Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout516 DEINES COURT, EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSE - PDP - PDP120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (50)Department: Zoning Contact: Gary Lopez, 970-416-2338, glopez@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%. I agree with the above calculations. 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. I'll add this to the concrete contractor's bid. Department: Zoning Contact: Gary Lopez, 970-416-2338, glopez@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan continued Comment Number: 3 Comment 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. It is evident from neighbor emails received by the City prior to 3123/12, many of the opposing neighbors will be dissatisfied with any parking situation. However, I am more than willing to adjust my lease, in an attempt to appease these neighbors, in regards to parking and utilizing the garage and decreasing the addition of concrete in the front yard, and enforce that the garage space be utilized for parking. If requested by City staff, will also enforce through the lease that tenants and guests park along the 516 Dairies Ct property line ONLY. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.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 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 driveway. The downspout itself should be routed in a manner that directs flows onto landscaping and does not drain directly onto the driveway (and then across the sidewalk). The downspout will be moved to the east side of the current/retained driveway, and routed into the lawn, to be completed during the week of 3126/12. 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 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 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@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/05/2012: No comments. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2012 Comment Originated: 03/21/2012 03/21/2012: There is an incorrect bearing & distance on the plan. These do not match the platted information. 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? The surface material for additional parking spaces will match the current surface material — concrete. The added concrete will match existing/retained driveway edges and slope. 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. Based on the plat that technical services has, I calculated the lot line to be at the sidewalk. Freeman Architects confirmed this per the subdivision plat. The front yard square footage that I calculated was from the sidewalk, to the edge of the house at the SE corner of the house and the garage at the SW corner of the garage. % �E Comment Number: 10 y`r n© 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? On 3/20/2012, there was a decorative gutter support at the southwest corner of the house builtwas. _not - supportive. To remove a possible parking hindrance, this downspout will be moved east along the house, during the week of 3/26/12. This downspout will then drain into the front yard, east of the driveway, into the lawn, instead of near the west neighbor's yard. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/23/2012 03/23/0212: On the Site Plan the scaled distance between the back of the sidewalk and downspout/post at the corner of the eave/roofline at the southeast corner 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 allowable front yard/parking ratio. A revised Site Plan, with correct information, must be submitted for review. The Site Plan did not include the downspout/post, because this downspout was decorative. However, 24' measurement is in fact, accurate. Please see the revised Site Plan and ILC. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 5 S cA �.�!E 7 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: Ward Stanford of Traffic Engineering and Aaron Iverson of Transportation Planning have waived the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study for this development request. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2012 03/07/2012: Thr garage and the laundry room in the basement do not count toward the total amount of habitable floor space in the house. \ Not included in my 2028sf calculation Comment Number: 4 Comment 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. Please see attached map. The radius that I used is well beyond 800' in each direction. 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? Yes. I will hold the neighborhood meeting as instructed by the City staff. 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. tTW_`�i�Pvo�� 6� N`,,,��r.RST . I was under the assumption that any request for modification for this project would be denied. However, I am willing to attempt to appease the neighbors in this regard. However, as a Landlord, I believe that this will make the parking problem worse, as the tenants will tend to park along the street, as many of the current residents along Deines Ct do now. On 3/24/12 at 8am, nearly every lot along Deines Ct had at least one vehicle parked along the street, with some lots having more vehicles parked along the street. 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 21s`, 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. Because the validity of the site plan was questioned at the 3/21/2012 staff review, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) was conducted by King Surveyors, on 3/23/2012. This certificate was submitted to Freeman Architects for a revision of the site plan. This certificate is also included the resubmittal packet. Debra Cook 5983 Star View Dr Broomfield, CO 80020 Debra Cook responses to the comments March 27, 2012 RE: 516 Deines Court Extra Occupancy Rental House, PDP120005, 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 solt@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 02/27/2012: No comments Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt, 970-221-6341, solt@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/27/2012 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. For the previously submitted site plans, I used Larimer County Assessor records and sales Listing Agent's information for square footage. I have since measured and calculated the finished square footage for the entire house to be 2028sf. Of this, main floor is 1380sf, including the basement stairs, and basement is 648sf. Please see floor plan and ILC. 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 clafify. The finished square footage for the basement is 648 square feet, calculated with a laser measurement tool using interior dimensions. I cannot attest to why the Assessor's information is inaccurate. The basement and enclosed/heated porch were finished years ago, prior to my purchase of the property on 3/6/2012, and a permit was not documented for finishing work. Based on the finishing materials, it seems that the basement was finished near the time that the house was built. I am willing to apply for "after the fact" permits for this finishing.