HomeMy WebLinkAbout617 WOOD ST. (MORIE AT CAPITOL HILL) - FDP - 22-06/A - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)Steve Olt - DonaSteinConcerns-toDavid' Morie@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter.doc Page 6
Martinez. I suppose Penny Flats is next. Then what about the lot on the
Corner of College and Cherry leading to the watershed of the Poudre
River --where is the environmental study for that?"
Answer: Presumably this is in reference to the recently completed
Mason Street North mixed -use project at the northwest corner of
Mason Street and Cherry Street when talking about the "ugly mess".
This represents a personal opinion only. It is not clear what the point
is about Penny Flats being next. The reference to the lot on the
Corner of College and Cherry is somewhat vague and unclear.
Thank you for your expressed interest in the Fort Collins community. I
hope these answers to your questions helps give you a better
understanding of the City of Fort Collins development review and
decision -making process that ultimately results in constructed projects.
Sincerely,
David Roy
City Councilman
District 6
6
Steve Olt.- DonaSteinConcerns-toDavid'-Morie@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter. doe Page 5
Question: "You must have seen the plans and walked by the block where
this construction will take place - architecturally, it is totally out of
keeping with the neighborhood. What are people thinking?"
Answer: The Morie at Capitol Hill, Project Development Plan was
extensively reviewed and evaluated against the rules, regulations,
and standards set forth in the City's Land Use Code. The building
and project compatibility with the neighborhood (architectural
character, building size, height, mass, and scale) were taken into
consideration as City staff and the Planning & Zoning Board
reviewed, considered, and deliberated on the development proposal.
Ultimately the project was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board,
who made the determination that the project is compatible with the
neighborhood and complies with the rules and regulations set forth in
the Land Use Code.
Question: "Why are meetings where concerned citizens can have input
suddenly changed with no notice enough ahead of time for citizens to
attend or with no notice of where/when the meeting will eventually be
held? Is this democracy? Is this an open process?"
Answer: As previously stated in Question #3, above, there were 2
public meetings held during the City's normal development review
process. The first, a required neighborhood information meeting, was
held the evening of July 17, 2006, at 281 North College Avenue. A
letter of notification about this upcoming meeting (citing date, time,
and place) was mailed to 42 Affected Property Owners (property
owners within 500 feet of the proposed development site) on June
29, 2006, 18 days prior to the meeting. The only people in
attendance at the meeting the night of July 17h were the property
owner/developer, a Coloradoan Newspaper reporter, and the
assigned City Development Review Planner. The second, a Planning
& Zoning Board public hearing, was held on November 16, 2006, at
City Hall. A letter of notification about this upcoming meeting (citing
date, time, and place) was mailed to 43 Affected Property Owners
(property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development site)
on October 31, 2006, 16 days prior to the hearing. Three citizens (two
adjacent property owners and one person working with the
developer) present at the public hearing spoke to the Planning &
Zoning Board Both public meetings were held on the dates and at the
times & places as advertised.
Question: "You've seen the ugly mess to the east of RiverRock and above
s
Steve Olt - DonaSteinConcerns-to David -Mori e@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter.doc Page 4
structure on October 25, 1991. Therefore, no special considerations
or circumstances were provided to or for the applicant.
Question: "Are there rules on the books for building/renovations that
limit in FEET the height of buildings? If not, why not?
Answer: There are maximum building heights set forth in the City's
Land Use Code. They vary from zoning district to zoning district,
including the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density
District, which this property is in. This District has a maximum
building height of two (2) stories. In this District, the defined
maximum vertical height in feet is 12'-8"from floor to floor for each
residential story.
Question: "Are there rules on the books for building/renovations that
prevent CUTTING OFF daylight and sunlight as well as views in adjacent
buildings? If not, why not?"
Answer: There are Building and Project Compatibility criteria dealing
with views and light & shadow, and how they relate to other
properties, in the Land Use Code; however, they relate to and deal
primarily with buildings and structures that are proposed to be
greater than 40 feet in height.
Question: "Why is it allowable to put up a building whose walls are
within six inches of the next door building. Isn't there any regulation
about this? If not, why not?"
Answer: There are Building Code and Land Use Code regulations
regarding building separations and building setbacks. The Morie at
Capitol Hill development plan satisfies the building setback
requirements set forth in the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation,
Medium Density District. The outside walls of the 2 two-family
dwelling buildings will be set back from the north and south property
lines, facing adjacent properties, for distances of 5feet to 8 feet. The
existing single-family residence to the north is set back from its
property line a distance of 10 feet to 12 feet and the existing single-
family residence to the south is set back from its property line a
distance of 8 feet to 10 feet. Therefore, there will be at least 13 feet
to 15 feet between buildings, property to property. Internally, the
closest building walls will be 10 feet apart and they are garage
walls.
4
Steve Olt - DonaSteinConcerns-toDavid'-Morie@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter.doc Page 3
standard property and sales tax requirements associated with all
properties in the City. The City's rules, regulations, and requirements
set forth in the Land Use Code were evaluated and strictly enforced
during the development review process. The existing alley along the
west side of the subject property, mid -block between Wood Street
and Park Street, will be used for vehicular access to 2 of the 4 new
dwelling units. The alley is in a dedicated public right-of-way and
can be used for access to private residences, both existing homes on
Wood Street & Park Street and 2 dwelling units in the 2 two-family
dwellings (2 duplexes containing 4 units) in this new development.
With this there will be vehicular access to 8 units of the 12 units
along the alley.
Question: "What safety concerns have been addressed? For example,
increased traffic. Kids live in the area and off the alley.
Answer: This proposed new development will'increase by 3 the
number of dwelling units in the block, area. The City's Traffic
Engineer waived the need for a Traffic Study to be submitted for
review with the Project Development Plan. He did, however, review
the plans, when submitted to the City, and stated that there were 'No
problems from Traffic Operations" standpoint. The alley behind the
development, providing vehicular access for 2 of the new units and 6
of the existing homes, has a gravel surface that will remain. It
currently appears to be more of a service -oriented alley, with several
of the properties having vehicle -wide gates that open into the back
yards, not driveways. There is only one property that has a true
pedestrian -gate connection to the alley. During the development
review process City staff determined that the 2 additional dwelling
units to gain access from the alley did not warrant improvements to
the alley.
Question: "To my view, it is unconscionable that the single-family homes
on that block will have two --three story buildings in their midst. Is this
block zoned for multitenant dwellings? If not, what happened and how?"
Answer: The 2 two-family dwelling buildings (duplexes) will be 2
stories in height above grade, a maximum of 25'-7 , with varying
roofline heights. There are several 2-story homes or structures in the
immediate area that equal or approach that height. The NCM -
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District does permit
"two-family dwellings", subject to a Planning & Zoning Board review
when the dwellings are constructed on a lot which contained a
Steve Olt - DonaSteinConcerns-toDavid•Morie@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter.doc Page 2
information on the City's requirements for trash enclosure and
recycling areas; and, recommended that the applicant contact the
City Forester for an evaluation of the existing trees on -site. There
were no environmental issues regarding this "infill" project in the
City.
Question: "What is the record of Citizen input?"
Answer: The first opportunity for citizens to input their concerns &
comments about this development proposal was at a required
neighborhood information meeting that was held the evening of July
17, 2006, at 281 North College Avenue. A letter of notification about
this upcoming meeting was mailed to 42 Affected Property Owners
(property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development site)
on June 29, 2006. The only people in attendance at the meeting the
night of July 17"' were the property owner/developer, a Coloradoan
Newspaper reporter, and the assigned City Development Review
Planner. Therefore, no citizen input was given at this first opportunity
for citizens to participate in the City's development review process.
The second opportunity for citizens to input their concerns &
comments about this development proposal was at the Planning &
Zoning Board public hearing held on November 16, 2006. A letter of
notification about this upcoming meeting was mailed to 43 Affected
Property Owners (property owners within 500 feet of the proposed
development site) on October 31, 2006. Three citizens (two adjacent
property owners and one person working with the developer) present
at the public hearing spoke to the Planning & Zoning Board Also, the
City's Project Planner read into the record several concerns
expressed on a telephone call to him from an adjacent property
owner that could not be present at the hearing. The Board listened
and took these concerns and comments into consideration as part of
their deliberation.
Question: "What benefits do the developers get from the city --utility
freebies, tax write-offs, bending of any rules/regulations? For example, I
understand the alley will be used as a drive -way into garages or access to
the apartments. How can an alley be changed into a private access
roadway?"
Answer: The developers do not receive any such benefits from the
City. The standard utility service requirements must, and are, being
met. The development, and its residents, will be subject to the
2
Steve Olt - DonaSteinConcerns-toDavid'-Morie@CapitolHiIIPDP.Letter.doc Page 1
April 12, 2007
To: Dona Stein
From: David Roy
City Council
Re: Morie at Capitol Hill (617 Wood Street), Project Development
Plan
Dear Ms. Stein,
I would like to provide you with City staff responses to your questions
and concerns expressed regarding the approved Morie at Capitol Hill
(617 Wood Street), Project Development Plan - Current Planning file #22-
06.
Question: "Who made the decision to build there? What is the record of
City Council votes on this?"
Answer: This is a private property owner/developer's intent to
construct two (2) two-family dwellings (duplex buildings) on the
property at 617 Wood Street. Two-family dwellings are permitted in
the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District
(when the dwellings are constructed on a lot which contained a
structure on October 25, 1991), subject to Planning & Zoning Board
review. After a complete development review process the Board
approved the applicant's request on November 16, 2006. City Council
did not review and vote on this request since no appeal of the
Board's decision was ever filed.
Question: "Where is the Environmental Review of this lot -area?"
Answer: The City's Natural Resources/Environmental Planer was
routed the initial submittal of the applicant's development proposal
and had no comments to offer regarding the proposed 2 new two-
family dwellings (4 units) on the property. At the conceptual review
meeting on May 22, 2006, the Environmental Planner offered
Steve Olt - Dina Stein response - 617 W ' Street Page 1
From: Steve Olt
To: Sarah Kane
Date: 04/12/2007 11:16:14 AM
Subject: Dina Stein response - 617 Wood Street
Sarah,
Attached is the staff response to Ms. Dona Stein regarding her recent concerns expressed to David Roy
about the approved project titled Morie at Capitol Hill (617 Wood Street), Project Development Plan.
Please review, revise, and/or format as you see fit for David's signature on the response to Ms. Stein.
Thanks,
Steve Olt
Project Planner
Current Planning
CC: Cameron Gloss; Darin Atteberry; Diane Jones; Joe Frank; Patty Storm