HomeMy WebLinkAbout716 MAPLE ST. DUPLEX EXPANSION - PDP - 2-11 - P&Z PACKET - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)existing lots are subdivided to create multiple buildable lots. This is not the intent of the Land Use
Code. Condition #3, the "nominal and inconsequential' exemption, cannot be applied either. There
is no way to argue that construction of 1800 sq ft of dwelling space on the rear half of a 5600 sq ft lot
(rear FAR = 0.64) is a minor deviation from the standard of 0.33.
Concerning the third variance request: the standard governing the overall floor area to lot area ratio
seems inviolable in virtually all cases. While total lot FAR may vary within this neighborhood, the
notion of neighborhood compatibility does not trump the carefully thought out standards of the Land
Use Code. Neighborhood compatibility is an additional criterion to be considered even when a
development proposal meets all dimensional requirements. Because this is a redevelopment project,
the applicant has clear alternatives. There is no compelling reason that a 2800 sq ft structure could
not be constructed at the site, in full compliance with the Code.
The applicant should be commended for attempting to convert a relatively low value property into a
high value, infill re -development. I think most neighborhood residents are genuinely pleased with
the adjacent new homes. However, the approval or disapproval of variance requests is a matter of
correct application of existing law, as clearly outlined in the LUC. External factors such as market
conditions, the interests of the City in promoting infill development, or the interests of neighbors in
elevating their own property values through the promotion of high value developments in their
neighborhood are not relevant. As a matter of law, it seems plain that variance requests #2 and #3
cannot be approved.
The applicant should be encouraged to come up with a compliant plan.
Sincerely,
Patrick A. Reeves
810 Maple St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
3-14-2011
Dear Ms. McArdle:
Please enter the following comments into the record for the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to
be held March 17, 2011 regarding the 716 Maple Street Duplex Expansion #2-11.
I, Patrick Reeves; reside and own property at 810 Maple, approximately one block from the proposed
development. The applicant, Aubrey Carson, has requested 3 variances 4n order to construct a new
front/rear duplex, structure on the site where an over/under duplex currently exists. The variances
requested are to the standards governing 1) paving of the adjacent alley, 2) -the rear lot floor area ratio
(which cannot exceed 0.33), and 3) the total floor area to lot area ratio (which cannot exceed 0.50).
When evaluating this appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board should remain mindful of their
obligations in interpreting applicable law. To be approved, a variance must meet one of three very
specific conditions. Condition #1, "by reason of exceptional situations or circumstances, the strict
application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue
hardship upon the owner of such property" cannot be applied in this case for any of the requested
variances. The "hardship" exception is inapplicable because there appear to be no physical factors
hampering development of a compliant duplex structure. While street frontage is limiting for a side
by side development, a reconstructed over/under design, although perhaps not desirable from a
market perspective, seems possible. Market conditions cannot be considered a valid reason to claim
hardship.
With respect to the request to be exempted from the rear lot floor area ratio of 0.33, a careful
evaluation of the proposal cannot, in good conscience, grant approval. The purpose of the rear lot
floor area ratio standard is to maintain a neighborhood with relatively open backyards, which, in the
neighborhood in question, are typically utilized as private green space. While it may be argued that --
this pattern is not always seen in this heterogeneous neighborhood due to adoption of the Land Use
Code after most homes were constructed, the Land Use Code must be viewed as a forward looking
document, meant not only to reflect current patterns of development, but, more importantly, to
control how the neighborhood is to develop in the future. It is the document that controls the
aspirations for neighborhood development. Existing conditions in a neighborhood are immaterial to
most provisions in the Land Use Code. "Neighborhood compatibility" is not one of the three
conditions under which a variance may be granted. In addition, it cannot be argued that, because the
adjacent property is newly constructed and vacant (and therefore the eventual buyer of that property
will be aware of the deviation from neighborhood norms while contemplating their purchase), the
proposal meets the standard equally well or better than a compliant structure (Condition #2 for
approving a variance). To do so would give large scale developers free reign to ignore the guiding
principles of the Land Use Code. If the granting of modification requests is dependent on adjacent
properties, nothing remains to guide development when several adjacent properties are demolished or