HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST PDP - APPEAL OF H.O. DECISION - PDP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL DOCUMENTSAppeal (Amended) of Hearing Officer's Decision for the District at Campus West, PDP 120003, Public Hearing
Date of Action: May 7, 2012
Section 3.5.1 (D) Buildin¢ and Project Compatibility — Privacy Considerations
Privacy was a major concern voiced by residents of the sorority house located directly north of the proposed
project's 5 story, Building 3. In our view, the Hearing Officer discounted the concern by suggesting that
residents in both facilities will need to pull their window shades down and be responsible for their own conduct
which hardly addresses suggestions for mitigation as provided in this section of the code. Considering that the
sorority house is currently not air-conditioned, residents at this facility will need to open their windows in order
to cool their rooms. Such cooling will be impossible to achieve if the shades are constantly drawn. Issues of
safety and security for the women residents of the sorority will be created.
Section 3.5.1 (G) Building and Project Compatibility — Views
This section of the Code provides for structures which will not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality
of desirable views. During the hearing process, we provided film footage of the "in your face" view that
residents in our properties will experience when they walk out of their units and view the parking garage being
proposed. We feel that such a view is not likely what the developers of City Plan envisioned for residents living
in mixed residential type neighborhoods.
Section 3.2.3(D) Shading versus Section 3.5.1 (G)(1)(a)(2) Shadowing
Page 8 of the Hearing Officer's report discusses Section 3.2.3(D) of the Code and argues that provisions for
mitigation of shading do not apply to any development located in zones determined to be Community
Commercial. And, on page 19 the Hearing Officer concludes that "Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)
(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with.
shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2) duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). " We contest this conclusion. While
we acknowledge provisions stated in Section 3.2.3(1)), our opinion is that project buildings still must comply
with Section 3.5.1(G), and that they are not "duplicates".
The failure of both City Staff and the Hearing Officer to apply this section of the Code is of critical importance,
and sets a significant precedent for all future development in the Campus West area. The appellants are of
the opinion that it was not, nor does it continue to be, the true intent of City Plan to allow massive, marginally
compatible developments into areas of mixed residential use which will produce such prolonged, extensive, and
undesirable impacts of shadowing on close neighbors that this project, as currently designed, will cause.
Shadowing studies presented by the appellants and corroborated by similar studies completed and presented by
the developer indicate that the project, as proposed, is in violation of Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2). It is a fact that
Building 3, which towers at 67 feet in parts, will shadow the windows, gardens, and parking lot of the ZTA
sorority at high noon from mid -October until mid -February, far more than 3 months of the year. Additionally,
portions of the Sunstone condos and the parking lot will also be shaded for more than 3 months creating
accumulations of ice and snow and increased removal costs and safety hazards for the residents. During the
hearings, the appellants also expressed concern on the impact of this prolonged shadowing on existing
shrubbery, but no mention of this concern was identified in the Hearing Officer's report.
2
Appeal (Amended) of Hearing Officer's Decision for the District at Campus West, PDP 120003, Public Hearing
Date of Action: May 7, 2012
Applicable sections of the Fort Collins Land Use Code which the appellants believe have been misinterpreted or
not appropriately considered by the Hearing Officer and/or City Staff, and upon which this appeal is based are:
Section 3.5.1 (B) Building and Project Compatibility — Architectural Character
This section of the Code provides direction for proposed developments in areas where there is a variety of
established architectural character. Specifically the Code states that new developments must be complimentary
in nature, and must set an "enhanced standard of quality" for future projects or redevelopment in the area. City
Staff analysis detailed on page 14 of the Hearing Report attempts to suggest that a "high level of articulation"
coupled with such mitigations of recesses and projections and other architectural features, including overhangs,
etc. will provide both horizontal and vertical relief. This is correct if one only considers the view of the
proposed development by standing on Plum Street and looking northward. However, if one carefully reviews
the project development plans from a southward looking perspective, limited building articulation or other
architectural mitigations are seen to be incorporated in any of the 3 proposed development buildings. Our belief
is that the intent of this section of the Code was to apply to all sides of the proposed development that will be
viewed by all adjacent neighbors, and not to limit architectural mitigation techniques to only those sides of
buildings that will enhance "curb appeal". In other words, the Code does not allow the project developer to pick
and choose which sides of the buildings he/she wishes to apply architectural mitigations to. As such, we feel
the Hearing Officer's opinion and the City Staff analysis considered only part of the proposed development's
physical structure and did not fully consider impacts on neighboring properties to the north that will either be
created by the limited use of mitigation techniques on the north side of Buildings 1 and 3, or, in consideration of
the parking structure (Bldg 2), a considerable lack of architectural character altogether. Therefore, we find the
Hearing Officer's conclusion that the proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments
sought by the standards to be significantly incomplete.
Section 3.5.1 (C) Building and Proj ect Compatibility — Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass Scale
We dispute the Hearing Officer's findings, and submit that his response failed to address this specific Code
section but rather repeated his answer to Architectural Character concerns discussed earlier. We strongly feel
that the mass and scale of the proposed project is far from being compatible or complimentary with surrounding
properties in terms of both height and sheer size of the buildings. If one closely examines surrounding structures
in relation to their relative heights, there is no question that the proposed development will dwarf surrounding
properties. Most of the properties are in the 25-35 foot height range, and none approach the 63 foot levels of
buildings in the proposed project. City Staff analysis states that "there are no large, massive, blank walls." We
take exception with this statement in that a close examination of the plans related to the north face of Building
2, the parking structure, suggest just the opposite. No articulation of these walls can be found. This section of
the Code is also very clear as it states "Buildings. shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any,
on the same block face..." A picture of "Infill Buildings" is also provided in the Code to emphasize the intent
of subdividing structures in order to guard against massing and promote better compatibility with surrounding
projects. All of the surrounding housing projects contain multiple units with ample green space between
buildings. The proposed project is comprised of 2 huge buildings and one massive parking garage. Therefore,
we cannot agree that "the P.D.P meets this standard" as determined by the Hearing Officer.
it
Appellants:
Appellants:
Signature
Signature
Name tom— c
Name
Address /(��jq,PBo/�au�c� i�2
Address
Phone 97b ZZ sus 5%
Phone
Date 5-2e-12—
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone.
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Name
Name
Address
Address
Phone
Phone
Date
Date
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
City of Fort Collins
March 2012
Please describe the nature of the relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the
Board, Commission or other Decision Maker: 1. Robert M. (Bob) Meyer serves as current
President of the Sunstone Condominium Homeowners Association, Buildings C&D. He is also
an owner of 1 unit at the condo complex. 2. Tim Erickson is a current owner of a unit in the
Sunstone Condominium Association. 3. Alicia Davies is a current owner of a unit in the
Sunstone Condominium Association. Other attached pages identify condo residents/owners of
other units in either Sunstone Condominiums or Campus West Condos.
If appellant has alleged that the decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that
was substantially false or grossly misleading, describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of this allegation. NO NEW EVIDENCE WILL
BE RECEIVED AT THE HEARING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION UNLESS IT IS
EITHER DESCRIBED BELOW OR OFFERED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED
BY COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE HEARING.
�Qa
Action Being Appealed: Hearing Officer's Decision for The District at
Development Plan, #PDP120003 Public Hearing
Other Decision Maker: Richard V. Lopez, Hearing Officer
7, 2012
Grounds for Appeal (U all that apply):
MAY 2 2 2Q32
The board, commission or other decision maker committed one (16cuTt1�ERK f the
S OFFICE following errors: �� �� YY GG
® Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the
Land Use Code and Charter.List Code and/or Charter sections (by section
number only) below: (Applicable sections listed in first paragraph of attached
snmmarv)
LO Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
LM The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
i a The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its
previously established rules of procedure;
The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading; or
The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to
receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.
(For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in tl
•ecord which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 1
Joint font. Please restate allegation at top of first nape of each summary.)
Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant):
Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all
appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants regarding the City Attorney's review of the notice
of appeal (City Code Section 2-50).
Robert M (Bob) Meyer
1600 Scarborough Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Home phone (970) 224-5430
Position: President, Sunstone Condominium Association, Bldgs C & D
Email: frconsan.gmail.com