HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH, NORTH FLATS - PDR - - CORRESPONDENCE -Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: zoning
Number:12 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] From Transportation Planning's perspective (and at the conceptual level) this
project appears to have no major issues, save the reliance on on -street parking and the very
real possibility that some of the demand will be pushed off of Blondel Street to the old
Narrow Streets that border it (Osiander Cajetan, and Pascal). We will be watching future
submittals very closely so as to ensure that the final design and parking distribution is
feasible and functional for all residents of the development.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/WW
Number:3 Created:6/16/2006
[6/16/06] The curb stops and water meter pits must be in a landscaped area outside of all
drives and parking areas.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: zoning
Number:9 Created:6/19/2006
[6119/06] The carports and stairways can't encroach over an easement. However, the
"eave overhang" of the carport can encroach up to 2.5' over the easement.
Number:10 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06) A replat is not required, and the change can be processed as a minor amendment
if we receive appropriate documentation from the owner as to where the density transfer is
coming from. The applicant can process this as a replat and major amendment if they
desire. It would probably be cleaner.
Number:11 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] The parking spaces off the alley need to have 24' of backup.
Be sure and return all of your redlined 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) 221-6750.
Sincerely,
A2
nne Asp/
City Planner
Page 6
Major Amendment — A major amendment to the approved plan may submitted for review
requiring an administrative hearing process. Separately from the major amendment review
process a re -plat of the subject parcels may be submitted for development review and will
also require an administrative hearing process prior to approval. A transfer of dwelling unit
density must be approved from another portion of the Overall Development Plan area.
If you would like more detailed information regarding the minor or major amendment review
process, please contact Randy Maizland in Engineering Development Review at (970) 416-
2292.
Department: Stormwater Issue Contact: Glen Schlueter
Topic: Stormwater
Number:31 Created:6/22/2006
[6/22/06] 1. This site is in the Dry Creek drainage basin. The city-wide new development
fee is $3,070.00 /acre which is subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. This fee is to be
paid at the time the building permit is issued.
Number:32 Created:6/22/2006
[6/22/06] Onsite detention and water quality treatment have been addressed with the
overall Old Town North drainage system. However the applicant will need to verify there is
no increase in imperviousness with this change from 4-plexes to 6-plexes. Also the
drainage patterns need to be verified. If there is a change in either of these, further analysis
and modifications to the drainage system may be needed to address the changes.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number:1 Created:6/16/2006
[6/16/06] The additional dwelling units will require modifying the electric system at the
developer's expense. This is anticipated to be in the $20,000 range.
Number:2 Created:6/16/2006
[6/16/06] Each dwelling must be individually metered, with the meters located at the ends of
the buildings between the paired buildings.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number:28 Created:6/20/2006
[6/20/06] WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum
requirements based on type of occupancy. Spacing and flow requirements for SFA are
1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on
600-foot centers thereafter.
Number:29 Created:6/20/2006
[6/20/06] ADDRESSING: Unit addressing shall be reviewed and approved by PFA in
advance. Also, address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property,
posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals/letters on a contrasting background. The
numerals/unit letters also shall be posted on the rear (alley) side of each unit.
Number:30 Created:6/20/2006
[6/20/06] SCOOTER SAFETY: Please consider offering operating lessons and approved
helmets when providing scooters for residents.
Page 5
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number:14 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] Larimer County Road Impact Fees as well as City Street Oversizing Fees will
apply to this project. Please contact Matt Baker at (970) 224-6108 for an accurate
calculation of these fees.
Number:15 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] A Transportation Impact Study, or update to the previously approved study, may
be required for this project. Please contact the City Traffic Engineer, Eric Bracke, at (970)
224-6062 for T.I.S. requirements.
Number:16 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] All applicable transportation development review (TDRF) fees will apply. A copy of
the fee calculation sheet was provided to you at the preliminary design review meeting.
Fees will vary depending on which review process is chosen.
Number:17 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] If the applicant elects not to re -plat the property, all proposed easement vacations
and dedications must be submitted as separate documents for review and approval prior to
recordation. The easement vacation document review fee is $400 per document, easement
dedications are $250 per document. Any proposed right-of-way vacations must be approved
by City Council.
Number:18 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] Any damaged sidewalk, curb & gutter and pavement within any alley ways
adjacent to the project must be repaired or replaced as directed by the Engineering
Inspector prior to any clearance for a Certificate of Occupancy.
Number:19 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] A Development Agreement may be required with this project.
Topic: General Engineering
Number:13 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] During the course of discussion at the Preliminary Design Review meeting, it
appeared to be the consensus of the City staff and the applicant that the preferred option for
development review of this project is a Type I review — Project Development Plan (PDP)
consisting of a re -plat of the property and any associated utility plans for the proposed
project. This option was preferred because it greatly reduced the need for independent
submittals to be taken through separate review processes which would lead to more
complex coordination issues between the different City divisions and a more lengthy overall
review -period. Ultimately, the Type I review as a PDP would result in a less complex and
faster review as well as the most cost effective alternative. However, the applicant does
have the option of the following alternatives:
Minor Amendment — The subject parcels may not be re -plated and all new easements and
vacations will need to be submitted for review as separate documents. A transfer of dwelling
unit density must be approved from another portion of the Overall Development Plan area.
Page 4
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Topic: General
Number:4 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] We will need to have some sort of official agreement with Monica Sweere to
account for the shift in density from somewhere else in Old Town North to this site on file.
Number:5 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] The primary concern with this project is parking and the tight alleyways that exist.
Carport parking will not need to meet the full setback from the alley that garage parking
would, but you will still need to meet the other standards in the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards (LCUASS) and the Land Use Code (LUC). These require 24 feet between
parking stalls for a two way drive aisle. Engineering may allow a variance down to 20 feet.
A modification of standards would be required for the Land Use Code requirements and this
would need the approval of the hearing officer. The zoning department will require that the
posts of the carports be vacated on an exhibit on the plat or by separate document. We'll
need to discuss this further as you refine the design.
Number:7 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] Standard comments:
• The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) is available for your review on the web
at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm
• This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins
Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards, and
Division 4.15 CCN--Community Comemrcial - North College District.
• When developing your plans for submittal, pay particular attention to the following
sections of the Code:
0 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection (you will need street trees and
planting beds, etc. to current standards)
0 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (you will need to provide adequate off-
street parking to meet the requirements (on -street parking is available and
can be used on Blondel only.)
0 3.2.4 Site Lighting
• I will have more detailed comments once I have more detailed plans to review.
• An exhaustive list of submittal requirements for this type of project is available at
http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/project-dev-plan.pdf. There is a submittal
checklist at http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/pdf/pdp.pdf. Not all submittal
requirements will apply to this project. Please let me know if you have any questions
about the requirements for your submittal.
• You will need to set up an appointment to submit your application with Shelby
Sommer or Georgiana Deines in Current Planning at 221-6750. Incomplete
submittals will not be accepted.
• Please note that postage rates have been raised as of January 2006. The fee for the
APO labels will now be $.75 per label.
Number:8 Created:6/19/2006
[6/19/06] As to what process to review this with, there are a dizzying number of options due
to the unique nature of the project. We discussed it at the meeting and can discuss it more
if you wish, but it seems as if it would be cleanest, quickest, and quite possibly most cost-
effective to do this as a Type I PDP with subdivision plat. You would then have just one
process, one hearing officer and one set of fees.
Page 3
the easements however, this will also require a modification to the Land Use Code under
Section 3.8.19(7).
5. Re: placing trash enclosures over utility easement: From Engineering: Typically, trash
enclosures are allowed to be placed over a utility easement but the City does not encourage
this location. A trash enclosure cannot be placed within a drainage easement without
approval of the storm water utility regarding the enclosure design.
6. Re: parking requirements: From Current Planning: At the meeting we discussed the
issue in more detail and discussed the possibility of using on -street parking on Blondel per
code. Between the onstreet parking and the issues on the alley, it may be possible to
redesign to avoid needing a modification, or a modification may still be needed. If needed,
the hearing officer would be the final decision maker. The modification would need to meet
the requirements called out in Section 2.8.2 (H) of the Land Use Code. If a modification is
needed, Anne Aspen can work with you further to craft it at that time. It would be wise to
invite staff (Anne, Cameron Gloss and Peter Barnes) out on site to do a demonstration of
the proposed solution with some large vehicles (large pick-up trucks and SUVs that are
common today) as the design is resolved.
7. Re: accessible unit standards: From the Building Department. First, the building
department requires a "pre -submittal" meeting prior to submitting for a building permit,
during which they will answer not only accessibility questions but construction related
questions. Designers and builders alike are raving about this early -on plan review meeting
which helps in their overall design. Contact Mike Gebo at 221-6760 to schedule this
meeting. Second, whether the project is SF attached (Townhomes) or multi -family (Condo)
the accessibility requirements are the same and will apply to any building with 4 or more
dwellings under roof per the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1103.1.9.3. There is also
State law that needs to be addressed, but compliance with the UBC is first required, then
the State, as follows:
• Per UBC, Buildings with 4 or more dwellings under roof; all ground floor units shall
be Type B accessible. 2% shall be Type A accessible when more than 20 dwellings
on site. Any attached or assigned parking garages shall be accessible for the
accessible dwellings 13 feet wide, with the first garage 16 feet wide for van access
with access into the unit from the garage as well as the front door. Looking at all
accessible units provided to satisfy UBC will determine if the State is also satisfied.
• If however, all UBC exceptions to Section 1103.1.9.3 are used and no accessible
units are provided (which is feasible) then only the State law needs to be satisfied.
• Under State law with 48 dwellings provided, the designers must satisfy 24
accessibility points. These points can be satisfied by:
+6 points per each Type A dwelling unit
+5 points per each Type A multi -story dwelling unit
+4 points per each Type B dwelling unit
+3 points per each Type B multi -story dwelling unit
+1 point per each Visitable ground floor dwelling unit.
Under any approach, the City has local amendment requirements for providing "accessible
functional features" meaning bedroom types, garages, closets, carport, decks or patios etc,
shall be provided in a ratio equal to the non -accessible units.
Page 2
4
Greg Fisher Date:
Greg Fisher, Architect
3115 Clyde Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
16?W1 M IAAfe- / PUSI&�J REV/ EVv
6/21 /2006
Staff has reviewed your submittal for NORTH FLATS AT OLD TOWN NORTH
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
[6/19/06] Answers to your specific questions:
1. Re: squaring up easements: From Engineering: A re -plat is recommended for this
project but is not required. A re -plat would be the best way to clean up all of the easements
(vacations and new dedications) for your project. Regarding the easement at the south east
comer of lot M-17 on Block 3, it is not easily apparent why this corner was rounded. Once
routed to each of the utilities, the City will then be aware of any circumstances that would
have required it to be round. It is likely that this line was drafted inconsistently and therefore
can be squared off like the others.
2. Re: vacating portions of the drainage easements for carports: From Stormwater: The
drainage and utility easement on block 7 cannot be vacated since the original design used a
very flat alley section that does not carry enough water to contain it in the alley. It would be
allowed to have posts in the easements to support the carports but the issue then is that the
building department cannot issue a building permit if the structure is in the easement. A
modification was discussed, but it is a building permit issue not a drainage issue. The water
would flow through a portion of the carport but if that is acceptable to the applicant is can be
allowed from a drainage point of view. From Engineering: If all of the utilities involved are
satisfied that the construction of the proposed parking structures and overhangs will not
interfere with the drainage and maintenance of those utilities, portions of the easement may
be vacated to accommodate the columns and overhang of the carports. The minimum set
back requirements must also be met or a variance to the LCUASS will need to be approved
for a reduced setback.
3. Re: vacating portions of the air space above utility easements for carports: From
Engineering: See response to number 2.
4. Re: placing stairways and planters over utility easement: From Engineering: The
Land Use Code does not permit structures such as stairways or parking structure canopies
to encroach into utility or drainage easements. If all of the utilities cannot agree to a vacation
of the subject easements for this purpose, an application for modification to the Land Use
Code must be submitted for this project and a maintenance agreement with the affected
utilities must be approved. Refer to section 3.8.19(7) of the Land Use Code for setback
regulations and easements.
Without full agreement from all of the utilities having any interest in these easements, the
easements cannot be vacated for the purpose of the stairways. If the easements cannot be
vacated, you may be able to enter into some sort of formal maintenance agreement with the
utilities for those areas beneath the stairways which would allow you to construct them over
Page 1