HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN PARK HOMES - CHANGE OF NON-CONFORMING USE - 37-88 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSt
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1988
Jim Kline
Fort Collins Housing Authority
1715 W. Mountain
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Jim:
Staff has reviewed the plan for Mountain Park Homes and has the following
comments to make:
1. Mountain Bell requests the existing 20' alley r-o-w be designated as a
utility easement.
:2. There is an existing 10' Public Service Company easement on the property
(see attached map). There appear to be conflicts between this gas line
location and the proposed buildings. Revision of existing natural gas
facilities will be charged to the developer.
3. New water and sewer services will be required for the proposed buildings.
The existing water service is only 1".
4. Existing overhead electric on the site will be removed by Light and Power.
Normal Light and Power development charges will be applicable to the
project. Developer should contact L & P Distribution Engineering to assist
in utility coordinating.
V'X. All exterior portions of all buildings must be within 150' of fire equipment
access points. Gates may be required in fences for fire access.
6. Additional building design detail is requested by the Fire Authority to
determine fire flow requirements. The area is presently served by a 4"
water line with limited fire flow capability. Contact Warren Jones at the
Fire Authority regarding this.
SERVICES, PLANNING
1
Mountain Homes 4�k •
Page 2
Y
7. A drainage and grading plan needs to be submitted for review.
Design drawings for proposed construction prepared by a professional
ft� f�YT engineer must be submitted.
9. Utility plans, providing detail on driveways, ramps, sidewalks, curb and
gutter must be submitted. The status of the alley needs to be defined on
utility plans.
10. Parking spaces as shown do not meet city standards. The attached Parking
Lot Development Guide will provide direction on length and width of
spaces.
'I J1.
Access ramps at sidewalks need to be identified.
i 12.
The parking area circulation does not meet city requirements.
As designed,
the curb cuts on Bryan at the southwest corner
of the site
are too close
(
together and the setback from flowline on Bryan
is too short.
One curbcut
r
on Bryan may resolve some of these items and
provide a more efficient
design. A traffic study needs to be submitted for
the project.
13
Are existing trees to be retained? If so, (and I
strongly encourage
this),
measures to protect trees during construction should
be taken.
14. The average landscape parking area setback along Mountain Avenue must
be 10' behind the sidewalk, rather than 5' as shown. Forty-one parking
spaces are required. The interior parking lot landscaping needs to be
increased to 436 square feet. The rear setback (distance to east lot line)
must be 15', rather than 8' as shown. The lot area must be three times as
large as the floor area of all structures. Present information does not
clarify if this requirement is met. If the plan is processed as a
non -conforming use change, any of these requirements that are not met on
the plan will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Peter
Barnes handles ZBA applications and should be contacted if the plan is
processed further as a non -conforming use change.
15. Proposed building materials should be specified on the plan, as should the
type of construction of the proposed buildings. Is any construction work
planned on the existing building?
16. The landscape plan needs to specify minimum sizes of plant materials and
the intent for retention of existing vegetation. Additional landscaping
should be incorporated throughout the site, particularly in the areas where
parking spaces abut Bryan Avenue, along the north side of the site and
around buildings.
17. Proposed materials for both the privacy and split -rail fence, as well as the
dumpster enclosure need to be specified.
18. Specifics should be provided on the proposed lighting fixtures.
( �9. As submitted, this project has been processed as a non -conforming use
✓✓✓ change. The option of proceeding under the PUD process has also been
discussed. As previously indicated, if processed as a non -conforming use
1
Mountain Homes *k •
r
Page 3
change, item #14 of this letter is applicable to the project. With the
exception of item #14 above, all other items contained in this letter
pertain, regardless whether the project is processed as a non -conforming use
change or as a PUD.
2Y. If the project is processed as a PUD, the residential density and the all
development point charts must be addressed. I have enclosed copies of
these charts for your information. As we discussed April 19, 1988 by
telephone, I have qualified the project's residential density at 80% (which
would permit 8 dwelling units per acre), excluding any density bonus
items. In order to permit the proposed density, the density chart must
reach 100%. Additional density could be obtained through usage of the
bonus items. The bonus criteria regarding low-income housing could
provide up to a maximum of 30%, putting the density over the required
100%. I am also looking into the potential for meeting the major employ-
ment center criteria on the density chart, which would provide an addi-
tional 20% from the base criteria.
a
Revisions reflecting these comments are due by noon on May 4, 1988. Items
that cannot be shown graphically on the plans should be addressed in writing.
PMT reductions of all plans, color renderings and ten (10) full size copies of
all plans are due by May 16, 1988.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Since ely,
Sherry Al rtson=Clark
Senior Cit Planner
Attachments