HomeMy WebLinkAbout208 - 214 PETERSON STREET, REPLAT (LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 152) - PDP/FDP - 43-00 - CORRESPONDENCE -e. Please provide a cross section of the proposed concrete pan showing
100 year WSEL with freeboard. Please also provide construction
detail of the plan.
f. Erosion/Sediment Control comment: The plan is ok as submitted.
The proposed street name "Pinnacle Drive" is unacceptable. There is an
existing street name of Pinnacle Lane in the City of Fort Collins and is
located off 5. Lemay Ave. near Southridge Greens Blvd. Per the
Countywide street naming agreement, Pinnacle with any suffix is
unacceptable. With your resubmittal, please provide an alternative
street name.
19.Post Office:
No requirements.
20.Poudre Fire Authority (Ron Gonzales 221-6570):
a. Both proposed houses are beyond 150 feet from Peterson St. and are
required to be fire sprinklered.
b. Alley access is obstructed with encroachments (transformer pad and
fences).
c. Address marquee is required with 8" high number to be posted on
Peterson side street.
d. There shall be no obstructions (fences, landscaping) to houses in the
back.
Note: Please return all redlined plans at the time of resubmittal.
If you have any questions about these or any other issues related to this
project, or require additional information, please feel free to call me at 221-
6750.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Current Planning Director
9
d. The covered porch on the south side of the building can't encroach
into the 15 foot -wide easement.
e. The landscape plan shows shrubs being planted in the rear patio area
of the north unit. Do they conflict with the functionality of the
sliding patio door?
14. Natural Resources (Doug Moore 221-6750):
a. Preserve and protect all existing trees deemed significant (3.2.1(F)).
b. Coordinate a single trash hauler between the two existing house and
the two proposed rear units, to help lessen the impact on both the air
quality and wear and tear on the streets and alley.
15. Water Conservation (L. Audney):
No requirements.
16. Forestry (Tim Buchanan):
No requirements.
17. Park Planning (Craig Foreman 221-6618):
No requirements.
18. Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan 221-6681):
a. Please increase the depth of the alley to accommodate all flows that
will be conveyed by the alley. Please calculate the existing flows and
ensure their conveyance. Show all offsite areas that will contribute
flow to the alley.
b. There are points in the proposed alley where the new grade is above
the existing grade. Please provide grading and spot elevations to
demonstrate that entry of historic flows into the alley will not be
blocked.
c. Please discuss the implications of the addition of the buildings to the
Master Plan for Old Town. What was the assumed impervious value in
the area? How does the site's 'C' value correlate?
d. There needs to be an effort to provide a better water quality system.
Please explore the option of making the eastern end of the pan out of
modular block porous pavement. See Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual, volume 3, Best Management Practices, pp. 5-13.
8
• Please clearly show existing utilities (for 150' beyond project limits),
ROW, and easements.
• On the cover sheet, please reference the updated or current soils
report.
• On the cover sheet, please list the names, addresses, and phone numbers
for the Developer(s) and Owner(s).
• Please provide the following Indemnification Statement on the cover
sheet: These plans have been reviewed by the City of Fort Collins for
concept only. The review does not imply responsibility by the reviewing
department, the City Engineer, or the City of Fort Collins for accuracy
and correctness of the calculations. Furthermore, the review does not
imply that quantities of items on the plans are the final quantities
required. The review shall not be construed in any reason as acceptance
of financial responsibility by the City of Fort Collins for additional
quantities of items shown that may be required during the construction
phase.
• Vertical scale should be 1"=5' or 10'.
• Please provide a legend on each sheet.
• Please provide 2 ties to section corners on the plat.
• Please label adjoining properties on the plat. 10
• Please see plans for additional comments.
• Utilities must be installed underground and, if located in an alley, shall be
in place prior to the completion of alley surfacing.. 3.3.2 (D) 7. Existing
-overhead utility facilities shall be permitted that traverse the periphery
of the development for a distance of less than 400 feet (and provided
that the developer has installed conduit to accommodate future
undergrounding).
13. Zoning (Peter Barnes 221-6134)):
a. On the site data table, the applicant will need to change the land use
from multi -family to two-family. Multi -family is defined as 3 or more
units.
b. The existing house on Lot 7-A must beat least 15' from the newly
created rear lot line of 7-A. There's no dimension shown and it scales
out to less than 15'.
c. Site date table should contain the approximate floor area of the
duplex. The total can't exceed 4,500 sq. ft., including the garages.
6. AT&T Digital (Dennis Greenwalt):
No comment.
7. Building Inspection (Rick Lee 221-6760):
No comment with limited data provided.
8. Transportation Planning (Tom Reif 221-6608):
a. The new buildings need to be clearly addressed and visible from the
street.
b. The internal connecting sidewalk needs to be widened to 4.5' (shown as
4-wide).
9. Transfort (Gaylene Rossiter):
No requirements.
10. Engineering Pavement (Rick Richter 221-6609):
A pavement design will need to be performed for the alley construction.
This report will need to be submitted 2 weeks prior to construction. The
geotechnical investigation report indicates high swell potential.
Mitigation maybe required. Borings in the alley will be needed for the
pavement design.
11. Traffic Operations (Eric Bracke 221-6615):
No requirements.
12. Engineering Department (Katie Moore 221-6765):
• Alley may need to be 20' wide for use as a primary emergency access.
• Please connect sidewalk on south edge of lot to the sidewalk down the
center of the west lots.
• Please close curb cut along Peterson.
• Please remove single parking spot along alley.
• Please provide driveway and alley details and show flares for driveway(s)
on alley.
• Please provide a taper (approx. 20' long) along the alley for the
connection with the existing driveway to Oak.
• Please clarify the connection of the alley, sidewalk and driveway to Oak.
• Please correct general notes and plat wording.
• Please dedicate an 8'-wide utility easement along the alley.
c. The Commission was mixed on the best location for these two garages.
Most felt that the garages should be located facing the alley, as was
historically done. At least one member, and some of the neighbors,
supported the idea of an internal drive, with the garages facing the drive
rather than the alley. The drive would be constructed with some type of
pavers, to maximize the sense of open space and landscaping.
d. The alley homes, as with the duplex, should be subservient to the existing
homes, in height, massing and scale. Design elements, including roof pitch,
windows, porches, and materials, should emulate the character defining
features of the existing and nearby historic homes.
3. Water and Wastewater (Jeff Hill 221-6674)
a. Show locations of electric and gas on overall utility plan.
b. Place water meters in pits within 2 feet of curb stops.
c. Show all existing sanitary sewer services. Define whether they are to
be used or abandoned at the mains.
d. Include the standard general notes pertaining to water line depth of
bury on the overall utility plans.
e. Include the 4" - 1" meter pit detail on the next submittal.
f. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments..
4. Light and Power (Janet McTagne 221-6700):
Electric services were placed underground this past summer. At the
owner's request, we trenched the service to Lot 8, across Lot 7. This
service needs to be within an easement. It may help to show it on the
utility plan. Service to the duplex will come from a secondary vault locate
on the northeast corner of the duplex lot.
5. Public Service Company (Gary Huett):
Utility easements proposed are not adequate to allow extension of
natural gas lines to the two proposed houses on Lot 9-A from Peterson
Street, and there is no gas main in the alley. It is recommended that the
north 12 feet of the Lot 8-A be dedicated as utility easement on the
final plat.
5
Director's signature, presumably for final approval. If the applicant
continues with a request for a two family unit, this block and further
submittal materials will need to be changed to reflect a Planning and
Zoning Board action.
f. Resubmittal Deadline
Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit
revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application
becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by
May 3, 2001. A 30-day extension to this deadline is available. All
requests for an extension should be directed to the Current Planning
Director. If remaining issues are those that do not require plan
revisions, a status report verifying continuing efforts toward resolving
the issues is required within the same timeline.
2. Landmark Preservation Commission (Karen McWilliams 221-6376):
At its January 31, 2001 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission
provided a complimentary review of plans for inf ill construction on lots
occupied by the two historic homes at 208 and 214 Peterson Street. The
applicant, Don Smith, touched briefly upon the design for the proposed
duplex, then concentrated on his new concept of constructing two alley
houses and four single car garages. Commission members, staff, and the
neighbors all greatly preferred the concept of the alley houses and garages
to the design of the duplex, and encouraged the applicant to proceed with
this idea.
Following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting.
a. The Commission spent very little time specifically discussing the plans for
the duplex. However, there are some significant concerns with the overall
massing of the building, and how this massing affects the perception of
height, scale, and details.
b. The alley house concept was well received. However, there was a concern
that, with the number of buildings proposed, there would be the visual
perception of less open land. Rather than four single car garages, the
Commission suggested two 2-car garages.
4
Please refer to comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission
(below) on mass and scale issues.
3. Architectural Details of Alley Houses
"While a wide latitude is appropriate in the treatment of architectural
details on an alley house, the overall character should be one that is
subordinate to that of the primary structure. "
"Architectural details on an alley house should appear simpler than those
used traditionally on primary structures. "
"An alley house should appear to be visually related to the primary
structure"
Please refer to comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission
(below) on compatible architectural details.
c. Parking
With removal of the curb cut onto Peterson Street (see Engineering
comments), the parking requirement will not be met. A minimum of 4 off-
street parking spaces meeting the City's design standards will need to be
provided on the revised plans. Each space must have a direct pedestrian
connection to the unit being served. In those cases where parking is
provided on an adjacent lot, a parking easement will need to be shown on
the subdivision plat.
d. Landscaping/Open Space Areas
Greater emphasis should be placed on siting the building(s) in a manner
that provides outdoor spaces with southern exposure. On the submitted
site plan, plantings have been placed along the north side of the structure
and along the alley. Through the winter months, these north facing areas
are in shadow and are neither comfortable nor particularly functional.
e. Planning and Zoning Board Review
Due to the requested building type, a two -unit structure, this project
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning & Zoning Board (a Type 2
review). The submitted drawings have an approval block for the Planning
3
approach that is strongly encouraged. Since duplexes along an alley
have no historic precedent, staff has applied both general guidelines
for new development and those specifically referring to "alley houses".
The following is an analysis of the applicant's proposal relative to the
applicable guidelines:
1. General Design Standards
a. " The solid -to -void ratio of a building should appear similar to
that seen traditionally." (The solid -to -void ratio is the relative
percentage of wall to windows and doors seen on a fagode). The
building elevations have substantially fewer architectural voids
than typically seen on neighboring structures. The side and the
rear elevations, in particular, have large uninterrupted wall
planes.
b. "A detachedgarage is preferred." The tandem, attached two -
car garages proposed along the alley add to the massiveness of
the building. Use of detached garages would help to reduce the
overall perceived mass of the building and that of the overall
development.
2. Mass and Scale of Alley Houses
"Alley houses should appear subordinate in scale to those seen
traditionally along the street front. "
"Traditionally, alleys contained simple buildings and most
appeared smaller in scale than the primary structure, which was
oriented to the street. This relationship should be continued"
"A secondary structure should be simple in form and character.
Basic rectangular forms that are found within the neighborhood
should be used"
"Minimizing the perceived mass of an alley house is encouraged"
"A single wall plane should not exceed thirty (30) feet in width
without a significant (5 foot minimum) change in setback'
2
City of Fort Collins
Comma- 'ty Planning and Environmental-rvices
Current Planning
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Richard A. Rutherford
Stewart and Associates
103 S. Meldrum St.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
February 1, 2001
City staff and referral agencies have reviewed your submittal for the
208/214 Peterson Duplex and Replat, and offer the following comments.
The comments reflect analysis of the proposal relative to the Plat
Standards- Section 3.3.1, and Land Use Standards of the NCM zoning
district -Division 4.7, of the Land Use Code, applicable City design standards
and guidelines, and those adopted codes and policies of the respective -
referral agencies.
COMMENTS:
1. Current Planning (Cameron Gloss):
a. Plan discrepancies.
Submitted north, east and west elevations do not match the building
footprint shown on the site and landscape plans. Please address this
issue on your revised plans.
b. Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Design 6uidelines
The submitted site plan and building elevations are generally
inconsistent with the "Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for
the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods in Fort Collins" adopted
in 1996. They were created to help guide an approach to new
development that ensures compatibility with the established
character of the neighborhood. It should be noted that compliance
with the guidelines is not legally required, however, it is a design
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020