The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About516 DEINES COURT, EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSE - PDP - PDP120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (52)Comment Number: ,mment Originated: 03/15/2012 03/15/2012: In the event of neighborhood opposition a modification requesting that the garage ' be used as a vehicle space would reduce the outdoor off-street spaces from four to three thus reducing the visual impact of the number of vehicles along the streetscape. It will also free up 8.5' of add'I on street parking; not much but on a cul-de-sac on -street parking is premium. Had the width of the property as contoured with the street been less than 65 linear feet then the garage could be used as a parking space. However, the down side to this is the need for the garage to be used exclusively for parking. If it isn't utilized then another vehicle is on the street. A lease provision might be considered enforcing that the garage space be used for parking. Steve Olt will be retiring from his position as a City Planner effective April 1, 2012. The new planner assigned to the 516 Deines Court, Extra Occupancy Rental House, PDP will be Seth Lorson. He will be available in the Development Review Center, 281 North College Avenue, as of Monday, March 26, 2012. Sincerely, Steak Olt Steve Olt City Planner 970-221-6341 solt(a)fc4ov.com cc: Marc Virata, Engineering Current Planning file #PDP120005 4 driveway. The dov gout itself should be routed in a manner VL .irects flows onto landscaping and does not drain directly onto the driveway (and then out across the sidewalk). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: The drawing should specify whether any of the existing driveway is intended to remain or will it all be removed and a new driveway poured (either show sections to remain, or indicate install new driveway). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: The drawing should label the property line along Deines Court. The dark line along the southern boundary seems to indicate the property/right-of-way line, which if accurate shows additional concrete that would be installed in right-of-way. I'm more inclined to believe that the right-of-way follows the flowline of Deines Court based upon parcel map data from both the City and Larimer County, in which case all the proposed work for the driveway would occur fully on private property. Verification of the property boundary in relation to the driveway work is needed to establish whether a driveway approach permit is needed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: Please add the following note to the site plan: "Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored in like kind at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy." Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex cDfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2012 03/05/2012: No comments. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221-6588, ecounty-(a)fc4ov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: There is an incorrect bearing & distance on the plan. These do not match the platted information. Department: Zoning Contact: Gary Lopez, 970-416-2338, glouez fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2012 3/15/2012 Based on the new site plan submitted my calculations of concrete area ratio full front yard are based on the front property line to building and side to side property lines show 722 s.f. concrete areas and 1375 s.f. organic totaling to total front yard area of 2097 s.f. thus concrete or hard surface area ratio is 34%/100% which is slightly less than calculation by Freeman Arch. which was 35%/100% again less than the 40%/100% required. I have no qualms with the numbers. Even if one doesn't take into account the arcs and made full rectangular spaces from the longest depth side I come up with 803 s.f./2097 s.f. representing 38%/100%. Adding the add'I amt. of full rectangle (without Arc) into the full front yard area brings the amount down to 37%/100%. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/28/2012 3/15/2012 The two new right sides vehicle spaces will need concrete wheel stops to prevent vehicles forwarded on to the grass. 3 Comment Number: ,mment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: Just to be clear, the required minimum distance for mailed notification of public ' meetings is an 800' radius. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: Is the applicant still intending to hold a neighborhood meeting as indicated in the response to Current Planning comments from conceptual review? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/19/2012 03/19/2012: To minimize the on -site parking in the front yard for the proposed 5 tenants the applicant could request a modification of standard to provide only 3 on -site parking spaces and allow one parking space to be in the garage, with an option being in front on Deines Court. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: Based on the discussion between City staff and the applicant at the staff review meeting this past Wednesday, March 21 st, where potential inaccuracies on the plans were noted, another round of development review will be necessary before the item could be scheduled for the required administrative public hearing. The next staff review meeting will occur 2 weeks following the City's receipt of revised plans. A Revision Routing Sheet, showing the number of copies of documents to submit, is attached to the staff comment letter. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: The Site Plan does not identify the surface material for the 4 parking spaces on -site. Will they be asphalt or concrete? Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/19/2012 03/19/2012: Based on the information on the Site Plan (dated February 28, 2012) it appears that the parking in the front yard will not exceed 40% in every case. This relates to the front yard within the property line, or including the parkway strip between back of sidewalk and the property line, or including the sidewalk. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/20/2012 03/20/2012: There is a support pole at the southwest corner of the house that supports the eave over the garage entry. Is it possible that this post could hinder the ability to park a car on the westernmost parking space as shown on the Site Plan? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/2012: On the Site Plan the scaled distance between the back of sidewalk and downspout/post at the comer of the eave/roofline at the southwest comer of the house is 24 feet. The applicant has indicated that the actual measured distance is 18 feet. There is a 6 foot discrepancy here, which could possibly create a problem with the on -site parking as well as the allowable front yard/parking ratio. A revised Site Plan, with correct information, must be submitted for review. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03107/2012: Ward Stanford of Traffic Engineering and Aaron Iverson of Transportation Planning have waived the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study for this development request. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221-6567, mvirata@fc4ov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: The drawing doesn't reflect the overhang of the roof along with the downspout that would appear to empty on an expanded portion of driveway. This information should be reflected on the site plan to then ascertain how the parking stall depth is achieved and whether the downspout if intended to remain might impact the parking and drainage across the 2 City of flirt Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax kgov. com/deve%pmentre view March 23, 2012 Debra Cook 5983 Star View Dr Broomfield, CO 80020 RE: 516 Deines Court, Extra Occupancy Rental House — PDP#120005, 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, Steve Olt, at 970-221-6341 or soft fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/27/2012 02/27/2012: No comments Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt, 970.221-6341, soltta'D.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: Section 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations of the Land Use Code requires that there be a minimum of 350 square feet of habitable floor space for each tenant in the house. The Site Plan as submitted shows the existing house to be a single story building with 1,344 square feet in total. If that is the case then there is only 268 square feet for each of the 5 tenants, which is not sufficient. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: The Larimer County Assessor's records show that the main floor of the existing house at 516 Deines Court is 1,344 square feet. The records also show that there is a 1,092 square foot basement, with 276 square feet being finished. This is not consistent with the Site Plan as submitted to the City for review. Please clarify. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: The garage and the laundry room in the basement do not count toward the total amount of habitable floor space in the house.