Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHICKORY COMMONS - PDP - PDP110005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (12)Sony for the delay in getting back to you. No problem regarding switching out the ash for a kentucky coffeetree. I'm working this week on addressing the punch list of items we need to address to be allowed to schedule the hearing. Is this tree substitution something we need to resolve before hearing, or is it a final compliance issue? Troy On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Courtney Levingston <CLevingstonAfcgov.com> wrote: Hi Troy, Tim Buchanan alerted me to a potential issue with the Ash trees on the City ROW for Hickory Commons. Typically, the City does not allow these trees on City property, although it is understood that the HOA would be responsible for them. We were wondering if those ash trees could be substituted for something like a Kentucky Coffeetree. This will be beneficial in adding additional species diversity as well as just to ensure that there are no conflicts in the future with the policy and having those trees technically on City property. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Courtney Courtney Levingston, AICP, LEED AP ND City Planner I City of Fort Collins 970.416.2283 Sam has confirmed the outfall is in the Hemlock ROW. One week before hearing: Need colored elevation. I've enclosed pdf files of the affected pages. Would you like me to deliver hard copies? Can you we schedule for hearing? Let me know. Troy On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Courtney Levingston <CLevinestonna,fceov.com> wrote: Final compliance is fine. I figured if you were modifying plans now, it would be easy just to deal with it now rather than later. Courtney Levingston, AICP, LEED AP ND City Planner I Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2283 clevin sg tonafcgov.com www.fcgov.com/developmentreview -----Original Message ----- From: tjones.alpsAgmail.com [mailto:tiones.alpsagmail.coml On Behalf Of Troy Jones Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:30 AM To: Courtney Levingston Subject: Re: Hickory Commons - Ash Trees on City Property Courtney, 2. Put note on site plan that it is intended that there are not to be differem users in the commercial component that are different from the residential component of each unit. See the new note 417 on sheet 1 of 7, where the last sentence of the note clarifies this issue. 3. Trash enclosure detail (and pallet screen) See the revised sheet 6 of 7 for the enclosure details. 4. Emergency access easement has a slight jog to it's alignment that must match on both the plat and site plan drawings. Please note on the plat document that this jog is identified with line L4 & L5 on the line table on the plat drawing. This is consistent with the other drawings. 5. If different uses are proposed for the residential component and commercial component of a unit, we need a note that there will be fire separation between uses. We intend that the residential and commercial users are one in the same, see note 17 on sheet 1 of 7. 6. Remove reference to emergency gate. Please see the revised site plan drawing (2 of 7) 7. Landscape notes to be added per Current Planning/Landscape Plan/ Comments 3 & 4 Please see revised landscape notes. 8. Either don't stub our pipe across the property line, or obtain a letter of intent for the future offsite easement. We are no longer proposing to cross the property line with this storm sewer stub. See the revised utility plan drawing (sheet C3). 9. Need confirmation from Daylan Figs that he's OK with the undetained water that continues to flow to natural area (reduced flow from existing condition) from the edges of the project. Sam Eliason (civil engineer) has been coordinating directly with Daylan, please confirm directly with Daylan that he's OK. We can't seem to get him to put it in writing in an email. Perhaps you can confirm this with Daylan. 10. Need confirmation that the stormwater outfall is not on the natural areas, but rather is in the Hemlock ROW IBC). The reference to Sec. 419 in Noce 17 is really a home occupation regulation, not mixed use. Additionally, The Building Code considers a Live/work unit to be an R-2 occupancy (multi -family dwelling unit). Only low -hazard occupancies are allowed in the space such at retail (M) and office (B) without fire separation between floors as well. If you don't want to fire separate the floors of all buildings, maybe indicate 3 buildings that will be constructed with the fire separation between the first and second floor and state that all uses listed as minor amendments except for retail and office uses are only permitted in buildings 1, 2, and 3. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I will need to see the first sheet updated prior to scheduling the hearing. Thanks, Courtney Levingston, AICP, LEED AP ND City Planner I Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2283 clevin stonAfceov.com www.fcgov.com/develoT)mentreview -----Original Message ----- From: tjones.alpsAgmail.com [mailto:t ones.alnsna,¢mail.coml On Behalf Of Troy Jones Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 11:57 PM To: Courtney Levingston; Andrew S. Gingerich Cc: Sam Eliason Subject: Re: Hickory Commons - Ash Trees on City Property Courtney & Andrew, We have now finally addressed the punch list of items necessary to resolve, as discussed at staff review last month, to proceed with scheduling the hearing as follows: Punch List of items to resolve to schedule hearing: Item Status 1. Each building needs a riser room, Update elevations to show fire riser room See attached revised elevation (sheet 5 of 7), also riser rooms can be seen on revised site plan (sheet 2 of 7) result of our intentions evolving as we progressed in refinements of how Wis will actually work. We'd be happy to treat the occupancy separations however necessary to accomplish the approval of the project. Originally, we entertained the idea of making it a building with separate commercial occupancies different from the residential occupancies. Now we would like to make them "live/work" units in accordance with IBC section 419, if we can. I think it's important to differentiate how the building code applies to the commercial uses versus how the land use code applies in this case. It is my understanding that two codes treat the concept of having commercial uses and residential uses in the same building differently. It is my understanding, based on the input of Peter Barnes and Mike Gebo (from that big meeting we had a month or two ago on appropriate commercial uses), that one can satisfy the land use code's definition of a mixed -use dwelling while also applying the IBC section 419 "live/work" unit type. In other words, if I'm understanding correctly, they are not mutually exclusive. I think it was Mike Gebo who clarified in that meeting that the Land Use Code regulates the uses allowed on the property itself, whereas the the building code regulates the uses (called "occupancies" in the IBC) within a building. One important distinction is in the Land Use Code's definition "Dwelling, mixed -use shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a nonresidential use." It is my understanding that although a section 419 compliant "live/work" unit is treated as an R-2 occupancy, it is much more than just a home occupancy. It truly does have a commercial land use allowed to occur within that R-2 occupancy. For example, Section 419 in the IBC allows up to 50% of the unit to be commercial uses, and up to 5 employees who don't live there. Home occupations are much more restrictive than that. Section 419 also does not allow high -hazard uses within the unit, which is consistent with the agreed upon list of appropriate commercial uses from that meeting a month or two ago. Meanwhile, I had our commercial pre -application building permit meeting with Russ Hovland last week, and we discussed many details of exactly how section 419 applies in this case. Ron and Jim of PFA also happened to be walking by the conference room we were meeting in, and we asked them to come in and chime in on their concerns with using section 419 for the occupancies. Russ pointed out 419 prohibits any commercial uses that would be considered high -hazard. It was my understanding that because of this restriction, Ron and Jim of PFA were comfortable with using section 419 for these units, with R-13 sprinkler systems, and with one -hour fire walls between units. Like I said, we'd be happy to treat these building occupancies however necessary to satisfy both the LUC and IBC. I was thinking that we were doing that, but I'd be happy to work through an alternate solution if necessary. Perhaps we can attempt to resolve this via an email conversation involving Mike Gebo, Peter Barnes, and PFA and if the discussion needs to get more complex, perhaps we can schedule a follow up meeting with the group to discuss. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, Troy Jones On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Courtney Levingston <CLevingstonna,fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Troy, I have not scheduled the hearing yet, due to outstanding issues with note 17 on the site plan set. Note 17 needs to be revised to refer to Sec. 508 of the IBC for mixed -occupancy buildings, not Sec. 419. See. 419 treats these units as home occupations, and not mixed -use dwellings (aka mixed -use occupancies per the Use Code) or construction occupancy classification (Building Code) if the resiaential unit will be used only for a residence/home occupation or for just a residence. It seems that in either case, from the city's perspective, the occupants would only have fewer traffic, parking and/or compatibility issues than if they had a full blown business in the unit. Would a solution perhaps be to state on the PDP that as far as approved land use goes, building permits can be issued for any of the buildings as either/or in terms of whether it is a mixed use building (with separate commercial occupancies) or a residential building (if none of the business occupants exceed the home occupation limits). In other words, what difference does it make if we don't technically have any buildings that actually meet the definition of a mixed -use building. — makes no difference since there's no requirement for a mix of housing types (again, Land Use Code perspective). The zoning allows both mixed use buildings, and residential buildings, so could the PDP allow any or all of the buildings to be either/or? - Yes, as listed possible uses in the notes section of the plan. If so, I believe using the live/work portion of the building code (IBC 419) could still be a viable scenario. — I don't think so because IBC 419 isn't applicable for the mixed -use dwellings (that would be 508 instead). And for the home occupation use, no IBC section should be cited since such a use is simply an accessory residential use — but those `businesses' would be subject to the home occupation regulations (i.e. not more than 1 employee, no offensive noise, no retail, etc.). When there is a conflict between codes than the more restrictive applies, in this case it seems that the LUC for home/occupation is more restrictive than Live/Work What do you all think? Troy On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Peter Barnes <PBARNESaa,fcgov.com> wrote: Here's my input: Mike, Russ and I discussed this yesterday. Sec. 419 is basically the equivalent to a home occupation. Both allow up to 50%, but as you pointed out Troy, the main difference will be the number of employees. The problem is that if you build per 419, the building gets a CO for residential, and we have no way of assuring that there will be commercial use in the building. A home occupation (419) is not a nonresidential use. It's an accessory residential use. It doesn't qualify as a mixed -use dwelling, which as you cited, is a residential use on the same lot or in the same building as a NONRESIDENTIAL USE. Peter From: tiones.alps(ftmail.com [mailto:tiones.alps(�)gmail.coml On Behalf Of Troy Jones Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:38 AM To: Courtney Levingston Cc: Peter Barnes; Russell Hovland; Jim Lynxwiler; Mike Gebo Subject: Re: Hickory Commons: Mixed Use and the IBC Courtney, I apologize for the confusion regarding our intent for this unit type on Hickory Commons. I suppose it is a Courtney Levingston From: Mike Gebo Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:00 PM To: Peter Barnes; 'tjones.alps@gmail.com' Cc: Courtney Levingston; Russell Hovland Subject: RE: Hickory Commons: Mixed Use and the IBC Mine are in Blue Michael W. Gebo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 From: Peter Barnes Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:54 PM To: Courtney Levingston; Russell Hovland; Jim Lynxwiler; Mike Gebo Subject: RE: Hickory Commons: Mixed Use and the IBC All, My thoughts are in red below with respect to the sections I've underlined. Peter From: tiones.alps(agmail.com mailto: ] On Behalf Of Troy Jones Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:01 AM To: Peter Barnes Cc: Courtney Levingston; Russell Hovland; Jim Lynxwiler; Mike Gebo Subject: Re: Hickory Commons: Mixed Use and the IBC Fellow Problem Solvers, Let's think this through together, and see if we can find a win -win solution. I suppose a good place to start would be to back up and revisit what it is we are trying to accomplish here. The developer's intent is to provide a condo unit wherein it is designed not only to accommodate a "work at home environment," but running a business in the unit is intended to be the prominent design feature of the concept. When it comes to this combination you need to pick one use that will be the primary occupancy. I don't know how to build a dwelling unit (R Occupancy) that could be used as a Business (B Occupancy) It's like smashing an apple into an orange and calling it a plum; We want to allow a flexibility of what intensities of businesses can happen here, and we don't necessarily want to require that a buyer operate a business at all. Sounds like a Live/Work unit, but it my understanding that there are some credits given for a mixed use dwelling and a Live/Work unit is not a mixed use dwelling, possibly develop without the credits We feel that through the very essence of the way it is designed, it will appeal to small business owners who want a single piece of real estate to live in and work out of. Perhaps some of them will be able to do that as a home occupation. Perhaps some of them will exceed the limits of what's allowed as a home occupation. I'm confident there is a way to define and allow this in the PDP approval, as envisioned, and in a way we can all agree with. Up to now, on the PDP, we have been proposing the buildings to be mixed -use buildings, in accordance with how the Land Use Code defines that. The reason we wanted to do that is to allow the buyers of any of these condo units to have a business, more substantial than a home occupation, if they want to. I'm wondering if there is anv reason to require the buver to have a full blown commercial use. if thev only wanted to have a home occupation, or if they didn't want to have a business at all. - No reason for a commercial use classification (Land