Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPETERSON PLACE (611 S. PETERSON) - PDP - 35-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Sincerely, 4�t�ll Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/ Wastewater Poudre Fire Authority Natural Resources Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Intermill Land Surveying Project File #35-00 36. The significant issue of this site being in a "No Rise" floodplain was first expressed to the applicants at the conceptual review meeting on November 15, 1999. This issue still exists and there is no information provided that would demonstrate how this new development will meet the "No Rise" requirement and criteria. Stormwater (Basil Hamdan) 37. This site is in the Old Town floodplain, which is a "No Rise" floodplain. No new development can occur if it cannot be demonstrated how the new development will not create a rise. THIS MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE STAFF DOES ANY FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PROJECT!!! 38. The applicant did not provide any water quality measures. 39. The applicant did not provide information for the required detention pond. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be forthcoming if and when they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision submittal time -frame (by the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (November 22, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, revisions must be submitted no later than February 20, 2001 by 5:00 p.m. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. Also, the number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet (both sides). Due to significant concerns expressed by City staff, you should contact me at 221- 6341 to schedule a meeting with the appropriate people to discuss these comments. 24. Both South Peterson Street and the alley have been newly reconstructed. There will be substantial monetary penalties for cutting the pavement in these roadways. 25. A drainage easement must be shown for the concrete drainage pan along the north property line. . 26. The existing asphalt along the south property line of Lot 1 must be removed and a new sidewalk must be constructed from Lot 2 to the existing sidewalk along South Peterson Street. Transportation Planning/Mark Jackson 27. Pedestrian connectivity from the new 3-plex on Lot 2 to the South Peterson Street sidewalk system must be provided. Natural Resources/Doug Moore 28. The trash enclosure should be designed to include recycling. 29. A detail of the trash enclosure is needed for staff to review. 30. The bicycle rack should be anchored on a hard surface, not placed on the mulch in a planting bed. 31. Steel edging around the planting beds next to sidewalks should not be needed. Planning 32. The neighbors have concerns about overflow parking from this development going into the surrounding neighborhood. 33. The neighbors and City staff have concerns about the size, scale, and mass of the proposed building and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 34. . There is concern about the lack of any outdoor yard or space for the residents of the proposed new 3-plex. 35. There is concern about the vehicular impact on the alley from traffic generated by the proposed new 3-plex. d. The Basis of Bearing statement does not match. e. The Peterson Street right-of-way should not have a bearing break. f. Text size and line weight needs to be reproducible (able to make good quality prints). Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. 20. Ward Stanford of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: a. Will parking be allowed on the asphalt area east of the building, accessed from South Peterson Street? If so, an access easement should be considered. b. Is the condition of the alley pavement adequate to handle additional regular traffic without improvements? C. Do the accesses to the alley from Laurel and Myrtle Streets meet sight distance criteria? Please contact Ward, at 221-6820, if you have questions about these questions/comments. 21. Historic Preservation in the Advance Planning Department stated that new development will need to comply with Section 3.4.7 of the LUC. It is being recommended that the applicants arrange a meeting with Karen McWilliams to discuss the historic implications. She can be reached at 224-6078. 22. Steve Olt of the Current Planning Department stated that his comments are on red -lined Site, Landscape, and Building Elevations plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Steve, at 221-6341, if you have questions about his comments. The following comments/concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on November 15, 2000: Engineering/Dave Stringer 23. The parking on -site may not be adequate for the new 3-plex building. w 11. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 12. Beth Sowder of the Streets Department stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 13. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated -that the standard Planting and Tree Protection notes should be added to the Landscape Plan. The Planting Notes are attached to this comment letter. 14. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 15. Gary Huett of Public Service Company of Colorado stated that if natural gas service is desired for the proposed structure, the service line will have to be installed in the 10' wide utility, drainage, landscape, and pedestrian access easement along the south side of the property. There is an existing gas main in South Peterson Street. 16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 17. A copy of the comments received from Mark Jackson of Transportation Planning is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are provided on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about his comments. 18. Matt Baker of the Street Oversizing section of the Engineering Department stated that the street oversizing fee for apartments is $948 per dwelling unit, to be assessed at the time of issuance of building permits. He has no other comments. 19. The Technical Services (Mapping) Department offered the following comments: a. The title of the subdivision plat should read: "Being a Resubdivision ..... ". b. Block 146 is shown as Block 6 in several places. C. The Warranty Statements are missing. A 7. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are provided on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Also, a letter from Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, the City's Floodplain Administrator, to Craig Houdeshell (dated 11/ 10/00) is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Donald, at 416-2053, if you have questions about their comments. 8. A copy of the comments received from Dave Stringer of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are provided on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Dave, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are provided on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about his comments. 10. Doug Moore of the Natural Resources Department offered the following comments: a. A detail of the proposed trash enclosure is needed for review. b. The location of the 2' square address column is not shown on the Site Plan. C. The bicycle rack should be anchored to a concrete pad set beside the walkway, not just a rack set in the mulch. d. Why is 6" steel edging being used between the walkway and the shrub beds? If the bed is built properly the rock mulch will sit slightly lower than the walkway. If, for some reason, edging is still needed, then 4" steel is typically used on projects of this size. e. Information regarding recycling containers is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Water Conservation Specialist, stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 5. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered -the following comments: a. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property and posted with a minimum of 6" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronzenumerals on brown brick are not acceptable). b. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600', along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. C. This proposed building shall be fire sprinklered. Note: This building exceeds 150' from fire apparatus access. d. Street names shall be verified and reviewed by L.E.T.A. prior to being put in service. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about his comment. 6. Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Show the height of the building on all building elevations. b. Where are the required planting notes? Also, the Landscape Plan needs a statement that landscaping must be completed or the remaining secured by 125% of the cost of materials and labor before a certificate of occupancy will be issued. See Sections 3.2.1(F) through (J) of the LUC. C. Provide building footprint and/or building envelope dimensions. Please contact Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. Commu J Planning and Environmental, vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins November 22, 2000 Sue Kruel-Froseth Kruel-Froseth Architects 1630 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Jim Loonan Loonan and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 270852 Fort Collins, Co. 80527 Dear Sue and Jim, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the 611 SOUTH PETERSON STREET, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #35-00 that was submitted to the City on September 13, 2000, and is offering the following comments: 1. This property and development request is located at 611 South Peterson Street. The lot fronts on South Peterson Street, with an alley along the rear property line. There is an existing single family structure on the front of the lot. The property is in the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). The proposed 3-plex, multi -family residential use is permitted in this District, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review and public hearing for a decision. 2. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (Cable TV) stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 3. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that the normal electric development charges, plus the cost of required system . modifications, will apply to this request. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020