HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/04/2014 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVEAgenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Stoner Subdivision
Major Amendment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision regarding
a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of the Stoner
Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street.
The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved through a Type 1 public hearing held May 30, 2013, to
subdivide an existing single-family residence into two new lots, creating a new lot in the rear portion of the
existing lot. The new lot is known as “Lot 2” and is east of the existing single-family residence. The existing
single-family residence remains on a portion of the original lot, which is renamed “Lot 1”. The two lots are
located at the southeast corner of Wayne Street and West Magnolia Street in the Neighborhood Conservation,
Low-Density Zone District (N-C-L).
Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision
approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved
single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2.
ASSERSIONS OF APPEAL
The Appellant asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states:
“The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design
of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The
basis for the City staff’s conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing
building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of
nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.l(B), architectural compatibility ‘shall be derived from the
neighboring context.’ The appellants agree that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
area varies greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural feature or characteristic that is
shared amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.”
“The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that
the predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are
triangular or rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are
typically smaller than the dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number.
Overall, the neighborhood's predominant architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal
extra appurtenances (rooms, balconies, large dormers) sticking out.”
“The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at the hearing that the proposed building is
incompatible to the neighborhood context because the neighboring houses have simple geometric
shaped roof lines with several triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or
square building form. A review of the following photos included in the presentations by the
applicant and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods' simpler, rooflines and
geometric housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual effect of the proposed project's
architectural style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out rooms on the top of the
building is that it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bulk, mass and scale, and out of
character with the predominant architecture of the neighboring homes.”
“Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant
characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained
within the roof line. The staff, and applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the
common architectural feature of the neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second story
floor area is basically contained within the roof line. The photographic evidence clearly supports
this conclusion. The proposed project is not compatible with the dominant character of nearby
homes because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second floor are not
contained within the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an
existing structure.”
“Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(B)
when she decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined. The photos of
houses in the area presented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple
sloped roof lines with second story floor area contained within the roof line are established
architectural characteristics of this neighborhood. The project just doesn't meet this established
common architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer personally agreed with the City that the
style of the home proposed in the MJA is ‘too busy, with too many competing building forms and
roof lines,’ providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in context with the
character of neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or
roofs, they are smaller, secondary and minimal in number.”
The appellant provides photographic illustrations with the Notice of Appeal, stating that:
“Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof
designs, slopes, and simple geometry building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood
and provide common architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's Powerpoint
presentation and are highlighted to emphasize the second story architectural features that face the
street. The proposed house is also shown with similar highlighting.”
HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND DECISION
1. The Hearing Officer’s Findings for the Major Amendment are located on page 2, 3, and 4 of the Hearing
Officer’s decision letter. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 – Building
and Project Compatibility, the Hearing Officer states on page 2 of the Findings and Decision:
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
“The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project
Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with
homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a
significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be
inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural
compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and
the City presented photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the
surrounding area varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes,
two-story homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary
roof element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-century
ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes. The Staff Report
states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second
story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the evidence presented during the hearing
by both the applicant and the City simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section
3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established . . . the
architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in
this area is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is
undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally agrees with
the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing
building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with
Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the hearing, including those from adjacent
property owners, supported the architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record
to indicate that the quality of the home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA
complies with Section 3.5.1.”
2. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 4.7(A) – Purpose for the Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), the Hearing Officer states on page 3 of the Findings and
Decision:
“The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because
elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a
way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design
which does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district.
As discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and
photographs demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was
undisputed at the hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all
applicable size and height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture,
mass and height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer
to determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with
the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section
4.7(A).”
SUMMARY
Building plans for Lot 2 are the subject of this appeal. Building elevations and a building footprint were
approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes
amended building footprint and building elevations. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on
December 17, 2013 to approve the proposed Major Amendment.
On December 31, 2013, an Appeal to the Hearing Officer’s Decision was submitted, asserting that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) – Purpose.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal (PDF)
3. Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (PDF)
4. Staff report given to Hearing Officer (PDF)
5. Materials Presented at Hearing (PDF)
6. Verbatim Transcript (PDF)
7. Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
-Notice of Appeal - Meg Dunn,
December 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
Administrative Hearing Officer
Decision,
December 17, 2013
1
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: December 5, 2013
PROJECT NAME: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
CASE NUMBER: MJA #130045
APPLICANT: Aubrey Carson
Carson Design Studio LLC
413 Cormorant Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Greg and Kathy Obermann
2215 45
th
Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment ("MJA") to Lot 2 of the
two-lot Stoner Subdivision, located at 1017 W. Magnolia Street. The MJA would change the
previously approved building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family
detached dwelling on Lot 2. The MJA proposes a two-story single family residence of 2,051
square feet on the 6,667 square-foot lot.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved
ZONE DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. on December 5,
2013, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence:
(1) Planning Department Staff Report; and (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant. The Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's
formally promulgated polices are all additional evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Jason Holland, Ted Shepard
From the Applicant: Steve Whittall, Aubrey Carson
From the Public: Baron Jacob Locksman, Tavita Silverstein, Andre Muton, Meg
Dunn, Marci Silverstein, Michelle Hafely, Beth Edens, Brett Pavel,
Jim Kramer, Sean Dougherty, Laura Olive, Barbara Haynes
2
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. The MJA complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 3 of the Code.
a. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because
the plans include two new street trees of sizes that exceed the minimum requirements, and
the tree replacement and mitigation plan was approved by the City Forester.
b. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c), Required Off-Street Parking,
because the MJA includes at least one off-street parking space per lot.
c. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1,
Building and Project Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in
mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's
conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms,
causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby
homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the
neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented
photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area
varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story
homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof
element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-
century ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes.
The Staff Report states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the
surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the
evidence presented during the hearing by both the applicant and the City simply does not
support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively established . . . the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment
in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in this area
is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is
undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally
agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too
many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the
MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the
hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the architectural style
of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the home is
suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1.
d. The MJA complies with Section 3.5.2(D)(3), Setbacks, because the existing garage
exceeds the minimum setback.
3
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
e. The MJA complies with Section 3.6.2.(J)(2), Public Alleys, because a Modification
of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the site.
3. The MJA complies with the applicable standards in Article 4 of the Code for the N-C-L
zone district.
a. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A),
Purpose, because elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height,
scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area,
resulting in incompatible design which does not preserve the character of developed
single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As discussed above, however, both the
applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs demonstrating that the
architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the hearing that
the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and
height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and
height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to
determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible
with the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with
Section 4.7(A).
b. The MJA complies with Section 4.21(B)(2)(a), Permitted Land Uses, because the
new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the N-C-L zone district.
c. The MJA complies with Section 4.5(D)(1)(a), Density, because both lots are below
the maximum floor-to-lot ratio, and the two lots both exceed 6,000 square feet in size.
d. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(4), Accessory Buildings without Habitable
Space, because the total floor area of the existing garage does not exceed 600 square feet.
e. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio, because the
maximum FAR does not exceed 0.25 on the rear 50% of either lot.
f. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(1), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Lot
Width, because the lot is approximately 72' wide.
g. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(2), Dimensional Standards, Minimum
Front Yard Setback, because the lot is set back more than 15' from the street.
h. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(3), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Rear
Yard Setback, because the existing garage is a legal nonconforming building.
i. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(4), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Side
Yard Setback, because the new dwelling and existing garage exceed the minimum
setbacks.
j. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(5), Dimensional Standards, Maximum
Building Height, because none of the buildings exceed two stories.
4
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
k. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(1), Development Standards, Building
Design, because the buildings are constructed at right angles to the lot, the primary
entrances are located on the front wall of the buildings, the accessory building is located at
least 10 feet behind the principal building, the second floor of each building does not
overhang the lower front or side of the building, the front porch is limited to one story and
the roof pitches are between 2:12 and 12:12.
l. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(2)(a), Development Standards, Building
Height because the buildings are two stories.
m. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(4), Development Standards,
Landscape/Hardscape Material, because not more than 40% of either front yard will be
covered with inorganic material.
n. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(7), Development Standards, Subdividing
Existing Lots, because a Modification of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the
site.
4. At the hearing, the City requested that if the Hearing Officer approves the MJA, the
Hearing Officer impose certain conditions relating to vested rights and applicable land use
regulations. However, the Hearing Officer finds no authority in the Code to address or modify
vested rights or applicable land use regulations in the context of a MJA request. The Code
dictates how vested rights and land use regulations will apply to the MJA, and the Hearing Officer
is without jurisdiction to alter those Code provisions or their applicability in this context.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The MJA is hereby approved as submitted.
DATED this 17
th
day of December, 2013.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Administrative
Hearing Officer,
Hearing held December 5,
2013
ITEM NO _MJA_#130045_
MEETING DATE _12-5-2013____ ____
STAFF _Holland__________
HEARING OFFICER
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045
APPLICANT: Aubrey Carson
Carson Design Studio LLC
413 Cormorant Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Greg and Kathy Obermann
2215 45
th
Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to consider a Major Amendment to the two lot Stoner Subdivision
P.D.P. The project proposes to amend the previously approved building footprint and
building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2. The
applicant proposes a two-story single family residence with plans that show 2,051 total
building square feet on the 6,667 square foot lot. The property is located at 1017 W.
Magnolia Street and is in the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density zone
district. The amendment is proposed for Lot 2 only.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The approval of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045 complies with
the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 2
The approval of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045 does not
comply with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
(LUC), more specifically:
• The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Division 4.27, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article
4 – Districts.
• The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Article 3 – General Development Standards.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
S: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
E: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
W: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
The Stoner Subdivision is part of the Kenwood Heights Annexation, June 21, 1924. The
annexation consisted of 80 platted lots that were typically 50 feet wide by 140 feet deep.
The Stoner Subdivision re-platted two of the Kenwood Heights platted lots, each
measuring 50 by 160 feet and included a total of 15,987 square feet The Stoner
Subdivision re-plat re-oriented the original Kenwood Heights east/west interior lot line to
run north/south to bisect Lots 1 and 2.
The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved as a two-lot subdivision through a Type
1 public hearing held May 30th, 2013.
Lot 1 of the Stoner Subdivision is addressed as 502 Wayne Street and is located at the
southeast corner of Wayne and Magnolia Streets. An existing one-story single family
dwelling is located on Lot 1.
Two Modifications of Standard to the Land Use Code were approved with the Stoner
Subdivision P.D.P. The first Modification addressed Section 4.7(F)(7) which states that
no lot may be further subdivided to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot.
The second Modification addressed Section 3.6.2(J)(2) which requires that portions of
alleys be paved in conjunction with the proposed use on Lot 2.
Due to the Modifications requested with the Stoner Subdivision P.D.P., a building
elevation and building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the P.D.P. approval.
As described in the staff report for the May 30, 2013 P.D.P. hearing, the building design
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 3
approved with the P.D.P. demonstrated compliance with the architectural character for
the project in terms of appropriate size, bulk, massing, scale, detail and articulation.
2. Compliance with Applicable Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low
Density District N-C-L Standards:
A. Section 4.7(A) - Purpose
The Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District is intended to preserve the
character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family
dwellings and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted
subarea plan.
The proposed Major Amendment is not in compliance with this standard. As described
in more detail later in this staff report, elements of the building design are not arranged
to control and mitigate the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with
architecture in the surrounding area. The resulting proposed design is incompatible,
does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the character of existing development and
does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in accordance with
the purpose statement of the N-C-L District.
B. Section 4.7(B)(2)(a) - Permitted Uses
Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the N-C-L zone, subject to basic
development review, provided that the dwelling is on a lot that is part of an approved
site specific development plan. Due to the fact that the project proposes a change in
character to the approved building footprint and building elevations, a Major
Amendment is required.
C. Section 4.7(D)(1) – Density
The project is in compliance with the minimum lot area ratio of this section requiring that
Lot 2 is two and one-half (2 ½) times the total floor area of the proposed building, which
is a ratio of 0.4 overall. The approved building footprint for Lot 2 was below the
maximum ratio of 0.4, having a floor-to-lot ratio of 0.346. The proposed amended plan
has a floor-to-lot ratio of 0.398, which is in conformance with this standard. Section
4.7(D)(1) also requires that the lots be at least 6,000 square feet for single-family
dwellings. Lot 2 remains unchanged with 6,667 square feet provided.
D. Section 4.7(D)(4) – Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space:
There is an existing garage which will remain on Lot 2 as an accessory building. The
existing garage meets the requirement of this section which states that the total floor
area of the accessory building shall not exceed 600 square feet. The floor area shown
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 4
for the garage on the approved plan is 590 square feet, meeting the requirements of this
Section. The amended plan calculates the existing garage floor area as 576 square
feet, also in compliance with the standard. Prior to approval of a building permit, staff
may require that the floor area of the garage is verified to resolve this discrepancy.
E. Section 4.7(D)(5) – Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
This section requires that lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths
(0.25) on the rear 50% of the lot. The approved FAR for Lot 2 is in compliance with this
requirement, with a 0.2 FAR. The proposed amended plan remains in compliance with
approximately 744 square feet on the rear 50% of the lot resulting in a 0.22 FAR.
F. Section 4.7(E)(1) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Lot Width
This standard requires that each single-family dwelling have a minimum lot width of 40
feet. Lot 2 is 72 feet in width and remains unchanged from the approved plan.
G. Section 4.7(E)(2) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Front Yard Setback
This standard requires that the minimum front yard setback be 15 feet and that the
setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks be at least 20 feet. The
proposed amendment continues to comply with these setback standards. For the
existing house on Lot 1, Wayne Street is considered the front setback, due to the fact
that the front door faces Wayne Street. For Lot 2, Magnolia Street is considered the
front.
H. Section 4.7(E)(3) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Rear Yard Setback
The rear yard standard requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, and the
standard does not specify different setbacks for principal and accessory buildings. A 15
foot setback is required for all buildings. The existing detached garage on Lot 2 has a
reduced setback that is less than the standard 15 feet. The reduced setback is
considered an existing non-conformance, and is permitted provided that the garage
building is not altered to further reduce the non-conformance. This is addressed in
Division 1.2.4 of the Land use Code, which states:
“Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure or land shall be used and
no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved or structurally altered except in
conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is
located, nor shall a yard, lot or open space be reduced in dimensions or area to
an amount less than the minimum requirements set forth herein or to an amount
greater than the maximum requirements set forth herein”.
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 5
I. Section 4.7(E)(4) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Side Yard Setback
The side yard setback standard requires a minimum 5 feet for all interior side yards and
15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. The standard does not specify different side
setbacks for principal and accessory buildings. The approved building footprint is set
back approximately 12.5 feet on the west facing Lot 1 and 17.5 feet on the east facing
the alley. The proposed amended building footprint proposes a setback of 5 feet on the
west facing Lot 1 and 5 feet on the east facing the alley, which is in compliance with the
minimum standard.
No changes are proposed to the existing garage setback with this major amendment.
For Lot 1, the existing single-family dwelling has a reduced setback that is less than the
15 feet typically required for a street-facing side yard. This existing reduced setback is
considered an existing non-conformity, and is permitted provided that the building is not
altered to further reduce the non-conformity.
J. Section 4.7(E)(5) – Dimensional Standards, Maximum Building Height
This standard sets the maximum building height for the N-C-L zone as 2 stories; the
amended project remains in compliance with this standard.
K. Section 4.7(F)(1) – Development Standards, Building Design
The proposed amended project remains in compliance with all applicable building
design standards of this section, which require that buildings be constructed at right
angles to the lot, that the primary entrance be located along the front wall of the
building, that accessory buildings be located at least 10 feet behind the principal
building, that the second floor not overhang the lower front or side of the building, that
the front porch proposed is limited to one story, and that the roof pitch is between 2:12
and 12:12. The amended building plan contains a 2
nd
story open porch on the west of
the building which overhangs the first floor. Because the porch is not enclosed, it is not
part of the second floor area and therefore the porch is not subject to this standard.
L. Section 4.7(F)(2)(a) – Development Standards, Building Height
The project remains in compliance with the maximum building height limit of 2 stories for
the principal dwelling units. This section also requires that the detached garage, which
is an accessory building with no habitable space, have a maximum height of 20 feet and
an eave height that does not exceed 10 feet. No height alterations to the existing
garage are proposed. These standards would only apply to the existing garage if it is
proposed to be altered in a way that would affect the standard.
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 6
M. Section 4.7(F)(4) – Development Standards, Landscape/Hardscape Material
This standard requires that not more than 40% of the front yard be covered with
inorganic material, and the project remains in compliance with this standard.
N. Section 4.7(F)(7) – Development Standards, Subdividing of Existing Lots
This standard states that no existing lot may be further subdivided in such manner as to
create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. A Modification of Standard is
approved with the P.D.P. to address this standard for Lots 1 and 2.
3. Compliance with Article Three – General Development Standards:
The following General Development Standards are applicable for the proposed
amendment to the Stoner Subdivision.
A. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection
The project remains in compliance with this Section. The approved plans provide for
two new street trees, with a caliper size that exceeds the minimum requirements, in
order to provide adequate replacement for existing trees that are shown to be removed.
No additional trees are proposed to be removed with this amendment.
B. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c) – Required Off-Street Parking
The project continues to provide at least one off-street parking space per lot, which is in
compliance with this standard.
C. Section 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) Building and Project Compatibility
The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics
of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of
the surrounding area.
The General Standard of this section states that:
New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a
design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character
is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land
Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard
of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be
achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of
similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to
the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 7
that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate
area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be
considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural
compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from
the neighboring context.
The predominant character of the surrounding architectural context can be described as
follows:
• One and two-story single family detached residences with architectural styles
that are varied, including eclectic elements of colonial, tudor and craftsman
revival styles mixed with minimal traditional and ranch style houses.
• The scale, height, mass and bulk of the surrounding architecture is defined by
simple overall forms and building outlines. The use of a single simple primary
building shape with one primary side gable roof or a single primary front-facing
gable or hip roof is typical of the area. Overall house forms are typically defined
by one primary roof element with one or two roof elements that are clearly
secondary in hierarchy and scale.
• The majority of houses are one-story, or if two-story, the floor area of the second
story is integrated into the primary roof form, with a minimal use of second-story
vertical walls and roof eaves above second-story windows.
• Windows and roof elements used with second story areas are complementary
with the overall scale and form of the homes, and are typically secondary roof
projections such as shed or gable dormers that do not dominate the overall form
of the buildings.
• A simple material palette is typical, with wood lap siding mixed with either brick,
stone or stucco.
The approved project provides a building design which demonstrates compliance with
the established architectural context in the area, providing appropriate building height
size, scale, mass and bulk to achieve compatibility with the area. Compatible aspects of
the approved building design include:
• The primary elements of the proposed architecture – the overall outline of the
home, the use of gables and hip roof elements, and the use of second-story
elements that are integrated into the roof line – are designed with a moderate
size, bulk, and massing that provides an appropriate transition and compatible fit
with existing homes on the block.
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 8
• An appropriate number of secondary elements such as bay windows, porch
elements and roof dormers are provided that are appropriate in size, scale and
proportion so that these elements do not overpower the overall building form
while providing visual interest and articulated massing on all sides of the home.
• Architectural detailing is provided through the use of building projections and
recesses that are appropriately scaled, stepping down at interior lot lines to
provide transition with adjacent lots.
• A mix of materials is used with lap siding, shake siding, and large windows that
provide a traditional design element that fits the pattern of surrounding
residences.
• The building footprint is set back from the adjacent property lines approximately
12.5 feet on the west facing Lot 1 and 17.5 feet on the east facing the alley,
helping which provides additional space to transition the mass and bulk of the
two-story building from the adjacent one-story homes to the east and west.
The proposed major amendment to the approved building design does not comply with
the building and compatibility standards of this section in terms of scale, height and
massing.
Compatibility is defined in Article 5 of the LUC:
Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or
design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.
Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of
structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that
affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture.
Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the
sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing
development.
• The proposed design does not achieve compatibility with the homes near or
adjacent to the project. The proposed design contains a significant amount of
competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be
inconsistent with the character of adjacent one-story homes as well as nearby
homes. A single primary building form is not clearly defined, and the multiple
forms used do not have sufficient hierarchy within the forms to keep the overall
massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the area.
• The second story has no floor area that is contained within the roof line of the
first story, which is a predominant characteristic of the architecture in the area.
The significant quantity and location of competing wall and roof planes used with
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 9
the design is inconsistent with the simple wall and roof forms of nearby
architecture. The second story floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend
to the top of the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large
portion of the first story, adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the
building. The overall affect is a second story that is not secondary to an overall
primary form, and appears as a dominant form on top of another dominant form,
which is inconsistent with the architectural context in the area. Elements of the
building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a
way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area. The resulting
proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the
character of existing development and does not preserve the character of
developed single-family dwellings in accordance with the purpose statement of
the N-C-L District.
D. Section 3.5.2(D)(3) – Setbacks for alley-accessed garages
This standard requires that garages that are accessed from an alley be set back a
minimum of 8 feet from the alley right of way. The existing garage on Lot 2 exceeds the
minimum 8 foot setback and is in compliance with this standard. This standard is in
addition to other applicable setback standards for side, rear, and front setbacks that are
listed in Section 4.7(E) which are specific to the project’s zone district.
E. Section 3.6.2(J)(2) – Public Alleys, Design Construction Requirements
This standard requires that the public alley frontage of this project be paved in
conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. A Modification of
Standard was approved with the Stoner Subdivision P.D.P. exempting the approved
project from this requirement so that the alley could remain unpaved.
The major amendment does not propose changes to the landscape, utility, grading or
drainage details of the approved plans. Two conditions of approval with the Subdivision
P.D.P. were addressed with the approved plans:
1. A 10 foot minimum site distance triangle shall be provided per the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards within Lot 2 where the alley intersects with the
street right of way. All existing shrubs shall be removed from Lot 2 within the site
distance triangle. All existing shrubs located on Lot 2 adjacent to the alley right of way
shall be removed.
2. A horizontal and vertical design for the 20 foot alley right of way along the east
frontage of Lot 2 shall be included as part of the Final Development Plan documents.
The design shall provide a 20 foot all-weather roadway surface, crowned at the right of
way centerline with a drainage swale on both sides of the roadway surface.
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 10
4. Neighborhood Meeting:
The Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for this major
amendment and the applicant chose not to conduct a formal meeting.
5. Findings of Fact / Conclusion:
In reviewing and evaluating the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, staff makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. The Major Amendment complies with the process located in Division 2.2 –
Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of
Article 2 – Administration.
B. The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Division 4.27, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article
4 – Districts.
The project fails to comply with Section 4.7(A) – Purpose, because elements of
the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk
in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area. The
resulting proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in
maintaining the character of existing development and does not preserve the
character of developed single-family dwellings in accordance with the purpose
statement of the N-C-L District.
C. The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Article 3 – General Development Standards.
The project fails to comply with Sections 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and Project
Compatibility, because the proposed design is incompatible in mass, bulk, and
scale with the homes near or adjacent to the project. The proposed design
contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall
bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of adjacent one-story
homes as well as nearby homes. A single primary building form is not clearly
defined, and the multiple forms used do not have sufficient hierarchy within the
forms to keep the overall massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the
area; and
The second story has no floor area that is contained within the roof line of the
first story, which is a predominant characteristic of the architecture in the area.
The significant quantity and location of competing wall and roof planes used with
the design are not consistent with the simple wall and roof forms of nearby
architecture. The second story floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend
to the top of the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 11
portion of the first story, adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the
building. The overall affect is a second story that is not secondary to an overall
primary form, and appears as a dominant form on top of another dominant form,
which is inconsistent with the architectural context in the area. Elements of the
building design are not arranged to control and the height, scale, mass and bulk
in a way that is consistent with architecture in the surrounding area. The
resulting proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in
maintaining the character of existing development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA 130045.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Site Plan
2. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Building Elevations
3. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Hearing Notice
4. Stoner Subdivision approved Site, Landscape and Utility Plan with half-tone
linework visible
5. Stoner Subdivision approved signed Site, Landscape and Utility Plan Mylar scan
6. Stoner Subdivision approved Building Elevations
7. Stoner Subdivision approved signed Plat Mylar scan
ATTACHMENT 5
Materials presented at the
Administrative Hearing
December 5, 2013
1
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
Administrative Hearing – December 5, 2013
Exhibit A
2
Project Description
The property is located at 1017 W. Magnolia
Street and is in the N-C-L, Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density zone district.
The project proposes to amend the
previously approved building footprint and
building elevations for the approved single-
family detached dwelling on Lot 2. The
applicant proposes a two-story single
family residence with plans that show 2,051
total building square feet on the 6,667
square foot lot. The amendment is
proposed for Lot 2 only.
3
Zoning Map
N-C-L
Neighborhood
Conservation
Low Density
4
Aerial Image
5
Stoner Subdivision
Existing single family
dwelling at 502 Wayne
(Lot 1).
Amendment is
proposed for a new
single-family dwelling
design at 1017 W.
Magnolia Street.
6
View of Lot One From Wayne St.
7
A Modification of Standard was approved to
Section 4.7(F)(7) to permit a new lot in the rear
portion of an existing lot.
Section 4.7(F)(7) of the Land Use Code states
that:
“No existing lot may be further subdivided in
such manner as to create a new lot in the rear
portion of the existing lot”.
AA Modificatio MM onn off ooof f St S tandar rd wa wwas aa ap pproved ppro tto to
Background- Modification Request:
8
LUC - Building Compatibility
• New developments in or adjacent to existing
developed areas shall be compatible with
the established architectural character of
such areas by using a design that is
complementary.
• Compatibility: repetition of roof lines, the
use of similar proportions in building mass;
9
LUC - Building Compatibility
• Architectural compatibility shall be derived
from the neighboring context.
• Some elements affecting compatibility
include height, scale, mass and bulk of
structures.
• Compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals in maintaining the
character of existing development.
10
Architectural Context
11
Architectural Context
12
Architectural Context
13
Architectural Context
14
Architectural Context
15
Architectural Context
16
Architectural Context
17
Architectural Context
18
Architectural Context
19
Architectural Context
20
Architectural Context
21
Architectural Context
22
Architectural Context
23
Architectural Context
24
Architectural Context
25
Architectural Context
26
Architectural Context
27
Architectural Context
28
Architectural Context
29
Architectural Context
30
Architectural Context
31
Architectural Context
32
Architectural Context
33
Architectural Context
34
Architectural Context
35
Architectural Context
36
Architectural Context
37
Architectural Context
38
Architectural Context
39
Architectural Context
40
Architectural Context
41
Architectural Context
42
Architectural Context
43
Architectural Context
44
Architectural Context
45
Architectural Context
46
Architectural Context
47
Architectural Context
48
Architectural Context
49
Architectural Context
50
Architectural Context
51
• One and two-story single family
detached residences with a range
of architectural styles;
Existing Architectural Context
52
• Simple overall forms and
building outlines typically
defined by one primary
roof element with one or
two roof elements that are
clearly secondary in
hierarchy and scale;
Existing Architectural Context
53
• Two-story homes with the
floor area of the second
story integrated into the
primary roof form;
• Minimal use of second-
story vertical walls and roof
eaves above second-story
windows;
• Windows and roof elements
used are complementary
with the overall scale and
form of the homes.
Existing Architectural Context
54
Building Character – approved option
North
East
West
South
55
Building Character – Proposed option
North
East
West
South
56
Building Character – Comparison
North - Current
North - Proposed
Change in
Character –
Major
Amendment
Process
Required
57
Building Character – Comparison
East –
Current
Option
East –
Proposed
Option
58
Building Character – Comparison
South –
Current
Option
South
South –
Proposed
Option
59
Building Character – Comparison
West –
Current
Option
West –
Proposed
Option
60
Building Character – Comparison
Change in
Character –
Major
Amendment
Process
Required
61
Building Character – Proposed option
North
East
West
South
62
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
Staff recommendation:
Denial
63
Staff Recommendation - Denial
1. The project fails to comply with Section
4.7(A) – Purpose N-C-L District,
because elements of the building
design are not arranged to control the
height, scale, mass and bulk in a way
that is compatible with architecture in
the surrounding area.
64
Staff Recommendation - Denial
2. The project fails to comply with
Sections 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and
Project Compatibility, because the
proposed design is incompatible in
mass, bulk, and scale with the homes
near and adjacent to the project.
65
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Incompatible with neighboring architectural
context:
• Competing building forms;
• A single primary building form is not
clearly defined;
• the multiple forms used add to the overall
bulk and mass – inconsistent with homes
in the area;
66
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Incompatible with neighboring architectural
context:
• The second story – no floor area contained
within the roof line of the first story;
• The quantity and location of wall and roof
planes;
• Second story mass, form and scale;
67
Staff Recommendation - Denial
The project fails to comply with 4.7(A) –
Purpose of the N-C-L District and Sections
3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and Project
Compatibility:
68
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Conclusion:
• Elements of the building design are not
arranged to control and the height,
scale, mass and bulk in a way that is
consistent with architecture in the
surrounding area.
• The resulting proposed design is
incompatible, does not achieve
sensitivity in maintaining the character
of existing development.
69
Recommendation Condition,
if approved:
Approval of this application does not extend the
three year vested right established under
Section 2.2.11(3). Any future Major Amendment
application will require compliance with all
standards of Division 4.7 in affect at the time of
the application.
70
Overall Site Plan
71
Site, Landscape and Utility Plan
72
Supplemental Exhibits
73
Nearby Corner Lots over 12,000 S.F.
7333
1. 300 Jackson St. Existing house centered
2. 330 Jackson St. Existing house centered
3. 427 S. Shields St. Existing Triplex
4. 1124 W. Mulberry St. Existing Office Use
5. 1105 W. Myrtle St. NCB Zone; American Babtist owned
6. 600 S. Shields St. American Babtist Church facility
7. 3309 S. Grant Ave. Existing house centered
8. 221 S. Grant Ave. Setback Issue
9. 323 S. Washington Ave. Has existing carriage house; 2 DU’s
10. 531 S. Shields St. Existing Triplex
11. 401 Scott Ave. 14,250 S.F. House not centered;
could be similarly subdivided
Location: Notes:
74
Location Map
10 nearby corner
Lots shown that
are over 12,000
Square Feet
75
View of Alley Looking North
76
View of Alley Looking North
([KLELW%
([KLELW'
ATTACHMENT 6
Verbatim Transcript of the
Administrative Hearing
December 5, 2013
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, December 5, 2013
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Kendra L. Carberry
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jason Holland, City Planner
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER KENDRA L. CARBERRY: Alright, I’ll go
2 ahead and call to order…this is a hearing on Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, Case
3 Number MJA 130045. My name is Kendra Carberry, I’m the Hearing Officer. The order of
4 proceedings are up there. I know it’s a little heard for you to hear; I’ll try to speak up and we’ll
5 try to have everyone here speak up. Feel free to move up here if, you know, if it makes it easier
6 to hear. As you can see, there’s a time for public comment. I’m just going to ask if you want to
7 make public comment, if you would come up to this table so that we can record your testimony,
8 and just give me your name on that sign-in sheet. Okay, go ahead. Applicant first please.
9 MR. STEVE WHITTALL: Good evening, my name is Steve Whittall, I own By Design
10 Homes.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Can you spell your last name for me?
12 MR. WHITTALL: W-H-I-T-T-A-L-L.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
14 MR. WHITTALL: And I own By Design Homes here in Fort Collins. We build
15 primarily in Old Town. I was hired by the Obermann’s, which are the current property owners,
16 to design and build their home. I think that, in order to be able to get kind of the full gravity of
17 what we have to deal with, maybe an overview would be appropriate. And, part of this I was
18 involved in, and part of this I was not…so, in the beginning, I believe that the Stoner Subdivision
19 was submitted to the City for a Type I review for a subdivision. When it was…when it was
20 applied for, obviously the content of what’s required to be able to meet the bar to become an
21 actual subdividable [sic] lot occurs. Seems that process occurred…there were public hearings in
22 regards to it and it was found that basically this lot met the requirements in the NCL
23 neighborhood, that it would be a subdivided parcel suitable for a single-family residence. And
24 during that process, typically part of that process, is a concept of what’s to be built there.
25 Typically that concept, or, if you will, prototype, is used as a guide for varying housing types.
26 Typically, it’s suitable when we’re doing larger kinds of developments. In this particular case,
27 there was a plan that was submitted, and that plan became an approved plan, and it became
28 approved, loosely, with the stipulation on the general note, that really brings us here, that says
29 the final plans are intended to show the general character of the building, elevations, and the
30 footprint for lot 2. Building plans for lot 2, submitted at the time of building permit application
31 may vary from the final plans provided that the general character of the building elevations and
32 footprints are similar.
33 Well, we went about designing a house over the last three months on that site for our
34 clients. We took into consideration all factors that clients hire us to take into consideration,
35 which is, you know, siting, obviously the visual appeal of the house, but primarily I think that it
36 meets their specific needs in regards to housing. We knew that the lot was…that there were
37 conditions that we would have to meet in regards to the lot when it came to the general building
3
1 requirements in which we follow, which are typically the square footage, the height,
2 and…elevations at that point. We…during the process, prior to the completion of the
3 subdivision, when my clients realized that this lot potentially could be buildable, they expressed
4 an interest in it. And so, at that point, that’s when I joined in. So, this was on the home stretch
5 of the subdivision process at that particular point. We had numerous conversations with the City
6 in regards to the conditions that would be placed on what my clients would be able to build.
7 And, what we were basically told is, provided that we stayed within a general character, and we
8 met the setback requirements, and all the requirements set forth, that we could move forward.
9 So, we did that…we submitted our plans to the City; we had some issues to resolve at the time
10 that we submitted the plans in regards to compliance issues, which we resolved. So, we believed
11 that we were on our way to being able to build a house. Pretty excited about that.
12 And then, we got a call from the City saying, basically, we…there’s a problem with your
13 house, you need to set up a meeting, and at that meeting…Aubrey went to that meeting, to the
14 first meeting. What we came to realize is that the project, as it sits before us tonight, meets the
15 requirements on a multitude of areas, of which are long and arduous and definable. And then
16 when it comes to the two things that are subjective, it says that we fail to meet the bar, and those
17 two subjective items are character and mass and scale. And, at first glance, you would think that
18 that would be an easy argument, and then you start to look at those two things independently and
19 in relationship to the approved plan. So, I think that that’s where I would probably start to argue
20 the point that, from a character standpoint, the reason why I moved to Old Town thirty years ago,
21 is because it was a place that was diverse, it was interesting, it was…even at that time, it was
22 even a bit gritty. And, I liked that, I thought that added to the complexion of where we lived.
23 And, honestly, the 400 block of Whedbee where I lived thirty years ago, and where I lived
24 recently as well, really has changed very limited in the last thirty years. And, I remember having
25 conversations with people when they would say, well why do you want to live in Old Town?
26 And I said, well I just like the rich character of it all. But I never really was put in a position to
27 have to define what that was. Nor, do I feel like I’m capable of being able to convince you all
28 that I…that I’ve reached a conclusion that all of us would agree on. But, I think my argument is
29 an easy argument in regards to Old Town character. And, I did what’s been being done now for
30 the last twenty years, is just a character study of the general area of Old Town. And, I
31 actually…there’s a PowerPoint…Josh of the…let’s roll through this.
32 (**Secretary’s note: Unidentified individuals had a brief unintelligible conversation
33 regarding the PowerPoint presentation.)
34 MR. WHITTALL: But what I realized today…not just today but over the course of, gosh,
35 a long time…but specifically over the last four or five days, that when you start to look at
36 character…if you start looking at the visual, you know the objects, if you will, that are there, and
37 we call them houses…that you see…
4
1 Okay, so I started to look…I didn’t, I tried not to be too selective, and I did these all
2 within a block radius of the subject property. And, what I found was that we have a number of
3 absolutely interesting structures in Old Town, and it gave me an opportunity to be…and what I
4 got an opportunity to realize today, is absolutely the diversity that’s included in this just small,
5 small area of the thousand block of Magnolia. And, actually this particular subject property at
6 104 Magnolia is really…its view is really present from the house that we designed. This is 502
7 Wayne Street, which is the adjoining property. This is a house that’s across the street on
8 Magnolia. And, what I realized is that I can point out similar characteristics and I can come up
9 with ideas that would formulate a sense of dominant characteristic, if you will, or characteristics
10 that express themselves in a certain architectural style. But, to be able to argue a broad
11 range…from a character standpoint, and narrow my view, such as the one that I think that you’ll
12 see City staff present today, would, one, be unfair to everybody that lives in Old Town that wants
13 to be able to express some level of creativity with where they live, and it’s an implausible
14 argument. So, in regards to that, I think there are people that will probably speak to that, but I
15 think that the property that was the approved plan, versus the proposed plan that the City has
16 recommended denying, in fact are very compatible from a character standpoint. They have far
17 more likeness than difference, and Aubrey can speak to that piece.
18 The second would be mass and scale. And, Aubrey also has information in regards to
19 that, but that equally is…dependent upon your basis or your viewpoint, is also subjective. One
20 of the things that I did today is I recognized that, when you do a subdivision plan, you are
21 required to do a site plan, and that site plan sets forth milestones. One of those big milestones is
22 drainage. And, one of the ways that oftentimes we get around the drainage when we engineer
23 and submit plans, is that we put things up high. And, when we put things high on a knoll, then
24 we don’t run the risk of running into grading issues. But, I think that what, in Old Town, where
25 the lots are narrow, where things are…where we’re working within close quarters, elevation and
26 where we site things is extremely important. In other words, the finished floor dictates mass.
27 And, in this particular instance, when you have two houses…when you have a vacant lot that is
28 bookended on both sides with a house, you have to take into consideration one, the space in
29 between them, and secondly, the basis of which you start to site your house. And, in the
30 approved drawings, we have a finished floor of the approved house that is five feet…the finished
31 floor is five feet above the curb. And, that finished floor was established because the other two
32 finished floors on each side are heightened. But, what isn’t taken into consideration, and you’ll
33 be able to see it on further photos, is…let’s roll down where you can look at it straight on…if
34 you will recognize that Jim’s house, that is on Magnolia and adjacent to the subject
35 property…his finished floor is actually right in here, but he has thirty inches of exposed daylight,
36 if you will, windows into his basement. You have the same, unfortunately we built the fence and
37 blocked the view, but you have the same condition that exists at 502 Wayne Street, where the
38 finished floor is elevated, and then there are windows that access light into the basement. I
39 believe that Jason’s massing study took a finished floor drawing off of the subdivision plan, and
40 what that did is…it put our finished floor six inches above both of these floors here, but we have
5
1 no daylight basement. We have no daylight space. Therefore, the plan that Aubrey…and you’ll
2 see in his elevations and drawing…we were capable and able to lower our finished floor, thus
3 lowering the mass and lessening the mass visible to the street. I think a lot of these things can be
4 seen in further photos. But, I think that this project should be approved based on the fact that it
5 meets every single requirement of the Type I review, that its been thoughtfully considered and
6 designed with sensitivity to the neighborhood, and we think that it’s a project that instead of
7 being brought before a major review, should be a project that the City staff should embrace. And
8 I’ll let Aubrey show you his drawings.
9 MR. AUBREY CARSON: So, my name is Aubrey Carson, I’m the designer on the home
10 for the Obermann’s, working with Steve. And, so what I did, illustrated in this drawing and
11 then…this is actually a photograph that I took today, that’s taken from the street, kind of to the
12 south, I mean to the northeast of our lot. And then…so I took this photograph, took it back to
13 my office, and then I superimposed and sketched in…so this is the house, existing house, which
14 is Jim’s to the east…that is the existing house, the Stoner…Jay Stoner’s mother’s house, 502
15 Wayne Street, and then this is our house that we’re proposing to build sketched in there to kind
16 of give you an idea of how it would fit in the streetscape, scale-wise. Again, it’s a sketch, so you
17 know, to say it’s exactly accurate…it’s as accurate as I could get it, superimposing that, but I
18 think it gives a really good understanding of the scale and character of what we’re looking at
19 here. So, you can kind of split…you have copies of that. And then so, the next drawing is the
20 prototype approved house, and this is what I would consider a colonial or Cape Cod style house.
21 So, that’s the north elevation, or front elevation, and then this is the west side right elevation, and
22 then I have the next slide is actually what we’re proposing to do, so that is the north, or front
23 elevation, and this is more of a Craftsman-style, bungalow-style house. And then this is the west
24 side elevation. So, you know, some of the things that we tried to incorporate were, you know,
25 the lower pitched roofs, and then, you know, details of brackets and change of materials, and
26 shakes, and then details, you know, trim around the window that’s appropriate to that style. And,
27 one of the things I know that Jason has mentioned to me, and he’s mentioned in his staff report,
28 is with the Cape Cod style, you’re able to achieve the second floor by it being under one roof
29 element, and that’s one of the things that he’s expressed a few times to me, and I think I know
30 he’ll elaborate on that. But that’s…again, that’s typical of this kind of colonial, Cape Cod style.
31 It’s got a much steeper roof there. But with the style that we are proposing, and our client is very
32 much in love with…you know, the roofs are flatter, and so you…it’s not as easy to achieve that
33 objective of keeping everything under one roof. I’m not saying it’s not achievable, but it’s not as
34 easy.
35 MS. CARBERRY: Could you clarify, what was option one that you just showed me?
36 MR. CARSON: This is what we have that is the…yeah, this is the prototype, approved
37 prototype. And then here again, this is what we’re proposing to build. So, what we did do to try
38 to scale, so we don’t have these large, two-story walls, which I want to go to a slide a little
39 farther back here… So, this is a two-story that’s just less than a block away. So it has large,
6
1 complete two-story walls, and then that’s, you know, facing the street. And so this, again, is a
2 Craftsman-style with, you know, some variation. But what we tried to do is scale that back by
3 pulling the second floor in to more the center of the house, so you have first level roof elements
4 that kind of encapsulate that second story. You know, we feel like…I feel like we’ve done a
5 really good job with that. So, again, in comparison to…this is the front elevation and the west
6 elevation, here’s our proposed one. So again, this has, even though it’s keeping the second story
7 under one roof form, you still have this large two-story wall to the western neighbor, and then
8 that’s also similar. And, unfortunately this is upside down…well, see again, this is the east wall,
9 and you get that large two-story wall that’s, in my opinion, is objectionable. If I was…you know
10 that’s what you see from the alley side, and then here’s what we’re proposing. So that’s our
11 alley side here. So, again, it breaks down in scale and terraces back away from the alley. And
12 again, it’s…I just feel it’s a much more compatible…especially with the fabric and, you know,
13 the character of Old Town.
14 Again, here’s some more of the neighborhood. Again, a lot of two-story walls. And
15 there’s a lot of, you know, diversity in Old Town…got some Craftsman detail to it, but it’s…but
16 what we really try to do is bring a lot of the Craftsman style into our proposed home, but be very
17 sensitive to the neighborhood and the scale of the house. And, like I said, this…I think this
18 really to me gives you the best comparison of, you know, so here’s Jim’s house, which I would
19 consider a Craftsman style house, and it is raised…you know, its thirty, forty inches out of the
20 ground because they have a daylight basement there. And, you know, if you follow those roof
21 lines, and you draw a line, you know…ours, that second story is a little bit taller, but it is a two-
22 story house. This is a one-story, maybe what you would consider a one and a half story, because
23 part of it’s out of…the basement’s out of the ground. So, we would very much like to build this
24 house for our clients, they’re in love with it. We feel that it’s very, very sensitive to the
25 neighborhood, the fabric of the neighborhood. We feel it’s very scale appropriate. It’s not a
26 one-story house, I mean it’s…you know, it was never intended to be that. And it’s not a…it’s
27 not a colonial or a Cape Cod; it was never intended to be that. And again, this is the character
28 that we’re somewhat tied to right now, and again, this is not what our clients want to build. They
29 want to build this house. So, we would like for you guys to approve that, very much.
30 (**Secretary’s note: Unidentified individuals had a brief unintelligible conversation
31 regarding the PowerPoint presentation.)
32 MR. WHITTALL: If I could add also on the bulk and mass of the approved plan…what
33 you see presented was the front, exterior elevation of the approved plan. And, what I find
34 interesting about this is that, if you’re going to do a study in mass and scaling, as obviously was
35 done to get to the approval of this plan, then at least what you would want is you would want an
36 accurate document. Because, in essence, you don’t…the garage is not placed there at all. In
37 fact, the garage…where the garage is placed on the front exterior elevation of Option One is
38 actually where 502 Wayne Street is located. The garage is really properly located behind the
7
1 house, so even in that front exterior elevation; it’s an entirely inaccurate depiction of what would
2 even be possible.
3 MS. CARBERRY: The bottom one is accurate though, right?
4 MR. CARSON: That’s correct…so this is the front elevation of the house…
5 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, I got it. We don’t need to dwell on that, I’ve got it.
6 MR. CARSON: Okay, okay.
7 MR. WHITTALL: So that concludes…
8 MS. CARBERRY: You’ll have an opportunity, you know, to speak some more later if
9 you like.
10 MR. JASON HOLLAND: Well, we’ve already done a little bit of background, so I’ll go
11 pretty quickly through this…just to give a little bit of an overview of the background from the
12 Planning Department. The property…I’m sorry, Jason Holland, Project Planner with the City of
13 Fort Collins. The property, as many of you know, is located at 1017 West Magnolia, and this is
14 in the NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density District. The project proposes to amend,
15 as the applicant’s pointed out, the previously approved building footprint and building elevations
16 for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot Two. The amendment is only for Lot
17 Two. This is where the project is located...you can see Magnolia Street here, Shields and
18 Mulberry. This is a site plan of the current Project Development Plan that was approved. Here
19 you can see the existing house at 502 Wayne Street, and then this was the approved lot split that
20 occurred with the PDP approval. We’ve already seen the existing house at 502 Wayne Street,
21 that’s the house that’s located on Lot One, at the corner of Magnolia and Wayne Street.
22 A modification was approved with the approval of the Project Development Plan, and
23 that modification dealt with the Code section that states that no existing lot may be further
24 subdivided in such a manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. And I
25 wanted to point that out because that’s why, through the Project Development Plan
26 approval…because they were asking for a lot split that is expressly not permitted by the Land
27 Use Code, staff felt that it was necessary to get an idea of what was going to be proposed to be
28 built on Lot Two, for the building elevations and the building footprint. And what we did was
29 establish an option, a character option, also referred to as a prototype; so that we could have
30 some basis to get some sort of an idea moving forward as far as what could be built on that lot.
31 The Land Use Code talks about building compatibility. What it says is that new
32 developments in or adjacent to an existing developed area shall be compatible with the existing,
33 established character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. Compatibility is
34 also referenced in…as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building
35 mass…architectural compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context. Some elements
8
1 affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Compatibility is
2 referred in the Land Use Code, stating that…it refers to the sensitivity of development proposals
3 in maintaining the character of existing development.
4 We’ve already seen a photograph similar to this from the applicant. Here you can
5 see…this is looking south at the subject property, this is Lot Two. This is 502 Wayne Street, the
6 Lot One that was…this was all one lot here, and then this is the portion that was split off from
7 502 Wayne Street. Here’s the alley and here is the adjacent house to the east. Again, this
8 is…I’m just going to run through these pretty quickly, and the red dot in the map here can orient
9 you as far as where these different buildings are taken.
10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can that be made larger?
11 MR. HOLLAND: It can’t, I’m sorry, but we could…if it helps, we could maybe scoot a
12 chair up here if it helps. Another thing I wanted to point out that might help, is that the subject
13 property here has a blue line around it. I don’t know if you can see that, but that might kind of
14 help orient you a little bit. This is the existing house that is adjacent across the alley to the east.
15 And again, this is 502 Wayne Street. This is looking north across the street. You can see the
16 houses across the street there. And, following the red dot, we’ll just go down the block and you
17 can see the character of the houses…predominately simple roof forms, overall simple building
18 outline, typically one dominant roof element with one or two secondary elements attached to the
19 dominant roof element. The majority of the houses are one-story…there are some two-story
20 houses and there are also some two-story houses that have the second story contained within the
21 roof line of the second story. Here’s an example of a building that has the second story
22 contained within the roof line. Here’s another example of that. And yet another example of that.
23 A variety of different housing styles…we looked at this one as well…this is a little bit of a
24 bigger example. Overall, the massing is larger, but the forms are still simple. A variety of
25 different styles…another example of a two-story with simple roof forms, simple massing. Other
26 examples of homes that have one dominant primary roof form with a single secondary roof form
27 attached. So we just went around the block and just got a pretty good sample of houses in the
28 area. Again, you can see some of the secondary elements that are…that are added to the roof
29 line in the second story but don’t dominate the overall form of the house.
30 So, just to summarize, some of the things that we wrote in the staff report that staff
31 defined the existing architectural context by which the character would be evaluated. Pulling the
32 common themes that we see from the homes that we just looked at…that the predominant
33 context is defined by one- and two-story single-family detached residences with a variety of
34 architectural styles. Overall…simple overall forms, very important, with building outlines
35 typically defined by one primary roof element, or one or two roof elements that are clearly
36 secondary in hierarchy and scale to the primary roof element, two story homes with the floor
37 area of the second story integrated into the roof line, minimal use of second story vertical walls
38 and roof eaves above second-story windows. Windows and roof elements are used…are
9
1 complimentary with overall scale and form of the homes. And again, you know, this…the
2 existing prototype option that was approved…this is the four sides of the building elevations, and
3 you can see some of the common themes are represented with the approved option. We’ve got a
4 single dominant roof form and then we have secondary roof elements that are smaller in
5 hierarchy and don’t dominate the overall form of the building. Overall, there’s a predominance
6 of low eaves with the building…the overall width and length of the building is reasonably
7 compact and the form is simple. The style is…could be characterized as Cape Cod, but the Code
8 does not speak to style, it does not dictate style…compatibility is not an aspect of style. There’s
9 a number of different styles that could be applied to this form.
10 And then this is the proposed option, you can see all four building elevations together.
11 And we evaluated the…the proposal that, when it came in, when we were made aware of the
12 proposed building elevations that the applicant is bringing in, and staff determined that the
13 change in character between the approved option and what they are proposing is significant
14 enough that it required a Major Amendment and a new hearing. And here…I’ll just run through
15 these quickly, but you can see…we’ll just do a general comparison of the approved option and
16 then the proposed option. This is the east elevations, the south elevations, the west elevations,
17 and lastly, again, the main Magnolia-facing elevation, the north elevation.
18 Staff evaluated this and we are recommending denial of the proposed building elevations.
19 The project does not comply with Section 4.7(a), which is the purpose statement of the zoning
20 district, because elements of the building are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass, and
21 bulk in a way that is compatible with the architecture in the surrounding area. The project fails
22 to comply with Sections 3.5.1(a), (b), and (c) of the building and project compatibility standards,
23 because the proposed design is incompatible in mass, bulk, scale…and scale of…with the homes
24 near and adjacent to the project. And, as part of our recommendation for denial, we felt that it
25 was incompatible with the neighboring architecture, architectural context, because the proposed
26 design contains a significant amount of competing building forms causing the overall bulk and
27 massing to be inconsistent with the character of one-story homes as well as…adjacent one-story
28 homes as well as nearby homes. A single primary building form is not clearly defined, and the
29 multiple forms used don’t have significant hierarchy within the forms to keep the overall
30 massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the area. And the second story has no floor
31 area that’s contained within the roof line of the first story, and this is a predominant
32 characteristic of architecture in the area. The significant quantity and location of competing wall
33 and roof planes used with the design are not consistent with the simple wall and roof forms of
34 nearby architecture. The second floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend to the top of
35 the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large portion of the first story,
36 adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the building. The overall effect is a second
37 story that’s not secondary to an overall primary form. It appears as a dominant form on top of a
38 dominant…or next to another dominant form, and that’s inconsistent with the architectural
39 context of the area.
10
1 So, based on that analysis and those findings, we felt that the elements of the building
2 design were not arranged to control the height, scale, and mass, and bulk in a way that is
3 consistent with the architecture in the surrounding area. And, the resulting proposed design is
4 incompatible…it does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the character of the existing
5 development. And, the underlying portions…is language that’s directly relevant and directly
6 taken from the compatibility standards of the Land Use Code. If the project…Ms. Carberry, if
7 you do feel that the project should be recommended for approval, we are recommending a
8 condition of approval, and this is the condition of approval that the application not extend the
9 three year vesting right established under Section 2.2.11-3, and any future major amendment
10 application will require compliance with all the standards of Division 4.7 in effect at the time of
11 the application. What that…essentially what that is, to quickly explain, is that this application is
12 a Major Amendment, is evaluated under the old…what we would say is the old Land Use Code,
13 the Land Use Code that was in effect prior to the recent Eastside-Westside standards that were
14 adopted. And, what we would like to do is ensure that if, for example, if this Major Amendment
15 is approved, but then this Major Amendment is not constructed, and then a year from now
16 another proposal comes in that we would characterize as a Major Amendment for some
17 reason…at that time, we would prefer that Major Amendments cannot continue to come in…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Under the old Code…
19 MR. HOLLAND: Under the old Code. At some point, we would like the vesting to stop.
20 Every time a Major Amendment comes in, the three year vesting period is reset. So this would
21 cap…if this was approved, this would cap the vesting so that any future Major Amendment, if it
22 did for some reason come in, that it would be required to be in compliance with the current Code.
23 Overall site plan…one thing I wanted to point out here, with the overall site plan, is that,
24 with the existing building footprint, a grading plan…a detailed grading plan was approved and, if
25 the current design, or any subsequent design that comes in that is approved in some fashion,
26 either through a Major Amendment or Minor Amendment, we would need to look at the grading
27 and ensure that it works and that the grading plan would need to be amendment to reflect the
28 revised building footprint.
29 Let’s see, I just had a few things that I should probably go ahead and respond, as far as
30 the applicant’s presentation. I’m not sure if this is the time to do that…or, I could also do that
31 later if you want to move on…
32 MS. CARBERRY: Why don’t we let…it seems like there’s a lot of people here who want
33 to comment, so why don’t we let them go ahead and then we’ll have better ability to respond to
34 all of that at once.
35 MR. HOLLAND: Sounds good.
11
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, public, it’s your turn. If you would please just make sure you
2 sign in if you’re going to speak, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
3 MR. BARON JACOB LOCKSMAN: Kendra, my name is Baron Jacob Locksman, I
4 have been here twice before for this particular property. I was the original applicant who came
5 before you and the City to get this subdivision approved. Not to get off track, but the first thing I
6 want to point out is that the City staff recommended denial, but then they said if it’s approved,
7 will you give us this vesting agreement. It’s kind of like, well, we don’t want you to do it, but if
8 you do do it, then give us this…throw this little icing on the cake for us. I think that’s kind of
9 ironic and funny that they did that. One of the things I also heard was that there were vast
10 architectural styles; that’s what I just heard from the City, and that’s true, and that’s why I
11 believe that this plan should be approved, because there are vast architectural styles down in Old
12 Town. When I first submitted to do this, I was told, all that we are requiring is the building
13 elevations, and that this drawing is intended to show the general character of the building
14 elevations, and that building elevations submitted at the time of building permit application may
15 vary from these plans provided the general character of the building elevations is similar and the
16 plans are in compliance. It says right here, two prototype options intended to demonstrate the
17 architectural character of the project…and I believe that where we’re getting off track here is, I
18 keep hearing approved plan…that plan was always intended for architectural character to show
19 that a two-story building of…well, first of all that a two-story building could be built, and that it
20 would be a prototype, not a full blown specific plan. It keeps getting…this plan that these guys
21 have keeps getting compared to that plan.
22 So, I really want to point out that that elevation is for a plan that was built in SideHill,
23 which is basically a cookie-cutter neighborhood, it’s a stock plan that we submitted that
24 happened to fit with the architectural character of Old Town because there are vast architectural
25 styles, Cape Cod being one of many. These gentlemen thoughtfully put together a site-specific
26 plan for this particular lot. If that doesn’t show the dedication to the proper architectural style
27 with size and mass and bulking, which is what’s really at stake here, then I don’t know what
28 does. They specifically took into consideration the height of the lot, the surrounding properties,
29 the surrounding buildings and neighbor, while they designed this plan. That was not the case
30 with these elevations…these were submitted because we were told that we needed to do that. So,
31 when I look through this over and over again, these gentlemen are in compliance over and over
32 again with the Land Use Code and the Building Code. They have asked to build a two-story
33 home, which is in compliance…it meets the LFAR requirements. It is challenging that you guys,
34 you know, again we were told all that we need to supply is the building elevations. The City
35 requires the drainage plan…yes this footprint is a little bit bigger and will require a little
36 modified drainage plan, but the City themselves said that the problem is not with the footprint,
37 that…the staff doesn’t believe that the architectural elements are in character with the
38 neighborhood. That is so subjective, I can’t even tell you.
12
1 I think that you’ll hear from many of these people in the audience, including myself, that
2 this certainly does meet those requirements. It was designed specifically for this lot. The fact
3 that they keep going back to elevations that were submitted at the time of the original approval,
4 that were required by the City, again to show general character…that’s what they are, general
5 character as a prototype. They are not the end all to be all for what can be built there, and I
6 actually think that the plan these guys have is significantly better. So, that’s all I have to say
7 about that. I highly recommend that you approve this; I think it would be in the best interest of
8 both the neighborhood and the character of Old Town. It is diverse, it’s not homogenous…you
9 can walk around it anywhere, on the Eastside or the Westside and see that part of the reason
10 people want to be there is the diversity of the architectural styles. And trying to generalize
11 character is a slippery slope, I believe, for the City to do that.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
13 MR. LOCKSMAN: Thanks.
14 MS. CARBERRY: Anyone else?
15 MS. TAVITA SILVERSTEIN: My name is Tavita Silverstein and…what I’ve seen, I
16 believe that they’ve stayed within the character of Old Town. Old Town, again, is very diverse;
17 that is what is the nice part of Old Town is the diversity within Old Town. I agree that the newer
18 plan is actually more appealing to the eye…less of an…more appealing and goes with the
19 neighborhood better than the approved plan. I don’t find an eyesore with elevations or mass in
20 the building. I think these gentlemen have taken their time and really concentrated on making a
21 flow with the house to match the existing other houses in the neighborhood, especially more of
22 the two stories. And, they’ve really looked at the lot and taken the best they can…the square
23 footage and mass that they have and make the best housing for an individual who’s purchasing
24 this lot. So, I feel it should be approved; I think it would actually be helpful to the subdivision
25 and not hurtful. I think it definitely is within the character and diversity of Old Town.
26 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
27 MR. ANDRE MOUTON: Hi, my name is Andre Mouton. I’ve lived in Old Town for
28 over thirty years and my five kids were all born and raised here. I love Fort Collins, I love Old
29 Town. I guess what…I’m just learning what’s going on here tonight and I think it’s revolving
30 around the new Land Use Code, which, in my opinion…is that right? This was part of the East-
31 West thing? Is that why this is? Is this Code new that you’re interpreting here?
32 MS. CARBERRY: No, they’re under the old Code. This whole application is under
33 the…
34 MR. MOUTON: So…they don’t comply with the old Code in your opinion, is what
35 you’re saying?
13
1 MR. HOLLAND: Correct.
2 MR. MOUTON: Okay, just wanted to get that clear. So…
3 MR. HOLLAND: It’s the compatibility standards are…have not changed.
4 MR. MOUTON: Well, that’s kind of good news, I think, from my perspective. So, there
5 was a famous football coach named Bum Phillips and he has a famous saying…he was talking
6 about the coach of the Miami Dolphins, and what he said about that guy was that that guy is so
7 good, he can take his team and beat yours then he can take your team and beat his. He’s a damn
8 good coach. And the point of that is that, a damn good lawyer can build a case to prove anything
9 they want. You can choose and you can manipulate data and you can put the right pictures up
10 there that you like…basically what I see going on here is a tragedy. These people…the house
11 they designed is clearly more appealing than the house…that junky looking track home they had
12 up there before. So, it’s a tragedy…in just the real world, that’s a terrible thing that you’re
13 saying don’t build this beautiful house, build this crappy looking house. That’s too bad. Now, if
14 you have to interpret the Code in such a way that that’s just the way it’s going to be, that you
15 take the worst looking homes in Old Town and say, look…you have to build a house like this.
16 That’s what looks like is going on in here to me, it’s madness, and I really appeal to your
17 common sense here to do the right thing. Let these people build this beautiful home. I think
18 it’s…they’ve tried to stay within the rigors of the, what seem to be gray area laws that you guys
19 are dealing with. And, I appreciate you guys didn’t write the laws, you’re just trying to uphold
20 them. But, like I said, you can build your argument however you want; you’re choosing to a
21 tragic result here, in my opinion. I think you should let these people build their home. It’s just
22 stupid; it makes no sense to me. I just cannot fathom why you would not let these guys build this
23 home. I think you could…I think you guys are smart, you’re creative, you can build an argument
24 that says this home fits those rules. I know you can do it and I wish you would. That’s all I have
25 to say.
26 MS. MEG DUNN: Hi, my name is Meg Dunn, I live at 720 West Oak. I am a member of
27 Protect Our Old Town Homes. We look a lot at character of houses. The houses in that
28 neighborhood…actually there’s a lot of Tudor-style homes, which Jason showed in several of his
29 pictures. And, it’s that Tudor style that is able to incorporate a second story without having that
30 full two-story house that Jason talked about. Craftsman’s great, I live in a Craftsman house. I
31 think that the east side of the building that you guys have come up with really looks great for the
32 neighborhood. I think it’s the left side of that house that looks like a ‘70’s addition that’s kind of
33 more the problem. If there was some way to take that Craftsman look on the east side and make
34 it kind of fit the entire house instead of having that kind of addition feel…do you what I’m
35 saying? It really does feel like an addition on the side there.
36 MR. CARSON: Could I just comment one thing? On that west side elevation, our
37 original proposal was to have another Craftsman gable on that side. But, because of the distance
14
1 to the property line, we are not allowed to be over eighteen feet with that eave line, and that’s
2 why you have that shed roof that we had to change to meet the requirements of…
3 MS. DUNN: There’s probably a creative way that you could still get that one single roof
4 element that Jason was talking about, and still meet the eighteen foot rule….is what I’m saying.
5 And, one way to do that would be maybe to not go with Craftsman, or to find a different style of
6 Craftsman so that you get that...I’ve heard a lot of talk about how there’s a lot of diversity, and
7 there is. It’s a beautiful, diverse area there. There is a preponderance of Tudor-style houses, but
8 of the variations, they are predominately one story, and the ones that aren’t have that kind of
9 hidden second story. And I think that’s critical, I think Jason did a fantastic job of showing that
10 in the pictures. There are some exceptions, definitely, in that neighborhood. Pretty much every
11 single exception is a new build, is either a popped roof or a brand new house. I bet in several of
12 those houses, they are beautiful on the inside, but when you walk down the street, they stick out
13 like a sore thumb. You see an old house that’s beautiful, it looks…it’s different but it’s got some
14 similar features, size, roof line, another similar house, and then there’s that huge one that had the
15 roof popped up. It stands out, I wish the…I believe that was the property owners that were here.
16 I wish they could hear…I know people who have moved into these houses that have been popped
17 like that and they start getting to know their neighbors and their neighbors say, you know, that
18 was such a cute little house before. They love their neighbors, the neighbors love them, but the
19 neighbors don’t love their house, and they have to live in that situation, in that scenario. I think
20 making a house that fits better with that one roof element will make all the difference. It could
21 be the same size, just get creative and find a way to make it fit with the style of that
22 neighborhood, because what you have now doesn’t.
23 MR. WHITTALL: Thank you mam, I appreciate you coming, I’ve talked to you a
24 number of times. I really think that that’s the wonderful thing that we should talk about amongst
25 us as neighbors. And, actually that wasn’t…my clients have been very patient through this
26 process and we’ve tried to thoughtfully consider a number of different options. So, my clients
27 are not present this evening, because I’ve found that unfortunately at times at some of these
28 reviews, they become more adversarial than what’s comfortable. Because I think that designing
29 should be creative and fun, and there should be a level of fluidity and ease. And, I’m really
30 certain that, Meg, if you and I set out to design your home in Old Town, that we would be able to
31 be sensitive as a design team about things that are really important to you. And I appreciate the
32 idea of trying to come up with a dominant type…but diverse character in the NCL…because
33 we’re not talking about the thousand block of Wayne, we’re talking about a vast area of Old
34 Town. Now, in order to make the argument…
35 MS. CARBERRY: I’m going to cut you off here, only because this is really the time for
36 public comment. A quick response is fine, but you’ll have plenty of an opportunity to make a
37 longer response, I just want to make sure we get through the public.
38 MR. WHITTALL: That’s fine, yes.
15
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thanks.
2 MS. DUNN: Just one last comment, people come in quite a few varieties, but we all have
3 the nose in the center of our face, and I feel like saying, well, if we stick a nose over here, we’re
4 really going with that diversity piece. It’s not…there are some things that we keep in common,
5 like we all have our nose in the center. Skin might be different, height might be different, hair
6 color is different, there can be quite a bit of diversity, but there’s some key elements that need to
7 be similar.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
9 MS. MARCI SILVERSTEIN: Hi, my name is Marci Silverstein and I’m here just as an
10 interested person in diversity. I’m an artist and I have painted and drawn a lot of the houses in
11 Old Town. And there is such an enormous variety between Shields and Peterson and Mulberry,
12 maybe Laporte, that if you tried to say that this house doesn’t fit in Old Town…no, it doesn’t fit
13 in the houses that were built fifty years ago in Old Town, but it sure does fit with a lot of those
14 houses that are going to come down and somebody’s going to pay money for that property to
15 build new houses in Old Town. You’ve built tall buildings with penthouses on the top in Old
16 Town, which certainly have absolutely nothing of the flavor of Old Town. They redid the
17 Lincoln Center so that now it doesn’t even look like it belongs in Old town anymore. There’s
18 just no reasonable way to say that a creatively designed home doesn’t fit, built today in 2013,
19 with a block of houses that were built, maybe if they were lucky, in 1940 and 50. It’s just
20 unconscionable to do that to a creative designer, and to a group of people, a couple, parents, that
21 want to more into a home that serves their family, and may not be able to be served in a little
22 house with a living room, and a dining room, and two bedrooms, and one bathroom, and no
23 basement, and a garage in the back. We have to be realistic and the City has to be realistic,
24 because you approved those tall buildings, you approved those hideous things over near the new
25 museum, those ugly buildings there, you approved those absolutely obnoxious things that are on
26 College behind the Dairy Queen. If you can approve that mass of ugly, and I mean ugly, you
27 certainly can approve a house that’s good looking and looks well and will serve the
28 neighborhood and will serve the people who want to live in it. Thank you.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anyone else?
30 MS. MICHELLE HAFELY: My name is Michelle Hafely, I’m a resident of the
31 neighborhood, and I have a few comments. First, Old Town does have a lot of diversity, but it
32 also has some unifying characteristics. One of which is, it is the last stock of smaller houses, and
33 it also has an historic character. And as homes are town down, or infill developments are built,
34 or homes are modified, it is certainly reasonable to ask that those homes continue to uphold that
35 overall historic feel of Old Town. And, as Meg said, I liked her analogy about the nose is almost
36 always in the middle on people’s faces, even though we are all diverse. I’d also like to make the
37 point that this subdivision has been an ever-moving target. This latest iteration comes in after
16
1 the subdivision was approved, predicated on certain conditions, one of which was that the
2 ultimate building meet character requirements, that it fit with the character of the neighborhood.
3 That was one of the requirements; one of the conditions granting the otherwise not allowed
4 subdivision. And, I would like to concur with the City staff that this latest iteration of this ever-
5 changing project is clearly non-compatible, and I would like to ask that you deny this major
6 amendment.
7 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
8 MS. BETH EDENS: Good evening, I’m Beth Edens, I’m at 718 West Olive. I’ve been in
9 Old Town as a resident for six years and Fort Collins for fifteen, and my home was built in 1905
10 with an addition in 1997. And, I want to say very clearly that I would find it really offensive if
11 today you would not have approved the previous owner’s decision to make a modernized home
12 that I chose to purchase because it allowed me, you know 2013 lifestyle. I think it’s absurd that
13 we try to say that we want to stay back into a home with a roof line…and a home, by the way,
14 that was on the market for months because today’s men couldn’t go up there and live. I’m a
15 realtor; I showed that home several times. I love the charm, I love the magic of it, but it didn’t fit
16 today’s lifestyle. I also think that this snapshot that you show…I live within five blocks of this
17 home; I walk almost every day by it. Not only that, but I drive that road several times a day, and
18 I just want to say, did you, when you were going out there taking those snapshots, did you go
19 two blocks to the east on the north side and see orange and brown 1970’s? And when I have
20 buyers in the car from out-of-state, I shrug and say, one of the great things about Old Town.
21 Some people say that’s energy efficient and its perfect, and God bless America, it’s America,
22 they have a right to build what they want. And this is Old Town, and one of the things that you
23 love about Old Town, and that I love living in Old Town, is that I have the right to have my style
24 of home; my door is not my nose. I can have a door to the right or to the left, there’s homes right
25 next to Beaver’s that there’s not a second floor, with nothing to walk out onto…come on, really.
26 Noses are not all noses.
27 Secondly, did you go just over Shields, just over on the corner of Scott and Magnolia and
28 see that home that was added on? Or how about on the corner when you guys allowed a
29 subdivision that I strongly opposed, that you put…that you let Mike Jensen subdivide the corner
30 of Jackson and Magnolia and you have homes there. Those homes are lovely homes; just
31 because they’re not my style of home doesn’t make them lovely or right. They put quality and
32 tastefulness and time and energy and a wonderful build, so that in a hundred years from now,
33 people will love that home. We are not stuck back forty, or fifty, or sixty years ago. I’ve been at
34 City Council…where people have gone against my neighbor adding on something and a woman
35 got up and said, well, in 1945, we didn’t have that. Well, that’s lovely, but I don’t want to live in
36 1945. So, I really, strongly…I find it egregious and alarming, I really do. I would love to drive
37 you around…I give you the tour I give to clients that come in. Because, just down the street on
38 Magnolia, go south on South Whitcomb, and there’s a home with far more roof lines than this
39 and it’s lovely, and it’s beautiful. So, please, I mean stop the absurdity and, with all due respect,
17
1 you know, it’s almost 2014, let’s rise up to the occasion and support people in our
2 neighborhoods. I would really encourage you…we don’t have an HOA, and I live in Old Town
3 because there’s not an HOA, and I think it’s tragic that you think that the East West
4 Neighborhood, or NCM, or NCL is equivalent to a cookie cutter. I have a sold a home that the
5 project is on and I sold that home in SideHill, I sold that home, you know, in different locations,
6 where everybody wanted uniformity. There’s five options, they got five. That is not Old Town.
7 Please extend your walk; it’s not a block, it’s a mile.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
9 MR. BRETT PAVEL: My name is Brett Pavel and I think I can say…I think I can
10 honestly say this year I’ve lived slightly more than half my life in Fort Collins, and that makes
11 me a semi-native. But I moved here from the Bay area and actually built a home in the Bay area
12 that was…in the wine country, that was architect-designed, it was a Craftsman, you know, style
13 home. As a young person, I was always very interested in Maybeck and Greene and Greene, and
14 I had all those books, you know, and never had the money to really build what I really wanted,
15 but I was always very passionate about it. And I think it’s very funny that we would be talking
16 about, you know, a Craftsman take on this because, at the time when the Greene brothers and
17 whatever were building…Pasadena and you know, Michigan, Berkeley, whatever they were
18 building their homes, the criticism they received was, it’s too simple. I mean, where are the
19 gables, where’s the…all the hanging, Victorian Queen Anne stuff, I mean people were shocked.
20 I mean, they were really the right…but it was the World War I expression of simplistic design,
21 and it was considered outrageous. And I also think about the 1982 when I moved here, that there
22 were all these signs on Mountain saying stop the trolley. Does anyone remember that? And I
23 came here from San Francisco and I thought, the trolley, let’s see, it’s volunteer, it’s not paid
24 with taxpayers money, it’s going to be only run on the weekends, and it’s going to be this
25 gorgeous thing…who could be against that? And can you find very many people against it now?
26 So, it’s kind of funny how times change and, frankly, I’m glad that I came here tonight
27 because I talked to Laura a little bit…Laura Olive a little bit about this, but I’m even more
28 excited about the design. I think that it will inspire the neighborhood. You know, in twenty or
29 thirty years, a lot of the homes that we’re seeing that were built fifty, sixty, seventy years in that
30 neighborhood, they’re going to have to…just physically they’re going to have to go through their
31 changes. This house that we’re talking about building now will be relatively new and it will be
32 fine thirty or forty years from now. What are those houses going to do? Well, they’re going to
33 look back…they’ll be looking back on this one, and they’ll be inspired by that. And so that’s
34 why we kind of have to open our horizons a little bit here, get out of our box a little bit. And
35 maybe it is a little more complex on the roof line, and it has a few things that are a little more
36 than the rest of the neighborhood, but you know, sometimes we just have to take a chance. We
37 have to go out there a little bit and look at it with historical perspective. So, I just wanted to say
38 that I think it’s a beautiful plan and I certainly approve it. I don’t…I don’t plan to profit in any
39 way from this, it’s just an aesthetic observation.
18
1 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
2 MR. JIM KRAMER: I’m Jim Kramer, I live next door to the development, and I
3 just…I’ll be very brief, I’ll say please approve this plan. They put a lot of work into it. I’ve only
4 seen the plan since this meeting has been scheduled. I had seen the…I’ve been to all the
5 meetings and seen the preliminary work. This is entirely…meets all the criteria that it’s meant to
6 meet and exceeds it, and this should be an example to the City process in reviewing plans. Not
7 just taking…not being overly strict and reading the process and seeing if there is an exact match
8 according to the book criterion, but taking a very well-done and sincere effort to heart and
9 approving it. Thank you.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
11 MR. SEAN DOUGHERTY: My name is Sean Dougherty; I am a realtor here in town. I
12 don’t have any stake in this property. I’ve been in Fort Collins fifteen years. I do not live in Old
13 Town now, but I plan to within the next five years. I’m here to look at it from a few different
14 standpoints. Pertaining to the planning, I sit on Larimer County Planning Commission and
15 compatibility is a very big thing, but it really sounds like the City’s stretching here. It feels very
16 much like someone in the City doesn’t like the new design and is really stretching to try and find
17 some way to say that it is not within the character. A few things, the approved plan was
18 submitted just to show the conceptual of a home that could be built there, to show the footprint,
19 to show the elevations. The design selected for now is substantially similar to that conceptual
20 home in size, footprint, and elevations. The design selected is differing in character from the
21 conceptual design, but not differing from the character of the neighborhood, or of Old Town
22 itself. The new design is in character with the diversity of Old Town. The conceptual plan does
23 not match what the City was striving for…and I’m going into this, and I know I shouldn’t open
24 this door, but I’m going to…East West Neighborhoods came about and one of the pieces of East
25 West was, City staff really didn’t want long expanses of walls that were unbroken up by jogs in
26 the wall. The conceptual design has that, the new design has quite a few breaks in the wall in
27 different areas so as not to have a plain vast expanse of siding. And I think that this…this design
28 that’s being proposed right here really encompasses that.
29 From the standpoint of being a realtor, I want to say Old Town is very desirable. It is the
30 neighborhood, if you will, in town that has always gone up in value, has always been desirable,
31 at least for the past thirty plus years, because of its diversity, because it’s not homogenous. I
32 hear it every day. I hear it from new homebuyers who cannot afford to live in Old Town right
33 now, gosh, I just can’t live in a cookie cutter home neighborhood. And Old Town is not that,
34 and I think that that is one of the big pieces of what makes Old Town so desirable.
35 Mr. Holland brought up that the staff wanted to know at the time what could be built, and
36 therefore that’s how this prototype came into being. They used a design then that was
37 compatible in roof line, size, mass and scale. This new design, I think, encompasses, aside from
19
1 roof lines, the size, mass and scale very well. The…you know, if the mass, bulk and scale is now
2 at odds with what the City wants, why was the concept approved, that’s a big question that I
3 have. Just to reference a comment made earlier, Old Town is not the last stock of smaller houses
4 in Fort Collins. We have the Alta Vista neighborhood, Andersonville, Buckingham; all have
5 much smaller homes and are older vintage as well. It just seems that Old Town is much more
6 desirable at this point to renovate, to subdivide, to build a new home. I do think Mr. Holland
7 proved the point of the applicant in the fact that there is quite a diversity of styles, and this is a
8 diverse style that really seems to fit with a lot of the older homes in Old Town, maybe not within
9 three or four houses here, but within Old Town as a whole. And, I’d like to ask for your
10 approval of this new design please for the home to be built at 1017 West Magnolia. Thank you.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you very much.
12 MS. LAURA OLIVE: Good evening, my name is Laura Olive. I’ve lived in Fort Collins
13 since 1974 and lived in Old Town for twenty years. I would ask that you support the approval of
14 this plan. You know, I think we’ve spent hours…they’ve spent hours and hours designing a
15 plan…site specific to that site. What I think has not been brought up is that particular site is
16 actually wider…sixty-three feet wide. Most of the other Old Town sites are narrower, they’re
17 forty feet. So, there’s a lot more space between homes. It’s hard to see that with the renderings
18 and so on, but that is the case. In any case, this house was sensibly designed, site specific to that
19 site, and to say that that one…we’re having to defend that over a cookie cutter house that was a
20 builder plan, built in SideHill, just seems incredulous to me, that we would be in that position.
21 We have an architecturally designed home versus a cookie cutter home and the City is defending
22 that as something that is what should be built there. So, the other thing that concerns me is that,
23 just generally, for property rights and that sort of thing, people can go out, buy a lot, spend
24 several thousands of dollars, maybe twenty thousand dollars designing a home, put a lot of
25 energy and time into in, and then find out that the house meets all the building criteria, meets the
26 Code, meets the Building Code and so on, only to find out that the City’s going to pull out a
27 trump card and say, but we don’t think it matches the character of the neighborhood. And to do
28 that in Old Town, where the character is so tremendously diverse…and what Beth said is
29 absolutely correct….you can widen the scope, go beyond the block or two and you’re going to
30 see everything from homes built in the 1880’s all the way to homes built, you know, in the last
31 five years, and they’re all diverse in terms of roof line, floor plan, mass, scale, the whole nine
32 yards. So, I think the character argument is flawed, and it’s subjective, and it’s almost
33 impossible to defend or define. I would ask that you approve this home to be built.
34 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you very much.
35 MS. OLIVE: Thank you.
36 MS. BARBARA HAYNES: My name is Barbara Haynes and I’ve lived here for thirty-
37 five years in one house only in Old Town…and I’m an accidental visitor to this session because I
20
1 really wanted to come about parking, and that was a lot earlier. When I was hearing the
2 presentation about, well, we went this far out, I went, oh, I thought this was my neighborhood
3 because I live at City Park. And, even though…what, three or four blocks over, it still is my
4 neighborhood, and I still care. And, I’ll just…everybody’s really said what I’ve already made
5 notes about so I won’t reiterate that, but I will tell you an anecdotal story about my father who
6 was here many times, thirty some years ago, and was here recently, and drove down College and
7 went…and my father is the…Southern gentleman, and he goes, oh my God Barbara, what are
8 they in a contest for, ugly? So, there you go. And I can’t imagine that the second house does not
9 meet the character of Old Town because it is very much what I would call the modern bungalow.
10 And, to have…to not have diversity in your roof construction…you’re going to create a wind
11 tunnel down that alley. You put every…that elevation down that alley, you’ll get a wind tunnel
12 going on. And that’s what that roof does, it will break up the wind and it will be,
13 environmentally, for that reason, much better construction than the other. And I don’t think the
14 people here in Fort Collins, as we watch these new buildings go up…I don’t see what they’re
15 doing here that they do in larger cities where the buildings have to be…they have to go back
16 every so many feet to not create wind tunnels. So, think about that, planning and zoning, when
17 we get bigger and taller buildings going on…so, that’s all I have to say.
18 MS. CARBERRY: Make sure you sign in, great, thank you. Anyone else? I think we’re
19 finished. Who gets to go first in the response? Applicant, okay, your turn.
20 MR. WHITTALL: Well, I think that this has been a pretty good example of…and,
21 actually in some ways, pretty content filled response, both in people that support and people that
22 object to the design. I think that by approving this plan, what you do is allow the process to
23 function as it functions best, and that is by following all of the standards of the Type I review,
24 which we’re here to…and all of the Building, Planning, and Zoning requirements. My building
25 permit for this project is ready to be picked up. It’s a week from being able to begin
26 construction.
27 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, I’m going to kind of focus…I’m just saying I’ve heard a lot,
28 building permit’s not relevant.
29 MR. WHITTALL: But the delay…but the continued delays brought upon by subjective
30 argument is relevant. You have ten days to be able to respond to this, and then the public again
31 has an additional appeals process. So, I would say that taking into consideration what you’ve
32 seen, the photographs and the public comment, that approving this without any conditions would
33 be greatly appreciated.
34 MS. CARBERRY: I appreciate it, anything else. Okay, City.
35 MR. HOLLAND: Well…a number of things I wanted to cover, but first of all I just
36 wanted to say that, you know, as far as the diversity of styles, it’s…we also have a diversity of
37 input. And one of the things that we are accountable to do is to make sure that the process goes
21
1 down the right path so that we can get public input. And, part of evaluating the project from
2 what they’re proposing today, versus what was the approved option, is so that we can…really
3 that comparison between the approved option and what is proposed today, is to determine
4 whether or not the changes can be processed as part of the building permit, or part of a minor
5 amendment, which is administrative, or goes back to a new hearing. And staff…Planning staff is
6 accountable for doing that comparison, so essentially the comparison between what was the
7 approved prototype that the applicant wanted to submit and what is proposed today is really
8 more to evaluate what the process moving forward is going to be. And we want to make sure
9 that we get public input if it’s warranted, and we do get a diverse range of public input. And I
10 think tonight is a good example of that diversity and I really appreciate the input.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Can I just ask a question, while you’re talking about it? We keep
12 going back to the plan that was approved as part of the last hearing on this. But how much, I
13 mean, as far as I understand it…the last hearing was a subdivision, correct? Am I referring to
14 the…I mean I heard this and I decided…
15 MR. HOLLAND: Correct, two lot subdivision.
16 MS. CARBERRY: Right, so we subdivided and it was within that subdivision that they
17 submitted, you know, the building prototype as you’re calling it, but how binding is this? I
18 mean, I don’t want you to give me a legal opinion; I’m a lawyer, but…
19 MR. HOLLAND: Well, that’s the next thing I wanted to explain so I can cover that.
20 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay.
21 MR. HOLLAND: Essentially, there are a diversity of styles, you know, there’s Craftsman
22 homes, there’s Tudor homes, there’s the style of the home that was proposed with the original
23 option, and they don’t have to build that. They don’t have to build the option that was approved.
24 It was really more of…to be representative of scale, mass, form…the things that are spoken to in
25 the Land Use Code that…the Land Use Code evaluates compatibility within an existing
26 neighborhood. And so that existing option is what they proposed, but as far as the architectural
27 style of it, we don’t have any say as far as what the architectural style…and I would agree that
28 there are many, many aspects of the style that are much better with the existing proposal. We
29 don’t have any issue with the proposal that’s being brought here tonight. It’s more the massing
30 and the scale…that’s what we’re evaluating based…we’re evaluating the proposed building
31 elevations based on the massing and the scale and the form, and how that is compatible with the
32 existing context of the neighborhood. And also, based on the existing context of the approved
33 option.
34 MS. CARBERRY: But here’s what…let me just stop you there, because the way I read
35 the Code is I…my job is to determine whether what’s being proposed here tonight fits. But I
36 guess my confusion is, why are you asking me to go back and look at something that was part of
22
1 a prior application? Because…in other words, when I approved that subdivision, the condition
2 of the subdivision was not, and you must build the house…just give me a second…and you must
3 build the house that you have proposed here. So, that is…my concern is the interrelation
4 between what I’m supposed to be doing tonight and what I did before. And, if I had thought that
5 the house had to be built exactly as it was in the subdivision approval, I would expect that that be
6 an express condition of the subdivision approval, in some way.
7 MR. HOLLAND: It does not have to be…
8 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
9 MR. HOLLAND: Built exactly like…
10 MS. CARBERRY: And I don’t mean exact, but, you know, I’m just struggling with that.
11 Because as far as I read the Code, I’m supposed to be applying this building and project
12 compatibility as it’s presented in this application to the surrounding neighborhood. Which I
13 think we have plenty of evidence on.
14 MR. HOLLAND: So the building elevations that were approved with the original PDP
15 are part of the approval, and we…staff evaluates any subsequent proposals as far as whether or
16 not they are a change in character in terms of comparing the proposed building elevations that
17 were approved with what’s being proposed now. So, really the comparison is to evaluate
18 whether there’s a change in character and whether or not that change of character can be
19 processed as a minor amendment or a major amendment.
20 MS. CARBERRY: Got it.
21 MR. HOLLAND: And we…staff made the determination that the change of character
22 was significant enough that they needed to go back to another hearing, as opposed to a major
23 amendment.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Right, okay. Okay…
25 MR. WHITTALL: Well, I mean, I guess the thing that I would say is that…the
26 prototype…and the whole definition of prototype is basically a working model to be improved
27 and changed. That’s ultimately the definition of what a prototype is. We keep making the
28 mistake of talking about what is a prototype and an approved plan. Those are two entirely
29 different things. If it were a prototype, which Josh [sic] keeps referring to, there would
30 be…Jason…pardon me. But, what I’m saying is, we made a migration somewhere, and I don’t
31 know when this occurred nor do the neighbors that were at former hearings, that went from a
32 concept or a prototype to an approved plan. And the note says, that got us here, is that if it varies
33 in character significantly from the set approved plan, that we had three options actually. We had
34 the ability to be able to meet with staff, which we tried to do, and have the Director make a
35 decision. We met with staff a number of times and the Director chose not to make a decision.
23
1 They also had an option of bring this before a type…a minor amendment, which would have
2 been, I believe, an administrative process. But they chose not to do that. They chose instead,
3 and this is where the politics of it come, in my estimation…
4 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, again, I can’t consider politics…we’re here tonight…we’re
5 here on a major amendment.
6 MR. WHITTALL: I’m saying it’s the deepest level that we could…this is the highest
7 level of review that could have…
8 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
9 MR. WHITTALL: And it’s done because of character between these two elements, that’s
10 why we’re here.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Right, and I understand that. And, I will say I went back and looked
12 at my decision on the subdivision and there is a finding in there that says that the design of the
13 new dwelling is compatible with the established architectural character and context of the area
14 with appropriate size, bulk, massing, scale, detail and articulation. So, I’m going back to what I
15 was asking before…I did actually look at that…I’ll call it a prototype for lack of a better term, I
16 did actually look at that. So…
17 MR. HOLLAND: It’s an option…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Right, and so anyway, I’m just going back to what I was asking you
19 before. I actually pulled up my prior decision just to look at it, I want you to know that I’m
20 looking at that now as part of the record, just because I wanted to know how much that was
21 involved in the prior decision, because that was really one of my questions. Okay, did you have
22 more, I’m sorry, I completely cut you off, go ahead.
23 MR. HOLLAND: I did, yes, thank you. So, but I just want to make it clear that, you
24 know, there’s no requirement to build the approved option. The...a proposal could be made to
25 build something else. And a proposal is being made to build something else. And this really,
26 again, it’s not about style, it is about form, mass and scale. And we would prefer that the
27 proposed building elevations be more similar in scale and style and mass and bulk to the
28 surrounding existing context. We would prefer that there be more balance or middle ground
29 between the existing character and the proposed building elevations.
30 We have had discussions with the applicants about some options that they could do to
31 make it more of a balance. The…essentially, fundamentally what our concern is, and why we
32 are recommending denial, is because the building is overly complex and the abundant massing
33 elements are not consistent with the surrounding context. When you look at the building
34 elevation…the street view sketch for example, you see six gables…six gable elements within the
35 building elevation. It almost looks like there’s a building behind a building when you look at the
24
1 building elevation that is shown with the…sketch. And this abundance of roof forms and
2 massing elements is…what we are looking for is something that is more in character with the
3 neighborhood. It does not have to be the same; it does not have to be the same as the existing
4 building…the existing approved option. But, we’re looking for something that is more of a
5 balance and we don’t feel that what is being proposed achieves that balance.
6 Just to respond to a few things from the applicant’s presentation…Mr. Whittall did
7 mention that there were numerous conversations with the City that…there were not numerous
8 conversations with the Planning Department…he did…I just want to clarify that there were
9 numerous conversations with the Zoning Department. Through the process leading up to the
10 first hearing, Mr. Whittall had one conversation with myself, and it involved a question about
11 the…where the lot line would fall between lot one and two. There were not numerous
12 conversations. We did not discuss the proposed building elevations that you see tonight…so I
13 just wanted to make that very clear, that we have a difference of opinion on that matter.
14 In terms of creativity, again, style is not mandated by Code. What we’re talking about is
15 constricted strictly to form, mass and scale, and we…do not believe that the six gable elements
16 and the complicated roof forms are compatible with the existing context of the neighborhood.
17 MR. WHITTALL: Kendra, one of the things that I would like to point out in regards to
18 this. If you look at the recorded document that had to do with the Type I review that you did
19 oversee previously, we had numerous conversations…and, you’re right, we don’t see eye to eye
20 on the amount of conversations or content, but my clients were required to sign on this mylar.
21 Dr. Greg and Kathy Obermann are signatures on this mylar, and the City required…not Aaron
22 Everett, or not Baron Walkman [sic] to sign on the mylar, which would be typical. They made
23 the buyer sign the mylar.
24 MR. HOLLAND: That’s not correct.
25 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
26 one another for a brief time.)
27 MS. CARBERRY: None of this is relevant. I want to focus back on what I have to
28 decide here tonight, which is whether or not it’s compatible. That’s all I’m deciding, I mean
29 honestly. Honestly, I don’t mean to be blunt, but I don’t care how many conversations you had, I
30 don’t care who signed what…you know, I have a limited job to do so I just want to make sure we
31 focus back on that.
32 Okay, so, can I just ask…the City, I understand…I’m not an architect, so, you know, this
33 whole idea that the massing is too big and that there’s too many gables or, you know, there’s too
34 many faces, whatever it is. I mean what is…what would you propose…I’m not asking you to
35 redesign this, I’m just saying, you know, the…like let’s leave that up for now, that’s a good
36 example. So, where would you come out…I mean is there some happy medium in between
25
1 there? I’m not trying to redesign your project, I’m not going to, because I don’t like when
2 people do that. I’m just asking the question of, how much is too much?
3 MR. HOLLAND: That’s something that staff would get together, and we would
4 hopefully have a good dialogue and discussion with the applicant, and work though that issue.
5 That’s not, in my personal opinion, not the level of detail that we need to be getting into tonight.
6 MS. CARBERRY: Well, I mean only because if I’m going to decide whether this is
7 compatible with the neighborhood, and whether or not mass and all of these things are
8 inconsistent, I guess I…and I’m not…I just need to understand what specifically it is you object
9 to. You know, is it…in other words, if it were…I see however many roof lines there. If there
10 were less roof lines would that be more compatible? I’m just trying to get a better
11 understanding.
12 MR. HOLLAND: Yes, yes.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay. And is it, you know…
14 MR. HOLLAND: If the overall forms were simpler, if they were less secondary elements
15 or, you know, if there are ways to make the overall forms similar…or simpler. Those are some
16 possibilities.
17 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, again, I’m not asking anybody to redesign anything; I’m just
18 trying to get a better idea of what it is that the City is objecting to here so that I understand where
19 you’re coming from. And is it, you know, is the upstairs balcony and issue? Is the front porch
20 an issue? Or is it because those are added on to something that’s already rather complex that’s
21 the issue?
22 MR. HOLLAND: Primarily it’s the second story elements.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, that helps. Okay, okay, sorry, go ahead.
24 MR. CARSON: So, I mean we keep talking about scale and massing and all those things,
25 and you mentioned six gables. If you looked at this house in a perspective, you would get one,
26 two, three, four gables. So, four gables is okay, but six gables is not okay. So, I mean, you’re
27 taking on the role of designing a clients’ home, Jason, as a Planning staff. You guys…that’s
28 what I’m hearing right now. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry…I just, I mean, you know, it’s
29 completely subjective.
30 MS. CARBERRY: I understand…
31 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
32 one another for a brief time.)
33
26
1 MR. CARSON: It’s completely subjective. We have a client that we’ve went through a
2 very detailed process, and they have a style that they’re looking for and it doesn’t match what is
3 approved. They don’t like that house, they like this house.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Well, I mean, you know, the obvious question would be, why did they
5 buy that house? I’m just being facetious. What I’m saying is, I guess, you know, this…that is
6 what was approved basically. So how do we…
7 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
8 one another for a brief time.)
9 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay, everyone, again I’m asking questions.
10 MR. CARSON: Nothing more than a prototype so they…you know…they understood
11 that as long as it fit within the building and zoning guidelines, which this does, then they could
12 build the house they wanted.
13 MS. CARBERRY: I understand, but you have to admit that these two designs are very
14 different.
15 MR. CARSON: In style, in character, yes they are. But in massing, I mean if you look at
16 the overall height of this ridgeline…and this ridgeline is about forty feet and it’s probably
17 twenty-eight foot high, where this has one ridgeline that’s about thirteen or fourteen feet that’s
18 the same height. So this, in scale and massing, actually steps down and down and down in
19 terraces to the alley and to the street, where this is, you know, one long horizontal elevation.
20 And again, as far as gables, like I said, okay this has three gables on the front; this has three
21 gables on the front. If you turn to the side, you see six gables on this, you would see four gables
22 on that, but then this has a hip, and then it has a hip there, so there’s six or seven roof forms that
23 you would see at the same perspective. These just all happen to be gables.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
25 MR. WHITTALL: I think that it does though…beg the question, if you’re clients were
26 going to buy a piece of property, why on earth would they buy this with this approved plan?
27 Well, if my clients thought that they had to build that approved plan, they would have hired
28 Jamestown to build the plan for God’s sake. They would have hired Jamestown to build the plan
29 and probably do it in a really cost-effective manner.
30 MS. CARBERRY: I understand.
31 MR. WHITTALL: Instead, they hired a design team, an architect, design, builder,
32 engineer, to be site-specific. Again, this is…and the implication of this is that, if denied tonight,
33 if I went back to my clients…if you were my client, and you were to make a…if the Hearing
34 Officer were to make a decision to deny this house, but still say it’s okay to build the
27
1 prototype…but you don’t have to build the prototype but try again. So then I go and I say, okay,
2 client, I need an additional money and I’m going to try again, with no certain outcome because
3 we could pull the card again, and Jason and Cameron Gloss could say, oh, that doesn’t really fit
4 the character. Really, what we’ve found out from the hearing is the character was much more
5 kind of Victorian. So, it’s a moving target that the City’s asking me…us to hit. And, it raises to
6 the bar a job that is far too great for us to design with subjectivity as the final word. You have
7 become the architectural review committee. You don’t know how powerful you are tonight.
8 And that is not a laughable thing, that is a damn serious thing because…
9 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
10 one another for a brief time.)
11 MR. WHITTALL: I want to compassionately appeal to you.
12 MS. CARBERRY: I understand what you’re saying.
13 MR. WHITTALL: Unfortunately, five years ago…I was building houses here and I saw
14 this being to percolate, I started a website that basically said, if we continue down this path, what
15 we’ll have is we will have a homeowner’s association with the Planning staff. But worse in
16 some ways yet is the design and the character lies in your decision. If you make a decision that
17 says, I believe that this varies too much in character, bulk and mass from the approved plan, but
18 we don’t have any arbitrary…it’s all subjective, so we don’t know where to go from that. In
19 times of uncertainty, people do nothing.
20 MS. CARBERRY: And I will say, I mean…I’ll be honest with you, a lot of zoning and
21 planning is subjective, that’s the nature of it. So, you know, I mean that is the nature of the
22 business that you’re in and I understand that. And, you know, that’s part of my job is to
23 determine these kinds of things.
24 MR. WHITTALL: But municipalities need to have objective milestones and bases.
25 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
26 MR. WHITTALL: And that’s the thing that’s problematic with this is that we meet all of
27 the objective things that are set forth. What we don’t, is we don’t fit the thing…the warm fuzzy
28 if you will. You know, we won’t solve this problem here. But, if in fact you rule to deny this
29 project, we set precedent for every project going forward to know that Planning staff…I can
30 submit a building plan on any lot in this City and Jason and Ted has the ability…the Planning
31 staff have the ability to play the character trump card and end up here and then you become the
32 deciding factor. I don’t think that’s the role of a planning and zoning.
33 MS. CARBERRY: Well, you know, again, Planning staff is…they have to apply the
34 Code as it’s written, they don’t write the Code. City Council is responsible for the Code. The
35 Code is subjective, so you know, I don’t know that anybody…
28
1 MR. WHITTALL: No, the Code is pretty objective.
2 MS. CARBERRY: Well, no, I’m reading this portion of the Code which I’m being asked
3 to apply tonight, and it’s rather subjective, you know, and so the City Council is responsible for
4 inserting…I’m not blaming them…for inserting that level of subjectivity, and then Planning
5 staff, their job is to interpret that and apply it. So, you know, everybody…I think everybody
6 does the best that they can, and that the subjective nature of the Code, for better or for worse,
7 that’s up to the elected officials to determine how much subjectivity they want in their Code. So,
8 you know, I mean I think if there’s an issue with that, then you go to City Council and say, take
9 the subjectivity out of the Code, we don’t like it. So anyway…sorry, go ahead.
10 MR. HOLLAND: Well, you know, I would just add that I do agree it is subjective. But,
11 the criteria and the Code Section, Building and Project Compatibility, and the components of that
12 are fairly well defined and they’re fairly narrow. And it is defined…it is required to be defined
13 by the neighborhood context, and it’s…but it is subjective and that’s all I have to add.
14 MS. CARBERRY: I agree, there is a lot of subjectivity in this…in what we’re discussing
15 here tonight. A lot of the Land Use Code isn’t subjective, this is subjective. So, okay. Well,
16 anything else? Well, I appreciate everyone’s hard work on this; I appreciate all of your
17 testimony. It’s very helpful to me, especially in these types of situations where there is a lot of
18 subjectivity, so thank you for coming and I will issue a decision within ten working days. I’ll do
19 my best, I can’t make any promises. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 7
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
February 4, 2014
1
Stoner Subdivision Appeal:
New single
family home
at 1017 W.
Magnolia
Street.
Lot 1 Lot 2
W. Magnolia St.
Wayne St.
2
Assertions of Appeal:
The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code by approving the project for:
• Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project
Compatibility
• Section 4.7 (A) Purpose - Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District –
(N-C-L)
3
Original Building Elevations
North
East
West
South
4
Approved Amended Building Elevations
North
East
West
South
5
Summary of Assertions in the Appeal:
• The amended design is “inconsistent with the
character of nearby homes”
• “Agree that the architecture of the homes in the
surrounding area varies greatly, but believe there
is a predominant architectural feature …that is
shared amongst the homes…”
• State the “photographs presented …provide
visual evidence that the predominant feature …is
simple, geometric roof lines…”
• As such, “the proposed building is incompatible to
the neighborhood context…”
6
Provided with Notice of Appeal:
7
Summary of Hearing Officer Findings:
• …there is nothing in the record to indicate that
the quality of the home is suspect …and that it
complies with Section 3.5.1”
• ..both the applicant and the city presented
testimony and photographs demonstrating that
the architecture varies greatly…
• Regarding Section 4.7 (A)..undisputed at the
hearing that the amended single family home is
in compliance with all applicable size and height
restrictions for the N-C-L district.”
8
Assertions of Appeal:
The Hearing Officer failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code by approving the
project for:
• Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project
Compatibility
• Section 4.7 (A) Purpose - Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District –
(N-C-L)
!
"
# $
!
"#
$"#%&&
'"%
%
&'()*))
#
+
,
(!)
()
(!)
()
(!)
*
+
),$
-
.
+
-
'&' #' "00 %- & %- &/ ..
.!. 001