The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTONER SUBDIVISION, LOT 2 MAJOR AMENDMENT - OBERMANN RESIDENCE - FDP130045 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1 12/19/2013 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX CITY OF FORT COLLINS TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS AND DECISION HEARING DATE: December 5, 2013 PROJECT NAME: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment CASE NUMBER: MJA #130045 APPLICANT: Aubrey Carson Carson Design Studio LLC 413 Cormorant Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Greg and Kathy Obermann 2215 45 th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment ("MJA") to Lot 2 of the two-lot Stoner Subdivision, located at 1017 W. Magnolia Street. The MJA would change the previously approved building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2. The MJA proposes a two-story single family residence of 2,051 square feet on the 6,667 square-foot lot. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved ZONE DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L) HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. on December 5, 2013, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; and (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant. The Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's formally promulgated polices are all additional evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing: From the City: Jason Holland, Ted Shepard From the Applicant: Steve Whittall, Aubrey Carson From the Public: Baron Jacob Locksman, Tavita Silverstein, Andre Muton, Meg Dunn, Marci Silverstein, Michelle Hafely, Beth Edens, Brett Pavel, Jim Kramer, Sean Dougherty, Laura Olive, Barbara Haynes 2 12/19/2013 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX FINDINGS 1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. 2. The MJA complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 3 of the Code. a. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because the plans include two new street trees of sizes that exceed the minimum requirements, and the tree replacement and mitigation plan was approved by the City Forester. b. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c), Required Off-Street Parking, because the MJA includes at least one off-street parking space per lot. c. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid- century ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes. The Staff Report states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the evidence presented during the hearing by both the applicant and the City simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established . . . the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in this area is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1. d. The MJA complies with Section 3.5.2(D)(3), Setbacks, because the existing garage exceeds the minimum setback. 3 12/19/2013 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX e. The MJA complies with Section 3.6.2.(J)(2), Public Alleys, because a Modification of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the site. 3. The MJA complies with the applicable standards in Article 4 of the Code for the N-C-L zone district. a. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design which does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 4.7(A). b. The MJA complies with Section 4.21(B)(2)(a), Permitted Land Uses, because the new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the N-C-L zone district. c. The MJA complies with Section 4.5(D)(1)(a), Density, because both lots are below the maximum floor-to-lot ratio, and the two lots both exceed 6,000 square feet in size. d. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(4), Accessory Buildings without Habitable Space, because the total floor area of the existing garage does not exceed 600 square feet. e. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio, because the maximum FAR does not exceed 0.25 on the rear 50% of either lot. f. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(1), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Lot Width, because the lot is approximately 72' wide. g. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(2), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Front Yard Setback, because the lot is set back more than 15' from the street. h. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(3), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Rear Yard Setback, because the existing garage is a legal nonconforming building. i. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(4), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Side Yard Setback, because the new dwelling and existing garage exceed the minimum setbacks. j. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(5), Dimensional Standards, Maximum Building Height, because none of the buildings exceed two stories. 4 12/19/2013 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX k. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(1), Development Standards, Building Design, because the buildings are constructed at right angles to the lot, the primary entrances are located on the front wall of the buildings, the accessory building is located at least 10 feet behind the principal building, the second floor of each building does not overhang the lower front or side of the building, the front porch is limited to one story and the roof pitches are between 2:12 and 12:12. l. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(2)(a), Development Standards, Building Height because the buildings are two stories. m. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(4), Development Standards, Landscape/Hardscape Material, because not more than 40% of either front yard will be covered with inorganic material. n. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(7), Development Standards, Subdividing Existing Lots, because a Modification of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the site. 4. At the hearing, the City requested that if the Hearing Officer approves the MJA, the Hearing Officer impose certain conditions relating to vested rights and applicable land use regulations. However, the Hearing Officer finds no authority in the Code to address or modify vested rights or applicable land use regulations in the context of a MJA request. The Code dictates how vested rights and land use regulations will apply to the MJA, and the Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction to alter those Code provisions or their applicability in this context. DECISION Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings: 1. The MJA is hereby approved as submitted. DATED this 17 th day of December, 2013. _____________________________________ Kendra L. Carberry Hearing Officer