HomeMy WebLinkAbout716 MAPLE ST. DUPLEX EXPANSION - PDP - 2-11 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGPage 2 of 2
applicable standards. Again at this point I do not know the specific details of the plan to say whether or not the
proposal meets them, but I will review it based on the standards of the LUC.
Please copy me with your notes on the meeting. Thanks, Steve Mack
In a message dated 9/27/2010 3:01:55 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, emcardle@fcgov.com writes:
Emma McArdle
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
emcardle@ffcov.com
(970)221-6206
9/30/2010
Pagel of 2
McArdle, Emma
From: McArdle, Emma
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:12 AM
To: 'Smackfc@aol.com'
Subject: RE: 716 Maple
Hi Steve,
I will take a crack at some of these from the information provided at the meeting, but I do not have the formal
submittal information so do not know the details as of yet. I did ask what the bedroom count would be
compared to the current count: currently each unit has 2 bedrooms, the applicant is proposing 3 each. See the
red below for other answers.
If you would like to see the plans once they are submitted, feel free to contact me. I expect Steve Whittall to be
submitting in the next few weeks.
I will make sure your concerns are kept in the file.
Thanks,
Emma
From: Smackfc@aol.com [mailto:Smackfc@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:15 PM
To: McArdle, Emma
Cc: Bolin, Megan; McWilliams, Karen
Subject: Re: 716 Maple
Hi Emma,
Sorry that I could not get back in time to get my comments to you before the meeting. Again, my concern
relates to the EFFECTIVE increase in density that could result from such a maneuver if there is an increase in
the total number of bedrooms irrespective of whatever metric the City now uses to reflect density. The city
calculates density based on units not bedroom counts, so though this is a warranted question it only relates to
the City's review for the number of parking spaces required. Three bedroom units require 2 parking spaces on
site, whereas 2 bedroom units require 1.75 (which would round up to 2 anyhow). I also have questions as to
what will be considered the front of the lot. The front of the lot would still be the Maple Street side. If the unit
continues to face Maple street but access to the new unit is from the alley, the "back yard" (i.e. the side setback
of the existing lot) would then be just 6? That is a good question, I will bring up to Zoning, though I believe it
boils down to primary entrance, and Zoning will ask that the Maple Street entrance be clearly dominant to the
side entrance. Will there be any back yard for the south (Maple St) unit or is there to be just one common area
on the north end of the unit? It is my understanding that the design will provide the rear yard as the yard to the
2nd unit and the front yard to the 1 st unit. What is the FAR for the development and is it designed to the current
allowed maximum? I am unable to answer this at this point. I have not seen finalized plans with dimensions, if
the FAR does not meet the requirements of the code the applicant will need to submit a Modification of
Standard that the decision maker will consider. Will the alley be paved with curb, gutter and sidewalk to access
the north unit and garages? No the alley will not be paved. Will either or both units be required to have fire
sprinklers? This is a question of Poudre Fire Authority, but my understanding is that only multi -family (3 unit
buildings and up) require sprinklers. My last question and perhaps most relevant question is doesn't this
proposal fly in the face of what City Council is requesting in the form of the Eastside/Westside Design
Standards? I cannot say either way, but the fact is no standards have been .adopted yet from that study, so any
development proposals submitted until that time will be reviewed under the current standards. How does this
interface with the existing guidelines approved by City Council that encourage consistency of size, mass, and
scope with the existing homes in the neighborhood? I'm unsure what existing guidelines you are referring to,
the Land Use Code (LUC) is adopted by the City Council as our guide to reviewing development proposals in
addition to various subarea plans that's policies are transferred into the LUC. This proposal must adhere to the
9/30/2010