HomeMy WebLinkAbout431 E. LAUREL STREET REPLAT (ROLLINS SUB.) - PDP - 30-10 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONLIS,
12:33 PM 12/20/2010 via email
Hello, Rick. I've researched the code compliance history on the property
you own at 431 E Laurel St.
Since it was purchased by you in 2002, the average number of violations
per year has been less than 1. This is exemplary for a rental property!
None of the violations, (which were all minor violations, such as weeds,
branches or unshoveled sidewalk), were complaint initiated.
All of the violations were corrected before the due date.
Those of us here in Code Compliance wish that all rentals in this city were
as well maintained as the property at 431 E Laurel Street.
Let me know if I can provide anything else.
Regards,
Robin MacDonald
Code Compliance Inspector
City of Fort Collins
Neighborhood Services
o - 970-221-6771
c - 970-218-0993
rmacdonald(a)-fcgov.com
N F..=s
_1 �_ t�.-
Address
Phone
Email
e�
SuLk S ; t,
l a AC
4l 5 La.,re Sf Fj- Cu l i, .,1
� ? 31 yS
J40ia Occs Lv s d � , eoc.�
6&wx-,,A4-
9 t S4- FC_
6
cr
dt4,er`
"
6 oS VSdb,% t;
-Sd Z
�o sit
kewinCO
15 Sr kA f?t.
46 U3432
CONY 64K. Gam
%r6ar4L Llir I ler
-710 MQ{'.jew 5t.
482-��4-8
j3ar L348tmgt C, co
Name
Address
Phone
Email
AIL F6Tf ,So O cS%
!�-�i D -/Y3
/f1u�h n�cnnq occn IKs,v. Co
9 N - 88zs
—
M r r
4-%
F� liC� L->
G / cJ/IZ(li�
7D-ZZ(-.XZ�
3Aan.cJ C e/'7jC
-
o-Z
k-v bow ov. co�i
' itlSon
70 -r►,9)o
Y9 Y327
+011 C&k,nson ko%,a� •,��r
M tca-t/�EL god tE
1;01r,) E. Pw fn ST.
ORO- "' q 16)
vv)cn czyn
1' cN�J N7Fe
— it,�-
70- qlD-6101
� .
IIICNo
Z$Z� 5'� tt'� b.,
q-M�YX cOvv\
. _ LL�v 71�
S�,S � �C
tTo - �`�-�
EL1.►�®1,,Q�R.co cvs;�;�-.,�
BEN
�43 n/
Q .c,
3LIM
`tom— Z2L—
2 bQkkJAboc� @
S�. �C
70 q8�L- 8335
ehermcknr\pia fr,L,. Gom
MIML
327 �40VJLA,,Al
009-606-01z2
M1e1LG0, AP-Gtfl Gdnwo(
7; ht,f
S'T ePrL
1� 70 YFY 3
j l rr� • (. � o m
Administrative Public Hearing Sign -in
Project:
r. ' 30-t
D
Meeting Location:
ft-) t$
/V. /"lAvratu -
Co Am uvi i `/-doh
Date: J-A4nJuA/-Y /ay Aorr
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Phone
€maid
T�V� ACjL
`�y6 Ci LAulL45&-
2ZI - -5-P
�•«r4c ,Fr- 0-9/OL .C'O-w
aay -
sv4vvo o
V
g' - a g
✓a-o
PAOP �5AaA/�e5
7aa E. .LA�,tieEL
�93-��/S
7i¢vE57�G �i'ms� C�0I
7
R iK r Nsoti
S Z ! Jty�} 9;W s 'bT
�f 4 3 `g'Fg jZ
)L4-rffY 5 / 5M . ez
f el�rsdh
RCS-o5'�
n.mQLO ft-4' aid . &Nm
Ld
�� � "v.J
so 3 A%A-, tt� �..�s
s -alo [
Cl� uc. @ d.i d k.[�v CIA
Col-) E. s+
y .jou
vl (0) COW
Mr. Lopez asked: "Also, a quick summary by Karen of what she said last night would help. Mainly
why Ft. Collins does not review this type of application and a description of applications it would
review. I want to distinguish between the two in my report and decision."
Response: At the administrative hearing on January 12, 2011, Historic Preservation Planner
Karen McWilliams noted that neither the subdivision of the lot, nor the proposed new single-family
dwelling, would be reviewed by Historic Preservation staff or the Landmark Preservation
Commission. There is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation
review of the subdivision of land or setbacks. Historic Preservation staff does not typically review
these types of applications, as, in our opinion, it is not the subdivision or setback, per se, that will
substantially affect character, but instead the resulting building additions or new construction.
Further, the proposed new single-family dwelling will not be reviewed by Historic Preservation, as
Chapter 3 of the Land Use Code includes an exception (Section 3.1.1) for the applicability of the
Standards in that chapter for single-family dwellings and extra -occupancy rental houses that are
subject only to basic development review, as in this case. This exception includes Section 3.4.7,
"Historic and Cultural Resources."
Because the suggestion was made that this application for modification of standards could
adversely affect the Laurel School National Register District, Historic Preservation staff has
subsequently studied the proposal. Staff believes that neither the subdivision of the land nor the
reduced setback will have an adverse affect upon the Laurel School National Register District,
and will not affect the District's ability to retain its designation. Historically, many of the corner
lots within this district were subdivided into two lots. Moreover, in the context of the block face,
the setback request to align the front edge of the new building envelope with the main body of the
adjacent church — the only other principal building on this block face — will not be deleterious to
the neighboring designated properties, nor to the District as a whole.
The types of development proposals that Historic Preservation staff typically reviews includes all
proposals for new construction, and the alteration, demolition, or relocation of existing buildings
and structures, other than those excepted by Section 3.1.1. Additionally, the City's Landmark
Preservation Commission, governed by Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, reviews any changes
to those properties designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. As part of the City's demolition delay
process, the Commission also holds public hearings on alterations, demolition or relocation of
properties found to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, but which are
not yet designated.
4. At the time of submittal for Final Compliance Plan, a site plan shall be
submitted that graphically illustrates and states in notation form the design
parameters of the recommended conditions of approval and any further
conditions that may be found to be appropriate the Hearing Officer.
Dated January 25, 2011, per authority granted by Sections 1.49(#) and 2.1 of the
Land Use Code.
Richard V. Lopez
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for modification of standards, testimony of citizens and
the recommendations by Staff the Hearing Officer makes the following findings and
conclusions.
1. The request to for a Replat of 431 East Laurel Street complies with the applicable
standards of the N-C-M zone district with two exceptions.
a. The Request for Modification to allow a 4,000 square foot lot meets the
criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) as conditioned by Staff.
b. The Request for Modification to allow zero off-street parking spaces on Lot
One is denied. The application shall provide two off-street parking spaces and these
spaces shall be reasonably screened for the benefit of 425 East Laurel Street.
2. The ten foot front yard setback along Whedbee Street for a future structure on Lot
Two is found to comply with Section 3.8.19 — Contextual Setback, subject to the to
setback being moved to 10.65 feet to match the existing setback of the church's main
building.
DECISION
The Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
Approval of the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, Project Development Plan, #30-10, subject
to the following conditions:
1. In order to mitigate concerns related to height, mass, bulk and scale, the
Request for Modification of Standard to allow a 4,000 square foot lot is
approved subject to the condition that the maximum allowable floor -to -area
ratio be reduced from the allowable 0.50 to 0.40.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot Two, at least two off-street
parking spaces shall be provided on Lot One, and that such parking be
screened from view from 425 East Laurel Street by a solid wood, six-foot
high fence, or by any screening device considered sufficient and mutually
agreed upon by the owners of 425 and 431 East Laurel Street.
3. The front setback for Lot Two shall be no closer to the front property line
than 10.65 feet in order to match the front setback of the main portion of the
existing church located to the south across the east -west alley at 717
Whedbee Street.
15
house on Lot Two and the church are the only two buildings on Block 157 that orient
towards Whedbee Street, a contextual setback is established.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
The purpose of the 15 foot front setback standard is to provide uniformity and
cohesion among numerous buildings along a single block faceoff. Time has proven that
such an attribute is well -accepted and makes for an attractive and pleasing urban design.
The provision of the Contextual Setback standard, however, recognizes that the
prescriptive metric of 15 feet might not always accomplish the goal of positive urban
design in all instances. The standard speaks to allowing a flexible approach, where
appropriate, as long as there is a reasonable basis upon which to allow a front setback
less than 15 feet.
In the case of Lot Two, clearly there is a contextual basis with existing church as
these would be the only structures facing east along Whedbee Street between Laurel
Street and Plum Street. Lot One is oriented north towards Laurel Street and 430 Plum
Street is oriented south.
Whedbee Street contains 60 feet of pavement width from curb -to -curb within a
total public right-of-way of 100 feet. On each side of the street there is 20 feet of
right-of-way that includes the parkway, detached sidewalk and between four and five feet
between the back of the sidewalk and the property line. A ten foot setback on Lot Two
would not result in right-of-way widths below established minimums.
5. Hearing Officer:
The Hearing Officer approves the Contextual Setback subject to the following
condition:
The front setback for Lot Two shall be no closer to the front property line than
10.65 feet in order to match the front setback of the main portion of the existing
church located to the south across the east -west alley at 717 Whedbee Street.
14
CONTEXTUAL FRONT SETBACK - LOT TWO
SECTION 3.8.19(B)
1. The Standard at Issue:
This is not a Request for Modification and the criteria of Section 2.8.2 do not apply.
Rather, the Contextual Setback is a non -prescriptive standard that allows the decision
maker to consider factors other than the minimum metric. The standard reads as follows:
(13) Contextual Setbacks. Regardless of the minimum front setback requirement
imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be
allowed to use a "contextual" front setback. A "contextual" front setback may fall
at any point between the front setback required in the zone district and the front
setback that exists on a lot that abuts, and is oriented to, the same street as the
subject lot. If the subject lot is a corner lot, the "contextual" setback may fall at any
point between the zone district required front setback and the front setback that
exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. If
lots on either side of the subject lot are vacant, the setback shall be interpreted as the
minimum required front setback that applies to the vacant lot. This provision shall
not be construed as requiring a greater front setback than that imposed by the
underlying zone district, and it shall not be construed as allowing setbacks to be
reduced to a level that results in right-of-way widths below established minimums.
2. Description of the Contextual Setback:
A dwelling constructed on Lot Two would normally be required to provide a 15 foot
front setback behind the property line along Whedbee Street. The applicant is requesting
ten feet.
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant contends that the ten foot setback is contextual with the Whedbee
Street block face because the distance is very close to the 10.65 foot setback of the main
church building located directly south of Lot Two and separated by the existing alley. As
a point of clarification, this 10.65 setback is measured from the main building, not the
vestibule which is only 4.47 feet setback from front property line.
The applicant has provided pictures that show by white painted lines the front
property line of Lot Two and the proposed ten foot setback with the church building. The
pictures look south and demonstrate the relationship of the proposed ten foot setback, as
indicated by the westerly painted white line, and the existing church. Since the future
13
east -west alley. While each lot has alley access and there are a number of both surface
and garage parking spaces are located off this alley, a number of cars are parked along
the street, at least during the observable daytime hours. Further, for the existing duplex,
there would be 100 feet of frontage along Whedbee Street where there is likely not to be
competition for parking from surrounding residents.
It is not unreasonable to expect the residents of the duplex to park along the public
streets as do current residents, especially given the amount of linear front footage along
two public streets. But, at the same time, the duplex can be expected to generate more
parking activity than a single family detached home and the property does bear some
responsibility to not create a negative externality.
5. Hearing Officer Finding of Fact:
The Hearing Officer approves the Request for Modification but only to the extent
of requiring two spaces to be provided off-street on Lot One versus zero spaces, and
subject to the condition of approval as described below. In evaluating the request and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4), the Hearing Officer makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good.
B. The Replat, as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land
Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective and
context of south block face of the 400 block of East Laurel Street and the
west block face of the 700 block of Whedbee Street, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
C. In order to mitigate concerns of competition of public on -street parking or
concerns about neighborhood clutter due to an excessive amount of
on -street parking, the Request for Modification of Standard is approved
subject to the following condition:
Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot Two, at least two
off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Lot One, and that
such parking be screened from view from 425 East Laurel Street by
a solid wood, six-foot high fence, or by any screening device
considered sufficient and mutually agreed upon by the owners of
425 and 431 East Laurel Street.
12
defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi -family
dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the
following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit
Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less
1.5
Two
1.75
Three
2.0
Four and above
2.5
2. Description of the Modification:
Lot One contains an existing duplex that requires four off-street parking spaces.
Zero parking spaces are requested.
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant contends that the need for parking spaces at the duplex has
historically been satisfied by the residents parking on -street, using bicycles and walking.
This demand for on -street parking has not exceeded the supply of parking within the
adjacent neighborhood.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
The purpose of the off-street minimum parking requirement is to ensure that the
private sector does not create a negative externality by forcing residents to park on
surrounding public streets. The standard is reasonable and has served our community
well over the years; a college town with approximately 40% of the housing stock classified
as multi -family that is geographically dispersed throughout the entire community across
a variety of neighborhoods.
In the case of Lot One of the proposed Replat, there is a requirement for four
spaces on a corner lot that would have 50 feet of street frontage along East Laurel Street
and 100 feet of street frontage along Whedbee Street.
Most all of the homes on the south block face of the 400 block of East Laurel
Street provide off-street parking on the rear portion of the lots with access gained by the
11
Preserving neighborhood character is an important attribute for the zone district. It
can be argued, however, that the purity of the character has been diluted with the existing
pattern of corner lots being subdivided and with a significant number of lots at least 1,000
square feet below the 5,000 square feet. Further, the nine blocks include multi -family
dwellings and one public high school. The neighborhood is stable, vibrant and
characterized by a well -maintained housing stock. In fact the 600 block Whedbee rivals
West Mountain Avenue with an impressive display of stately homes in the classic
Craftsman Bungalow style.
5. Hearing Officer Findin4 of Fact:
The Hearing Officer approves the Request for Modification, subject to one
condition as described below. In evaluating the request and in fulfillment of the
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4), the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of
fact:
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good.
B. The Replat, as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land
Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective and
context of the adjacent (nine block) neighborhood, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
C. In order to mitigate concerns related to height, mass, bulk and scale, the
Request for Modification of Standard is approved subject to the condition
that the maximum allowable floor -to -area ratio be reduced from the
allowable 0.50 to 0.40.
SECOND MODIFICATION — DUPLEX PARKING
SECTION 3.22(K)(1)(a)
1. The Standard at Issue:
This section requires four off-street parking spaces for a duplex consisting of one
three -bedroom unit and one one -bedroom unit.
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and
institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as
10
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (T'/z) feet located within any such accessory building located on the
lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density).
2. Description of the Modification:
Lot Two is proposed to contain 4,000 square feet versus 5,000 square feet.
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant contends that within the adjacent neighborhood, the subdividing of
corner lots, with each new subsequent lot having its own street frontage, is typical. The
resulting parcel sizes vary but there are a number of lots with less than 5,000 square feet
and a number of lots with 4,000 square feet or less.
The applicant has provided an exhibit that highlights the location of the various
subdivided corner lots in the vicinity of the subject site. A table is also provided that lists
the parcel sizes of the divided lots. The table is attached hereto.
The data reveal that three of the four corners of the Whedbee / Laurel intersection
feature corner lots that have already been subdivided. And, the southeast corner, facing
the subject lot, features a subdivided lot containing only 3,600 square feet. In the
adjacent neighborhood, defined as within two blocks of the subject site, there are 14
divided lots containing less 4,000 square feet. The applicant states that a majority of the
corner of lots have been subdivided..
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
The purpose statement of the N-C-M zone district states:
"(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District is
intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed
single-family and low- to medium -density multi -family housing and have been
given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan."
The subject block, Block 157, is surrounded by eight blocks. For these nine blocks,
there are a total of 36 corners. Of these 36 corners, 24, or 75%, have been subdivided.
(Note that while three corners feature two separate dwelling units, they are not counted
because the lots are not subdivided. Thus, the 75% ratio may be considered
conservative.) On these 24 corners, there are 12 lots that are 4,000 square feet or less
and nine lots are 5,000 square feet or less.
9
5. Citizen Participation:
The Current Planning Department has received public input regarding this project.
Numerous contacts have been made to the City by adjacent property owners. A copy of
correspondence from property owners area attached. In addition, at the Public Hearing
approximately 40 citizens attended and many spoke in favor and against the proposed
modifications of standards.
At the public hearing concerns were raised about the absence of historical
preservation review. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner testified that there
is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation review of the
subdivision of land or setbacks. Those are the requests before the Hearing officer. The
memo from McWilliams is attached hereto.
One of the key issues is that the ultimate development of proposed Lot Two is
planned to be done in a two-step process. First is the request to subdivide the lot.
Second, if the subdivision is approved, would be to proceed to the construction phase.
This two-step approach precludes the neighbors from knowing the size, height, shape
and style of the future house and is a source of consternation. Besides the character of
the new house, other issues raised are adequate parking for the existing duplex, privacy
fencing and the setback along Whedbee Street. Finally, there are concerns related to a
future potential conversion to a duplex.
FIRST MODIFICATION — MINIMUM LOT SIZE
SECTION 4.8(D)(1)
1. The Standard at Issue:
Section 4.8(D)(1) requires that the minimum lot size be 5,000 square feet. The standard
reads as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development. Minimum lot area shall be the
equivalent of two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not less
than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses.
For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the
total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside
walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level,
plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building
larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the
8
This standard requires that permanent open off-street parking areas shall not be
located any closer to a public street than the buildings. The applicant intends to comply
with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit /
Basic Development Review.
4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards:
A. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Minimum Required Off-street Parking
This standard requires that the future single family detached dwelling on Lot Two
provide a minimum of one off-street space and that the existing duplex provide four
off-street spaces.
The applicant has indicated that for the future single family detached dwelling on
Lot Two, there will be one off-street parking space and demonstrated at the time of
Building Permit and Basic Development Review. For the existing duplex on Lot One
which requires four off-street spaces, however, there would be zero off-street parking
spaces.
A Modification of Standard has been requested which is evaluated in a
subsequent sub -section.
B. Section 3.3.1(B) — Lots
This standard requires that no lot shall have less area than required under the
applicable zoning district. And, each lot must have vehicular access to a public street.
Finally, side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines.
In accordance with Section 3.1.2, the size of Lot Two is evaluated under Section
4.8(D)(1) because it is a more specific standard and therefore governs over Section
3.3.1(B). Both Lots One and Two will have access to a public street or alley and all side
lot lines are at right angles to street lines.
C. Section 3.3.1(C) — Public Dedications
This standard requires that an applicant dedicate rights -of -way for public streets,
drainage easements and utility easements needed to serve the site. Both East Laurel
Street, Whedbee Street and the east -west alley are fully dedicated. There are no
drainage easements or utility easements needed to serve the site.
7
applicant intends to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at
the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
K. Section 4.8(F)(d) — Second Floor Overhang Prohibition
This standard requires that the second floor not overhang the front or side exterior
walls of a new building. The applicant intends to comply with this standard and
compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development
Review.
L. Section 4.8(F)(e) — Height of Front Fagade
This standard requires that front porches be limited to one-story in height.
The applicant intends to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated
at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
M. Section 4.8(F)(g) — Minimum Roof Pitch
This standard requires that the minimum roof pitch be 2:12. The applicant intends
to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building
Permit / Basic Development Review.
N. Section 4.8(F)(2)(a)1. — Maximum Building Height
This standard sets the maximum height at two stories. The applicant has
indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and demonstrated at the time of
Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
O. Section 4.8(F)(4) — Front Yard Landscape
This standard requires that no more than 40% of the front yard of a lot may be
covered by inorganic material such as asphalt, concrete, stone, rock or gravel. The
applicant intends to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at
the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
P. Section 4.8(F) (5) —Alley Access
This standard requires that whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new
off-street parking located on such lot must obtain access from such alley. The applicant
intends to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at the time of
Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
Q. Section 4.8(F)(6) — Parking In Rear
R
This standard requires that the set back from Whedbee Street be a minimum of 15
feet.
The applicant has requested that the set back front yard setback be ten feet and the
justification is that the ten foot setback matches the church to the south. By maStching
the only other existing building on the block face, the project is eligible for consideration
under the criteria of Section 3.8.19(B) - Contextual Setback. The front yard Contextual
Setback is evaluated in a separate sub -section.
F. Section 4.8(E)(3) Minimum Rear Yard Setback
This standard requires that the buildings be set back from the rear property line by
15 feet. The applicant intends to comply with this standard by providing a 15 foot rear
yard setback to be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development
Review. This standard is met.
G. Section 4.8(E)(4) - Minimum Side Yard Setback
This standard requires that the buildings be setback from an interior side yard by
five feet. In addition, whenever any portion of a wall exceeds 18 feet in height, such
portion of the wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one foot,
beyond the minimum required, for each two feet, or fraction thereof, that exceeds 18 feet
in height. The applicant intends to comply with this standard and no portion of any wall
will exceed 18 feet in height. Compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building
Permit / Basic Development Review.
H. Section 4.8(E)(5) — Maximum Building Height
This standard limits the maximum height to two stories. The applicant intends to
comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building
Permit / Basic Development Review.
Section 4.8(F)(1)(a) — Walls Parallel or at Right Angles to Side Lot Lines
This standard requires that all exterior walls be constructed parallel or at right
angles to the side lot lines whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape. The applicant intends
to comply with this standard and compliance will be demonstrated at the time of Building
Permit / Basic Development Review.
J. Section 4.8(F)(1)(b) — Primary Entrance Along Front Wall
This standard requires that the primary entrances be located along the front wall
and that such entrance shall include an architectural feature such as a porch. The
5
3. Article Four — Applicable N-C-M Zone District Standards:
A. Section 4.8(B)(3)(a)1 — Permitted Uses
The applicant proposes to create a new lot for a single family detached dwelling. This
is permitted subject to Basic Development Review. However, this review will be
conducted at a subsequent time when the applicant applies for a Building Permit.
The applicant decided to first to seek approval of the replat before preparing
architectural plans for the future dwelling. While permitted, this procedure does not allow
the Hearing Officer or the public, an opportunity to review the proposed dwelling.
B. Section 4.8(D)(1) — Density/Intensity of Development
This standard requires that the minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two times
the total floor area of the building resulting in a maximum floor -to -area ratio of 0.50. And,
at no time shall the lot be less than 5,000 square feet for a single family detached dwelling
or a duplex.
Lot One would comply. Lot Two, however, is proposed to contain 4,000 square feet
versus the required minimum of 5,000 square feet. The applicant has requested a
Modification of Standard that will be evaluated in a separate sub -section.
C. Section 4.8(D)(5). —Floor-to-Area Ratio on Rear 50% of Lot
This standard establishes a maximum floor -to -area ratio of 0.33 on the rear 50% of
the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991.
The rear one-half of Lot Two would contain 2,000 square feet. The maximum
floor -to -area ratio of 0.33 would result in a maximum of 660 square feet. The applicant
intends to comply with this standard and compliance will be evaluated at the time of
Building Permit / Basic Development Review.
D. Section 4.8(E)(1). — Minimum Lot Width
This standard requires that the minimum lot width for a single family detached
dwelling be 40 feet. Lot One is 50 feet wide and Lot Two is 80 feet wide. This standard
is met.
E. Section 4.8(E)(2). — Minimum Front Yard Setback
4
FACTS AND FINDINGS
A. 431 East Laurel is an existing dwelling located in an established area of
Fort Collins. Its present use as a duplex is permitted.
The proposed replat will create one additional 4000 square foot building lot which
will be smaller than the 5,000 square feet minimum lot size.
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses.
The evidence and testimony established that the proposed residential use is
compatible with the surrounding area. This is an older residential area.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-M; Single Family Detached Dwelling
S: N-C-M; Place of Worship
E: N-C-M: Single Family Detached Dwelling
W: N-C-M: Single Family Detached Dwelling
The property is currently platted as a replat of Lot 5, Block 157, Galligan's
Subdivision, approved in 1905. The house was built in 1904. During the 1990's, the
house featured an in -home child care business. In 2005, the building was acknowledged
by the City of Fort Collins to be converted to a duplex. In 2007, a building permit to install
egress windows was issued.
In 1996, the Zoning Code was amended to increase the minimum lot size in the
N-C-M zone district from 4,500 to 5,000 square feet.
2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION
Section 2.2.2. Step 2. Neighborhood Meetings.
The applicant did not conduct a neighborhood meeting, but has communicated
with an adjoining neighbor to resolve issues including a privacy fence and parking.
Members of the public have raised concerns about compatibility, parking and historic
district compatibility. There have been others who support the proposed replat. The
issues before the Hearing Officer are the lot size and parking.
3
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval
ZONING DISTRICT: N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established
the fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use
Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on January 12, 2011, in the
Community Room of 215 Mason Street, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1)
Planning Department Staff Report;(2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for
public testimony was provided during the hearing, and approximately forty (40) members
of the public were present. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the
evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
The following persons attended the hearing:
From the City:
Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins
Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, City of Fort Collins
From the Applicant:
Ruth Rollins, applicant
From the Public
Members from the public testified both against and in support of the request. A
copy of the sign in sheet is attached hereto.
N
F6rt`Collins
Planning, Development & Transportation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134-fax
fcgov. com
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE
PROJECT NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
HEARING OFFICER:
January 12, 2011
431 East Laurel Street Project Development
Plan
#30-10
Homes By Campus, Inc.
c/o Ruth Rollins
P.O. Box 271262
Fort Collins, CO. 80527
Same
Richard V. Lopez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to replat one existing lot, 431 East Laurel, into two lots. The lot
contains 9,004 square feet. Presently there is one existing duplex house on the property.
The new configuration would place this house on Lot One and contain 5,004 square feet.
Lot Two is the vacant lot south of Lot One and will front onto Whedbee Street. This lot
would contain 4,000 square feet. Lot Two is adjacent the alley which would form the
southern property line of this new lot.
The applicant requested two Modifications of Standards. The first would allow Lot
Two to contain 4,000 square feet where the minimum required lot size in this zone is
5,000 square feet. The second request is to allow Lot One, to provide no off-street
parking where the standards require a minimum of four -spaces. The site is located at the
southwest corner of East Laurel Street and Whedbee Street and zoned N-C-M,
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density.
LOPEz LAW OFFICE
RICHARD V. LopEz
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4450 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder. Colorado 80303
March 18, 2011
By email only
Mr. Steven Roy, Esq.
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
RE: 431 East Laurel Street PDP 430-10
Dear Mr. Roy:
(303)415-2585
FAX (303) 415-0932
e-mail rvbpcz@aol.com
Please let me clarify the date when the final decision was made. The date on the written
decision inadvertently reads January 25.2011. This date was the date of an earlier "draft" that I
failed to change when I finalized my decision on January 26, 2011. My apologies for this oversight.
I reviewed the file, my email logs, billing program and calendar to confirm that my decision
was made on January 26, 2011. As has been my practice in the past three years of serving as the
hearing officer, I email the "final decision" to the planner in charge on or before the due date. The
East Laurel Street hearing was conducted on January 12.2011. At the hearing we announced that
a decision would be made within ten working days. I ignored the January 18 MLK holiday because
Monday was a work day for me. I calendared the due date as January 26, 2011. The due date
including the MLK holiday, was January 27.
During the drafting of the decision, I work through multiple drafts. In this case, my records
show that I wrote four drafts before I was satisfied with the decision. My records show that I
converted the fourth draft to a final decision on January 26, 2011 at 1:06 P.M.. I emailed the final
decision about a minute later to Ted Shepard.
I hope this clarifies and confirms that the final decision was made on January 26, 2011. If
I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
RVL/mt