HomeMy WebLinkAbout716 MAPLE ST - 2-11 - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
Project Development Plan
Request to expand and remodel an existing 1,500 sq ft. over and under duplex. A new 420 sq ft. garage attached to the remodeled duplex is also
proposed with access from the alley to the west. A request to construct an additional over and under duplex with a 420 sq. ft attached garage on the
same 5,600 sq. ft. lot is also included in this proposal. The garage from the new duplex would be attached to the added garage from the existing
duplex. The property is located at 716 Maple Street. The zoning is NCM - Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
Project Type:
Project Desc:
File ID: 2-11 Planner: Emma McArdle DMS Project Num: CP112292
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
1 zoning [2/25/11] The wording has been changed on the site plan to "new front
duplex A" and "proposed new duplex B". This implies that there are two
duplexes (or one 4 plex). The word "duplex" should be changed to ""new
front unit A" and "proposed new unit B". Similar wording should be used in
the Land Use Breakdown table.
[1/24/11] The property is in the NCM zone. The applicant's submittal refers
to the proposed use as "attached single family". Such a use is not allowed in
the NCM zone. I believe the proposed project is really an interior remodel of
an existing duplex and an addition. The duplex use is allowed in the zone,
and since an addition is proposed, a Type 2 review is required. All reference
to use in the narrative and on the plans must be changed from "attached
single family" to "duplex".
Active 1 Peter Barnes 01/24/2011
2 zoning [1/24/11] The elevation drawings show the north, south and west elevations.
We also need the east building elevation. If any portion of the side walls
exceed 18' in height above grade, then a setback of greater than 5' is
required per Sec. 4.8(E)(4) of the LUC. Since there's no east elevation
drawing, I can only go by the north and south elevations. They seem to show
that the east wall of the rear unit is taller than 18', which means that a
minimum 6' side yard setback is needed along the east lot line. The applicant
has included 2 modification requests, but neither of them deal with the
setback issue.
Resolved 1 Peter Barnes 01/24/2011
3/7/2011 Page 1
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
3 zoning [2/25/11] The site plan still doesn't show the building footprint, rather it shows
the envelope. The footprint needs to be shown to confirm that any wall that is
taller than 18' above grade is setback the required distance. This is
particularly necessay for the west side. For instance, the wall height of the
gable on the west side of the front unit appears to be about 26' above grade.
That means that the setback requirement for that gable 'wall' needs to be 9'.
The footprint should somehow show the location of the various exterior walls.
I think it's probably ok from what I can determine looking at the south
elevation, but there are a lot of walls on the front and back units.
[1/24/11] The site plan needs to show the building footprint, with the side
setbacks shown at the various walls in order to determine if any other walls
on the east or west side may need modifications. The site plan submitted
just shows rectangular boxes, which are really the building envelope. The
plan labels them as the building footprint, which is not correct. Likewise, the
data on the "land use breakdown" table needs to state what the existing and
propose building square footage is. It just states the footprint information,
which is ok to be listed, but it's not complete.
Active 1 Peter Barnes 01/24/2011
4 Electric Utility [1/25/11] Please coordinate power requirements with Light & Power
Engineering (221-6700). Electric charges to modify the electric system may
apply, depending on the power requirments to the building.
Resolved 1 Doug Martine 01/25/2011
5 Stormwater [3/1/11] Reminder comment. This can be done at final compliance.
[1/28/11] Please include a drainage summary letter documenting the new
impervious area for the site, explaining that the new impervious area is less
than the 5,000 sf allowed in the Old Town Basin for not requiring on-site
quantity detention. Also, please include a statement explaining how water
quality mitigation is being achieved for the site. A suggestion is to discuss
how all roof drainage will flow across the landscaped yard before flowing into
the right-of-way, which will provide some water quality.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 01/28/2011
6 Engineering [1/28/11] Please add a note indicating that: "Any 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 to City of Fort Collins standards at the
Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements
and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy."
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 01/28/2011
3/7/2011 Page 2
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
7 Engineering [1/28/11] As was noted from the Conceptual Review: "Section 3.6.2(J)(2) of
the Land Use Code requires the paving of the alley with the submitted
proposal. However, with the understanding that the property would change
from a duplex to two attached single family dwellings, it appears there is no
overall increase in the number of units and would make for a potential
justification to vary from the requirement on paving the alley as this provision
of code allows for an exemption to the alley improvement requirement for
carriage houses and habitable accessory buildings (presuming alley paving is
not required by another department/entity, such as PFA), and an "equal to or
better" argument could perhaps be made that the impact of this proposal is
no different than a carriage house. If the applicant wishes to pursue not
constructing the abutting alley a modification request to this section of code
(as outlined in Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code) should be pursued."
Should a modification be submitted and the decision maker decides that it
cannot be supported, a design for the construction of the alley would be
required from the consultant engineer.
Active 1 Marc Virata 01/28/2011
8 Engineering [1/28/11] Typically construction (engineering) drawings are separate from the
site plan (planning) drawings. Based upon the current information, I'm not
needing to have the drawings separated (provided other commenters concur
with this). Please note however that an advantage exists in separating the
drawings into a planning and engineering set -- should a change to the utility
plan portion be needed, this can be done through a simple no-cost revision
process when it's separate from the planning set. Otherwise a change to the
utilities that's part of the site plan would need a minor amendment with fees
paid as part of the minor amendment process. Should the final outcome
result in separating the engineering from the site plans, the engineering plans
should have that standard construction plan approval block and be signed
and stamped by the engineer as well as additional information typically
required with a construction plan set as required by the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 01/28/2011
9 General [1/31/11] Please remove the address from the legal description on the
Elevation Plan.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
10 General [1/31/11] Please darken the linework for the vicinity map on the Elevation
Plan.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
3/7/2011 Page 3
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
11 General [1/31/11] Please add a legal description to the Site/Utility/Grading Plan. Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
12 General [1/31/11] Please move "716 Maple Street" ahead of "Proposed Expansion of
Existing Duplex".
Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
13 General [1/31/11] Does "Proposed" need to be in the title? Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
14 General [1/31/11] Typically the Site Plan is the first sheet in a plan set, and the Utility
& Graading Plans are a separate set of plans.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 01/31/2011
15 Site [2/1/11] The vicinity map is not legible, the line weights are too light. I would
recommend having the coversheet have the vicinity map, signature blocks
and site and landscape plan; a second sheet be utility information (grading
and utility); and then the elevations on the last sheet.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
16 Landscape [3/1/11] Label street tree species.
[2/1/11] Please make the landscape table right side up. I need the street
trees shown. Are they in front of this lot or neighboring lots. Street trees are
required at 30' - 40' intervals. Show me this is done, or we will need a street
tree added.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
17 Site [2/1/11] Please tell me dimensions of sidewalk, parkway and adjacent ROW
for Maple.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
18 Site [2/1/11] Please label the adjacent lots, for example Lot 22 Block 14 of West
Side Addition, or whatever the legal is.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
19 Site [2/1/11] Tell me the material of the alley. Are you proposing paving? If not a
modification is needed to section 3.6.2(J)(2) of the LUC. The modification
must meet the criteria of 2.8.2 of the LUC.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
3/7/2011 Page 4
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
20 Fire WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district
having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow
must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum
flow and spacing requirements include:
Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers
thereafter.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic
fire sprinkler systems.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/01/2011
21 Site [2/1/11] Where is the entry to these homes? Need a direct sidewalk
connection to the primary entry.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
22 Fire [3/1/11]
ADDRESS NUMERALS
Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and
posted with a minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background.
(Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). If the numerals are
mounted on a side of the building other than the side off of which it is
addressed, the street name is required to be posted along with the numerals.
PLEASE NOTE: The address of the rear unit shall be visible from the street,
whether by signage or the actual address mounted on the building. Please
confirm address of both units with Tim Varrone, phone 416.2483.
2006 International Fire Code 505.1
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/01/2011
23 Site [3/1/11] Please change duplex to unit on the individual units.
[2/1/11] The labeling needs to change on the units, this is not a "new" singel
family attached home. This is an existing duplex expansion. Please show
existing footprint and the proposed.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
24 Planning Objectives [3/1/11] Was a revised planning objective submitted? I didn't see one.
[2/1/11] Fix Planning Objectives to stay consistent with the expansion of
existing duplex, not convert to single family attached. That would mean
replatting the lot into two, not what you are proposing. You are not building a
"new" home, this is an addition to an existing duplex. Please correct this.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
3/7/2011 Page 5
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
25 Site [2/1/11] The foot prints don't appear to be accurate. No porch shown on front
and back but they are shown on the elevations
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
26 Water/Wastewater [2/28/11] (Carryover comment) Show the water/sewer services to the site
plan as redlined on the previous submittal.
[2/1/11] Revise the configuration of the water services and meter pits as
shown on the redlined drawings.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/01/2011
27 Modification of
Standard Requests
[2/1/11] The requests do not say what code section they are to or meet the
criteria adequately. Please revise requests using supporting data to meet the
criteria of the code. See the redlined modifications with recommendations for
structure.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
28 Site [2/1/11] Please change all Foot Print references to floor area. Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/01/2011
29 Modification of
Standard Requests
[2/2/11] Additional modification needed for paving of alley, or applicant needs
to pave the alley.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/02/2011
30 Engineering [2/2/11] The title of the plan set should perhaps be revised so that it's a little
more "searchable". 716 Maple Street could work.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/02/2011
31 Engineering [2/2/11] In general there's numerous incorrect spelling of words on the plan
set that should be corrected: "remodled", "attaced", "sanirery", "sanitrery",
"cocnrete", "side walk", "foot print", "in to".
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/02/2011
32 Engineering [2/2/11] Inspection fees will need to be assessed for the proposed splitting of
the water service. This will likely be done under an excavation permit instead
of a development construction permit.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/02/2011
33 Site [2/4/11] I recommend changing name to 716 Maple Duplex Expansion, make
sure its consistent on all plans.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
34 Elevations [2/4/11] Please provide the east elevation. Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
3/7/2011 Page 6
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
35 Elevations [3/1/11] Why have such small windows been chosen for the front façade? It
seems that larger windows would be prefered on the south elevation.
[2/4/11] The elevations of the north and south side seem thike they are
mixed up. The south elevation that faces Maple looks more like a rear
elevation. I would prefer the side facing the street to have more detail. The
windows are all so small, please add some details to the south elevation.
Ted suggested a three over one window.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
36 Elevations [3/1/11] Some not called out, please see redline plans.
[2/4/11] Elevations need to call out material and color. I think the Board
would like to see a color rendering if possible.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
37 Landscape [2/4/11] Please tell me what is existing vs what is proposed landscaping. Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
38 Landscape [2/4/11] Are there any planting bed planned for the front? Code requires 5'
beds along at least 50% of the building.
Resolved 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
3/7/2011 Page 7
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
39 Modification of
Standard Requests
[3/1/11] The modifications still don't really convince me. I can accept the
rear FAR modification though it isnt as strong as I think it could be. The
overall FAR is on the weak side. Unfortunately staff has been to the site,
looked at the context and besides the multi-family across the street, the
majority of the neighborhood consists of small single family dwellings. Staff
strongly suggests considering proposing a single story + full basement for the
rear unit. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed structure will appear to be a
wall large wall from the street. There is little architectural detail along the east
and west elevations to break up this wall effect and the front unit has little to
not private outdoor space besides the balcony.
*Staff is unable to support the Modification request for overall FAR. I think
you may be able to improve your argument for the Board's consideration, its
possible they may not agree with Staff's interpretation.
[2/4/11] Something to think about, you are required 2 parking spaces per
unit, which you are meeting currently. Consider showing what that would
mean if you meet the FAR and lot area requirements, pads one spot each per
unit, which would require you to move the building elements around. I'm not
sure this is the best option, but is an idea to look into.
Also, look at other duplex conditions in the area, how does this compare, is it
complementary with the neighborhood, how?
For rear half, consider adding information about how you are beyond the
setback in the front because the structure is beginning where the current
structure does, would you meet the rear FAR if you could move the structure
up? The big one for this standard is addressing its intent, to avoid shading
rear yards for neighbors and keeping privacy, may want to consider window
placement on that side of the unit for this purpose.
Active 1 Emma McArdle 02/04/2011
40 Light & Power [2/28/11] Each unit must have its own electric meter. These meters will need
to be on the northerly end of the building. Electric development and system
modification charges will apply. Please coordinate with Light & Power
Engineering at 221-6700.
Active 2 Doug Martine 02/28/2011
41 Site [3/1/11] Is fencing proposed. Please show on plans. Active 2 Emma McArdle 03/01/2011
3/7/2011 Page 8
Project: 716 Maple St - Duplex Expansion - PDP Type II
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
42 Site [3/1/11] Please change labeling/ add labeling on plans per redlined plan.
Window wells should be labeled. Duplex on the individual units should say
unit not duplex.
Active 2 Emma McArdle 03/01/2011
43 Landscape [3/1/11] Label the species of street tree. Active 2 Emma McArdle 03/01/2011
44 General [3/1/11] I recommend updating the plans for hearing. Active 2 Emma McArdle 03/01/2011
45 General [3/2/11] We were not routed sheets 2 of 4 & 3 of 4. Active 2 Jeff County 03/02/2011
46 General [3/2/11] The drawing states "gravel alley" along the abutting alley(s). Is this
indicated as existing, or proposed? I would not characterize the condition of
the existing alley to have gravel and would simply be "unpaved" (in which
case there's no need to indicate the condition of the existing alley in my view).
If the "gravel alley" indication is intended to mean a proposed condition of
adding gravel to the alley, a design spec for the adding of gravel is needed for
review and approval.
Active 2 Marc Virata 03/02/2011
3/7/2011 Page 9