HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINATTA ANNEXATION & ZONING - 36-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)the remaining 15 acres of LMN zone. However it is impractical and unreasonable to pack
more than 8 units per acre into this area. The transition from RF to LMN is already
inappropriate on this site and would be unacceptable to the neighboring Ponds subdivision.
♦ There are constraints on this site beyond the long narrow physical configuration and the
atypical and unregulated uses of its northern neighbor, CSU. We are making assumptions on
the site plans we submitted that additional detention will not be required for the MF use at
the frontage or along the northern border to accommodate CSU water sheet flowing onto the
site. We are working towards the city accommodating the MF flows in their regional pond
and are working with CSU to insure that their flows are captured and conveyed at one point
into the regional pond. If are assumptions are not convect are narrow site could become more
narrow to provide a swale along the CSU border and the small 4 acre MF portion could
become smaller also.
♦ In addition the line 1500` from Overland Trail centerline separating the RF zone from the
LMN is an arbitrary line that no one to date has been able explain the origin or rationale
behind its location.
We also believe that the city must take into consideration the hardships associated with this site
when considering appropriate zoning and development design criteria.
♦ The city has been inconsistent in its attempts to deal with the zoning in this area. I have
comments from Current Planning, Building and Zoning, and Advanced Planning referencing
a conceptual review on April 2, 2001 that LMN is the correct zoning for the entire site.
♦ This is the only site in Fort Collins with new development proposed under a combination of
RF and LMN zoning and the last developable property in the current RF zone.
♦ This 35 acre site has none of the environmental concerns that the 284 acre Ponds parcel has,
that the RF zone was created to protect. It is surrounded by development and has no
wetlands or area above the Dixon Laterals highe�more visible elevations.
We are receptive to any suggestions regarding the method of dealing with the location and
configuration of the RF/LMN line of separation and the number of units, if any, that could be
increased over the 1 unit per acre in the RF zone.
.&z,
Date: 5/16/2005
To: Pete Wray
From: John Minatta
Copy: Jim Sell Design
I am taking the opportunity to review the issues regarding are meeting last Wednesday, 5/11, and
hopefully provide a mutual understanding prior to your staff meeting tomorrow.
In reference to the separation of RF from LMN, we are requesting a defined zone whose
configuration is contingent upon the criteria established for RF in the Land Use Code as opposed to a
line separating RF from LMN.
The zone would allow the line to extend a defined distance to either side of the line established in the
Structure Plan as long as the total area and open space areas do not deviate from RF zone criteria
already established and in accordance with the current Structure Plan.
The defined distance of the zone would be established in cooperation with city staff and the applicant.
The zone could then be depicted on the annexation map.
Another approach would be to add a note to the annexation map stating to the effect the separation
between RF and LMN will be a variation of the existing line to be agreed upon during the
development plan submittal and would meet the total area and open space areas established and in
accordance with the current Structure Plan.
Our rationale is:
Advanced Planning did not consider how these two diversely different zones would look
next to each other when they incorporated it on this one 35 acre location in the city.
It would allow for a more aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient transition between
1 unit per acre to 5-8 unit per acre.zones.
2. We would like to be granted at least 6 more units within the 16 acre RF zone while maintaining the
same 8 acres of open space.
Our rationale is:
♦ It will allow the transfer of a minimal amount of development units to compensate for the
approximate 4 acres the city has appropriated for a regional detention pond. The city has
asserted that we are allowed to transfer the development rights from the citys pond area to