The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMAX FLATS PDP - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - PDP120034 - AGENDA - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGAppellants: Appellants: Signature Signature Name Name Address Address Phone Phone Date Date Signature ' Signature Name L _—r:,auj-- Wn��eTy Name Address 5pp-4wr 644,orati c-r, Address Phone IZ3•SS6( Phone Date (. A-f aI Zo i 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 Sign Up for Conceptual Review You meet with Swf to review your Q Proposal it help you your wines OOY*kpn*M Jump In With revew submmw Your Eyes �nm m/wv Sign Up for Prelim inary Wean a aee le 6N. Design Review d e � .w. �, Historic? pa. O SWncertrur eevessesw"h " = eln Is so a e oucha i - you to discuss convent & WponuNeee. r9r.l�IM'Neb� --' nror/woem inslist of =r4ng ollor lewee.3w 'Note aa Rr The tllreeler� Sim new Hop espoeee say fetal rae�r b otlmnwlt lrwe a" M. A neighborhood muting mq be npaed r tsa Darn m Cnr,nanan Submit vi Attend Staff Present at a Submit Final Attend Staff Sign APPII, a on Review PublicHaarinp Pions Review Development You aub ell eMw raw arevree: am n ear b eswse er oonneYrand t (Aeer�Yee q r II You wamn Winn new line) w wAwd a.n meeb m dleauw err mrrrrwr8r1 Agreement aerw� 0.. awm) R�nywr. You she (Rrv.rga eordl IYIr: N"w You Suffirrilksigned BA Is P+aeirNm°"wr qVid p �lyw :vei Nw aq,wl wlmrr .d �r��'ry'e1 lowmP nr.« enoeupWmrtrN nr rwlw er p,gry r; m .n.naY. wru are rnlewd Npo1e111Wr DRC.Voefkal ,.. eppy Record I..w. +—ee�, r wmtlw agelrK W ,�... Finale Mlore Goal Get your you", t proposer read' for Make Gor.'Got yore Make "tl' heenngf Revisions You propoeelreedyforow reconipl Revisions �m CRY � and for nkSri P - STPY STEP ow 1m�n� reoord� m)tars Mel hum cads gwrr, Go �' arc �r01^tYY W m"t Gres mre a.rmrrw e e wv s a.r am nresa�dY re. Pre" tithe ankpntiitMrM e DRC "re" Pee a dren a! a ox Bubmit AftplW"on :a'ir w�esrt.w l- Dl.w wa A Q 4 STgP -" , STEP An oN�,owns Development Review Flowchart 9 for ArA(XI w Aareem tDM M t„bsw im Daeruoean AC : D*,sk rant Rarbw C«M r,nn Boheduls BulldlnQQ Inapeogons Reeelva D= comficate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion 12 Grounds for Appeal: The board commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or At the P & Z Board Hearing, staff provided information to the board concerning why the hearing was held so soon after the required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, "caught in the middle", of a change in the L.U.C. This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the development submittal. It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to be reviewed as a type 2. It is surprising that the developer remained unaware due to the presence of his employee on the P & Z Board. The new L.U.C. change was in effect 8 days before the project was submitted. Attached is exhibit A showing a development review flowchart. According to the chart, a neighborhood meeting should have taken place in December 2012, or at the latest January 2013, not as it occurred on April 10, 2013. At the P & Z Board hearing it was noted that the major East, West, North and South elevations in their entirety were not shown. Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image in the form of a tree -framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major fagade was featured and left on the screen. The true representation of mass and scale of the project remains elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and avoided depiction of the reality of the project. The request We are not requesting that City Council deny approval of this project. We would like the Council to act to make this project better. We have, from the start of our awareness in January, been requesting a project that is more compatible with the neighborhood. It is our contention that this project fails to reinforce the identity of the district, fails to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and remains insensitive to its'extremely negative precedent setting effects. Grounds for Appeal: Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure; The board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure regarding the common practice length of time between when a neighborhood meeting takes place and the Planning and Zoning Hearing is held. The neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, April 10, 2013. The P & Z work session regarding the project was held less than 48 hours later on Friday. The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and indeed were unaware and uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to review this project at all or specifically was taking place the next day. Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at that work session where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe. Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter to proper expected procedure. This project is one of very high visibility. This is the first high density, student -oriented (97%), residential use complex proposed along the corridor north of Laurel Street. It sets the future tone for the Mason Street Corridor and the neighborhood. This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive elements, lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building mass. It does not relate to street and neighborhood. This project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its block -type form. The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so as it ignores how sensitive mass and form promote compatibility. Anneal of Max Flats 203 West Mulberry Street PDP 120034 Grounds for Appeal: Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Uses Code and Charter. Division 3.5 Building Standards subsection 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings Under Q Variation in Massing: A single, large, dominant building mass shall be avoided in new buildings..." "(1) Horizontal masses shall not exceed a height: width ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed elements. " The P and Z Board failed to discuss compatibility even though board member Carpenter suggested they do so after the 4 modifications of standards were addressed one at a time. The failure of this board to address compatibility was/is the number neighborhood concern. This project fails to meet compatibility standards. No change /substantial variation in building massing occurs across the East, South or West elevations. The proposed 5 story 56' high building at 240' in length along the major axis has a ratio of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block frontage. The newly, ( 2 days prior to the P & Z meeting), proposed step in the building height on the North elevation did fully depict how it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack of a West elevation. There is little or no visual effect from the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor to the major East or West elevations. Under (D) Character and Image subsection (2) Fagade Treatments 3 states "All sides of the building shall include materials and design characteristics consistent with those used on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited" Holding no discussion concerning project compatibility, the board failed to address the major neighborhood concern. Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood. No substantial projecting elements or substantial recessed elements of consequence occur to break up the block -like composition leading to the lack of architectural quality,(please see elevations). There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading elements brick and minimal enhanced features proposed as shown on the principal elevation. Division 3.5 Building Standards section 3.5.1 B Architectural Character states "New . developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing character is not definitively established or is not consistent with the purpose of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of qualityfor future projects or redevelopment in the area. " (C) Buildinz Size, Height, Bulb Mass, Scale "Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, iflarger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass the scale ofother structures, ifam, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. Action Being Appealed: Approval of thew Max Flats, at 203 West Mulberry Street 12C%'O3- Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker: Planning and Zoning Board Date of Action: April 18, 2013 1 Grounds for Appeal (✓ all that apply): The board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors: 0✓ 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: ❑✓ Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; ✓❑ 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 the record which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12 point font. Please restate allegation at top of first page 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 appetlants, 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). Bruce Froseth 524 Spring Canyon Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-689-0864 brucefroseth@msn.com RECEIVED MAY 2 2013 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE