Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONER - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-07-17Andy Reese From: Ward Stanford [WSTANFORD@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:46 PM To: Andy Reese; Aaron Iverson; Amy Lewin; Andrew S. Gingerich; Courtney Levingston; Jason Holland; Joe Olson; Lindsay Ex; Marc Virata; Seth Lorson; Sheri Langenberger; Ted Shepard; Tyler Siegmund; Ward Stanford Subject: RE: 502 Wayne Street TIS Waiver I'm unable to find record of having routed this email previously, but if I have my apologies for the duplication. I'm waiving the TIS requirement for the above location. The request is to subdivide the existing lot and add another single family home on the new lot. Andy, please contact Transportation Planning to determine if they have any ped/bike review requirements. WardStanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins 970-221-6630 wstanford@fcsov.com From: Andy Reese [mailto:andy(dnorthernengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:59 PM To: Ward Stanford Subject: RE: 502 Wayne Street TIS Waiver I sure do! I have attached our Site/Landscape/Utility/Drainage/Grading plan for your reference. Owner information is at the bottom of the page. Let me know if you need anything else. Andy From: Ward Stanford [maiIto: WSTANFORDOfcaov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:44 PM To: Andy Reese Subject: RE: 502 Wayne Street TIS Waiver Andy, do you have any info on the owner or project (plans). It is familiar to me but I cannot find any notes, phone message, etc about the site. WardStanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins 970-221-6630 wstanford@fcgov.com From: Andy Reese [mailto:andy(&northernengineerina.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:15 PM To: Ward Stanford Subject: 502 Wayne Street TIS Waiver Hey Ward, I am just getting myself up to speed on a project located at 502 Wayne Street, which is a small project that is seeking to divide one existing lot into two. A single family residence is proposed on the new lot. There is a note in the file that you may be providing a waiver for the Transportation Impact Analysis. Are you familiar with the project, and is there a waiver being provided? Thanks! Andy Reese Project Engineer Northern Engineering Direct: 970.568.5403 Office: 970.221.4158 ands@northernengineering.com Andrew S. Gingerich From: Jason Holland Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:12 PM To: Andrew S. Gingerich; Berin Wachsmann (bwachsmann@thegroupinc.com); Nick Haws Subject: RE: Stone Subdivision Hearing Please see the comments from Jim Kramer below. I have started to draft responses below and have some questions that Andrew can answer. I have also asked that staff look into the PDP vs. Final plan requirements to see what is required for the alley prior to hearing. I have to go meet with city council at 4 pm for a site visit appeal, but will be back in the A.M. Thanks Jason jai on hodand, RLA I City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970,224,6126 iholland(c-)fcgov.com From: Jim Kramer [mailto:jimkramer@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:42 AM To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Stone Subdivision Hearing City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer and for the record, 1 have today reviewed all of the information provided to me and posted at City web pages regarding the Stoner Subdivision Hearing now scheduled for May 30, 2013. That content confirms previous discussions on details of specific interest to me, dealing particularly with the proposed Lot 2. I am the owner and resident of the neighboring property across the 20 foot wide alley on the east side of proposed Lot 2. I will be directly effected by results of planning and any actual building or alteration of features along the alley as well as the area on Magnolia Street in general. I believe that the current presentation lacks some clarity of intention and reasons for staff RECOMMENDATION, which may invite misunderstanding and allow an uncertain engineering result. Some observations follow which relate to the PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN and City staff RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION item 2 is a requirement for horizontal and vertical design of the alley right of way along the east frontage of Lot 2. I believe this should detail the full 20 feet of alley width and also indicate significant features of the neighboring property immediately on the east side of the alley. This should include existing and proposed setbacks, driveways, curbs, storm water drainage, datum elevations, floodway location, fences, trees, landscaping and location of utility connections. This design documentation should substantially exist prior to the hearing so as to be available for planning and hearing reference. -Andrew is drafting a response to this. Several references are made regarding the existing detached garage on proposed Lot 2 and the lot setback distances. The garage and driveway were allowed to be built under a City Permit issued in February 2000, on the original Kenwood Heights lots forming the rear of the 502 Wayne Street property and fronting onto the alley as it exists today. As built in year 2000, the concrete garage driveway encroached onto the alley right way over the full 18 foot driveway width to an extent of approximately 33 inches (or 2.75 feet). This encroachment does appear on the SITE LANDSCAPE AND UTILITY PLAN graphic document, along with a note there that the width of concrete is to be removed. This appears to be an intended remedy to an existing problem created in year 2000. However, nowhere has it been noted that the per se setback of the garage door to the alley edge is then 17.25 feet, which may not conform to applicable standards. Regardless of conformance, many vehicles on the road today are near or greater than that length which invites problems with such driveway parked cars extending into the public right of way. Failure to fully disclose this at this time would be a disservice to new owners, current residents and the planning process. Garage doors are required to be at least 8' setback from the alley, and the +J- 17.25 feet drive approach are not parking spaces. If someone does park in this space and encroaches into the alley, this would be a n enforcement issue. For comparsion purposes, compact spaces are required to be at least 16' —Jason Holland Related to the above item, creation of proposed Lot 2 orients the intended newly residential building to be built facing Magnolia Street to the north, forming a corner lot to the alley frontage with public access on the east as well. Are the resulting building setback distances then treated as those for corner lots fronting public streets? Item F (on page 4) in the textual discussion seems confused or ambiguous for proposed new lots 1 and 2. Creation of Lot 2 duplicates the nonconformance acknowledged with the existing residential structure on proposed Lot 1. The statement that "the existing detached garage on Lot 2 is in excess of the minimum 20 foot garage setback" appears to be a misapplication of measures, at odds with the intent of the standards, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). i he required setback from the front of Lot 2 (magnolia is 20' minimum). This is simply an explanation that the garage is setback more than 20' from the front setback. In addition to this, the 8' minimum garage setback along an alley is also required. —Jason Holland Also related to the above, Item G discusses the rear yard setbacks. For proposed Lot 2 the distance from the south property lot boundary to the existing detached garage structure is approximately 8 feet. This conforms within the standard side yard setbacks for the Kenwood Heights lots and is not considered by anyone commenting to be a problem. Yet the discussion in the text of item G becomes twisted (IMHO again) into describing it just as a rear yard setback. In that context the garage stricture then becomes nonconforming due to failing rear yard setback requirements, leading to further development restrictions for any future use or alteration of the garage structure. i3ul!dings c:! e required to be set back at least 15' along the rear property line in this zone district. The existing garage is non conforming, and has a reduced setback, which is permitted provided that alterations are not made to the garage. Any new or altered garage (or any other new structure), submitted in the future by some other party, would need to adhere to the 15' setback unless a variance was requested at the time of building permit. —Jason Holland An existing 27 inch caliper American Elm tree in poor condition is portrayed on the plan directly on top Of the southeast corner of proposed Lot 2. As such, the main trunk of the tree was either planted or allowed to grow where it has become a clear encroachment onto the public alley right of way. Fortunately for planners and engineers the tree is now nearly completely dead and no one discussing this has voiced concern over removing it, as noted on the SITE LANDSCAPE AND UTILITY PLAN graphic. Removing it would remedy an existing danger of falling dead branches or collapse of the entire tree, as well as it existing as a direct impediment within the public right of way. Based on these concerns a note was added to the plan proposing that the tree be removed and that consent from adjacent property owners must be obtained prior to removal. —Jason Holland As with the Elm tree above, other landscape features such as bushes and lawn sprinkler system have been planted, allowed to grow, or constructed within the public travel right of way. Some of these specific concerns have been dealt with by City staff in the RECOMMENDATION. Statements in the plan documents are unfounded which indicate that the creation of two household lots from the now single household lot would not increase usage of the alley for access. Only light access to the detached garage has existed in most years since it was built. This might be as expected for a house on a large corner lot with city street parking on two sides, as well as the additional garage which is directly attached to the existing house. However in recent years the Stoner residence building has had a portion rented to tenants as well as a portion owner occupied. During this time extra tenant usage of the detached garage then revealed drainage and turning radius problems in parking in front of the existing detached garage from the alley access. Additional load will certainly be created by doubling the total household residence lots, lessening the city street parking available to existing lots as well as wholly new lots. Making the concrete driveway length shorter requires engineering detail to assure best usage and handling alley water flow as well as traffic to and beyond the garage fronting to the alley. .Andrew • Additional runoff water from new impervious structures created on the proposed new lot will exacerbate impacts all along the alley frontage to proposed Lot 2. -Andrew Given the observations above and other concerns, my preference would be to postpone decision on whether to allow the proposed development. A decision to allow the proposed development could be made at such time as more complete planning and engineering detail is presented for review by City staff and the Public. As observed above, RECOMMENDATION item 2 is a requirement for horizontal and vertical design of the alley right of way along the east frontage of Lot 2. Such detail should exist prior to the hearing so as to be available for planning and hearing reference. I feel that the Hearing decision may create or impact later precedence for interpreting the land use code concerning such special situation development projects. Sincerely, James E. Kramer (aka Jim Kramer) l 01 1 Magnolia St. (970)631-6830 j »>I:r�ti��er��-i�,hotmai Loom From: JHollandna fcgov.com To: jimkrarner(a0otmail.com CC: SF3urnett"a>fcgov.com Subject: Stone Subdivision Hearing Datc: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:28:48 +0000 I )Car J I!11. I v,yant to let you know that because there was a mistake in the previous hearing notice letter that this Hearing I1as been rescheduled for Tvlay 30th. attached is the notice letter-, and you'11 be receiving a letter in the mail as ell. I appreciate your comments on this project. The site plan conti(W-ation and conditions of approval that sae discussed have not changed. The applicant did remove one of the building elevation prototypes. and is ni�tiA only presenting the. one elevation prototype. I posted the hearing documents online and the link in the PDh letter is active. for your convenience. Since I have the extra time now, I updated the staff report to incorporate dic �:x,ict same conditions that you and I discussed and that were presented as an exhibit at the first hearing. C n1it1 Iia\ c mentioned in nay past e-mails to you that the Hearing Officer does not make a final decision at the hearing, but considers all of the letters, input and testimony, and renders a decision on the project within ten business days follol-ving the hearing. I1' you"d like to present a comment letter to the 1-fearing Officer, please feel free to send me an e-mail letter. Ili nnks again for your comments on this pro_jcct. I apologize for having to take up your time with the rescheduled hearing. Thanks, Jason Jason Holland, RLA I City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 1holland(c-r.fcgov.com Stoner S€ bdivision, Project #130005 Administrative Hearing 5-30-2013 Wage 14 D. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 — General Development Standards, with conditions, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.6.2(J)(2) that is proposed with this P.D.P. is approved. E. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article 4 — Districts, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(F)(7) that is proposed with this P.D.P. is approved. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Stoner Subdivision Project Development Plan #130005, Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(F)(7) and Modification of Standard to Section 3.6.2(J)(2), with the following conditions: 1. A 10 foot minimum site distance triangle shall be provided per the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards within Lot 2 where the alley intersects with the street right of way. All existing shrubs shall be removed from Lot 2 within the site distance triangle. All existing shrubs located on Lot 2 adjacent to the alley right of way shall be removed. 2. A horizontal and vertical design for the 20 foot alley right of way along the east frontage of Lot 2 shall be included as part of the Final Development Plan documents. The design shall provide a 20 foot all-weather roadway surface, crowned at the right of way centerline with a drainage swale on both sides of the roadway surface. 3. The existing 14 inch caliper green ash on Lot 2 shall be removed as part of Final Development Plan documents if determined by the City Forester that the removal is required. If removed, the tree shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Stoner Subdivision Site Plan 2. Stoner Subdivision Plat 3. Stoner Subdivision Building Elevations 4. Stoner Subdivision Modification Request 4.7(F)(7) 5. Stoner Subdivision Modification Request 3.6.2(J)(2) 6. Stoner Subdivision Hearing Notice 7. Original Kenwood Heights Annexation Plat