HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 EDWARDS STREET - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 20-07 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING09/05/2007 11:43 30329945r-F PAUL LHERAULT PAGE 02/02
property per detached dwelling, it is unfair to allow this individual
owner/developer what amounts to 3,500 square feet per dwelling, a reduction of
almost 1/3 of what is currently required. And further, why should this individual
be allowed to construct a 1,200 square foot dwelling, when everyone else in the
neighborhood is limited to 1,000 square feet. And finally, the requested
modification of 15 foot set -back to 6.5 feet not only seems greedy and
unnecessary, but also inevitably would be a safety hazard.
In conclusion, it seems quite clear that the motivation for requesting the
modifications of standards is to create a second renter dwelling, and to
circumvent the present maximum renter occupancy laws. Needless to say,
renters are a valuable asset to our neighborhood and community. However,
compressing dwelling capacity in the manner suggested by this owner/deveoper
is inconsistent with the best interests of the neighborhood and community.
I would be happy to discuss my views further, at a mutually convenient
opportunity.
Very Sincerely,
Kerry Kamer "
313 Edwards Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 308-1307
kamer@frii.com
09/05/2007 11:43
3032994556
PALL LHERAULT
PAGE 01/02
9/5/07
VIA FACSIMILE (970) 416-2020
Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins
P,O, Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: 220 Edwards Street - Modifications of Standards (File #20-07)
To Whom It May Concern:
I write in response to your 8/21/07 letter announcing the upcoming Administrative
Public Hearing 9/6/07. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hearing due
to conflict with my work schedule. I do, however, wish to at least write with my
opinions in this regard. Please feel free to read aloud or otherwise present my
views at the hearing, or in any other venue which you feel appropriate.
I have lived in this neighborhood since June, 1995, and I have been a Colorado
resident since 1976. 1 am strongly opposed to the proposed modification of
standards. It is my opinion that the proposed development and modification of
standards is contrary to the best interests of the neighborhood. I believe that the
proposed development would significantly detract from the aesthetic quality and
property values in our neighborhood.
I believe that the LUC standards as they stand have served our neighborhood
and community well, and they are quite fair. I cannot see any good reason that
these standards should be varied or modified solely for the profit and interest of a
single property owner, at the expense of our neighborhood aestheflc quality and
property values.
It seems clear that this property owner/developer wishes to build the new
structure to increase the legal (renter) dwelling capacity of the property, andifor
no other reason. It does appear that the LUC standards would allow for an
attached additional without any need to modify the current standards.
If the owner had any other motivation for the proposed development (eg:
increasing personal or family use, etc.) certainly an attached addition would meet
those needs with greater aesthetic quality and substantially less project cost.
Addressing the items specifically, I believe the owner/developer's motivation
become clear. There would seem to be no reason other than reducing project
costs to request modification of the parking surface standard. There is clearly no
good reason that the addition need be detached, other than as a way of
increasing (renter) property dwelling capacity beyond the current 3 unrelated
persons per household; further, if the standard requires 5,000 square feet of