Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHADELAND TOWNHOMES - PDP - 17-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)23. A copy of the Revisions Routing Sheet, with the number of plans/documents to resubmit, is attached to this letter. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Administrative Hearing Officer for a decision and, if so, will be scheduled for the nearest open date. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. You may contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions about these comments or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss them. Sincerely, A Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Zoning Engineering Stormwater Water & Wastewater Advance Planning Stewart_& Associates File W necessary to evaluate how this development meets Section 3.5.1(D) - Building Orientation and Section 3.5.1(E) - Privacy Considerations of the LUC. Modifications to several of these standards may be necessary and, if so, this item would have to go before the Planning and Zoning Board [Division 2.7 of the LUC]. I would like to meet with you on -site in the near future to evaluate the neighborhood context and how your response meets the requirements of the LUC. 18. The landscape island in the parking lot in front of the residential building looks to be too narrow. It scales to be 4.5' wide. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(c), regarding landscaped islands, states: ... each landscaped island shall include one or more shade trees, be of length greater than 8' in its smallest dimension, include at least 80 square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root aeration, ... The Landscape Plan shows one existing Elm tree, meeting the shade tree requirement, and the square footage is 85' (19' x 4.5'), meeting the minimum requirement. However, the width of 4.5' does not meet the requirement of the 8' smallest dimension. 19. What is the small rectangular piece of property at the southwest corner of this property (just off -site), as shown on the surrounding area map on the Site Plan? 20. The building setbacks from the property lines could/should be increased, especially the residential building setback from the west property line. There would appear to be some excess width in the parking lot and drive area that could be given up to allow the building to move to the east. 21. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) of the LUC states that driveways through or to parking lots shall have one canopy shade tree per 40 lineal feet of and along each side of such driveway, in landscape areas within T of such driveway. This requirement is not being met with the proposed Landscape Plan. There could be conflicts between the shade tree placement requirement and the necessary utilities, especially on the east (west?) side of the driveway. We can discuss this during our on -site visit. 22. The plans, in their present form, do not appear to be at a point to enable staff to schedule the required administrative public hearing for a decision on the development proposal. There are still concerns about the driveway access locations from East Prospect Road and the on -site storm drainage solutions that are sufficient enough to warrant another round of review. 8. A copy of the comments received from Tim Blandford of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined utility plans. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review on August 26, 1998: Engineering 9. The driveway dead -ends at the south property line, without a turn -around as required for adequate emergency access to the development. 10. The curbcut and driveway into the property to the east is too close to the driveway for this development. It should be combined into a shared access with this development. The City Engineering Department will work with you and the adjacent property owner to do everything possible to combine access points. Stormwater Utility 11. Some easements are needed for the on -site stormwater detention. Also, a 12" separation is needed between the Finished Floor elevation and the High Water Line elevation. 12. The required separation between the storm sewer and the water line must be maintained. 13. What is the status of the existing power pole next to the proposed 5-plex building (located near the northeast corner of the building)? 14. The swale slopes around the residential building and the garage are less than 2% and do not meet the minimum grade for proper site drainage. Planning 15. The driveway access into this site does not appear to be adequate for trash collection access and movement. 16. The information regarding building materials and colors (as resubmitted in a response letter) should be added to the Building Elevations plan. 17. This building would not appear to comply with Section 3.5.10 - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale of the LUC. It is completely surrounded by 1-story single family residences that do not approach the height and mass of this proposed building. Because of the height, relative to adjacent properties, it is b. The normal development charges and system modification charges will apply to this development. C. The applicant should contact L & P for development charges. Please contact Alan, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Show all water and sanitary sewer lines on the Landscape Plan, . including the irrigation service. b. Provide required landscape/utility separations on the Landscape Plan. C. Water/Wastewater records indicate that an existing service serves this area. This service must be used or abandoned at the main. The Landscape Plan indicates abandonment of this service and the utility plan indicates that it is to be used as an irrigation tap. Which is it? d. A 1 inch service and fire line will not be adequate for this development! e. Show the location of the curb stop for the proposed fire line. Curb stops must be placed in right-of-way or utility easements. Show the locations of easements for all curb stops. f. Water services should not be placed under or near the storm inlet. Provide T of separation. g. Provide 5' of separation between the trash enclosure and the meter pit. h. See the red -lined Landscape Plan and utility plans for other comments. Please contact Roger, at 221-6881, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined draft report and utility plans. 2. Jim Slagle of the Public Service Company stated that since gas is shown under the sidewalk, sidewalk construction must be delayed until after the gas line is installed. 3. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department stated that the covered porch, as shown on the Site Plan, needs to be in the building envelope. The east -west -- building envelope dimension needs to be changed to include this. 4. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. Any building not meeting this criteria shall be fire sprinklered. NOTE: This proposed structure is out of access and therefore is required to be fire sprinkled. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on brown brick is not acceptable). C. A dead-end street cannot exceed 660' in length. The turn -around at the end of the street must have an outside turning radius of 40' or more, and an inside turning radius of 20'. NOTE: If a turn -around cannot be provided, the facility shall be fire sprinklered. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Alan Rutz of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. L & P will need to install facilities in a T wide landscape strip west of the west sidewalk. Contact L & P to coordinate the transformer location. Commur' Planning and Environmental c Current Planning City of Fort Collins September 4, 1998 James K. Kline FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Jim, 7ices Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Shadeland Town Homes, Project Development Plan (PDP) that were submitted to the City on July 31, 1998, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This property is located at 517-1/2 East Prospect Road and the requested address is 521 East Prospect Road. It is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Multi -family dwellings with 6 or less units per building are permitted in this District, subject to an administrative review and public hearing (Type I) for a decision. As defined in Section 4.4(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code (LUC), the minimum net residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per acre of residential land. As defined in Section 4.4(D)(1)(b) of the LUC, the maximum gross residential density shall be 8 dwelling units per acre, except that any development plan that is a qualified affordable housing project containing 10 acres or less and located in the "Infill Area" of Fort Collins may be 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. This proposal contains one building with 5 dwelling units on 0.44 acres, equaling 11.36 dwelling units per acre. The question here is, has the City Advance Planning Department (affordable housing division) substantiated that this. qualifies as an affordable housing project? There is no information addressing this as part of the submittal documentation. Therefore, the residential density must be between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre, or no more than 3 dwelling units on the lot. How has this requirement been addressed? 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020