Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 SOUTH SHERWOOD - NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW - 51-95 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSChapter 3 and 4 of the West Side Neighborhood plan is a general discussion of land use research and analysis, discussion of specific landmark designations and proposed policy ideas for historic preservations. Although design guidelines are discussed, they appear general in nature. The planning department is requested to provide specifics and standards from these chapters that can be applied in a uniform and consistent manner upon the proposed project. In regard to your faxed letter to me dated 12/19/95, you mention "concerns expressed by Clark Mapees of the Advanced Planning Department about the scrape off, degradation of the neighborhood and LDGS compliance." What specifically are these concerns? Please provide us with specifics for satisfying these concerns. We applied for the height and side set back variance to the zoning board of appeals out of the. recommendation that we do so in the meeting we held with you and members of the LPC on November 30, 1995. As you are aware, this request was denied at the December 14, 1995 zoning board of appeals hearing. It was our understanding that a height variance allowing us to build the structure with a pitched roof would help us in meeting the LPC and West Side Neighborhood Design Guidelines. I was very surprised and somewhat taken back when members of the LPC appeared and SPOKE OUT AGAINST the granting of the variance. The currently proposed project conforms to the specific density allowances, land use and parking requirements set forth for NCB Zoning. It is our intent to comply with guidelines having clear and specific standards that can be applied in a consistent manner. We are willing to negotiate the use, type and make up of exterior materials in whatever format is appropriate for helping to address neighborhood compatibility issues. We are also willing to consider any reasonable cosmetic suggestions by the city that can be used for improving "architectural character". I would appreciate your timely response with suggestions on how we can best approach the development of this project. Following a cooperative effort by the concerned parties involved in this process, I request that an administrative public hearing be scheduled at the earliest possible date to address the proposed project along with the revisions described herein. Please contact me regarding the scheduling and the procedures of this meeting at 303- 972-7200. Your cooperation is greatly,#ppreciated. /I--- Cucarola c. Lucia Liley - March & Myatt A-2.11 presents guidelines for Landmark Efigibility and new construction in older historic areas stating: "The height, setback and width of new buildings should be similar to those of existing buildings. "It further states: "New buildings should be designed to be in character with existing structures, but not be an imitation of historic styles." There is no set architectural style and / or character in the 600 block of South Sherwood Street. We recognize the existence of several older and smaller residential structures. However, three other structures which are much larger than our proposed fourplex in terms of size, mass, bulk and scale are present and directly adjacent to our lot. Each has a very individual architectural character of a more modern style. These three structures are: Sherwood Greens Condominiums (622 S. Sherwood) The large KA sorority house (SE corner of S. Sherwood & Laurel Street) The Larimer County Community Corrections Dept (SW corner of S. Sherwood & Laurel Street). By its very nature, a fourplex is automatically going to have a larger mass and scale than the surrounding single family residences. Any comparison directly or indirectly with single family structures is inherently flawed. Our proposed project should be compared with the multi -family residences established within the area for meeting the similarity test which is implied in Section A-2.11. According to the A.2.7 and A.2.11 subsections as written, it would appear that the above mentioned buildings would have to be included in determining "architectural character" considerations. In fact, the proposed fourplex at 620 South Sherwood indeed provides a "transition" that meets A.2.7 of the Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria. Its size, height and mass is a fraction of the above mentioned buildings and can be built which "sets a standard of quality for future projects or redevelopments in the area" without changing its proposed architecture. In determining architectural character, consideration must be given to all existing structures weather large or small, new or old, and not simply a partial grouping of structures within the block. Subsection A.2.11 requirements are satisfied since the standard zoning height and side setbacks are being observed and are in fact "similar to those of existing buildings" which are those buildings referenced above. There is a natural hedge of trees growing almost the entire length of the south lot line which is 190'. Our landscaping plan does not show this hedge line being removed. It is our intent to leave this hedge of established volunteer trees, trimming them only as necessary to retain their "buffering" effect from the large apartment complex abutting our lot. The eight buffalo junipers proposed along the north end of the building will be replaced with eight evergreen trees at eight feet apart to help "buffer" building height. The guidelines described in Section A-2.13 Landscape of the Land Development Guidance System contain no specific requirements; they only contain generalities that are open to a wide range of interpretation and evaluation. From a simple drive by inspection, one can see that this lot has, and will have, ample landscaping features. We believe that we comply with the general criteria described in Section A-2.13. If there are any specific requirements that are not being satisfied in this area, please provide us with the details for conformance. Finally, before submitting the landscaping plan for site review, a reduced copy was submitted to Jim Clark in Water Conservation for input. Mr. Clark provided verbal approval by telephone on approximately November 1, 1995. Please contact him for confirmation of this landscaping review approval. (6.,7.). Architecture compatibility and West Side Neighborhood Plan. A-2.7 states under Land Use Transition: "The city encourages a gradual transition between land uses, but recognizes that gradual transitions are not always possible and not always in the best interest of the community. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other, every effort should be made to create architectural compatibility through careful consideration of scale, form, materials and colors." Under Architectural Character of A-2.7 it states "In areas where the existing architectural character of the neighborhood is less defined, the architecture of the new development should present an attractive image and set a standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area." As you can also see on the landscape / site plan there is a 6' high wood fence for headlight screening which meets the requirements of paragraph 3 (Screening) in the same section under the parking lot landscaping guidelines. The east side of the parking lot abuts the alley which is required to be paved. We find no specific code requirements that dictate landscaping at parking lot & alley abutments. The current design complies with all landscaping and parking lot municipal code guidelines and regulations. The south side of the parking lot setback is a combination of grass and existing volunteer trees. These volunteer trees are established and create a "natural buffer" to the large apartment property next door. Our plan is to leave these trees in place and trim them to keep them attractive and healthy. (l.d.) Existing trees at the east end of the parking bays. It is not possible to save the tree at the east end of the parking lot. These are wild volunteers and suckers growing out from one root (currently in decay) which would block access to the parking lot. There presence also inhibits meeting drainage standards required by the city's storm water drainage department. (Le) The handicapped parking space fully meets all of the requirements relating to size, placement and access as set for the in the city's parking lot development guidelines. In fact, the back up space as designed exceeds the specifications calling for a 20' one sided loading width. The loading width as designed exceeds 24' feet providing more than adequate back up space. (5) Sparseness of landscaping. This issue has already been addressed above. The fact is, is that there is an abundance of landscaping consisting of both new and existing features: The building was carefully designed and sized in part to retain the three large evergreen trees located in the center of the lot. Each of these trees have canopies that exceed 15' in diameter. These trees are over 40' tall and provide shading for the entire lot. The trees that are to be removed are decaying, diseased and dying. They are creating encroachment problems to the adjacent south side property owner as well as threatening building damage due to their size. MIDWESTERN HOMES OF COLORADO, INC. PO Box 621815 Littleton, CO 80126 (303) 972 - 7200 December 20, 1995 Mr. Stephen Olt City Of Fort Collins City Planning - PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Stephen, The following are responses for addressing staffs comments concerning the NCB Site Plan review for the 620 South Sherwood fourplex (Cross referenced per your December 6, 1995 letter): (La). Demolition of existing building. As you are currently aware, the LPC and Karen McWilliams are already in the loop reviewing the Historic Resources of Merit Inventory Record and Historical Evaluation Report specifically prepared on 620 South Sherwood Street. The historical submittals are per the specifications and municipal code requirements outlined in Ms. McWilliams' letter to me dated November 13, 1995. (Lb.). Certificate Of Occupancy statement on Site Plan. J.R. Engineering has added the statement per your requirement on an updated site plan along with the proposed landscaping revisions. (1.c.). Parking lot landscaping requirements for the north, south, and east sides. Requirements for these areas are in fact currently being met as represented on the site / landscape submitted to the city. Section 3.b paragraphs 1- 3 of the City of Fort Collins Parking Lot Development Guide set forth landscaping guidelines for parking lot setback areas. The north side (5' wide x 76' long) and the northeast corner of the parking lot (5'xl7') contains washed rock totaling 485 square feet. The total landscape area of the site, net of the building and parking lot, is 3,495 square feet. Section 3.b., paragraph 29 states "Non living ground cover should not exceed 20% of areas to be landscaped". Non living plant cover in the landscape area is 485/3,495= 14%.