Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH, NORTH FLATS - PDP & MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 28-99D - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - (3)Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: zoning Number:12 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] From Transportation Planning's perspective (and at the conceptual level) this project appears to have no major issues, save the reliance on on -street parking and the very real possibility that some of the demand will be pushed off of Blondel Street to the old Narrow Streets that border it (Osiander Cajetan, and Pascal). We will be watching future submittals very closely so as to ensure that the final design and parking distribution is feasible and functional for all residents of the development. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/WW Number:3 Created:6/16/2006 [6/16/06] The curb stops and water meter pits must be in a landscaped area outside of all drives and parking areas. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning Number:9 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] The carports and stairways can't encroach over an easement. However, the "eave overhang" of the carport can encroach up to 2.5' over the easement. Number:10 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] A replat is not required, and the change can be processed as a minor amendment if we receive appropriate documentation from the owner as to where the density transfer is coming from. The applicant can process this as a replat and major amendment if they desire. It would probably be cleaner. Number:11 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] The parking spaces.off the alley need to have 24' of backup. 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. Sincerely, Anne H. Aspen City Planner Page 6 Major Amendment — A major amendment to the approved plan may submitted for review requiring an administrative hearing process. Separately from the major amendment review process a re -plat of the subject parcels may be submitted for development review and will also require an administrative hearing process prior to approval. A transfer of dwelling unit density must be approved from another portion of the Overall Development Plan area. If you would like more detailed information regarding the minor or major amendment review process, please contact Randy Maizland in Engineering Development Review at (970) 416- 2292. Department: Stormwater Issue Contact: Glen Schlueter Topic: Stormwater Number:31 Created:6/22/2006 [6/22/061 1. This site is in the Dry Creek drainage basin. The city-wide new development fee is $3,070.00 /acre which is subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. This fee is to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. Number:32 Created:6/22/2006 [6/22/061 Onsite detention and water quality treatment have been addressed with the overall Old Town North drainage system. However the applicant will need to verify there is no increase in imperviousness with this change from 4-plexes to 6-plexes. Also the drainage patterns need to be verified. If there is a change in either of these, further analysis and modifications to the drainage system may be needed to address the changes. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Electric Utility Number:1 Created:6/16/2006 [6/16/06] The additional dwelling units will require modifying the electric system at the developer's expense. This is anticipated to be in the $20,000 range. Number:2 Created:6/16/2006 [6/16/06) Each dwelling must be individually metered, with the meters located at the ends of the buildings between the paired buildings. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number 28 Created:6/20/2006 [6/20/06] WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Spacing and flow requirements for SFA are 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. Number.29 Created:6/2012006 [6/20/06] ADDRESSING: Unit addressing shall be reviewed and approved by PFA in advance. Also, address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals/letters on a contrasting background. The numerals/unit letters also shall be posted on the rear (alley) side of each unit. Number..30 Created:6/2012006 [6/20/06] SCOOTER SAFETY: Please consider offering operating lessons and approved helmets when providing scooters for residents. Page 5 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number:14 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] Larimer County Road Impact Fees as well as City Street Oversizing Fees will apply to this project. Please contact Matt Baker at (970) 224-6108 for an accurate calculation of these fees. Number:15 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] A Transportation Impact Study, or update to the previously approved study, may be required for this project. Please contact the City Traffic Engineer, Eric Bracke, at (970) 224-6062 for T.I.S. requirements. Number:16 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] All applicable transportation development review (TDRF) fees will apply. A copy of the fee calculation sheet was provided to you at the preliminary design review meeting. Fees will vary depending on which review process is chosen. Number:17 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] If the applicant elects not to re -plat the property, all proposed easement vacations and dedications must be submitted as separate documents for review and approval prior to recordation. The easement vacation document review fee is $400 per document, easement dedications are $250 per document. Any proposed right-of-way vacations must be approved by City Council. Number:18 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/061 Any damaged sidewalk, curb & gutter and pavement within any alley ways adjacent to the project must be repaired or replaced as directed by the Engineering Inspector prior to any clearance for a Certificate of Occupancy. Number 19 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06) A Development Agreement may be required with this project. Topic: General Engineering Number:13 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] During the course of discussion at the Preliminary Design Review meeting, it appeared to be the consensus of the City staff and the applicant that the preferred option for development review of this project is a Type I review — Project Development Plan (PDP) consisting of a re -plat of the property and any associated utility plans for the proposed project. This option was preferred because it greatly reduced the need for independent submittals to be taken through separate review processes which would lead to more complex coordination issues between the different City divisions and a more lengthy overall review period. Ultimately, the Type I review as a PDP would result in a less complex and faster review as well as the most cost effective alternative. However, the applicant does have the option of the following alternatives: Minor Amendment — The subject parcels may not be re -plated and all new easements and vacations will need to be submitted for review as separate documents. A transfer of dwelling unit density must be approved from another portion of the Overall Development Plan area. Page 4 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: General Number:4 Created:6/1912006 [6/19/06) We will need to have some sort of official agreement with Monica Sweere to account for the shift in density from somewhere else in Old Town North to this site on file. Number:5 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] The primary concern with this project is parking and the tight alleyways that exist. Carport parking will not need to meet the full setback from the alley that garage parking would, but you will still need to meet the other standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) and the Land Use Code (LUC). These require 24 feet between parking stalls for a two way drive aisle. Engineering may allow a variance down to 20 feet. A modification of standards would be required for the Land Use Code requirements and this would need the approval of the hearing officer. The zoning department will require that the posts of the carports be vacated on an exhibit on the plat or by separate document. We'll need to discuss this further as you refine the design. Number:7 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] Standard comments: • The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollinsAanduse/begin.htm • This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards, and Division 4.15 CCN—Community Comemrcial - North College District. • When developing your plans for submittal, pay particular attention to the following sections of the Code: 0 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection (you will need street trees and planting beds, etc. to current standards) 0 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (you will need to provide adequate off- street parking to meet the requirements (on -street parking is available and can be used on Blondel only.) 0 3.2.4 Site Lighting • 1 will have more detailed comments once I have more detailed plans to review. • An exhaustive list of submittal requirements for this type of project is available at http:/tfcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/project-dev-plan.pdf. There is a submittal checklist at http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/pdp.pdf. Not all submittal requirements will apply to this project. Please let me know if you have any questions about the requirements for your submittal. • You will need to set up an appointment to submit your application with Shelby Sommer or Georgiana Deines in Current Planning at 221-6750. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. • Please note that postage rates have been raised as of January 2006. The fee for the APO labels will now be $.75 per label. Number:8 Created:6/19/2006 [6/19/06] As to what process to review this with, there are a dizzying number of options due to the unique nature of the project. We discussed it at the meeting and can discuss it more if you wish, but it seems as if it would be cleanest, quickest, and quite possibly most cost- effective to do this as a Type I PDP with subdivision plat. You would then have just one process, one hearing officer and one set of fees. Page 3 the easements however, this will also require a modification to the Land Use Code under Section 3.8.19(7). 5. Re: placing trash enclosures over utility easement: From Engineering: Typically, trash enclosures are allowed to be placed over a utility easement but the City does not encourage this location. A trash enclosure cannot be placed within a drainage easement without approval of the storm water utility regarding the enclosure design. 6. Re: parking requirements: From Current Planning: At the meeting we discussed the issue in more detail and discussed the possibility of using on -street parking on Blondel per code. Between the onstreet parking and the issues on the alley, it may be possible to redesign to avoid needing a modification, or a modification may still be needed. If needed, the hearing officer would be the final decision maker. The modification would need to meet the requirements.called out in Section 2.8.2 (H) of the Land Use Code. If a modification is needed, Anne Aspen can work with you further to craft it at that time. It would be wise to invite staff (Anne, Cameron Gloss and Peter Barnes) out on site to do a demonstration of the proposed solution with some large vehicles (large pick-up trucks and SUVs that are common today) as the design is resolved. . 7. Re: accessible unit standards: From the Building Department: First, the building department requires a "pre -submittal" meeting prior to submitting for a building permit, during which they will answer not only accessibility questions but construction related questions. Designers and builders alike are raving about this early -on plan review meeting which helps in their overall design. Contact Mike Gebo at 221-6760 to schedule this meeting. Second, whether the project is SF attached (Townhomes) or multi -family (Condo) the accessibility requirements are the same and will apply to any building with 4 or more dwellings under roof per the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1103.1.9.3. There is also State law that. needs to be addressed, but compliance with the UBC is first required, then the State, as follows: • Per UBC, Buildings with 4 or more dwellings under roof; all ground floor units shall be Type B accessible. 2% shall be Type A accessible when more than 20 dwellings on site. Any attached or assigned parking garages shall be accessible for the accessible dwellings 13 feet wide, with the first garage 16 feet wide for van access with access into the unit from the garage as well as the front door. Looking at all accessible units provided to satisfy UBC will determine if the State is also satisfied. • If however, all UBC exceptions to Section 1103.1.9.3 are used and no accessible units are provided (which is feasible) then only the State law needs to be satisfied. • Under State law with 48 dwellings provided, the designers must satisfy 24 accessibility points. These points can be satisfied by: +6 points per each Type A dwelling unit +5 points per each Type A multi -story dwelling unit +4 points per each Type B dwelling unit +3 points per each Type B multi -story dwelling unit +1 point per each Visitable ground floor dwelling unit. Under any approach, the City has local amendment requirements for providing "accessible functional features" meaning bedroom types, garages, closets, carport, decks or patios etc, shall be provided in a ratio equal to the non -accessible units. Page 2 iz STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cilyof Fort Collins Greg Fisher Date: 6/21/2006 Greg Fisher, Architect 3115 Clyde Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for NORTH FLATS AT OLD TOWN NORTH PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: [6/19/06] Answers to your specific questions: 1. Re: squaring up easements: From Engineering: A re -plat is recommended for this project but is not required. A re -plat would be the best way to clean up all of the easements (vacations and new dedications) for your project. Regarding the easement at the south east comer of lot M-17 on Block 3, it is not easily apparent why this comer was rounded. Once routed to each of the utilities, the City will then be aware of any circumstances that would have required it to be round. It is likely that this line was drafted inconsistently and therefore can be squared off like the others. 2. Re: vacating portions of the drainage easements for carports: From Stormwater. The drainage and utility easement on block 7 cannot be vacated since the original design used a very flat alley section that does not carry enough water to contain it in the alley. It would be allowed to have posts in the easements to support the carports but the issue then is that the building department cannot issue a building permit if the structure is in the easement. A modification was discussed, but it is a building permit issue not a drainage issue. The water would flow through a portion of the carport but if that is acceptable to the applicant is can be allowed from a drainage point of view. From Engineering: If all of the utilities involved are satisfied that the construction of the proposed parking structures and overhangs will not interfere with the drainage and maintenance of those utilities, portions of the easement may be vacated to accommodate the columns and overhang of the carports. The minimum set back requirements must also be met or a variance to the LCUASS will need to be approved for a reduced setback. 3. Re: vacating portions of the air space above utility easements for carports: From Engineering: See response to number 2. 4. Re: placing stairways and planters over utility easement From Engineering: The Land Use Code does not permit structures such as stairways or parking structure canopies to encroach into utility or drainage easements. If all of the utilities cannot agree to a vacation of the subject easements for this purpose, an application for modification to the Land Use Code must be submitted for this project and a maintenance agreement with the affected utilities must be approved. Refer to section 3.8.19(7) of the Land Use Code for setback regulations and easements_ Without full agreement from all of the utilities having any interest in these easements, the easements cannot be vacated for the purpose of the stairways. If the easements cannot be vacated, you may be able to enter into some sort of formal maintenance agreement with the utilities for those areas beneath the stairways which would allow you to construct them over Page 1 ✓` r� � .. � w .�:��_ s... �.. ,. _ .. ..:. North Flats Response to Preliminary Design Review Comments 10/5/2006 Page 2 Engineering Number 15. Voice mail has been exchanged with Eric Bracke regarding this project and he has indicated that there will be no requirement for new TIS work to be performed as there will be no significant new trips generated by this project relative to the previously approved project. Engineering Number 16-19. Acknowledged. General Engineering Number 13. Acknowledged, see Current Planning Number 8 response above. Stormwater Number 31/32. Acknowledged. Light & Power Number 1 & 2: Acknowledged. PFA Number 28. All fire hydrants are already installed. PFA Number 29 & 30. Acknowledged. Transportation Planning Number 12. Acknowledged. Zoning Number 9. Please see responses 2/3 & 6 above. Also, Modification of Standards request is included with this submittal to allow the carports to overhang the drainage easement. Zoning Number 10. Acknowledged, see Current Planning Number 8 response above. Zoning Number 11. See response 6 above. I believe this letter addresses all of the applicable comments. If this is not the case please let me know so that I can provide you with any additional material you require. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Best Regards, Greg D. Fisher OP XC: David Mills — Millhaus Inc. October 2, 2006 Ms. Anne H. Aspen Community Planning G E & Environmental Services City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580, 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 di_ ER, ARCH ITECT Re: North Flats - Response to Preliminary Design Review Comments Dear Anne: This letter is intended to address the Preliminary Design Review comments dated June 2, 2006. The response numbers correspond to your comment numbers. 1. A replat is being provided as part of the current submittal and the easements have been "cleaned up". 2/3. A very small portion of the mentioned drainage easement is being proposed to be vacated per the plat proposed. The vacation proposed is just to accommodate the columns used to support the carports and will have negligible impact on drainage volumes. It should be noted that the necessary volumes have been recalculated with the drainage work done for this project and more capacity than is required is still being provided. 4. Stairways within the utility easement have been redesigned to be removable and planters have been eliminated. A Modification of Standards is included in the current submittal to address the stair encroachment. 5. Two of the four proposed trash enclosures will need to be located within utility easements. The other two have been relocated to outside the easements. 6. It is believed that the proposed project as submitted will meet all parking requirements with the exception of the driveway width at the alleys. These alleys are being proposed as 23' rather than the required 24' and a Modification of Standards request is included with this submittal to address this. 7. The 3 ground floor units of each building will be designed to be handicap adaptable or Type B units per the Uniform Building Code. In parallel to the PDP/Subdivision process a review by the Building Review Board will be requested to seek relief from the requirements of Fort Collins amendment #33 to the Uniform Building Code Section 1103.1.9.1 that would require an accessible carport parking stall for each accessible unit. It will be proposed that each building include an accessible carport parking stall rather than each unit. Should this proposal not be successful the carports will be eliminated from the project. Current Planning Number 4. A letter prepared by Monica Sweere addressing the density shift has been included. If this does not suffice as an "official agreement" please indicate the necessary format required. Current Planning Number 5. See response 2/3 & 6 above. Current Planning Number 7. Acknowledged. Current Planning Number 8. The project is submitted as a PDP with a Subdivision along with three Modification of Standards requests. Engineering Number 14. Acknowledged. 3115 CLYDE ST. • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 - PHONE 970.484,8433 - FAX 970.484.2229