Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout637 COWAN STREET - PDP - 21-03 - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)Number: 5 Created: 6/25/2003 Provide elevations of all sides on standard blue print size sheets Number: 6 Note building.height on elevations Created: 6/25/2003 Number: 7 Created: 6/25/2003 Note building envelope, dimensions and distance to property lines on site plan Number: 8 Created: 6/25/2003 Add one more street tree along Cowan Number: 9 Created: 6/25/2003 No parking lot perimeter landscaping is being shown Number: 10 Created: 6/25/2003 Show handicap ramps where sidewalk meets drive aisle Number: 11 Created: 6/25/2003 Need to show more detail on landscaping - show shrub locations, type, count Number: 12 Created: 6/25/2003 At least one parking space needs of be ba he/van accessible Number: 13 Created: 6/25/2003 No parking lot landscaping is being shown Number: 14 Created: 6/25/2003 No bicycle parking is being shown Number: 15 Created: 6/25/2003 parking lots cannot be gravel - 3.2.2(D)(3) Number: 16 Created: 6/25/2003 Wood mulch is being called for around entire building. Please consider a decorative gravel. Wood tends to lose its color in s season, blows/washes away and needs yearly replacement to maintain the look. Gravel may cost a little morte initially but will have less maintenance, less weeds and maintain its look for many years. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Page 6 Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 38 Created: 7/21 /2003 1. Your BMPs don't match up from the calculations to the surety control to the plan. The only BMP shown on the plan that I can see is seeding and mulching, although you mention others in your report. Something must be done between the time construction starts and the time seeding/mulching is done. Department: Traffic Operations Topic: traffic Number: 3 No traffic related problems or issues Department: Transfort Topic: General Number: 17 No comment Department: Transportation Planning Topic: Transportation Issue Contact: Eric Bracke . Created: 6/25/2003 Issue Contact: Garold Smith Created: 6/26/2003 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Number: 26 Created: 7/16/2003 Please correct the driveway design to accurately reflect a Type I (low volume) driveway with detached sidewalks. According to the LCUASS the sidewalk needs to continue across the driveway. Refer to standard drawing #706 and the standard sidewalk detail drawing #1601 for proper slopes and design. Number: 27 Created: 7/16/2003 The entrances to the back two units will need to be connected to the parking lot or driveway via a walk. . Department: Water Wastewater Topic: Utility plan Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Number: 29 Created: 7/16/2003 Please define whether this is to be a duplex or a triplex. If it is to be duplex then provide a detail for separate water and sewer services for this building. If it is to be a triplex then it would require one service and flow calculations for service sizing will be required. Number: 32 Created: 7/16/2003 Provide documentation for our review, of the existing utility easement for the sanitary sewer services. Number: 33 Created: 7/17/2003 Curb stops are not permitted in hard surfaced areas(i.e. Drives, sidewalks, etc.). Place the proposed curb stop(s) 9 feet from the back of the sidewalk and the meter pits) no more than 2 feet beyond the the curb stop(s). Place the meter(s) in a pit(s) outside of the building. Number: 34 Created: 7/17/2003 Provide the standard meter pit detail on the detail sheet. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: zoning Number: 4 Created: 6/25/2003 I don't see anywhere on the plans where it is noted how many units are proposed - the small sheets are not part of the final approved documents Page 5 Topic: Utility plan Number: 21 Created: 7/7/2003 Please provide clear labels of grade lines. Only the 4970 line Is currently labeled. Number: 22 Please remove landscaping from this sheet. Created: 7/7/2003 Number: 24 Created: 7/7/2003 A low point is shown near the northeast corner of the lot, with an under -walk drain shown to the east, but the flowline grade of the entry point of the drain is .15 higher than the low point. How will this drain to the street? And is the under -walk drain really needed? Number: 25. Created: 7/9/2003 The variance for the driveway width has been approved, but the variance request was not stamped. The request is being returned so that it can be stamped then returned with the next submittal (for City files). Please note the variance approval on General Note 48. Also, FYI, this minimum width of 18' is required within the ROW only. Department: Light & Power Topic: Light & Power Number: 1 Issue Contact: Doug Martine Created: 6/20/2003 Developer will need to coordinate electric facilities with Light & Power Engineering. The electric meters will need to be near the N.W. comer of the new duplex. Number: 2 Created: 6/20/2003 Ught & Power Development Charges, plus electric system modification costs will be charged to the developer. Given the current information available, these costs will be about $4500.00. Department: Police Topic: General Number: 31 No comments. Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Drainage Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Created: 7/16/2003 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Number: 35 Created: 7/21/2003 The water quality pond, as designed, seems expensive and high maintenance. Over time, this hole would just become a nuisance and probably eventually be filled with dirt. Please provide a water quality pond more like the City's standard with an outfall. There has been some modified outlet structures in old town that have been previously approved. Number: 36 Created: 7/21/2003 If the gavel drive is not acceptable and any type of hard surface will be required, than quantity detention will probably be required. Number: 37 Created: 7/21/2003 Please see comments in the report regarding hydrology calcs and revise. Number: 39 A drainage easement Is needed for the pond. Created: 7/21/2003 Page 4 shaped windows at the upper portion of the vertical cedar board and batt area are not compatible with the historic character of the block, and in accordance with 3.5.1(E)(3)(c), must be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels. Replace these with more traditional shaped windows. See redlines. Number: 57 Created: 7/25/2003 Section 3.5.1(C) requires that buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block or adjoining blocks. None of the historic buildings on the block have a full second story. Those with a second story are what we call a" half -story". Article 5 of the LUC defines 'story, half" as follows: 'Story, half shall mean a space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level, and in which space the possible floor area with heat room of (5) feet or less occupies at least forty (40) percent of the total floor area of the store directly beneath.' The only full two-story building on the block is the apartment building, which was developed prior to the City adopting any standards regarding such incompatibility. The City's Landmark Preservation Commission's (LPC) recommendation would be helpful in determining whether or not this proposed second story is in fact compatible. Unless the LPC recommends that a second.full story is compatible, staff would interpret this code langauage to restrict the massing to a "half -story" as the second story. Number: 58 Created: 7/25/2003 Label and dimension the length of all property boundaries. Dimension and label the distance of buildings from property lines. Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2003 There have been recent changes in state law the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for residential units. I suggest you talk your proposed building and unit layout over with Rick Lee or Mike Gebo from Building Inspection (221-6760) to determine how this may affect your project. Number: 60 Created: 7/25/2003 See the attached photo's with comments of the neighborhood. Number: 61 Created: 7/25/2003 1 have not received any comments from Poudre Fire Authority. Contact Ron Gonzales (416-2864) to determine if they have any emergency access issues with the project. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 18 Created: 7/7/2003 On all sheets, please clearly label the width of the existing ROW on Cowan. Number: 19 Created: 7/7/2003 On a local residential street, the minimum parkway width is 6' and the minimum sidewalk width is 4.5. Number: 20 Created: 7/7/2003 Please show all new utilities on the landscape plan to verify landscaping separations. Number: 28 Created: 7/16/2003 Please place a type III barricade at the end of the sidewalk to the south since it does not connect to another walk. Number: 30 Created: 7/16/2003 Prior to official submittal, engineering staff was under the impression that recycled asphalt would be an . acceptable material for the driveway and parking lot. Since that time, though, an interpretation of allowed materials has been completed by the Director of Current Planning, limiting the approved materials to hard surfaces. Please revise the plans accordingly. Number: 42 Created: 7/23/2003 Please see redlines for any additional comments. Page 3 more space on the north side of the new building for landscaping and physical separation between the house and the driveway. Number: 48 Created: 7/24/2003 Please darken the lines representing exterior building walls on all buildings including the garage. Number: 49 Created: 7/24/2003 As drawn, there isn't adequate pedestrian access between the parking area and the back porch (which serves as the entry to 2 of the dwelling units). At minimum, a stairway is needed and a walkway connecting the paved driveway area with the stairway. I recommend, however, that a more substantial design element be integrated here. With much of the back yard being used for parking, and the back porch of the new building being so small, there really isn't much space for outdoor backyard activities. I suggest that you integrate patio type pavers in the area between the back porch and the garage. This could be designed so that when a car needs access to or from the garage, it simply drives over the patio area, however, all other times, there's a functional patio for use by the residents. If you take my suggestion, you can satisfy the language of the standard in section 3.2.2(E)(5) of the LUC. As drawn, this area does not satisfy this codelanguage. Number: 50 Created: 7/24/2003 Take the term "duplex" off the plans. The proposed new building has 3 units, and is therefore not a duplex. Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2003 See the reclined sheet L-1 from the Current Planning department for comments. Number:52 - Created: 7/24/2003 Add another tree west of the existing house in accordance with section 3.2. 1 (D)(1)(c) of the LUC., Add another street tree between the sidewalk and the curb near the south property line in accordance with section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the LUC. Add a tree between the parking area and the north property line in accordance with section 3.2. 1 (E)(4)(a) of the LUC. See redlines. Number: 53 Created: 7/25/2003 In a table format, summarize the total number of studio apartments, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom units. Parking requirements for the multi -family building are based on this information in accordance with section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. The parking requirements for the single family detached dwelling is based on 3.2.2(K)(1)(b). Clarify the number of spaces required and the number of spaces provided in this table format so it is clear and easy to read without detailed analysis of the plan. Number: 54 Created: 7/25/2003 Show stairs for the front and back porch of the multifamily building. Number: 55 Created: 7/25/2003 Are you proposing any lighting in the back yard to illuminate the parking area? If so, show us the spec sheet on the fixture. We want to ensure that it's not too bright so as to emit light polution on the neighboring properties, yet at the same time, we would like it to be allowed to be bright enough to serve the purpose of addequate illumination. I recommend you integrate some low garden -type lighting fixtures around the parking area and along the route that residents would be walking between the parking and the entries of the units. Ensure that any proposed lighting complies with the lighting standards in section 3.2.4 of the LUC. Number: 56 Created: 7/25/2003 Sections 3.4.7(E)(2) & (3) of the LUC require the building to be designed in character with the existing historic structures. The dominant building material of existing historic buildings adjacent to it in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety of materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials on the same block. Submit building elevations of all 4 sides of the oromsed building in order to complete this review. Dimension all building elevation drawings. Clarify the exact material of the siding of the existing house. It appears to be 4 inch wood siding, but it's not clear in the submittal. Replace the 5 inch lap siding proposed and replace it with siding that has the same spacing that the existing house has. This siding is also being used on several other houses across the street. Stucco is not a material being used as a trim material anywhere on the block, so in order to comply with these sections of the code, this project cannot use it. When base treatments are used elsewhere on the surrounding neighborhood, it happens in either brick, or shingle siding, but not in 11 inch lap siding. You'll need to upgrade this base treatment to brick, stone, or shingle siding. The vertical cedar board and batt siding is similar to other buildings on the block, so you.can use it. The two odd Page 2 go uttiA I. STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins BARRY SCHRAM Date: 07/25/2003 P.O. BOX 270887 FT. COLLINS, CO 80527 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 637 COWAN STREET PDP/FINAL - TYPE I (LUC) #21-03, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: General Issue Contact: Troy Jones Number: 40 Created: 7/23/2003 In accordance with 4.7(B)(3) of the Land Use Code, the use of "multifamily dwelling on a lot which contained a Structure on October 25, 1991" in the NCM zone district is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Number: 41 Created: 7/23/2003 After discussing the issue with the Current Planning Director, it has been determined that neither gravel nor recycled asphalt are permitted surfaces for the vehicular areas (driveway and parking areas ). Both concrete and regular asphalt are approved surfaces. See the attached Administrative Interpretation #7-03. Number: 43 Created: 7/24/2003 Why does the title of the project say "Duplex,"when there are 3 units proposed in the new building? This is confusing. Label the use of each building on the building outline on the site plan. If I understand the development request correctly, the existing house should be labeled 'existing single family detached dwelling, 1 dwelling unit," and " multi- family dwelling with 3 dwelling units." See redlines. Number: 44 Created: 7/24/2003 The Current Planning Director has determined that the proposed project would have significant neighborhood impact, therefore, a neighborhood meeting will be necessary prior to submitting revisions. Please contact me to coordinate and schedule this meeting. (LUC Section 2.2.2). Number: 45 Created: 7/24/2003 Section 0.2.1 of the East Side Neighborhood Plan suggests that the City's Landmark Preservation Commission should comment on development prrposals affecting the historical character of the East Side Neighborhood. Contact Karen McWilliams with the City's Historic Preservation office at 224-6078 to schedule. Number: 46 Created: 7/24/2003 This site is identified as being within the "preservation area" of the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) as identified on figure 4 of the ESNP. Regarding this 'preservation area," Land Use Policy 2.1.2 of the ESNP states the following: "This area includes the predominantly lower density residential areas that make up the major portion of the Neighborhood area. It is critical to the continued viability of the East Side Neighborhood that the existing land use mix of these Preservation areas be maintained, that housing opportunities for all income groups be allowed, and valuable existing structures be preserved and renovated. Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings.4 In order to accomplish this, a neighborhood meeting necessary, and it is highly recommended to take the project to the Landmark Preservation Commission to receive their recommendations on whether or not the new construction does or does not respect the character of the architectural style of its immediate surroundings. In fact, in the subsection policy 2.1.2 goes on to say, "the opportunity to provide comments by members of the Cultural Resources Board or the Landmark Preservation Commission should be included as needed in the review of any substantial proposals affecting building in this area.' Subsection 2.2 of the language regarding the Preservation Areas (on page 22 of the ESNP) states that use conversions are generally discouraged with possible exceptions that include two to 4 family dwellings, subject to site plan review. A copy of the East Side Neighborhood Plan is available from the Advance Planning Department (221-6376). Number: 47 Created: 7/24/2003 In order to reduce the impacts of the multifamily usage, it would be advisable to narrow down the width of the driveway between the front property line and the back of the houses from the proposed 18 feet to 10 feet. This would allow Page 1