The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About431 E. LAUREL STREET REPLAT (ROLLINS SUB.) - PDP - 30-10 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILName Address Signature Date y 431 LaureINEIGHBORHOOD PETITION.doc - Powered by Google Docs Page 1 of 1 au ooeAnnaft Reader Yft spa • Tlj K-E tib l.(5f� Jjt)i�'ri� i3C G e rnmiirt2e@pm.us I Semi • I Sign Gnp 437 lauidNEIGHBORf tI 217y — LA oogle dots Sevo m Gooate tMa i'shana File Vier = +rr = ❑ Search tha Wcumenr. n s NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDngr;THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laud Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot'_ limiting its use to single family housing. Fuller, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planing documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Stgpature Date ✓) S. HN(x )Feat 97-`rF�39'ft St kkAsS'OfJ64 https://does. googl e. com/viewer?a=v&pi d=gmail&atti d=0.2&thid=12d5980b2930093 7&mt=... 1 /6/2011 i Name Address Signature Date Ah O Plvm I q ►i • � - �� % • • _ � �' / - i� •�lI •LSD it FA NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time,that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature, Date �� 1 tnnSQf-�e-�P c7 ��.r`�ae��. C•,1�, s hi/it 0 The Sect MY of the IntC idS St"c+ds for the TieMnt of Hi.40& Drop Guilines fowithd,r r , t•e Restoring CZI(w Historic Buildings Kay D. Weeks and Anne E•. Grimmer U.S. Dq�OA of the Intaiot 1wfia" Pa&Sgrvict CWtund Rewume svnwdbLV and P Hwitw pKwryadon Savor lraujagwa, ID.C- 1995 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 16 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then -- - be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 liiniting•its use to single family housing: Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his'determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 37,0 F.Phi <It as K d64C Yai a3 �/, �l-�o,�r• y2t 2. Steve Mack — 651 Whedbee Street Mr. Mack submitted written comments that were included in the packet forwarded to the hearing officer. In addition, Mr. Mack testified that the neighborhood is in the Laurel School Historic District. He is concerned about the two step process of separating the subdivision of the lot from the submittal of a building permit because the mass and size of the future house cannot be reviewed. He has reviewed the data on subdivision of corner lots submitted by the applicant and cautioned the Hearing Officer that one additional column of data would be helpful - the year the lot was divided. He contends that the average floor -to -area ratio in the neighborhood is 0.264. He recommends that the Hearing Officer place a maximum F.A.R. on Lot Two of 0.30 as a condition of approval. Regarding the request to provide zero parking, he is opposed. During C.S.U. academic year, the neighborhood streets are packed with students parking and then walking or riding their bikes to campus. He cautions that any site inspections to observe parking during the C.S.U. Christmas break are flawed. He reminded the Hearing Officer that recently there was a request by an applicant, followed by a neighborhood meeting, to convert the Saint Andrews Church at the southeast corner of Whedbee and Olive to multi -family with only one off-street parking space. The Planning Department advised this applicant that the request for only one parking space would not be supported. Mr. Mack testified that he is not recommending the Hearing Officer deny this project per se. He continued to express his opposition to the contextual setback along Whedbee for Lot Two. He offered into the record a letter from Roger Reid, (a staff person at the Colorado Historic Society.) He contends that the context to be evaluated is the whole neighborhood and not just the immediate block face. He offered that the recently expanded house at West Mountain and Scott Street is a negative example of a house that crowds the corner of two public streets and is out of character for the neighborhood. He would prefer that the new house on Lot Two be setback from the front property line by 19 feet. He is concerned about rental -occupied housing and the general lack of lawn care and general property upkeep. Finally, he expressed concern about future conversion of a new single family house to an over-under duplex. To prevent such a conversion, he recommends the Hearing Officer add a deed restriction limiting the new house to single family only. 3. Catherine Keske-Hoag — 415 E. Laurel Street Ms. Keske-Hoag testified that she opposes the project primarily because adding a house on proposed Lot Two, with only 4,000 square feet of lot area, would change the character of the neighborhood. One of the positive attributes of the neighborhood is the large backyards. She is concerned that the vacant lot is Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: crosscrete@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:10 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 East Laurel Replat, #30-10 Ted, My Name is Doug Cross and I live at 502 East Elizabeth Street. I have known Ruth Rollings for several years. I am writing to let you know that I am very much in gyDLxor �f he project that Ruth and her husband are wanting to do. I think it will only enhance the area. It has been a gravel lot for as long as I can remember ( 52 years) I think a new house in that lot is a great use of the land www.crossconcreteinc.net Doug Cross Cross Concrete Inc 970-556-0338 1 /12/2011 hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/2) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten -foot separation between structures. (45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable ,Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%:) feet. (36) Floor Area Ratio of; Rear.,lulf of Lpt (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as k existed en Oeteber 25-1991. The -let -area seed as the basis fiar the FAR ealeulation shall be eensidered the wi lot size wi"n the zene distrie All principal'building' s,and:;detached accessory.buildings that exceed one. hundred twenty (120) square_ feet of floor area shall be included 'in* the calculation of FAR: (E) Dimensional Standards. (1) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. If more than one (1) principal building is proposed to be constructed side -by - side on the same lot, then each such principal building must.have at least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two-family dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other use. (2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty (20) feet. (3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions. (4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (]).foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building heightthat exceeds eighteen (18)_feet in height (as measured from the. made at lhe.nearest `side lot line perpendicularly to El 515 521 `7 1 0 0__ M N M N M CM M 519 3 0 1 523 525 E MYRTLE ST U') n 6 3 611 615 518 520 524 cR 530 1 v ATTACHMENT 4 519 518 1 517519 518 521 522 521 524 525 525 528 1508 530 1 601 605 609 613 617 1619 620 621 ' FJ�625e625 624 C� 625 629 631 628 627 633 634 L 635 630 631 637 6391 637 632 637 636 641 650 330 640 645 644 ys9s E LAUREL ST 701 N 703 � 0) Ln 704 M v v v v v v v 705 � 707 CO 711 710 711 z 70 w 713 714 715 O 710 w F718 147, 717 w 712 1-s7 717 0 721 a 722 721 w 716 � 725 a 725 726 o co o c n o 720 arT vo729 730 ) rNi rNi M M 729 402 412 v v E PLUM ST 327 801 J O MM M M M 805 v N 808 811 LOCUST ST 817 812 815 819 818 817 821 820 821 827 824 � m o 825 831 830 � N M M M 829 903 907 C N N rn M �n N M rn NM MM �ON M6MMM M6 P2212 M rn CD f0 O CD to O V d O CDN , N M M M M M M M M M Ml M 802 1 ^ cMv L 801 806 v v c 807 812 809 816 815 818 17 820 1;58 821 824 825 828 v 831 901 900 905 909 O N N (:J 'E O C 00 O CD CD E N N N CO V' 'Q Nr C xi 'Cr 9 Blocks - Lot Divisions 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Feet 600 608 610 614 618 622 626 630 634 638 642 646 601 "' 605 609 613 615 61 621 625 629 635 637 639 O O O N N M 3, 0 LO Cl 716 '' 67 715 720 720 721 722 727 502 508 729 `- C) , uI 901 0 0 _rn 905 LO U' N O CDa '- A 601 605 604 610 612 616 620 624 630 634 638 640 646 650T604 700 708 = 714 '= 720 722 724 P600 26 616 618 •m =Null, Legend Xx Subject Site Divided Corner Lots • 09 Looking West to Lot Tiro For,VI„ns Example of Possible House Style/Scale Lot Two I Fprt Cdllns V- Lot Two Comparison of Standards 4.000 So. Ft. Lot Condition Ord.003.2011 Ex. N-C-M of Approval Effeulive 411111 .4513.000 =1,350 sq. R. F.A.R. .50= .40= r A40=2505g-R 1.600 s4 R 2.000 s4 h 1.600 54 R Doesnot include first 250 sq. Garage Included Included ft of detached garage behind house Not included if less than 3' easement Not Included Not Included out of ground Fo'� s tY 431 E. Laurel St. Looking North from Alley Lot Two 90- ; .,. == R Looking West at Alley oft Ms Looking Northeast from Site IPF,14 Looking East from Site Looking North lPorm Q�- lqlrc"- ILotTwroCon.textual Setback 110" II mn Property (Line FortcOII1- Lot Two Contextual Setback Looking Northwest from 431 E. Laurel St. I A I OL 431 E. Laurel St. 431 E. Laurel St. 2 Looking South at 400 E. Laurel St. Block v 40 • e 40 i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, 1 hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage; footprint, height; parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 Bast Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single Iamily housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signpture ,, Date NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE- REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name 73� Dlaqt& G Address I 5^� ),rN Signature /\ s t bm f Date. 1/u / 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further,'I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 7:6) Aci fha4i ll iyt 367 E431-)q141xS� NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my_ signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel. Street until. such. time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address LA A716 MS -ON ';?2.1 MA'rl-ICU.-S Date Sf-RA" 1kS0As--G b'S B [ep,tO j ST. .1i� i 111l II NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 43 l East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 53)Klrr•Okc�cS0A �lI1 ete.-son 1 (o ji 1 9 S 4/,S3-Al to F l%✓ 5I Sr) SA) NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date Pu:, rble4 117 �eiLrsuh 71-7 // 2o„ NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, 1 hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the ,Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 1-I1-2011 F6 ► cu tl,hs,Co ssc5Ly NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 48) er1 t St sH rtt1 S� _ �i,,��/ 1�1Ci ��/D a O/U NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date �� Maria Elena Price 624 Smith St, 80524 �C-- ��— �-'�-� 1/I 1/2011 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 3y) 4 3) 9 LI y5 Y� hk-I A11K NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR . 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 411 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his detemvnations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2C04), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date 34) NEICHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 43VEAST LAUItEL S'1'13EE'r By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, Ellen be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, t also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) (r�lName Address Signaturee Date V7A NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name ' Address Signature Date r OVA I'M W ` NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signatures., // Date 3y> James Christopher, 716 Peterson Street /�aw \ 01/07/2011 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, 1 also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Date 33>Joe von Fischer 632 Peterson St 6 Jan 2011 /-04-for/ GtJ/tor» i/ merry e9e merit Gu&le / anm vevy epp6see/ fU the propasee/ Easf and IVe-V S4'e /_)ts,,jr7 am u/so °posed 716 fjitd de Ye%pmen-1 l �i i poor mana,�emerrf Please �'onsrde:- m � s l�i�f �e'/aw Or O i7e A116i Wi76) p�e9e .Qs suppo�-�- �r �/iG %Uei�h�.-ham �r`�'><ion �c�ar�i /7�l ,the d'1�/op/rrerrf f�rD SQ / 6i.*yj Var%anee k;l 4(eS,,4S A- 4,�3/ PlaSd' Spree , / Gt i // �e d'a /- D� w.-t Q cc rtetb/G �,�erd Ae Aearl r j, A/e. se l-We 7i271 1)ao/ the 141-Aa' eAY&r I eery ec J64d 7ei�Li do r 41)d a /-es�hsib/2 r,es1deri74 fhrs )co eve r� N�a/d /i;�e� nod- he �'i�G�ic/Qfin9, (iUi� is �iie p�-,�Se D� �nu.�fiv�9 the prapbset/7bi�ei9�,6a�hocY� io' now �v Gje � R fi.-s/ -LiQrd 6�ihion off' I ow eve/% ,� de ye%Pe r- lrUi// ¢rP�f �i7e nei�lila�•-�oQ�, %his Or�G hQ 5 derno�S�ra�d d✓e/%ss � I��fison Name Address Signature Date 3a) as) NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL . AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date Y V / ��/ 3 � �� „�; Jl sue_ /T/✓G�.:r �` .�a�c, � NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature qt5 =. LQLAre' cotl;,,scn soy a9 �o Son C 1 c PZr4-u Date .1--7-aol( ) _ _ 0`2Z gbs� NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name . Address Signature `) M A9)<- R S Coyy' �2 t � i hi Li- { �( 1 I 1 � t I �a`il "`'�-- NA NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 431 EAST LAUREL STREET By my signature below, I hereby request that the hearing officer for the above development proposal delay or deny the developer's requests for the Modification of Standard to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street until such time that the developer provides adequate information regarding the square footage, footprint, height, parking and landscape issues. If the request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street is to be granted, then be it with a perpetual deed restriction on Lot 2 limiting its use to single family housing. Further, I also request that the hearing officer consider in his determinations the relevant portions of the adopted planning documents, City Plan (2004). Eastside Neighborhood Plan (1986), and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) as highlighted in the Final Report of the East and West Side Design Standards Study (2010) Name Address Signature Date Ed�W�r� id�vlsOct- �wlews St. Name Address Signature Date Ajl�&Jk, 6 yq s) , (/7z /I . )z) � n *(F E I-- W A +(- soh V- / / 5:Jl( jj->�o /I/ /",dip�:�,��_. ✓ a:�Jll_'H,. _ri1I If�� . _...�. �JI'�I{/J�'j"`• /%u � a I I �1G PerF So �: B O -/i'� /�1a��E.na�,nn4 occ Ms�v. Co le Co3 wl^.olber¢ Ga.,G7r i`• .-rr -9 8Y-SSzs -- v 176 6 / U v Av 1-k c a.i l• c Wi LS D-,-,-J / S/nl vt- o-z Zf zz 8 �'w� w - v.. a - , FCf7o-aZ/-GZ F7 6,2 vA, ho o ov- coy R14;aqlbtSoil 70 9 y9 032a +Dnict*Ivlsan e keinta-. Mlck•FA,-,EL &VK)14C S05-5 E5• PtUW) ST`, ORO.9MA-tC; ��r�w(E W1S».rsYr1 sT - q40-6101 . 1-a{�K VU 1 i�- 11e-' 3, (OM/\ LLIv� Sa,s . E tTo-y�42,67 r( �.eocv�,4i BEN �43 M CP6 --P-( AaeR �wj w � b( J-r ,(Aj6jLtjLC ��a 70 q?, $331 C lL, com MIKAL OQ = �27 �OKJLA� I •. '6 'D�ZZ tAIK4L@rAleCH1 :,4 Cdtq fFrJ L� 'PC -F rz i S- ST R7o Administrative Public Hearin Si n-In Project: ��3 / .��• fIU�EL S 7. '' 30-I D Meeting Location: IS /V. Mh%roN - Ca Am ua, EY Date: .. A4ivuAx l tcL 01011 PRINT CLEARLY 7�dE ACjt `Z,6 Ci LA�'1�-��- zZ4 '-j�(j3 �r�4c�' �-G ® L•CaM t 5 aay-y (D,+ .8 / , ) R -1 tLdl1-'I �4n �n inn. f fin/ -^Ah 114 r i Dl�vi� v�c�1 5 ?AA 15. L-.ApC9fiF4 4493-/7/S pfw96'7FG @ MW CaAl #L 1 5JE fZ 7 43 % u Mi—A- V i,-,� A?;I I ninrel ' -�P�l. i��1I 2.3-Zt>q�l rAfl►ev.c-D(Iir-,e4fty 1cw I A'7k I N S 2 f }mows �T Al 143 -Ffg vS rstY 8 i SA1 . ez 711 B'o3 A%A-,taws --vkol �a,vc.@dJ'd'aw+vc�n . �o•+, 70lNl�d ��Y-F nowt�l 5 n e.fallP,v�h' 5�� ocuSiOL lc_ We intend to build a house that is in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. Regarding the contextual setback, if not granted, would result in the allowable square footage of the house being set back by an additional five feet. But then also as a result, square footage could be gained by spreading the house out more along the street frontage. This would have the result of reducing the side yards. Regarding the renter_occupied issue and property upkeep, in previous conservations with the neighbors, we have committed to installing a lawn sprinkler system and hiring a lawn service. Please note that we received one weed violation notice last year from the City and corrected the problem before the due date. Regarding the request for a deed restriction, we respectfully do not wish to commit to this property encumbrance. Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response As per Section 2.2.7(C)(6), of the Land Use Code, the Hearing Officer asked the project planner to respond to public testimony or applicant response. Project planner Shepard responded to clarify the factual metrics regarding lot size, the parking standards and setbacks. Concluding Remarks and Adjournment Mr. Lopez informed the hearing that per Section 2.2.7(D)(1), after consideration of the development application, Staff Report, and evidence from the public hearing, that the meeting is adjourned and that he had ten working days following the public hearing in which to render a written decision. way and are not part of the property and are under the jurisdiction of the City Forester. Hearing Officer Richard Lopez asked if there was anyone else who would like to provide public testimony. Seeing none, Mr. Lopez concluded the citizen input segment of the public hearing. Hearing Officer Question Regarding Historic Preservation The Hearing Officer then asked Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, to address the role of the Landmark Preservation Commission, and the applicability of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code on the review of the subdivision of the lot or the construction of a new single family house. Ms. McWilliams replied that her remarks are also in writing and provided to the Hearing Officer prior to the hearing. (See attached.) In summary testimony, she stated that there is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation review of the subdivision of land or setbacks. The proposed new single family dwelling will not be reviewed by Historic Preservation, as Article Three of the Land Use Code (General Development Standards) includes an exception (Section 3.1.1) for the applicability of the Standards to single family dwellings. She stated that she believes that neither the subdivision of land nor the reduced setback will have an adverse impact upon the Laurel School National Register District. Historically, many of the corner lots within this district were subdivided into two lots. In the context of the block face, the setback request to align the front edge of the new building 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 the District as a whole. Applicant Response to Citizen Input As per Section 2.2.7(C)(5), of the Land Use Code, the applicant provided the following responses to citizen input: Regarding the mass and scale of the proposed house, please note that we have not hired an architect at this point. But, as you can see from the photos of our former house on East Elizabeth that we submitted to the Hearing Officer, we intend to build a house that is likely to include a garden level and one raised level so it is not a full two-story house. 23. Troy Jones — 2826 Sitting Bull Way Mr. Jones testified that the proposed compromise of providing two off-street parking spaces appears reasonable, especially with.a corner lot having two street frontages. He supports the project. 24. Terry Opgenorth — 646 Whedbee Street Mr. Opgenorth testified that he is concerned about parking and does not support the Request for Modification for zero off-street spaces. He explained that if Lot Two builds a driveway, that will reduce the linear footage along Whedbee that would be available for on -street parking and this should be factored in. Also the existing Transfort bus stop is along Whedbee with a red painted curb. He does not support the project. 25. Ken Wilson — 714 Smith Street Mr. Wilson testified that the project will impact the character of the neighborhood and he does not support the project. 26. Joe Adams — 2506 Wapiti Road Mr. Adams testified that he supports the project. 27. Rick Atkinson — 708 Smith Street Mr. Atkinson testified that the new house will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and suggested that the size of the house be capped at 0.25 floor - to -area ratio. 28. Renny Cavener — 812 Peterson Street Mr. Cavener testified that the parking issue can be addressed adequately. He continued that some infill projects can be a positive while some can be a negative. He supports the project if it is done properly. 29. Will Huett — 645 Whedbee Street Mr. Huett testified that parking is an issue and the setback along Whedbee Street is an issue. He does not support the project. He asked a question as to whether or not a new driveway on Whedbee would result in the loss of any trees in the parkway? Staff responded that such trees are located within the public right-of- 16. Dave Lingle — 517 E. Laurel Street Mr. Lingle testified that he supports the project. The project is a good example of infill and re -development. Based on his observations, within a three block area, there are 20 corner lots that have been subdivided thus establishing a context. He contends that the future house will be in scale with the neighborhood. 17. Jeff Down — 519 Locust Street Mr. Down testified that he supports the project. 18. Karyl Ting — 720 Peterson Street Ms. Ting expressed that she is concerned about parking and the lot size. She recalled how the 5,000 square foot lot minimum was derived through a public process.and at great angst and should not be taken lightly. 19. Barbara Liebler — 710 Mathews Street Ms. Lieber testified that she does not support the project. She recalls the issue of how to deal with alley houses several years ago. She contends that alley houses result in crowding of the neighborhood. 20. Jenny Konle — 634 Whedbee Street Ms. Konle testified that on -street parking is a problem on Whedbee. She explained that is inconvenient if you can't park in front of your house, especially with kids and groceries. She does not support the project. 21. Markus Konle — 634 Whedbee Street Mr. Konle testified that he does not support the project either. The project appears to be jamming something in. He explained that the project is out of character with the neighborhood and will impact the charm of the neighborhood. 22. Mike Elliott — 525 Whedbee Street Mr. Elliott testified that he is also concerned about parking and does not support the Request for Modification for zero off-street parking spaces. 10. Kathy Louderback — 726 Smith Street Ms. Louderback supports the project. 11. Eric Hermann — 722 Whedbee Street Mr. Hermann testified that the alleys are crowded. He does not like alley houses. Nor does he like garages that are converted to houses. He does not like renter - occupied houses. 12. Dave Saunders — 722 E. Laurel Street Mr. Saunders supports the project. He pointed out that the townhomes recently constructed at the corner of East Myrtle Street and Cowan Street are a positive addition to the neighborhood and are an example of how new construction can blend in. 13. Mikal Torgerson Mr. Torgerson testified that the request for contextual setback is in compliance with the Land Use Code. Further, the request to reduce the minimum lot size from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet is mitigated by the recommended condition of approval that the F.A.R. be reduced to 0.40. Finally, he testified that the compromise of requiring two off-street parking spaces is logical. 14. Dave Dunn — 503 Mathews Street Mr. Dunn testified that he supports the project explaining that infill is good for the community. He contends that new construction will spur other property owners. to upgrade their properties. He stated that a new house may attract a family with children which will add to the tax base. He expressed confidence that the applicants will build a house that is compatible with the neighborhood. 15. Jean Foley — 717 Peterson Street Ms. Foley testified that she was concerned about the parking. She emphasized that renters, in particular, need off-street parking spaces. She explained that since the property will not be owner -occupied, she is concerned about the general maintenance and upkeep of the property. used by the church for parking and without this parking lot; church parking will spill out onto the streets. She contends that the addition of a new house will crowd the neighborhood. 4. Dana Hoag — 415 E. Laurel Street Mr. Hoag testified that he echoes the concerns expressed by his wife. He is concerned that a new house would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 5. Ken Colby — 715 Smith Street Mr. Colby testified that he is opposed to the project primarily because of the 1,000 foot reduction in the minimum lot size. 5,000 square feet is the rule. 6. Lisa Demberg — 435 E. Laurel Street Ms. Demberg is the co-author, along with Mr. Steve Mack, of a document that was included in the packet that was forwarded to the Hearing Officer. She is the adjoining neighbor to the west. She echoes Mr. Mack's comments. She contends that there have been no lot divisions since 1959. 7. Judy Lovaas — 304 E. Myrtle Street Ms. Lovaas testified that she has lived in the neighborhood for 43 years. She walks the neighborhood on a daily basis and enjoys the character. She opposes the project as it would negatively impact and threaten this character. 8. Rod Louderback — 3419 Carlton Avenue Mr. Louderback testified in favor of the project. He stated that a new house would add a renewal benefit and improve the gravel parking lot that is there now. 9. Mike Jensen — 223 Jefferson Mr. Jensen provided written testimony. In addition, he testified that he is in favor of the project. He stated that the project would not set a precedent because every project is evaluated on its own merits. He continued that the three - unrelated ordinance protects the neighborhood from negative impacts such as too much on -street parking. 431 E. Laurel Street P.D.P. #30-10 Public Hearing January 12, 2011 Public Hearing Record And Summary Log of Citizen Participation Richard Lopez, Hearing Officer, opened the meeting and explained that the order of proceedings would follow Section 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use Code. Mr. Lopez then called for the project planner to begin with a staff report. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, presented the staff report as follows: This is a request to replat one existing lot, addressed as 431 East Laurel Street and containing 9,004 square feet, into two lots. Lot One would include the existing house (duplex) that fronts onto East Laurel Street and contain 5,004 square feet. Lot Two would be a vacant lot that would front onto Whedbee Street and contain 4,000 square feet. The existing east -west alley would form the south property line of proposed Lot Two. The applicant is requesting two Modifications of Standard. The first would allow Lot Two to contain 4,000 square feet versus the minimum required lot size of 5,OOO square feet. The second would allow Lot One, which contains the existing duplex, to provide zero off-street parking spaces versus the minimum required 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. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the P.D.P. and Request for Two Modifications of Standard, subject to four conditions. Public Testimony Mr. Lopez then opened the hearing to public testimony. 1. C.M. Elliott — 525 Whedbee Street Mr. Elliot had a question about the procedure of the meeting which the Hearing Officer then addressed. Mr. Elliot later provided further testimony (number 22). SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTAMONY PROVIDED TO HEARING OFFICER ON JANUARY 13, 2011 BY KAREN MCWILLIAMS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER Mr. Lopez, Hearing Officer, requested a summary of Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams' testimony at the January 12, 2011 Public Hearing regarding 431 E. Laurel Street, PDP #30-10. 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. 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. 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 3.8.1 S — 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: (B) Contextual Setbacks. Regardless of the minimum front setback requirement imposed by the zone district standards of this LandUse 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 comer 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. 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 Tbree 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.ehsure 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 panting 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 comer 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 Finding 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) 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 (7%s) 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 comer 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 comer 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 comers of the Whedbee / Laurel intersection feature corner lots that have already been subdivided. And, the southeast comer, 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 comer 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, theyare not counted bemuse 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. E 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(0)(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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 Font. 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. City Of Fort Collins Planning, Development & Transportation Community 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: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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 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. ATTACHMENT e Hearing Officer Amended Findings, Conclusions and Decision Including: Summary of Public Testimony by Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner - Public Hearing Record and Summary -Log of Citizen Participation - Public Hearing sign-up sheet - Petition submitted to Hearing Officer at the January 12, 2011 Hearing m Rehabiritation m � llc foUotuing rcm# u I,talefighmd m indreatr that it thr pattisvt4trly rnmplar terbrtical adcri�+ aspect' � Re6abtUtation apmjan and AmAd only be renudewd �ar thr pmrruation cnncenm fcsteed abo u /earn bate addtrssnd j'.ir .'�' N� ''• :.' +s bated t+7}$aigr s d1i MUM of Paymmi `°'" . le,►d+n►pe:aitie� t}iE.li�oti�°fe�Y;ltO _ .,- - _ _ -._ W& as imm miss. Pb 4:' f tnaybt:atJrsst►isiioabased'ot}.l.;';"„::;tao$�die%ttuedtacisout of etas dtix= or 6e.a nsvv Aesig�+ dui ie �e side 4 A t:.� s On` �tar- cbwa=o{ihe sadpg ..:.. ' :' .:'::: >' ' Anoas irttptog c�iliit link `s]mg k, thus tsiaiaumttg the effou ca eke 6ueui+e imp . ke+ . tt3ooadoa ofdK eat4 "S►axd' P t�a�ld aboltepkegedi� si psi the af�mc camel. P that several busuaeata cameAVCB .epposotl to inuod task [ gyp;°an;,nts,�0�r�c t is Deeming t+nd ate! t or t6ac.deecnoyz 6issotie <dac+onshtjss , a ydienewUSL :.. ootnpadbdewrithtlteinriccbaraelei'�Offeaertdagt►eata» ' ait6u+:hrssiaa� ' ofmize, w,& d algnr .Uffidas..ci►l Removing twnsiVl6arit b! jk 6 mM" °r {aa aCope` Remoneg tl:Wst`uic bw4ht� 6 c cb firaaues which dmmct from s , tee SL 108 Settsne fBrod�`.' �° e.. laws-, ♦ i X' e} 3'�c' F �T.��r... �.. it ��i �.. ,q � a "'��7 ,_•.fix .,r F � ✓ .� k ky, k � 4` s �.� x ,�; sa'•�\. _ �'3 tr � � � _ � +�, »• 6 "•• f k� i � -- 1 y i L�t'+�' i , e i r j�. ��'// `j�� 300 Whedbee - Change of Use From Church to Multi -Family Vicinity Map . 1 inch = 19,042 s. mooning Map Y �jE Oak S ! rarvaP.'arks �;rr E Olive SI +ewauscrs.-alnu+zwv+N:'��9ZA�Ac- 1 nc ih = 500 feet' ' E Magnolia St fer w%Ntrsd r YJYFIO r r r+4N bIY Mn GbrhlC�t M u ttwlNow—F Y+r. %w..n i�ilwnwm w NHN e� ter W q wasw ' wlw wnr. flwvliYwalw w,tw..aw•w.wvlyanucv.�.ImIN.a.wswq+b.nw...mwwuw.u.m/.gaaa¢y e,YWply ewwwwwru. �RaPYa{w.+.RapaePnwlrbutm r.ro IYplM— urm file clly D/sur, su%a uY2a PD�nwnnuixuE tCn.wwuoury D! wwn.Yry PJR pf%Fq O Uf! Rll /MTILLLY W!/OFE, Ea9PEtYDgt W PtlD.'.�TM PED/ECf :OIACeC t4i aPCWfT! OII ItE I:wDtAl"nnD WTA My wwa rlYu ^YII _ aWY.q�Y,byw.wlvR iMralwpM6. gt111 RLL F41LT{.W wmw N�aTat-0iyrl Jt%tiY).wY M�mlwbr0 wl gwFbl.b In Ow.amiu M wJ pwrr NYl:b{R bY,w Ybry w.ib M ery J. eINMp.mYt ina.11JJm4Yw 0.`/t NAp lYm Hw WwmtMmYeM INganww.+wwMm MJOw. .knwtIYMIN.YRtl M,NINN Mwl1 Jw.01Mw prlh�. n rWbFy Yw TN GY daOipR aM wa MW M14 W Mw.W W N UenlpR bµw YtYp. `neb.+JIJI. YIYw{ �uww/Y4MLII YMt wOt/ N� MINM N4 %r4w YUY 1Y Mwvl El iMCwan w YiwY. Site Map SITE 1 inch = 100 feet/ N Fort Collins W E GIS D CI}�� O f Community Development and Fo �r))t Collins Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, C0.80522 970.221.8750 i = 970.224.6134 - fax kgov.com/currentplanning June 10, 2010 Dear Resident: On Thursday, June 24, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. at the old Saint Andrew's Church, 300 Whedbee 6 ; . ...Street (southeast corner of E Olive Street and Whedbee Street), the City of Fort Collins Community Development and -Neighborhood Services Department will conduct a neighborhood ' information meeting to discuss a development proposal.in your neighborhood. ` The potential project is known as 300 Whedbee Street - Change of Use. The proposal is to convert the church into a multi -family building with 3 to 4 semi -high end (3 bedroom) apartments. The applicant is only proposing minor changes to the exterior of the building with the intent to preserve the historic character of the structure. The site does not have room for on -site parking,.which will require a Modification of Standard at the time of formal submittal.: :1 The applicant is pursuing the possibility of changing Olive Street from parallel to diagonal parking with the City's Traffic Engineering and Parking Departments (but street parking cannot be counted to meet the applicants parking requirements). The site.is in the NCM (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density) zone district. The proposed four unit multi -family :i •. building is permitted as a Type 1 (Administrative) review and public hearing, so long as no N ' structure additions or exterior alterations are made to the structure. . The purpose of this meeting is to give all participants the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and express their concerns in an informal setting. The applicant will be present to ! ; discuss the proposal. Also, City representatives will be present to respond to questions about the proposed development and City policies and regulations. A formal development request has not yet been made to the City; and, no decisions will result from this meeting. The project must complete the standard development review process, concluding with a public hearing, where a decision on the project will be made. The list of affected property owners for this public information meeting is derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occupancy -and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few .affected.property owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbors of this pending meeting so all neighbors r , may have the opportunity to attend. If you are unable to attend this meeting, written comments are welcome. •If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call our office at (970)221-6750. Sincerely, mma MCArdle City Planner k The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with ° disabilities. Please call (970)221-6750 for assistance. a `Please access the building through the east entrance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of January, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of February, A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of February, A.D. 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk 12 Mayor the center.of the•wall). Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Figure XX Measurement of Side. Wall Height (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (l'/z) stories. Section 4. That the definition "Block face" contained in Section 5.2.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: _ Block ace shall mean �— ne 1:.sid.e ofa City_ block _theabuts.wstreet between two (2) mfe sections. Section 5. That Section 5.2.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition "Principal building' which reads in its entirety as follows: Section 6. That the City Manager is hereby directed to prepare and submit to the City Council, on or before January 31, 2013, a written report and recommendation regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular, whether such implementation has, in his or her opinion, achieved the stated purposes of ensuring the compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on affected property owners. (c) The following §haff not be_ ;included in the computation�of, the allowable floor area: ^� l base77- ment's;' 2.:z. open.,balcynies, 3.v�- attach'ed garages (if more than:one half�(1/2) of the dwellings on_ the same block face fiave�att iched garage"s) _detached accessci_ry_6uildings, (23.) BesWentklA_1lowable IToor Area pf Carriage;,Nouses. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street - fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/2) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten -foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feeL (34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street -fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six E re . g*dles's of, r: A Whethesecond floor.:is Physically built! Such horizontal, eaves shall- be measured froin. the grade at I th&,nearest side.16t line perpendicularly to the center. of.the I eave. Itany one'sto-F-y '-portion oter'strect-frontffig y singlc-famil-' dwelling exceeds eighteen and one-half (18-1/2) feet.An height, such portion shall. -b6 counted. as, both a first :and . second, even ,if such second floor is not physicall'y' buili; :1 or if suck 'pqqLi On_consi Ls, tI :of itfic-" §MCq:. Voluirie.that Couiiis iis,tlooi Area (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (I %z) stories. Section 3. That Sections 4.8 (D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Req.urr U area shall be the equiN,alent two times the tetalaggregate floor area of the building(s) situated on-tti"eyloi asrfurth` provided below, betaid not less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet pe: pnncipal, building_for a single-family or two-family dwelling, and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. `Aggregate floor area"• shall mean the total gross floor area of all pnncip_ buildings. as rncasured along the outside walls of> each finished -,or unfinished floor level of. such buildings; .plus the'total gross flo.orareoIthe-grgund:h6orof-'any_accessory building laiger located MCIVINUM �_. ,-- . - _..._. .. -. _ -.. .. I WON (a} bf�anyhonzcintal gave along'a srdetlot hne is more ;:than thrrteen(l'3}:,feet above =grade,=tithe floor area =1s�ha(ti be calculated as ,if the'rbuildiiig �mclerdes- asecond ;floor• Floor Area Ratio ofRear_,Haff;o =Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as i! existed on Aeteber 25, 1991 The let afea used FAas the basis for. R A D , ..1,...1 shall 1. '.I .J t1. (E) Dimensional Standards. (1) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet (2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than'twenty (20) feet. (3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions. (4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of 'wall or building height that exceeds eii7liteen (18) feet in height f the�centerofafie wail). Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding. the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Figure 7tXIvleasurement�of $ide;Wall,Heighti ern` sa• •vie R d - basements 3. _ attach ed.,garages .(if rhorc than one-half ('1/2) of the w dwellings on the -same____._-.___.______ block face ;have attached garages) r ' detached accessory buildings,, (23jBesidertlialAllowalile.`Flii�r Ar"ea of Car_riage;.Houses. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street - fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a two -car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%2) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten -foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable .Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street -fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/z) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten -foot separation between structures. (45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%z) feet. 5 the nearest --gid A t Counts Ave I jht (c) TYie 'following shall o ., !unc u 'r7bg", - " -fi"d6a"Tthe`allowable;�fl'oor, area "' - Commission as authorized under Section 22 b of the-CiN Code Section 2. That Sections 4.7(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Deftwfy! qulred I nt Area. Mift�Vot area shall be equiyaleici( to at least two and -��c-Ujf.(N2) times the tataoggrcg a te floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, ' ,- provided below, bet;id not less than six thousand (6,900) square- feel. per principal building. , - }`Ag gregate gregAte floor area" shall mean the'total gross floor aica of all principal buildings_ as measured. Mong'.1he 'outside w'a*lls . of"' each 'finished or. unfinished floor level of such b 'p" ' the total I uildipgs, 1ps.Ahe gross floor area of the ground floor. of 'any'. accessory building -'.larger than. one ne hundred -.twenty (120)*.-squ'are feet; pi u's "thar portion-of'thiel I floor area of any second story having a ceiling . height .. , of -At . 'lea - s . t I seven n ; and one-half h . '. . .� , . 4 (7Y2 feet Apy�juc cc(��SCTY I�dihd . 1) - -- -L- - ,jq� C2j. rAil—ooable ---Fluor. -Area of Ttree`t--Pr qn4ink.'Single-Famil y Dw011ings.i ,The allowable floor area . of a street -fronting' sin '9le-family dwelling' : . . shafl'not exceed twenty-seven:(27) percent of the arcs of the Iot.'- i upon which the dwelling is situated:. For the., purposes'of this, proyis , ionj I ."allowable floor area" shall mean the,totial irossIloor are'a of'Ah 6 street -fronting single-family dwelling; including' . each fihish6d.'7it h d 4 unfinished floor level,, a s* measured along' the outside walls of . such T.- tyjKiLig. Additionally, the foil ring sha]l. apply; For- the pufpese i�y, 46tal P. 9hall Fnean the teW gross fie afea efall PFiflei-jal ad ineluding eaeh finished OF unfinished floor level plus 4he total gfess fleeF afea ef the gr-eund fleeF ef any-eeeessmy building lafSer ihan ene s twe feet-, plus 414-8-4 pef4iefi ef the fleer- afes ef any seeend steFy having a eeiling I-ei.ght ef fft leem seven 717�) fee; withi- aeeessefy building leeated en the W If any: ho.iiz6rital - cave along it -side : line is:m6fe'. than Niteen(13) 'feet- above - gxadd-' 60i, Brea' shall. be ii* calculated..� if. the building. includes a , second V floor regardless. of whether a sedond*floor is' physically built' Such Leay�s shall be nicasu'red1rom the grade at Neighborhood Plan and West Side Neighborhood Plan, and are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows: (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize Any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including; but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; (2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or (3). the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal,- inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made .under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2) or (3). 2 OETIONB ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, Policy IJSG-3.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the character of stable, residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques; and WHEREAS, Policy EXN-1.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the West Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for their respective areas; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has been requested to prepare and present to the City Council certain changes to the Land Use Code to address issues of concern regarding the compatibility of the size of new single-family houses and additions to existing single- family houses in the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, particularly in the Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District and the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District, as compared to the size of existing principal structures in those zone districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments comport with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the East Side East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final ReportFort Collins tx - Table 1: Existing Development Standards by Zone NCL NCM NCB Minimum lot area 6,000 sq ft, or at 5,000 sq ft, or 5,000 sq ft, or at least 2'r4 times at least 2 times least equivalent total floor area total floor area to total floor area Maximum floor area on the rear 25% of rear. A lot 33% of rear Y: 33% of rear Y2 lot 50% of the lot area lot area area Maximum floor area for accessory 600 sq ft 600 sq ft 600 sq ft building Minimum lot width- 40' 40' 404 Minimum front setback 15' 15' 15' Minimum rear yard setback 5' from alleys 5' from alleys 5' from alleys 15' otherwise 15' otherwise 15' otherwise Minimum side setback 5' plus 5' plus 5' plus 1' for every 2' of V for every 2' 1' for every 2' wall height of wall height of wall height above 18' 1 above 18, above 18' Maximum building height 1 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories In addition to standards that regulate building size, the three zoning districts also contain some• basic architectural design standards for single-family houses and accessory buildings. These are the only such single-family design standards in the city. They cover a limited scope of design, and have little effect. Rather, the quality of design in the neighborhoods has resulted more from owners' attention to compatible design. Design Guidelines In 1996, a document called Neighborhood character Design Guidefines for the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods was adopted. It offers general explanations and illustrations of design concepts for compatible alterations and new construction. These are voluntary, informational guidelines offered as suggestions for homeowners seeking to alter their properties. The document articulates aspects of design that define the character of the neighborhoods. In fact, six different design character areas were identified within the two neighborhoods, each with unique prevailing qualities. The guidelines encourage adaptation of existing structures, rather than demolition and replacement, and also address various aspects of design, whether for remodels, additions, or new structures. The guidelines were originally intended to be written as standards and incorporated into the zoning regulations by reference, but when they were brought forward for adoption in 1996, some standards triggered controversy and opposition for being overly prescriptive and restrictive of individual owners' choices. The standards which triggered the greatest East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report ' e � s • "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation." (p. 23) • "Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height, and materials) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." (p. 35) West Side Neighborhood Plan Adopted in 1989, the West Side Neighborhood Plan contains language aimed at protecting neighborhood character: • "New construction, where deemed appropriate, will be designed to enhance the existing residential character of the West Side Neighborhood." (p. 4-20) ■ "New -construction in the Conservation areas must be residential and ;conforr.n to the! surrounding neighborhood in scale, design,.and other physical charaeterisiicst" (p. 4-21) ��• ".:.every effort should be made to establish an image and identity and enforce standards :which -characterize the West Side Neighborhood as a unique historic;,. Fort Collins, neighborhood" (p. 7-3) • "Residential design standards should be developedand maintained in.'to the future Considerations should include... Establishment and encouragement of common design framework: scale; texture; color; signage; street furniture; and setbacks/landscaping." (p. 7-3) These polity statements not only direct the City to protect neighborhood character, but they go further and specifically define what contributes to that established character, including scale, mass, building height and materials, and architectural style. Furthermore, they specifically identify the need for new construction to conform and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Development Standards The Land Use Code contains standards to implement City policies. Key standards relevant to this study are found in three zoning districts in the Land Use Code: Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL), Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM), and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB). These zones are uniquely tailored to a greater degree, with greater detail, than any other neighborhood zones in the city, reflecting the value placed on the established neighborhood character. Table 1 below summarizes the key standards which govern the magnitude of enlargement or construction of structures within each zone. 8 Fort Collins East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study- Final Report In addition to the formal public events; staff responded to numerous phone calls and a -mails throughout the study. Presentations were also made to the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors. The remainder of this report presents key information from each phase of the process, leading to recommendations at the end of the report. Phase I: Examine Existing Conditions For the purposes of this study, It is crucial to understand what existing policies and regulations call for, and also to consider examples of construction done under those regulations. Policies There are three adopted planning documents that set a policy framework for development in the study area: City Plan, the East Side Neighborhood Plan, and the West Side Neighborhood Plan. ; Gty Plan: Updated.m.2004, City=P/an'contains several policies relevant to this study::=.; ■ ''New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be -"designed to incorporate or improve ,upon essential -positive qualities for residents, such as proportion And -shape, pattern of ;�uildiiigs and'yards,' ientation to thestreet, and building'materials arid'styles "`(g.,31)" ■ The charact&'of stable residdhtiial neighborhood's should'..be preserved throu.'gh neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques." (p. 117) • "the Citywill follow specific design standa�tlsfor;infill"developmentand .• redevelopment:with,an emphasis on protecting existing resident al;neigFib'orhood, chacacter." (p: 1634)' iEastSidi Neighborhood Plan;; Adopted in 1986, the East Side Neighborhood Plan was created to protect the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of this area. Relevant policies include the following: • "Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings." (p. 20) • "A.charige of"use.may_be deemed appropriate if -it conforms to ttie surrounding% :. neighborhood character, including, but not'limited.to:scale, mats',- building separation; :6ui d`r g plitement; building height; finish materials; and architectural style..." (p. 23) 2. The existing application includes the request to allow the construction of an additional single family home to be built on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. As a condition of subdividing the lots, a deed restriction should be placed on the proposed Lot 2 preventing the proposed single family home from being converted to a duplex at a later date, 3. A minimum of four off street parking spaces should be provided for at the south end of Lot 1 to accommodate the existing tenants of 431 Whedbee Street or preferably the developer should be held to the number of spaces required under the parking code applicable to duplexes. There is adequate space at the end of Lot I for parking and it would require only that a curb cut be installed on Whedbee Street. Adequate parking should be a contingency for the redevelopment of the lot. No Modification of Standard should be granted for the proposed subdivision with regard to the parking code. 4. The front set back for Lot 2 on Whedbee Street should preferably comply with existing code that applies to all other houses along Whedbee Street, match that of the existing dwelling on Lot 1, or be set at some mid point. This will serve to maintain a more consistent appearance of the block face. Fort Collins has recently witnessed the impact of such set back modifications with the home built on the southeast comer of Mountain Avenue and Scott Street. The inconsistency with the rest of the neighborhood is visibly apparent and unappreciated by the neighborhood. To minimize the visual impact of a substantial reduction in front set back, the developer should consider requesting a Modification to reduce the rear set back to 10 feet. This would also assist the developer in meeting the code that limits the maximum percentage of floor area to 33% on the back 50% of the lot, and would minimize the need to build a two story home. 5. Given the above, it is preferred by the neighbors; and should be set as a condition of the granting of the multiple requests for Modification of Standards, that the single family residence planned for Lot 2 be no more than one and one half story with a daylight basement. This would provide more than adequate square footage for a single family home given the limited size of the lot. 6. A privacy fence should be constructed on the west property line of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Not only will this provide privacy to the neighbor to the west, but it will screen the neighbor from the lights of vehicles pulling into or leaving the off street parking spaces hopefully provided at the south end of Lot 1. We would urge the developer to include this as part of an over all landscape plan and, at a. minimum, to.a make solid commitment to planned grounds maintenance and upkeep of the properties. the church has terminated and there are 2 living units with a total of 4 bedrooms. With this exists the potential for having an even greater number of total tenants when there is more than one tenant to a bedroom. To continue avoiding a violation of the existing parking code, the developer has requested another Modification of Standard. No off street parking complicates an already congested parking situation where homeowners, renters, and overflow parkers from Centenial High compete for parking. Subdividing the lot creates an opportunity to correct the situation. 4. The house at 431 East Laurel has been a poorly kept college rental with little or no yard maintenance until the subdivision process was proposed. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS The developers have refused to informally meet for a second time with adjacent neighbors to jointly develop acceptable resolutions to the issues prior to the Type 1 Review hearing_ This leaves adjacent neighbors reticent to support the requested Modifications of Standard. There should be a quid pro quo in the form of reasonable accommodations by the developers to the neighborhood for its support of the project. Reasonable accommodations should include the following as a minimum: The developer must commit to the size, mass, scope of the project at the Level 1 Review. To date the developer has been unwilling to provide the neighborhood, with a basic rendering of the proposed house or details of size, etc. and how it integrates into the current block face. If at the hearing such information.is not presented, the key Modification of Standard to subdivide the lot should be denied by the hearing officer until the developer provides the essential information. This should include but not be limited to, the approximate square footage, the number of stories, the footprint, and other such basic descriptors of the project. We wish to bring to the hearing officer's attention that the existing code and formula regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not include basement square footage, potentially doubling the functional maximum square footage of the proposed home to as much as 3500 square feet depending on the footprint chosen by the developer. All this on a 4000 square foot lot. It would not be a hardship for the developer to limit the size of the home to an above ground square footage comparable to other houses historically built on similar oriented lots and gain an increased total square feet by building it on a full day light basement. CONCERNS REGARDING THE SUBDIVISION OF 431 EAST LAUREL STREET The proposed subdivision of 431 East Laurel Street (currently identified as Lot 5, Block 157, Galligan's Subdivision) will require the granting of at least 3 Modification of Standard in order for the project to be in compliance with existing City building and zoning codes. This action is unusual and, in itself, is of concern to adjacent neighbors and others residing in the surrounding Laurel Street School Historic District neighborhood. A Level I Review before an independent hearing officer has been required by the City planning process before any Modification of Standards can be granted to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. THE ISSUES The Existing lot at 431 East Laurel Street contains 9004 square feet. Current City code requires a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. Subdivision of the existing lot will create two lots. Lot l of 5000 square feet would contain the existing duplex and would comply with City code. Lot 2 would contain 4000 square feet and would not comply with City code. As such, the property cannot be subdivided as proposed without a Modification of Standard being granted.to create the additional lot with less than the allowed square footage. 2. As proposed, Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will have a buildable square footage of 1750 square feet as initially submitted. A determination of the applicability of the code as it relates to the proposed setback is required to allow this size building envelope by reducing the set back from the standard 15' setback. A front yard set back of fifteen feet is required by code. The developer proposes, to reduce the front set back so that the new home on Lot 2 will set 8' closer to Whedbee Street than the existing home on Lot 1. The proposed setback will match the 10.65 foot set back of the church across the alley rather than matching the traditional set back of the houses along Whedbee Street. 3. The existing house at 431 East Laurel (Lot 1) is currently an over/under duplex with three bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs. Until 1998 this was the rectory for the adjacent church on Whedbee Street. It is still currently classified as a single family home by the Latimer County Assessor. However, there is a memo to file from the City Code and Inspections Administrator, indicating that it was approved as being compliant for duplex use on 11/30/2005 with an escape window being added in 2007. At the time of approval, and even though there was a requirement under code to have adequate off street parking at the time, the provision was waived as the developer had leased the rear of the lot to the church for parking. In the current request for subdivision there is no designated off street parking planned for this dwelling even though the lease with ATTACHMENT 7 Materials submitted by Appellant J. Stephen Mack at January 12, 2011 Public Hearing Page 2 of 2 think the property should be further subdivided to house yet another family or potentially two more families and their associated vehicles. These Modification of Standards have and will irrevocably degrade the nature of the the neighborhood, by increasing population density, vehicular traffic volume, frequency, and speed. Thank you for your consideration> John Cannan Owner of 712 Peterson St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 (321)223-6775 1/12/201 l Page 1 of 2 Ted Shepard From: chip.cannan@gmail.com on behalf of Chip Cannan [ccannan@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:34 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10 Mr. Shepard, Per our earlier telephone conversation please forward my comments below to the Hearing Officer for consideration regarding the subject project. I request that the Hearing Officer conducting the administrative hearing for the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10 deny the rn Modification of Standard requests. As a long time former resident (my father purchase the house in the 1960s), and current, long time owner (since 1991) of 712 Peterson St. I can say without pause that this proposed project development is not in the, best interests of the unique neighborhood, and will, without doubt, lower surrounding property values, increase both pedestrian and vehicular traffic through the adjacent alley, and increase crime in the area. My property is directly adjacent to another such property that was similarly sub -divided. The two properties immediately north of mine, across the alley, used to be one. It has since been sub -divided and another house has been constructed on the new partition. This was and continues to be a scar on character of the neighborhood. This area of Fort Collins is known for its smaller, historical houses, with large extended lots, full of fruit trees. One look at the two properties north of mine and you can see the incongruities. Where there was one house, now there are two crammed into significantly smaller lots. Where once only one family lived, now at least two dwell, along with their associated motor vehicles (coming and going). I objected to the sub -division of that property as I do that of 431 East Laurel Street. From my own observation, I have noticed an increase in the volume, and frequency both pedestrian and vehicular traffic through the alley since the sub -division of the adjacent lot (north of mine). I suspect the proposed project development will yield similar if not worse results. The volume, and frequency of vehicular traffic will be most obvious as the number of vehicles and there accompanying sound will increase, because there will be more residents with vehicles accessing (parking and transiting) the alley. Also, from my own observation is that the increase in vehicular traffic has also been accompanied by an increase in the speed of the transiting vehicles. This may be because the western end of the alley was paved as part of the project development approval agreement for the property adjacent to mine. I fear that more residents at the eastern end of the alley will use the alley to transit, and will do so at a higher speed, than they would on an unimproved surface alley. The proposed development will disproportionately hurt my interests because besides the adjacent property, mine is the only residential property on the block having a long deep border with the alley, thereby exposing my property most to any increased volume, frequency. and speed of vehicular traffic. The resulting higher volume, frequency, speed, and noise of vehicular traffic through the alley will degrade the neighborhood's tranquil nature, and hurt my ability to attract qualified tenants desiring to live there, and willing to pay market rent for a home in quiet old town neighborhood of single family homes on large plots of land. The Standards were created for various reason, and one of those reasons was to limit this kind of development. This city block already has at least one Modification of Standard development with the sub -division of the property adjacent to mine. Also, 431 East Laurel Street already has a duplex on it, housing twice as many families as originally intended (it used to be a single family residence). I don't 1/12/2011 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: Karyl Ting Uktbaker82@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:55AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 Replat Dear Mr. Shepard, 1 have reviewed the staff recommendations and while wishing to re -state my general concerns regarding this project, I still most strenuously object to the waiver of off -site parking requirements. Although I can understand that 2 spaces may seem an appropriate compromise, it does NOT pre-empt the Pandora box issue of precedence. Many of us own and operate rental properties in the Eastside neighborhood. Planning has not yielded to several of our neighbors' request for off site parking waivers. I myself have opted not to convert a single family dwelling in order to preserve the character of the property. If the precedence of waiver is set, the anticipated outcome is the citing of that precedent in more requested waivers. The off -site parking standard requirement is and should remain a clear bright line which preserves the livability of our neighborhood and serves as a restraint for unfettered conversion of single family dwellings. It would seem too, that the developer, having succeeded in receiving special consideration on this issue in the initial request, would have no reason to expect any different outcome if such waiver is requested to convert the new dwelling to multi -unit in the future. Sincerely, Karyl Ting 720 Peterson 1/12/2011 ---Original Message -- From: Ken Wilson[mailto:tokenw@turtleproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, January11, 2011 6:15 PM To: Ted Shepard Cc: Barbara Wilson Subject: Project: 431 East Laurel Street, Replat, #30-10: Opposition Dear Mr. Shepard: As Chief Planner, I would like to express our opposition to the above = project. We live one block away on Smith Street. We have a wonderful = neighborhood with a nice mix of homes, multiplexes, and the occasional = apartments. One of the most challenging aspects of downtown is parking and density of residents. Both of the requested Modifications of = Standard: 1) allowing a lot of less than 5,000 square feet, and 2) not = requiring adequate parking for a duplex are not desirable. There are = obvious reasons why the City of Fort Collins would have these = requirements in place, and to allow for variances in an area of small = homes and existing duplexes chips away at the lifestyles of the = neighborhood. In particular, convenient parking can be a problem in the = downtown area when densities of individuals per square foot are = increased, but the issues of noise can also be exasperated. The = developers can offer rationales for reducing the negative effects of a = higher density of building, but ultimately once the project is complete = there is little that the community can do if problems occur. Allowing = this variance also sets a precedent for future similar projects.=20 Consequently, we would like the city to uphold the current regulations = and deny this variance. If you have questions about our concerns, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Kenneth and Barbara Wilson 714 Smith St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-2282 Monday, January 10, 2011 Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Re: 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10 Dear Ted: My wife and I have lived on the corner of East Laurel and Colorado Streets in Fort Collins for 38 years. Our home is located on a subdivided portion of Lot 1, Block 197 of the original Town Plat of Fort Collins, approximately 3 blocks east of 431 E. Laurel. Our property has an area of 4,500 square feet out of the original 8,000 square feet of lot 1. Until 2001, when we added a driveway and garage, we had no off- street parking. A large.number of our neighbors own lots which have been similarly divided and have no off-street parking. Most of us enjoy the unique charm of our neighborhood and are glad to be living where we do. Divided lots and a lack of off-street parking are quite common in this part of Fort Collins and are, in fad, an integral part of the personality of the area. We feel that the proposed replat, #30-10, is not at all dissimilar to many of the other lots in this neighborhood and is very much in keeping with the character of this part of Old Town. We are familiar with the project site and do not feel that relaxing the parking standard would negatively impact the area. We therefore ask that the City grant the applicant's request to subdivide the lot at 431 E. Laurel and to provide zero off-street parking. Sincerely, Mike and Rosalind Jones 700 Colorado Street Page 1 of 1 Subj: FW: 431 E. Laurel Date: 1/10/2011 3:49:34 P.M. Mountain. Standard Time From: TSHEPARDQfcaov.com To: rvlopez(a)aol.com Hello Rich, this e-mail from Will Huett was forwarded to me today. Ted From: Smackfc@aol.com [mailto:Smackfc@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:27 AM To: Ted Shepard; Steve Dush Cc: lisa.demberg@gmaii.com Subject: Fwd: 431 E. Laurel FYI, an email from the owner of the second Whedbee street home north of the subject property. Steve Mack From: huettwil@comcast.net To: Smackfc@aol.com Sent: 1/9/2011 8:50:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time Subj: Re: 431 E. Laurel Steve, thanks for the docs. I see a couple of possible lines of argument which may not have been presented - at least I didn't see them. 1- the parking issue. Have they consulted Transfort? On street parking already congests the Whedbee side of the lot and interferes with the Transfort stop. Indeed, here at 8:30pm on a snowy Sunday night a vehicle is parked square in the middle of the designated bus -stop. And based on the snow on it, it has not been moved at least all day, so it is probably not an 'incidental' or temporary use. Increasing Transfort ridership is, I believe, a major city priority. What is the effect on passengers if they must negotiate pickup and drop-off congested with on -street parking forcing Transfort drivers to disgorge them in the traffic lanes? It almost appears this variance would conflict with stated goals for public transportation. 2- the setback issue. Reducing the setback from current requirements gives a'commercial' rather than a residential feel and appearance to the neighborhood. Allowing one variation, the church, to justify another seems backwards. (But is a continuing argument in favor.) Need to read again and absorb more. Not sure if I can make the hearing or not yet. Will --- Original Message --- From: Smackfc(a)aol.com To: huettwil0comcast.net Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:17 AM Subject: 431 E. Laurel Hi Will, Thanks for the time yesterday. Here area couple of the documents that will interest you. I just received the Staff Report last night. It is just about what you would expect.... Hope you can make it to the hearing on Wednesday at 5:15 Let me know if you did not receive 2 documents. Best, Steve Monday, January 10, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Page 1 of 1 Subj: FW: 431 East Laurel St Replat Date: 1/7/2011 2:53:38 P.M. Mountain Standard Time From: TSHEPARD(a)fcgov.com To: rvlopez(cDaol.com Here is the second one. From: Chris Ray [mailto:cray@blockonecp.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 12:04 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 East Laurel St Replat Ted, I am writing to express my support of the project proposed at 431 East Laurel Street Replat Having invested in refurbishing and re -use of a blighted building in the neighborhood, I strongly believe in continuing to improve structures, safety, efficiency, and density in east side homes. Refurbishing both rental and owner occupied properties in old town for the past 20 years has strongly formed my opinion that quality investment whether owner or non -owner occupied lifts the appearance and value of this area. Please take into consideration the reputation of experienced local people who are willing to invest their time and money in Fort Collins like this applicant. Unfortunately I will be out of town and cannot personally appear at the administrative hearing on January 12. 1 would look forward to discuss this project or any other projects like it in the future with you. Chris Ray Sent from my iPhone Friday, January 07, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Page 2 of 2 to work, invest, and be creative, in turn adding value to our City as a whole by supporting them in their endeavors. I strongly support this effort they are making, and hope that the City staff will do so also. Thank you so much for taking the time to read my letter of support, I look forward to seeing this completed and approved. Best Regards, Mike Jensen Broker/Partner Keller Williams Realty.of Northern Colorado Direct: (970) 212-2420 Email: mike@fortcollinsre.com ® Please consider the environment before printing this email. Friday, January 07, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Page 1 of 2 Subj: FW: 431 Laurel Street Replat/Subdivision Date: 1/7/2011 2:53:14 P.M. Mountain Standard Time From: TSHEPARD(d-)fcaov.com To: rvlooez(@aol.com Hello Rich, classes at Centennial begin at 8:00 and end at 3:00. Here is one of two e-mails. From: Mike Jensen [mailto:mike@fortcollinsre.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 2:10 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 Laurel Street Replat/Subdivision Hi Ted, I became aware of a project that is going to be considered soon by City Staff, and I wanted to make sure and weigh in on the project. Can you please make sure this is delivered to the appropriate person that will be hearing and reviewing this case? I am strongly in support of this Replat and Subdivision on this property in this location. As you know I own, manage & invest in property in this area I also work as a real estate broker focusing my sales and leasing career extensively on this particular part of town. I am a strong advocate for Old Town, and for the last 19 years I have lived and worked in this particular part of town in Fort Collins. There is a need here that is not being met, and hence a project such as this is being proposed. There are many, many people who want and desire to live in this area of town, however there is simply a shortage of available opportunities to do so. When you have a shortage of supply and an increase in demand, you create an affordability issue. There is a huge affordability issue in this area of town for both Buyers as well as Renters. A project like this is another step towards helping meet these needs, and anytime we can add more well thought out living units like this project will be, then we have to support them and ensure that they happen. It's good for the environment as people are biking and walking to where they need to go, rather than creating more congestion and traffic pollution. The Mason corridor will further help this, and we need people living right by our rapid transit that is just around the corner. I have reviewed the project and considered the attractive and well thought out end result, this is very complimentary and very much in line with the existing neighborhoods including lot orientation as well as size and scale of the project. It is also a positive thing for our local economy with more building and spending, there are more jobs, with new housing there are additional property tax revenues. We need to encourage and support smart infill growth like this. This is one thing that is a key to successful Downtown's and cities across America. We also need to provide more quality offerings in this immediate area, as when homes get to be 100 years old+ some of them tend to get dilapidated from neglect by the owner. Rick and Ruth are not those types of owners, and creating and building a new project like this adds to the overall quality of the area. I am personally familiar with the high quality types of projects and properties that Rick and Ruth involve themselves in. I have seen the end results and the great products and projects that they choose particularly to work on, they will do this right. I couldn't be more certain that this is a complimentary and sensitive addition to this neighborhood. We really need to make sure that people like this continue Friday, January 07, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Page 1 of 1 Subj: FW: 431 Laurel Replat Date: 1/4/2011 9:50:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time From: TSHEPARDO)fcaov.com To: Rvlooez(U)aol.com Good morning Rich — here is an e-mail that I received regarding 431 East Laurel Street. Ted From: Karyl Ting [mailto:jktbaker82@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:36 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Re: 431 Laurel Replat Dear Mr. Shepard, Our residence is at 720 Peterson and back lot line on the alley shared by the proposed replat. I was involved in the discussions around 2002 with the replat of the lot on the NW corner of Laurel and Whedbee. The standard for lot size of 5000 sq. ft. implemented at that time was thought to be a compromise to allow the replatting of lots larger than the prevalent 9500 sq ft lot and avoid the in -fill of small alley homes seen on the Westside. I object to the proposed replat. First, if the intent of Planning is to jettison the 5000 sq ft standard, I would rather that it be done as a straightforward proposal to be considered by the Eastside/Centennial Neighborhood at large rather than in a piecemeal fashion. As part of that discussion, design standards and setback requirement could be considered and implemented at the same time. The current discussion regarding size standards isn't addressing the real concern I have which is 'structure height' as a ratio to'set back' from the property lines. Second, and ironically my bigger objection, is the waiver of the requirement for off -site parking. To do so would, in my opinion, open a Pandora's box of requests for waivers from all sides. That such a small structure would generate 4 (or more) additional 'permanent' street parked cars would have huge negative impact on the safety and liveability of the surrounding residences. Given the number of rental units on Laurel, it could snowball, effectively limiting parking for owners in front of their own homes. Parking on Whedbee also limits visibility from the alley exit (unfortunately, first hand knowledge.) As an aside, I was unaware that the the current structure had been given an Certificate of Occupancy as a duplex. I hadn't seen evidence of designated off street parking on the current lot. I hope to attend the planning meeting on the 12th and have encouraged the neighborhood to attend as well. Thank you for your time, Karyl Ting 720 Peterson Tuesday, January 04, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Page 1 of 1 Subj: FW: Public input on 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10 Date: 1/4/2011 6:02:38 P.M. Mountain Standard Time From: TSHEPARDAfcgov.com 'To: Rvlooez(a2aol.com Here is another e-mail as a result of the notification letter. Ted From: Kenny Lee [mailto:klee821@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 5:22 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Public input on 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10 Hi Ted - My name is Kenny Lee and I received a notice soliciting public input for 431 East Laurel Street Replat, #30-10. The notice I received from you indicates that the applicants are requesting two Modifications of Standard. I oppose the requested modifications. In particular, the request to provide zero off-street parking spaces instead of the minimum required 4 spaces will damage the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Kenny Lee Property owner of 508 E. Myrtle Tuesday, January 04, 2011 AOL: rvlopez Jan. 3, 2011 Jeanne Balton POS 497 Berthoud, Co. 80513 Mr. Ted Shepard, Hello, I am writing to you about the Replate, #30-10 hearing. I received a jury summons for the 12th of Jan. and may not be able to attend the hearing. I have owned property in this neighborhood since the early 80's. I feel very strongly that the elimination of off street parking is going to lead to serious neighborhood problems in the future. Now is the time to stick to the requirments. This is still a viable neighborhood and will only remain so if good planning practices are used. We know what they are, use them. To make exceptions will only lead to degeneration of the overall quality of the neighborhood and its value. . If projects are well planned and built this will contunue to be valuable part of Fort Collins for all it's residents. Please give this your serious consideration. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely yours, Je /neBolton I1 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: Dan BernthpanBernth@dobersteinlemburg.com] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 3:08 PM To: Ted Shepard Ted I recently met with Rick Reider to discuss his proposed replat / subdivision of 431 East Laurel Street. I am in favor of the project for the following reasons: 1. All corner lots at Laurel and Whedbee have been subdivided in a similar fashion. 2. It would increase density. 3. Building a home on the south lot — if subdivided — would enhance the look of the property. It is currently just a parking lot. 4. 1 built an additional home on my lot at 338 East Pitkin Street — an alley house, if you will — and I have had many compliments relating to the enhancement of the lot. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Dan Bernth 221-1965 x 2 1/3/2011 Page IofI Ted Shepard From: Dave Dunn [dave@d]dunncpa.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:46 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: 431 East Laurel Street Nearing Dear Ted: I recently had a discussion with Mr. Rick Reider, the owner of 431 East Laurel Street, regarding his intent to create a separate lot on the rear of this property and to then build an additional living unit thereon. As background, my office is in Old Town Fort Collins and has been for the entire nearly 35 year career. I have two children who live in the Old Town core area, one a property owner the other a renter. I own property on Mathews street within several blocks of the proposed project. Mr. Reider and I reviewed the plat as well as inspected the nature of the surrounding properties near or adjacent to the subject project. We also discussed the planned improvements to the subject property and his desire of making the new unit compatible with the neighborhood. I support the project without limitation for the following reasons: 1) Old Town needs additional housing to serve a growing work force in the city's core. 2) The proposed project will increase property tax revenues to the City and other jurisdictions. 3) New construction has the effect of stimulating enhancements to existing properties, also increasing assessed values. 4) In fill projects, such as this, better utilize existing infrastructure and provide an continued impetus to a rebirth of the core community which I also support. Dave Dunn, CPA The information accompanying this e-mail message may contain confidential information to the sender of its client which is legally privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom this e-mail message is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. This notice is required by IRS Circular, 230, which regulates written communication about tax matters between tax advisors and their clients. To the extent the accompanying correspondence and/or any attachment(s) is (are) a written tax advice communication, it is not a full "covered opinion". Accordingly, this advice is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS. 1/3/2011 developer to include this as part of an over all landscape plan and, at a minimum, to a make solid commitment to planned grounds maintenance and upkeep of the properties. comparable to other houses historically built on similar oriented lots and gain an increased total square feet by building it on a full day light basement. 2. The existing application includes the request to allow the construction of an additional single family home to be built on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. As a condition of subdividing the lots, a deed restriction should be placed on the proposed Lot 2 preventing the proposed single family home from being converted to a duplex at a later date. 3. A minimum of four off street parking spaces should be provided for at the south end of Lot 1 to accommodate the existing tenants of 431 Whedbee Street or preferably the developer should be held to the number of spaces required under the parking code applicable to duplexes. There is adequate space at the end of Lot 1 for parking and it would require only that a curb cut be installed on Whedbee Street. Adequate parking should be a contingency for the redevelopment of the lot. No Modification of Standard should be granted for the proposed subdivision with regard to the parking code. 4. The front set back for Lot 2 on Whedbee Street should preferably comply with existing code or match that of the existing dwelling on Lot 1 with no Modification of Standard being granted. If this limits the feasibility of building or drives some other undesirable aspect such as an economic necessity to build a two story building, then a Modification of Standard to change the set back should be no greater than the set back of the body of the church on the adjacent lot, not the set back of the steps or the vestibule as requested by the developer. This will serve to maintain a more consistent appearance of the block face. Fort Collins has recently witnessed the impact of such set back modifications with the home built on the southeast corner of Mountain Avenue and Scott Street. The inconsistencies with the rest of the neighborhood are visibly apparent and unappreciated by the neighborhood. To minimize the visual impact of a substantial reduction in front set back, the developer should consider requesting a Modification to reduce the rear set back to 10 feet. This would also assist the developer in meeting the code that limits the maximum percentage of floor area to 33% on the back 50% of the lot, and would minimize the need to build a two story home. In 5. Given the above, it is preferred by the neighbors, and should be set as a condition of the granting of the multiple requests for Modification of Standards, that the single family residence planned for Lot 2 be no more than one and one half story with a daylight basement. This would provide more than adequate square footage for a single family home given the limited size if the lot. 6. A privacy fence should be constructed"on the west property line of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. No only will this provide privacy to the neighbor to the north, but it will screen the neighbor from the lights of vehicles pulling into or leaving the off street parking spaces provided at the south end of Lot 1. We would urge the dwelling even though there are 2 living units with a total of 4 bedrooms. With that exists the potential for having an even greater number of total tenants if there is more than one tenant to a bedroom. To continue avoiding a violation of the existing existing parking code, the developer has requested yet another Modification of Standard. No off street parking complicates an already congested parking situation where at times parking is compounded by overflow from Centenial High School. 4. The house at 431 East Laurel has been a poorly kept college rental with little or no yard. maintenance until the subdivision process was proposed. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS The developers have refused to informally meet for a second time with adjacent neighbors to jointly develop acceptable resolutions to the issues prior to the Type 1 Review hearing. This leaves adjacent neighbors reticent to support the requested Modifications of Standard. There should be a quid pro quo in the form of reasonable accommodations by the developers to the neighborhood for its support of the project. Reasonable accommodations should include the following as a minimum: The developer must commit to the size, mass, scope of the project at the Level 1 Review. To date the developer has been unwilling to provide the neighborhood with a basic rendering of the proposed house or details of size, etc. and how it integrates into the current block face. If at the hearing such information is not presented, the key Modification of Standard to subdivide the lot should be denied by the hearing officer until the developer provides the essential information: This should include but not be limited to, the approximate square footage, the number of stories, the footprint, and other such basic descriptors of the project. We wish to bring to the hearing officer's attention that the existing code and formula regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not include basement square footage, potentially doubling the functional maximum square footage of the proposed home to as much as 3500 square feet depending on the footprint chosen by the developer. All this on a 4000 square foot lot. It would not be a hardship for the developer to limit the size of the home to an above ground square footage CONCERNS REGARDING THE SUBDIVISION OF 431 EAST LAUREL STREET The proposed subdivision of 431 East Laurel Street (currently identified as Lot 5, Block 157, Galligan's Subdivision) will require the granting of at least 3 Modification of Standard in order for the project to be in compliance with existing City building and zoning codes. This action is unusual and, in itself, is of concern to adjacent neighbors and others residing in the surrounding Laurel Street School Historic District neighborhood. A Level I Review before an independent hearing officer has been required by the City planning process before any Modification of Standards can be granted to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. The Existing lot at 431 East Laurel Street contains 9004 square feet. Current City code requires a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. Subdivision of the existing lot will create two lots. Lot 1 of 5000 square feet would contain the existing duplex and would comply with City code. Lot 2 would contain 4000 square feet and would not comply with City code. As such, the property cannot be subdivided as proposed without a Modification of Standard being granted to create the additional lot with less than the allowed square footage. 2. As proposed, Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will have a buildable square footage of 1750 square feet. A second Modification of Standard is required to allow this size building envelope by changing the set back that is required by code. A front yard set back of fifteen feet is required by code. In the case of the existing 431 Laurel home, the set back on the Whedbee Street side (the new front to Lot 2) is 19 feet and common to most other houses on the street. The developer proposes, by a Modification of Standard request, to reduce the front set back by more than 10 feet so as to match the 6 foot set back of the vestibule of the church across the alley rather than matching the set back of the houses along Whedbee. This Modification of Standard creates a larger building envelope on Lot 2 than otherwise would normally be allowed under code. 3. The existing house at 431 East Laurel (Lot 1) is currently an over/under duplex with three bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs. Until 1998 this was the rectory for the adjacent church on Whedbee Street. It is still currently classified as a single family home by the L'arimer County Assessor. However, there is a memo to file by Mike Gebo, FTC Code and Inspections Administrator, indicating that it was approved as being compliant for duplex use on 11/30/2005 with an escape window being added in 2007. At the time of approval, adequate off street parking must have been a requirement of the code. In the current request for subdivision there is no designated off street parking planned for this Table 1 Neighborhood Subdivisions 04 Remington 9713228009 0 L209ocust 9713228012 L215 8Total Ori inal Parcel 8 Highlighted Parcels are under the current requirement for 5,000 square feet. Page 4 Prepared 12/30/2010 Table 1 Neighborhood Subdivisions 402 E Plum 9713216016 4,750 41.2 E Plum 9713216018 4,750 Total Original Parcel 91500 Address Parcel No. Parcel SF 508 E Plum 9713215001 41750 729 Smith 9713215017 4,750 Total Original Parcel 9 500 802 Whedbee 9713,224008 4,750 509 E Plum 9713224009 4,750 Total Original Parcel 91500 519 E Plum 9713224018 21500 521 E Plum 9713224017 - 2,5Q0 525 E Plum 9713224016 21250 801 Smith 9713224015. 21000 Total Original Parcel 91250 601 E Plum 9713235004 41750 802 Smith 9713235005' 41750 Total Original Parcel 91500 806 Smith' 9713235024 4-1500 812 Smith 9713235006 5,000 Total Original Parcel 91500 829 Smith 9713224020 5,000 516 Locust 9713224019 41500 Total Original Parcel 91500 903 Mathews 9713228008 4,560 215 Loucst 9713228011 31852 Total Original Parcell 81412 Highlighted Parcels are under the current requirement for 5,000 square feet. Page 3 Prepared 12/30/2010 1 Table 1 Neighborhood Subdivisions 703 Peterson 9713217033 71500 Total Original Parcel 10,200 Address Parcel No. Parcel SF 644 Peterson 9713213027 61180 412 E Laurel •9713213028 . �4,240 Total Original Parcel 10,420 420 E Laurel 9713241001 51205 651 Whedbee . 9713241002. 4 295 Total Original Parcel . 9,500 646 Whedbee 9713214030 81125 514 E Laurel 9713.214031 41225 Total Original Parcel 12,350 501 E Laurel 9713215012 5 400 710 Whedbee 9713215018 31600 Total Original Parcel 91000 520 E Laurel .9713214032 522 E Laurel 9713214033 31425 526 E Laurel 9713214034 61165 Total Original Parcel 13,015 650 Smith 9713233013 5,400 604 E Laurel 9713233014 3;150 Total Original Parcel 81550 201 E Plum 9713'221011. 4,150 808 Remington, 9713221017.. 21850 Total Original Parcel 7,000 327 E Plum 9713.222023 3,750 801 Peterson 9713222008 ' 3750. Total Original Parcel 71500 Highlighted Parcels are under the current requirement for 5,000 square feet. Page.2 Prepared 12/30/2010 Table 1, Neighborhood Subdivisions. Address Parcel No. Parcel SF 120 E Myrtle 971320900,1 21750 531 Remington. 97]132090;19: . 41675 Total Original Parcel 71425 214/216 E M rtle 971°3208021 3,2'50 220 E Myrtle 971-20020 3 75:0 Total Original Parcel 71000 300 M rtle/530 Mathews 9713207017 61500 516 Mathews 971`3^20;70=16 2600 Total Original Parcel 9,100 528 Whedbee 9713205017 51000 508,!:E Myrtle 9713n205021 = 4,5Q'0 Total Original Parcel 91500 512"="E Myrtle 975;32'05022 4,5;00 527 E Myrtle 9713205001 5,000 Total Original. Parcel 91500 419'_E Myrtle 97I3-213021: 3,.0:00 601 Whedbee 9713213020 61500 Total Original Parcel 91500 600 Whedbee 9713,2,14022 4,600 509 E Myrtle 9713214023' . 310.00 511 E Myrtle 9713214024' 21500 Total Original Parcel 91500 601 Smith 9713Z3.3001 4,750 605.E LMyrtle 97:13-23302.9 `. ., 4,,7$0 Total Original Parcel 9,500 325 E Laurel ' `9713217031 2,700 Highlighted Parcels are under the current requirement for 5,000 square feet. Page 1 Prepared 12/30/2010 ii. Comments A, B, C, and E noted. For comment D see attached email from Joe Olsen that indicates that no traffic study is required, for the proposed replat. 12. Comment noted. 13. Comments noted and design will comply. Regarding comment 13.1), with the replat the only change in the impervious areas will be less than 5,000 square feet. 14. Comments noted. Ted if there is any additional information that you require please let me know. Sincerely, Ruth Rollins Applicant Compliance with Development Standards The City of Fort Collins has a section of the Land Use Code with specific Development Standards for the NCM zoning District. It is important to note that the proposed Rollins Subdivision will comply with the following standards that address building design and height: 1) 4.8.F.i.a — orientation of exterior walls. 2) 4.8.F.i.b — primary entrance will be from Whedbee Street and will include an architectural feature such as a front porch, landing or portico. 3) 4.8•F.i.d - if a second floor is designed it will not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls. 4) 4.8•F.i.e - front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all one- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories. 5) 4.8.F.i.f — the project will be designed to front onto Whedbee Street. 6) 4.8.F.1.g -:The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such porch is also considered to be the floor of a second -story deck. 7) 4.8.F.2.a.1— regarding building height, the maximum building height will be 2 stories. Additional Response to Conceptual Review Staff Comments Each of the comments provided in the Conceptual Review letter dated June 8, 2009 is addressed below. 1. Request for Modification of Standard described above. 2. The existing dome will not exceed the maximum floor -to -area ratio. The future residential use will be designed to accommodate the 66o feet maximum floor area in the rear 5o% of the lot. 3. The existing shed will be located 6 to 7 feet from the new lot line. This satisfies the 5-foot side yard setback. 4. The existing house will be 20 feet from the new rear lot line. This exceeds the 15-foot rear yard setback. 5. This comment is addressed in the Contextual Setback section. 6. A Modification of Standard is requested for the parking requirements for the existing house. See above description. 7. Any easements required to provide utility service to the existing residential unit at 43i East Laurel Street will be provided. 8. Comment noted. 9. Comments noted. io. Comment noted. 0 church functions. Residents parking on -street, using bicycles, and walking have historically satisfied the need for parking spaces at the existing residential unit. This demand for on -street parking has not exceeded the supply of parking within the directly adjacent neighborhood. Recognizing this historical condition, it is concluded that the requirement for parking typically found in off-street locations has been meet in a different way that has nominal impacts within the neighborhood. A future proposed residential unit on the new parcel would be designed to comply with all off-street parking space requirements. In recognizing the historical characteristics of the existing residential unit, the conclusion is that the requested modification of the standard application of parking requirements would be nominal and inconsequential. Use of Contextual Setback Contained within the Conceptual Review staff letter was a comment on the requirement of a 15 feet front yard and 15 feet rear yard setback. A io feet front yard setback is requested. This request would comply with Section 3.8.19B of the Land Use Code. Section 3.8.19B states "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." The proposed subdivision is a corner lot. The lot directly south of the project, Calvary Church, is oriented to Whedbee Street. The front of the church was surveyed to determine the front yard setback to both the enclosed vestibule and the main part of the building. The front yard setback to the face of the vestibule is 4.47 feet and to the face of the main part of the building is io.65 feet. The use of a io feet front yard setback would be in compliance with the contextual setback established by this adjacent parcel. • The current City parking code requires 4 parking spaces for the existing duplex. • The modification is seeking that no parking is required for the existing home (duplex). Request for Modifications of Standard The following description is provided to allow for the granting of the requests for Modifications of Standard. 1. Modification to 4.8(D)(i). It is our understanding that this standard was developed in an effort to minimize the residential lots, within the older areas of Fort Collins that could subdivide. It is an overall standard that is applied throughout Fort Collins in the NCM districts. However, within the neighborhood surrounding the proposed project, the majority of the "corner" lots have been subdivided. A plan size Figure 1 is provided that highlights the location of the project and each of the subdivided "corner" lots within the immediate neighborhood. Only single lots that were subsequently divided into two, three or four lots are included. As depicted on the figure, most of the corner lots within the immediate area of the proposed Subdivision have been subdivided. The parcel size of each of these nearby corner lots is provided on Table 1. The table provides the address, parcel number and parcel size (in square feet). The data provided on the table is grouped together for each original corner parcel. As shown in the table, of the 56 lots 42 are less then the current minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. The proposed Rollins Subdivision as submitted with the 4,000 sq. ft. parcel will not diverge from this standard except in a nominal way when considered within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The subdivision will actually better reflect the character of the existing neighborhood. Moreover, each of the contiguous corner parcels adjacent to the Laurel/Whedbee intersection is subdivided. 2. Modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(i)(a). This section provides standards on the number of off-street parking spaces that are required. Based upon the requirements set forth in this section the existing residential unit at 431 East Laurel Street would require 3.75 parking spaces, which would result in 4 parking spaces. Currently there are no off-street parking spaces provided for the existing residential unit. Our records indicate that this has been the condition for at least the last io years. The southern area of the property was used by the church (adjacent to the property) for parking during services and other December 31, 2010 Mr. Ted Shepard Planning, Development and Transportation Services 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Project Description/Objectives 431 East Laurel Street — Rollins Subdivision Dear Mr. Shepard: The following documentation provides a description of the proposed Rollins Subdivision, the requested Modifications of Standard, the contextual setback, noted design compliance and additional information regarding the Conceptual Review, Staff Comments, dated June 8, 2009. Project Description/Objectives: The project is for a replat/subdivision of the property located at 431 East Laurel Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The replat would result in a 5,000 sq. ft. lot for the existing 431 East Laurel and a new 4,000 sq. ft. lot that would front to Whedbee Street. It is important to note that this property is a "corner" lot located at the southwest corner of Laurel and Whedbee Streets. It is the objective of the Rollins Subdivision to use the new parcel for residential use. Therefore if appropriate, the land use could be limited to residential uses. The following two Modification of Standards are being requested as part of the Subdivision: 1. A modification to Section 4.8(D)(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. • The proposed project is requesting a new lot of 4,000 square feet. 2. A modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for the existing home (duplex) at . 431 E Laurel. This standard requires the following minimum parking . spaces: One or less bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit Two bedrooms 1.75 spaces per unit Three bedrooms 2.0 spaces per unit. 515 521 1611 1 625 E9 633 741 3: w 721 �R M 51E v (D M w C'� CO w M Nco o 519 3( O C�O M 523 525 E MYRTLE ST 605 614 609 615 1611 617 620 621 1416 625 631 634 635 1 6391 637 650 330 E LAUREL ST 704 0 C41 707 710 711 714 715 718 722 il-A7-1 717 721 I(ol M Ol M 04 I M c-4 CV) c) CO 725 726,� Cs'l 729 730 E PLUM ST 805 O 1�3 LO 811 7l812 815 808 9 818 817 T' 820 f4821 7 1824 v E 825 7 830 C,)! _ C) cn m 04 1829 903 907 LOCUST ST 902 (n 12' v) r,- U) n 0) N M , M CO LO cn Cn 906 9101 Cq klmol w Cl (N 1 (0 0 1 l C, cq Cq M A col 21 'n 118 519 55 521 524 co 530 c F- - ]46MR7A I z 0 w w CD 712 M 0 w 716 _:2: 40 2 1 COT Cl NN VI IV 0 M Vil-ti 660. w607 812 809 816 815 818 817 820 1 i8 821 1824 1 1 1828 `xWrf 901 900 "tl 905 1 1 1 909 O OD 'C:1�4 'CN' C004 MO p—_- 9 Blocks - Lot Divisions 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Feet ATTACHMENT 4 518 5175191 518 522 521 524 525 530 528 1508 512 1 27 60'51, 608 610 609 614 613 618 615 622 621 626 630 629 634 635 638 637 642 639 646 .NN LO Ln CV LO C:� ug;0 w 0 UM) LO Lf) 0 LO LO C) O 716 715 720 721 722 727 500 5021 -662'.].509 gjc�RlLcQ[to 806 805 812 807 814 809 820 824 817 11%)%J 821 825 0 0 �!l LO— �� ,I (n 1 901 C> 1 0 III , I 905 W Ln Ln , '1 " w I Cl --t w N w 1 0 1 0 CO N N CM Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 601 160 604 610 612 616 620 624 630 634 700 ---1 704 708 U) 714 720 722 724 726E 61 600 F 61 61 � C� � 0'('Ot I CE M Legend N Subject Site Divided Comer Lots The Request for Modification to allow a 4,000 square foot lot meets the 49 criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) as conditioned by Staff. The Request for Modification to allow zero off-street parking spaces on Lot One is recommended by Staff to require two off-street parking spaces and conditioned such that adequate screening is provided for the benefit of 425 East Laurel Street. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 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. Go2. 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. 09 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. 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. 14 building. The pictures look south and demonstrate the relationship of the 40 proposed ten foot setback, as indicated by the westerly painted white line, and the existing church. Since the future 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. 69 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of 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. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: 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. 13 40 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 40 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 goproperty line of Lot Two and the proposed ten foot setback with the church 12 40 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. Staff Recommendation and Finding of Fact: Staff recommends approval of 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), Staff 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. 7�j (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 40 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 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. 40 Further, for the existing duplex, there would be 80 feet of frontage along 10 blocks include multi -family dwellings and one public high school. The Go 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. Staff Recommendation and Finding of Fact: Staff recommends approval of 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), Staff 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 40 subject to the condition that the maximum allowable floor -to - area ratio be reduced from the allowable 0.50 to 0.40. W 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 defined by the standards below. 9 balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for Go 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 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. 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 Mof lots at least 1,000 square feet below the 5,000 square feet. Further, the nine 8 0 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 two property owners is attached. In general, the dialogue among the citizens, applicant and City have been productive and respectful. Issues related to property maintenance and tenant behavior, while important, are not matters that can be directly addressed by the Land Use Code. 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 floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open W 40 Q. Section 4.8(F)(6) — Parking In Rear 40 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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and 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. 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. 51 as K. Section 4.8(F)(d) — Second Floor Overhang Prohibition go This standard requires that the second floor not overhang the front or side exterior walls of a new building. The applicant has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and 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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be. met and 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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and 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. 0. Section 4. B(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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and 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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review. 5 i 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 has stated compliance with this standard will be met and exceeded by providing a 20 foot rear yard setback to be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review. 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 has stated that compliance with this standard will be met and there would not be any portion of a wall that exceeds 18 feet in height. This will be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review. H. Section 4.8(E)(5) — Maximum Building Height 0 This standard limits the maximum height to 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. I. 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 has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and 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 applicant has indicated that compliance with this standard will be met and demonstrated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review. 2 so the review process is as comprehensive as possible for consideration by the Hearing Officer. This is preferable versus waiting for application for Building Permit / Basic Development Review at which time Modifications of Standard would then be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals. B. Section 4.8(D)(1) — DensityAntensity 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 40 floor -to -area ratio of 0.33 would result in a maximum of 660 square feet. The applicant has stated that this standard can be achieved and will be evaluated at the time of Building Permit / Basic Development Review. L i] 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. E. Section 4.8(E)(2) — Minimum Front Yard Setback 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 matching 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. 3 pertaining to minimum lot size and number of off-street parking spaces. A Contextual Setback is proposed for the front yard along Whedbee Street. Conditions of approval are recommended in association with these requests. There has been significant neighborhood input provided to the Current Planning Department and these concerns have been considered. A final condition of approval relates to providing sufficient documents at Final Compliance in order for the project to proceed to the next step. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-M; Single Family Detached Dwelling N W C S: N-C-M; Place of Worship E: N-C-M: Single Family Detached Dwelling W: N-C-M: Single Family Detached Dwelling 2. Zoning History: 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. 3. Compliance with N-C-M Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.8(B)(3)(a)1. — Permitted Uses The applicant has stated that the purpose of the Replat is to create a new lot for a single family detached dwelling which is a permitted use subject to Basic Development Review. This will be the review process at the time the applicant seeks a Building Permit. It is important to note that although two Modifications of Standard are being requested in conjunction with this Replat, plans for the single family detached dwelling unit have not been submitted nor are being reviewed with this Mapplication. The two Modifications of Standard are being sought with the Replat 2 • PROJECT: 431 East Laurel Street, Replat, Project Development Plan, #30-10 APPLICANT: Homes By Campus, Inc. c/o Ruth Rollins P.O. Box 271262 Fort Collins, CO 80527 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to replat one existing lot, addressed as 431 East Laurel Street and containing 9,004 square feet, into two lots. Lot One would include the existing house (duplex) that fronts onto East Laurel Street and contain 5,004 square feet. Lot Two would be a vacant lot that would front onto Whedbee Street and contain 4,000 square feet. The existing east -west alley would form the south property line of proposed Lot Two. The applicant is requesting two Modifications of Standard. The first would allow Lot Two to contain 4,000 square feet versus the minimum required lot size of 5,000 square feet. The second would allow Lot One, which contains the existing duplex, to provide zero off-street parking spaces versus the minimum required 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. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the P.D.P. and Request for Two Modifications of Standard, subject to four conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street represents the first phase of a M project to ultimately construct a single family detached dwelling on a newly created lot. The Replat also includes two Requests for Modification of Standard 7_1 (9) This is a precedent —setting issue. If upheld, the decision of the hearing officer could open up potentially hundreds of corner lots in the East Side and West Side neighborhoods to similar minor subdivision and conversion contrary to established City policies and plans. (10) The hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the Code. Section 2-48 (b)(1). (11) The hearing officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. Section 2-48 (b)(2)(d). (12) The City staff planner involved in the subject application did not disclose a potential conflict of interest — the ownership of a similar lot which could be benefited by a favorable outcome. Dated this L0 day of February, 2011. APPELLANTS: 7 Will Huett — ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: Timothy J. Dow sq. The Dow Law Firm, LLC 0 Ci Plan: • "New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be designed to incorporate or improve upon essential positive qualities for residents, such as proportion and shape, pattern of buildings and yards, orientation to the street, and building materials and styles." (p.31) ■ "The character of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques." (p.117) ■ "...the City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with, an emphasis in protecting existing residential neighborhood character." (p.163-4) East Side Neighborhood Plan: ■ "Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings." (p.20) ■ "A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: scale; mass; building separation; building placement; building height; finish materials; and architectural style..." (p.23) ■ "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation." (p.23) ■ "Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height, and materials) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." (p.35) (8) The subject property previously received preferential treatment when, in 2005, it was permitted to be converted from single family to duplex use with no review. This change of use was allowed without meeting the Code requiring escape windows in habitable rooms or meeting the minimum number of off street parking spaces. Compounding the problem of this prior improperly allowed change of use, the result of the current decision as written allows the Applicant to ultimately convert this previous 9,000 sq. ft. lot from single family to ultimately as many as 4 units. • • • 40 Attorney for Appellants: Timothy J. Dow, Esq. The Dow Law Firm, LLC 323 S. College Ave., Ste. 7 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-498-9900 dow@dowlawfirm.com The attorney for the Appellants is the person authorized to receive, on behalf of all Appellants, any Notice required to be mailed by the City to the Appellants under the Code. The decision of the hearing officer is being appealed to City Council on the following grounds: (1) The hearing officer approved a requested Modification of Standard ("MOS" or "variance") allowing the subdivision of an existing 9,000 square foot lot into a 5,000 square foot lot (with existing residence) and a 4,000 square foot vacant lot. This is below the minimum standard of 5,000 square feet. The granting of the variance is detrimental to the public good and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Code and Council policy. (2) The hearing officer approved a MOS requiring only two off-street parking spaces, contrary to the requirements of the Code. (3) The hearing officer committed error in failing to apply the standards for contextual front setbacks as required by the Code. Contextual front setbacks are to be evaluated within the surrounding residential neighborhood, not simply as compared to an adjacent nonresidential structure. (4) The hearing officer failed to admit relevant evidence regarding the generally accepted definition of contextual setbacks in nationally registered historical districts, specifically a letter outlining the issue from the Colorado Historical Society. The subject property is located in the Laurel School Historical District. (5) The hearing officer failed to require, as a part of his approval of the MOS, a deed restriction on the newly created 4,000 square foot lot allowing only one residential unit on said lot. (6) The hearing officer failed to properly consider the opposition of over 100 residents of the surrounding neighborhood who signed a petition opposing the variance requests of the Applicant. (7) The decision of the hearing officer is contrary to Council policies contained in City Plan 2004 and in the East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1986 including without limitation: • • 40 Project Name: Case Number: AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 431 E Laurel Street Project Development Plan #30-10 Applicant: Homes By Campus, Inc. c/o Ruth Rollins P.O. Box 271262 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Owner: Hearing Officer: Hearing Date: Date of Decision: Appellants: Same Richard V. Lopez (in lieu of Planning and Zoning Board) January 12, 2011 January 25, 2011 J. Stephen Mack 420 East Laurel Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-5103 SmackFCnnv,_aol.com Lisa Demberg 425 East Laurel Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 818-261-9355 L i sa. demberg(R gma i l. co m Terry Opgenorth 646 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-631-8390 tjoterryfa�amail.com RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2011 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Jean Foley 717 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-988-9842 jfolevftc@jzmaii.com Will Huett 645 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-232-9833 huettwi1()comcast.corn The Appellants are all property owners in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Lisa Demberg owns a residence and lives next door to the subject property. Steve Mack owns a residence and lives across the street from the property. • 0 March 22, 2011 -7- ITEM 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and charter, and after consideration, either: 1. Remand the decision to the Hearing Officer if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or 2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Hearing Officer's decision; or 3. Remand the decision to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal." ATTACHMENTS 1. Notice of Appeal Hearing 2. Amended Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report provided to Hearing Officer 4. Map - 9 Blocks - Lot Divisions 5. Applicant's Submittal Documents to the City of Fort Collins 6. Letters and emails from citizens to the Hearing Officer prior to January 12, 2011 Hearing 7. Materials submitted by appellant J. Stephan Mack to Hearing Officer 8. Hearing Officer Amended Findings, Conclusions and Decision including: - Summary of Public Testimony by Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner - Public Hearing Record and Summary Log of Citizen Participation - Public Hearing sign-up sheet - Petition submitted to Hearing Officer at the January 12, 2011 Hearing 9. Powerpoint presentation March 2011 9. Appellants' Allegation (9) — Setting a Precedent ITEM 5 The appellants allege that this is a precedent —setting issue and that if upheld, the decision of the Hearing Officer could open up potentially hundreds ofcomerlots in the East Side and West Side neighborhoods to similarminor subdivisions and conversions contrary to established City policies and plans. Staff Response With regard to the potential of setting a precedent for future land divisions, there is no specific allegation or reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. As with any future Request for Modification, evaluation and consideration would be required to be on the individual merits based on the specific criteria stated in Section 2.8.2(H). 10. Appellants' Allegation (10) — Code Interpretation The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the Code. Staff Response The appellants do not list any specific Code provisions that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply. There is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 11. Appellants' Allegation (11) — Fair Hearing The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. Staff Response The appellants do not list any specific examples of how the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. There is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. 12. Appellants' Allegation (12) — Conflict of Interest The appellants allege that the City staff planner involved in the subject application did not disclose a potential conflict of interest— the ownership of a similar lot which could be benefitted by a favorable outcome. Staff Response Again, it is not clear what is being alleged. There is no specific allegation that the Hearing Officer either failed to interpret and apply a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing. Any allegation of a staff conflict of interest should have been filed with the City Clerk or City Attorney's Office as such an allegation would not be covered by the Land Use Code and therefore, should not be included as part of Appeal of the record of public hearing for P.D.P. Further, no evidence is offered supporting the allegation. As to the claim, the staff planner owns a corner lot. This lot, however, is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood which contains significantly different land use regulations than the N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. For example, the L-M-N zone does not contain any regulations as to minimum lot size or maximum floor -to -area ratio. The claim is found to be unrelated to 431 East Laurel Street P.D.P., not supported by the record and totally without merit. March 22, 2011 -5- ITEM 5 Staff Response City Plan recognizes the value of stable residential neighborhoods. The N-C-M zone district was established to implement the City Plan and these policies are manifested in the form of permitted uses and development standards. With regard to the policies citied by the appellants, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that a new house on Lot Two, especially as conditioned by the Hearing Officer not to exceed 0.40 floor -to -area ratio (including garage), would not be designed to comply with the proportion, shape, street orientation as found in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant offered, by way of example, numerous corner lots that have been similarly divided such that the new lot is 4,000 square feet or less. No evidence is offered indicating that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. (b) East Side Neighborhood Plan • Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings," (p. 20) • "A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: scale; mass; building separation; building placement; building height, finish materials; and architectural style..."(p. 23) • "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation." (p. 23) • "Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height, and material(s) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood_" (p. 35) Staff Response There is no evidence to suggest that a new house on Lot Two would not respect the character and architectural style of the neighborhood. The request to divide the existing lot is not a change of use. Neighborhood stability is more typically impacted by rezonings or changes of use, not the addition of a single family detached house. The applicant presented into the record an example of the type of house contemplated for Lot Two. This example, while illustrative only, indicates that the applicant has been encouraged to take care that exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height and materials) would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, no evidence is offered indicating that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 8. Appellants' Allegation (8) — Potential Conversion to Four-Plex The appellants allege that the subject property received preferential treatment over the past years with regard to conversion to a duplex. And, potentially, this 9, 000 square foot lot could, ultimately, contain up to four units. Staff Response With regard to the conversion of the existing house into a duplex, the Hearing Officer never indicated that such conversion factored into his decision. There is no specific allegation or reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in the consideration of 431 East Laurel Project Development Plan #30-10. With regard to the potential of a duplex being constructed on Lot Two, such a request would be required to comply with all pertinent standards of the Land Use Code, as would any of the other permitted uses allowed in the N-C-M zone as part of a Basic Development Review. The list of allowable uses is stated in Section 4.8(B) of the Land Use Code and not at issue. March 22, 2011 -4- ITEM 5 5. Appellants' Allegation (5) — Deed Restriction The appellants state that the Hearing Officer failed to require, as part of his approval of the Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, a deed restriction that would mandate only one residential unit, versus a duplex, on Lot Two. Staff Response It is not clear what is being alleged. There is no reference to either a failure to interpret and apply a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing. Generally speaking, land use regulation and zoning enforcement are based on the various codes as specifically adopted by the City Council by Ordinance. In order to meet the objectives of rational land use regulatory system, City Council relies upon the various adopted codes and not on deed restrictions. If there is a valid public purpose to a regulation, then it is found in an Ordinance and applied equally across the entire City. Applying deed restrictions to individual properties on a case -by -case basis has never been the practice of the City of Fort Collins. As to the allegation, there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to interpret and'apply a relevant code provision and did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. 6. Appellants' Allegation (6) - Petition The Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the opposition of over 100 residents of the surrounding neighborhood who signed a petition opposing the Modification requests of the applicant. Staff Response There is no evidence in the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider opposition to the Requests for Modification. In fact, the Hearing Officer's decision includes a detailed discussion of each Modification. For example, for the Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, the Hearing Officer added a condition of approval that the maximum allowable floor -to -area ratio shall be reduced from 0.50 to 0.40. Similarly, for the Modification pertaining to the number of off-street parking spaces, the Hearing Officer denied the request to provide zero spaces. Instead, the Hearing Officer required the provision of two spaces and further conditioned that such spaces be adequately screened. These two conditions are evidence that the Hearing Officer did in fact consider testimony opposing the two Modifications. Further, the Hearing Officer accepted into the record the petition and considered the public testimony of 29 speakers. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with regard to considering opposition to the two Requests for Modification. 7. Appellants' Allegation (7) — City Plan and Sub -Area Plan The appellants allege that decision of the Hearing Officer is contrary to Council policies contained in (a) City Plan 2004 and (b) in the East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1986. (a) City Plan: • "New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be designed to incorporate or improve upon essential positive qualities for residents, such as proportion and shape, pattern of buildings and yards, orientation to the street, and building materials and styles."(p. 31) • "The character of stable residential neighborhoods should,be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques."(p. 117) • "... The City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with an emphasis in protecting existing residential neighborhood character." (p. 163-4) March 22, 2011 -3- ITEM 5 property, preserves this expectation for the neighborhood. Two on -street parking spaces, distributed along two street frontages, is a normal practice and commonly accepted. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code the granting of the Modification is not detrimental to the public good. 3. Appellants' Allegation (3) —Lot Two -Contextual Front Setback The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer committed an error in failing to apply the standards for the contextual front setback as required by the Land Use Code. Contextual front setbacks are to be evaluated within the surrounding residential neighborhood, not simply as compared to an adjacent non-residential structure. Staff Response The standard is clear. The standard states in two separate clauses, the following: "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." The standard explains how to determine the context. It is precisely twice stated that the context is the abutting lot that is oriented to the same street. In the case of 431 East Laurel Street Lot Two, there is only one abutting lot that is oriented to Whedbee Street, which is the church. The context is not the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Hearing Officer correctly evaluated the request for a contextual front setback and established that the setback shall match the church. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code. 4. Appellants' Allegation (4) — Lot Two — Contextual Front Setback The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to admit relevant evidence regarding the generally accepted definition of contextual setbacks, specifically a letter outlining the issue from the Colorado Historical Society. Staff Response The Hearing Officer did not fail to admit evidence. In fact, the Hearing Officer did indeed accept into the record correspondence from Mr. Roger Reed (Attachment 7). This correspondence consisted of a fax cover sheet followed by two photo copied pages from a document titled "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties". Page one is title page and page two is a list of recommended and not recommended practices titled "Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features." Historic preservation standards are found in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Article Three of the Land Use Code contains general provisions that are applicable on a citywide basis and not zone specific. Section 3.1.1 is the applicability statement for Article Three and explicitly exempts single family dwellings from the purview of Article Three when such homes are permitted as an allowable use subject Basic Development Review per Article Four N-C-M zoning. For example, a new single family detached dwelling was constructed at 805 Smith Street and was not subjected to historic preservation review. Further, there have been numerous additions and garages constructed in the neighborhood that have not be so reviewed. Such would also be the case with the future review of a new house on Lot Two of 431 East Laurel Street Subdivision. The Hearing Officer considered both the written (attached) and verbal testimony of the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Planner. The written testimony states: "There is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation .review of the subdivision of land or setbacks." Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to admit relevant evidence and did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with regard to the evaluation, decision and condition of approval of the front setback along Whedbee Street. March 22, 2011 -2- ITEM 5 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. 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. Questions Council Needs to Answer Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant laws? 2. Did the Hearing Officer fail to hold a fair hearing? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL Appellants' Allegation (1) — Lot Two — 4,000 Square Feet The appellants state the granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to allow a 4,000 square foot lot is detrimental to the public good and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Code. Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code. Staff Response During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted 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;.and (3) public testimony during the hearing by 29 speakers; 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 Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by the applicant describing the context of the neighborhood (defined as the subject Block 157 and the surrounding eight blocks - see Attachment 4) that includes a significant number of subdivided corner lots. For example, the lot directly across the street to the east contains a house on 3,600 square feet. In addition, the other three legs of the Whedbee Street / East Laurel Street intersection already contain sub -divided corner lots. The Hearing Officer concluded that the platting of one additional lot, at 4,000 square feet, would not be detrimental to the public good. In orderto mitigate concerns regarding the size of the future house, the Hearing Officer conditioned the approval of the Modification such that the house would be held to a maximum floor -to -area ratio of 0.40 versus the allowable 0.50 (including garage). 2. Appellants' Allegation (2) — Lot One - Number of Parking Spaces The appellants state that granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to reduce the number of parking spaces for Lot One from four to two was contrary to the requirements of the Land Use Code. Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code. Staff Response The Hearing Officer inspected the site and the surrounding area and determined that two off-street spaces and two on -street spaces represented a fair and reasonable compromise. There is a fire hydrant and bus stop along the street frontage of the subject lot. Still, for the duplex (Lot One) there remains 50 feet of street frontage along East Laurel Street. For Lot Two, the bus stop is not protected by signage or red curbing and there is sufficient area for two on - street parking spaces. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of both on -street and off-street parking. The purpose of the standard is to not create unnecessary competition for on -street parking. While it is not explicitly stated in the Land Use Code or City Code, there is an implicit expectation in neighborhoods that one can park a car on the street in front of one's house. The Modification granted by the Hearing Officer, and conditioned to require two parking spaces on the rDATE: March 22, 2011SUMMARY F: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS• Consideration of the Appeal of the Decision by Hearing Officer on January 25, 2011, Regarding the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, and Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 12, 2011, a public hearing was held to consider the project referred to as 431 East Laurel Street, Replat and Project Development Plan, #30-10. The Hearing Officer considered testimony from the applicant, public and staff. On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officer approved the project, subject to four conditions. On February 9, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office. On February 11, 2011, the City Clerk's Office notified the appellants that the Appeal contained certain deficiencies. On March 1, 2011, the appellants filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The project is a request to replat one existing lot, addressed as 431 East Laurel Street and containing 9,004 square feet, into two lots. Lot One would include the existing house (duplex) that fronts onto East Laurel Street and contain 5,004 square feet. Lot Two would be a vacant lot that would front onto Whedbee Street and contain 4,000 square feet. The existing east -west alley would form the south property line of proposed Lot Two. The applicant is requesting two Modifications of Standard. The first would allow Lot Two to contain 4,000 square feet versus the minimum required lot size of 5,000 square feet. The second would allow Lot One, which contains the existing duplex, to provide zero off-street parking spaces versus the minimum required 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. Since the project was submitted and at the request of the City's Technical Services Department, the name of the plat has been changed to the Rollins Subdivision. The request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street represents the first phase of a project to ultimately construct a single family detached dwelling on a newly created lot. A Contextual Setback is proposed for the front yard along Whedbee Street. Conditions of approval are recommended in association with these requests. A final condition of approval relates to providing sufficient documents at Final Compliance in order for the project to proceed to the next step. The Current Planning Department recommended approval of the P.D.P. and Request for Two Modifications of Standard, subject to four conditions. Action of the Hearing Officer On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officerapproved 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. Vl/ 1 L/ Lt711 14 { 17 LU: D. 1 •�-=� rvro nhi Lvu rout 01/ra Nalbad Pak OWN " U.E.O"aAonN of ON bKxfer "atonal Ra01s1er o1 Historic Pliso" Natbmal Histono landmta*s Pf"fam (osfioo location) 1201 Eye Street, NW Btu Floor Waohington, DC 20005 UspS maiNfq oddraas 1649 C BOON, NW (22E0) - WaahingtM OC 20240 202f35&2210f2211 phaha 202/d71-222616447 fox National Register of Historic Places,. National Historic Landmarks -Program Fax ,o: V 114. t:c� Fa:mmhec 17V, y% From: pe g ei /7e eJl oaa: (� jiz 12411 Pago$tofouew: Common": / ExPENIENGL YOUR 4NGRIL'A The NBW.11 po Urvice UM fa 4�1 � sove0 hY the AmariGn PeoDk 4o tAet all meT experenco o n ver ge.