HomeMy WebLinkAbout1310 LAPORTE AVENUE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 35-04 - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGNEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT /aid 4d4etyt�
DATE
WANT
MINUTES?
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
EMAIL -
Alwlel
C_G� �l 2h
2°S N."lCl /h/R fL bUS 1
y�Z-riYlf
Lr� 22ecto •w,"
1
y a - a �
c�z; a1 4,OOI Co7
1 v �� I
1705
r'a hci� 1,
K_ cj-i .e Wogre-
N 06 WcA ec S
Zz (o aS
o ,c
Z23 N .
(�
M IKA A L7 L q 17
I 0 : g-
Ala
416- 7
a:
as �. N• '. o a
u � 3 a :�3
e - li3
/zccp- G
loA( Al+cLW
22]]I col, S
yao,IC:
1J
K
2 +_
go52
_
C
',u
I q c A yo c
[ ✓ � IA
F—eEc 14 u
1 39 I,} lrw e ue
5 - 5.34q
EJ /�
c
<k f"L
_ s
r�
e
%23-_ 97
f
2
2 31 O rWd �
2 25 `36 5 6��
9 V '`/
V 0
C
Al ^6 O� `( c) I J
*
Of in 6 hdlLltLl
m
/
UN
Q( 4
cy�
PC*
CoM
Audience summary of Issues of Concern
• Congestion - traffic
• Density
• Aesthetics
• Rentals
• Deal with current renters
• 2 lots, not 3
Time Adjourned: 9:1Opm
36. Question: Why can't you consider two houses instead of three?
Answer: I need to understand what's important about that difference.
How are two houses better than three?
37. Comment: The existing house is very big and centered on the lot. The
existing house impacts the feel of future development.
Response: The existing footprint is 1300sf. It does have a second story
though, that makes it bigger.
38. Question: Won't it be challenging to design on long, skinny lots? Where
are the driveways, access, etc going to go?
39. Comment: The existing small lots in the surrounding area may be
similar in size but they have access from a road & an alley.
That's a lot different that this proposal.
40. Question: Are two additional homes a possibility?
Answer: The existing situation at Mathews & Locust is similar to this
proposal. I'm open to anything.
41. Comment: What the City might consider unsubstantial traffic increase
feels like a very substantial traffic increase to us in our daily
travels.
Answer: We've put $430,000 into purchase of 1310 already and then
we have to figure in an estimated $50,000 for various
professional fees and site improvements. To create two
additional lots at $140,000 would not be a sufficient profit
potential. We're looking at only $100,000 profit maximum as
is. With only two additional homes we would barely break
even.
42. Question: How will you handle future construction traffic issues?
Answer: We can stipulate construction access.
7
won't that put them out of compliance by making their lot
too small?
Answer (from Anne Aspen): If the developer is the legal owner of that
property, they can subdivide it in accordance with the Code.
That is not an issue for us to decide --it will get decided in the
court system.
29. Question: Could we intervene via contesting ownership of easement?
Who would we talk to?
Answer (from Anne Aspen): Well, I think that would be a matter for the
County Assessor's office.
30. Comment: Let's show up at the hearing - design talk is of no
consequence.
31. Comment: Why not rehab the existing house and sell without
subdividing? It will sell then...
Answer: There is a bigger and better purpose for this lot.
32. Comment (from Mikal Torgerson): Constructive criticism please, I'm a
consultant -I can't just not develop -I can't deal with that.
Economic realities make it such that we must try to work
within the realm of financial reality.
Response (from audience): That's uncalled for.
Response (from Mikal Torgerson): I apologize.
33. Question: There are parking concerns along the alley to the north. They
just took some of our parking away from us. Will you pave
the alley?
No answer provided.
34. Comment: Architectural issues are beyond our concerns here - we just
don't approve of the subdivision.
35. Question (from Mike Jensen): What is the difference between two and
three homes?
Answer (Audience): Traffic, access, parking, aesthetics.
6
21. Comment: The neighborhood has big trust issues because of the
current tenants' behavior. The current landlord, Cindy, is
the future owner of these proposed houses. She does not
have a good track record with us. What would make us
think that she'll do any better once the property is
developed?
22. Comment: There's a trailer park just west on Laporte that is poorly
maintained. We've been burned once. The issue now is that
the lots just aren't big enough.
23. Comment: Build 2 homes, not 3 - that's our constructive criticism.
Response (from Mikal Torgerson): The proposal is in keeping with lot
sizes in the area.
24. Question: The yellow house to east of 1310 is not good —it's too big on
too small a lot. What is the guarantee that this project will
be built appropriately?
Answer: We are proposing approximately 1000sf main floors, 500
second floor + partial basements. We're going for "Charming
bungalows." We can add restrictions to the covenants. This
is projected to be a $700-800K project - lots will be approx.
$125-150K, houses will need to work within that fee
structure. It doesn't make sense to build a $75,000 house
on a $125,000 lot.
25. Comment: It's an issue of scale.
26. Question: How marketable are fancy homes by a trailer park going to
be? -can there be covenants against renters?
Answer: No, but rental will not be possible because of the price point.
27. Question: Is the easement parcel to the east included in lot size of that
lot?
Answer: Yes.
28. Question: That easement has always gone with the neighbor to the
east's property. If you take it out of their square footage,
5
minimum lot size; these proposed lots fall short - two houses
would be okay perhaps.
City Planner Anne Aspen: They will need to request a
modification to the minimum lot size standard. Anne
explained the steps: application, fee, staff review, staff
report with staff recommendation, notification, public
hearing —Type I Administrative review, opportunity for
appeal to the City Council, filing with City Clerk, etc.
17. Comment: Trust is an issue with a developer who wants to maximize
profit and push the limits of all the requirements. Also, the
existing home is beautiful and wouldn't "fit" on that small a
lot - besides, small lots with big expensive houses are not
marketable. They'll scream "RENTAL."
Answer: We appreciate your comments. We're not interested in
"raping & pillaging." I (Mike Jensen) own 14 commercial
properties in historic downtown. Historic issues are
important to me. Mike shared some of the history of 1310
Laporte. "Modern amenities with charm of yesteryear" is
what he is intending - and he said he is knowledgeable
about marketing.
18. Question: Would you (Mike Jensen) want to live there?
Answer: This is an issue of development being equal to losing open
space that wasn't yours to begin with. He asks the audience
for constructive input.
Comment: The audience requests fewer houses and wider lots.
19. Question: Will Cindy have the last say as to what gets built?
Answer: Builder has say but the builder has not been picked yet. We
can include architectural restrictions in PDP.
20. Question (from Mike Jensen): What would you like to see here
architecturally?
Answer (from audience): That question feels more like a threat. You're
asking what we want to see in the details but we don't
approve of the big picture.
4'
matter of a legal procedure.
9. Question: What will the real property size be after the ROW to be
dedicated is subtracted? Does that include the easement to
the east?
Answer: The back lot will be 5300-5500sf approximately after ROW is
subtracted. It is the lot that will be most impacted by the
ROW subtraction. Yes, the east lot includes the easement
square footage.
10. Comment: It's just going to be too crowded - McKinley is a bottleneck
because of so many streets/so much traffic. This project
would add to the overuse.
11. Question: What are "Cindy's" intentions? Will the houses be rentals?
Answer: The applicants can offer no guarantees on behalf of Cindy,
but her stated intentions are for houses to be owner -
occupied. She intends to live in one of the houses.
12. Comment: This neighborhood is more owner -occupied than the
developer thinks.
13. Comment: Safety of parked cars is a problem and will get worse. Our
car was totaled in front of our house.
14. Question: This is our home. Would you want to live here with all those
houses packed into the lots, really?
Answer: These houses will be enhancements to the neighborhood,
modeled after Sovick's houses. We would be happy to
adhere to voluntary restrictions and/or height limitations.
Give us some constructive feedback we can use.
15. Comment: But it doesn't enhance my experience of this neighborhood to
have big houses on very small lots.
Answer: Growth is different now because of the Growth Management
Area Boundary or GMA - we've got to "densify" to
accommodate future growth projections for the community.
16. Comment: Three houses would be excessive - 6000sf is the required
3
Answer: The target market is homeowners.
4. Comment: We've had lots of problems with the current tenants.
Response: The current rental situation is not the long-term plan - it's a
stopgap measure only. The applicant has no knowledge of
current renters but agreed to look into it. The current owner
of record is a lawyer who owns "BRE 1310 Laporte." Mike
Jensen is buying with the intention of selling to "Cindy" who
is under contract.
5. Question: What are the proposed lot dimensions? Where will the
entrances be? Where will the access be?
Answer: The proposed lots are approximately 50' wide. We will follow
the City's engineering recommendations regarding entrances
and access. The intent is to limit vehicular access onto
Laporte.
Where would you like to see parking? On alley? Access off
Laporte? (No audience response)
City Planner Anne Aspen: Parking and access issues will
largely be dictated by the Land Use Code.
6. Comment: McKinley is very busy - it is the main access to the
neighborhood to the north and Putnam Elementary.
7. Question: Will there be access to the middle lot?
Answer: Access will be off the gravel drive, a shared access or a
private drive from McKinley (the most preferable market
wise) .
City Engineer Katie Moore: Access off Laporte is unlikely to
be allowed depending on the classification of Laporte.
Access will likely be from McKinley or Leland.
8. Question: What about abandoned ROW easement to east?
Answer: It may be a leftover parcel or a surveying glitch, but
ownership has not been determined. Since the owner owns
both sides and no one seems to own it, it's likely to be a
2
City of Fort Collins
Comm. Ay Planning and Environmental :rvices
Current Planning
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES
PROJECT: 1310 Laporte Avenue
DATE: August 17, 2004
CITY PLANNER: Anne Aspen
This is a request to subdivide the lot at 1310 Laporte Avenue into four lots for
three additional single-family homes and one existing house. The property is
located at the northeast corner of Laporte and McKinley. A Modification of
Standard will need to be obtained to create lots that are less than the 6000sf
r8wiffilrIWIT "I,
Meeting started at 7:05pm
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES
(Questions and comments are from audience unless otherwise noted.
Answers are from the applicant and his representatives unless otherwise
noted.)
1. Question: What is the size and nature of the proposed houses?
Answer: We are early in the process but are leaning toward 1 1/2 story
single family houses with a 1000sf footprint: 1000sf on the
main floor, 500sf upstairs and a partial basement. By Code,
the square footage is limited to less than 1 /3 of the lot; in
this case they will be less than 2000sf, including basements.
The intent is to create bungalow style houses.
2. Question: Is a Traffic Impact Analysis required? - McKinley doesn't line
up —it's dangerous and people often speed around the jog.
Answer: The traffic impact will most likely be considered negligible by
the City since this is a very small development. The Traffic
Impact Study requirement will probably be waived.
3. Question: Will this be student housing?
1
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020