HomeMy WebLinkAboutMELDRUM STREET TOWNHOMES - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 8-09 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)Page 3 of 3
the north
4. Side elevation of the building showing the view from the neighbor's lots.
Thanks Ted. Let me know if you need anything further. As I understand it you will determine a date for the
Administrative Review, check that with me for availability, and send out the notifications.
Michael Bello
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 S. College Ave, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970 566-4541
file://CADocuments and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 5/18/2009
Page 2 of 3
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970 566-4541
From: Ted Shepard [mai Ito: tshepa rd@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:27 AM
To: Michael Bello
Subject: Re: Request for Modification to Standard for Meldrum Street Townhomes
Hello Mike, here are a few observations:
1. On the site plan, please clearly indicate the dividing line between the front and rear halfs of
the lot.
2. On page four; as you work through the justifications for granting a Modification, you state
in number one that the granting would not be detrimental to the public good. How so? This
needs further explanation.
3. On page four, as you work through the justifications for granting a Modification, I am
concerned about number two. Please note that City Hall is zoned D - Downtown so using
City Hall intensity as a contextual comparison is a stretch. Also, the nominal and
inconsequential was put into the Code for situations where there is a slight deviation from a
metric. Your request doubles the allowable F.A.R. Hard to see how this is nominal and
inconsequential.
4. On page four, as you work through the justifications for granting a Modification, I am
concerned about number three. Floodplain and handicap regulations are not hardships.
Please refer to Section 2.8.2(H)(3) which describes what constitutes a hardship. I don't think
you can use this a justification.
5. Finally, I think you need to prepare a site plan sketch that complies with the standard.
Then we can look at the complying plan and your proposed plan side by side.
6. At some point, you will probably need to prepare a shadow analysis to demonstrate the
impact (or lack thereof?) on the property to the north.
Do you want me to forward to Advance Planning now or do you want to discuss first and then
possibly revise?
Thanks, Ted
>>> "Michael Bello" <mbello10@comcast.net> 5/12/2009 12:02 PM >>>
Ted,
Attached are the following items:
1. Letter requesting the Modification to Standard to Division 4.9.D.5 Floor Area Ratio of the LUC. It also
gives the details of the variance and the justification for the request.
2. Site plan showing the layout of the buildings, the setbacks from the side lot lines, and associated
walks, parking and open space.
3. Building elevation of the front 2 story unit that is designed to be sympathetic to the historic home to
file://C:\Documents and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 5/18/2009
Page 1 of 3
Ted Shepard - RE: Request for Modification to Standard for Meldrum
Street Townhomes
From: "Michael Bello" <mbello10@comcast.net>
To: "'Ted Shepard"' <tshepard@fcgov.com>
Date: 5/14/2009 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Modification to Standard for Meldrum Street
Townhomes #01
U' r
•
rtoTed, J t f✓
In reply to your comments below:
1. 1 will add the dividing line and resubmit the site plan. k N
2. I will prepare my justification for why I believe the granting of this modification i not detrimental to
the public good and add that to the letter.
0 1 don't understand why City Hall is not contextual. The fact that the City Hall b Iding exists within
the proximity of the subject property does contribute to the context of the neig borhood and
impacts what is contextually appropriate for the neighborhood. Similarly the 2. story condo
building on the corner of Maple and Meldrum is pertinent to the context of the eighborhood. In
fact the transitional zoning and the existence of City Hall and the Condo buildin are bigger
contributors to the character of the block than one small single story home. Isn' the zoning telling
us what the City "wants to see" or believes is eventually aoorooriate for the site?�If so than
implementing that context in a new structure that will be present for the next 50 to 100 year or so is
more important than a building that is not in character to what this zone "wants to be". The City
has placed a transitional zone district on this and the neighboring properties. That tells me a
structure that transitions from the Downtown density of the east to the Single Family homes of the
west is more appropriate than a single family home. I'm struggling with your premise that zoning,
not the physical structures that exists and the intent of the zone district, is the determining
contributor. S va mot 're t►OMPt i-lN to
4. 1 understand and will delete this as a rationale for the justification. W1 do-7L • Oe—i'• s TO s• , q (D)
i I
5. We will prepare a site plan that shows what is allowed without a variance. I believe that will show
our plan is superior in terms of what is "good" for the neighbors. Maybe that is a better justification
7� and rationale. Q 000a•
UWill the shadow analysis be required for some phase of approval, or i his being suggested to help
evaluate the impact to the neighbors? If the latter than our proposed building would certainly be
"better" than what is allowed as the proposed design brings the heights down and the setbacks
greater than what is r@quirett—,4d-X� 0 WO.0 T 3
Please hold on submitting to Advanced Planning as I would like to make the modifications suggested above
and resubmit. Please give me your thoughts on the questions and comments on items #3 and #6 ab e.
Thanks Ted. ,ukL �
Michael Bello
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 S. College Ave, Suite 100
i
file://CADocuments and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW100001.HTM 5/18/2009