units, but we decided to just do four, the minimum….now. And, it’d be a great
16 opportunity to house…for CSU housing with the big need, and just do a great project. So, I’ll
17 introduce the team that…first of all, Ian Shuff, he’s the head architect for the design with Aller,
18 Lingle, and Massey, and then Herman Feissner, he’s with the Northern Engineering Group doing
19 all the civil engineering, and then Cathy Mathis, she’s with the Birdsall Group, she handles all
20 the landscaping and the entitlements for the project. So…project and great team.
21 MS. CATHY MATHIS: Yeah, I’m going to give a little presentation. My name is Cathy
22 Mathis, 444 Mountain Avenue in Berthoud, Colorado, I’m with the Birdsall Group. As Jeff just
23 mentioned, we are the land planners and landscape architect. One of the things that I wanted to
24 touch on is, sort of the recent development trends going on in this area of town. We’ve got…do
25 you have the aerial slide? I just kind of want to point out, here’s the slide right here for
26 Meldrum, for the four-plex, and I just wanted to point out, just along here we’ve got….Flats
27 development is going in right here on the corner of Mulberry, it’s kind of off the street a little bit.
28 We also have, down here is the called the West Range project, and that’s doing in in the
29 old…fraternity house. There’s another project going on here called Sherwood Forts, and then
30 that’s a redevelopment project, and then of course we have the Flats at the Oval, I think Atrium
31 Suites is here, Pura Vida…so you’re really starting to see a lot of redevelopment of these
32 properties that formerly contained, you know, single-family houses, student rentals, really
33 redevelop into multi-family student housing. And we really feel that this Bid Deal Four-Plex is a
34 great site for this NCB zone, it’s ideal for this type of density, we think, for just the four units
35 because it really provides a great transition in this zone area from the NCL zone, this is
36 predominantly single-family up in here, we’ve got a lot more intense development over here, so
37 this is a great transition area for this size of a project. So, I just wanted to touch on the site plan a
4
1 little bit. The lot is 50 foot wide by 190 feet deep so it’s very long and narrow. As Jason
2 mentioned, there’s an existing house here that will be taken down and replaced by the four-plex
3 as well as a parking lot. One of the biggest constraints, and one of the biggest challenges that
4 we’ve had on this site is the Arthur Ditch which is running diagonally. It’s an open ditch, been
5 around forever. I think Herman is going to touch on that here in a minute. One of the things we
6 had to provide was an easement on either side of the actual ditch. That easement…we could not
7 construct the building in that easement, or the parking lot, or any foundations, so it really
8 created…it sort of split the site into two pieces. So, the building is pushed up against the
9 Meldrum Street frontage. We are fifteen foot setback; it meets the setback codes on the front.
10 We’re five foot on the north property line; we’re five foot on the south property line. We’ve got
11 four entrances to the building, there’s one here, one there, here and here. We’ve got sidewalks
12 connecting Meldrum all the way back to the parking lot. Back here is the parking lot, accessed
13 off the alley. We’ve got four off-street parking spaces there, and as you can see in the middle in
14 the Arthur Ditch area, we have just some turf landscaping, some sidewalks, a little patio area.
15 So, one of the things I also wanted to point out was…landscaping and tree protection
16 becomes very important to meet that section of the Land Use Code. When you get into these
17 older areas and older homes, it starts to get kind of…you get large, big, mature existing trees
18 along these property lines, and it’s actually hard to tell which tree is on which lot. And so we
19 had two different meetings with the City Forester on site to determine and evaluate the trees.
20 And, mostly we found out that the trees were volunteer Siberian Elms, which could be removed
21 and taken out off our property without any significant impact. The only tree that was…that’s
22 right here, that’s in fair condition is a crab apple tree. That will need to be removed because of
23 the redevelopment of the project, and we will have to mitigate that with two upsized trees which
24 means we would have to plant…trees that are larger caliper in size than what the City Code
25 would normally require. So, we came to an agreement with the City Forester that we would
26 plant two, and I’m not sure which exactly…it might be this tree, this tree…are actually upsized
27 tree, per the City Forester.
28 So, I wanted to talk a little bit about the modification that Jason mentioned. We are
29 requesting a modification for Section 3.2.2(J), which requires that parking areas be set back five
30 feet from property lines. Due to the site constraints that I just talked about, plus a few others I’ll
31 talk about, we are requesting that this setback be three feet instead of five feet. And the setback
32 I’m talking about is right here along the south property line. This is only three feet instead of the
33 required five. Basically, the physical constraints that we have on the site is the fact that the lot is
34 only fifty feet wide. We have a detention area with some retaining walls along this side that are
35 required, we’ve got our parking…another twenty-four foot drive here. So, by the time that’s all
36 said and done, we were only left with three feet along that south property line; thus having to
37 request a modification of that standard. Our justification for this is that we feel that, basically,
38 we can still fit three feet of landscaping in here which helps screen, you know, the parking area
39 from the adjacent property. Also, we have a six-foot high privacy fence along that property line
5
1 which also helps alleviate that…the impact of having only three feet instead of five feet of
2 landscaping in here. But, I also want to point out the parking lot is very small, this is only about
3 fifty feet of frontage. It’s not big, it’s not the whole property line that we’re asking for, it’s just
4 this small area, and plus, as Jason pointed out in his staff report, the parking is not heading into
5 the south, the parking stalls and cars are facing north, so it’s really just that drive aisle. So,
6 you’re not going to have the lights…headlights shining into the south property line, into the
7 neighboring property. And, again, I think most importantly is, the setback at two feet would
8 permit a parking area that would otherwise be infeasible, and we feel that the off-street parking
9 spaces are very important, not only to this project, but we feel they are important for the overall
10 neighborhood so people aren’t parking…the residents aren’t parking along the street. So, we feel
11 that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. So, that’s the
12 modification request.
13 And, the other thing I just want to point out is several City Plan Principles and Policies
14 that Big Deal four-plex embodies. One of them is Policy EH 4.1 and LIV 5.1, which encourages
15 redevelopment in targeted infill and redevelopment areas, and this is definitely a targeted infill
16 and redevelopment area. Principle ENV 8, which is about air quality, and it talks about
17 continually improving Fort Collins’ air quality. And, as Jeff mentioned, the residents are going
18 to be college students and they will use alternative transportation, they’re close to campus,
19 they’ll use public transportation, so that will help keep cars off the street and improve air quality.
20 Principle LIV 22, which is providing creative multi-family design, and we feel that this four-plex
21 is…being a smaller multi-family building, it’s really designed to reflect the character of the
22 existing single-family neighborhood. As Jason pointed out, it has pitched roofs, it has different
23 entrances and articulation, so we feel that blends in really well with the single-family
24 neighborhood. And, then lastly Principle T 10 is using…regarding using transit and bicycling.
25 And, again, the location of the four-plex will promote and support the idea of alternative modes
26 of transportation. There’s existing Transfort bus stops on Laurel, there’s the CSU Transit
27 Center, as well as the Mason Street Corridor and the MAX BRT rapid transit in the area. So, that
28 ends my presentation. I’ll turn it over to Ian.
29 MR. IAN SHUFF: Okay, and actually I’m not…what we have now is some of the civil
30 drawings, the plat, and I’m going to have Herman just talk a little bit about some of the overall
31 site constraints, really tying to Arthur’s Ditch and really how that controlled a lot of
32 drainage…do you want to just focus on the drainage plan?
33 MR. HERMAN FEISSNER: Yeah, I can talk briefly about the grading and drainage
34 design. Again, my name is Herman Feissner, I work for Northern Engineering, we provide the
35 civil design services for the project. As Cathy had mentioned, the Arthur Ditch presents a
36 significant challenge to redeveloping a site…this particular site…in order to meet the needs…our
37 objectives of the development plan, we had to raise the site. And, in order to offset that, and
38 minimize the impact…the grading impact to the neighboring properties, we split the finished
39 floor of this building, so actually the finished floor in the front of the building is…matches up
6
1 nicely with the…fronts to Meldrum, which the section in the back is a foot to a foot and half
2 higher. Drainage design, the basic concept is that the building, structure itself drains to
3 Meldrum, whereas the rear portion of the site drains back to an on-site detention pond, which is
4 in the parking area, and provides for water quality in this area. Water quality for the front
5 portion of the site is provided for in the…area.
6 MR. SHUFF: I want to address also…my name is Ian Shuff, I’m again the project
7 architect with Aller, Lingle, Massey Architects at 712 Whalers Way in Fort Collins. We did
8 have to address the need, based on what Herman just said, we had to basically add some grade to
9 the site in order to get the flow to go to Meldrum. So, we looked at a lot of options for retaining
10 walls. We do have some retaining walls on both the north and south side of the property line,
11 most of which are about one foot tall, and there’s a portion for maybe thirty, forty feet…not a
12 real long length, but when the wall will step up to thirty inches high, maximum. And, really
13 wanted to make sure we provided a retaining wall that was aesthetically pleasing to both the
14 project and to the neighbor to the south, and also incorporate a privacy fence with that design.
15 So, this section is…illustrates this thirty inch maximum height…that we would have. We’re
16 proposing to use cedar or pressure-treated timbers, also…at every four foot on the center, so it’s
17 structurally locked in. In conjunction with a privacy fence, that would be a wood cedar fence,
18 again, so the maximum height of this entire assembly would be five foot. In this case, it would
19 be a thirty inch wall with a thirty inch fence on top. As the site steps down, we’ll have a
20 condition where we’ll only maybe only have a foot for…exposed wall. We’re showing one foot,
21 two just based on the nominal dimensions of the retaining wall. And, here the fence actually
22 steps down. We’re still not exceeding this five foot high total assembly, but it’s just a way that
23 we feel like…aesthetically pleasing way to work with that constraint we had on the site.
24 Here’s an elevation of what the typical fence design looks like. Obviously, the height of
25 it will vary. In some locations, it’ll be thirty inches high, some areas will be four feet high, so it
26 just kind of depends. But, that’s the design, so, once again, it’s a nice fence. It has added trim,
27 horizontal bands, so both sides are enhanced. It doesn’t really have a back side that a lot of
28 fences do have. So, just wanted to kind of illustrate the design of those sides of the lot.
29 I’m going to kind of briefly talk about the architecture; I think Jason covered it pretty
30 well. I think part of the articulation was due to Arthur’s Ditch, but it ended up being kind of a
31 win-win. I think we got some good articulation and it ended up working out pretty well as far as
32 getting the four units in and breaking up the scale of the building, and really addressing the site
33 as well. So, I’ll just go really quickly through these. I did provide some…imagery, just kind of
34 showing…we’re using some stucco up high, some of that stucco kind of comes down low, and
35 then we have a mix of vertical siding and horizontal siding, to tie in both with the historical
36 materials in the neighborhood, but we…kind of varying up the pattern design just to clearly
37 make the building look…so people are obviously going to know it’s a modern building, but you
38 know, still fit in, but kind of using more of…those materials. Here is looking from Meldrum
39 facing…this is the Meldrum facing elevation. This is the north facing elevation. This is the
7
1 south facing elevation. And, here’s what you’re going to see from the parking lot. This is
2 looking to the east. You can see these big step-ins we had dealing with the Ditch. And, really,
3 that concludes our presentation…turn it back over to Jason.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Can I ask some questions? Would that be okay? I just noticed that, at
5 some point, there were some conditions about receiving easements from the neighboring
6 property owners, and it looks like, from what I can see, you have an agreement from one but not
7 the other. Is that…is that going to be…it looks like what you’re telling me is you don’t need that
8 one anymore…is that correct?
9 MR. SHUFF: Correct, the south property line…we explored different ways to construct a
10 wall without one putting a footing in and having to over-excavate a large, deep, basically cross
11 wall, and really consulted with a landcape…commercial landscape design installer, subcontractor
12 here in town, and reviewed that with them, and they thought that that wall that we were
13 proposing is a sound wall, it’s a good…because of that, we can achieve a wall on the lot line
14 really only digging a few inches down, just to kind of set that first timber. We can also, you
15 know…we thought that wood is the most appropriate. There’s other products out there like split-
16 face CMU stacked block retaining wall system that also can be installed without any
17 foundation…so, obviously a more durable approach, aesthetically, we felt like that was more
18 commercial, that look, and so that’s why we ventured down the more timber retaining wall route,
19 just because we really thought that was a more softer material. So, I think there’s other ways to
20 look at that, but that’s what we are proposing.
21 MS. CARBERRY: Do you have any issue with not obtaining the…construction easement
22 from the other property owner…or? I mean, I think what they’re saying is it’s not
23 necessary…do you guys have any issue with that?
24 MR. HOLLAND: We contemplated that…staff did, both myself and the staff engineer.
25 And, we felt that, with regards to the south property line, that if we couldn’t get a letter or an off-
26 site easement, if they couldn’t supply that, that if they could state a case, and the case made
27 sense, that they could build the retaining wall without impacting the property to the south, that
28 we had what we needed for them to proceed to hearing. And, part of the thought with that was
29 that…and one of the things that I discussed with the staff engineer, is that we know that they are
30 going to need a silt fence that will be part of the construction requirement sequence…there will
31 be a silt fence that will be installed on that property line. And, I think that that will provide a
32 logical and real-world, good construction barrier that they can work off of, and I think that will
33 really help to ensure that, not only that this will work on paper, but that it’ll work in the real
34 world…that they can feasibly construct that wall from just…just from their side. And, I think,
35 secondly, I think it’s reasonable to, you know, based on that construction detail, based on the fact
36 that the fence itself is set back from the retaining wall, and any post hole digging that they’ll
37 need to do for that fence will be behind the retaining wall, that they can’t actually make that
8
1 work as well. So, we felt that we had everything that we needed. And, we did, just to…that’s
2 the answer to your question.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thank you. Do you have a response to their presentation…or?
4 MR. HOLLAND: Is that the next step? Okay. Well, yeah, I guess just to add as far as
5 just backing up and giving a little bit of background on the retaining wall. You know, the first
6 thing that was proposed was a concrete wall and, you know, we felt that…and the grades were a
7 little bit higher. So, when we were working through that, they did find a way to set the building
8 so that that helped. And in addition to that, we asked that they provide something else besides a
9 concrete wall solution, because that seemed like that wasn’t really going to be a good feel for the
10 neighborhood, not a very good residential solution. We did discuss maybe some different ways
11 that they concrete wall could be textured, or, you know, addressed. Or, you know, maybe even
12 with some interval color or something like that, maybe that’s a possibility. But, this is the
13 solution that they proposed with the timber wall, and we felt that this was a more appropriate
14 solution and that it could be…it could be handled. So, that’s kind of just some background about
15 how we got to this. So, we, you know, we felt that this…to the maximum extent feasible, did
16 mitigate the impacts of what they were proposing to do, and did handle the drainage properly,
17 which was an added requirement, to make sure that the water wasn’t draining to the south, that it
18 was actually moving out, you know, from the side property line to the east and to the west.
19 MS. CARBERRY: Another question, if I could ask. So, the modification to the setback
20 will only occur…will only be applicable to the area next to the parking area, correct?
21 MR. HOLLAND: To the south, that’s correct.
22 MS. CARBERRY: So, in other words, twenty years from now, somebody comes in, they
23 want to extend that setback variance…modification…use the word variance…but that setback
24 modification, it won’t be able to move it to the east side twenty feet. You know what I’m
25 saying? That was just a question I had, does it apply to the entire property line or does it just
26 apply to that area of the parking lot?
27 MR. HOLLAND: Well hypothetically, if someone did come…it depends on how its
28 worded I suppose. If someone did come in and ask to modify the existing project plan, final
29 plan, once it’s approved, they…we would evaluate that based on whether or not we would
30 consider that alteration to be minor or not.
31 MS. CARBERRY: I guess my question, do we need a condition that the…and this is just
32 really a question…that the modification for setback should be for so many feet along the
33 southern boundary, you know, or…
34 MR. HOLLAND: We certainly could…we certainly could. If you so chose, you could
35 refine that with a condition that says it applies to the parking lot configuration as shown on the
9
1 site plan. That would be my recommendation as far as the general wording as far as how to
2 handle it, to make it site plan specific.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Do you have anything, based on my questions?
4 MR. FEISSNER: I think there’s a possibility…he was looking…Jeff, the owner, was
5 looking into…there’s a way you can put a precast concrete slab over Arthur’s Ditch
6 because…you can park on the ditch as long as you provide structural engineering to allow you to
7 park on the ditch. And, he would desire maybe a few extra spots. At the most, it might be one or
8 two extra spots…it wouldn’t be very much. So, I guess if we did a condition, it might be nice to
9 allow for one or two more spots in the future, if that…but just knowing that, it’s kind of some
10 new information we received in the last couple days that that’s an option, to actually park on top
11 of Arthur’s Ditch. So, not something he necessarily wants to entertain now, but if we’re going to
12 put a condition on that modification…I think we’re talking about one or two spaces. The site
13 really couldn’t hold…
14 MS. CARBERRY: One or two spaces toward the east?
15 MR. FEISSNER: Correct. It would obviously have the impact of green space and
16 everything else, but I just might add that I guess. And…I don’t know if it’s something you are
17 seriously looking at…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Again, I’m not trying to throw a wrench in things, I just want to make
19 sure that, you know, if what we’re intending tonight is only to get this modification for the area
20 that’s currently shown in the site plan, or if we want to make it further to the east, that’s my only
21 question.
22 MR. FEISSNER: Like I said, I think we would definitely be open to a condition put on
23 that modification…if we can just add eighteen feet to that, or something like that…to the east.
24 MS. CARBERRY: You’re saying add…plus eighteen feet of what’s currently shown on
25 the site plan?
26 MR. FEISSNER: That seems reasonable I think…not to extend…
27 MS. CARBERRY: And, how do you think about that?
28 MR. HOLLAND: I think if you worded it something like “not to extend eighteen feet
29 further to the east from the face of the trash enclosure.”
30 MR. FEISSNER: That still at least defines…
31 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
32 MR FEISSNER: That easement better than…
10
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, public testimony. State your name and spell your name.
2 MR. ALAN SKOWRON: My name is Alan Skowron – SKOWRON, first name Alan –
3 ALAN.
4 MS. CARBERRY: And your address, please?
5 MR. SKOWRON: 4636 Brookwood – BROOKWOOD – Drive, Loveland, Colorado,
6 80538. And, I’m one of the property owners at 625 South Meldrum, I’m the neighbor to the
7 south. And, my brother, Eric, he’s the engineer, but he’s in Australia, so I’m here in his place. I
8 just have a public statement that he wrote that I wanted to say, and then I had a couple questions.
9 So, I don’t know what order you want me to go in.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Go ahead, whatever order you like. Do you want to make your
11 statement first…
12 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, I’ll just make my statement. This is our position, just based on
13 the hearing of the proposed development. We do not oppose an infill development in that
14 neighborhood or to the…for our neighbor to the north of us to build. However, per the
15 information provided by Jeff and the City of Fort Collins for this meeting…to be in accordance
16 with the planning code, the proposed swale and irrigation landscaping/sidewalk on top of the
17 wooden retaining wall on the property line is not a sound solution. It poses a long-term
18 maintenance issue. It poses risk to our property if the wall should fail. We would like to see
19 more distance between the property line and proposed structure to address drainage and access
20 between the structure and property line without requiring a retaining wall, or a retaining wall of
21 material with a lower risk of decay or corrosion, such as concrete, and greater distance between
22 the swale bottom and top of the retaining wall. Ice, trash, leaves could block the storm drainage
23 swale. If coupled with blockage and sub-grade roof drain, storm drainage could flow up against
24 the house at 625 South Meldrum. Jeff Eggleston has requested an access easement from us per
25 requirement, which you brought up earlier, through the City of Fort Collins Engineering
26 Department. We would just like to confirm this requirement from the Engineering Department,
27 and we need to resolve any grading issues at the property line and understand the extent of the
28 proposed impacts prior to considering an agreement, though it sounds like, what I just learned a
29 few minutes ago, they don’t really need an agreement from us if they’re not accessing our
30 property. That’s what my brother had to say.
31 MS. CARBERRY: And then you said you had some additional questions?
32 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, as far as, you know, where the parking lot is, so on the west
33 side. So, that’s a modification then, so it’s a three feet barrier then from our property line to
34 where the…
35 MS. CARBERRY: They’re asking for a three-foot setback instead of a five-foot setback.
11
1 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, and then they were just requesting another eighteen feet beyond
2 that?
3 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, no, I’m sorry. To be clear…
4 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, if you just could clarify that a little bit.
5 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, what I was asking is…how far to the east would this setback
6 modification apply in the future. Because, really the setback is only necessary, from what I’m
7 hearing, for the parking area. So, what they’re saying is they would like it to go eighteen feet to
8 the east of the parking area as shown on these plans, in case they want to add another parking
9 spot later…
10 MR. SKOWRON: Right, that’s what I thought you were saying, yeah. I guess my only
11 concern, maybe, would be if…as long as it…I guess that that still would be near our house, but if
12 we ever decided to modify our house if there’d be any constraints imposed on us because of the
13 three-foot…you know what I mean…the three-foot easement, instead of five-foot easement.
14 How it would affect us, as far as our…you know, and I don’t…if it’s just the parking, I don’t see
15 that being an issue probably, but if it’s…if they can extend that all the way down, or you know,
16 farther down…that was just my only concern, or comment.
17 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, do you have any response to that.
18 MR. HOLLAND: I guess just kind of running through, if I may, just give a few thoughts.
19 I think, really, probably going to want to hear from the consultant team, but what our thinking
20 was, just a thought as far as the long term maintenance thought, is that, if a different material
21 seems better from that perspective, that’s…
22 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Are you talking about the retaining walls?
23 MR. HOLLAND: Right, totally understand that and I think that’s really more of a
24 question for…
25 Right, I think aesthetically I like what they proposed, but from a structural standpoint, I
26 guess my brother is concerned about wood, or some kind of fiber material that could…in an
27 unusual event, if we get a heavy rainstorm, and it’s a five year-old fence, or you know probably
28 ten year-old fence, and then, you know, something breaks, and you know, we have a bunch of
29 mud or something all over our backyard. I don’t know…that was just one of his points. And
30 then just water up against our house, too, that he was worried about…
31 MR. HOLLAND: Probably have to let the engineer speak to that. Secondly, just the
32 thought about the three-foot versus the five-foot, and potential future build-ability of your site.
33 That won’t have an effect on where you’re able to place buildings on your site. Your
34 site…essentially, you have a five-foot building setback on your side. So, if there…shouldn’t be
12
1 any issues with the parking configuration, and the proposed building itself, as it stands, won’t
2 have any impact as far as the build-ability of a future building on your side as well. The building
3 code and the setbacks are dovetailed together, the way that they’re written, so that the separation
4 between future buildings is…works without any impacts as far as fire rating and so forth. So,
5 there shouldn’t be any impacts from this development configuration to the future build-ability of
6 your…of your brother’s site. And, as far as the extending of the three feet further, it appears to
7 me that it’s only going to go less than halfway through…halfway to the center of the property
8 line. So, I don’t think that it’s going to be next to any future building that you would have. The
9 district is set up so that the requirement is that the building be essentially on the front fifty
10 percent of the lot.
11 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, and I’m aware of the whole carriage thing…because we’ve
12 looked into that too.
13 MR. HOLLAND: So, I think you’ll be okay there. I would actually, come to think of it,
14 if you were going to change the plan at some point to add two more parking spaces, because
15 there is a little bit of a turnaround neck in addition to the two spaces – if the two spaces are
16 eighteen feet and you want, say for example, five feet, maintain that five feet of backing space,
17 then eighteen plus five, you might want to ask for twenty-four feet of additional space to push
18 everything back. It may not be feasible to push it back that far, but it probably makes more sense
19 just to think it through to ask for twenty-four feet if you were going to ask for something.
20 MS. CARBERRY: The twenty-four feet would still probably go to what, though…where
21 those three bushes are? Would that be about where twenty-four feet would be?
22 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Yes, and I can get a scale if you want to look at that…
23 MR. SKOWRON: So like if we wanted to put…
24 MS. CARBERRY: Can you state your name again? I’m sorry.
25 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, I’m Alan Skowron, 625 South Meldrum, co-owner of the
26 property. So like, in the unlikely event that if we wanted to, let’s say, put some parking on our
27 property adjacent to theirs, would there be an issue putting like a concrete flat top of asphalt
28 down? Even though there’s only that three-foot buffer, you know, on their side. Would we be
29 able to do the same thing on our side? I mean…in the event that we did develop it, you know,
30 you were saying that wouldn’t affect any actual building structure because we would build on the
31 front half of our property, but in terms of parking or anything like that, would that implicate, you
32 know, what we could do later on with parking.
33 MR. HOLLAND: You could very conceivably propose the exact same thing that they’re
34 proposing.
35 MR. SKOWRON: Even though they’ve already been granted that three foot easement.
13
1 MR. HOLLAND: Three foot setback.
2 MR. SKOWRON: Setback I mean, sorry.
3 MR. HOLLAND: Yep, you could propose the exact same thing that they’re proposing.
4 MR. SKOWRON: Even though they’ve already been kind of grandfathered in, or
5 whatever, into that.
6 MR. HOLLAND: Yeah, it’s a complete separate proposal that you would make.
7 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, and so that would be totally independent of whatever easements
8 are on their side.
9 MR. HOLLAND: Right, yep.
10 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, that’s what I was just trying to understand.
11 MR. HOLLAND: And there shouldn’t be any issues with that.
12 MR. SKOWRON: I’ve got another question. It’s from the tree standpoint. So you
13 mentioned…I know there are a couple of trees…I’m trying to look here…that I know that were
14 right on the property line, and I wasn’t sure if those would be…yeah, maybe…so, I’m not seeing
15 them, but I know there’s some. There’s a big tree like right, like right here, so, is that going to be
16 sawed down, or?
17 MR. HOLLAND: There are two, and we asked about these specifically, these two trees
18 that are to the south there that are on your property, and those are located accurately, and the
19 grading plan and the construction plans, the engineering plans all clearly indicate that there will
20 be no impact to those trees.
21 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, I was just curious, because it’s hard to see them there, so I was
22 just wondering.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, and they’re actually labeled, it’s hard to read, but there’s two
24 labels that say…
25 MR. SKOWRON: And then those big circles, that’s the proposed, the new trees or
26 something you’re saying.
27 MR. HOLLAND. Yeah.
28 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, now I see it, thanks.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else?
14
1 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, and you record all my comments that my brother stated, so
2 you’ve got all that.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, that’s all in the record. And, also if you’d like, if you want us
4 to make a copy…I’m assuming we have the ability to make a copy, we could actually put in the
5 written one if you like, it’s your choice.
6 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, that’d be great, thanks.
7 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, we can do that then.
8 MR. SKOWRON: And then any notes from the meeting, if you can send them to me too,
9 that’d be awesome.
10 MS. CARBERRY: I’ll issue a written decision and then…I’m not sure how you handle…
11 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, because my brother would be interested just hearing what
12 transpired at the hearing here today.
13 MR. HOLLAND: Anyone here who signs in will receive a copy of the decision.
14 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, I signed in. Okay.
15 MS. CARBERRY: Okay. Is there any other public testimony? And do you have any
16 other responses based on these questions…
17 MR. FEISSNER: I can respond to the…this is Herman Feissner again with Northern
18 Engineering. So, in response to some of the concerns that have been raised about the swale and
19 the retaining wall along the south property line, approximately one-third of the total roof area of
20 the structure would be draining to this area. The roof drains for this section of the property, or
21 this section of the structure, would be connected directly to a below grade system. So that means
22 that that water coming from the roof will stay in a pipe, it’ll go into a pipe below grade all the
23 way to the curb in Meldrum.
24 MS. CARBERRY: So it won’t go into that retaining wall area.
25 MR. FEISSNER: You won’t see it all on the surface, no. The only runoff that you’ll see
26 on the surface in that area…or water on the surface, would just be from very small local area, it
27 would be from the sidewalk adjacent to the buidlng and the landscaping in that area. So, the
28 flows in that area are negligible.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Are you concerned then about the…about the material that is being
30 used.
31 MR. SHUFF: I think I can address that comment, I think there’s a valid point…
15
1 MS. CARBERRY: Can you say your name please?
2 MR. SHUFF: I’m sorry, Ian Shuff…architect, and I think there’s a valid point with wood,
3 which does not last forever. I think it would last, I would think at least fifteen to twenty years
4 before we might start having some issues. But I think it also gets into, it’s the main…and it’s a
5 fence issue…it’s the same. I mean, fences don’t last forever either, and I think it’s just kind of a
6 property management decision, and, you know, it’s more about…you hopefully trust that your
7 neighbor will take care of his property and take care of his fence and his wall, and if something
8 fails, that he would step up and do that. So, I think it’s a valid concern. I think that it is a
9 maintenance issue, but I also think, you know, there’s other materials that are more durable…we
10 talked about that earlier, so…from a financial standpoint, I’m not sure the difference between a
11 stacked CMU kind of a system versus a…retaining wall, so there might be some cost
12 implications there, but, I think, you know, durability wise, I think we could achieve both aspects
13 of retaining and design with either a stackable CMU or a timber wall. I think the preference
14 right now is a timber wall, but I think either means could be achieved without a foundation, and
15 without having to dig down three feet…I think there’s some options there if that’s a concern.
16 MR. EGGLESTON: Jeff Eggleston, co-owner. Yeah, I think we’ve been trying to work
17 with you and your brother, and I called you guys early on and, you know, wanted to be…keep
18 you guys in the know of everything, and we talked about the easement construction, and I think
19 it was more confusing, because an easement to me is like…we need to borrow some of your
20 property or use something to go through your property. But, it’s more of like, doing any kind of
21 grading issues and stuff, and maybe move a fence, which we found out that your fence on the
22 south side actually is on our property line, it’s on the other side of the property line, most of it.
23 So, I mean, that’ll have to be moved anyway. But, you know, stuff like that, you know…in Old
24 Town you have so many different kind of…for instance, like your house, I don’t know if it’s set
25 back…or not, but there’s a lot of unusual stuff in Old Town, and fences and garages and stuff,
26 so, you know, just want to…from the beginning just wanted to work with you and it was just, I
27 don’t know, your guys…what you wanted to do with your property and development, and the
28 ditch kind of got in the way of that, and I see that frustration you know. You know, and you
29 guys…that’s disappointing, so, and but, you know, what we’re doing on our lot, our project, it’s
30 kind of just within our lot, so, you know, obviously wouldn’t want to affect your lot or any kind
31 of future development you guys want to do.
32 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else from anyone?
33 MR. HOLLAND: I guess I just wanted to point out…Jason Holland, City Planner…just
34 wanted to point out our thinking with the timber wall…we wanted something that looked good
35 from the public street, you know…as sensitive area as all the areas are in Old Town. And, it
36 seemed to be a material that had a nice residential character, would be…would have some
37 longevity to it, and would be something that…when people looked at from the street, they felt
38 that it fit in with the character of the neighborhood. So, that was kind of the thinking that we
16
1 were going through when we went through the review process, and we had to kind of guess as
2 far as what we thought would be most appropriate and what everyone would be happy with, and
3 that’s the assumption that we made, based on the feedback and the input that we had at the time.
4 So, that’s kind of how that decision came about, and how the timber wall was incorporated into
5 the plans. And, as far as the drainage goes, just to kind of think a little bit more through what our
6 response was, and what the project engineer’s response and thought was, based on the system
7 that was designed along the south, is that it was going to be better than what is there now, and
8 that, although the property is being raised up a bit, that from a drainage…a maintenance and a
9 debris perspective, if you had a fence there that was installed without the retaining wall, that the
10 retaining wall doesn’t add any more potential for debris than what is currently there now as a
11 potential. So, we think that the impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else from the applicant? Okay, that concludes the hearing.
13 I’ll issue a written decision within ten days, ten working days, but it’ll be sooner than that. And,
14 thanks for coming.
ATTACHMENT 8
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
May 7, 2013
1
Appeal of 621 South Meldrum Street
PDP #120030
Administrative Hearing – February 13, 2013
1. Modification of Standard to reduce the
parking setback from 5 feet to 3 feet along
a lot line.
2. Project Development Plan
- Approved by the Hearing Officer, with
conditions
2
Location Map
(from Applicant’s presentation at Hearing)
3
Project Description
(from Staff Report)
This is a request to demolish an existing
626 square foot single family home
located at 621 South Meldrum Street,
and construct a multi-family building
containing four units.
The proposed multi-family building is
two stories in height with approximately
4,900 total square feet and will contain
three-bedroom/two bathroom dwelling
units.
4
Project Description
(from Staff Report)
The project will provide four off-street
parking spaces to be accessed from the
alley. The property will be re-platted to
include new easements.
The site is in the (N-C-B) Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer zone district, and falls
within the TOD (Transportation Overlay
Development) zone. One Modification of
Standard accompanies this request.
5
The Hearing Officer considered
evidence that was substantially
false and grossly misleading.
The Hearing Officer failed to receive
all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant.
Assertions of Appeal
6
The Appellants state:
“We seek to reject #120020 PDP
approval because concerns presented
by Alan Skowron at the public hearing
were not addressed. Alan stated
concern of the wood retaining wall (on
property line, w/in 3 feet of existing
house, irrigation/swale/plantings on
top).”
Assertions of Appeal
7
The Appellants state:
“The wall presents significant risk to our
house & property from rot/decay. Jeff’s
engineer responded that the wall will be
structurally sound because ‘deadmen’
will be installed. They did not address
the issue of rot.”
Assertions of Appeal
8
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“Mr. Skowron testified on behalf of the
property at 625 South Meldrum and
presented concerns about construction
methods, particularly relating to the fence
and wall between the properties. The
Applicant and Mr. Skowron resolved
some of those concerns at the hearing
and agreed to continue discussions to
resolve the remainder of those concerns
prior to construction.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination
9
The Hearing Officer’s Decision states as
a Condition:
Condition: “If access to neighboring
properties is required for construction,
the Applicant and/or Owner shall obtain
appropriate easements.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
10
Overall Grading Plan
(from Applicant’s presentation at Hearing):
11
The Appellants state:
“Alan felt that he did not have the
time or opportunity to adequately
present concerns. Less than 10
minutes (of 50 minutes) were open for
public discussion; most occupied by
general discussion unrelated to
Alan's concerns.”
Assertions of Appeal
12
The Hearing Officer’s Findings
state:
“The PDP and Modification were
processed in accordance with
Division 2.2 of the Code, and no
neighborhood input meeting was
required or held.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
13
The Appellants state:
“Alan/Eric only learned about the wall
proximity to our house and wall details only
threedaysbeforethehearingbyclosely
interrogating documents from the COFC
website. We therefore provided additional
information documenting these concerns,
risks and record of correspondence w/Jeff.
Please see accompanying document
register.”
Assertions of Appeal
14
Notice of the Hearing was presented
to the Hearing Officer.
The Appellants provided a letter and
testimony at the Hearing.
The Hearing Officer failed to
receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant.
15
The Appellants state:
“Jeff (Applicant) acknowledged during
hearing that he is now planning for
additional parking on the ditch. Minimum
required parking can be provided per
zoning, TOD requirements without
encroaching into setback. We object to
the setback standard reduction from 5
feet to 3 feet.”
Assertions of Appeal
16
The applicant proposes a Modification
of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J) to permit
a parking setback of 3 feet along the
southern boundary of the parking area.
Modification Request:
(from Staff Report)
17
“Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular
use area containing six (6) or more parking
spaces or one thousand eight hundred
(1,800) or more square feet shall be set
back from the street right-of-way and the
side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line
between buildings or uses with collective
parking) consistent with the provisions of
this Section, according to the following
table”:
Modification Request:
(from Staff Report)
18
Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks Chart:
Modification Request:
(from Staff Report)
Minimum average of
entire landscaped
setback
area
(feet)
Minimum width of
setback
at any point
(feet)
Along an arterial
street
15 5
Along a
nonarterial
street
10 5
Along a lot line 55
19
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“With a condition as to scope, the
Modification of Standard meets the
applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H) of the Code.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
20
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“a. The Modification would not be
contrary to the public good.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
21
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“b. The Modification will promote the
general purpose of the standard for
which the Modification is requested
equally well or better than the
standard without modification,
because the Modification is minor
and the overall project provides high
quality, high performing architecture
that is sensitive to the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
22
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“c. The Modification would result in a
substantial benefit to the City, because it
accommodates off-street parking that
would otherwise be infeasible, and off-
street spaces will reduce on-street
demand and thereby benefit neighbors
without any adverse impacts”.
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
23
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
“d. The Modification will not diverge
from the standards of the Code except
in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the
entire PDP. The Modification provides
appropriate massing, scale, detail, and
articulation.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
24
The Hearing Officer’s Findings state:
d. “The landscape area, in combination
with the privacy fence, provides a softened
landscape edge interior to the parking area
while mitigating the visual impact to the
property to the south. Additionally, the
Modification is along the parking drive isle,
and not directly adjacent to the parking
spaces, where impact of a reduced setback
would be greater.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
25
The Hearing Officer states a Condition:
Condition 2: “The Modification of Standard
(reduction in setback from five feet to three
feet) shall apply to the rear 78 feet of the
lot only. The setbacks on the remaining
portion of the lot shall remain as provided
in the Code.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
26
The Hearing Officer states:
“The P.D.P. complies with the applicable
General Development Standards contained
in Article 3 of the Land Use Code.”
“The P.D.P. complies with the applicable
standards contained in Article 4 of the Code
for the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
(N-C-B) zone district.”
Hearing Officer’s Determination:
���.�������������������.���
C4.00
DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
H. Feissner
H. Feissner
1" = 20'
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'� �����.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
City Engineer
Water & Wastewater Utility
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
NORTH
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
20 0 20 Feet
20
40 60
GRAPHIC SCALE:
LEGEND:
4953
PROPOSED CONTOUR 93
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED SWALE
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
A
DESIGN POINT
FLOW ARROW
DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED SWALE SECTION
1 1
PROPOSED 100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
NOTES:
1.REFER TO THE "PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR Big Deal
Four Plex" BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING, DATED DECEMBER 19, 2012 FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
2.THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE
APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA
OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
3.REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS,
UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION.
4.ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VERTICAL DATUM; NGVD 29
(UNADJUSTED). SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES.
5.ALL CURB SPOTS ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATIONS.
BASIN
DESIGNATION
BASIN
AREA (AC)
acres
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENTS 0.XX
0.XX X.XXX
A
SILT FENCE SF
WATTLE INLET FILTER IF
WATTLE W
VEHICLE TRACKING PAD VT
SF
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB & GUTTER
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
City Engineer
Water & Wastewater Utility
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
No.
Revisions: By: Date:
DESIGNED BY: SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
� � � � � � �� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
C3.00
C. Snowdon 1" = 20'
1.THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE
APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW
CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
2.REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT
DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY
INFORMATION.
3.ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VERTICAL DATUM; NGVD
29 (UNADJUSTED). SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES.
4.ALL CURB SPOTS ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED
GRADE ELEVATIONS.
CROSS SECTION A-A
NTS
CROSS SECTION B-B
NTS
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
� � � � � � �� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
C2.00
C. Snowdon 1" = 20'
NORTH
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
20 0 20 Feet
20
40 60
GRAPHIC SCALE:
LEGEND:
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'������.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
ST
SS
EXISTING CABLE TELEVISION CTV
EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC E
EXISTING BURIED GAS G
EXISTING WATER LINE W
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE W/ MH
EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE W/ MH
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY OHU
�
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING INLET GRATE
EXISTING GAS METER �
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING CABLE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CONIFEROUS SHRUB
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
�
�
EXISTING WATER CURB STOP
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
City Engineer
Water & Wastewater Utility
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
PROPOSED DOMESTIC SERVICE W
PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE F
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN UD
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER �
PROPOSED FENCE
EXISTING BURIED CABLE TELEVISION CTV
EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC E
EXISTING BURIED GAS G
EXISTING WATER LINE W
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE W/ MH
EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE W/ MH
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY OHU
�
�
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT
EXISTING EXISTING FENCE CURB AND GUTTER X
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR 4960
4958
EXISTING INLET GRATE
EXISTING GAS METER �
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING WATER METER �
EXISTING CABLE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CONIFEROUS SHRUB
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
�
�
EXISTING WATER CURB STOP
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
City Engineer
Water & Wastewater Utility
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
No. Revisions:
By: Date:
REVIEWED BY:
N. Haws
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
��� ���� �� ������������
������ ������ ��� ������ ��
� P����������� E������� ��
��� ������ �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
12.19.12
200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010
F��� C������, C������� 80524
E N G I N E E R I N G
� � � � � � ��
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
���.�������������������.���
C1.00
DEMOLITION PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS & N.A.
C. Snowdon
1" = 20'
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER �
{LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS.}
NOTE:
SIGHT
EASEMENT
S89°45'44"E
53.67'
N00°14'16"E
45.50'
L2
L1
LINE TABLE
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
LENGTH
27.62'
22.74'
0.38'
8.00'
6.73'
1.27'
BEARING
N06°19'22.46"W
N04°33'19.56"E
S89°44'08.26"E
S89°44'08.26"E
S89°45'53.67"E
S89°45'53.67"E
FND NAIL &
BRASS TAG
LS 14823
FND #4 REBAR
w/1" PLASTIC CAP
LS 14823
S45°53'24"E
72.38'
S45°53'24"E
72.38'
FND 2" ALUMINUM CAP
LS 14823
2' WITNESS CORNER
L5
L6
17.40'
28.08'
20.09'
106.91'
9.00'
L4
L3
69.38'
48.19'
54.93'
9.00'
COLLEGE AVE
OLIVE ST.
MAGNOLIA ST.
MULBERRY ST.
MYRTLE ST.
MASON ST.
HOWES ST.
MELDRUM ST.
SHERWOOD ST.
WHITCOMB ST.
LOOMIS ST.
REMMINGTON ST.
MATHEWS ST.
PETERSON ST.
WHEDBEE ST.
SMITH ST.
MOUNTAIN AVE.
CANYON AVE.
RIVERSIDE AVE.
LAUREL ST.
UNIVERSITY AVE.
GRANT AVE.
WASHINGTON ST.
MAC ST.
PLUM ST.
LOCUST ST.
ELIZABETH ST.
GARFIELD ST.
NORTH DR.
SOUTH DR.
WEST DR.
EAST DR.
OVAL DR.
N1
2OF LOT 10, BLOCK 96
COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
S1
2OF LOT 10, BLOCK 96
OWNER: CHURCH OF LATTER
DAY SAINTS
N1
2OF LOT 11,
BLOCK 96
OWNER: SMITH,
LESTER & MARIE
REVIEWED BY:
G. Gilliland
CLIENT:
DRAWN BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
12/19/12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 1 Sheet
BIG DEAL FOUR PLEX
BIG DEAL FOUR PLEX
BIG DEAL FOUR PLEX
NOTICE
:
According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based
upon any defect in this survey within three years after you discover such
defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey
be commenced more than ten years after the date of the certificate shown
hereon.
RANGE:
TOWNSHIP:
SECTION:
200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 10
F��� C������, C������� 80524
E N G I N E E R I N G
� � � � � � ��
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
���.�������������������.���
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE:
The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the
improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the
Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty and guarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional
Land Use Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the
rights-of-way, Easements and other public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catch
basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or
department.
The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safety
requirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, all
damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages
within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the
Owner. The City shall also have any other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end of said two (2)
year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain the responsibility of the Owner.
REPAIR GUARANTEE:
In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5)
year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the
development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public
improvements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include,
without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges within the right-of-way, Easements
and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes
defects in materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations.
Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or
his/her successors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineering techniques and
due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks
and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any and all monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the
Owner. I further warrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat.
NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS:
All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Development which create certain rights and obligations of the
Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and
covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and may
include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural
Elevations, which documents are on file in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested in purchasing any
portion of the Development site.
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
I, Gerald D. Gilliland, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Subdivision Plat was prepared from an actual survey
under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the foregoing plat is an accurate
representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
__________________________________
Gerald D. Gilliland
Colorado Registered Professional
Land Surveyor No. 14823
CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION:
The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter “City”), for public use, forever, a permanent right-of-way
for street purposes and the “Easements” as laid out and designated on this Plat; provided, however, that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of
Easements does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain the Easements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets does
not impose upon the City a duty to maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied.
The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of the City as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City's rights under the Easements include
the right to install, operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace within the Easements public improvements consistent with the
intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain and use gates in any fences that cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of
the Easements with suitable markers; and the right to permit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the
Easements for purposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible for maintenance of its own
improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, but by acceptance of this dedication, the City does not accept the
duty of maintenance of the Easements, or of improvements in the Easements that are not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the
Easements in a sanitary condition in compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirements.
Except as expressly permitted in an approved plan of development or other written agreement with the City, Owner will not install on the Easements, or
permit the installation on the Easements, of any building, structure, improvement, fence, retaining wall, sidewalk, tree or other landscaping (other than
usual and customary grasses and other ground cover). In the event such obstacles are installed in the Easements, the City has the right to require the
Owner to remove such obstacles from the Easements. If Owner does not remove such obstacles, the City may remove such obstacles without any
liability or obligation for repair and replacement thereof, and charge the Owner the City's costs for such removal. If the City chooses not to remove the
obstacles, the City will not be liable for any damage to the obstacles or any other property to which they are attached.
The rights granted to the City by this Plat inure to the benefit of the City's agents, licensees, permittees and assigns.
ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City
of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of
Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other
information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code.
Attorney:________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________
________________________________________
Registration No.:__________________________________
NOTICE
ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE
OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL
HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH
PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO
ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES.
APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER
By the City Engineer of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this ______day of _____________ A.D., 20_____.
____________________________________________________
City Engineer
PLANNING APPROVAL
By the Director of Planning the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this _____ day of ___________ A.D., 20_____.
____________________________________________________
Director of Planning
NOTES:
1) The Basis of Bearings is the North line of Lot 11, Block 86, Plat of Subdivision of Block 76, 77, 85, 86, 87 bearing South 89°45'54" East (assumed
bearing).
2) All information regarding easements, right-of-way or title of record, Northern Engineering relied upon Commitment Number
580-F0428808-383-LKE, dated October 8, 2012, prepared by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company.
3) All linear units of measurement for this plat are U.S. Survey Feet.
4) Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to
protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The
following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves
thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of
sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed
by the owner.
For non-level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility.
5) There shall be no private conditions, covenants or restrictions that prohibit or limit the installation of resource conserving equipment or landscaping
that are allowed by Sections 12-120 - 12-122 of the City Code.
OWNER: BIG DEAL REAL ESTATE, LLC
By: ________________________________
Title:_______________________________
STATE OF COLORADO )
)SS
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, by
__________________________________ as ___________________________of Big Deal Real Estate, LLC
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires: ________________
_______________________________
Notary Public
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION:
Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned owner(s) of the following described land: A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of
Section 14, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly
described as follows:
Considering the North line of Lot 11, Block 86, Plat of Subdivision of Block 76, 77, 85, 86, 87 as bearing South 89° 45' 54" East and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the Northeast Corner of Lot 11, Block 86, Plat of Subdivision of Block 76, 77, 85, 86, 87; thence, South 00°00'27" West, 50.20 feet;
thence, North 89°44'08" West, 189.89 feet; thence, North 00°28'19" East, 50.10 feet; thence, South 89°45'54" East, 189.48 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, contains 9,513 square feet, more or less.
For themselves and their successors in interest (collectively "Owner") have caused the above described land to be surveyed and subdivided into lots,
tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known BIG DEAL FOUR PLEX (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of
record or existing or indicated on this Plat. The rights and obligations of this Plat shall run with the land.
BIG DEAL FOUR PLEX
BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 11, BLOCK 86, PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO
1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
STATE OF COLORADO
Jeff Eggleston
C. Snowdon
1"=20'
14 7N
69 W of the 6th PM
PROJECT
LOCATION
VICINITY MAP
1"=1000'
NORTH
( U.S. SURVEY FEET )
1 inch = ft.
0 Feet
SET #4 REBAR w/1"
PLASTIC CAP, LS 14823
LEGEND
BOUNDARY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
LOT LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
FOUND PROPERTY CORNER
AS DESCRIBED
40 60
20
20 20
NORTH
NW CORNER LOT 15
FND 1" IRON PIPE
SE CORNER BLOCK 86
FND CHISELED 'X'
IN CONCRETE
ARTHUR DITCH APPROVAL
By Mark Taylor of Arthur Ditch this _____ day of ___________ A.D., 20_____.
____________________________________________________
Mark Taylor
17. Prior to final inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins, certification of the drainage facilities, by a registered engineer, must be
submitted to and approved by the Stormwater Utility Department. Certification shall be submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at
least two weeks prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy for single family units. For commercial properties, certification shall be
submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the release of any building permits in excess of those allowed
prior to certification per the Development Agreement.
18. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for any damages or injuries sustained in this Development as a result of groundwater
seepage, whether resulting from groundwater flooding, structural damage or other damage unless such damage or injuries are sustained as
a result of the City of Fort Collins failure to properly maintain its water, wastewater, and/or storm drainage facilities in the development.
19. All recommendations of the Preliminary Drainage Report for BDR 4-plex dated November 14, 2012 by Northern EngineeringServices, Inc.,
shall be followed and implemented.
20. Temporary erosion control during construction shall be provided as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. All erosion control measures shall
be maintained in good repair by the Developer, until such time as the entire disturbed areas is stabilized with hard surface or landscaping.
21. The Developer shall be responsible for insuring that no mud or debris shall be tracked onto the existing public street system. Mud and
debris must be removed within 24 hours by an appropriate mechanical method (i.e. machine broom sweep, light duty front-end loader, etc.)
or as approved by the the City of Fort Collins street inspector.
22. No work may commence within any improved or unimproved public Right-of-Way until a Right-of-Way Permit or Development Construction
Permit is obtained, if applicable.
23. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for all applicable agencies prior to commencement of construction.
The Developer shall notify the the City of Fort Collins Inspector (Fort Collins - 221-6605) and the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control
Inspector (Fort Collins - 221-6700) at least 2 working days prior to the start of any earth disturbing activity, or construction on any and all
public improvements. If the City of Fort Collins Engineer is not available after proper notice of construction activity has been provided, the
Developer may commence work in the Engineer's absence. However, the City of Fort Collins reserves the right not to accept the
improvement if subsequent testing reveals an improper installation.
24. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining soils tests within the Public Right-of-Way after right of way grading and all utility trench
work is complete and prior to the placement of curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement. If the final soils/pavement design report does not
correspond with the results of the original geotechnical report, the Developer shall be responsible for a re-design of the subject pavement
section or, the Developer may use the City of Fort Collins' default pavement thickness section(s). Regardless of the option used, all final
soils/pavement design reports shall be prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer. The final report shall be submitted to the Inspector a
minimum of 10 working days prior to placement of base and asphalt. Placement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, base and asphalt shall not occur
until the City of Fort Collins Engineer approves the final report.
25. The contractor shall hire a licensed engineer or land surveyor to survey the constructed elevations of the street subgrade and the gutter
flowline at all intersections, inlets, and other locations requested by the the City of Fort Collins inspector. The engineer or surveyor must
certify in a letter to the City of Fort Collins that these elevations conform to the approved plans and specifications. Any deviations shall be
noted in the letter and then resolved with the City of Fort Collins before installation of base course or asphalt will be allowed on the streets.
26. All utility installations within or across the roadbed of new residential roads must be completed prior to the final stages of road construction.
For the purposes of these standards, any work except c/g above the subgrade is considered final stage work. All service lines must be
stubbed to the property lines and marked so as to reduce the excavation necessary for building connections.
27. Portions of Larimer County are within overlay districts. The Larimer County Flood Plain Resolution should be referred to for additional
criteria for roads within these districts.
28. All road construction in areas designated as Wild Fire Hazard Areas shall be done in accordance with the construction criteria as
established in the Wild Fire Hazard Area Mitigation Regulations in force at the time of final plat approval.
29. Prior to the commencement of any construction, the contractor shall contact the Local Entity Forester to schedule a site inspection for any
tree removal requiring a permit.
30. The Developer shall be responsible for all aspects of safety including, but not limited to, excavation, trenching, shoring, traffic control, and
security. Refer to OSHA Publication 2226, Excavating and Trenching.
31. The Developer shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan, in accordance with MUTCD, to the appropriate Right-of-Way authority. (The
the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado), for approval, prior to any construction activities within, or affecting, the Right-of-Way.
The Developer shall be responsible for providing any and all traffic control devices as may be required by the construction activities.
32. Prior to the commencement of any construction that will affect traffic signs of any type, the contractor shall contact the City of Fort Collins
Traffic Operations Department, who will temporarily remove or relocate the sign at no cost to the contractor, however, if the contractor
moves the traffic sign then the contractor will be charged for the labor, materials and equipment to reinstall the sign as needed.
33. The Developer is responsible for all costs for the initial installation of traffic signing and striping for the Development related to the
Development's local street operations. In addition, the Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related to directing
traffic access to and from the Development.
34. There shall be no site construction activities on Saturdays, unless specifically approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer, and no site
construction activities on Sundays or holidays, unless there is prior written approval by the City of Fort Collins.
35. The Developer is responsible for providing all labor and materials necessary for the completion of the intended improvements, shown on
these drawings, or designated to be provided, installed, or constructed, unless specifically noted otherwise.
36. Dimensions for layout and construction are not to be scaled from any drawing. If pertinent dimensions are not shown, contact the Designer
for clarification, and annotate the dimension on the as-built record drawings.
37. The Developer shall have, onsite at all times, one (1) signed copy of the approved plans, one (1) copy of the appropriate standards and
specifications, and a copy of any permits and extension agreements needed for the job.
38. If, during the construction process, conditions are encountered which could indicate a situation that is not identified in the plans or
specifications, the Developer shall contact the Designer and the City of Fort Collins Engineer immediately.
39. The Developer shall be responsible for recording as-built information on a set of record drawings kept on the construction site, and available
to the Larimer County's Inspector at all times. Upon completion of the work, the contractor(s) shall submit record drawings to the City of Fort
Collins Engineer.
40. The Designer shall provide, in this location on the plan, the location and description of the nearest survey benchmarks (2) for the project as
well as the basis of bearings. The information shall be as follows:
City of Fort Collins benchmark 6-00
Located on a catch basin at the Northwest corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue
Elevation = 4990.68 (NGVD 29 - Unadjusted)
City of Fort Collins Benchmark CSU 2
The mark is a standard brass larimer county geodetic control disk set in 2002, in the campus of Colorado State University approx. 240.8
feet south from the center line of north drive, 46.6 feet northeast from the edge of CSU lagoon, 33 feet southwest from the center of the
delivery road to the university club and 1.1 feet southwest from the edge of the sidewalk.
Elevation = 5003.12 (NGVD 29 - Unadjusted)
41. All stationing is based on centerline of roadways unless otherwise noted.
42. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as existing fences, trees, streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
landscaping, structures, and improvements destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored
in like kind at the Developer's expense, unless otherwise indicated on these plans, prior to the acceptance of completed improvements
and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
43. When an existing asphalt street must be cut, the street must be restored to a condition equal to or better than its original condition. The
existing street condition shall be documented by the City of Fort Collins Construction Inspector before any cuts are made. Patching shall be
done in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Street Repair Standards. The finished patch shall blend in smoothly into the existing
surface. All large patches shall be paved with an asphalt lay-down machine. In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the
entire street width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of need for a complete overlay shall be made by the
Larimer County Engineer and/or the City of Fort Collins Inspector at the time the cuts are made.
44. Upon completion of construction, the site shall be cleaned and restored to a condition equal to, or better than, that which existed before
construction, or to the grades and condition as required by these plans.
45. Standard Handicap ramps are to be constructed at all curb returns and at all "T" intersections.
46. After acceptance by the City of Fort Collins, public improvements depicted in these plans shall be guaranteed to be free from material and
workmanship defects for a minimum period of two years from the date of acceptance.
47. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of roadway and appurtenant improvements, including storm drainage
structures and pipes, for the following private streets: N.A.
48. Approved Variances are listed as follows:
a. NONE
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
A. Grading and Erosion Control Notes
1. The erosion control inspector must be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to any construction on this site.
2. There shall be no earth-disturbing activity outside the limits designated on the accepted plans.
3. All required perimeter silt and construction fencing shall be installed priorto any land disturbing activity (stockpiling, stripping, grading, etc).
All other required erosion control measures shall be installed at the appropriate time in the construction sequence as indicated in the
approved project schedule, construction plans, and erosion control report.
4. At all times during construction, the Developer shall be responsible for preventing and controlling on-site erosion including keeping the
property sufficiently watered so as to minimize wind blown sediment. The Developer shall also be responsible for installing and maintaining
all erosion control facilities shown herein.
5. Pre-disturbance vegetation shall be protected and retained wherever possible. Removal or disturbance of existing vegetation shall be
limited to the area(s) required for immediate construction operations, and for the shortest practical period of time.
6. All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened
condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation, or other permanent erosion control BMPs are installed. No soils
in areas outside project street rights-of-way shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days before required
temporary or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the City/County.
7. In order to minimize erosion potential, all temporary (structural) erosion control measures shall:
a. Be inspected at a minimum of once every two (2) weeks and after each significant storm event and repaired or reconstructed as
necessary in order to ensure the continued performance of their intended function.
b. Remain in place until such time as all the surrounding disturbed areas are sufficiently stabilized as determined by the erosion control
inspector.
c. Be removed after the site has been sufficiently stabilized as determined by the erosion control inspector.
8. When temporary erosion control measures are removed, the Developer shall be responsible for the clean up and removal of all sediment
and debris from all drainage infrastructure and other public facilities.
9. The contractor shall immediately clean up any construction materials inadvertently deposited on existing streets, sidewalks, or other public
rights of way, and make sure streets and walkways are cleaned at the end of each working day.
10. All retained sediments, particularly those on paved roadway surfaces, shall be removed and disposed of in a manner and location so as not
to cause their release into any waters of the United States.
11. No soil stockpile shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport by surface roughening,
watering, and perimeter silt fencing. Any soil stockpile remaining after thirty (30) days shall be seeded and mulched.
12. The stormwater volume capacity of detention ponds will be restored and storm sewer lines will be cleaned upon completion of the project
and before turning the maintenance over to the City/County or Homeowners Association (HOA).
13. City Ordinance and Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) requirements make it unlawful to discharge or allow the discharge of any
pollutant or contaminated water from construction sites. Pollutants include, but are not limited to discarded building materials, concrete
truck washout, chemicals, oil and gas products, litter, and sanitary waste. The developer shall at all times take whatever measures are
necessary to assure the proper containment and disposal of pollutants on the site in accordance with any and all applicable local, state, and
federal regulations.
14. A designated area shall be provided on site for concrete truck chute washout. The area shall be constructed so as to contain washout
material and located at least fifty (50) feet away from any waterway during construction. Upon completion of construction activities the
concrete washout material will be removed and properly disposed of prior to the area being restored.
15. Conditions in the field may warrant erosion control measures in addition to what is shown on these plans. The Developer shall implement
whatever measures are determined necessary, as directed by the City.
B. Street Improvement Notes
1. All street construction is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans as well as the Street Improvements Notes listed
here.
2. A paving section design, signed and stamped by a Colorado licensed Engineer, must be submitted to the City of Fort Collins Engineer for
approval, prior to any street construction activity, (full depth asphalt sections are not permitted at a depth greater than 8 inches of asphalt).
The job mix shall be submitted for approval prior to placement of any asphalt.
3. Where proposed paving adjoins existing asphalt, the existing asphalt shall be saw cut, a minimum distance of 12 inches from the existing
edge, to create a clean construction joint. The Developer shall be required to remove existing pavement to a distance where a clean
construction joint can be made. Wheel cuts shall not be allowed unless approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer in Fort Collins.
4. Street subgrades shall be scarified the top 12 inches and re-compacted prior to subbase installation. No base material shall be laid until the
subgrade has been inspected and approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer.
5. Ft. Collins only. Valve boxes and manholes are to be brought up to grade at the time of pavement placement or overlay. Valve box adjusting
rings are not allowed.
6. When an existing asphalt street must be cut, the street must be restored to a condition equal to or better than its original condition. The
existing street condition shall be documented by the Inspector before any cuts are made. Cutting and patching shall be done in
conformance with Chapter 25, Reconstruction and Repair. The finished patch shall blend smoothly into the existing surface. The
determination of need for a complete overlay shall be made by the City of Fort Collins Engineer. All overlay work shall be coordinated with
adjacent landowners such that future projects do not cut the new asphalt overlay work.
7. All traffic control devices shall be in conformance with these plans or as otherwise specified in M.U.T.C.D. (including Colorado supplement)
and as per the Right-of-Way Work Permit traffic control plan.
8. The Developer is required to perform a gutter water flow test in the presence of the City of Fort Collins Inspector and prior to installation of
asphalt. Gutters that hold more than 1/4 inch deep or 5 feet longitudinally, of water, shall be completely removed and reconstructed to drain
properly.
9. Prior to placement of H.B.P. or concrete within the street and after moisture/density tests have been taken on the subgrade material (when a
full depth section is proposed) or on the subgrade and base material (when a composite section is proposed), a mechanical "proof roll" will
be required. The entire subgrade and/or base material shall be rolled with a heavily loaded vehicle having a total GVW of not less than
50,000 lbs. and a single axle weight of at least 18,000 lbs. with pneumatic tires inflated to not less that 90 p.s.i.g. "Proof roll" vehicles shall
not travel at speeds greater than 3 m.p.h. Any portion of the subgrade or base material which exhibits excessive pumping or deformation, as
determined by the City of Fort Collins Engineer, shall be reworked, replaced or otherwise modified to form a smooth, non-yielding surface.
The City of Fort Collins Engineer shall be notified at least 24 hours prior to the "proof roll." All "proof rolls" shall be preformed in the presence
of an Inspector.
C. Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Construction Notes
1. All signage and marking is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans, as well as the Traffic Signing and Marking
Construction Notes listed here.
2. All symbols, including arrows, ONLYS, crosswalks, stop bars, etc. shall be pre-formed thermo-plastic.
3. All signage shall be per the City of Fort Collins Standards and these plans or as otherwise specified in MUTCD.
4. All lane lines for asphalt pavement shall receive two coats of latex paint with glass beads.
5. All lane lines for concrete pavement should be epoxy paint.
6. Prior to permanent installation of traffic striping and symbols, the Developer shall place temporary tabs or tape depicting alignment and
placement of the same. Their placement shall be approved by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer prior to permanent installation of
striping and symbols.
7. Pre-formed thermo-plastic applications shall be as specified in these Plans and/or these Standards.
8. Epoxy applications shall be applied as specified in CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
9. All surfaces shall be thoroughly cleaned prior to installation of striping or markings.
10. All sign posts shall utilize break-away assemblies and fasteners per the Standards.
11. A field inspection of location and installation of all signs shall be performed by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. All discrepancies
identified during the field inspection must be corrected before the 2-year warranty period will begin.
12. The Developer installing signs shall be responsible for locating and protecting all underground utilities.
13. Special care shall be taken in sign location to ensure an unobstructed view of each sign.
14. Signage and striping has been determined by information available at the time of review. Prior to initiation of the warranty period,the City of
Fort Collins Traffic Engineer reserves the right to require additional signage and/or striping if the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer
determines that an unforeseen condition warrants such signage according to the MUTCD or the CDOT M and S Standards. All signage and
striping shall fall under the requirements of the 2-year warranty period for new construction (except fair wear on traffic markings).
15. Sleeves for sign posts shall be required for use in islands/medians. Refer to Chapter 14, Traffic Control Devices, for additional detail.
D. Storm Drainage Notes
1. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage facilities located on private property. Maintenance of
onsite drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s).
2. All recommendations of the Preliminary Drainage Report for BDR 4-plex dated November 14, 2012 by Northern Engineering Services, Inc.,
shall be followed and implemented.
3. Prior to final inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins, certification of the drainage facilities, by a registered engineer, must by
submitted to and approved by the Stormwater Utility Department. Certification shall be submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at
least two weeks prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy for single family units. For commercial properties, certification shall by
submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the release of any building permits in excess of those allowed
prior to certification per the Development Agreement.
E. Utility Notes
1. All waterline and sanitary sewer construction shall conform to the Fort Utility standards and specifications current to date of construction.
2. The minimum cover over water lines is 4.5 feet and the maximum cover is 5.5 feet unless otherwise noted in the plans and approved by the
water utility.
3. Water mains shall be poly-wrapped D.I.P, or PVC with tracer wire.
4. HDPE pipe may be used for 1-1/2 and 2 inch water services. The pipe shall meet the standards of AWWA 901, NSF Standard 61 and
ASTM. The HDPE pipe shall be SDR 9 having a pressure rating of 200 psi. Stiffeners shall be used at all fittings and connections.
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'� �����.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
UTILITY City of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Parks & Recreation
Stormwater Utility
Water & Wastewater Utility
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
(621 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET)
UTILITY PLANS FOR
No.
Revisions: By: Date:
DESIGNED BY: SCALE:
DATE:
12.19.12
PROJECT:
876-001
Sheet
Of 7 Sheets
Big Deal Four Plex
T���� �������� ���
����������� �� �������
�������� �� N�������
E���������� S�������, I��.
� � � � � � �� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ���
C2.00 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN
Big Deal Four Plex
E N G I N E E R I N G
� � � � � � ��
E N G I N E E R I N G
� � � � � � ��
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
K��� ����'������.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
UTILITY City of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Parks & Recreation
Stormwater Utility
Water & Wastewater Utility
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CONTACT INFORMATION
PROJECT TEAM:
UTILITY CONTACT LIST: *
SHEET INDEX
I hereby affirm that these final
construction plans were prepared
under my direct supervision, in
accordance with all applicable City
of Fort Collins and State of
Colorado standards and statutes,
respectively; and that I am fully
responsible for the accuracy of all
design. revisions, and record
conditions that I have noted on
these plans.
These plans have been reviewed by the City of Fort Collins for concept only. The review does not imply responsibility
by the reviewing department, the City of Fort Collins Engineer, or the City of Fort Collins for accuracy and correctness
of the calculations. Furthermore, the review does not imply that quantities of items on the plans are the final quantities
required. The review shall not be construed for any reason as acceptance of financial responsibility by the City of Fort
Collins for additional quantities of items shown that may be required during the construction phase.
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT:
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT:
BENCHMARK #1:
City of Fort Collins Benchmark 6-00
Located on a catch basin at the northwest corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue.
Elevation = 4990.68 (NGVD 29 - Unadjusted)
BENCHMARK #2:
City of Fort Collins Benchmark CSU 2
The mark is a standard brass larimer county geodetic control disk set in 2002, in the
campus of Colorado State University approx. 240.8 feet south from the center line of north
drive, 46.6 feet northeast from the edge of CSU lagoon, 33 feet southwest from the center
of the delivery road to the university club and 1.1 feet southwest from the edge of the
sidewalk.
Elevation = 5003.12 (NGVD 29 - Unadjusted)
Basis of Bearings
Considering the north property line of Lot 11, Block 86 of the Plat of Subdivision of Block
76, 77, 85, 86, 87 which bears South 89°45'54" East.
Northern Engineering Services, Inc
NE Project No. 876-001
Date: October 29, 2012
ORIGINAL FIELD SURVEY BY:
PROJECT BENCHMARKS:
PROJECT
LOCATION
VICINITY MAP
NORTH 1"=1000'
SiteWise, LLC
7000 N. Broadway
Building 3, Suite 306
Denver, Colorado 80221
303.650.8680
SUBSURFACE UTILITY LOCATES**
TB Group
Jim Birdsall
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, Colorado 80513
970.532.5891
PLANNER/
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects
Ian Shuff
712 Whalers Way, Bldg. B-100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
970.223.1820
ARCHITECT
C4.00 DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
UTILITY COMPANY
* This list is provided as a courtesy reference only. Northern Engineering Services assumes no responsibility for
the accuracy or completeness of this list. In no way shall this list relinquish the Contractor's responsibility for
locating all utilities prior to commencing any construction activity. Please contact the Utility Notification Center of
Colorado (UNCC) at 811 for additional information.
PHONE NUMBER
** The underground utility locates provided by SiteWise, LLC are based upon the best available information at
the time of locating. Contractor acknowledges that it is common for underground facility owner maps to have
errors and omissions of data shown. Consequently, it is the Contractor's sole responsibility to field verify the
location of all utilities prior to construction, and notify the Engineer of any discrepancies found.
GAS----------------- Xcel Energy----------------------------- Stephanie Rich (970) 225-7857
ELECTRIC-------- City of Fort Collins Light & Power -- Doug Martine (970) 224-6152
CABLE------------- Comcast---------------------------------- Don Kapperman (970) 567-0425
TELECOM.--------Centurylink------------------------------- William Johnson (970) 377-6401
WATER------------ City of Fort Collins Utilities ----------- Roger Buffington (970) 221-6700
WASTEWATER--City of Fort Collins Utilities ----------- Roger Buffington (970) 221-6700
STORMWATER- City of Fort Collins Utilities ----------- Glen Schlueter (970) 221-6700
SHEET 1 PLAT (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
ARTHUR DITCH APPROVAL
By Mark Taylor of Arthur Ditch this _____ day of ___________ A.D., 20_____.
____________________________________________________
Mark Taylor