Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 SOUTH SHERWOOD - NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW - 51-95 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSTo whom it may concern, ///y/ys This is in regards to the proposed development property at 620 South Sherwood. There are a number of concerns I would like to address during your evaluation process. First is the concern I have regarding the increase in traffic, congestion, parking and noise that will result due to an increase in the density of population as a result of a 4-plex being built at this location. The neighborhood already has a high amount of noise, congestion and traffic, problems we just don't need anymore of. . I also have a real concern about the quality of my life and the value of my property and how this will all be affected by a large complex right next door. I am concerned about the noise from the increased proximity of students next to our house, the trash they leave around and their intrusion into our backyard privacy. To have a large complex and parking area a few feet from my house and family will definitely be intrusive and will affect the quality of our lives and neighborhood. There is also a long standing concern about the owner of the property and his terrible record of lack of upkeep and maintenance on the current structure and property. Over an eight year period he has refused to provide any maintenance or repairs on any structures that border our properties not to mention the trees or grounds maintenance. Lawns, both front and back have never been maintained by him or his tenants resulting in a front lawn of dirt, never repaired concrete and knee high weeds in the back. At times, the trash and garbage have accumulated so badly that the city had to be called in to have it hauled away. All fence and tree maintenance over the years has been taken care of by me, usually as a rdsult'df'damages caused by his tenants. When receipts for my costs were presented to the owner through his tenants I never received compensations nor did the owner handle any repairs or upkeep himself. Over the years his tenants have damaged our property, threatened family members, thrown garbage into our yard, let their dogs run loose and in general have been a royal pain. When we would try to contact the owner about these problems he would never respond. This is not the type of property owner we look forward to having increase the size of his influence in our neighborhood. He has not been an asset to the area. Finally, I hope that during your review process you will consider putting into place some restrictions or conditions so that the character and quality of our neighborhood will not be unduly negatively affected by this new dwelling. Most of us homeowners enjoy where we live and the quality of life we enjoy. However, there are some real concerns about how this new structure will impact our lives and the quality of our neighborhood. Thank you for your considerations. �93N6) a- 6 �a � 2, EGG F o< <Luvt .l �Q a•c��-en We4 LA all Z • *,a r-W (ouxx `�Z bri ck � ct'' A I TACAMeRr Z O�im&"61 l Wel,� l-e,f7% �hax na, C,seertw i / �- 9?RC-FT FAC-F wl vVT?O9t4 SFNw (Try 6 ?.fr7tFPI-'/ $LyT# -r+ o*: rt tepr—> o Trh5 A;(VE • C N° o D t�sl6r1�OR•Noo�J . 1. A eoe7y wftw -tP� F W16,0 I #KTT dpioc o _, Notwithstanding the more fundamental comments on overall massing, here are some direct comments and questions on the revised application: (1) Are there projecting balconies in front of the french doors? Or is it a "faux" pattern flat on the facade? Projecting and recessed features are more consistent with the neighborhood; flat facades or "faux" features are less so. (2) How about de-emphasizing the pipes, and emphasizing the occupied areas, with articulation and massing? (i.e. create a narrower, recessed, maybe dark colored reveal; and frame occupied parts of the facade with integral brick features.) (3) How about roof forms that "cascade" or step down to a lower level next to the home on the north? Any such roof modulation could relate to different recessed and projecting building masses. (4) If the "eclectic" mix of facade details and materials is desired, it would be better used to differentiate ground level from upper level, as is typical of almost all traditional styles. Better yet, differentiate the massing and then relate any material changes to the massing. (5) The cornice treatment on the flat roof helps relate the flat roof to traditional styles found in older neighborhoods like this one, but it can not compensate for the impact of a full 2-story face -. on the adjacent property. (6) No criteria deal directly with this, but shouldn't a second -story planter box be under the window? (7) How about an element that gives the appearance of a base course or foundation to visually relate to that aspect of well -regarded traditional downtown housing? Or even raising the floor level slightly? R A-2.7 Architecture The LDGS states: "When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other, every effort should be made to create architectural compatibility through careful consideration of scale, form, materials, and colors." "Buildings can be made compatible through skillful design and careful orientation". "For example, the east and west side neighborhoods adjacent to downtown have developed a distinct historical character." The diagrams in A-2.7 illustrate the points The size of the monolithic 2-story face, the banks of windows overlooking the south side of the adjacent home, and the use of pipes as the only architectural detail, are not compatible with the intimate scale of spaces and building detailing which characterizes the neighborhood. The proposal in question resembles the diagrams of what to avoid under A-2.7. Regarding the question of whether consideration must be given to all existing structures in the area in determining architectural character: there's some room for the P&Z Board to interpret this, but I contend that the emphasis should be on the positive qualities of existing structures and the neighborhood, and on the most relevant impacts of any proposed changes in character -- in this case the greatest impacts would be on houses to the north, and not on the apartment building to the south; and the houses to the north also represent the positive defining qualities of the neighborhood better than the three modern replacements cited in the applicants letter. Despite the above interpretation of LDGS Criteria as a clear basis for denial, I would like to pass along a general comments that I believe it would readily be possible for a designer or architect who is accustomed to design in context, to design a larger, multi -unit building that doesn't introduce massive or monolithic effects in building mass, or overbearing windows facing down and into the home to the north, and that creates a skillful, appropriate transition from the home on the north to the apartment building on the south as well as a street face that continues the well regarded public qualities of the neighborhood. Some 1-%s story massing and sloping roofs could be included, possibly with some stepped articulation in the forms, up to 2-story massing on the south. All of these features could be based on sun angles and views into the windows and side yard of the home to the north. Windows could be recessed, made smaller, or otherwise made more discreet and less dominant, in combination with very carefully selected upright evergreen trees and other landscape elements to enhance privacy with respect to both windows and outdoor spaces. I believe the applicant once suggested other possible ways to break up the mass into appropriate proportions, such as with separate outbuildings. Such articulated massing could possibly integrate the spruce trees as a major feature that mitigates the mass. However it's done,. a fine scale of massing and detailing is indeed the objective given the relatively intimate scale of the neighborhood. Also, it would be easily possible to design a street facade that continues the pattern and rhythm of the most positive buildings in the neighborhood in terms of their appropriate character. Simply echo proportions, lines of windows, doorways, porches, bay windows, other projections and recesses, base courses, roof lines, roof shapes, eaves, details, and outdoor spaces. AT$cA4 m et4r l Clark Mapes Advance Planning Department 1 / 19/96 RE: 620 South Sherwood Application A - 2.2 Building Placement One of the two main purposes of a criterion for building placement and orientation is to "consider neighborhood character" in the arrangement of elements on the site. A letter in the application emphasizes the lack of character of the three nearby buildings which diminish the distinct neighborhood character, as the reason why this application is appropriate. Two of the modern redevelopments cited are on corners with Laurel Street, separated by alleys from the rest of their blocks. Corners are prominent focal points and gathering points with two street facades, all of which differentiates them the field of mid -block lots. I contend that this reduces their importance in comparison to the proposed application because if there is a logical place for domininant buildings that are disconnected from the overall pattern, it is along Laurel Street and at corners. But the fact remains that the neighborhood has had an architectural character that is clearly defined and established, for most of this century. The character has indeed been diluted by the past redevelopments cited by the applicant, particularly next door to the south, which do not incorporate basic proportions of building mass, roof shapes, facade design, patterns of massing and voids, projections and recesses, street facing doorways and windows, or other significant qualities of the neighborhood. In fact it would be easily understandable if the existing apartment building to the south is in fact contributing to the difficulty in maintaining the existing house at 620 as a viable residence, due to the overbearing presence and shading. This is often the course of what has been called "the domino effect" in the fall of historic neighborhoods. The line of reasoning that has led to the zoning variance request and to proposed deviation from the traditional established character, is backward. The assumption that a fourplex footprint extended upward into a monolithic box makes it unnecessary to consider the characteristics of the existing cottage style homes because Lhey aren't fourplexes, is not a valid assumption for us to work from. Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA I APPL1CASLE CRITE=G, ONLY IS :he c.-Gnarl lwii! the CjHj pcplieide7 be sati r jNo RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1M NORTH ELEVA71 1 . �i4-54 'S SiMJLAM =,5� S'JQQO , ExTcl"714 '4 L.b,r Stv"(, As TN blCA-Mb AP �kO IN L?. sr4f-O 0 RECEIVED JAN 2 2 IM6 SOUTH ELEVATION µcT C,1, EXc-TcZu� SuQF0.c£ Fi.+iiH B.O�r�V {ST.�cc.o i RECEIVED JAN 2 2 190,S RECEIVED JAN 2 1 6Si 32ick Ci•r217 RECC RECEIVE Issues Associated With THE 62o SOUTH SHERWOOD, NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW (Referral to the Planning and Zoning Board) 1. Compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, i.e. -adopted West Side Neighborhood Plan, Section 29-526.1) of the Land Development Guidance System U D(I All Development Criterion A-1.2 - Comprehensive Plan of the LDGS. 2. Compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.2 - Building Placement and Orientation of the LDGS. 3. Compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.7 - Architecture of the LDGS, relating to the bulk, scale, mass and architectural character of 'the proposed new four-plex building. 4. Compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.11 - Historic Resources of the LDGS. 5. Compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.13 -Landscape of the LDGS. relating to the proposed landscaping for the site. 'y J0 eC J ooP Lincoln Center G West Mulberry Street m +� a� CD .. m d N a ° West Myrtle .o Street y ° o CA N U L d O o - N 2 0 0 0 ° v) Cl) vs O N EE11 West Laurel Street COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY The Oval VICINITY MAP *5/-95 11/14/95 620 South Sherwood " N-C-B Site Plan Review 1"=300' Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 10 meeting the Code requirement. The parking area is located on the rear of the lot and will be accessed from the alley along the east side of the lot. Signage: The property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which is more restrictive than other districts. The Sign Code is administered by the City Zoning Department. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: The land use associated with the proposed four-plex is considered to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the perceived incompatibility comes from the bulk, scale, and mass of the building on this narrow lot, the proposed architectural intent being out of character with surrounding buildings in the area, placement and orientation of the building, and the lack of adequate landscaping to mitigate the more intensive use on this site from the surrounding neighborhood. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review request, staff makes the following findings of fact: It is considered to be in non-conformance with All Development Criteria A-1.2, A- 2.2, A-2.7, A-2.11, and A-2.13 of the LDGS. * It is considered to be non -conforming to, and does not meet, the intent of the WSN Plan, specifically relating to the LAND USE PLAN section (East Buffer Area; pages 3-14, 3-15, 3-16) of the neighborhood plan. * It is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which is more restrictive than other districts. The Sign Code is administered by the City Zoning Department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review - #51-95. Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 9 + roof lines, + proportions of glass to walls on street -facing side, + window and door treatments, + entry ways and structure setbacks, + proportion of wall width to wall height - primarily street -facing side; integrate street and alley accesses where alleys are available, - encourage larger projects to: + enhance pedestrian access and movement, + provide good landscaping that enhances the structure, + provide a multi -family open space requirement of 40%, + provide adequate street trees in cooperation with City programs. While the application does meet some of the policies set forth in the WSN Plan, staff believes that the four-plex as proposed is not in conformance with the overall intent of the plan based on the bulk, scale, and mass of the building on this narrow lot, the proposed architectural style being out of character with surrounding buildings in the area, placement and orientation of the building, and the lack of adequate landscaping to mitigate the more intensive use on this site from the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Design: Architecture: The applicant is proposing a 2-story, flat -roofed building that is 18' in height. Building materials will include wood lap -siding, stucco, and a brick veneer. This would be the only flat -roofed building in the 600 block of South Sherwood Street, if not within at least two blocks. Landscaping: See Criterion A-2.13 of the All Development Criteria of the LDGS section (above) of this staff report. Parking: All four of the dwelling units will contain 3 bedrooms. The City's Parking Code requires 2 parking spaces for each 3-bedroom unit. The proposed project provides 8 parking spaces, Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 8 require change of use to be compatible with the intent of the plan; allow conversions uses -- residential to commercial as follows: + multi -family - 4-plex maximum in same structure; + minimum of 600 square feet per unit (large efficiency or small 1- bedroom). The applicant has not considered the re -use of the existing house as part of this application. The proposal is for a new four-plex building, with each dwelling unit being approximately 1,100 square feet in size and containing 3 bedrooms. Staff believes that the new structure, as proposed, is not of a compatible style with the surrounding neighborhood. Encourage the rehabilitation of structures where appropriate. The applicant has not considered the re -use of the existing house as part of this application. Discourage demolitions unless the structures have deteriorated significantly. The applicant has not considered the re -use of the existing house as part of this application. Encourage redevelopment of marginal or vacant parcels at a residential scale and character. The proposed four-plex building is of a residential scale; however, staff believes that the bulk, scale, mass and architectural character of the building is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Encourage use of planned developments or the LDGS for proper site planning and institute design guidelines which: maintain similar setbacks for buildings - minimum is 20'; maintain compatible exterior architectural style with variations given the scale of the project: small projects (1 - 3 lots) should be very similar architecturally to surrounding uses; larger projects can be more innovative in terms of style and scale; be concerned in both size of projects with: + siding materials, Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Staff believes that this property is in a viablelvital neighborhood where the single family homes are still predominant and are maintained in good condition. LU-2 - Property values should be maintained through clearly stated and enforced regulations and guidelines for change. Use of the LDGS should be encouraged in transitional areas of the neighborhood but not in the stable residential core. This property is in the transitional East Buffer Area and the request has been evaluated against the All Development Criteria of the LDGS. The East Buffer Area is located between WSN and downtown. It should be a transition area between the residential portion of the neighborhood and high intensity uses of the downtown. The transition should be made in terms of the uses and scale of development that is encouraged through redevelopment. Encourage the following uses: single family, multi -family, boarding, rooming and "bed & breakfast' structures; second units such as basement apartments, carriage apartments or in-house apartments. The proposed four-plex (multi -family structure) is a permitted land use in the NCB Zoning District. Encourage conversion or changes of use from residential to business in residential structures or from single family to multi -family in the same structure. The proposal is for a new four-plex multi -family structure on the lot, requiring the demolition of an existing single family house. The applicant has not considered the re -use of the existing house as part of this application. Review criteria for conversions (re -use of existing residential structures) which. - meet off-street parking requirements; encourage preservation of existing structures where appropriate; offer compatible exterior and architectural style of renovated structures and new construction; Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 6 therefore, it is not considered to be in conformance with All Development Criterion A-2.13. West Side Neighborhood Plan: The purpose of this plan (adopted in July, 1989) is to preserve and enhance the neighborhood's quality of life and provide a guideline for future development of the neighborhood. It will be used by City government, neighborhood residents, and private developers to manage and shape the physical change that will occur in the future as the neighborhood continues to age and mature. The WSN Plan is an advisory document that has been adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The WSN is generally a stable and well -kept older residential neighborhood and should be conserved into the foreseeable future. Its age and condition of its existing structures complement the downtown providing a rich variety to the City. A defined buffer area would be useful between the residential portions and the downtown business district to provide a true mixed use transition area between the single family residential core and the higher intensity business uses of the downtown. Multi -family redevelopment should be encouraged in selected areas of the neighborhood to buffer the residential core from business uses and to provide housing opportunities for some residents. These selected areas are found along the north and south edges of the WSN and the downtown edge. New multi -family developments need to be reviewed under a set of design guidelines that integrate projects architecturally and from a site planning standpoint with the existing structures and layout fabric of the immediate vicinity. The LAND USE PLAN section of the WSN states that the land use pattern should be retained in order to further stabilize the neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life. The buffer transition areas should be defined and uses within them carefully regulated. General policies for the WSN are as follows: LU-1 - In conjunction with retaining and enhancing the existing land use now, new development and redevelopment will be encouraged only in selective areas where: physical deterioration exists; speculation and redevelopment have made it impossible to retain the existing character; Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Window patterns of existing buildings (size, height, number) should be repeated in new construction... ...and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street should be maintained. The dominant building material of existing buildings should be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but should maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. (Of the historic structures on the block, one is stuccoed and one is bricked.) A clear separation between the sidewalk and street and between the sidewalk and the site should be maintained by planting strips and yard space. The materials, details, form and scale that contribute to the historic significance of the neighborhood have been ignored. The design of the new building does not respect the roof lines of exist buildings. A-2.13 Landscape - Does the landscape plan contribute in a positive way to the project and to the neighborhood environment (1) by supporting functional needs such as spatial definition, visual screening, creation of privacy, and/or climate control, (2) by enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the site and neighborhood, and (3) by integrating with, and buffering the impact of the development upon, existing natural areas? The combined Site, Landscape, and Utility Plan as submitted shows existing trees and shrubs to be both retained and removed. Other than the 3 large Blue Spruce in the mid -section of the lot, it is somewhat difficult to determine what trees and shrubs are to be retained or removed. The only new plant materials being added to the site are 8 Buffalo Junipers along the foundation of the building on the north side. These are relatively low evergreen shrubs, maturing to approximately 18" in height. They will not provide any visual buffer to the new 2-story four-plex from the existing single family residence to the north. There will be eight windows (two for each dwelling unit) on the north elevation of the four-plex and the proposed landscaping does not provide for any privacy considerations between the properties. No landscaping is being provided on the Sherwood Street side of the building and the parking area (containing eight spaces) on the rear of the lot would contain only washed rock "landscaped" areas to the north and east. Staff believes that the plan as submitted does not contribute in a positive way to the project and the neighborhood environment. There is no spatial definition, visual screening, or creation of privacy with the plan, and it does not enhance the aesthetic appearance of the site and neighborhood; Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 4 attached memo from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department (Attachment 1). A-2.11 Historic Resources - If the project contains a site, structure or object that is determined to be eligible for local landmark designation or for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; or contains a site, structure, or object that is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National register of Historic Places; or is located within an officially designated historic district or area: Does the site and building design provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic resource? Does the site and building design protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the historic property? Do new buildings harmonize with the historic character of buildings on the site and with the surrounding neighborhood? The purpose of Criterion A-2.11 is to ensure that "new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and surrounding neighborhood." Staff believes that the proposal for redevelopment of the property at 620 South Sherwood Street does not respect the historic character of the site and surrounding neighborhood. An Historic Resources of Merit form was prepared comparing the property at 620 S. Sherwood Street with 38 other properties in the immediate vicinity. This neighborhood is a potentially eligible historic district under both National Register and Local Landmark criteria A and C, for its contributions to broad patterns of history and development, and for its vernacular "working-class" architecture. Of the 17 structures located in the 600 block of S. Sherwood Street, three are modern intrusions, one is considered non -historic because of its age (built 1959), and 13 are historic dwellings, built between 1878 and 1928. Specific statements in Criterion A-2.11 that staff believes this project fails to address or respect the historic character of the neighborhood are: - The height, setback and width of new buildings should be similar to those of existing buildings. - The pattern of spaces between buildings should be maintained. - Taller buildings or portions of buildings should be located interior to the site. - New buildings should be designed to be in character with existing structures, but not be an imitation of historic styles. (Emphasis added.) - Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands should be aligned with those of existing buildings to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 3 for an administrative hearing or Planning and Zoning Board hearing, whichever is applicable. The applicant, Mr. Cucarola, has requested that this item be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. Section 29-211 goes on to say that in conducting the review and making a decision, the Director of Planning or the Planning and Zoning Board shall determine whether the proposed development conforms to Section 29-526(D) - the All Development Criteria of the LDGS, the Design Standards for the neighborhood planning area, and the standards for any applicable historic district or structure. If the proposed development conforms, it shall be approved; if the proposed development does not conform, it shall be denied. Staff believes that the development proposal does not conform to All Development Criteria A-1.2, A-2.2, A-2.7, A-2.11, and A-2.13 of the LDGS. The non-conformance is discussed in further detail in the next section of this report. Design Standards and Guidelines for the West Side Neighborhood are currently being considered by the City but they have not yet been adopted. This property is not in a designated historic district and the structure itself does not have historic designation. The potential demolition of the structure is subject to the City's Demolition Ordinance, however, and must be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a later date. All Development Criteria of the LDGS: A-1.2 Comprehensive Plan - Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan? Staff believes that the development plan as submitted is in non-conformance with, and does not meet, the intent of the WSN Plan, specifically relating to the LAND USE PLAN section (East Buffer Area; pages 3-14, 3-15, 3-16) of the neighborhood plan. Also, the request does not conform to numerous All Development Criteria in the LDGS. A-2.2 Building Placement and Orientation - Are buildings and other site plan elements (such as fences and parking facilities) oriented on the lot in a way that is consistent with the established neighborhood character? Staffs concerns and reasons for determining that this development proposal is in non- conformance are expressed in an attached memo from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department (Attachment 1). A-2.7 Architecture - Is the architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses and activities that are planned and does it contribute to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way? Staffs concerns and reasons for determining that this development proposal is in non-conformance are expressed in an Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review, #51-95 March 25, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NCB; existing single family residential S: NCB; existing multi -family residential (Sherwood Greens Condominiums) E: NCB; existing single family residential W: NCB; existing single family residential The property is in the original Old Town Fort Collins that was platted in 1879. 2. Land Use: This is a referral of an NCB Site Plan Review for a request to demolish an existing residence and construct a new four-plex building on the property at 620 South Sherwood Street. The property is located west of South College Avenue, north of West Laurel Street, south of West Mulberry Street and is zoned NCB - Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. A diagram of the 600 block of South Sherwood Street is included as Attachment 2 to this staff report. The request has been evaluated against the City of Fort Collins Zoning Code, the All Development Criteria of the LDGS, and the adopted WSN Plan. Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District: The property is in the NCB Zoning District, which is for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -use areas or high traffic zones. Section 29-209(11)a of the Zoning Code states that multi -family dwellings up to four units which are to be constructed on a lot which contained a structure at the time of adoption of this Section are permitted in the District, provided that the intended uses are shown on a site plan submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning. There is an existing single family residence on the property that is in excess of 50 years old. Section 29-211 of the Zoning Code states that the permitted uses in Section 29- 209(11) shall require that a site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, and other supporting documentation complying with Section 29-526(G) - content of development submittals in the LDGS - be submitted to the Director of Planning. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director shall schedule the application ITEM NO. 13 MEETING DATE 3/25/96 STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Referral of the 620 South Sherwood Street, NCB Site Plan Review - #51-95 to the Planning and Zoning Board APPLICANT: Mark Cucarola Midwestern Homes of Colorado, Inc. P.O. Box 621815 Littleton, CO. 80126 OWNER: Same As Applicant PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a referral of an NCB Site Plan Review for a request to demolish an existing residence and construct a new four-plex building on the property at 620 South Sherwood Street. The property is located west of South College Avenue, north of West Laurel Street, south of West Mulberry Street and is zoned NCB - Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. RECOMMENDATION: Denial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for NCB Site Plan Review and approval: Is considered to be in non-conformance with All Development Criteria A-1.2, A-2.2, A-2.7, A-2.11, and A-2.13 of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS); is considered to be non -conforming to, and does not meet, the intent of the West Side Neighborhood Plan (WSN), specifically relating to the LAND USE PLAN section (East Buffer Area; pages 3-14, 3-15, 3-16) of the neighborhood plan. is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which is more restrictive than other districts. The Sign Code is administered by the City Zoning Department. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT