Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBALZERS SUBDIVISION, 624 S. LOOMIS - REPLAT - 51-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)LOT 8 n � i u 1•" I � i u � 1 _-- n • 1 "°"�"" LOT9 r-----��i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NY II 1• 1 I SOUTH 32 FEET r_ OF LOT 9 u �. •.� z — II -- LOT II AN I • I L 7,802 rQ. fit. T----I-1 -------- NORTH 37 IFEET II 1 •• F" ............ ., >w�.. �" • •' �• ,. .. � .1 OF LOT 110 II .. I II I•1 I I L II F mv,' II Y°"'aE 1 I LOr 10 II n II II j J u u Za — X LOT 1 1L.122 AM 5,308 a R. an 0 9. Please contact Karen McWilliams of Carol Tunner, historic preservation planners with the Advance Planning Department, to determine what City review process, if any, must be followed to convert the old carriage house to a new single family residence. Karen can be reached at 224-6078 or Carol can be reached at 221- 6597. 10. This development request will be subject to the current Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Current Planning Department office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the Project Development Plan and Final Compliance phases of development review by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. 11. This development proposal is subject to the requirements as set forth in the City❑s LUC, specifically Articles 2. Administration (Development Review Procedures), Article 3. General Development Standards, and Article 4. [Zoning] Districts, particularly Division 4.7 NCM, Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District. 12. Please Note: If there is a subdivision plat as part of this development request the following requirement must be met: The applicant must provide a copy of "Certificate of Taxes Due" with the mylar of the subdivision plat when it is brought to the City's Current Planning Department for recording. The certificate may be obtained from the Larimer County Treasurer's Office and must reflect a zero (0) balance before the City will accept the mylar. Larimer County is requiring this document, showing no outstanding property taxes, before they will accept and record subdivision plats. g. The standard utility plan submittal and review will be required with a replat of the property. h. Both a Development Agreement and a Development Construction Permit may be required for the site improvements. Please contact Katie, at 221-6750, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. A TIS, addressing all modes of transportation, may be required with your Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal. The need for a TIS may be waived. Please contact Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department, at 224-6062, and Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department, at 416-2040, to determine if, or what, information is needed in the TIS pertaining to Level of Service for vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. b. Adequate pedestrian walkways must be addressed. C. Alley improvements will be necessary. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about these comments. 7. Monica Moore of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. The new duplex dwelling units will be subject to the standard electric development charges. b. There is currently overhead electric service from the alley to the existing residence on South Loomis Street. This service must be undergrounded at the owner's expense. It must be within an 8' wide utility easement along one side of the property. Service to the new duplex units will be from the alley. Please contact Monica, at 224-6153, if you have questions about these comments. 8. Jeff Lakey of the Parks Planning Department indicated that each new dwelling unit will be subject to both the Neighborhood and the Community Parkland fees, which are based on the square footage of the dwelling unit. The fees will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits. Please contact Basil, at 224-6035, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. a. A fire hydrant must be located within 400' of the building. b. The new two-family dwelling will be out of access and the building will have to fire sprinklered. C. Fire flows of 1,000 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch must be provided. d. Addressing for the residential buildings (minimum 6" high numerals) must be visible from the closest street that that they front on. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Katie Moore of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. Street oversizing fees will apply to this development request. The fee for each new duplex dwelling unit is $1,221 and the fee will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits. Please check with Matt Baker of the Engineering Department, at 224-6108, to verify this fee. b. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS), addressing all modes of transportation, may be required with your Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal. The need for a TIS may be waived. Please contact Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department, at 224-6062, and Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department, at 416-2040, to determine if, or what, information is needed in the TIS pertaining to Level of Service for vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. C. The applicant must verify the status of the existing alley. It must be improved back to the nearest street with the addition of the duplex units on the rear of the existing lot. Please check with Katie regarding the necessary permit to do this. d. This request will be subject to a Larimer County Road Impact Fee. e. All existing, damaged sidewalk must be replaced in conjunction with the construction of the new duplex units. f. Any required easements will have to be dedicated with the replatting of this property. Easements can also be dedicated by separate document. e. The minimum off-street parking requirements for the existing single family residence and the proposed new two-family dwelling are set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1) of the LUC. Please contact Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 2. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. There is an existing 6" water main in South Loomis Street. b. There is an existing 6" sanitary sewer main in the alley along the east side of the property. C. Locate the existing sanitary sewer service and relocate, if necessary, to avoid conflict with the proposed building. d. Provide easements for water and sanitary sewer services that will cross adjacent lots. e. Plant investment fees and water rights will apply and they will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits. Please contact Roger, at 221-6854, if you have questions about these comments. 3. Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility offered the following comments: a. This site is in the City's Old Town Drainage Basin. The new development fee is $4,150 per acre, which is based on the amount of new imperviousness added to the property. b. Please check the Old Town Master Drainage Plan to see what the approved imperviousness is for this sub -basin. C. The grading proposed shall ensure that no drainage is directed at the neighboring properties to the north or south. d. The standard drainage and erosion control reports and constructions plans are required and they must be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. These reports and plans are required only if there is an increase in imperviousness of greater than 350 square feet. e. Please address water quality on the property. MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001 ITEM: 624 Loomis Street — Replat Lots 9 & 10 of the Westlawn Addition APPLICANT: Eric Balzer 5200 Abbey Road Fort Collins, CO. 80526 LAND USE DATA: Request to replat Lots 9 & 10 of the Westlawn Addition to the City of Fort Collins and construct a two-family dwelling (duplex building) on the new back lot, along the alley. There is an existing single family residence on the front of the property, facing South Loomis Street. The existing property is 13,110 square feet in size and is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. COMMENTS: Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The property is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. The proposed new two-family dwelling (duplex) is permitted in the NCM District subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review and public hearing, as set forth in the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Please see Section 4.7(13)(3)(a) of the LUC. b. This request will be subject to all the applicable Land Use, Dimensional, and Development Standards as set forth in Sections 4.7(D), (E), and (F) of the LUC. C. The first step in the City's formal development review process will be a complete submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP) to the Current Planning Department for a Planning and Zoning Board review and public hearing. d. The required building setbacks must be met on both new lots. Steve Olt Re: Balzer duplex Page 1 From: Gregory Byrne To: Cameron Gloss; Steve Olt Date: 2/3/04 7:15AM Subject: Re: Balzer duplex I agree with the decision to reject the application. The neighborhood meeting is clearly a part of the code process, and Mikal, as the P&Z chair, can scarcely claim ignorance of the process. G reg >>> Steve Olt 01 /30/04 09:11 AM >>> Cameron, As you are aware, Mikal Torgerson brought a Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal application to our window yesterday, January 29th, for a duplex residential building on the rear (alley side) of the property at 624 South Loomis Street. We did not accept the application and PDP documentation because the neighborhood meeting requirement for a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) development proposal had not been satisfied. This requirement is set forth in Sections 2.2.2(B) & (D) of the Land Use Code (LUC). Mr. Torgerson has stated that he and his client relied on the information given to them in the City staff conceptual review comments of September 17, 2001 (attached to this e-mail), regarding the City's development review process. He cited two comments from the letter and they are as follows: Comment 1a states, in part, that "the proposed new two-family dwelling (duplex) is permitted in the NCM District subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review and public hearing". " Comment 1c states that "the first step in the City's formal development review process will be a complete submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP) to the Current Planning Department for a Planning and Zoning Board review and public hearing". I reminded Mr. Torgerson of Comment 11 in the letter, which states that "this development proposal is subject to the requirements as set forth in the City's LUC, specifically Articles 2. Administration (Development Review Procedures), Article 3. General Development Standards, and Article 4. [Zoning] Districts, particularly Division 4.7 NCM, Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District". The neighborhood meeting requirements are set forth in Article 2, Section 2.2.2. They say that a neighborhood meeting shall be required by the Director on a development proposal that is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review unless the Director determines that the development proposal would not have significant neighborhood impacts; and, that if a neighborhood meeting is required, the meeting shall be held prior to submittal of a development application to the Director for approval of a project development plan. Mr. Torgerson is concerned about the action taken yesterday by the Current Planning Department in not accepting his development application. There has been substantial cost in preparation of the PDP documentation, which now might not be able to be reviewed until after June of this year due to the alley house moratorium. There is a possibility that we may hear further from Mr. Torgerson and his client (Eric Balzer) regarding this issue. Steve CC: Paul Eckman