HomeMy WebLinkAbout218 WEST MAGNOLIA STREET (EDWARDS RESIDENCE) - FDP - 27-99A - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATION$176,900. That percentage is probably less than sprawl development because we did not
directly install additional infrastructure but those costs hardly encourage infill. There are
NO economies of scale for infill and only heightened sensitivities about neighborhood
opposition to change.
25. If, as a community, we want to discourage sprawl and encourage infill why is
the fee structure and the process designed to treat our project as if it were any other lot in
a new subdivision south of Harmony Rd? We can't help scratching our heads over paying
street oversizing fees where the street system is well established and where we will drive
less and stormwater fees on a property where we are required to detain runoff and the
storm drains don't go anywhere! Can we realistically expect an improvement to that
situation?
26. The whole issue of the designation of the space above the garage as office or
apartment space and the resulting parking requirements is best covered by Frank Vaught
because of his working knowledge of the zoning and building codes.
Again, thank you for initiating this meeting. We hope it is constructive. Someone
recently said something that has stuck with us..."The City has all kinds of development
plans, but does it have any redevelopment plans!" We believe infill is beneficial in many
respects. The distinctions between infill and redevelopment are cloudy, if we don't want
sprawl and are doing nothing meaningful to encourage infill, it is easy to conclude we have
just become anti -development? That is not a healthy reaction to the forces of inevitable
change.
Paula & Dave Edwards
223-8343
17. We were required to provide a public facility, Letter of Credit. The fee to the
bank was $150. That's a nominal cost but an irritant as it required us to essentially apply
for and obtain a loan from the bank. Financial statements had to be created, notes signed,
and language verified between bank and city staff. It took a couple of days to accomplish
yet was presented to us as a checklist item, that if not completed, our building permit
would be delayed.
18. We submitted our formal proposal on September 7, 1999 and received verbal
administrative approval on December 9th, followed by written receipt one week later.
Though diligent in pursuing a building permit, we could not obtain one until January 26,
2000.
19. We suspect the City considers this a "streamlined" process though we are
convinced there were entire weeks that went by without our plans getting any attention
from staffers. It was only when a deadline approached that progress was made.
20. We were motivated to always take the least amount of time to respond. It
was our observation the City consistently took the maximum allowable time.
21. The time that elapsed between planning approval on December 10, 1999 and
receipt of a building permit on January 26, 2000 was perhaps the most frustrating. It took
about 90 days to get planning approval. Yet, it took another 45 days to obtain a building
pernut. All City staffers were cordial yet no one seemed to take any real initiative to move
things along. The checklist official in Engineering who held the issuance of a permit in his
hands knew everything needed to move forward yet always gave the impression he was
paralyzed until the proper document crossed his desk. In at least one instance the vacation
of a single person in a single department held progress up for the duration of his holiday
vacation. It seemed on any given day that one or more departments were empty and non
functioning due to departmental conferences, retreats, training and meetings. The gauntlet
was ever changing and always anxiety laden. We and our contractor would call, prod and
ask to facilitate whatever it took but the pace of progress was firmly in the grasp of City
staffers.
22. With the exception of the lead planner no one ever took ownership of the
project by making an effort to resolve differences between conflicting city department's
goals and objectives. We believed everyone at the City had their microscopes so focused
on any potential problems that no one could or wanted to see the big picture.
23. When our contractor approached the city for a permit to use the sidewalk and
parking spaces in front of the property because of the physical constraints of an infill site,
the City's initial response was, "Yes, for a fee of $10 per day per space." That would
amount to $1200/month or more than $10,000 for the projected time of construction!
That fee has since been reduced to $2.50/day but imagine our initial reaction. Even at that
amount how does such a fee "encourage" infill when those parking spaces are not revenue
generating in the first place? The imposition of such a fee is a penalty of infill especially
on a block where there is not a parking demand problem.
24. When we add up the City's Official Itemized Receipt of fees of $28,492.72,
the Development Permit Application Fee of $150, the Development Construction
Inspection Fee of $359 and the professional fees we paid to successfully get through the
process, the total exceeds $41.900. Candidly, our land cost for the lot was $135,000. By
adding $41,900 in fees and direct costs, the actual "development cost" is 3 1 % higher or
Following is a potpourri of our experience to date. Some are costs, some are
process related issues, some are just impressions. Together they paint a picture that tells
us something has to change if the City is to realistically expect a variety of infill and
redevelopment projects to continue Downtown's revitalization.
1. Property taxes on our unimproved lot are $1584. That is a sufficient amount to
motivate most owners to improve the site for some productive, beneficial use.
2. Our architect/planners were upfront in charging us $5000 in professional fees to
negotiate the City's process. It would have been more had we not qualified for a Type 1
administrative review.
3. At conceptual review we were told we could not raise the flood plain 1/2 inch.
We were also challenged by a representative of Landmarks Preservation on the issue of
compatibility. Our lot is in a very established but very diverse neighborhood. How can
compatability be an issue in a neighborhood with Montezuma Fuller's historic home, an
old fourplex (maybe sixplex), the Federal Building/Post Office, Park Lane Towers, US
West's blockhouse, the railroad tracks, three banks and two drive -ups, a tilt up concrete
office building, an attorney's office, a CPA's office, a laundromat, dance studio and
convenience store? Thanks to Greg Byrne's initiative we learned such compatability
concerns were not binding under the code.
4. On a lot measuring 45 feet wide and 138 feet long we were told we had to
detain storm water runoff and we had to handle the neighbor's historic flows.
5. The City's first written comments required us to raise the first floor level an
additional 18 inches due to FEMA's new standards. This resulted in forcing us to change
the ceiling design in the master bedroom.
6. We were not only prohibited from having a basement, but also we were
prohibited from placing any utilities below grade. To comply with these requirements and
still have the features we needed we were compelled to design a three story structure.
7. The neighbors on each side have finished basements used as professional office
space. Neither has ever been flooded by stormwater. Once, one was flooded by water
melting from an ill -placed, plowed snowbank.
8. To comply with the City's requirements to date we have paid storm water
engineers, Stewart & Associates, a "negotiated" fee of $6942.
9. The City required drainage easements which cost us in excess of $1000 in legal
fees to get executed and filed.
10. Rumor (which should be easily confirmed) tells us the City's two storm drains
at the corners of Magnolia and Mason are only gravel pits and do not connect to any
,,system".
11. Building Permit cost: $3622.05
12. City Sales & Use Tax: $15000
13. Fire Capital, General Govt. Capital, Police Capital: $3050.97
14. Stormwater: Old Town: $714.81
15. We are unsure at this point what the street cut fee will be to reconnect the
property to water and sewer service
16. Street Oversizing Fee: $1480
6gpw -b;
Ire
MEETING WITH CITY STAFF
/�Y fcu�_ S4.6
REGARDING THE PLANNING
AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS OF
THE EDWARDS RESIDENCE
218 WEST MAGNOLIA
February 18, 2000
Thank you for convening this meeting. In order to facilitate the communication
process, Paula and I have taken the liberty of writing down some of our thoughts,
experiences and costs related to the review and early stages of construction of our new
home at 218 West Magnolia.
We are excited about living in the core area of Downtown Ft. Collins. We look
forward to being less reliant on the automobile in our daily lives. We are eager to get
involved in a neighborhood as diverse as Downtown. It is very possible this is the first
new home built in the core area in many decades.
Our site selection process began in 1995 with the assistance of Chip Steiner.
Initially we envisioned developing 6-8 brownstone townhouses in the belief that the last
missing element of Downtown's revitalization was upscale, residential housing. Many
sites were easily eliminated by proximity to College Avenue, Jefferson/Riverside, railroad
tracks or the cost and uncertainties associated with demolition or relocation of existing
structures. The risks of being at the mercy of the preservationists was more than we could
endure. After years of looking we were even more interested in an urban lifestyle on a Ft.
Collins scale. We are not really developers so we decided to just do our own house and
keep things simple.
We purchased 218 West Magnolia on January 4, 1999 from Dale Kruger who
had been working with architect, Bud Frick. They had been in the design and review
process for almost two years. Kruger intended to build his professional office and 4
apartments. With a considerable investment in time and money he approached receiving
final approval. Yet after evaluating the realities of the fees and costs of his project he sold
the lot to us in a matter of weeks.
On September 1, 1999 we sold our 17 year old home in the Landings. One week
later we submitted our formal proposal on 218 West Magnolia to the City. We were
astounded at the City's requirement that we submit 30 sets of plans for routing throughout
the City bureaucracy. That one fact has become symbolic of the process we've
experienced in trying to do an infill, residential project. It was especially annoying when
PFA's set of plans vaporized and we scrambled to get them another set.
As long time residents who've been active policy makers, we are very concerned
about the dichotomy between the City's stated encouragement of inf ll and the realities
of doing so. The obstacles of the process, the costs, the time and the frustration to do
so are real barriers to all but the most determined We are concerned that only
high -end projects can absorb and therefore justify the time and costs of fulfilling the
Chtr's requirements. Having already sold our home we were fully committed and had
the resources to follmv through. We don't believe Downtown's revitalization should be
predicated on only public projects and high -end, private development