Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHADELAND TOWNHOMES - PDP - 17-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)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, G��u' Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Zoning/Jenny Nuckols Engineering/Tim Blandford Stormwater/Basil Hamdan Water & Wastewater/Roger Buffington Transportation Planning/Kathleen Reavis Traffic Operations/Eric Bracke Advance Planning/Clark Mapes Stewart & Associates File 22. The slopes are not adequate for proper site drainage. Planning 23. How does this residential building comply with Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility of the LUC? More information is needed regarding the architectural character [Section 3.5.1(B)(1)], building materials [Section 3.5.1(F)(1)], and building color [Section 3.5.1(G)]. 24. 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 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]. 25. How old are the existing buildings on this property? Any modifications to or elimination of structures more than 50 years old must go through the City's demolition ordinance. Please contact Carol Tunner or Karen McWilliams, the Historic Preservation Specialists in the Advance Planning Department, to discuss the status of the structures. 26. What is the small rectangular piece of property at the southwest corner of this property, as shown on the surrounding area map on the Site Plan? 27. One additional shade tree is required along the east property line between the proposed garage structure and the fence. 28. 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 west side of the driveway. 29. Tree protection notes [Section 3.2.1(G) of the LUCI should be added to the Landscape Plan. 30. A copy of the Revisions Required Sheet is attached to this letter. 11. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that the two adjacent properties, to the west and east, will need to consolidate their curb cuts with this development. Also, a transportation impact analysis may be needed for the driveways. 12. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department stated that Transportation Impact Study for Multi -Modal Level of Service was waived because this is an infill project and adequate vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities exist. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review on April 8, 1998: Engineering 13. A copy of the existing subdivision plat for the property needs to be submitted for review to ensure that all necessary easements are provided. 14. The proposed curb returns into the driveway from East Prospect Road must be eliminated. The driveway must look like a driveway, not a street. 15. The curbcut and driveway into the property to the east is too close to the driveway for this development. It must be combined into a shared access with this development. The property to the west may also contain this same problem. 16. The driveway access into this site is not adequate for emergency and trash collection access and movement. Stormwater Utility 17. The PVC storm drain is not allowed in the East Prospect Road right-of=way. Who is proposed to maintain this drain? 18. All of the site grading is unclear on the drainage plans. The grading might create impacts to the neighboring properties but it is difficult to tell from the plans. 19. The proposed detention pond does not have the required freeboard. 20. The off -site drainage basins appear to be drawn arbitrarily on the drainage plans. 21. Drainage easements are needed for the whole property. C. The applicant should contact L & P for development charges and preliminary design. Please contact Alan, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET THAT WAS received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this letter. 8. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a: Show all water and sanitary sewer lines on the Landscape Plan. b. Include a general note on the Landscape Plan pertaining to landscape/utility separation distances. C. Provide required landscape/utility separations on the Landscape Plan. d. Water/Wastewater records indicate that an existing service serves this area. This service must be used or abandoned at the main. e. A 1 inch service and fire line will not be adequate for this development! £ Place curbstops and meter pits as near to the main as possible. g. Include the standard general notes on the overall utility plans. h. Meter pits are not allowed in detention areas. I. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 5. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. REQUIRED ACCESS: 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 building is out of access and therefore is required to be fire sprinkled. b. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 800' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 pounds. No building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant as measured from the building to the hydrant along the approved roadway. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. C. CUL-DE-SAC: A dead-end street cannot exceed 660' in length. The _ turnaround at the end of the street must have an outside turning radius of 40' and an inside turning radius of 20'. If a turnaround cannot be provided the structure must be fire sprinkled. d. STREET WIDTH: Due to the 24' width of the private drive, there shall be no parking allowed on both sides of this private drive. It is required that the street be signed as such for visibility. e. ADDRESS: The street address shall be posted off of Prospect Road with 6" numerals on a contrasting background. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. 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. This does compete with and conflict with the Public Service gas line. b. The normal development charges and system modification charges will apply to this development. 2. Jim Slagle of the Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. Any rerouting of existing PSC facilities will be at the property owner's/developer's expense. b. Due to the narrow driveway, PSC gas will be located on the west side, between the back of sidewalk and fence. This could be an area of conflict with Light & Power, telephone, and cable TV. 3. The Mapping Department stated that any plans associated with this project that will need to be filed in the vault must be on 24" x 36" sheets. 4. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. A bicycle rack should be shown in a location that provides for a convenient and secure parking area. b. A "Handicapped Parking Space" sign should be placed at the head of that parking space. C. It is being recommended that the garage building be moved 2" to the east (10' side yard setback) to provide a 26' wide backup area instead of the proposed 24' for adequate room to negotiate vehicle turns into and out of the parking bays. d. Include the building dimensions of the 5-plex structure and the garage structure. e. If the lot is 0.44 acres in size, with a 5-plex the residential density is just over 11 dwelling units per acre. The site information on the Site Plan states that the density is 5.28 dwelling units per acre. The project must qualify as affordable housing for the proposed density to be allowed. Has this been confirmed? £ The entrance sign must be 15' from the side lot line, or it must be no larger than 4 square feet in size. g. Additional trees are required on each side of the private driveway into the development and an additional tree is required behind the garage. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary at 221-6760 if you have questions about these comments. Comma y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins April 17, 1998 James K. Kline FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Jim, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Shadeland Town Homes, Project Development Plan (PDP) that were submitted to the City on March 11, 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(1))(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. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020