The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHICKORY COMMONS - PDP - PDP110005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (11)Troy On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Courtney Levingston <CLevingston@fcgov.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 8 One week before hearing: 1. 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 <CLevingston@fcgov.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 clevingston@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/developmentreview -----Original Message ----- From: tjones.alps@gmail.com [tnailto:tjones.alps@gmail.com] 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, Sorry 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? 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 Sam has confirmed the outfall is in the Hemlock ROW. 6 Courtney Courtney Levingston, AICP, LEED AP ND City Planner I Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of FortCollins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2283 clevingston@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/developmentreview -----Original Message ----- From: tjones.alps@gmail.com [mailto:tjones.alps@gmail.com] 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) 2. Put note on site plan that it is intended that there are not to be different users in the commercial component that are different from the residential component of each unit. See the new note #17 on sheet 1 of 7, where the last sentence of the note clarifies this issue. 3. Trash enclosure detail (and pallet screen) 5 City of Fort Collins 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: Peter Barnes Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:30 AM To: Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals Cc: Gary Lopez; Sherry Albertson -Clark; Russell Hovland Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use Courtney, Russ may differ with me regarding the building code stuff, but my take is that the building permit application for any building containing the mixed -use, live/work unit (not a home occupation) would need to specifically state that's what the intended use is, and their construction drawings would need to show compliance with the building code for whatever's necessary to allow two different 'occupancy groups' (a building code term). If the building department determines that the proposed construction method results in a residential occupancy only, then Zoning wouldn't approved issuance of the permit if the development plan calls for a mixed -use building. They'd either need to amend the development plan or revise their construction drawings. Once the permit issues are resolved, the permit can be issued. The building department will inspect the building to make sure it's being built in compliance with the construction plans and for mixed occupancy. When the building is complete and the site work is done, we then get to the matter of issuing a CO. Since they won't be able to occupy the commercial portion for residential use, we wouldn't be too concerned that it'll be entirely residential, and they wouldn't spend the money on construction costs associated with square footage that may stay empty. So there'd be a pretty good probability that we'd get mixed use. This probably isn't that big a deal here since they aren't having to provide a housing type mix. Peter -----Original Message ----- From: Courtney Levingston Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:45 AM To: Peter Barnes; Noah Beals Cc: Gary Lopez; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use Peter and Noah, Based on the conversation at the planning coordination meeting yesterday, am I to understand that Hickory Commons could not get a C.O. until zoning verified the commercial component? Could you explain that a bit more? Is this something we should inform Troy about prior to hearing? Additionally, with the floors not being fire separated, PFA is requiring that the residential cannot be leased out separately from the commercial (see note number 17 on attached). Could this cause issues with this project actually having any commercial component? The applicant would like to go to hearing. Do you have any outstanding concerns with this project that should be addressed? Thanks, 4 To: Peter Barnes; Mike Gebo Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use We need to include Mike in this. Russ Hovland Plans Examiner City of Fort Collins 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: Peter Barnes Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:27 PM To: Russell Hovland; Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals Cc: Gary Lopez; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use This is a problem if the CO based on building code is simply multi -family. That doesn't capture mixed -use dwelling at all and shouldn't be considered as a housing type. I discussed this with Russ, and it would seem that the building code, Sec. 419, treats these basically as home occupations, and not mixed -use dwellings (aka mixed -use occupancies per the IBC). The reference to Sec. 419 in Note 17 is really a home occupation regulation. Note 17 should be revised, since all it's basically doing is describing a home occupation. What we should be getting at is a mixed -use OCCUPANCY building per the building code, and Note 17 should be revised accordingly, something like referring to Sec. 508 of the IBC for mixed -occupancy buildings. Either that or figure out what we want the LUC to describe with regard to what a mixed -use dwelling is in order to qualify as an acceptable housing type. If it's only going to be something that complies with 419 of the IBC, then its' a home occupation and someone shouldn't get credit for satisfying the housing mix standard for those developments that require a housing mix. Peter Peter ---Original Message ----- From: Russell Hovland Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:44 PM To: Peter Barnes; Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals Cc: Gary Lopez; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use The Building Code considers a Live/work unit to be a R-2 occupancy (multi -family dwelling unit). It allows 50% of the unit to be of a commercial occupancy type and must be on the 1 st floor of the unit (accessible level). Only low -hazard occupancies are allowed in the space such at retail (M) and office (B). So you can't have a welding shop in there. In addition the commercial part must be for use by the dwelling occupant. The bottom line is the code still considers it a dwelling unit. If applicant are using these to meet the land -use code for multi -use then I think they are stretching the definition a bit. Russ Hovland Plans Examiner 3 -----Original Message ----- From: Peter Barnes Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:53 PM To: Mike Gebo; Russell Hovland Cc: Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals; Sherry Albertson -Clark; Gary Lopez Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use Yep -----Original Message ----- From: Mike Gebo Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:40 PM To: Peter Barnes; Russell Hovland Cc: Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals; Sherry Albertson -Clark; Gary Lopez Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use Then these would need to be constructed as mixed occupancy buildings with fire -separations between the dwelling use and the nonresidential use. Michael W. Gebo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 -----Original Message ----- From: Peter Barnes Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:36 PM To: Mike Gebo; Russell Hovland Cc: Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals; Sherry Albertson -Clark; Gary Lopez Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use "A dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a nonresidential use". -----Original Message ----- From: Mike Gebo Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:28 PM To: Russell Hovland; Peter Barnes Cc: Courtney Levingston; Noah Beals; Sherry Albertson -Clark; Gary Lopez Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use So what is the definition of a mixed -use dwelling? Michael W. Gebo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 -----Original Message ----- From: Russell Hovland Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:42 PM 2 Courtney Levingston From: Mike Gebo Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:10 PM To: Courtney Levingston; Russell Hovland Cc: Noah Beals; Gary Lopez; Peter Barnes Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use I think at issue is what does planning zoning require of the development. If the requirement is for residential mixed use, then yes he needs to follow Sec 508 and no Live/Work units are to be included. The buildings have both residential and commercial uses but the two uses don't co -mingle, they are separated by fire walls. If Live/Works units are built than it is only a residential project Michael W. Gebo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 -----Original Message ----- From: Courtney Levingston Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:04 PM To: Mike Gebo; Russell Hovland Cc: Noah Beals; Gary Lopez Subject: RE: Hickory Commons - C.O. and Mixed Use Mike and Russ, So if I am to understand correctly, we need the applicant revise note 17 to reference Sec. 508 of the IBC for mixed -occupancy buildings. To clarify, would the uses listed in note 16 be required to have fire -separations between the floors (commercial and residential)? If so, Note 19 should be revised to state that as well (see attached). What uses in note 16 specifically would require the fire separation between floors? Sorry we had to go through this again, thanks to all for your help. The point is that I want to make sure the applicant understands what will be required. If they don't agree to it, then we won't go thru the resources (staff report, public hearing). Thanks again, 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 clevingston@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/developmentreview i