Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY PARK NORTH - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2011-05-09CITY PARK NORTH ( Replat of Frey Street Cottages) Request and explanation of modification of standards in the NCL Zone Request A Reduce sidevard setbacks for garages on lots 1.22nd 3 from the minimum 5 feet required to zero Standard reference: 3.5.2(D)(3) Reason for modification: As proposed, on Lot #2/Lot #3 two garages would be built adjoining to each other. This would allow for more usable yard space for both lots. It would also mitigate the tall effect on Lot 2 of the apartment/garage building on Lot #3. A zero lot line in Lot #1 would allow for more usable yard space on the relatively narrow lot with an angled rear lot line creating a peculiar lot shape ( 48.54' with a taper at the rear). The proposal is nominal and inconsequential and equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered, per 2.8.2 (H)(1) The modification would not impair the intent or the purpose of the land code. per 2.8.2 (1-1)(4) The modification would not be detrimental to the public good. —The garages are not easily noticable since they are not close to the public street Request B (1) —Allow the square footage of the accessory building(garage/apartment) unit on the rear of Lot #3 to be increased from the standard 1000 sq ft to 1141 sq ft Standard reference: 4.7(D)(2) (2)—Allow the square footage of the accessory building_(garage/apartment) unit on the rear of Lot #3 to be increased from the standard 600 sq ft to 624 sq feet Standard reference: 4.7(D)(2) f31—Allow the square footage footprint of the accessory building (garage/apartment) unit on the rear of Lot #3 to be increased from the standard 600 sq ft to 881 sq feet Standard reference: 4.7(D)(2) and 4.7(D)(3) The room sizes of the one bedroom apartment are all of modest size. The overage of 141 square feet would be nominal and inconsequential, not visible from anywhere except the rear of lot 2 with the adjoining garage. The incresed square footage comes from a design which stacks the living space, avoiding a more vertical substantial towereing structure. Thq proposal is equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered. per 2.8.2 (1-1)(1) The modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The modification would not impair the intent or the purpose of the land code. per 2.8.2 (1-1)(4) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be .19, less than the maximum FAR of .25 on the rear half of the lot, per 2.8.2 (1-1)(5) therefore the increased square footage request would be nominal and inconsequential. The proposed home on the front of this lot is 1,748 sq ft (above grade) so total proposed square footage for the 12,000 square foot lot is 2,889 sq ft jig A �g ` Iti_J dip 5'-6" I Upper Hoor AI SCALe: t/s•=r t' Garage:528 s9 ft Footprint: 88159 ft Apartment Lower Floor: 364s9 ft Apartment Upper Floor: 260,59 ft Total finished area: 62459 ft Total Apt&garage: 115259 ft 7)61-0° I Lower Hoor AI -S Aye: t/a°=r Apartment /Garage on Lot 3 City Park Noah 6 MI STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins G .Gad,q U f / sa/to Dennis Sovick - dsovick@frii.com Date: 11/2/2010 Sovick Design/Builders, Inc. 750 Havel Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff has reviewed your submittal for CITY PARK NORTH, PDP - TYPE 1 (ref. #17-06 Frey St. Cottages), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number: 38 Created: 11/2/2010 [11/2/10] Communications between Peter Barnes and Steve Olt regarding modifications with PDP vs. ZBA variance requests. Peter's opinion is that waiting to do ZBA variance requests with Building Permits is riskier than requesting modifications of standards with the PDP to a Hearing Officer. If we know about them now, they should do a modification with the PDP. The ZBA can't hear a variance request for a pending development, those need to be a modification. Once a development plan is approved, then it goes to ZBA for variances for things that come up later and that were "unknown" at the time of the PDP. But if we know about the intent now, we really need to include the modifications with the PDP. Peter, We should then address the garage structures (only) setbacks with the Subdivision Plat, PDP and have the Hearing Officer consider that as part of the decision. There are 2 other things that require attention: 1) Section 4.7(D)(2) Residential ... the applicant is requesting that the total building square footage be 1,141 square feet (517 s.f. garage and 624 s.f. dwelling unit), with a 881 s.f. footprint, in the rear building on Lot 3; and, 2) Section 4.7(F)(2)(b) Eave Height ... eave height at the side line of Lot 3 would exceed the standard. These would require modifications of standards as part of the PDP, correct, or could variances be done with the building permit? Steve Gary told me about the meeting this morning re: the replat of Frey St. Cottages, and the zero lot line buildings. In my opinion, this wouldn't be a ZBA variance, rather it would need to be a Type 1 PDP. I'm not even sure that a setback modification would be needed, per Sec. 3.5.2(D)(3). Page 1 The code defines "Zero Lot Line Development Plan" and Zero lot line structure" as: Zero lot line development plan shall mean a development plan where one (1) or more dwellings (limited to single-family detached or single-family attached dwellings) are placed on lots in such a manner that at least one (1) of the dwelling's sides rests directly on a lot line, as measured from the outer edge of the dwelling's foundation at the ground line, so as to enhance the usable open space on the lot. Zero lot line structure shall mean a structure with at least one (1) wall conterminous with the lot line, which wall may include footings, eaves and gutters that may encroach onto the abutting lot under the authority of an encroachment and maintenance easement. If we' know in advance that someone is proposing a development plan with zero lot line structures, then in my opinion they should do a PDP for that type of plan per 3.5.2((D)(3), and as long as they have a 6' setback on the other side, then a modification wouldn't even be required. 3.5.2(D)(3) states (emphasis added): (3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. The minimum side yard setback for all residential buildings and for all detached accessory buildings that are incidental to the residential building shall be five (5) feet from the property line, except for alley -accessed garages, for which the minimum setback shall be eight (8) feet. If a zero -lot -line development plan is proposed, a single six-foot minimum side yard is required. Rear yard setbacks in residential areas shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet from the rear property line, except for garages and storage sheds not exceeding eight (8) feet in height, where the minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet. Number: 40 Created: 11/2/2010 [11/2/10] The modification of standards requests must be revised to cite the standards for which modifications are being requested. Also, enough information about the building placements, eave heights, and total size of the structure on the rear of Lot 3 to evaluate the modification requests must be provided, preferably on the Site Exhibit. 0�1 . Number: 41 Created: 11/2/2010 [11/2/10] Please see red -lined Site & Landscape Exhibit Plans and Subdivision Plat for additional Current Planning comments. Connw-enfs -g6Vteuj" a^d Corre��'ed Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 20 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] After reviewing the previously approved Landscape Plan and Natural Resource Department comments it is clear that there was a purpose for the landscaping in Tract A along the east side of the property. The Larimer County No. 2 Canal serves as a wildlife movement corridor, which requires a 50' buffer from development. The buffer in this case is only 20' wide and the previous Environmental Planner had required plantings to mitigate for the decreased buffer. That environmental standard is still in the Land Use Code and must be met. 'pLGT-ctez Fu.+ b crc dv. La SGa.pe [J" F r Re- 12t� Number: 21 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] There were comments about protection of existing trees on the previously approved Landscape Plan. The current Landscape Plan does not show the existing trees on -site and does not indicate what is to be removed or protected, nor does it identify the necessary tree mitigation for the trees to be removed. Ct,ee pL.,: �6, re-clie W Page 2 Number: 31 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/101 Existing and proposed landscaping needs to be shown on the Landscape Plan. The plan needs to identify what trees are to be retained and protected and what trees are to be removed. Also, the City Forester must evaluate the species and condition of trees on the property to determine if any mitigation is required. Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] It is difficult to determine where the proposed retaining wall along Lot 4 stops at the north end. n lacl,e, n.,- q 01*5c. Topic: Site Plan Number: 28 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] The Site Plan does not show a proposed retaining wall along Lot 4 that is shown on the Landscape Plan. 14,cj 5S own Number: 29 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] The 10' Pedestrian Access Easement on the Site Plan does not match that same easement on the Subdivision Plat. � e. d f, Slfc scdeC�L1<- P' t C.„ l ex,t Number: 30 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] The Wildlife Buffer Easement and Pedestrian Access Easement as shown on Lots 1, 2 and 4non the Subdivision Plat need to be shown on the Site Plan. d� cf'r�a, r C� aft W►e+ t 2�'S Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] Is the 4' wide sidewalk in Tract A, as shown on the Site Plan, existing or proposed? Please note. excsi""`7 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 6 Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/101 The construction drawings need to indicate and differentiate between what public improvements exist vs. what public improvements are proposed. All the sidewalk appears to be in place along the property, so the sidewalk should perhaps be indicated as "existing to remain" (unless it's intended to be removed with the project). Notations on various "existing" infrastructure along Laporte do not seem to be applicable anymore as well. The storm line A profile seems to coincide with an existing storm line, having this shown as a proposed improvement in the drawings wouldn't appear to be correct. E),one Number: 7 Created: 10/25/2010 (10/25/10] The construction plans show two access ramps at the southeast corner of Frey and Laporte, is this intended to be proposed instead of the existing condition of the single access ramp that bisects the two? C Number: 8 Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/101 The legal description on the construction plan set cover sheet should reflect the original Frey Street Cottages plat. -c:fy �t Leis .e, 8' 72 o_w. 4p .-b was CS2�t'cr�`e 9 Page 3 Number: 9 Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/10] The construction drawings reflect the construction of driveways that intersect with existing vertical curb and gutter. The construction of two drive approaches would appear to be needed with the project and indicated on the plans with appropriate construction details at time of final plan review. ( For � i J 011 646 Topic: Plat Number: 5 Created: 10/25/2010 (10/25/10] Section 3.3.2(B) of the Land Use Code requires that development agreements and any amendments thereto are recorded at the County. There will need to be one of two approaches in order to address this requirement. Option 1) The applicant shall directly record the original development agreement for Frey Street Cottages (dated May 29th 2007) at the County and provide evidence of this recordation to the City. Please then add the following note to the replat in order to ensure that the replat is bound to this previous development agreement: "The Frey Street Cottages Development Agreement, dated May 29th, 2007, between the City and John J. Shaw shall apply to the property shown on this replat." Option 2) A new development agreement shall be created for City Park North, with the applicant providing recording fees to the City. Number: 10 Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/10] The creation of a 6' landscape "buffer" within the expanded Tract A is a little unusual nomenclature to be placed on a plat. Is this intended to be a "landscape buffer easement"? ► e,_sa,,Z.,,4 , J -4--6 PGA` of "t4 is no 0 t-C-Lct Number:19 Lu", Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/10] By virtue of the sidewalk along Laporte now abutting Tract A instead of Lot 1, it appears that maintenance of the sidewalk along Laporte (such as snow shoveling) would become a maintenance responsibility of the HOA instead of Lot 1. Is this intended, as it seems awkward to leave one stretch of sidewalk to an HOA. Wibd be- bte/a Ie.��ns��!ll' Jces't LeCc¢ "fie f a., Pam,,5t SeJ, Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 37 Created: 10/29/2010 [10/29/10] 1. Littleleaf Linden should be listed in the plant list as....... Greenspire Linden - Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' t)GX.W, 2. Change Marshall Green Ash to a tree listed on the street tree list. The following would be a good choice to replace Marshall Green Ash: Bur Oak - Quercus macrocarpa 'L5---19 (JJar 0 w k 3. Only three canopy street trees can be planted in the LaPorte Avenue Parkway. This is because the first tree from the corner needs to be 40 feet from the street light that is located at the corner. The next two trees to the east of the first tree from the corner will need to be spaced about 30 feet apart. Planting an ornamental tree closer to the light could cause a site distance problem. Mdd e c( T�r-Q C �'4 Crec 12'� ve s� Gt k ,f t Page 4 1 4. All trees proposed on the project are mitigation trees. Therefore a mitigation tree would need to be added to the native grass area on the east side of the project. -,%r4c 5. There are three significant trees remaining on the site. These three trees need to be identified on the plan. If they will be impacted by construction that could require removal then an on -site meeting with the City Forester is required to determine the impact and mitigation -5�6us, ©, pL"" 5. Note # 8 should be changed to read as follows: All street trees shall be inspected and approved by the City Forester prior to the issuance of a certificated of occupancy. Ch4e 6. The first street tree on the Frey Street parkway south of Laporte Avenue needs to be at least 20 feet from the stop sign. ok Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 3 Created: 10/15/2010 [10/15/10] There is an existing street light on LaPorte Ave. at Frey St. The location of this light needs to be shown on the landscape plan. Street tree locations need to be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. between the light standard and the trees (15 ft. of the tree is an ornamental).�`,� Topic: Light & Power Number: 2 Created: 10/14/2010 (10/14/10] Until more specifics are known, it is not possible to know how these lots will be served with electric power, and in turn what the Light & Power costs to the developer will be. Specifically, will need to have a site plan showing building envelopes, and to know what level of service is required for each unit (electric heat or not). o (� Topic: Plat Number: 1 Created: 10/14/2010 (10/14/10] The preliminary replat indicates it is.a "Replat of Frey Street Cottages". I believe it more accurately should be subtitled "A replat of a PORTION of Frey Street Cottages". Ali tu� is c It e4 �,,,,� S•E' Ca cs�cS Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: Fire Number: 24 Created: 10/26/2010 Just to document, please carry forward all PFA comments/applicant responses from conceptual. -0,3A Q_ Number: 26 Created: 10/26/2010 HYDRANTS Please show existing hydrants on Utilities plan. There is one hydrant on the west side of Frey, south of LaPorte Avenue. However, there is also a hydrant south on Frey. Hydrant locations will determine whether or not an additional hydrant is needed. Also, we need to determine possible flow/residual pressure for existing hydrants. b, e, o...Ak FrVAf CS 5t -�e,r Cvn Gce�-�c1 , <*�-J rCU te,.,je,d q_,el C-13+_1 Pa Number: 27 Created: 10/26/2010 REQUIRED ACCESS Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's 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 feet 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 at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: ❑ Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. ❑ Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. ❑ Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. ❑ Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structure is three or more stories in height). PLEASE NOTE: The residential structure on Lot 4 will be out of access. Per the above requirement, you can either dedicate and maintain an Emergency Access Easement or install an approved fire sprinkler system. If you go with the EAE, we need to resolve placement of approved signs, to ensure the fire lane is maintained unobstructed at all times. If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D 'f�,e. Co+u rra -I �c d rt t !, Le`C 3 �+ i LO 6Q ck-ff v7^'�Ae' d Fes, e ��,.,�i 7 Ac�'fxs Number:36 Created:10/28/2010 S ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). If the numerals are mounted on a side of the building other than the side off of which it is addressed, the street name is required to be posted along with the numerals. off, PLEASE NOTE: City GIS (Tim Varrone) will need to give a separate numerical address to the carriage house on Lot 3 and also there must be approved signage (monument -type sign) at the front of the lot, to ensure the carriage house can be found from Frey Street. 006 International Fire Code 505.1 b [C Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Traffic Number: 39 Created: 11 /2/2010 (11/2/10] Traffic feels the Little Leaf Linden trees as shown on the landscape plan will be a sight distance issue for residents backing out of the driveways to see traffic on Frey St. and for Frey Street motorists seeing the backing vehicles. The LTL can have a very low canopy as it matures causing sight distance issues with vehicles and with traffic signage. Please revise to.a street tree that lower canopy meets sight distance criteria as stated in the LCUASS. r,M G,., cj' l n.o+ h1-. qh G5s o".2. ('JA 'l -i`c pc' d f- �3�c`e�e,-�sfr�.f- Page 6 Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Plat Number: 13 Created: 10/26/2010 (10/26/101 The Plat boundary & legal description do not match. Number: 14 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] The legal description references a "corner" that is not identified on the Plat. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Number: 15 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] The legal description on the Site Plan is incorrect. Please include the "corrected" Subdivision Plat legal description on the Site Plan. C4 fry-E�l Topic: Utility Plans . Number: 16 Created: 10/26/2010 (10/26/10] Please change the subtitle on the Utility Plans to read, "A Replat of Frey Street Cottages". Ck,,,,7e Number: 17 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] The Utility Plan set only has sheets 1 & 4 of 8. Please include all 8 sheets, or correct index & sheet numbering. j,14ru, r4rrynr- ; =-.A 54es Number: 18 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] Please correct the benchmark on the Utility Plans sheet 1. See Redlines. Contact City of Fort Collins Surveying @ 221-6605 or Technical Services @ 221-6588, for an updated copy of the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control Network, Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: stormwater Number: 34 Created: 10/27/2010 (10/27/10] Please provide a note on the grading plan that a detailed lot grading plan will be required at time of building permit for each structure. no �3 <--� Number: 35 Created: 10/27/2010 [10/27/10] A reminder per the existing development agreement, 2 building permits is the limit that can be issued before a drainage site certification is required. I'd +ed Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 11 Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/10] The water service locations shown on the utility plans do not agree with those shown on a revised plan for Frey Street Cottage approved by the City in May 2007 signed by Kevin Forbes on 11/21/07. Are the service locations shown on the current plan based upon field locates and surveys or taken from the original design drawings? `Aey ha,c_ 1 -1 c Lac, r , d Q-A 14,oc^ ' s, r. Number: 12 ' Created: 10/25/2010 [10/25/10] The current utility plans include an irrigation tap which was not shown on the revised plan noted in the previous comment. Please explain. Tract A appears to be scheduled for native grasses and water tolerant seed mixes; therefore, there does not seem to be a need for an irrigation tap. SG 16, H Az�p6r. se Page 7 Number: 22 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] The two water services shown on the southern part of Lot 3 appear to be in a drive. This will cause the City and the property owner to face much higher costs for future repairs. It appears that the drive for Lot 2 would have to be removed and replaced to repair the water service to Lot 3. Adjust the driveway for Lot 2 to avoid the water services or move the water service for Lot 3 onto Lot 3. Ge_r Number: -K , Pro6( , `�, Cam, r Z Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] Easements may need to be adjusted depending upon the resolution of the service line location issues. A. ^.e� .ec3_e 'n-r� Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2010 [10/26/10] Please return the red -lined plans with the next submittal. Ok Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez Topic: Zoning Number: 4 Created: 10/22/2010 [10/22/10] No comment. It appears that another round of review is necessary to ensure that all of these comments can be properly addressed before going to public hearing. Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, ke Olt City Planner cc: Marc Virata Stewart & Associates Current Planning file #26-10 Page 8 This would result in a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of .24 and this is significantly less than the the .40 FAR maximum allowed by code in the NCL zone. Request C Standard reference: 4.7(F)(2)(b) Allow the eave height of the accessory building (garage/apartment) to be 22' at the highest point Standard reference: 4.7(F)(2)(b) Reason for modification: In context the building would be saddled next to a one car garage on Lot#2 and wouldn't have the effect of soaring over a neighboring lot, therefore, it blends in, has minimal impact and lowers the overall profile. The ill-effects of the eave height is eliminated with a building being directly adjacent to it. The width of the wall exceeding the standard eave height is 12'8" wide and therefore nominal and inconsequential, not visible from anywhere except the rear of lot 2 with the adjoining garage. Overall modification requests The proposal is equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered. per 2.8.2 (H)(1) The modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The modification would not impair the intent or the purpose of the land code. per 2.8.2 (H)(4) The proposal is nominal and inconsequential and equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered, per 2.8.2 (H)(1) All of the modifications requested are not near the public streets of Frey and Laporte Ave and therefore do not have a visual impact or relationship other the back of the lots of the development. With these modifications, the intent and the spirit of the standards are respected. Page 1 of 1 Sheri Langenberger From: Stanford, Ward Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:22 AM To: Langenberger, Sheri; Virata, Marc; Joy, Susan; Shepard, Ted; Wempe, Matthew; Olt, Steve; Carney, Andrew Cc: Olson, Joe Subject: Frey St Cottages I met with Dennis Silvik (?) today regarding the resubmittal of the Frey St Cottages development and waived the motor vehicle portion of the TIS requirement. His plan provides for 4 lots of SF residences, one with a garage loft. All access would be from Frey St. I let him know to contact TP regarding the ped and bike needs. Ward Stanford City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Traffic Systems Engineer wstanford@fcgov.com off. 970-221-6630 fax: 970-221-6282 10/12/2010 Project Development Plan for: Frey Street Cottages-Replat New name: CITY PARK NORTH Response letter for Conceptual Review August 23`d, 2010 Applicant: Dennis Sovick 750 Havel Ave Fort Collins, CO dsov ick(4 frii.com This is a request to replat Frey Street Cottages PDP and change from 5 lots to 4 lots along with a change to 0' line setbacks and to include one accessory building with habital space on lot 3. The use is permitted in the NCL. Zone District. ZONING Comment: 1.The building envelopes were platted on the original plat. Will that also be the case with the replat? A modification will be required to reduce the setbacks as proposed. 2. The detached accessory buildings, with or without habitable space, are limited to a maximum floor area of 600 s f. Maximum height of accessory building with habitable space is l 1/2 stories. All other development standards in Sec. 4.7(F)must be met or modifications approved. Response: Modification of Standards attached: a. requesting zero lot lines for garages, b. removal of eave height restriction on Lot 3 c. allowing the rear apartment /garage to be 1152 sq ft total including a 624 sq ft apartment WATER -WASTEWATER ENGINEERING Comment: 1. Frey Street Cottages was originally platted with five lots, and water and sewer services are stubbed in for these five lots. An updated utility plan will be required which shows the locations of these services with respect to the proposed lot lines. This information will be used to determine which services can be used and which services must be moved and/or abandoned. 2. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Response: As shown on the utility plan the installed water and sewer stubs will work with the new plat. STORMWATER ENGINEERING Comment: The proposed modification to the plan appears to be workable. The drainage easement along the southern boundary will need to be modified. It has to be wide enough to repair/replace the storm sewer. One suggestion is to have the easement be wider across Lot 3 and narrower on Lot 4. The standard width is 20 feet, but it can be smaller if the storm sewer is shallow. The minimum width is determined by the pipe diameter plus one foot on each side of the pipe and a 1:1 slope to the surface from the top of the pipe on each side. A new grading plan is required. 2. Certification of the site drainage improvements has not been submitted but is required in accordance to the approved Development Agreement. 3. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan as well the City4s Design Criteria and Construction standards. 4. Stormwater development fees are $6,313/acre ($0.1449/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq. ft. In addition, there is a $1,045/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/builders-fees.php or by contacting Jean Pakech at 221- 6375. Response: All underground drainage and sewer utilities have all been installed to past plan.The utility easement was reduced on Lot 4. Grading plans for each individual lot will be submitted with each building permit. PARK PLANNING 1. No comments FIRE AUTHORITY Comment: 1. WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: - Commercial and multi -family dwellings 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter • Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter • Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B 2. AUTOMATIC FIRE -SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS Proposed structures may be required to be equipped with approved automatic fire -sprinkler systems, depending on occupancy type, construction type, building size, emergency -vehicle access, water supply issues and other factors. 2006 International Fire Code New Table 903.1 and Section 702 3. ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 4. REQUIRED ACCESS Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's 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 feet 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 at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: 4 Be designed as a flat, hard, all- weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. 4 Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. 4 Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. ZMaintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structure is three or more stories in height). If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D Response: Development will comply with all of PFA's requirements. There are no toxic, corrosive, or reactive materials on the site. ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Comment: 1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. 2. Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php 3. Any damaged or incomplete curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets. sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, 2 shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 4.Please contact Joe Olson and Transportation Planning to verify that whether a TIS/TIS update is required. Response: Ward Standford, Traffic System Engineer said a TIS/TIS update will not be required (conversation w/Sovick Oct 6`h 2010 ) 5. Verification with PFA is recommended on whether sufficient access is provided to Lot 4. 6. Access easements will need to be dedicated for the joint/shared driveways. Response: Access easement is dedicated for Lot 4 on Lot 3 7. Verify with Zoning whether Lot 4 meets the definition of a "lot" under the Land Use Code. Response: Lot #4 does comply with lot definition 8. The following comments may be applicable if water/sewer service lines previously extended to the site need to be revised/abandoned/relocated: - All public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). - Construction plans may be needed for this project. - A Development Agreement or amendment to the previous Development Agreement for Frey Street Cottages may be required with this project. - A Development Construction Permit (DCP) may need to be obtained prior to starting any work on site. 8. The construction of a wall along Laporte Avenue will need to be reviewed for sight distance and setback concerns. A wall along Laporte would need to be placed at a minimum of 2' from the back of sidewalk. Response: All water/sewer service lines have all been installed (stubbed) to site in accordance with city requirements A landscape wall may be installed along Laporte and we'll make sure it complies as stated. ELECTRIC ENGINEERING Comment: I .Power is available from existing electric facilities on the site. 2. Costs to modify the electric system to meet the needs of the new configuration will be the responsibility of the owner. 3A 4' wide utility easement will be required along the north edge of lot #3 to install a service line to lot #4. Response: A 5' wide utility easement has been placed along the north side of Lot #3 and another along the north side of Lot#2 for access to Lot#4 if a zero setback negates the use of the Lot #3 easement CURRENT PLANNING Comment: 1. The proposed development project is subject to a Type 1 review and public hearing, the decision maker for Type 1 hearings is an Administrative Hearing Officer. The applicant for this development request is not required to hold a neighborhood meeting for a Type 1 hearing, but if you would like to have one to notify your neighbors of the proposal, please let me know and I will can help you in setting a date, time and location for a meeting. Neighborhood Meetings are a great way to get public feedback and avoid potential hick -up that may occur later in the review process. 2. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide includes links to just about every resource you need during development review. 3. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm. 3 4. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard. 5. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at: http://www.fcgov.com/currentplanning/submittals.php. 6.The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal. Response: The intention is to hold an informal public meeting (party) at the site with the neighbors, as the developer has cultivated a good relationship with the neighborhood having designed and built 8 projects in the neighborhood over the past 15 years. Overall, very little is being changed from the original Frey Street Cottages. The primary changes are the elimination of an alley, a reduction of lots while keeping the same amount of dwelling units, and an extension of the Tract A to include additional landscape buffer along Laporte Ave. C! %_ , 00001* •.000-� I .� 9� I �•/ I Z ' Iod,60 Coll* _ � I / �w >~ I e /• .01�•to Y ti i .i•% = Oto I r------ /-------------------� --- IN3H3SV3 NM8.LS333d Ai � � �y��` � _ � C ,.�.�.� arm � S� _ eT -- -- -- -- -� •� V38V 9NDWVd NO '/ t m ' 4 __J N CD _ ..t 1 -- 1 y - « .. _ 1 ' I N I N 1 I I r ««« «_ N I i I }—o O ® Nw 0 M a N N o I O �J (L> O Ln p U) I I I LJ O S I ---- — x - ------------- -------------- . Q -Z/ l 9-,Gv j „0-,617 1 „Z/ C Z-26 13 32115 AM A ob � N ti i i n�.�No h Elevation SCALE NTS 2 Northwest Pers ective __ SCALE NTS CITY PARK NORTH Lot 2 & 3 Garages Lot 2 Lot 3 Sovick Design/Builders November 18, 2010 11/23/10 CITY PARK NORTH ( Replat of Frey Street Cottages) Request and explanation of modification of standards in the NCL Zone This development is proposed to be approved as a zero lot line development. It may be helpful to consider the uniqueness of this Infill Old Town development with its odd lot shapes, irrigation ditch border, Tract A common space and tight utility requirements. Request A A) Allow the square footage of the accessory building (zarage/aparhnent) unit on the rear of Lot #3 to be increased fro- -d 1000 sq ft toll 2 sq ft Standard reference: 4.7(D)(2) 12>~Allow the square footage footprint of the accessory building(garage /apartmen) unit on the rear of Lot #3 to be increased from the standard 600 sq ft to 894 scI feet Standard reference: 4.7(D)(2) and 4.7(D)(3) Explanation The 528 square foot two car garage is to be used by the house on the front of the lot. The room sizes of the one bedroom apartment are all of modest size. The increased square footage of the 624 square foot apartment comes from a design which stacks the living space, avoiding a more vertical substantial towering structure. Under the current regulations, two buildings could be built: one 600 square foot garage and one 800 square foot apartment. These two buildings would total 1400 square feet, therefore by joining the buildings together, the lesser total of 1152 sq ft would be equal to or better than the standard. per 2.8.2 (14)(1) Under the current regulations each of the two accessory buildings that would be allowed to be built could have a footprint of 600 sq ft each or 1200 square feet total, so the requested single building of 894 square feet would be equal to or better than the standard per 4.7(D)(2) This development was previously approved for five total single family home dwelling units, each with with garages. Overall this request would create one less garage and a substantially smaller fifth dwelling unit than what was already approved, therefore this request would be equal to or better. per 2.8.2 (H)(1) The increased overage of 152 square feet would be nominal and inconsequential, not clearly visible from anywhere except the rear of lot 2 with the adjoining garage. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be .19, less than the maximum FAR of .25 on the rear half of the lot, per 2.8.2 (H)(5) therefore the increased square footage request would be nominal and inconsequential. The proposed home on the front of this lot is under 2000 sq ft (above grade) so total proposed square footage for the 12,000 square foot Iot is 3,152 sq ft. This would result in a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of under .262 and this is significantly less than the the .40 FAR maximum allowed by code in the NCL zone therefore this would be equal to or better than the standard. On the rear half of the lot the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be .19, less than the maximum FAR of .25 (on the rear half of the lot ), per 2.8.2 (H)(5) therefore the increased square footage request would be equal to or better than the standard. The modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The modification would not impair the intent or the purpose of the land code. per 2.8.2 (H)(4) Request B (II) —Allow the eave height of the accessory boil inglg rage/ap ment) on Lot 3 to be 22'-6" at the highest point exceeding the standard by 916" per 4.7(F)(b)(1) f2) —Allow the eave height of the garage on Lot 2 to be 11' 6" at the hi hest point exceeding the standard by I_'6!per 4.7(F)(b)(1) (3) —Allow the maximum building height of the accessory buildimngrnntaining habitable space to be two stories per 4.7(E)(5) Explanation: In context, the both buildings would be saddled next to each other and wouldn't have the effect of soaring over a neighboring lot, therefore, it blends in, has minimal impact and lowers the overall profile. The ill-effects of the eave height is eliminated with a building being directly adjacent to it. The width of the wall on Lot 3 exceeding the standard eave height is 12'8" wide and is not clearly visible from anywhere except the rear of lots 2 and 3. The majority of the garage wall of Lot 2 is below a 10' height, only the peak of 3' wide exceeds the standard so the request would be nominal and inconsequential. By joining the buildings together the impact is reduced on the adjacent Lot 2, minimizing shadows cast on the realtively narrow lot. The second story of the accessory building is not of substantial size being only an upper modest sized bedroom and a bath. This building displaces a previously approved fifth building in which a 2 story house would have been approved, therefore this request is equal to or better than what was previously approved. Request C Allow the eave height of Lot 4 to to be 25' at the peak exceeding the standard b 3' for a wall 7' from a side lot line per 4.7(E)(4) Explanation: Given the uniqueness of this odd shaped lot it helps to set the home up to the sideyard setback to maximize the yard and driveway of the lot. The requested additional height is only for a maximum of 6' width of the wall. This side lot line is 50' away from the next residential lot line since Lot 4 has the unusual feature of having Tract A and an irrigation ditch is directly adjacent to it therefore the request is both equal to or better and nominal and inconsequential. Overall modification requests The proposal is equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered. per 2.8.2 (H)(1) The modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The modification would not impair the intent or the purpose of the land code. per 2.8.2 (H)(4) The proposal is nominal and inconsequential and equal to or better than the standard when all variables are considered, per 2.8.2 (H)(1) All of the modifications requested are not near the public streets of Frey and Laporte Ave and therefore do not have a visual impact or relationship other the back of the lots of the development. With these modifications, the intent and the spirit of the standards are respected. r- 0 rp �O 'w IVA I r vV CITY PARK NORTH Lot 2 & 3 Garages 0 O Sovick Design/Builders November 18, 2010 z c-t- No Text N^ s410 ilf cJ, 1i 1jf g a a 90 v a s €fit Ill? ,a € O co gall 1 all 0 O 2sr -a o a t Ilia), $ as 2� oa I 3sa LLJrJ €s 4� f t , o I� z14 NJ b Pit". A a % � a s a L$� W aye 2 a $ s iEn �1 t� 0 W g a Y aA 0 s 2 E jut j Es O O Z� C)p NL 8 o-LQ 2 h O g y5 co cA s W y V G� 0 8 �so"d'e �{(G s3 ��` aczszaos I 0�°�•On � 9 � P, \ �� a 2 H i to 5�d•P° '�SRp,Ci2 gf end' ,`&�i/��� h 865 .004a 1109 LL 4gY g p O U ry gl 9%`' $ .n•\"'°o yy19' Juw.oa�r*g $ I$I ry .aynq -_________ ____________ ------------ Ail''u t -- s.a� uzcaaxEi tl— o � ! % `� \a� '� �' •� ,�, •�dE?��B' Juow•000 noaon uouJaopd A! � .ZL'S► A4.LZ.SZ.00N a N I - ' p' �y ems• � _ O \ O Q' 'T 'q F' 54'''dO fq' .i�9'?_<zwoas___-ow ----_----------------------- LC OZ'S .SBZJ .08't9 y N - yy1%•\(f'E 8! $ 3.LL9r0= .•IL i o �� 8 -\d \�' 7i '.� R rvowosoa 4BJn Puo n �8{ w[J.rrJZ .►►s�Jwa `,e� ,OZ ry '0D S. 6a out &' q ort „ , Q----------------L- -dB' #-ILSd.00N R j Wee ro i � �,° � 3„LL.SLO05� �,00pr 3..Ll.SL005 I I.00'Or 3,.lZ.SZ.00� i y Lo W Lj-! W9- p � � j �� �-or .�.czsrooJ �or_n�cz.szooN� �•or N..trszo�.g al,.00•or M,.Lz.sraaN i t________________ i ' Jawacoo aDoua , __�---------------- r-___________ 00'Or 3LZ.SZ.00S .{J'CZ .5Rw .00'0► ,00� 6 JO7 P Joun0 Jaa.yNON .98'FOZ M.,LZ.SZ.00N 8 W7 /o,p0'8! qW-N NJ /O —11 I—Wy S g I 3 sl