Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - PDP - PDP120015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (16)All, I appreciate this dialogue and would like to keep it going. However, we do need to acknowledge the feedback we have already provided to the applicant and the timeline they are on. In addition, as per our discussion with Diane Jones and Laurie Kadrich the other week, we really need to be clear about what the Code requires and what we really want. Current Planning comments below are based on the requirements of the Code and the prior comments we've sent to the applicant, incorporating Bruce's thoughts to the extent we can. Where we've added suggestions, e.g., the ability to simplify lintel styles, we've tried to be clear that these are just suggestions and not requirements in the Code. As I am out of the office on Friday and the applicant sent in these revised drawings last week, I would like to move quickly with coordinating our comments (and coming to any further resolution we need to on them) so that we can respond to the applicant in a timely manner. Please let me know if you have additional thoughts on how to move this forward. Thanks, Lindsay Lindsay Ex Environmental Planner CDNS I City of Fort Collins IexCo)fcaov.com 970.224.6143 From: Clark Mapes Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:37 AM To: Steve Olt; Lindsay Ex; Karen McWilliams Cc: Bruce Hendee Subject: RE: Tentative response back to Larry M. Continuing the conversation about brick and stone on the senior housing project by the river: My thoughts about STONE: First, I assume we can only talk about CULTURED stone. This totally depends on the type and quality. Over in Mason Street North, Sovick used a cut -stone pattern that reflects historic stone in Ft Collins, as opposed to Prouty's project by the Northside which uses random fieldstone products that are not appropriate. My question is whether any cultured stone is appropriate, or whether we should just advocate brick. I will look again at Mason St North, and check the web briefly for any insight on this. If I am wrong and real stone is an option, then we have some other choices to discuss but I think the texture would be unbeatable in this landscape -oriented setting. From: Steve Olt Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:02 AM To: Lindsay Ex; Clark Mapes; Karen McWilliams Subject: RE: Tentative response back to Larry M. My thoughts are below, in red. Steve From: Lindsay Ex Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:55 PM To: Steve Olt; Clark Mapes; Karen McWilliams Subject: Tentative response back to Larry M. All, Here are my tentative thoughts on how to respond to Larry Mazzotta based on the new site plans and elevations: 1. Materials — In general staff is supportive of limiting the number of materials used on the building. a. One option that has been suggested is to use all brick (except for the cementitious siding on the top level) instead of using a variety of stone and brick in the first three levels. This would be more in character with the historic district. This is consistent with Current Planning's position through the several meetings and discussions that have taken place. b. However, if the right type of stone were selected, e.g., real sandstone and not cultured stone, then staff would be supportive of using stone on the first three levels instead of the mix of brick and stone. Current Planning will defer to Bruce Hendee's comment regarding the stone material. However, this is the first we've talked about all stone vs. all brick or a mix of the two. c. Note that if you simply the materials, you may be able to simplify the number of lintel options currently proposed, which could save on project costs as well. Yes, this comment makes very good sense at several levels. 2. Roof — staff appreciates the revised elevation that has removed the pitched roof from the recessed building area. Please note again that staff is not requiring a metal roof. One option that has been brought to our attention is a rusted corrugated metal roof or a composite shingle roof. Again, we are flexible on which materials are chosen; we were more concerned with how the roof is articulated throughout the recessed area and the current design achieves what we discussed in our last meeting. This is stated very succinctly. Nothing more to add. 3. Recessed Area — as we discussed on March 15th, staff is fine with extending the brick or stone materials (based on the discussion regarding materials above) into the recessed area. Current Planning agrees, although a simulation with stone on the recessed area fapade has not yet been available for review. Does this sound more accurate? Clark, I am not sure we've reached an agreement about the recessed area, so I just repeated what I've said in the past. From Current Planning's standpoint an agreement or consensus have not yet been arrived at. Comment 3, above, is still our position. Developer's choice. I have a meeting from 4-4:30, but I could touch base with you after that? If we can all come to an agreement on our response to Larry, then I will share our thoughts with Bruce (and Laurie) and move forward from there. Thanks, �! dw rho+ "AA.A_ -6 Kw O%Je, -A,.L, Lindsay rL+-kens'n ord e4,, _ Il � Satoera l�- Lindsay Ex —wha+ ,�... hsge ; s olr_� Environmental Planner CDNS I City of Fort Collins Iex(a)fcgov.com^ 970.224.6143 afto"