HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONER SUBDIVISION, LOT 2 MAJOR AMENDMENT - OBERMANN RESIDENCE - FDP130045 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - PUBLIC NOTICEpresented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple sloped roof lines with second story
floor area contained within the roofline are established architectural characteristics of this neighborhood. The
project just doesn't meet this established common architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer
personally agreed with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is "too busy, with too many
competing building forms and roof lines," providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in
context with the character of neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or
roofs, they are smaller, secondary and minimal in number.
Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof designs, slopes,
and simple geometrics building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood and provide common
architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's Powerpoint presentation and are highlighted to
emphasize the second story architectural features that face the street. The proposed house is also shown with
similar highlighting.
900 W Magnolia Street 1002 W Magnolia Street 1100 W Magnolia Street
Simple roofline & forms 2nd story within roofline 2°d story within roofline,
small dormers
510 Wayne Street
Simple roof lines
920 W Magnolia Street
Simple roof lines
1124 W Magnolia Street
Simple roof lines, minimal in
number
Proposed house at 1017 W Magnolia Street
Shows multiple roof lines, large dormer rooms, visual appearance of larger mass, scale, and bulk, complicated
building form and second story floor area NOT within the roofline
t&f? fkf VL110A
Summary — Stoner Subdivision Appeal
1. Action Being Appealed: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA#130045: Finding by the Type 1
Hearing Officer that the Proposed Major Amendment Is in Compliance with City Code
2. Grounds for Appeal: The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
City Code, the Land Use Code and Charter, specifically:
Item 1. Article 3, Section 35.1, and Section 3.5.1.(B) in particular concerning Building & Project
Compatibility, and
Item 2. Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose for the N-C-L Zone District
The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section 3.5.1 Building
and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design of the home is
incompatible in mass, bulb and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City staffs
conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall
bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B),
architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context." The appellants agree that the
architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural
feature or characteristic that is shared amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that the
predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are triangular or
rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are typically smaller than the
dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number. Overall, the neighborhood's
predominent architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal extra appurtenances (rooms, balconies,
large dormers) sticking out.
The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at the hearing that the proposed building is incompatible to
the neighborhood context because the neighboring houses have simple geometric shaped roof lines with several
triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or square building form. A review of the following
photos included in the presentations by applicant and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods'
simpler, roof lines and geometric housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual affect of the proposed
project's architectural style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out rooms on the top of the
building is that it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bull, mass and scale, and out of character with
the predominant architecture of the neighboring homes.
Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant characteristic of
the architecture of the surrounding area is second storyfloor area contained within the roof line. The staff, and
applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the common architectural feature of the
neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second story floor area is basically contained within the roof
line. The photographic evidence clearly supports this conclusion, The proposed project is not compatible with
the dominant character of nearby homes because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second
floor are not contained within the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an
existing structure.
Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(B) when she
decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined The photos of houses in the area
Appellants:
Signature
Name
Meg Gunn
Address
720 W. Oak St., Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Phone
970 484-3337
Date
12/30/13
Signature
Name
Michelle4faefele
Address
623 Monte Vista, Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Phone
970 493-7898
Date
12/30/13
Appellants:
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature s (o--&jj"y I Signature
Name Pro+e&f 11i"011P lulki { s Name
Address 7 --� () /4) (- , L S� R " S O W Address
Phone 9]n _ yJ: ? -cog 2 j Phone
Date / ;�-AA / 1 :t Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
City of Fort Collins
March 2012
Please describe the nature of the relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the
Board, Commission or other Decision Maker:
Meg Dunn is a resident of the neighborhood where the proposed project is located. As co-chair of
Protect Our Old Town Homes (POOTH), Meg submitted a letter with comments to the planner in
advance of the hearing, and spoke at the hearing on December 5, 2013.
Michelle Haefele is a resident of the neighborhood where the proposed project is located. As a
member of Protect Our Old Town Homes, Michelle co -signed and submitted a letter with
comments to the planner in advance of the hearing, and spoke at the hearing on December 5, 2013.
Protect Our Old Town Homes is an association of residents in east and west Old Town Fort Collins
whose mission is to protect the historic character of the Old Town neighborhoods.
If appellant has alleged that the decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that
was substantially false or grossly misleading, describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of this allegation. NO NEW EVIDENCE WILL
BE RECEIVED AT THE HEARING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION UNLESS IT IS
EITHER DESCRIBED BELOW OR OFFERED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED
BY COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE HEARING.
Action Being Appealed: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA#130045: Finding by the
Type 1 Hearing Officer that the Proposed Major Amendment Is in
Compliance with City Code
Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker: Kendra L. Carberry, Hearing Officer, 12/5/13
Date of Action: December 5, 2013 Hearing, December 17, 2013 Decision
Grounds for Appeal (✓ all that apply):
The board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the
following errors:
❑✓ Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the
Land Use Code and Charter. List Code and/or Charter sections (b section
number only) below: 0 A -hde 3, SeJim '3 S 1 / 8"Lddiny ahf 7ro�,4 64�(hb,
( /�r9;eIry,�d'4A,-C-G Zw, ach'ony.7(4) f
❑ Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
El The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority
or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its
previously established rules of procedure;
The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading; or
The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to
receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.
(For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the
record which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12
point font. Please restate allegation at top of first page of each summary.)
Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant):
Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all
appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants regarding the City Attorney's review of the notice
of appeal (City Code Section 2-50).
Meg Dunn, 720 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 970484-3777barefootmeg@gmail.com
DEC 3 1 2013 �aSp�,
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE