HomeMy WebLinkAbout716 MAPLE ST. DUPLEX EXPANSION - PDP - 2-11 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING\0D
Staff's Recommended Action
• Approval of Modification of Standards for:
— Section 3.6.2(J)(2) — Design Construction
Requirements, and
— Section 4.8(D)(5) — Rear Floor Area Ratio
• Denial of Modification of Standard for:
— Section 4.8(D)(1) — Density/Intensity of
Development
• Denial of the 716 Maple St Duplex Expansion, PDP
35 3��2 ti2��
��
Z � zzS
35
36
Density/intensity Modification Request
• Per Section 2.8.2 of the LUC, Staff has reviewed
the applicant's request and has determined:
— The request to increase the FAR by 1040 s.f.
cannot be considered a "nominal and
inconsequential" increase.
• Staff does not support this request.
The intent of this standard is to have some predictability regarding the size/massing of
new development within this zone district.
-It is a quantitative measure intended to maintain the qualitative aspect of a
neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the request against the criteria in Section 2.8.2 and finds that it does
not adequately justify the increase of 1040 s.f. of floor area beyond the permitted.
- Staff acknowledges that this is an eclectic neighborhood with a mix of lot sizes and
FAR, but the code does not take this into account, therefore Staff could not in our
review of the project.
Staff recommends denial of this Modification of Standard Request.
35
Rear Floor Area Modification Request
• Per Section 2.8.2 of the LUC, Staff has reviewed
the applicant's request and has determined:
— The request is not detrimental to the public
good, and
— Meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) as the plan as
submitted will promote the general purpose of
the standard equally well or better than a plan
that meets the standard.
• Staff supports this request.
The intent of this standard is
-to protect neighboring properties privacy in their back yards and
-to maintain backyards with functional space in the old town neighborhoods.
Staff has reviewed this request based on this intend of the standard and the criteria of
Section 2.8.2 of the LUC and finds:
-The request is not detrimental to the public good and
-The plan as submitted promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or
better than a plan that meets the standard because:
-This lots location at the elbow of the hour -glass alley makes it so only one
property to the east is impacted. That property is currently vacant and the new
property owner will be aware of this proposal;
-The narrow lot width and 3 sided frontage makes a different design difficult;
and
-The applicant is proposing maintaining the existing foundation of the current
duplex, which sets back the units I V beyond the required setback. This
configuration provides functional yard space for both units meeting the intent of
this standard.
34
Alley Paving Modification Request
• Per Section 2.8.2 of the LUC, Staff has reviewed
the applicant's request and has determined:
— The request is not detrimental to the public
good, and
— Meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(4) as the plan diverges
from the standard only in a "nominal and
inconsequential way."
• Staff supports this request.
Staff has evaluated the applicant's requested against the criteria of 2.8.2 and found:
-Not paving the alley is not detrimental to the public good, and
-The plan diverges from the standard only in a nominal and inconsequential way, as:
-The proposal is not changing the use of the property, it is an existing duplex and
will remain a duplex,
-No other section of this alley is paved and paving it would cause undue wear
and tear on the partially paved alley, and
-An exception to this standard is made for carriage or alley homes and the
proposed duplex is expected to have a similar impact.
Staff supports the approval of this Modification of Standard request.
Modification Review Criteria
Section 2.8.2 (H) — Modification of standards
shall not be detrimental to the public good and
meet one the following criteria:
— Equally well or better,
— Alleviates a City-wide Problem,
— Unique physical constraint impacts ability to
comply, or
— Nominal and inconsequential.
Modification of Standards are reviewed against criteria in 2.8.2
V' that the proposed modification is not detrimental to the public good,
- And 2" d that it meets one of the four criteria.
1. That the plan as submitted promotes the general purpose of the standard
equally well or better than a plan would that complies,
2. That granting the modification would help alleviate a city-wide problem
identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
3. That by reason of exceptional physical condition unique to the property that
complying with the standard would result in a hardship to the applicant, or
4. The plan as submitted does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal and inconsequential way.
32
Modification of Standard Requests
• Section 3.6.3(J)(2) — Design Construction
— Requires Paving of the Alley
• Section 4.8(D)(5) — Rear Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
— FAR maximum of .33 of the rear half of the lot
• Section 4.8(D)(1) — Density/Intensity of
Development
— Limits the floor area to half of the lot size
5600 s.f. lot limits FAR to 2800 s.f
31
Compliance with
Applicable Standards
• Article 2
— Procedural Requirements
• Article 3
— Site Planning and Design
— Engineering and
— Building Standards
• Article 4
— Proposed Use
— Dimensional and Development Standards
Procedural Requirements in Article 2 of the LUC were followed
-A neighborhood meeting was held on Sept 27, 2010.
-3 neighbors attended
-Two attendees seemed to support the project, one had some concerns about this corner turning into a
development rather than part of the community.
The project is in compliance with the Site Planning and Design Standards in Article 3 of the LUC.
-One item of note regarding this section, is the removal of 3 of the mature trees on the site.
-The City Forester has visited the site with the applicant and asks that 11 mitigation trees or less if larger
caliper trees are used be planted to mitigate the loss of these trees.
-The applicant is willing to add the necessary trees or up the size of those proposed.
The site is in compliance with the applicable Engineering and Building standards in Article 3 of the
LUC.
-This includes setbacks and garage door placement.
The project is in compliance with the review process required of an expansion of an existing duplex
located in Article 4.8 of the LUC.
-The proposal is on a 35' wide lot, this code section requires single and two family lots be 40', as this is
the existing lot size consistent with its platting in 1895, this is not imposed upon the applicant, consistent
with past practice.
-The proposal complies with the other applicable dimensional and development standards of this section.
30
More single family examples on the east side of Loomis Street.
As you can see this is a very eclectic neighborhood, with examples of mutli- and single-
family dwellings.
29
Duplex and single family on the west side of Loomis St
KK
This is the north side of this block, where the hour glass alley comes out.
These are single family homes in the neighborhood.
27
Duplex examples on the southwest and east corners of Cherry and Grant.
OV
Multi -family sites on the west side of Grant Street and single family on the east side of
Grant
25
Multi -family across the street from the site
24
Existing duplex and single family examples
23
22
Existing single family examples
21
North Facing 700 Block of Maple
W
e
East — Southwest comer of Loomis and Maple
West — southeast comer of Grant and Maple
20
East — northwest comer of Loomis and Maple Street
West — Northeast corner of Grant and Maple Street
19
r 716 Maple Sheet ContexWal Map 1
Before I get into the specifics of standard compliance, I wanted to walk you though the
area to give you a sense of the neighborhood context.
-This block was platted in 1895
-Lots were originally 35' wide — many changes over time
-Creating a variety of lot sizes in the area. (2,400 to 10,000 s.f.) (45% of the lots on this
block do not meet the minimum size for single family lots)
-The neighborhood is also spotted with multi -family unit
m
This is a request to expand an existing over/under duplex located at 716 Maple Street.
The applicant is proposing converting the existing over/under duplex into one unit of
the duplex and then adding the 2nd unit on to the rear of the lot. A two car garage for
each unit will separate the two units.
NO
Pk''°I was a rv�c u r�
& rj+ Rm !v� Z
17
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 13
Member Schmidt said she feels the same way. She doesn't feel it's equal to or better than a plan that
would meet the standard. Granted it is better than what existed. Something could be done on the
property that would meet the standard and that would be just as good as the plan that is proposed.
Daggett said the motion fails for lack of majority. It means you can open the floor to another motion
regarding this particular modification or because this modification has not been approved, you can move
on to the Project Development Plan and vote on that. Stockover asked because of lack of majority can
either the yahs or nays reopen it. Daggett said rather than reopening, the Chair should offer a new
motion. Chair Stockover asked if anyone was prepared to make a new motion. Seeing none, Stockover
said they will remain with a denial based on lack of majority support.
Proiect Development Plan
Mr. Whittall said not everybody wants a yard. He said it speaks volumes by the Board's denial of this
particular proposal. He said it makes it really clear what people (such as him) that bring creative energy
to task, are willing to work with neighbors, and come up with good solutions can expect. He said the
chamber is empty and the reason it's empty is 288 neighbors had the opportunity and only 2 showed up.
The community is caught in a big debate on how we want to do infill. By their action they did exactly
what the City of Fort Collins staff did which is basically disallow the project from going forward.
Other Business:
The Board reviewed the questions posed in the Communications between Boards and Commissions
Survey distributed by the City Clerk's Office. Angelina will complete the survey using the Board's
feedback and submit a draft for their review.
Meeting adjowrgti d at 8:10 p.m.
Dush, CDNS Director
J, C jk�i
Butch Stockover, Chair
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 12
Member Schmidt said she hate to see the use of so much of the lot that we have to get rid of existing
trees that don't need to go. That is quite a significant tree in the alley that is giving benefit to quite a few
houses in that area. It's a shame it has to go based on the way it was designed to use up most of the lot
space. She said it doesn't appear there's even enough room to put the 11 mitigation trees.
Member Hatfield said he thinks its good planning and better than what exists there because by planning
a two car garage to a duplex, it takes 4 cars off the street. He likes the idea of the two car garage. As
the applicant said, they won't have to walk out to the street to get into their cars. He thinks the overall
plan is a better than situation.
Member Smith said in the staff report it does say the minimum sized lot is 5,000 square feet. Is that
correct? McArdle said correct for single and two-family. Smith said in the neighborhood meeting
minutes, it said 6,000. McArdle said that was her mistake —it's correct in the staff report.
Member Smith moved to approve the applicant's request to modify the standard of
densitylintensity of development —Land Use Code Section 4.8(D) (1). In support of his motion, he
finds the granting of the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public
good. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which would complies with
the standard for which the modification is requested. In support of his motion, he does not
adopt the Findings of Fact/Conclusion in the staff report. Rather he finds the applicant has
demonstrated that the unusual character of the lot in which he proposes to build the structure
does merit he's met the standard; therefore, it is equal to or better than the standard. Member
Hatfield seconded the motion.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett recommended they articulate the purpose of the standard in connection
with your motion.
Member Smith amended his motion. As he understands the purpose, it is to create a structure
that does not overwhelm a lot entirely and that strict adherence of the FAR on a lot is exactly one-
half of the lot and that strict adherence to the standard would make this infeasible project
Because this lot is a little bit unusual, there is provision of some open space on the garages and
in the back. He has a greater than required setback in the front by allowing the existing structure
to remain in place. Member Hatfield seconded the amendment.
Member Schmidt asked which one of the four criteria was used. Smith said not detrimental to the public
good and equal to or better than.
Chair Stockover said he has a hard time with equal to or better than. It's strictly numbers at that point
and it's over. How can that calculation be equal to? Smith said there's no allowance for what's being
provided on top of the garages. Stockover said which are two small decks —we aren't talking grass.
That's one of the things we're unclear with. He's having a hard time with it being unique —it's so
common to have a deck. Smith said basements and patios are not counted against your FAR so he
would view this as being two patios that you could, in essence, add to the overall lot and get closer to
meeting the requirement.
Member Carpenter said she can't support it. She does think it is an unusual and unique lot and one of
the reasons it's unusual and unique is that it's smaller than what we normally have. And, for her to say
it's equal to or better than to put a larger unit on it is problematic. She cannot find it equal to or better
than and can't support it.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 11
Member Carpenter says she's having the same trouble as Member Lingle is having. If the 3Id
modification (overall) does work, then the 2nd modification (rear FAR) doesn't work. To her they are
combined. She can't find a way to make it equal to or better than the standard on the 3rd one and to her
they go together. She's not going to support this motion.
Member Schmidt said she likes the plan; she likes the layout/design. She just really wished that it were
on a bigger lot.
Member Smith said we're going to be challenged continually any time we're going to have intensification
in Old Town especially in some of the really older parts of town. Some of those lots are very unusual and
a lot of things have happened over the years. The LUC was written for standard lots on a block pattern
with a yard all the way around. It'll be.a challenge for the Board but we'll have to look at each one and
consider some of these factors when we're thinking about designing a flexible planning tool. Let's look at
all the mitigating factors and how this lot might behave in a way that was different than what was
envisioned for the LUC. He thinks the standard is being met equally well or better than one that would
comply.
Chair Stockover said if it truly were an issue to a neighbor who is most affected (property abutting the
back section of the lot) they would be here tonight. He does agree with staffs analysis on the rear FAR.
Member Hatfield said it's just the opposite. Feedback he's seen has been mostly favorable.
Member Carpenter said she doesn't look at these by the number of people who come to talk to the
Board-, nor does she look at it by what she personally thinks. What she does, is look at is what the LUC
tells her.
Chair Stockover said the Board has some flexibility to give an opinion
Member Schmidt said she'd like to be clear —the rear FAR modification is asking for something that's___ _
93 o greater than allowed. Is that the percentage? Director Dush said to clarify the order of magnitude
question; he asked Member Lingle if he did the calculation on the existing setback or did you do the
calculation as if the building was set closer. If you were to move the building up to the minimum front
setback, that order of magnitude calculation would deduct about 350400 square feet from the 800
(exceeds standard) number. It would then be °2x".
The motion passed 4:2 with Members Carpenter and Schmidt dissenting.
Section 4.8(D) (1) — Density/Intensity of Development
Member Lingle said what he said before he would support both or deny both. He voted in favor of the
last modification because he does agree with the staff analysis in terms of the way the open space
relates to those two units and the placement on the lot. That's the way it should happen. He can't turn
around and say the overall FAR is out of whack because they have to go hand in hand.
Member Hatfield said he agrees with Member Lingle
Chair Stockover said this request is a lot harder for him because we're going from duplex to duplex and
he knows not all residents are drivers. He hasn't asked the question of how many bedrooms are in the
current duplex but we are adding a lot of livable space which means the potential for more people and
cars. He's having trouble with the overall increase in size. Unless some of his fellow Board members
can convince him otherwise, he's looking at a very large increase.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 10
Member Schmidt asked if the two stories were at the maximum height allowed in this district. McArdle
said yes.
Member Smith asked what the postal address would be for the duplex units. Whittall said the addresses
would be the same as they are currently-716 W. Maple, A & B.
Chair Stockover asked if we are ready for a motion. His underlying thoughts are that something will be
built on this lot and overall he likes the character of these buildings. He cautions that "we don't dig our
heels in so hard"that we get something less desirable. Stockover said he agrees with staffs analysis
and pushing the building forward would be a detriment. Yes, we're going to be taking trees away but
we'll be replacing them with more trees. In his mind, if you push that duplex forward, it would have a
less desirable impact from the street. He is in support of the rear lot FAR modification.
Member Carpenter said to do this project you would still need a modification of standard_ It's not as if we
pushed the duplex forward we fix the problem. Stockover said he believes that's true and it's going to
come down to the 3`d (overall) modification and the Project Development Plan. He thinks the Board is
sending a message of interpretation as to this one part. On this one part, he does agree with how staff
has analyzed it.
Member Smith said he agrees with Chair Stockover. He said as it relates to the intent of the standard
there is a grassy area to the north and he thinks there's a pretty novel element of urban design to be able
to create some outdoor recreational space on top of the garages as a mitigating factor.
Member Smith moved to approve the applicant's request to modify standard Section 4.8(D) (5)
regarding the Rear Area Floor Area Ratio. In support of his motion, the plan as submitted will
promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well
or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested. And, the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the
public good. In support of his motion, he adopts the Facts and Findings contained in the staff
reporton pages 9 and 10. Member Hatfield seconded the motion.
Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett suggested if there are additional purposes that have come out in the
discussion but not actually stated in the staff report, you may want to add to your motion as well.
Member Smith moved to amend his motion to include in support of the rationale that the
modification is equal to or better than the standard is the provision of a grassy area to the north
and the private recreational areas on top of the garages. Member Hatfield seconded the
amendment.
Member Schmidt said the private grassy area to the north is supposed to be larger. She thinks that any
plan that would have been submitted would have that. She doesn't think this plan is equal to or better
than because it has that grassy area. She's always been a little leery of having too much party area up
above someone else's back yard. She's pleased to hear those garage decks were smaller than the top
of the whole garage. She doesn't consider them enough of a benefit to this plan.
Member Lingle said he would have to fall back on what he said before —if he supports one, he'd support
both or he would not support both. Jumping ahead to discussion on the next one, he would have to
disagree with our esteemed Director in terms of the order of magnitude because when he looks at the
actual raw numbers, we're talking about this modification being out of compliance by 862 square feet and
the third modification being out of compliance by 1,040 square feet —they're 178 square feet apart. To
him, the order of magnitude just isn't there.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 9
of that financial savings with the existing foundation. She said by leaving it where it is they are only
gaining 11 feet.
Member Schmidt said her main concern is the front duplex. Now that the design has changed in the
back, it really has very little yard and no real access to the larger area. That really speaks more to the
overall FAR plan. She doesn't think we have to push to the rear to leave the front where it is.
Member Carpenter asked if he did move it up 11 feet, what does that do to everything else in the design.
McArdle said she believes he'd still be over the rear FAR. She said as Director Dush mentioned, if the
overall was in compliance, we'd still support the rear FAR being over the maximum.
Director Dush said relative to Member Lingle's suggestion to have a discussion of the two remaining
modifications together, staff has had that same discussion. Because of the way this lot is positioned,
where we have the three "sort of frontages, they felt it was difficult to determine yards and what yards
are supposed to be. Typically yards and those ratios are to do a purpose. In this case, the purpose is to
allow for a certain amount of usable open space. Notwithstanding where that open space is part of the
reason why staff could support that modification. But in turn, the overall wasn't there and that is why staff
could not support the overall FAR request.
Dush said the purpose and intent of the rear FAR is to allow for a certain private open space in a back
yard for the enjoyment of the residents. In this case, because of the peculiarities in the location, staff felt
that as long as that was there some place in the yard; that's how they were able to think about this. It is
a very unique infill property. They tried to get back to the base purpose and intent in that finding. While
we couldn't meet the metric for that rear yard setback, we felt that if they were able to achieve that metric
overall, we were achieving what the intent of the Code is.
Member Carpenter said she's having the same problem as Member Lingle. If you know this plan is not
going to meet the overall, then she doesn't see how she can say its okay in the rear. She thinks they are
together.
Member Schmidt said she can see staffs rationale but she feels since the overall didn't come in as
required, than you also can't go with accepting the rear FAR. She could support it if they came as a
package and the overall was where it should be and the rear FAR was only slightly off.
Member Smith said he's going to agree with Director Dush on this. He said it's an issue when you look
at unique infill sites. In this case, it doesn't act like the rear half of a lot. He thinks in this context,
granting the modification would be equal to or better than a plan which complies simply because it's not a
private back yard because of the alley.
Member Schmidt said this property doesn't seem like it's on a corner —the alley is pretty quiet. She thinks
it is more of a back yard situation and now we're putting a house right in the middle of the back yard.
Member Carpenter asked how many lots in old town are 35 feet wide. Does it constitute a hardship due
to the fact that this is a 35 foot lot with an alley on both sides? McArdle said less than 45% are still 35
feet wide on this block. She did the calculation earlier today and 65% of the lots have had lot line
adjustments to address this 35 foot wide narrow lot. Carpenter asked if many of those lots in that square
block had been developed as single family units with a 35 foot wide lot; would they meet our standards
today. McArdle said some would, some wouldn't.
Member Lingle said, in his opinion, a lot of that hardship is self-imposed because the applicant is
choosing to pursue a duplex as opposed to a single family house which wouldn't have a lot of those
problems.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 8
Member Schmidt asked staff if it's a busy alley; is that why it's important to pave it. Virata said on this
application, the applicant is not proposing an increase in the amount of dwelling units —it's basically a
one for one.
Virata said from the "ITE" (the trip generation manual) perspective, it doesn't distinguish between a
duplex with garages from a duplex without garages. Virata said LUC Section 3.6.2 states that the
property owner is responsible for the alley when they develop and the only exemption is the carriage
house exemption in the NCM and NCB zone districts. Schmidt asks who maintains those alleys —is it a
City responsibility. Virata said the City does general pothole repair. The City Street Maintenance
Program does not have funds for a "full-blown" mill and overlay,
Chair Stockover asked if garages are supposed to have a certain amount of space before you're in the
public right-of-way (to pull you car out and park) without blocking the alleyway. Virata said there is a
standard relative to fence locations with abutting alleys. Virata said LCUASS (Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards) Figure 7-12-F states there's an 8 foot minimum setback so the applicant meets
that standard by one foot.
Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Modification of
Standard for Section 3.6.2(J) (2) Design Construction Requirement because it is not detrimental
to the public good and the request diverges from the standard in a nominal and inconsequential
manner. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0.
Section 4.80 (5) — Floor Area Ratio (FAR) — Rear Lot
Member Schmidt said she disagrees with approval of rear lot FAR modification. She thinks there would
be other ways to design this project even keeping it as a duplex that would not impact the rear lot as
much. She doesn't think she can support the modification.
Member Lingle said part of what's he's struggling with is he'd like to discuss the 2Id and 3`d modification
request together. When he runs the math, the 2°d modification for the rear lot FAR is out of compliance
by 93% and staffs recommendation is for approval. The overall FAR is only out of compliance by 37%
and staffs recommendation is to deny. He doesn't fault staff analysis; he understands their rationale and
reasoning but when he looks at the raw numbers he thinks we should either approve both or deny both.
When one is so out of whack and we're asked to support it, he has a problem he doesn't know how to
address.
Director Dush said the analysis is as it has been stated in the staff report; the order of magnitude that
comes into play here. He thinks the order of magnitude in those percentages may be skewed in terms of
rationale. The percentage for a small number; for example if you go up from 10 for the rear FAR and
then go up to 19—that's a 90% increase. Dush said their rationale is because of the placement of the
existing structure and to keep the organic feel of the existing streetscape. He said in some of the finding
we use in historic preservation they speak to the character of existing setbacks and elements of the
streetscapes. We felt that by maintaining that front setback (allowing the applicant to do something that
would push them into that back area), the three -sided right-of-way, and the hourglass alley component;
staff determined they could support the rear half FAR provided the overall FAR was maintained. In this
case. it was not.
Member Schmidt said she'd "buy" some of that. But when she looks at it and learns both the trees out
front are being taken down; and it's going to be totally re-graded/changed with 12 feet of fill; she thinks
the whole front character of the yard is going to be changed. She said by redesigning and moving the
upper level of the house out, it's not really going to make that much difference. You haven't left the
character of the front yard the way it is. She knows you save a certain amount of money by keeping your
basement foundation but there could be some changes in the design that would allow you to make use
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 7
End of Public Input
Board Discussion
Member Smith asked staff if the garages were to be carports or not built at all, would it bring the
applicant into compliance. McArdle said he would still be approximately 200 square feet over the
permitted FAR for the overall lot size. It may bring the rear FAR into compliance but she hadn't done a
calculation for that.
Chair Stockover asked where does the stormwater drain —directly to the street? Are there stormwater
issues on this lot? McArdle said there are stormwater issues in the general vicinity and each lot is
required to have Stormwater review their plans for grading. Virata said he understands Stormwater
allows an additional 1,000 feet of imperviousness in the Old Town Basin without needing to do water
quantity type treatment. Virata said he's pretty sure they fall with within the guidelines which are why
there is no prescribed measure noted. The alley generally drains to the southwest. Whittall said what
they have set out is everything in the four lot area would drain to the north toward Cherry Street. He said
there are issues in the entire block and Stormwater plans on coming in and reworking the grade (the
alley entrances that feed into Cherry Street) in the spring. The easternmost alley is a fairly low lying area
and water drains to Loomis. Stockover asked if anything runs into the ditch. McArdle said the ditch
runs underneath —there's not direct access from the site.
Member Schmidt said it appears the existing duplex is currently two stories. In the remodel, will that
become a three story building? Will it be one story higher than this level? McArdle said correct. Director
Dush said the lower level will become a basement, the 2n° floor will be at ground level, and an additional
story would go on top of that. Schmidt asked how many square feet in each side of the duplex. McArdle
said 1,500 square feet and that does not include the basement.
Member Schmidt asked if there also be a third bedroom in the basement of the other unit. Whittall said
yes-- two bedrooms up and a study or bedroom down.
Member Lingle said on Site Plan 'I of 4-there's now a detached garage at the back of 714 W. Maple.
McArdle said that's correct. Lingle asked if the opportunity no longer exists for the option the applicant
wanted to pursue (lot line reconfiguration). McArdle said it no longer exists —he would have had to set
the garage back further.
Chair Stockover said the one issue we haven't addressed and which has been weighing on his mind are
the discussions the Board has had with regard to EastsideAAtestside Design Standards. It's difficult for
him to look at this objectively given what City Council has directed us to do. Each site is unique but
when he looks at it based on the surrounding area, what he proposes seems to work but for the ability to
justify the numbers. He thinks it's an awfully big building on a very small lot. He said he hasn't been
able to find justification in the criteria offered in the LUC.
Member Smith suggested they deal with each modification one at a time.
Member Schmidt said one point of clarification —this project is seeking a modification based on the
existing standard, is that correct? Director Dush said that is correct, the new standards have not gone
into effect. Even if the new standards were in place, this particular application (given the date it was
submitted) would be addressed with the .5 FAR —so the request is for the .685 (or .69) FAR.
Section 3.6.20) (2) — Design Construction Requirements (Alley Paving)
Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested the Board start with a motion.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 6
explored the opportunity of doing an infill development, he recognized there were very few sites with
existing duplexes. He said it was a way to try and create a mixed use, infill development. It seemed like
the obvious path to him. He's invested a lot of time and energy and he decided to stay true to that idea
(strategy). He did not realize at the time that he was embarking upon a review that is like a 100 house
subdivision in its format, time, and expense.
Member Lingle asked if it would not be feasible to drop back to a single family house. Whittall said not at
this point due to the completion of design and engineering work. He said if the modifications are not
granted, he would have to begin again and he does not think that would be wise for him or the enclave.
Member Smith asked Whittall to help him understand the rationale when requesting a modification of
standard for the overall FAR. Smith said it was not clear in the submittal. Smith also asked which
criteria was he requesting be considered. Whittall said the equal to or better than the existing standard
criteria. He believes its 68% FAR with 4 off-street parking spaces. He said on this particular lot, it
doesn't make sense to do duplexes with parking either in the street or in the very back. He thinks there's
also a hardship related to how they began the process. Member Carpenter said she doesn't quite
understand the hardship piece of it. Whittall said at Conceptual Review he came to the table with a lot
configuration that would have made one lot 5,000 square feet.
Member Smith asked staff to speak to a sentence on page 7 of the Staff Report. That is: "The intent of
the standard... Any future owner who purchases this structure will do so with the knowledge of the
proposed structure's presence." He said a lot of our standards are applied with an ownership neutral
perspective and he asked if we say "buyers beware" are we doing a disservice to the community.
Director Dush said we do try and analyze without a buyer beware approach because not everyone is
going to understand the nuances of the Code. Dush said perhaps we could have taken a more
thoughtful look at that. The true finding for the rear FAR there, in addition to those that were stated, is
the fact that the circumstances of the hour glass alley area and the existing setback frames" where that
building is going to be. Maybe that would have been a better explanation and would have been more
neutral.
Public Input
mvlaOkAMTul&h lives at 233 Loomis. He would just like to disagree with the applicant that this is the type of
infill the City wants to encourage. He'd like to point to City Council's action to actually decrease Floor
Area Ratios which the applicant is already exceeding. He would be against a variance to allow the high
FAR. With regard to the garages, he would dispute the notion that off-street parking was one of the
primary issues at the early public hearings.
S s2NOE-P �Fs lives at 800 Laporte Avenue. She's a block away from the development. They've lived
in their home for 3 years so they've known the neighborhood for a long time. She said it started out as
three individual houses and now he proposes to bring in 6 to 7 homes into this one area. She's
wondering the sanity of putting another duplex behind the existing duplex. It just doesn't fit with the
neighborhood. It is eliminating a lot of space. She knows a neighbor of theirs that works for the City
Water Department and he said he feels like it would be a detriment to have the additional pavement
because it's going to impact water run-off and would damage other areas. Why instead of putting
another duplex, not put in a garage and make it simple?
Member Lingle said for the benefit of the last speaker, the proposal is not to add another duplex but to
expand the existing duplex.
McArdle noted the applicant had some letters of support he forgot to give the board during his
presentation. He'd like to bring them up to the Board now.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 5
look at 4 of 4 in the elevations submittal. He said it is accompanied with the site plan and describes the
relationship of all the configured structures. He said this is a pretty rare site in Fort Collins due to its
topography --a result of the construction of Arthur Ditch. He said by positioning 714 W. Maple (the
house that has been built) and utilizing the "slope out to the north", they get an opportunity to use the
fairly low level, flat roof garages. It gives them outdoor living spaces over a low profile building. It would
help them work with "view sheds" due to the lack of "long running, tall walls".
Schmidt said if you're using this living space above the garage, how high are you behind the fence
looking down the back yard of the next house? Whittall said the wall height of that garage in relation to
occupants at 714 W. Maple would be 4 feet and have a low pitch. He said he designed with the idea that
you're not elevated and looking down from a "bird's eye". Schmidt said "you're saying that garage is at
the same level" as the adjacent property's back yard. Whittall said in this particular instance slightly
higher. Whittall said these are fairly small 10'x15' decks —it's not the entire roof top of the garage. He
referenced what you see at 716 W. Maple which is above the front porch. He said they are small covered
outdoor spaces.
Member Hatfield said since staff is recommending the denial of one out of three modification requests,
he asked Whittall if he could live with the denial of that third request. Whittall said no. Whittall said given
the direction to which he was guided during Conceptual Review, he let staff know that course would
increase his modification of standards request. He understood the Planning & Zoning Board and the
City would look more favorably at a larger FAR and a larger rear ratio than they would an irregular
shaped lot. Director Dush said perhaps there's a mixing up of two of the modifications. Dush said what
Mr. Whittall is talking about is staff was guiding in a direction to increase the number of modifications,
Dush said, in fact, staff is recommending denial of the overall FAR. Staff supports the rear half FAR and
that may be why the rear building has been placed there. Dush said he just wants to be clear on what
staff is suggesting with relation to a certain design requiring additional modifications.
Member Schmidt asked if the basic idea was take a sliver of land from the next door lot to make an L-
shaped lot. Whittall said his initial proposal was to take the back 15 feet of the eastern lot and that would_
have enabled him to build exactly the same house with a side -load garage. The alley would have been
increased by 30 square feet thus mitigating the back lot and partially (200-250 square feet) mitigating the
FAR. Whittall said in some ways it would not have eliminated the issues but the change in strategy
certainly increased the numbers.
Member Carpenter asked how one two -car garage or a one car garage for each of the units would affect
the calculations. McArdle said that would have taken approximately 400 square feet off the total. She
said Mr. Whittall is 1,000 square feet over the permitted FAR. McArdle said he'd have to have two-1,400
square foot units and no garages to meet the FAR requirement.
Member Schmidt asked if these duplexes have 3 bedrooms. Whittall said they're actually 2 bedrooms
with a possibility of finishing a study or a third bedroom in the basement. Whittall said when considering
FAR, the building that most "articulates with that" is the blue building across the street. He believes that
has a FAR of 80% without considering parking. With parking it has a FAR of 110%.
Member Schmidt asked what is the FAR of the two properties on the corner that he had already built and
sold. Whittall said 732 W. Maple was at 46%, the 726 W. Maple (the smaller triangular shaped building)
was 45%. He said if you take into consideration the entire enclave, they are at a total of 50% of FAR
including parking.
Member Lingle noted all the other units built were single family houses and if this proposal considered
single family there would not be any FAR issues. Lingle asked Whittall to explain why he is pursuing a
duplex on this particular lot? Whittall said primarily because it was already a duplex. Also, when he
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 4
Chair Stockover said it appears there are parallel alleys there and it seems that if the applicant builds to
the northwest comer that alley will become ineffective. He believes there's a tight turning radius with a
power box in the corner. He asked if there been any thought of abandoning that alley? Virata said staff
has not looked specifically at whether or not they would be in support nor have there been inquiries
about an alley vacation. Virata said that based on the site plan that was presented; it didn't look as if the
turning movements would be worse than what it is today. Stockover asked for the slide with the property
pin. He said looking at the slide; he questioned whether you could effectively make a right hand turn
when you get to the end of that alley. He thinks it would function better as a drive and would increase
the lot size. McArdle said she believes some of the other lots on the alley access their lots via that
alleyway. Stockover said he would see them using the northern alleyway.
Applicant's Presentation
Steve Whittall lives at 400 Whedbee. He is a partner in By Design Homes and the applicant.
He said he purchased the property on the comer from the Kinsley family —it's a 1,900 square foot parcel.
Three years ago they "started down" the "tech 2 review process" to make 6,000 square foot lots and a
multi -family project. He said approximately 90 people showed up at a meeting to let him know his idea
was not a good one. He said he went back to the drawing board to take a look at this project. He said
the main concerns he heard at that time were off-street parking and density. About a year ago, they had
the opportunity to buy 714 W. Maple (the new home to the east) and shortly thereafter the duplex.
Whittall noted Arthur Ditch goes corner to corner on the property and the hour -glass alley. He said when
they brought this before Conceptual Review (CR) it was one of their biggest concerns. During CR, he
proposed giving 716 W. Maple the north15 feet of the lot at 714 W. Maple. He said it still would have
enabled them to build the same house as they did on 714 W. Maple. It would have allowed them to
contribute 350 or 400 additional square feet to 714 W. Maple. He believes it would have: 1) solved their
alley problem, 2) entirely mitigated their back lot, and 3) partially mitigated the -Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
He said he visited with staff 3 times during his CR—each time being told no irregular shaped lots. He
also tried to explain to the City they have an electrical panel which they continue to upgrade in the public
way. He said he did his very best to try and mitigate some of the very things that are problematic today.
Whittall said he'd like to first address the alley. There is a way to work with the current site plan proposal
so that you create a turning radius that'll work. That's what he's done at 714. He believes the alley is
workable. He said the back half modification he's requesting was partially brought on by the way it was
approached and he regrets not sticking with his original strategy. He believes this is a thoughtful, well
conceived project. He said by utilizing the existing duplex; they are basically off the property line by 26
feet (as opposed to the required 15 foot setback). Whittall said people have suggested he tear the
duplex down but he believes it's worth saving. He said the man who built it intended to partially bury it.
He understands he'll be encroaching on the rear half of the lot.
He thinks what he's proposing is the best plan for the neighborhood. He's talked to the neighbors and
believes he's listened to their concerns. He believes of the 288 people notified of this meeting (the 5 h
opportunity to provide feedback), they have had sufficient opportunity to express their concerns.
He said they have let their concerns be known and he's tried very hard to hear them. He believes this
project is the kind of infill project that Fort Collins, Old Town, and the whole community, is something we
have to start to address. He said in many ways, the standards make it virtually impossible to create
housing that meets the needs of the general public. He asks the Board to consider that the proposal that
he has put forward is thoughtful, well conceived, and would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Board's Questions
Member Schmidt asked Whittall to speak to his plans for roof -top gardens and outdoor living spaces on
top of the garages in the context of the newly proposed building. Whittall asked the Board members to
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 3
The intent of this standard is to protect neighboring property owner's privacy in their back yards and
maintain adequate back yard space for properties in this zone district. The only property that is impacted
by the proposed structure is the one to the east, which has recently been rebuilt by the applicant and is
currently vacant. The building design is constrained by the lot width of 35'. The minimum lot width for
this zone district is 40' for two-family structures and many of the lots in the area have had lot line
adjustments to accommodate wider homes and side yards. This narrow width plus the setbacks makes
the option for side -by -side units facing Maple especially difficult and the option for both units to have rear
yard space nearly impossible. The proposed structure's location is also impacted by the remodel of the
existing duplex, which is set back 26' from the edge of right-of-way, thus exceeding the required setback
by 11'. Though the applicant could have chosen to move the structure up limiting their encroachment
into the rear of the lot, this would have minimized the front unit's yard space. The current configuration
allows both units to have a functional yard space.
Staff has found that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well than a plan would that complies with the standard. Staff
recommends approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 4.8(D) (5).
Section 4.8(D) (1) — Density/Intensity of Development
These standard states: "Minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two (2) times the total floor area of
the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single family dwelling..." The lot
size at 716 Maple Street is 5,600 square feet, which would allow a total floor area of 2,800 square feet.
The applicant is proposing a total floor area of 3,840 square feet.
Staff has evaluated the applicant's request against the criteria provided in Section 2.8.2 of the LUC. This
standard addresses a quantitative measure that impacts massing built on lots in an effort to maintain the
qualitative aspect of the neighborhood. Very few lots maintain the 35' width that the neighborhood was
originally platted as, and overtime duplex units and larger multi -family dwellings have been built in the
neighborhood on reconfigured lots. The overall lot FAR of the neighborhood ranges from the low 0.1 to
0.7 in at least one larger multi -family dwelling.
Though this single and multifamily neighborhood is difficult to judge compatibility based on a metric, this
is the tool the code utilizes at this time. In reviewing this proposal it is staffs determination that the
request does not adequately justify the 1,040 square feet of additional floor area proposed above the
permitted floor area. The addition of 1,040 square feet is not a nominal and inconsequential increase.
Staff recommends denial of the Modification of Standard to Section 4.8(D) (1).
Board's Questions
Member Lingle asked with regard to the first modification request concerning the alley, to show on the
site plan how much of that hour glass alley would be required to be paved if a modification is not granted.
McArdle showed and "L shaped" portion on the site map. Lingle noted there would not be a full looped
connection to either street.
Member Schmidt asked when we don't require alleys to be paved. Development engineering staff
member Marc Virata said the LUC states that alleys need to be improved. He said the only exception is
when it's a carriage house. He said its staff's judgment this proposal is not adding any additional traffic.
It's basically an existing duplex that will remain a duplex.
Member Schmidt asked where the garages for the existing duplex are. Are they on the alley right now?
McArdle said there are no garages. They park on the rear portion of the lot. Schmidt noted that if you
add 2 two -car garages, you're adding 4 cars that will certainly use the alley. Schmidt asked if others had
garages on that6ley. McArdle said she believes both of the lots have garages off the alley and there will
be one for the single family residence as well.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 17, 2011
Page 2
33% of the square footage of the rear half of the lot; and the last modification is to
the minimum overall lot area of the site, which shall be equivalent to two times the
total floor area of the buildings on the site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial, based on plan's noncompliance with Section 4.8(D) (1)
regarding the overall floor area permitted on the site.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Emma McArdle provided contextual photos of the neighborhood and the property.
She noted at the neighborhood meeting held September 22, 2010 that of the 3 people in attendance 2
people supported the proposal. She noted that as proposed 3 trees will be removed. A City Forester
who visited the site said one of those 3 trees is a high quality tree. He suggested a mitigation plan of
upsizing the replacement trees or placing 11 new trees on the site.
McArdle noted the applicant is proposing three modifications and the Land Use Code (LUC) in
Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards) says the decision maker (P&Z Board)
may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be
detrimental to the public good and meets one of the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1)-(4). The
applicant is requesting the following three modifications:
Section 3.6.20) (2) — Design Construction Requirements
This standard requires all alleys be paved, except those public alleys that provide access only for
carriage houses and habitable accessory buildings in the NCM, NCL and NCB zone districts.
Staff has evaluated the applicant's request against the criteria provided in Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC
Staff finds that the applicant's request is not detrimental to the public good and meets the criteria of
Section 2.8.2(H)(4) in that the request diverges from the standard only in a "nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan."
Staffs believes the proposal is not increasing the density on the lot or in the neighborhood, no other
section of the alley is paved and the proposed would have similar impact of a carriage house or habitable
structure, which are exempted from this requirement. Therefore, staff finds that the request diverges
from the standard only in a "nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the
entire development plan." Staff recommends approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 3.6.2(J)
(2)-
Section 4.8(D) (5) — Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
This section states: °Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot."
The total lot size of this site is 5,600 square feet. This would allow 924 square feet of floor area to be
located on the real half of the lot. The applicant is proposing approximately 1800 square feet of floor
area to be located on the rear of the lot. This exceeds the standard by 862 square feet.
Staff has evaluated the applicant's request against the criteria provided in Section 2.8.2 (H) of the LUC.
Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) in that the
"plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a
modification is requested."
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Excused Absence: Campana
Staff Present: Dush, Daggett, Olt, McArdle, Virata, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review
Director Dush reviewed the agenda
Citizen participation:
None
Chair Stockover asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any item from the
Consent Agenda. There were no requests.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes for the February 17, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearings
2. Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93D
Member Schmidt made a -motion to approve the Consent Agenda including minutes from the
February 17, 2011 Hearing and Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93D.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
3. 716 Maple Duplex Expansion, # 2-11
Project: 716 Maple Duplex Expansion # 2-11
Project Description: This is a request to expand an existing duplex located at 716 Maple Street. The
property is located within the NCM, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
zone district. The Land Use Code requires two-family (duplex) structures go
through a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review when any structural
additions or alterations are made to an existing duplex structure. The applicant is
proposing the conversion of the existing overlunder duplex into two side -by -side
units separated by two 2-car garages serving each unit.
The applicant is also requesting 3 modifications of standards with this proposal.
One relates to paving of the hour -glass alley adjacent to the site; the second is for
the rear floor area ratio (FAR), which limits the building square footage to be only