The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIVER MODERN - FDP - FDP150034 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSRiver Modern — Comment Responses City Council Conditions of Approval: 9-30-15 On August 18, 2015, City Council considered these allegations and testimony from the appellants and applicants. City Council found that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the code by approving the stormwater quality basin within the Spring Creek buffer as permitted by the Land Use Code. City Council also found that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the code by approving the structures and deeming them compatible with the existing neighborhood. However, City Council did add conditions to improve compliance with the privacy considerations of Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(D), to require, in addition to the conditions required by the Hearing Officer: 1. removal of the high balcony on the west side of building number 1; and Response: The high balcony on the west side has been moved to the north side of the middle level of the building. A screen wall has also been added to provide additional privacy for the house to the west of this building. 2. that the Applicant, working with staff, enhances the landscaping plan for the Project to increase the number of columnar trees along the east and west property boundaries by 25% from the number shown in the Project Development Plan approved by the Hearing Officer. Response: The PDP Landscape Plan included a total of 24 trees (12 along west PL, 12 along east PL) between the proposed homes and the existing homes. Six trees were added in these areas (3 along west PL, 3 along east PL) to provide increased privacy resulting in a 25% increase in the number of trees in these areas. PDP Comments (dated May 11, 2015) to be addressed with Final Plans: Light & Power PDP Comment: Meter locations and Transformer locations will be finalized at final review. Reminder per last discussion: Transformers need to be within 10' of an all-weather drivable surface. Response: Locations of transformers and meters are now shown on the utility plan. Stormwater PDP Comment: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. Response: Erosion Control Report is included in the FDP submittal. Stormwater PDP Comment: The water quality pond needs to meet our Detention Pond Landscape Standards and the requirements of the Environmental Planner. Response: Seed mixes have been added to the landscape plan to reflect the city's detention pond landscape standards, and changes have been made to address Environmental Planning's comments. Traffic Operations PDP Comment: Variance request received and can be supported with the addition of an exhibit that details the information. Parking restrictions will be minimal and can be determined at final. Response: Signs have been added to show parking restrictions. Page 3 of 3 River Modern — Comment Responses 9-30-1 Current Planning's Unresolved Issues: Made By: Seth Lorson Initial Date: 03/24/2015 Issue ID: 9 Topic: Site Plan Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 05/05/2015: A condition of approval will be that the applicant work with adjacent property owners for the desired fence height. Response: Do final fence heights need to be determined prior to FDP approval? 03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.11(C)(3). The fence along the property line cannot be taller than 6 feet in height. A condition of approval could be that the applicant work with adjacent property owners for the desired fence height. Response: See above response. Initial Date: 0510812015 Issue ID: 7 Topic: Building Elevations Round: 2 Status: Active Issue: 05/08/2015: Staff met with the architect to discuss building height, the notes follow: - Add building height and story height measurements to the building elevations. - The 12'-8" maximum height for a story applies to the top or 1/2 story. - The 3 foot rule for the intersection of wall face and roof applies to parapets. - A roof that does not go all the way to the wall face can be measured with a hypothetical extension for compliance with the 3 foot rule (mentioned above) - When two sides of a building (separate units) have different grade and different floor plates, the height measurement (in stories) shall be measured separately. - Dormers and gables are not included in 3 foot rule (mentioned above). - "Floor level" as the base for measuring the top 1/2 story will be extended from where it exists into areas where it may not due to vaulted 2nd story ceilings. (Example in half story analysis for building 132). - Applicant will provide perspectives from neighbors outdoor space: patios etc... Response: The additional information and views requested were provided in the last PDP submittal and can also be found in this FDP submittal. Initial Date: 05/11/2015 Issue ID: 5 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active Issue: 05/11/2015: Scheduling for a public hearing: The remaining comments that need to be addressed prior to scheduling a public hearing are from Planning Services. The response to comments and corresponding revisions will require one week for Planning Services to review. At which time, if the resubmittal complies with the Land Use Code, a public hearing will be scheduled. A 2 week notice and APO mailing is required prior to hearing. Response: remaining comments were addressed one week prior to the public hearing, as requested. Page 2of3 River Modern — Comment Responses 9-30-15 Current Planning's Unresolved Issues: Made By: Seth Lorson Initial Date: 03/24/2015 Issue ID: 7 Topic: Site Plan Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: 06/01/2015: Unit B1, B2, C1 and C2 are showing 4-bedrooms. This will put the proposal out of compliance with parking requirements and the data shown on the site plan will be wrong. Response: Floor plans showing that all the building types are 3-bedroom units were delivered to staff via e-mail on June 91", 2015. If additional copies of these floor plans are needed please let us know. 05/05/2015: Please confirm that all units are only 3-bedroom. The requested floor plans will also help confirm. Response: see above response 03124/2015: LUC Sec. 3.2.2(D). The parking spaces in the driveways may not be counted toward the minimum requirement of 3 spaces per 4-bedroom unit because they preclude access to the garage spaces. However, Sec. 3.2.2(K)(2)(b) permits on -street spaces to count toward the minimum requirement. These additional on - street spaces per 4 bedroom unit should be adjacent to the unit it is serving. Response: Parking spaces in driveways are no longer included in the parking counts. Initial Date: 03/24/2015 Issue ID: 2 Topic: Building Elevations Round: 1 Status: Active Issue: O6/01/2015: Unit B1 and B2 still exceed the maximum height for the top story of 12'8". Response: The roofs on building types 61 & B2 have been altered to reduce the maximum height of the uppermost level to less than 12'-8". Refer to the submitted architectural elevations. 05/05/2015: Please provide complete floor plans in order to review for compliance with height requirements. Also, each model occurs multiple times on the site yet the elevations show the "grade plane"; which occurance does the grade apply to? - Building Al complies with height requirements. - Building A2 height analysis lacks a floor for half of the top story but is being counted toward the area above floor plate. The floor plan will help with this analysis. - Building B1 without a floor plan, I cannot review for compliance with height requirement (the section is even cut in a staggered line) - Building B2 half story analysis seems to have some inaccuracies. Where is unit 2-B's away room on the section? - Building C half story analysis has two different section lines and one through the section. The grade plane is floating about two feet off the ground as shown. The buildings along Stuart Street are still out of scale with the predominant pattern of horizontally oriented houses that exist along the street. Response: An additional building type, A3, was created to better relate to the other houses facing Stuart Street. Building type C2 was also revised to better relate to the houses facing Stuart Street. 03/24/2015: LUC Sec. 3.8.17(A)(2)(c). The maximum vertical height permitted for each residential story is 12' 8". The maximum height in the LMN District is 2.5 stories (Sec. 4.5(E)(3)). Thus the maximum height of buildings for this development are 31' 8" (12'8" x 2.5). The height of many of the buildings will have to be lowered. Response: Old Comment —addressed with PDP. Page 1 of 3