|
Belot / Hartronft Associates, LLC Architects & Planners 708 West 9th Street, Suite 205, Lawrence, KS 66044 Tel 785.843.4670 Fax 785.843.4842 |
April 23, 2004
Mr. Jeff Tully, AICP
City/County Planner
Lawrence/Douglas County
Metropolitan Planning Office
City Hall, 6 East 6th Street
P.O. Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044-0708
Dear Jeff:
Per your letter dated December 18, 2003, I am submitting with this letter one copy of the site plan of the above property, second revision. Below I have addressed each of Staff’s concerns mentioned in that letter as follows:
Public Works/Engineering:
1. C5 – Typical Trash Screen Fence Detail, 2”x8” CCA Striker Board Top @ 54” Above Paving Surface. Should be centered @ 49.5” above enclosure floor.
Detail C5/A010 has been revised to reflect the requested centerline.
2. C4 – Typical Curb/Sidewalk Detail, should show existing storm sewer.
I am unclear as to the context of this comment and cannot respond without further direction.
3. A4 – Typical Curb & Gutter Detail, top dimension on drawing should be 3½” not 3”.
2)…Expansion Filler Trim to Curb & Gutter Profile, At Spacing Not To Exceed 100’, not 250’ as
written. On 3)…Contraction Joints, not Construction Joints.
Detail A4/A010 has been revised to reflect all of the changes requested.
4. Keynotes 12 – “An agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for streets, &/or sidewalks has been filed with this Site Plan.” A 5’ sidewalk adjacent to the south property line will need to be constructed as part of the project. The signing of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street improvements is needed.
The referenced 5’ sidewalk has been added back into the site plan drawing.
5. On Revised Site Development Plan, Notifications & Disclaimers – “Public Improvement Plans, “Construction Documents for the required public improvements (sanitary sewer & storm sewer & waterline).”
Note added as requested.
6. On Revised Site Plan, 20-1217 Surfacing, (2) “Five (5) inches of granular rock base with two (2) inches of asphalt overlay per City Standards.” Section 20-1217 provides another option: 5” full depth asphalt.
Option added as requested.
7. On Revised Site Plan, 20-1217 Surfacing, (5) “Six (6) inches of 4000 psi concrete reinforced with #3’s at 24” o.c. both ways per City Standard.” Response: Use fiber or welded wire fabric (6x6, w2.9x2.9). #3’s are not City Standard.
Reinforcing revised to reflect WWF as requested.
8. On Revised Site Plan, 20-1432.2 Sidewalks, “…with 4.8 of the Americans With Disabilities Guidelines,” add per City Standard detail.
Note added as requested.
Municipal Utilities:
Plan calls for extending the water line on Wisconsin south to an existing water line on W. 7th. There is no water line on W. 7th at this location. Project requires installation of a water line on W. 7th from Wisconsin to their west property line.
B3/A010 has been revised to show water line extension along the East side of Wisconsin and then running West within the North right-of-way of 7th Street to the West property line.
Parks/Forestry: From the submitted landscape plan:
1. Remove Scotch Pine from list of Coniferous Trees.
Scotch Pine has been removed from the landscape schedule, Sheet A011, as requested.
2. Per the Master Street Tree Plan, provide additional information as to
location/species of proposed trees.
Sheet A011
Planning Department:
1. Side setback requirement in RM-2 is 10’ and front setback is 25’. Any retaining wall exceeding 3’ in height is considered a “structure” and cannot be located in the right of way or the setback. What is the height of the retaining wall? Retaining wall is 60” in height. Portions still located in right of way. Can the transformer be relocated to another location?
B3/A010 has been revised to move any retaining wall greater than 3’ in height inside the setbacks.
2. Section 20-14A04.8 -- SCREENING REQUIREMENTS – requires all off-street parking areas containing five or more vehicles to be effectively screened on each side that adjoins or is across the street from any residential district with a continuous, view-reducing wood fence, masonry wall, compact evergreen hedge or other landscape screening material which, when planted, will constitute an immediate view-reducing barrier. Such fence, wall or landscape screening shall be at least three feet but not more than six feet in height. Provide information on screening the proposed parking lot from residential uses to the west and across Wisconsin Street.
Additional landscape screening has been added to the East & West side of parking area,
Stormwater Comments:
1. The retaining wall along the north property line will be washed out with the detention design. The wall
stands above the ground and is taller than necessary.
Grading & Retaining wall has been revised as requested.
2. Proposed grades along the west building line are inadequate to convey stormwater flows entering the site.
Grading has been revised & a concrete flume has been added as requested.
3. The sidewalk at the southeast corner is too steep. Reduce the traveled slope from 25% shown to 15%
possible.
Minor revisions have been made to reduce the slope but sidewalk must follow the existing grades of the Wisconsin Street curb.
4. Revise the retaining walls along the south property line. Only two walls are needed to match the existing slope. The wall ends should curve south to create tie-in points. The current grades are shown vertical at the wall ends.
All plans have been revised to reflect the items requested.
5. The 9-foot drop along the north walkway is dangerous and should be revised.
Grading has been revised in this area and the retaining wall has been deleted.
6. All walls that exceed 30” height are required to have handrails per UBC. Show the location and details for all required rails.
Building Code issues are acknowledged and will be addressed in the Construction Documents.
7. Label all storm sewer pipe sizes and elevations. Label all storm sewer inlet sizes and elevations. Specify that all curb inlets are constructed per City standards.
Labels and elevations have been added to Sheet A012 as requested.
8. Show and label the required drainage easement crossing the property.
Boundaries of drainage easement have been added to Sheets A010.
9. The proposed downstream storm sewer connection in the Wisconsin Street right-of-way and the pipes, walls, grading and other work within the on-site drainage easement will be public improvements. Public improvement plans for this work must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector. Add a note on the site plan referring to the downstream work and the public improvement plans.
See “Notifications” on Sheet A010.
10. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Provide the SWP3 in the public improvement plans.
Note as been added to Sheet A012 addressing this issue.
11. Add a row to the site summary table that provides total impervious surface.
Table on Sheet A010 has been revised to reflect the additional information requested.
This should conclude the revisions to this site plan related to the prescriptive zoning ordinance issue conflicts noted by Staff. Since I have addressed & revised all Staff requested issues from both the October 24 & December 18, 2003 Staff comment reports, I would assume that this most recent site plan is now in complete compliance with the prevailing Zoning Ordinance and that no further corrections should be required.
General Comment: Following a second Departmental review, staff advises you to again consider relocating the apartment building to the general area of the parking lot and relocating the parking lot to the general area of the apartment building. Planning Staff is concerned about the layout of the proposed apartment building/parking lot and the compatibility of this design with the existing neighborhood.
Relocating the building and parking lot would alleviate the collective concerns of various City departments, which are:
· Two curb cuts are not required. Because the City’s Sanitation department does not need a separate location for trash, the trash enclosure could be located in the proposed parking lot, thereby eliminating the second curb cut;
GOAL 4: Transportation Considerations (pg. 87 Horizon 2020)
Policy 4.5: Limit Access
Lot access and street configurations should be designed to avoid curb cuts and local street intersections on arterial streets and coordinate access with adjacent developments.
This goal/policy specifically references arterial streets. Wisconsin is not listed as an arterial street in Figure 14-Future Street Classification & Function Map, page 129 Horizon 2020.
· As submitted, there are emergency access issues. Relocating the apartment building to front along West 7th Street would alleviate this concern;
Fire & Medical has reviewed the site plan as submitted three times and has indicated that it is in compliance Article 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Please contact Rich Barr for confirmation.
· Relocating the building would orient the proposed apartment building closer to residential uses located across West 7th Street and provide more aesthetic and pedestrian appeal to West 7th Street.
GOAL 3: Compatible Transitition from Medium & Higher density Residential
Development to Both More Intensive & Less Intensive Land Uses
(pg. 85-86 Horizon 2020)
Policy 3.1: Use Appropriate Tansitional Methods
a. Careful attention should be given to areas which may serve as a buffer between
different housing types and different densities and intensities so as to ensure
compatibility of uses.
b. Lower density residential areas should be screened from higher density
developments. Where possible, natural barriers and dense vegetation &/or berms
shall be used.
c. Compatible transition from medium or higher density residential uses to either more or less intensive land uses should consider.
1. Site Orientation
a. Site design should be oriented so that less compatible uses [such as trash, loading and parking areas] are located in the interior of the development and not adjacent to or in close (sic) proximity to low density residential neighborhoods.
c. Streets which are designed with elements to provide visual or physical
buffering may serve as boundaries between different intensities of land uses.
2. Building Relationships
a. A back-to-back relationship is preferable between variable intensities of use.
b. More intensive residential uses should have perimeter setbacks that are
equal or greater than perimeter setbacks of the abutting low-density
residential uses.
c. The height and massing of medium and higher density residential buildings
and accessory structures should be oriented away from low-density
residential neighborhoods to avoid creating a negative visual appearance.
d. Where medium-density development adjoins or is across the street from a low
density residential area, the medium density development should be designed
to maintain or continue the visual appearance of the streetscape through
building massing, height & orientation of structures.
3. Land Features
a. Promote integration of mature trees, natural vegetation, natural and
environmentally sensitive areas wherever feasible to buffer medium or higher
density developments from other more or less intensive land uses.
b. Where feasible, use existing topography to separate medium or higher density developments and other more or less intensive land uses.
4. Screening & Landscaping
a. Encourage creative and extensive use of landscaping & berming techniques for
natural transitions between differing intensities of land uses.
b. Fences shall not be used as a sole method of providing screening and buffering
between differing intensities of land uses.
c. Promote site design that uses existing vegetation as natural buffers or focal
points.
I have attached seven sheets of drawings that graphically demonstrate how the above guidelines from Horizon 2020 have been applied and will be implemented to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood.
Once you have had an opportunity to review this material, if you have any questions or if I have not communicated clearly I will be happy to meet or discuss your questions at the convenience of your schedule. This site plan has been in the review process for almost six months, it is my sincere goal that we can conclude our work together and move this project forward for City Commission approval with a mutual consensus and understanding at that meeting.
Sincerely,
Allen Belot, Architect
BELOT-HARTRONFT ASSOCIATES, LLC
pc: File
sta01\c:\docs\projects\0320WISC \response-1.doc