Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLETTERS - 02-00083 - University Courtyard - 6 Buildings (90 Units)De!In g telligence, LLC StructuralEnghteering 3 6.85 W Hwy Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Date: November 26,2002 To: Val Christensen flan Reviewer City of Rexburg Subject: University Courtyard Apartments Dear Mr. Christensen., Call: (Id 0�j 359-1461 FAX: (108) 359-0740 The furnace room for each apa�mentis the room where the grater heater symbol is shown- This room wail. house a bailer and heat exchange system. Smoke detectors and locations for fire extinguishers are noted on the revised floor plans. Sheet S4 has been revised to remove the requirement for blacking of roof sheathing. Finally, a nate has been added to sheep S 1 requiring all exterior footings to be 36" below finished grade. Pease call me if you have any questions. Respectfully, Scott A Sp �C�y L n.. )65 - VA ' August 2, 2003 TO: Kurt H bbert City of Rexburg Zom'ng Department FROM: Clyde Luke (duly elected spokesman (as usual is speak for the homeowners 0 SUBJECT: Fencing on East side of the Randy Bird Married Student Housing Units We have now had a meeting (August I , 2.003) of all the home owners who lige 'in the 3 00 black of Harvard Ave. One hundred percent of the residents in this black were in attendance. Nine of the den home owners voted that the city should follow through and require a fence in order to prevent any access to or from Harvard Avenue. By the same margin of votes, it was concluded that there should be no gate allowed as that would defeat the purpose of the fence in the first place.. The undersigned signatures represent eight of the ane homeowners in attendance at the block meeting who voted that the city require the fence and that it be a fence with no gate. The person who did not sign this petition had already made a commitment to no fence at the time Mr Bird visited him early this week Although at the meeting of homeowners he somewhat agreed with the resp of us, he felt he could not go back on his commitment preciously made to fir. Bird. It was also unanimous amongst the below signed homeowners that this fence mush be built before the city signs off an the project and approves the complex. Obviously, if the city signs off before this is done, there will neer be a fence no mater how long a trial period was liven with no fence. It is our understanding that the only time the city can require this is before they approve the complex as being complete and ready for occupancy. As homeowners we talked about various locations for the fence. First is to build it next to the sidewalk which i's 'Illegal as the city has an easement on the property back at least 15 feet from the curb. The second option is to build the fence down the middle of the green belt landscaped strip. There could easily be a major problem with this if Mr. Bird were to decide not to maintain the city easement portion between the fence and the sidewalk, although we don't think Mr_ Bird would want a. weed patch �n front of his otherwise very attractive apartments. If that route were chosen and Mr. Bu'd did not maintain the portion outside his fence, it is our understanding that under pity ordinance, the city would be responsible to comp �n and move the weeds every three weeks or so and send Mr. Bird the bill., Obviously a lawn care service or any other means of landscape care, of course, would have to access that portion from Harvard Ave which we are in agreement to. It was cancluded by the homeowners that the best and most practical solution, if Mr. Bird does not want to place the fence at the city easementline,,, then the fence should be. placed. beginm"ng at the edge of the existing south fence and proceed pass the edge of the parking lot to the very corner of each building thus heaving the lovely brick at the end of the building showing to break up the solid dine of a fence. This must then go all the wad north to the north cosi corner of the parking lot and then west to join the schQoUfederal property fence approximately 100 flus feed to the west, Mt-. Bird has sated to one of the homeowners that the space of land east of where the school/federal land fence jogs to the north and then east again is not his property (tbus be would have to build his own fence to the wept on his own property line)- None of us agree to putting in a gate as Mr. Bird has proposed because that would entirely defeat the purpose of the fence and maLe the enure tense useless. )Jso, m the conditional permit, it is our understanding that there was no provision for a gate with the exception of the heavy duty fire truck gate accessible only by afire truck breaking tbiough it. However, it appears they have solved the fire entrance problem another way. This third opon was the ,,,,a,m4V I ihqiii for the location of the fence by the nom UWHUFJ Signed below. Al an tt@m2five @ut by Downy fav8fMI ftknce local;a�, We homeowners would agree to a fence dividing the green belt if some condition is in place that commits W. Bud and all future owners of thatrtypropecomplete with signatures of AL prsent prop�ty owner that they WM WCC to lindlape Ina mattl@ area outde the fORP-8. TMI, would have to include a clause in the records that all future owners of that property continue to maintam the area outside the fence. If there is no legal way to ensure tha, they we would not be in favor of that alternative location. If that vacation were chasm, agm it would have to jom" with a fence built out from the east side of the south fence and would have to extend all the way across with n4 breaks to the northeast comer of the property and then west to join the exi�ng chain link fence already on the property fine- As to Mr. Birds possible concems that preventing access wifl keep his tenants from lounging or pieniciang on tna� green arm., he �eauy should have cnns�.dered tis just as Kensingtan Apartments an 2' East and third South slid, and moved their units fiw.ffier back on the 10t so. they could have a ruce green area between their apartments and the fence. Kensington has also beautifully landscaped the area between the fence and the street and have maintained it very well. But Mr. Bird didn't make that choice even though he knew he had to build a fence preventing access to and fi-om the east side of hisproperty (letter to city on file from her. Bird agreeing to this}. If tenants wart to picM'11C there they can drive around and have their picnic_ We would assume that most couples would prefer to go to one of thecity's lovely parks or green areas that are not so close to a busy street_ Also as a side node, we would think that the coupes would not want a gate that their toddlers and young children could go through and have access that close to a busy street. That is emery parent's nightmare. street: id - the follo homeownert y e Followings some of the background on the history of the above stated issue and the reouestlq mads above, simply for the informafton. of any of you mho may not remember or have taken your fobs since the -original hearing was held- � J It is common knowledge amongst the cid eneineers that thissection n-� �� trP�t �� �dirinn City. Because of this and because of the fact that the street becomes even narrower ager the snow falls (it actually becomes impassably in spots after snow is built up), we are verb much concerned about the amount of traffic that has increased tremendously. Within the fast two years more and more people are using this street as a way to gel around the bottleneck created on 2" East between YdSouth and 5hSouth. (Numerous tines I have parked at the south end of liarvaTd 2nd Courted the cars that have tumed off Ent then driven the half black east to Harvard and then driven northtwo blocks to 3' South and then west which pits them back onto 2'�`� East}_ The app�-c�ximate propoftion �s 3 out off" eve� 4 cars using thus route in tf�is fashion. This bottleneck is being created by the increased an and off traffic of the new Kensington Apt and the entrances into the BY -U -I's girls dorms and Viking drive which is now the main entrance to the southern end of BY-U'- I's parking dots. Anticipating more traffic problems 'In the future, most of the residents on 3 44 block of Harvard attended the hearing some 5 or 6 years ago when Randy Bird first presented his request for a perrynotto build student housing on his property. At that time these residents vii their spokesman insisted that a condition be pieced in the permit that would prevent any access from or to the apartments via vehicles or any other access either onto or off of Harvard Avenue with the exception of a heavy duty fire gate that could only be broken down by fire trucks_ Mr. Bard's suggestion at that time was that he build a. 6 foot high bei using huge lava rocks or gather materials to block access. This condition was approved and written into the permit. It is also our understanding that later Mr. Bird confirmed in a litter to the city and agreed to build a 6 feat fence to meet the above stated conditions of the permit. it is common logic to assume that if any access is allowed, not only would visitnrs access the apartments that way because it would be quicker than findm'g a parking place in the harking dot plus there would be many students who would use this same access because, again, it is quicker and more convenient to park on Harvard and run into their units to pick up something they forgot o� to just crash for a few hours before the next clays. With the exception of the no overnight parking ordinance for a few months ire the winter, mangy would logically park on Harvard dad and night to avoid the congestion of the parking lot and the bottleneck described above on 2nd East. This can only happen, however, if they have access seven a gate access} to the ufflfts from Harvard. This fence would have to join to the south fence and run entirely across the east side of the property to the northeast corner of the Bird property and then west along the edge of said property to meet the present fence which separates said propefty from the School/Federal property which is approximately X50 feet. west of the east gide of the Bird property. We, the major majority of homeowners on 3+D0 block of Harvard must insist that such a fence be bulli without a date and have suggested two suggestions as to where this fence may be placed, trying to take 'into account Mr_ Birds concerns and also the overall look of the apartments blending into the neighborhood which A/Ir. Bird has, slated to each of us aria door to door contact that he wants to do. However, he. made it quite dear on those visits that he preferred no fence at all which the undersigned refuse to accept 'in light of the conditions of the conditional perrm't. All of the items included in the above "history" section were also discussed with the homeowners and they also concur with what has been written. Signed by. -IC . - k ---- Elected spokesman for the above homeowners. 41, IAPW.. ql� 7C t �xi.s7', A N, I 1/-14/200-0�11 Scott Spauld�ng Design Intelligence j685 E Hwy. 331 Rexhurg, Idaho $-344Q Dear Scott., STATE OF IDAHO 4 eXtUr WWW.cl.� r P. 0 . E3 o x 280 12 North Centef Street RP-xburq. Idaho 8344 U Y Phon0-3020 Fax (208) 3170-3022 e- a' rexbL,,ra@d-r6xbUr9-jd-U.5 %..P I have reviewed the Univexsityfollaw�ng Courtyard Apartment d�ra�v�n.qs that yon. have provided m. e and have identi.fed the discrepancles: I . The Fair Housin��ruide�ines -requires that handicapped parkin� spaces to be located on the shortest route ta the accessible entrance of the building_ This plan has all of the handicapped spaces located across- the parking lot, 2. Too nmny of the parking spaces are designated as compact spaces. The zonmg ordmance allows only ?-1-. % of the. spices tobeCc - ac 3. Barriers at the spaces between��arvard �p the parking lot and Avenue must be shown on plans. Ire past plans, large rocks wereshown in these areas. The concem is that in the winter drivers will not be able to d.istingulsh that approaches are not. cormectmg :Harvard and the parking lot. Harvard is a very narrow street and the City does not want additional traffic on, this street. 4. Please Identify Right -Of -may on both streets and the set -backs from the buildmgs to the, Right. -Of -Way on the site plan. 5. Please identify access approaches on 2`1 East as per the City of Rexburg Specifications. 6. Be aware chatplumbing i.n. party walls can cause many problems Nirith the 4 integrity of the fire wall. Plastic,pipes can not penetrate the membrane of the I -hour frewall unless the areprope�l�construc Vre -st" .111Y - e(I to -d so. Special fire si ive rings are required or special details that show metal parts entering the 4 P membrane and all plastic remammg, within the wall. 70 Any room eo i 'g'gas furnaces or waler heaterscan not open into a ntainin bedroom without a door that seals tight when clased. Exterior doors with t�ght fitting ather st we rippmg and thresholds are permitted for this application. S. Furnace rooms have not been identified on these dravvings. Please identify the type of fiarnace. 9.. Please identify smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. in each unit., 1 0. Wage SO calls out for 5/8" roof sheathing to be blocked on all edges. Is this requirement neeessitated by structural design? It is not a cornmonpractice Yn I I ide.,ntifY-all foot*�s a�'�emg a manimurn of36" below ade. �. e Fire Department has reviewed the plans. I have attached a copy of there report. Please provide., the i-aecessary iriformation thev have requested. Please return mTo segs of revised plans. Let me kii-ow if I can be of any cher assistance. If you have any questions, pase give me a callat 3:""19-3024 est. 324. Sincerely, Val Clyistensen lRuialdirTig Official cc Jahn Millar Chris Huskinson 0 November 27, 2002 (9:OOam) University Court Yard C/ORandy Bird P.O. Box 1502 Wenatchee, Washington 98807 ATTN: Mr. Randy Bird STATE OF IDAHO RE: Correction on But -Ming Permit (University Court Yard) Dear Developers: P. 0, Box .: i III 12 North Center Street Rexburg; Idah-o 83440 Phone (208) 359w3020 Fax (208) 359-.3022 e-mail rexburg@srv.net Durf.ng an Audit of the Building Permits,, an error in the valuation percenta�e was discoveredin the building permit for the University Court Yard Apartments. The valuation percentage for Idaho is 87 percent as adopted by the City of Rexburg. Your estimated bufl.ding permit vas calculated at 67 percent on the previous valuation sheet. The valuation amount is based on the square footage of the units. The total square footage is 42, 840 for these. units. The attached Building Permit Valuation sheet has been recalculated. Please forward the total amount of $76,407.65 to the City of Rexburg when you make your Building Permit application request. If you have any questions, please feel free ta call 208-359-3020 ext. 3 13 Yours truly, Blair D. Kay City Clerk 12/06/2002 FRI 11:34 FAX Mountainn River, inc, CONSULTING EAlG4lttEEFES A11E0 LAND SURVEYORS U 002/002 December 6, 2002 VAI Christen$en Building Offl-c-Lal 12 North Center 5treet Rexburg, ID 8344D RE: University Courtyard Dear Val, have mvieweci the comments that wire seat to Scott Spaulding on November 14, 2002. Comments 1 thru 5 pertain to the site plan and were addressed. I have also been in touch with Chris Huskinson and we have agree on a hype of breakaway barrier between the parking dot and Harvard Avenue for the emergency access reds. Rem'sed planz,; are bung e--mal1ed to Kyle Spaulding and i asked him to plot them so they can be reviewed. When they have- been approved, I will plot two (2) sets an myfar, once for Mountain River Inc. and one for [he City of Rexburg'. Please inform Larry or myself when thp, plans liave been approved, if we can he of any further assistance, please give us a call at 524-6175. Sincerely, ani McCarrol) 1020 East Lincoln Road . Idaho falls. Idaho 83401 Phone: (208) 524-6175 Fax-, (208) 524-6181