HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING PDP - CITY COUNCIL APPEAL - PDP110018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - PUBLIC NOTICESummary #2 for Notice of Appeal, Aspen Heights Development Plan #110018:
Appellants allege a violation of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(A)(2)0) and (C) as
follows:
The proposed development will occur on a parcel of land which, with its adjacent parcel,
contains a prairie dog colony that exceeds 50 acres. Subsection (C) requires that the proposed
development plan restore or replace the resource value lost to the community (either on -site or
off -site.)
According to the Administrative Hearing Decision, in order to satisfy this requirement, the
developer will financially contribute to the restoration of property owned by the city of Fort
Collins Natural Areas Program. Specifically, the City will collect a restoration fee of $900.00 per
acre to be applied to the McKee Farm which is presently undergoing restoration, totaling
$27,900.00.
Appellants allege:
A. Contrary to the Administrative Hearing Decision, the value lost to the community is not
restored or replaced with a donation to McKee Farm for the following reasons:
I . McKee Farm currently maintains no prairie dog habitat and has no plans to accept prairie
dogs who need to be relocated from property within the city. Restoration of prairie, without
prairie dogs, is missing the point in this case, and thus subverts the intent of the code.
"Prairie," per se, is not listed as a "sensitive resource" by Section 3.4.1 and is implicitly not
of equal resource value.
2. We interpret the code to require a "like for like" replacement, or restoration of, the affected
habitat/colony, which would mean that a contiguous 50 acre parcel of land must be purchased
for a prairie dog colony of this size or, at a minimum, a similar size habitat should be created
on city land for prairie dogs to migrate to.
3. Furthermore, the language in 3.4.1(A)(2)(c), "Potential habitats and known locations of rare,
threatened, or endangered animals" would also apply to this site; a 50 acre prairie dog colony
is a "potential habitat" for the endangered black -footed ferret. Thus, a restoration or
replacement of this resource for endangered animals must include prairie dogs for the
"potential habitat" to be replaced. Additionally, burrowing owls often live in prairie dog
burrows, so loss of this site is a loss of "potential habitat" for this severely declining species
also.
B. The negotiated amount of $27,900.00 is inadequate and does not allow for a complete
replacement of [lie resource lost:
1. The cost to replace the resource is equal to the cost of purchasing a parcel of land large
enough to allow relocation of a 50 acre prairie dog colony. In Larimer County, such a parcel
of land, and its development into suitable habitat, would cost significantly more than
$27,900.00.
No Text
Summary #1 for Notice of Appeal, Aspen Heights Development Plan #110018:
Appellants allege a failure to conduct a fair hearing through failing to follow established
procedure, in violation of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.2.6(B) and (D).
Appellant Tom Lawton works on Blue Spruce Drive and often bicycles by the proposed site of
development on his way to and from work. He reports that the sign placed on Conifer Street has
been lying flat in the weeds and was not visible to passing traffic for a substantial number of
weeks during the review period, both before the administrative hearing and during the appeal
period. The appellant cannot determine how many weeks prior to the hearing that the sign was
blown down, but lie is certain that it was down on May 18, 2012, prior to the hearing date, (noted
while photographing prairie dogs) and shows no evidence of having been re -erected, despite the
Director of Planning, and applicant, having been informed. See attached photos of condition of
sign, taken on June 15, 2012, and typical view of sign from a westbound vehicle on Conifer,
taken June 19th. Due to a slight hummock, the sign is not photographable when eastbound.
Original resolution photos available on request.
Furthernlore, the sign's intended site (from what one can presume, given its current, fallen
location) is in an area such that there is no "visual cue" for traffic coming south on Blue Spruce
Dr. and continuing west on Conifer St.- a key junction in the proposed development. As such,
interested persons who frequent or live in this area would have seen no posted notice of a
proposed development which would affect this junction. Appellants allege a violation of
subsection (B) in that the sign was not "posted on the subject property in a manner and at a
location or locations reasonably calculated by the Director to afford the best notice to the
public."
Appellants are concerned that the sign was not displayed in accordance with 2.2.6(B) and (D),
resulting in a failure to provide the "visual cue" explained in Step 4 of the "Citizens' Role in
Development Review" flowchart (htip7//vvc�nu fegov corn/developnientreview/pdf7cdrg-
(]owchart.ndt:) This has potentially caused a large number of directly affected Fort Collins
residents to have no notice that the application was proceeding.
The absence of a clause such as that at the end of 2.2.6(A) - "Failure to mail such notice shall not
affect the validity of any hearing, meeting or determination by the decision maker." - implies that
failure to comply with 2.2.6(B) and (D) does affect the validity of the hearing, and therefore the
determination.
The sign on Conifer remains down, and that on Redwood is entirely absent, as of July loth.
Remedy: Appellant requests that the City's new pattern high -visibility signs be properly
displayed in accordance with LUC 2.2.6(B) and (D) for the prescribed period before a new
public hearing is held.
Appellant
i
Signature]
Name Tom Lawton
Address 387 Cajetan St.
Phone 970-215-2073
Date n.(.t.y - 20(2
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Appellants:
Signature
Name Lori Nitzel
Address 387 Cajetan St.
Phone 970-372-0030
Date �r -10 — �.L
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
City ofForl Collin
A•larch 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:
Tom Lawton and Lori Nitzel live directly adjacent (in the Old Town North subdivision) to the
proposed development.
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.
Please see attached photo of fallen sign on Conifer St.; photo taken on June 15, 2012. Further
details in attached summary.
Administrative Hearing Officer Findings - June 5,
Action Being Appealed
Development Plan, # 110018
Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker: Richard V. Lopez
Date of Action: 6/5/ 12
Grounds for Appeal (✓ all that apply):
RECEIVE® ,
JUL 10 2012
Aspen Heights
The board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the
following errors:
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:
3.4.1(A)(2)0) and (C)
Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
ElThe board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority
or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
RThe 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
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).
Tom Lawton
387 Cajetan St.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-215-2073 -
tomlawton C mae.com