The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMALDONADO SUBDIVISION - PDP - PDP120021 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSmodification wii, ,.,so be needed for the rear setback. Response: Acknowledged Topic: Planning Objectives Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: The applicant's written Planning Objectives narrative refers to the property being in the LMN zone. Actually the lot is in the NCM zone. The narrative also states that there will be two lots of 4500 s.f. each. However, the site plan submitted shows one lot to be 4503 s.f. and the other to be 4506 s.f., and the plat shows one lot to be 4497 s.f. and the other to be 4496 s.f.. Which document has the correct lot square footages? Response: Addressed Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: The narrative needs to clearly state the modification(s) being requested (i.e. cite the code section and then describe modification, such as "a request to reduce the required minimum lot area from 5000 s.f. to xxxx s.f." The narrative also needs to clearly state the modification standard being met, such as 'hardship', 'equal to or better than','nominal, inconsequential'. Response: Addressed Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 08/10/2012: The 20' wide access easement is not required for the zero lot line garage and driveway. 07/2512012: The submitted site plan needs to show the setback distances from the existing home to the lot lines of the new Lot 1. The site plan shows a shared driveway stradling the common lot line so there needs to be a 20' wide access easement to allow this. The plat doesn't show one. The building envelope for the proposed Lot 2 indicates a a 5' setback from the south lot line. However, the plat shows an existing 10' utility easement along the south lot line. If the utility easement is to remain, then the building envelope on the site plan needs to be revised to show a 10' setback from the south lot line. The 10' setback from the south lot line, in conjunction with the 10' setback from the north lot (assuming a 20' shared access easement is needed with 10' on each lot) will leave a building envelope width of only 30'. All of the potential house designs submitted show houses that are wider than 30', meaning they won't fit on this lot. Finally, the site plan needs to contain a north arrow and needs to state what scale the plan is drawn to. Response: Addressed Response: Addresseu Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08107/2012: Please label the lots on the plan. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: There is a note of a 412 water line, but it doesn't look like one is shown. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The square footage of each lot doesn't match the subdivision plat. Response: Addressed Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-61354, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The applicant is aware of the need to work with the adjacent property owners regarding water and sewer services which may need to be relocated prior to the construction of a house on the new lot. Response: Acknowledged Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Bames, 970-416-2355, pbames aMcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: The new single family dwelling will be allowed and processed as a Basic Development Review if the replat and modifications are approved (Sec. 4.8(B)(1)), meaning that the only applicable size and design standards will be those found in Sec. 4.8. As such, the only way that the proposed architectural elevations or described building limits (i.e. 1 1/2 story, smaller than allowed footprint) can be enforced is if the decision maker conditions the approval of the plat and modifications on the submitted documents. Otherwise, a prospective owner will be allowed to build any size or style of home that is allowed by the regulations in place at the time of building permit application. Response: Acknowledged Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbames@fcgov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/2512012: If the plan is to allow a zero lot line garage on each side of the lot line as shown on the site plan, then a modification will be needed to reduce the required side setback from 5' to 0'. This may be moot though if the 10' wide drainage easement is required as shown on the plat since a building can't be built on the easement. A 15' rear setback is also required, so if the garage is intended to be built closer to the rear lot line, as shown on the site plan, a Response: AddrE__sd Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please add reference to the prior plat that this plat is replatting. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/0712012: Please correct the spelling of lienholder in the lienholder signature block. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please reference the dedication of all street rights of way. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please show the full street right of way on all streets with the widths. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please provide a reception number for the existing 10' utility easement along the south boundary line. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Are the monuments along the alley found? Please describe them. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The language shown is old. Please update all plat language. Response: Addressed Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountL@Lfc_qov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/0712012: Please label the record calls, and change the north & south lines to distances of 90.00'. Response: Addressed Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please provide a 24"x36" plan to City standards. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please add a north arrow & scale. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The subdivision plat shows an existing 10' utility easement along the south line of Lot 2. There is no easement shown on this plan. encouraged. In thin case disconnection of impervious area or k_..,gardens are two suggested options. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the time fees are calculated for each building permit. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08110/2012: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at hftp:/twww.fcgov.com/utlities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development- fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschluetera)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: There should be a 5 foot drainage easement along the north property line as well as the ones shown. The drainage easement in the center of the two lots that serves as access should be the same width as the access easement; just label it access and drainage easement. No easement should be shown anywhere you want to place buildings. If there is a need to route drainage flows along the back property line an easement should be shown there as well. The 5 feet of drainage easement does -not need to be shown as a seperate easement on top of another easement; it too can just be labeled drainage and utility easement unless you have a specfic reason you want it that way. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-2214588, icountv(&fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Please provide 24"06" plans drawn to City standards. Response: Addressed Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: The subdivision boundary closes. 07/26/2012: A jot wide utility easement is required along wd east property line of lot #1. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/26/2012 07/26/2012: The owner will need to coordinate power requirements and locations with Light & Power Engineering (221-6700). Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/26/2012 07/26/2012: Electric development and system modification costs will apply. Estimated total = $4,200.00. Response: Acknowledged Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman &fcgov.com Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforemanOfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/20/2012 07/20/2012: No comments Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Comment Responses: See Attached Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: Since this is being processed as PDP and not just a paper exersice as a simple lot split on a plat the standard PDP requirements will apply. The primary requirements are a grading plan and a drainage report/letter meeting the standard requirments of the design criteria manual. They must be prepared by a professonal engineer registered in Colorado. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: The drainage outfall for this site appears to be sheet flow runoff to the property to the east and sheet flow to Whitcomb. The design engineer will need to verify and document the existing flow patterns. Of particular concern on this site is the amount of runoff leaving the site and draining to the east onto other private property. It must be shown that the proposed volume of runoff from the 100 year - two hour design storm will be equal to or less than it is now. The building gutters and downspouts must be considered in this evaluation. Their size and flow direction need to be shown on the plans and documented in the report. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2012 08/10/2012: Onsite water quality treatment must be provided in accordance the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.udfod.org/downloads/down_cdtmanual_vollll.htm) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is Comment Number: 2 %',,mment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: Add note to grading/utility plan that if sidewalk is need of replacement prior to construction or is replaced during construction that it should be replaced with 4.5' width sidewalk. Response: Addressed Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, a4in4erich(&fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: Label the right of way width along Whitcomb Response: Addressed Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: The seperate site exhibit showed the proposed home being 5' from the south property line. The plat shows a 10' utility easement in this area. The building can not be constructed on top of the utility easement. Response: Addressed Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: The proposed garage will not be able to be constructed on top of the drainage easement that is shown on the plat. Response: Addressed Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: No comments. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, iweinbera(a)fcuov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: The proposed side -to -side lot subdivision on the 400 block of North Whitcomb complies with LUC 3.4.7, as it respects the historic character and pattern of the block and surrounding neighborhood. Response: Acknowledged Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartin fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number. 1 Comment Originated: 07/26/2012 F6rt Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/develo pmentreview August 10, 2012 Christine Ann Maldonado 412 N. Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Maldonado Subdivision (412 N. Whitcomb St.), PDP120021, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, iholland(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 The project needs to be formatted on 2436 sheets, with the site plan at a scale large enough to include the required informaton. Please refer to the PDP checklist for the required information and appropriate tables and notes. Building elevations need to be shown as line drawings with no shaded or toned areas. Show overall length and width dimensions and eave height. Please show a finish grade line and show height dimensions from that line. Response: Addressed Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich() ov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/08/2012 08/08/2012: Please provide a grading/utility plan with your next submittal. This should include grading spot elevations, slopes, etc. as well as existing utilities and proposed services. Response: Addressed