The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREMINGTON ROW (ANNEX) - PDP - PDP110017 - REPORTS - MODIFICATION REQUESTT 5HIN6LE5 WOOD SHAKE SIDING mill® -yi...■ _ II c _ L&FA- - ,,,,,,,,,,,. 15i„ :III v YAITH -0 BUILDING "C' FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.25ON CNIL DRAWINGS POWER AND 6A5 METERS. PAINT TO MATCH AP-ACENT BUILDING MATERIAL. Attachment 8 15 a 1rloi - 3" 3-5EDROOM UNIT 14 ; i a NEW 5-UNIT, -- ! 3-STORY 9 [--BUILDING ------ --- Q --- _ �J a BUILDING "G" SOUTH EXIT DOOR S 5VEYARD 5ETBAGK TIMBER CEDAR I CLIMBIM Illustration of Visual Impact of Proposed Foundation Plantings as v Described in Request for Modification of Standard Required By LUG Section VAYOHT FRYC LARYON aMINKIRCtS 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph. 970.224.1191 w Aheanoh»nstrucnon.c REMINGTON ROW 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO FOUNDATION PLANTINGS Project number 201147 Date 03/01/13 Drawn By RJH Fig. 3 Checked by RJH Scale 1/8" = V-0" Illustration of Visual Impact of 5-Foot Wide Foundation Planting for 50% of High -Use Building Exterior as Required per LUG Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) REMINGTON ROW FOUNDATION PLANTINGS Project number 201147 VAUGHT CRYE CARBON aMhltQ ft Date 02/28/13 705 REMINGTON STREET Drawn By RJH Fig. 2 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 1W Fort Collins, CO 80521 FORT COLLINS, CO ph: 970.224.1191 w .theanofwnswclfon.c Checked by RJH Scale 1/8" = T-0" WALL PLANE A2 WALL HE16HT: 32'-b' 34' - T SETBACK REQUIRED: 15'-0" SETBACK PROVIDED: 17-3' PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATE5 FROM THE STANDARD OF OMSION 4.9(D)(6)(d) (4.6 5F OF WALL IS W TOO CLOSE) WALL PLANE Al WALL HE16HT: 16'-4' SETBACK REQUIRED: 6'-0' SETBACK PROVIDED: 5'-11" PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD OF DMSION 4.9(D)(6)(d) (4.6 5F OF WALL 15 9' TOO CLOSE) I� / m ,K\y FINISH FLOOR a' \�\>> `l V '�(\ ll�T /1' GROUND PLANE ___--------------------- _____ _______________________ �1 NORTH PROPERTY LINE ROOFS, EAVES AND TRIM HAVE BEEN OMMITED FROM THIS ILLUSTRATION FOR CLA1RTr 1,_O" 34' - T WALL PLANE C2 WALL HEIGHT: 36-10- SETBACK REQUIRED: 15'-O' SETBACK PROVIDED: 14'-b' PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATES FROM THE 5TANDARD OF DM151ON 4A(D)(b)(d) (3.9 5F OF WALL 15 4' TOO CLOSE) WN1 PLANE Cl WALL HEIGHT: 23'-3' SETBACK REQUIRED: 5'-0' SETBACK PROVIDED: V-4' , 'C FINISH FLOOR GROUND PLANE n SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ROOFS, EAVES MD TRIM HAVE BEEN OMMITED FROM THIS ILLUSTRATION FOR CLAIRTT -_ vwuoNT rw�e uwwoN Azhitacts po sronulsl REMINGTON ROW 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO SIDEYARD SETBACKS Ra«l numrer 2011-07 Fig. 1 mu ,v,9„2 °ixn °, RJH cnammq RJH Sala 1/8'=i'-0' including not enclosing the stair as described above, so that the diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) becomes nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4). 2. Modification to Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) in regards to the required 5 foot wide foundation plantings. Code Language: Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high -use or high -visibility areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty (50) percent of such walls. The attached Figure 2. illustrates the visual impact that a five foot wide planting bed as required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) would have along the west side of one of the proposed buildings. This illustration represents two staggered rows of feather reed grass obscuring exactly 50% of the west facing foundations. During the most recent meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission the importance of aligning the face of the proposed buildings with the setback facing Remington Street established by the existing structures on the site was re-emphasized. This setback is 19 feet, 9 inches from the east property line rather than the 15 feet required by LUC 4.9(D)(6)(b). This pushes the structures farther back on the property and limits the amount of space available for parking and landscaping on the rear portion of the lot. The depth of the parking lot has been optimized for efficiency of space including the use of compact parking stalls and the designation of one-way vehicle circulation. The building footprint has also been optimized by designing efficient unit layouts and reducing common areas to code minimums. The resulting design results in a planting bed between the west side of the buildings and the parking lot which is only 3 feet and 3 inches wide extending for 52% of each building. 31 % of the west side of the buildings has a planting area greater than 5 feet, a majority of which is not a part of the most significant wall plane. The remainder of the landscaping planting area available is 1 foot and 7 inches wide. After establishing the maximum area that could be made available a landscaping solution was developed that would support viable vegetation in the narrow area available and provide visual screening equal to or better than what is required by LUC Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). The proposed solution uses a climbing vine that requires a very minimal planting bed but can provide an extensive amount of cover over time. In order to protect the buildings from the climbing plants a free-standing trellis and lattice structure will be constructed about eight to twelve inches off the face of the buildings. In the areas with planting beds three feet wide and greater a single row of feather reed grass will be planted in front of the trellis and climbing vines. The attached Figure 3 represents this proposed planting configuration along one of the proposed buildings. By comparing Figure 2 to the proposed planting solution in Figure 3 it can be clearly seen that the foundation screening provided by the proposed planting is significantly better than what is required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(1). Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, Jeff Hansen VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 13 Fort Collins, CO 80521 13 tel. 970.224.11910 fax 970.224.1662 0 www.theartofconstruction.com Attachment 7 Strength in design. Strength in Partnership. Strength in conwounity. March 1, 2013 City of Fort Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Courtney Levingston Re: Revised Modification to Standards for the Remington Row project Dear Courtney: VFLA is respectfully requesting Modification of the following Standards of the City's Planning Code for the Remington Row project: 1. Modification to Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) in regards to the increase of the 5' side yard setback an additional 1' for every 2' wall height in excess to 18'. Code Language: Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). In our previous submittal we proposed a building with three main building masses that defined the three wall planes facing the north and south side yards for the Remington Row project; two stories of apartments on the east side, three stories of apartments on the west side and a vestibule for an exterior stair tower that connects them. It was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were requesting the modification of standards. Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the exit stair so that the entire stair could be un-enclosed and thereby eliminating the non -compliant mass of the stair tower. However, a clarification of the standard of Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls on both the north and south property lines were also non -compliant. An illustration of the relationship between these two remaining wall planes as currently proposed is shown on the attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) and the actual setback that is being provided by this proposed design. As it can be seen, efforts have been made to reduce the length and height of this section of wall as much as possible, VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 1000 Fort Collins, CO 805210 tel. 970.224.1191 m fax 970.224.1662 IN www.theartofconstruction.com