HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING - PDP - 42-03A - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING61
1 STATE OF COLORADO)
) SS REPORTERS CERTIFICATE
2 COUNTY OF BOULDER)
3 I, Debra E. Payne, a professional court reporter
4 and notary public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
5 the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter of the Adrian
6 Subdivision First Filing and recorded on October 18, 2004
7 at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, was duly
8 transcribed by me and reduced under my supervision to the
9 foregoing 60 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and
10 complete record of the proceedings so taken.
11 I further certify that I am not related to,
12 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
13 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
14 the case.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attested to by me this day of December, 2004.
Debra E. Payne
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970)482-1506
My commission expires August 27, 2007
.e
1 for your participation. And
why
don't
we take
a 7
minute
2 recess until 8:30, at which
time
we'll
pick up
the
other
3 two agendas items.
4 (Conclusion of Adrian Subdivision Hearing)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
1 subdivision plat. But apparently it is maintained by the
2 adjacent property owners. And as Mr. Jones pointed, out
3 with the Adrian annexation from the south,property line to
4 West Vine, the entire width of North Impala Drive along
5 the west side of the Adrian property has been annexed into
6 the City and at such time that it's brought up to
7 standards, it will be accepted by the City and then that
8 portion will be maintained by the City.
9 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. I don't
10 have any other questions at this point. And that means I
11 will be closing the public hearing on the Adrian
12 Subdivision PDB. It's approximately 8:20 in the evening.
13 I appreciate all of your comments and your interest in
14 this application. It's always nice to see people come
15 out, even if they're opposed to something.
16 It's nice that you've taken an interest in your
17 neighborhoods, and I do appreciate your comments. I will
18 read all of your letters and e-mails and all of the
19 information you've submitted here tonight as part of the
20 public hearing process. And as I said before, I will be
21 rendering a written decision within 10 business days of
22 tonight's public hearing and I haven't calculated that out
23 on the calendar, but I believe that would be on or before
24 November 1st. But check with Mr. Olt to confirm the date
25 on which I'll have a decision rendered. Again, thank you
m
1 Obviously with the development, that adds pavement and
2 houses, you're going to have more volume and flow and
3 that's the purpose of the detention pond to spread that
4 flow over a longer period of time. I think that's all.
5 Yeah, that's probably all I got unless you have any more
6 specific --
7 HEARING OFFICER: I don't. Is it Mark?
8 MR. LAMARQUE: It's Wes.
9 HEARING OFFICER: Wes. I'm sorry. Can you
10 spell your last name?
11 MR. LAMARQUE: Sure. It's L A M A R Q U E.
12 HEARING OFFICER: I wouldn't have gotten that.
13 Thank you, Wes. I don't have any other questions. One
14 other for Mr. Olt. In terms of the maintenance of North
15 Impala, it's within unincorporated County, at least that
16 portion that has been not been annexed to the City. But I
17 understand, and I read this in the staff report, also,
18 that the homeowners maintain it? Is that because the
19 County never accepted it for ownership and maintenance
20 purposes or --
21 MR. OLT: That's correct. And that's not
22 atypical around Larimer County, that happens frequently.
23 If the County does not accept it then in this particular
24 case, apparently the homeowners do maintain it. They do
25 not own the street, it's a dedicated public street on the
57
1 provide detention for a hundred year storm and release at
2 the historic two year release rate, which they are doing.
3 And they need to provide an adequate outfall down to the
4 nearest drainage way which would be Cherry Street. And
5 they had to prove to us/that Impala Drive has a positive
6 slope down to Cherry Street at a minimum of .5 percent, so
7. they surveyed Impala Drive every 20 feet with survey
8 points and did show us it has a minimum .5. Even though
9 it looks very flat out there, they showed us that,
10 actually, the slope does vary, but there's a minimum .5
11 and then it gets steeper near the end there, at Cherry
12 Street.
13 Other than that, I guess the area he was talking
14 about, there is a tiny strip of land along the east and
15 south properties that do not go into the detention pond.
16 And those areas are all pervious areas, meaning they're
17 just grass or natural grass, and those areas are actually
18 less than historic, so those flows will continue to flow
19 east and south, but they will be less than the hundred
20 year historic drainage. So I guess the end result would
21 be that there would be less flow flowing down towards the
22 east and south. And almost all the flow will be going
23 into the pond so overall, there won't be any negative
24 impact to the site. And what we looked at is peak
25 discharge and that is the main concern for flooding.
56
1 applicant did touch on this. When the annexation request
2 was made to the City, they were requesting LMN, low
3 density, mixed use neighborhoods, which is actually what
4 the City structure plan does set forth. If the property
5 had come into the City as the City structure plan
6 identified and really directed what the design should be,
7 it would have been LMN. City staff.did recommend LMN at
8 that time. The Planning and Zoning Board disagreed and
9 took a recommendation to council of RL low density, and
10 council then annexed the property with low density
11 residential so certainly the development proposal before
12 us is, in our determination, in conformance with the
13 City's Land Use Code in the RL zoning district.
14 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. I just have a
15 couple quick follow-up questions. Has City Engineering
16 staff reviewed the storm water detention pond and the
17 function of that and drainage along Impala Street? I'm
18 assuming that City Staff has signed off on that aspect.
19 MR. OLT: City Staff has certainly reviewed it
20 and determined that it is acceptable and Wes Lamarque from
21 our stormwater utilities is coming to the mike to respond
22 to that.
23
MR. LAMARQUE:
Hi.
I'm
Wes Lamarque with
24
stormwater utility and
yeah,
we
did look at their
25 proposal. And what they have to do is, they have to
55
1 maintain a 20-foot setback from the street right of way.
2 And as I was out looking at this neighborhood just within
3 the last week, it appears that most of the existing homes
4 on North Impala Drive are 20 to 25 feet from the edge of
5 the street. I would suspect that the new homes in this
6 development, if approved, would have to actually be set
7 back a little further because they'd have to be 20 feet
8 from the right of way of the street, not from the edge of
9 the street. Therefore, you'd have a building separation
10 from these homes and the homes facing north on Impala from
11 the west side of easily 120 to 150 feet.
12 From a view standpoint, to Ms. Anderson's
13 property to the east, these homes will be no more than 20
14 feet in height. Understand that along North Impala Drive
15 and on the lots and really throughout the existing, you've
16 got large existing trees that I suspect are taller than
17 the homes that would be built here. You know that was
18 something we considered and realized that these homes
19 won't be taller than the trees, therefore, the views that
20 are there probably are effected more by the trees than
21 they are by the houses. So with that, we've come to a
22 determination that we're are really looking at the
23 potential for a compatible project -- single family next
24 to single family. Denser it may be.
25 One thing I did want to point out because the
54
1 two-story homes, that's done everywhere in this city and
2 every city across the country, obviously. Does that mean
3 that they're incompatible with one another? I think staff
4 has determined that, no, that's not the case at all. They
5 certainly can be designed such that they can be very
6 compatible.
7 From a privacy standpoint, there really
8 shouldn't be any privacy issues. The property to the east
9 is, again, larger -- larger lots or larger acreage
10 residential at this point in time, so there's no homes
11 directly to the east. There is one property that's a
12 little further to the east, I believe that's Ms. Anderson,
13 concerned about the views. We did think about that and
14 because early on in the development review process there
15 was a concern about these two-story -- potentially
16 two-story buildings and in Green Acres subdivision, there
17 is a covenant against that.
18 First of all, this development is not in Green
19 Acres subdivision and secondly, as we look at the
20 potential for two-story homes, you've got a large acreage
21 to the south, essentially no homes directly to the east,
22 therefore North Impala Drive is along the west side of
23 this property, so you'd have significant distance between
24 the front of these homes. Understand that these homes
25 that front on North Impala Drive will actually have to
53
1 remember off the top of my head, a total of six trees from
2 a smaller size that would normally be required to a
3 three-inch caliber and those are accommodated in the
4 street
trees out on
Impala.
And
I believe it's
these two
5 trees
here and one
up there
that
are upsized as
a
6 mitigation.
7 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Mr. Olt, do you
8 have anything to add to what's been said by any member of
9 the public or Mr. Jones?
10 MR. OLT: I really don't have any technical
11 issues to add. I realize that there is a concern about
12 the nature of this development, the size of the lots and
13 the nature of the homes. And even a statement that the
14 developer and City Staff apparently were doing everything
15 in their power to justify this. What we have to do is
16 evaluate this proposal against the Land Use Code, and is
17 it in compliance with, does it meet the standards as set
18 forth. And I think that that's what we've determined in
19 that we're looking at single family residential in the
20 midst of single family residential, same size lots, so
21 that's a given.
22 Regarding the nature of the structures, there
23 again, we're looking at an existing neighborhood. And I
24 don't want to really focus on the age of the neighborhood
25 but still, single story, ranch style homes next to
52
1 going to take them out
because
the City doesn't
2 necessarily want them,
but they
don't require
us to take
3 them out.
4
And I had a brief
conversation with the neighbor
5
to the south and
she said,
if you can keep them, she'd
6
like them there.
So we're
going to keep -- I think we've
7
got to take, like,
2 out of
the 7 out. So we're going to
8
keep the majority
of those
down in that corner. The other
9
thing is, there's
some Blue
Spruces that are along Impala
10
that we're going
to relocate
as a buffer along the east
11
side. And there's
Austrian
Pines that are up in this
12
corner over here
and they are
going to roughly stay in the
13
same spot but be
scooted a
little closer to the property
14
line to continue
to act as
a buffer, so that -- just
15 wanted to make that point.
16 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So the only trees that
17 are going to be removed to accommodate this project --
18 MR. JONES: Unfortunately, the main tree that's
19 going to be removed -- there's a few small ones out in the
20 middle here, but there's a really nice larger Honeylocust
21 right where that arrow is that, unfortunately, is right in
22 the building envelope of that lot. And so we will be
23 losing that. And I've met with the City Forester and
24 worked out a tree mitigation plan that we're upsizing for
25 the trees that we are losing. We're upsizing, if I
51
1 a permanent pool until that water infiltrates the ground.
2 We knew there'd be some objection to that. Although it's
3 more effective, there is drawbacks, so we eliminated that
4 pool just to make this a little more compatible with the
5 neighborhood, so there is no -- the current design does
6 not have that pool of water for sediment detention. But
7 it still functions as a water quality detention required
8 by the City. So like I said, by bringing the site up,
9 it's not quite as effective a detention, but we're still
10 releasing storm water at a rate which is lower than
11 currently being discharged by the site as it is.
12 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
13 MR. JONES: Just a final response I wanted to
14 make, just to reiterate that compatible is not the same
15 as. And by Code it defined as such. And so I just want
16 you to keep that in mind as you're going through. We're
17 not claiming that what we're doing is the same as, but we
18 are claiming that it's compatible.
19 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
20 MR. JONES: Anything else? Okay. One thing we
21 didn't mention -- check -- just a development that's come
22 up in our kind of train of thought about trees.
23 Originally when I met with the City Forester on this site,
24 there's this clump of Siberian Elms in this corner which
25 is considered to be a nuisance species. And we were just
50
1 rates. So we actually have some over detention so that
2 run off from the developed site will be less than what the
3 historic run-off is now. It will be concentrated,
4 however, so that's why we decided to discharge into
5 Impala.
6 Now, the City -- recently, I would say, probably
7 within the last 6 months -- has adopted a policy of not
8 allowing those type of systems -- the pumping systems.
9 There are some in the City currently that have been built
10 and are being built currently. But the City had some
11 objections to that. So what we did is, our new plans have
12 brought the site up. We're actually bringing import
13 material into the site to create a pond from the ground
14 up, so that that pond can drain by gravity to the street.
15 Now there's no curb and gutter in front of this street or
16 in front of this property currently, so what we'll be
17 doing is matching this current curb and gutter coming, up
18 at half a percent which meets current City criteria in
19 order for our out -fall for a pond. So it's completely
20 gravity draining.
21 We originally proposed a water quality pond as
22 is required by the current criteria. We were given the
23 option of having a current -- what's called a micro pool
24 -- an actual stilling basin to maximize the sediment
25 control. The downside of that is there is some aspect of
49
1 submitted engineering plans and a drainage report for this
2 project.
3 There is a lot of concern about the drainage on
4 this site. If we could go back to that aerial photo?
5 Yes, that one. The current drainage on the site
6 predominantly drains to the south. From the existing
7 house, there, to the south, drains predominantly just
8 overland into this area. We looked at the original design
9 for Impala Drive. Impala Drive was designed with a half
10 percent slope to the south, all the way down to Cherry
11 Street. It gets a little steeper there, down at the end
12 of Cherry Street. Cherry Street is our nearest available
13
storm
sewer. The
design
for
the
developed site is
to
14
drain
the entire
site, or
as
much
of the site as we
can to
15 the interior pond.
16
We
originally proposed putting in a
pond that
17
was actually
below grade. It allowed us to capture
the
18
most amount
of storm water and direct it into
the pond.
19
And then having
a pump system which pumped it
back into
20
the street.
We didn't feel that maintaining
this historic
21
flow across
this site would be necessarily in
the best
22
interest of
this property owner now that we're
introducing
23
a concentrated flow rather
than an
over land flow.
24
So the detention
pond is
approximately 10,000
25
cubic feet. It detains the
flows
to less than historic
1 up to current street standards, which it will be with this
2 development, then the City will take over maintenance of
3 that portion of Impala Drive. So only the south of this
4 site will continue to be owned and maintained -- excuse
5 me, maintained by the neighborhood to the south. But the
6 portion of Impala adjacent to the site will be maintained
7 by the City because it will be taken over by the City.
8 HEARING OFFICER: So Mr. Jones, basically, from
9 the intersection of West Vine? Is that right?
10 MR. JONES: Correct, correct. The other point I
11 wanted to make just for clarity, this detention pond
12 regardless of -- Mr. Schaeffer showed 4 lots going this
13 way, but it would still need to have a detention pond
14 here. So to some degree, his configuration wouldn't work,
15 although -- not as drawn, although that's not what we're
16 proposing. So we're not really here to talk about Mr.
17 Schaeffer's proposal. One question -- I think most of the
18 things were comments, but one question I did hear was, how
19 does the water get out of this -- Jade, you can chime in
20 if I get it wrong here, okay? Yeah, let me just turn it
21 over to Jade.
22 MR. MILLER: My name is Jade Miller. That's
23 J A D E. I'm with DMW Civil Engineers, D as in Davis.
24 We're located in Loveland, Colorado, at 1435 West 29th
25 Street. We're the civil engineers for this project. We
47
1 this property. And it essentially takes 4 pieces of
2 property and cuts them into B. I think that makes it
3 pretty clear that this is not within the character of this
4 neighborhood. Thank you.
5 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Dennis.
6 MS. ANDERSON: HI. My name is Lois Anderson. I
7 live at 2229 West Vine. I am straight east of the
8 proposed building. And I've been raised most of my life
9 in Fort Collins and as long as I've lived here, we've
10 always lived on the west side of town. That's so we could
11 see the mountains. And once this property is built, my
12 view is gone. I know that the law is the law, but I think
13 that it should really be looked at in this area because it
14 will change the neighborhood completely to put that many
15 dwellings in such a small area. Thank you.
16 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Are
17 there others who would like to speak in favor or against
18 this project? Seeing no one else stepping up to the
19 podium, I will turn it back over to the applicant to
20 respond to any of the comments or answer any of the
21 questions that were raised by members of the public.
22 MR. JONES: A couple of points came to mind. A
23 few to respond to, anyway. For clarification, I wanted to
24 point out that the Impala Street adjacent to this site was
25 annexed with the site as required. And once it's brought
1 else?
2 MR. DENNIS: Hi. My name is Dave Dennis. I
3 live at 400 North Impala Drive. I'm here with my wife,
4 Joy. We've lived at Impala for about 7 years. I wanted
5 to point out that the project developers, the owner and to
6 some extent the City tonight have spent an awful lot of
7 time defending the potential incompatibility of this
8 project, and that really should tell you a lot. It's
9 obviously incompatible.
10 There has been an awful lot of discussion about
11 how incompatible it is. When it comes to the 3.1.5.(B),
12 Architectural Character, the issues like similar
13 relationship to the street, similar roof line, size of the
14
lot considering
the interior driveway, there isn't
a
15
single issue on
that compatibility that is true by
this
16
development. That
is managed by this development.
They
17
use that as how
compatible this is. None of those
things
18
are true. There
isn't a single lot on the map that
the
19
developers used
that was more than a square mile,
a huge
20
area around this
map that had any relationship to
the size
21 of these lots.
22 You can look right on here, even with the 4
23 here. None of the properties on this map is that small.
24 While the driveway -- it may fall within the letter of the
25 law in zoning law, it obviously effects the character of
45
1 it stands.
2
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Way. Are there
3 others who would like to speak?
4 MR. KILCOMMONS: Hi. I'm Dan Kilcommons. I
5 live at 2428 West Vine Drive which is north and west of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this property, on the other side of Vine Drive. I guess
you said you drove by there. But put an entire context of
this, you're looking at just those areas on the south side
of Vine Drive and my place is, oh, say, it's half an acre,
2000 square foot house. And then, just north of me, is
several hundred acres of corn. So, I mean, if you're
looking at it, keep in mind, I guess you've seen that.
The other issue is, I'd like to respectfully
disagree with Mr. Adrian that we are mis-informed. I
think we are very well informed on the issues involved
here. And, additionally, I used to own 2345 West Vine and
for several years I rented that as subsidized housing, so
I think we can negate a bit of the NIMBY factor there.
And one other issue, I guess it's a question, is
the detention basin is a big hole or a hole in the ground.
How is the water getting out of there? Are they pumping
the water out of there? Who's going to maintain that
infrastructure? That's the only question I have. Thank
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Is there anyone
44
1 Could you spell your last name for me?
2 MR. MESERLIAN: M E S E R L I A N.
3 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Are there others
4 who would like to speak?
5 MR.
WAY: My name Ron Way, W
A Y. I live at 405
6 North Impala
Drive with my lovely wife
for the past 12
7 years. And we have probably one of the
smaller lots along
8 Impala Drive
and had some experiences,
to say the least,
9 with living on a small lot with close
neighbors. Some
10 good, some not so good.
11 I am a member -- I manage some apartment and
12 commericial property -- a member of the Colorado Apartment
13 Association so we always have the number of vacancy rates
14 and for -sales and foreclosures. And seems to be a lot of
15 that going on in this day and age. If this property has
16 to have that much development to be affordable, it's
17 probably pretty doubtful that it was affordable to start
18 with. I know it does cost a lot of money for just the
19 improvements as was stated, and I certainly sympathize
20 with the Adrians on that aspect. But unfortunately, it is
21 a fact of life here in Colorado or almost anyplace else
22 you try and develop in this day and age. So with that in
23 mind, and everything else that's pretty much been said,
24 most of the issues have been addressed to an extent. But
25 I do have to say that I am quite opposed to the project as
43
1 This is one of our least attended meetings because it's
2 been going on for so long. Thank you very much.
3 HEARING OFFICER: For the record, I note about
4 15 people who stood up in the audience. And Ms. Neff, for
5 the record, I actually have driven by the site. I did
6 that before the hearing and that's why I was just here
7 prior to 5:30, because it took me a little longer than I
8 expected. I have driven through the neighborhood.
9 MS. NEFF: Thank you very much.
10 MR. MESERLIAN: My name's Charley Meserlian and
11 it's 2342 Plains Court, and I live in the property that's
12 kind of catty corner from the corner to this deal. And in
13 my mind, the whole thing's a stretch, how they get those
14 lot sizes, cause it's just -- to come up with the lot
15 sizes and justify it as a compatible trait, to me, is just
16 quite a stretch. I hope you take that into consideration.
17 The reality of it, I think, is if you drive up
18 maybe Prospect Street, another one I can think of is
19 Stuart Street where you have similar product, similar to
20 what these guys are proposing. This is what it would be
21 here. And it's just going to be pretty tough to imagine
22 that this would be a compatible project for this
23 particular neighborhood. So everything else is -- has
24 been said by other people.
25 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you very much.
42
1 it down to you. I have a pen. I'll be glad to take your
2 address.
3 HEARING OFFICER: Can you e-mail it to me?
4 Okay, my e-mail address is LMichow, M I C H O W at
5 widnermichow.com and that's W I D as in dog, N E R and
6 then Michow, M I C H O W dot com. That's correct. Thank
7 you, Mr. Schaeffer.
8 SPEAKER: Inaudible.
9 HEARING OFFICER: Hi. Ms. Neff, if you could
10 just lower the mike a little bit, that would help. Thank
11 you. There ya go.
12 MS. NEFF: Okay. Should I say my name again?
13 HEARING OFFICER: Please.
14 MS. NEFF: Shelly Neff. It's 529 North Impala
15 Drive. I would just like to invite you to drive down
16 North Impala Drive and to see the neighborhood. It's so
17 difficult to really show a true representation by these
18 pictures. But if you could just take a look at our
19 neighborhood and see the houses as opposed to how dense
20 they would be. It's a former horse property, or a current
21 horse property behind the large ranch house, adjacent to
22 another horse property who would be losing a lot of her
23 trees due to this. So we just wanted to invite you to
24 come and see the neighborhood. And also I wanted to ask
25 all the people that are here regarding this to stand up.
41
1 is an owner -maintained road which cannot handle more
2 traffic and problems.
3 Six: It would negatively effect the property
4 values of surrounding neighborhoods by the removal of too
5 many large trees. And lastly, I personally talked to 163
6 people. Every single house on North Impala Drive, Irish
7 Drive, North Briarwood, Plains Court, part of North
8 Hillcrest and part of West Vine about this proposal, and
9 not one person -- I found nobody that was for this
10 proposal. No one. I had 163 people sign my petition.
11 They're all -- we're all against this development being 7
12 lots. A density of 3 or 4 lots is compatible.
13 Please modify this plan to please contain 3 or 4
14 lots with the front lot line on Impala Drive and the rear
15 line at my driveway. And keep it in character with the
16 neighborhood, please. Thank you.
17 I have a package for you, too. Do I give it to
18 Steve, first? I have a package of information.
19 HEARING OFFICER: You can give it to me
20 directly, that's fine. Steve, we can make copies for you
21 after the hearing. And Mr. Schaeffer, I meant to ask you
22 before you sat down if you had a hard printed copy of your
23 Power Point presentation to provide to me?
24 MR. SCHAEFFER: I do not have one with me.
25 However, I could forward one to Mr. Olt and have him send
1 when
you
remove
the square
footage
of the
private drive.
2 With
lots
that
small, the
7 houses
would
be two-story in
3 building mass. The density in building mass is too high
4 for the neighborhood. The proposal is not compatible or
5 in character with the surrounding area.
6 Two, as Steve said, there's still storm water
7 issues on North Impala, which have not been resolved as to
8 how the storm water will get all the way south to Cherry
9 Street. North Impala Drive is flat, south of the
10 proposal. Storm water is a major, major concern in the
11 surrounding neighborhoods.
12 Three: This northwest area around North Impala
13 Drive, Irish Drive, West Vine, North Briarwood, Plains
14 Court, and North Hillcrest is peaceful and quiet, which is
15 why we all enjoy living there. This proposal with it's
16 high density in such a small area would dramatically alter
17 our property values and our quality of life. Our property
18 values would go down over time with this cluster project.
19 Four: It would be unethical if you allow this
20 project to have 7 lots. The cluster project would
21 stigmatize our neighborhood. Also, it's unethical for the
22 developer to profit at the expense of the neighborhood.
23 Five: It would ruin our quality of life and our
24 property values by increasing noise, congestion, traffic,
25 storm water problems and road damage. North Impala Drive
39
1 HEARING OFFICER:
Thank you, Mr.
Schaeffer.
2 Could you just show for me on this map you
have up where
3 you live, which house you're
in?
4 MR. SCHAEFFER: I
live right there.
5 HEARING OFFICER:
Okay. Thanks.
6 MS. KNOX: My name
is Sandy Knox
and my
address
7 is 2309 West Vine Drive, which
is the property
to
the
8 south of the proposal. And
my driveway is
on the
east
9 edge of it. I want to make
it clear that
I'm not
against
10 the Adrian's developing land, but I am against the manner
11 in which they are proposing it.
12 I'm strongly opposed to the proposed high
13 density and the types of structures which would have an
14 adverse effect on the public safety, aesthetics, and our
15 property values, for the following reasons: One, it's not
16 compatible or in character with the surrounding area.
17 A: Within a quarter mile radius of the
18 proposal, over 90 percent of the homes are all single
19 family, ranch style homes on lots from 7500 to 15,000
20 square feet, and are on full side streets and not on
21 private drives. We all have large lots with big front
22 yards and back yards.
23 B: The proposal is for 7 lots with a private
24 drive, which really makes the actual lot sizes range from
25 3800, the way I calculate it anyways, to 6300 square feet,
x-J
1 there's a number of issues that these other folks have
2 brought up. Some of my neighbors are going to probably
3 bring up a couple other things.
4 We do have one other thing that's been
5 unresolved. While the City Stormwater Department has
6 looked at and analyzed this street right here, this street
7 is County -- not County maintained. It's homeowner
8 maintained. During our last rainstorm, we had a major
9 situation down at the bottom where we had rising water.
10 And I think, had it rained another inch or two within the
11 hour, I think we would have had some major problem. We're
12 really concerned about what the amount of water coming off
13 of asphalt shingles and concrete and asphalt driveways and
14 so forth is going to do to impact the street down here and
15 the other homes that lie below it.
16 As of this point in time, the County has not yet
17 mitigated that problem. They have plans out 20 years to
18 take the water to the Poudre River, but at this moment in
19 time they're working backwards from the river, as I
20 understand it. But, nevertheless, it's going to be quite
21 some time before these problems are resolved. So, at this
22 point in time, I'm going to conclude and, as I said, if we
23 were looking at this site as it sits right here with 4
24 units lined up, everybody'd be happy, and we wouldn't be
25 here. So, thank you for your time.
37
1 height and so forth, like I said, there's not one other
2 home on Impala Drive that's two stories tall. I'm
3 concerned -- would you go back, please? Previous.
4 There's a property right across to the west. Basically,
5 what you're doing is dumping 7 units right here out in
6 front of one single property. That's a family that has
7 five children there, by the way. That's quite an
8 intrusion, in my opinion. And for this to happen in this
9 neighborhood where there's nothing else on the street
10 anywhere nearby, it's like it -- next, please. Next.
11 Again, we've got single family homes. Next,
12 please. We're asking you tonight to please consider the
13 wishes of the folks in this neighborhood and our
14 statements and feelings that it isn't compatible and
15 hopefully you can get 6,000 square feet by putting a
16 private driveway in and drawing the boundary line at the
17 center of it, but you, as well as I, know that that's not
18 usable property for those homeowners. The reality is, the
19 lot size is significantly smaller. It will be much
20 smaller than even the smallest one that sits on this
21 street right over here that is of usable property.
22 As far as "solar schmolar" goes, those houses
23 are so close together, two stories tall means that most of
24 them are going to be in the shade or the shadow of the
25 other house next to them. Next, please. Now this said,
36
1 this is not sensitive, whatsoever. Next, please.
2 Sensitivity of character of the existing neighborhood.
3 This comes from the primary purpose in the very beginning
4 of the City Land Use Code. That's the reason we have a
5 Land Use Code, is so that abominations cannot be brought
6 into existing neighborhoods. Next, please.
7 Pertaining to private drives, it says a private
8 drive instead of a street shall be allowed to provide
9 primary access through an unusually shaped piece of land.
10 What you see here is the site, up at the top, is not
11 really an unusually shaped piece of land. Now what we did
12 here is, we took 4 properties to the south of this,
13 outlined them in green. These are these 13,000 square
14 foot properties. If you took that parcel right there, 4,
15 and lifted it and put it up in the place on this site, you
16 would have four parcels that are about 13,000 feet,
17 eliminating the need for a private driveway. What's more
18 is, you could wind these 4 up right here, and you'd have 4
19 houses just like the rest of those in our neighborhood, or
20 very similar to it that are in character with the
21 neighborhood. All right? And let's put it this way, we
22 wouldn't be here tonight having this discussion if this
23 were going to be the case. The neighbors agree with that.
24 Next, please. Next, please.
25 Talking about buildings of similar size and
35
1 parameter of 6000 feet for these lots. And you've seen
2 already how they achieve that, by bifurcating a private
3 drive. Next, please. That driveway cuts through the
4 property boundaries on some of these and, of course, they
5 talk about an easement. Next, please.
6 In the Land Use Code, it says, "A lot" means --
7 shall mean a designated parcel which abuts a dedicated
8 right of way. So the only way they can do it is, of
9 course, shoe -horning in through an easement. Next,
10 please. Land Use Code 3.6.2.1.1.A says, "Private drive
11 shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes
12 compliance with any other provision of this Land Use
13 Code." Well, we're contending that it definitely pushes
14 the boundary and takes it out of the limit of being
15 compatible with the rest of the neighborhood cause
16 elsewhere in the neighborhood, there's no such place
17 anywhere nearby where there's a private driveway that's
18 put in for the purpose of being able to cram in as many
19 lots as one can. Next, please.
20 The Land Use Code further says that, "the
21 purpose of this section is to ensure that buildings and so
22 forth are compatible when considered within the context of
23
the surrounding area." Also
goes on to
say that
24
compatibility refers to the
sensitivity
of development
25
proposals in maintaining the
character.
I contend that
34
1 Now one of the things that's interesting here is
2 Parcel B has been separated from this, and there is an
3 option to put an 8th home in here. So, yes, right now
4 only 7 are being proposed but there's an 8th one,
5 probably, coming down the road to be shoe -horned in.
6 Okay, next, please. Okay, is that better?
7 All right, of course you've seen all the
8 verbiage at this point in time about compatibility and so
9 forth, achieving it through roof lines. I would just like
10 to point out that -- go hit "P" for "previous", please --
11 and again -- that in our neighborhood there is one house
12 over here that a section of it sticks up two stories.
13 There's another one on this side of the street that sticks
14 up. The roof line's the same. It's a duplex apartment
15 building but it has a ground level apartment. And then
16 down below there's one other house that has a section of
17 it that sticks up two stories. On our development, which
18 consists of Webb Avenue, Irish Drive, Impala Drive and
19 then on another street, Sunset, there are no other
20 two-story dwellings whatsoever. Next, please. And again.
21 And again.
22 All homes look like this. They're single family
23 ranch dwellings. We have a nice neighborhood, neighbors
24 get along fine, so forth on all these streets. Next,
25 please. Okay, as far as density goes, there is the
33
1 -- S C H A E F F E R. I live at 601 North Impala Drive,
2 Fort Collins, 80521. Thank you for coming such a long way
3 to hear our case. Since January over 150 neighbors in the
4 Green Acres subdivision have not wavered in their
5 opposition to the proposed project. The Planning and
6 Zoning Board recommended, as you've heard and the City
7 Council approved, RL zoning for the property because they
8 knew the original LMN zoning that was sought by the
9 developers was way too much for the neighborhood. Okay?
10 At this point time in time, there are a lot of unhappy
11 neighbors. Next, please.
12 We've got a site right here that is sitting in
13 the midst of a lot of other single family dwellings, and
14 it impacts the lives of many people. And even though the
15 average home on our street -- now, I live on North Impala
16 here -- only sells for $165,000, $170,000, for some people
17 that live on our street, that's all they've got is the
18 peace and tranquility of our neighborhood as we now know
19 it. Next, please.
20 This is an aerial shot. This is oriented the
21 opposite way, north is facing down. And I've gone ahead
22 and colored in homes and garages and so forth in grape.
23 Most of the people in this area believe that this kind of
24 a cluster arrangement is going to be way too much, other
25 than what we already have.
32
1 And we thank you for hearing us tonight.
2 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you Mr. Adrian.
3 MR. ADRIAN: Should I just bring this to you?
4 HEARING OFFICER: That'd be fine. Thank you.
5 I'm going to now open it up to the public for testimony in
6 favor or against the project. Since I don't have a
7 sign-up sheet in front of me, I'll just ask that each of
8 you step down to the podium and speak your name and
9 address and relationship to the project. That would be
10 helpful. And if you have a spokesperson that's speaking
11 for a majority of the people, that would be great, too.
12 MR. OLT: And might I add, Ms. M --
13 HEARING OFFICER: Sure.
14 MR. OLT: I don't know if you want them to sign
15 -- again, we have sign up sheets at those podiums. As
16 well as stating your name and address, we really would
17 like for them to sign those sign -in sheets, as well.
18 HEARING OFFICER: I hope so, because I really do
19 need your correct spelling of your full name, as well your
20 addresses. And that's for the purposes of helping me
21 draft very coherent and comprehensive decisions. So if
22 you could help us out in that regard, that would be
23 appreciated.
24
MR.
SCHAEFFER:
Thank you
for coming tonight.
25
I'm Dr. Steven
Schaeffer.
Schaeffer
spelled the long way
31
1 Services and the Advanced Planning Department. Our
2 development is listed in this book as a potential
3 affordable housing project. Page 83 refers to.the NIMBY
4 effect which -- where people who don't fully understand
5 the program formulate a not -in -my -backyard mentality.
6 They build a platform or hearsay and run with it.
7 The cost of infrastructure alone for our
8 development is between $220,000 and $250,000. That's
9 before we break ground at all for the first home. That
10 cost includes the rebuilding and repaving of the north end
11 of Impala. It includes curb and gutter, flood abatement
12 and bike lanes on both sides of West Vine from our home to
13 Taft Hill, which is roughly a quarter mile away.
14 With that in mind, we're asking the Planning and
15 Zoning Board to let us develop in stages. All the
16 improvements I've mentioned would have to be taken care of
17 in the first phase. Planning and Zoning voted unanimously
18 to allow two phases because it made sense. The City has
19 done a great job keeping neighbors informed of meetings
20 and plans. Lines of communication have been kept open and
21 neighbors have every opportunity to write letters and
22 emails, make phone calls, and speak at public hearings.
23 Their concerns have been addressed one by one. The fact
24 that they don't like the answers doesn't change the fact
25 that this is a good and viable project and follows code.
30
1 that we should be forced to have the same size backyards.
2 We've heard that affordable housing aspect of our property
3 will bring down the value of surrounding homes. Ruth Head
4 with the City pointed out that affordable housing in our
5 area means that new homes could sell for up to $200,000
6 each. The average home on Impala appraises in the
7 $160,000 range. When in history has more expensive
8 housing built to today's as opposed to that of the 1970s
9 brought down the value of surrounding homes?
10 We truly hope to be able to continue with the
11 affordable houses component. The Boys and Girls Club is
12 located at our junior high up the street. There's a city
13 transit bus stop just yards from our property line and
14 that's not to mention that our area has the lowest income
15 per capita for students within the district. I have a
16 copy here of the Family Housing Plan. If you'd like to
17 have it, I can give that to you.
18 HEARING OFFICER: If you'd like to introduce
19 that as part of the record, you can do so.
20 MR. ADRIAN: Okay.
21 HEARING OFFICER: I'll have to hold onto it
22 through the duration of the next 10 business days, then I
23 can return it to Mr. Olt.
24
MR.
ADRIAN: No, that
works. It was
released
25
this April by
the Community and
Environmental
Planning
29
1 Regardless, we were annexed into the City and zoned RL.
2 This is the first time in Fort Collins history that
3 Planning and Zoning Board went against their future City
4 Plan and zoned a new development RL.
5 Afterwards, 26 letters were sent to the City
6 Counsel by our neighbors thanking them for zoning our
7 property RL. We changed gears and re -engineered to
8 accommodate the RL zoning. City planners said at a
9 previous P&Z meeting that a well planned project would
10 yield up to 8 single family lots. We came back to the
11 table with 7 single family lots, plus our home.
12 Our neighbors will tell you that the layout of
13 the lot lines in our development is unprecedented.
14 Regardless, our plan absolutely meets the Code. And we've
15 never waived our right to be protected by that Code. The
16 problem is that those who oppose our project want to
17 ignore the rules and dictate how many homes we can have
18 under the RL zoning. When we asked for duplex lots,
19 neighbors opposed and said there were only single family
20 homes in our neighborhood. Except, of course, that there
21 are 15 duplexes within a two block radius of our house.
22 Then they said that the neighborhood children
23 have to play in the street because backyards along Impala
24 are too small. Except, of course, when neighbors later
25 said that the backyards along Impala are very large, and
W
1 whether we're only having access of 4 lots. But we feel
2 it's a better design to get those driveways tucked around
3 the sides and backs of those units.
4 HEARING OFFICER: Will there be attached garages
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the backs of those units?
MR. JONES: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. If that
concludes the applicant's presentation, looks like the
homeowner has -- property owner would like to add
something.
MR. ADRIAN: Thank you. Hello. My name is John
Adrian, and I live at 2333 West Vine. And I just have a
few things to say here, please. Tonight is a final
hearing in what has been an exhaustive process for us.
Last spring we appeared before the Planning and Zoning
Board and asked to be annexed into the City of Fort
Collins, and to be zoned LMN. We did so because we wanted
to develop our property with duplex lots.
It quickly became apparent that rumours and
misinformation were running rampant, and a petition was
passed around requiring that the City stop our annexation
completely. Neighbors had been told a variety of
misinformation. We find it unfortunate that the authors
of the petitions are not held to any type of
accountability or obligations to represent the facts.
27
1 And so, if an ambulance is called to whatever the address
2 on Vine Drive is, or -- excuse me, on Impala Drive, they
3 come right up to that front door and it's my understanding
4 that's what's considered primary access. That's where
5 your front door is. And therefore, the vehicular access
6 coming off of that private drive is secondary access
7 western 4 lots, but it's primary access for the eastern 4
8 lots. Therefore, we're still complying with the
9 restriction of no more than 4 lots having primary access
10 off a private drive.
11 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So the lots directly
12 adjacent to Impala Drive, their front door is facing
13 Impala Drive, correct?
14 MR. JONES: Yes.
15 HEARING OFFICER: But their driveways run off
16 the easement?
17 MR. JONES: Correct.
18 HEARING OFFICER: And then the fronts of the
19 back lots, the eastern lots --
20 MR. JONES: Right.
21 HEARING OFFICER: The fronts of those front onto
22 the private drive easement?
23 MR. JONES: Right. And we feel that's a better
24 design. If we really had to, we could put the driveways
25 going off of Impala, and then there'd be no question as to
26
1 acceptable. So I just want to be sure that -- and I'm
2 sure staff has already gone through that analysis.
3 MR. TORGERSON: If I could add something to
4 that? It's allowed to serve up to 4 dwelling units and,
5 in this case, we're serving these 4 dwelling units.
6 HEARING OFFICER: In the back?
7 MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
8 HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
9 MR. OLT: That's correct. Mr. Torgerson stated
10 that a private drive can serve no more than 4 single
11 family homes and, in this case, that's what it would be.
12 Section 3.6.2 J.4, Easements Public and Private, of such
13 widths as necessary shall be provided on lots for
14 utilities, public access, storm water drainage, or other
15 public purposes as required and approved by the City
16 Engineer and, again, public access was cited as an
17 easement that is permitted on a private lot.
18 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you.
19 SPEAKER: Can I offer another point of
20 clarification before I'm completely done?
21 HEARING OFFICER: Sure.
22 MR. JONES: I had talked about vehicular access
23 for the western 4 lots coming off that private drive. And
24 I think there's a distinction I need to make in that
25 primary access, front door, namely, is facing that street.
25
1 be homeowner association dues, even though these are
2 affordable housing?
3
MR. JONES:
Yes.
4
HEARING OFFICER: Units?
5
MR. JONES:
Enough to cover the maintenance of
6
these 2 items. Affordable
housing, by definition in the
7
City of Fort Collins,
is 80 percent of the area median
8
income or below. So
that price point is roughly what we
9
thought like 200,000
or something.
10
HEARING OFFICER:
200,000?
11
MR. JONES:
That's about what we're shooting
12
for, yes. So within
that, whatever they'll be able to
13 _,afford
to qualify for
affordable housing, it'll have to
14
accommodate the fact
that those dues will have to be paid
15 within the monthly income calculation that they do.
16 HEARING OFFICER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Olt, I
17 have one question to you. In terms of the configuration
18 of the private drive easement. That type of access to a
19 public street is expressly permitted in the Land Use Code;
20 is that correct?
21 MR. OLT: That's correct. And I can grab a
22 citation here, real quick.
23 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. My experience has been
24 that, in some jurisdictions, this type of configure for
25 incorrect access to a public street may or may not be
24
1 point of clarification. We're not proposing solar systems
2 in these houses, per se, which is typical on most
3 developments. But the Code requires that the lots be
4 oriented in such a way that if some homeowner down the
5 road chose to, or if somebody bought the lot and wanted to
6 build a house that had solar panels or the ability to have
7 solar panels, that it could accommodate that. And I think
8 our alternative compliance request really hit the nail on
9 the head that where we would want the peak of the house,
10 basically, going east/west anyway, out in these
11 configurations, so it's likely that you're going to have a
12 south facing slope on the roof, which would then
13 accommodate solar panels if the homeowner decided, but,
14 again, we're not specifically proposing solar panels.
15 Anything to add? Engineering or --
16 SPEAKER: We're all available for any questions
17 you might have.
18 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Jones. I have
19 another question on the private drive easement. Who's
20 going to maintain that? Is there going to be the
21 homeowners association or --
22 MR. JONES: Yes. We'll have a homeowners
23 association that not only maintains the private drive, but
24 the detention pond, as well.
25 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So you expect there to
23
1 storm in the detention pond and then it will go at a 2
2 year historic rate out into the gutter, and it will go
3 south. we're going to be building a new stretch of
4 gutter -- could you back up to that aerial photo? I think
5 that would be helpful. There's no gutter north of my
6 finger here. So our property is that white line there, so
7 we'll be adding a new curb and gutter to connect the
8 existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk, that is roughly where
9 my finger is, going south.
10 So our outfall, basically, will trickle down the
11 existing street and then, like I said, be adding curb and
12 gutter where necessary to get it to tie-in. And we've met
13 with the storm water staff many times on this issue and
14 worked out the details of it. But there was a question at
15 one point as to, well, is it steep enough and downhill
16 enough, basically, to get that water through. And we had
17 a detailed survey done of that street. And we've
18 discovered, yes, it is actually steep enough to carry
19 those flows. And we're worked through with our civil
20 engineer, and I see they're both sitting there, and worked
21 through with storm water staff. So if you have any
22 questions on that, I'm sure they can get to the bottom of
23 it for you.
24 And just the last thing I wanted to touch on is
25 the solar oriented lots. And I just wanted to offer a
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be another one. The development is required by the
City to improve Impala Drive adjacent to the development
as part of the development, so.adjacent to the colored
area is all improved and as we got going through the
detailed engineering to get all of the tie-ins to Vine
Drive, it came out that we really needed to improve that
all the way up to the Vine Drive intersection. So we're
re -doing to current street standards from this point up to
Vine Drive, including the asphalt, and the curb, and
gutter, and sidewalk on our side of the street.
Additionally, on Vine Drive, which is up at the
top of the screen going east/west, we're required to
upgrade the Vine Drive cross section to a minimum of
36 feet to the nearest improved aerial, which is right at
the corner of Taft Hill and Vine. So we're going about a
third of a mile east with a strip of widening of asphalt
to bring it up to that minimum connectivity standard, and
that will allow bike lanes on both sides of Vine Drive.
Another issue that has come up frequently in the
review of this project and in some of the conversations
with the neighborhood is the storm water, and how the
storm water is going to get from this site to its ultimate
outfall. And, like I'd mentioned before, we've got a
detention pond here in this corner. And the water,
basically, will then go at a -- it'll capture during the
21
1 or average per lot which, when you compare RL zoned
2 property, if it's got, for example, a 20-foot wide
3 driveway by about .40 feet long, which isn't uncommon in a
4 typical RL zoned district. That's about the same amount
5 of paving that you'd find in a circumstance where there is
6 a lot with a 20-foot wide and 40-foot deep driveway.
7 Okay, couple other points I wanted to make. As
8
part of
--
9
HEARING OFFICER:
I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, could we
10
go back
to that point for
a minute? Are you saying that
11
if you
added up the paved
areas of the private drive
12
that's
in the easement, as
well as the driveways
13 themselves that may lead to garages, that that totals 800
14 to 900 square feet per lot; is that right?
15 MR. JONES: Yeah, on average per lot, right.
16 And the driveways serving these lots and these lots and
17 these lots will be very short because the building will be
18 real close to that sidewalk. And so you'll just have a
19 very minimal skirt of pavement between that sidewalk and
20
the garage.
So,
really, the
amount
of
paving we're
21
talking about
is
the private
drive
and
then these corner
22 lots.
23
HEARING OFFICER:
Okay.
24
MR. JONES: Okay.
A couple other
points I think
25
that are important to make
regarding street
improvements.
O
1 of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
2 spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar
3 window and door patterns, and/or the use of building
4 materials that have color shades and textures similar to
5 those existing in the immediate area of the proposed
6 development.
7 So I want to go over a couple of other issues.
8 Could you back up to that? There we go. As far as the
9 private street, there is another issue that I believe will
10 come up in some of the e-mails that you received, and
11 perhaps in some of the discussion later on, is that the
12 lots are 6- and 7,000 square feet and in between, but the
13 private drive itself kind of straddles the lot line. So a
14 lot of the paved area of the private drive is included in
15 the lot, which it is permitted to do. And the way that
16 the private drive calculations work, within the way that
17 the City calculates it, that is a way that it's
18 calculated.
19 However, we wanted to kind of make the point
20
that if you add up the area of all of
the paved
area of
21
private drive and driveways that come
back and
serve these
22
corner lots, it's on average between
8- and 900
square
23
feet, I forget the number exactly. I
think it's
876. And
24
I can look that up and get that number
to you.
But
25
somewhere in the neighborhood of less
than 900
square feet
19
1 might help get some clarity. Compatibility -- and Steve
2 read this out loud, I don't need to go through it again.
3 But if we want to go back to the definition in any of the
4 discussions, we can put that up on the screen. But one of
5 the important things, and I know Steve stressed this, as
6 well, is that compatibility does not mean the same as, by
7 definition in the Land Use Code. And this isn't is same
8 as what's around it, but it is a similar character. And
9 that's a real loose term and, as defined in the Code, I
10 think we're fine with regard to .that.
11 The Code also spells out the elements that
12 affect compatibility. And we feel that these are inherent
13 in RL zone district. We're complying with all of the
14 minimum lot size and all of the maximum building heights
15 associated with the RL zone district. And we're complying
16 with all of the landscaping standards within Article 3,
17 the lighting, the noise. Our architecture, as Steve
18 indicated, will be reviewed upon building permit, and
19 that's pretty common in the City when they get to that
20 level of official review.
21 And then architectural character is probably one
22 of the things that is likely to come up in the discussions
23
later, as well, so
it might be important to kind
of go
24
through that. But
compatibility can be achieved
through
25
techniques such as
the repetition of roof lines,
the use
18
1 vehicular circulation is
kind of internal to
the site.
2 Private drives
are different than
either private
3 streets or public streets, and so we think it's an
4 important distinction to make in that this is not designed
5 to public street standards, nor is it intended to be.
6 Once you have a private drive, it's the emergency services
7 -- Poudre Fire Authority, namely -- that really kind of
8 regulates in the Lands Use Code regarding emergency
9 services, as well as to how wide the private drive needs
10 to be. And so we've complied with all of the requirements
11 for that.
12 HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Jones, I'm sorry, how wide
13 is the private drive easement? Is it 20?
14 MR. JONES: The easement's 30 feet, the
15 Pavement --
16 HEARING OFFICER: But the actual paved --
17 MR. JONES: That includes the sidewalk, right?
18 I forgot to introduce our civil engineer, Jade Miller.
19 Sorry. What did you say, Jade?
20 MR. MILLER: (Inaudible)
21 MR. JONES: Okay. 20 feet of roadway, sidewalks
22 on either side of 5 feet, so a total of 30 feet wide,
23 private drive. A few other points I wanted to make, and
24 advancing the, slides. Okay. I wanted to go over from a
25 compatibility standpoint a few definitions that I think
17
1 The structure plan indicated that LMN would be
2 appropriate here and then, upon annexation, Planning and
3 Zoning Board recommended RL to the City Counsel because
4 it's a less intense zone district, fewer dwellings unit
5 per acre are permitted and, therefore, a lot of the
6 neighbors showed up and requested that it not be LMN, and
7 that a less intense zone would be more appropriate. So
8 that was given to the zoning upon annexation.
9 So I think what we'll show you here is that we
10 are compatible. We're falling within the minimum lot size
11 of the RL zone district, which is 6,000 square feet. Some
12 of our lots -- our largest lot is 7048 square feet and our
13 smallest is 6004, so we range between roughly 6,000 and
14
7,000 square feet.
We have an aerial photograph here that
15
kind of helped
in
our analysis, as well, and we can come
16
back to that if
it
seems appropriate.
17
Just
as
kind of a overall kind of graphic, we've
18
got basically 7
lots
and then this is not a lot, this is a
19
detention pond,
so
it's an out -lot. There is a private
20
drive that
comes off of
Impala
Drive
and creates
the
21
circulation
internally
to get
to the
eastern row
of lots.
22 As well, the vehicular access off of this private drive
23 we're anticipating would come off for these 2 lots, so
24 that you can have the front doors and the front porches of
25 these 4 lots along Impala facing out onto Impala, and the
16
1 mark that's probably in your head as you analyze this
2 project. And I think we wanted to take this opportunity
3 to kind of give you our perspective of why we think what
4 we are proposing is compatible.
5 We took a look at all of the properties within
6 the immediate vicinity. And you can see the dark black
7 lines are basically the black lines of the lots in the
8 development we are proposing, and then everything else in
9 yellow around it is the surrounding neighborhood. And in
10 our AutoCad program, we measured the area in all of the
11 different parcels around just to try to get a sense of, if
12 at all, how far out of whack are we with the context.
13
And as
you can see on Impala Drive, there are
14
some
large lots,
there's some fairly rural 53,000 square
15
foot
lot, 13,000
further down south. But as you go across
16
the
street, it's
not uncommon 7572 -- these are all in the
17
7500
to 7400 range on the next street over, on Irish
18
Drive.
They're
not properties that are in the 6900 foot
19
range,
in the low
7000 foot range. You do have, also,
20
some
properties
in the 10,000 and the 9,000, 17,000 square
21
foot
range. So
it's a real diverse mixture of lot sizes.
22
In the
neighborhood to the east, there's a
23
mixture
of 7,000
and 8,000 square foot lots. We believe
24
this
is why the
City Counsel decided to zone it RL. We
25
were
requesting
LMN originally.
15
1 single story, yes. But there are some structures that are
2 entirely two story, as well as some structures that have
3 elements of the building that are two-story.
4 To the south, they are all single story, single
5 family residential units. To the east and at Plains Court
6 subdivision, predominance of single story homes. But
7 there are, again, structures in there that are both a
8 one-story and partially one and two-story structures.
9 That's really as far as we looked relative to the
10 compatibility of this site to the surrounding
11 neighborhoods.
12 HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
13 MR. OLT: Both size of lots, as well as the
14 nature of the structures, again, that are proposed.
15 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. Does the
16 applicant have a presentation?
17 MR. JONES: Hello. Thank you. I'm Troy Jones.
18 I'm with M. Torgerson Architects, and Michael Torgerson is
19 here, as well as the applicants, John and Julie Adrian, in
20 the back, if any questions come up for any of them.
21 I just wanted to touch on a few points that I
22 know are probably going to come up in some of the
23 conversations that some of the neighbors are going to
24 have, and some of e-mails that you've probably received.
25 We think compatibility is probably the biggest question
14
1 MR. OLT:
That's
absolutely correct.
2 HEARING
OFFICER:
Parcel A?
3 MR. OLT:
Yes.
It could be one of 7 lots on
4 Parcel A.
5 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And in terms of
6 compatibility, I think you touched on this. When you look
7 at compatibility within a particular neighborhood or area,
8 are you looking just beyond the adjacent properties? What
9 sort of scope do you look at when staff analyzes
10 compatibility?
11 MR. OLT: Well, in this particular case, I think
12 we went as far as, if you look to the west, the site is in
13 red on this location map. The yellow surrounding the
14 property is in the City limits. And that is in the LMN
15 low density zoning district, which actually is the zoning
16 district that allows higher density than the RL that this
17 property was zoned as. There are the existing
18 subdivisions immediately to the west, along North Impala
19
Drive and Irish Drive. That's
that yellow finger that
20
goes down to Irish
Elementary.
We looked to those
21
neighborhoods over
there, so we
are actually looking at a
22
block to the west,
basically,
in the existing
23
subdivisions.
24
To the
west, there is some
two family dwellings,
25
as well as single
family residential,
some predominantly
13
1 criteria and how critical that is to this development
2 ultimately maintaining the character of and the
3 compatibility with the surrounding area, that we're
4 recommending condition of approval that states that,
5 developer at time of building permit application to the
6 City of Fort Collins must provide building elevation
7 sufficient to convey information enabling the City staff
8 to determine if the structures comply with the requirement
9 Set forth in Section 3.5.1, Architectural Character and
10 Building Size in our City's Land Use Code.
11 So with that, staff has determined that the
12 project meets the applicable criteria of the Land Use
13 Code, specifically Articles 3 and Section 4.3, the Low
14 Density Residential Zoning Districts, and we are
15 recommending approval of the Adrian Subdivision First
16 Filing.
17 There is also another action that you must take
18 recommending approval of the alternative plan for the
19 solar orientation and then, again, noting that we are
20 recommending condition of approval of the project relative
21 to the sections in the Land Use Code. With that, I'll end
22 my presentation.
23 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Olt. Just for
24 a point of clarification. The ODP that was approved
25 approved up to 7 lots on this particular parcel?
12
1 scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics
2 include pedestrian or vehicle traffic, circulation access
3 and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that
4 effect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise,
5 odor and architecture.
6 A key statement here, compatibility, does not
7 mean "the same as". It would be difficult to go around
8 this community and find that an entire neighborhood is all
9 single family, single story residential. There, again,
10 compatibility doesn't mean the same as. You can certainly
11 design developments and, in particular, structures, to be
12 compatible with structures that aren't of exactly the same
13 character. Rather, compatibility refers to the
14 sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the
15 character of existing developments.
16 The building size -- the proposed buildings will
17 be similar in height and massing to existing single
18 family, two family buildings in.the area. The maximum
19 height in this development will be 28 feet. That doesn't
20 necessarily mean each and every one of the structures
21 would be that maximum height. Building massing can be
22 articulated and subdivided into massing that's
23 proportional to the mass and scale of the structures in
24 the neighboring area.
25 Staff felt it was important because of these two
11
1 no structure can be more than that. There has to be a
2 ratio of 1 to 3. In essence, your structures can't be
3 more than 1/3rd the size of the total square footage of
4 the lots. On a 6000 square foot lot, you cannot have more
5 than a 2000 square foot home. That is set forth in the
6 Code. The structures could be one, one and a half, or
7 two -stories in height, although most of the homes in this
8 area are one-story structures.
9 There are existing single family detached
10 dwellings and two family dwellings. There are two family
11 dwellings just to the east or -- pardon me -- to the west
12 of this along Irish Drive on that subdivision, that
13 existing subdivision.
14 Compatibility with the established surrounding
15 neighborhoods can be achieved through techniques such as
16 repetition of roof lines, use of similar proportions in
17 building massing and outdoor spaces, similar relationships
18 to the street, the use building materials that have color
19 shades and textures similar to those in the immediate
20 area.
21 Compatibility as defined in the Land Use Code is
22 as follows: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics
23 of different uses or activities of design which allow them
24 to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.
25 Some elements effecting compatibility include height,
10
1 square
feet up to 14,000 to 20,000
square feet in size for
2 single
family residential, so there
is a broad range of
3 lot sizes
in the neighborhoods, in
the surrounding area.
4
Although the predominance
of single family homes
5 in the
area are one-story homes, this
neighborhood is an
6 older
neighborhood in the sense that
ranch style homes
7
were
-- and I'm assuming this
could date back to the 50s,
8
60s,
and 70s, in terms of when
these neighborhoods were
9
built
-- at that time there was
a predominance of ranch
10
style
family, or single story
and single family
11
residential
homes.
12 This project is proposing structures up to 28
13 feet in height, which is the maximum height permitted in
14 the RL zoning district. These could be one- or two-story
15 homes, one, one and a half, to two-story homes. And as we
16 evaluated, again, the architectural character, and the
17 bulk and mass of the homes, we stated that the proposed
18 new single family detached dwellings in this subdivision
19 will be a similar size and height to existing residential
20 structures in the area.
21 Based on the size of the proposed lots -- 6 to
22 7,000 square feet, the maximum square footage of the
23 structures can range from 2,000. This is the maximum
24 square footage in the RL zoning district. No structure --
25 and this is the total square footage of the structure --
Pe
1 we feel it's necessary to require reviewing single family
2 homes. And in this case, we have not to date. The
3 biggest criteria is Article 3 because, again, I said this
4 is in the RL zoning district. There is land use standards
5 set forth there. But they're minimal based on minimal lot
6 size and set -backs. They would be meeting the set -back
7 requirements from streets rights of way and easements and
8 property lines. They certainly are meeting the minimum
9 lot size.
10 Understanding that the private drive that would
11 be providing access to several of these lots would fall
12 within the lot, as well, in an access and access easement.
13 But that is permitted within that minimum 6,000 square
14 feet. There are two sections of 3.5.2, Residential
15 Standards, that have been evaluated dealing with
16 architectural character and the building size, height,
17 bulk, mass, and scale. And I think it's best to quickly
18 read those two sections -- they're relatively short -- as
19 we evaluated this, understanding that. I don't know if I
20 have the contextual map on here. I think the developer
21 applicant may.
22 There are several, again, subdivisions, as well
23 as larger residential properties in the area. There are
24
residential lots
within
several
blocks of this development
25
proposal with lot
sizes
ranging
from approximately 6500
0
1 where it's less intrusive.
2 In evaluating that request, staff has determined
3 that there really is no detriment to approval of that
4 alternative plan or this plan which would alternately
5 provide solar access to any of
the homes in
a different
6 way, other than on the front or
-- truly, on
the front or
7 the rear of the lot. So we're
recommending
approval of
8 the alternative plan in that sense.
9 Other than that, we have evaluated this
10
development
proposal
against, again, all of the applicable
11
standards in
Article
3, which is General Development
12
Standards.
And there
we're looking at the layout of the
13
property, looking
at,
in this case, landscaping for a
14
subdivision
of this nature.
The only landscape
15
requirement
is being
met along North Impala Drive. And
16 the street's trees will be provided in a parkway between a
17 detached sidewalk and North Impala Drive, the curb line
18 along North Impala Drive, the specified distances or
19 center distances between the trees of 30 to 40 feet.
20 That's the only real landscaping requirement associated
21 with the development of this nature.
22 We have not evaluated the actual building
23 architecture -- and there was a note to you from the
24 developer -- in a single family residential. We typically
25 don't unless there are some extenuating circumstances that
7
1 private drive within the development or from North Impala
2 Drive. They would have that option of being that there
3 are 3 lots that front directly on the north Impala Drive,
4 4 lots then, along the east side of the properties that
5 would require access from the private drive.
6 Again, as we discussed in previous plans,
7 there's is one section of the Land Use Code the staff has
8 determined is not being met with this development
9 proposal. It's the solar orientation ordinance again. By
10 virtue of no street, really, running east/west through the
11 site, and lots fronting on an east/west street, none of
12 them meet any one of three definitions of a solar oriented
13 lot per the Land Use Code. However, staff has evaluated
14 this and looking at -- easily 3 to 4 of the lots are
15 configured and oriented such that they could certainly
16 accommodate a solar oriented structure. It could
17 accommodate active or passive solar systems.
18 Also, the applicant has submitted to you for
19 review, in the request for an alternative compliance plan
20 to the solar orientation, that their intent is to design
21 the homes as such that, rather than having the solar
22 systems on, essentially the front or back of the homes as
23 the ordinance essentially originally was designed for, to
24 take that element which isn't always a desirable element
25 from a residence standpoint, and put that on the side
1 the maximum number of lots permitted on Parcel A of the
2 overall development plan. The property would be accessed
3 by private drive that would loop through the property off
4 of North Impala Drive. These lots range in size from
5 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in size, approximately.
6 The property is in the RL zoning district. I'll
7 get you the date on the annexation. This property was
8 recently annexed into the City of Fort Collins. That
9 occurred in April of 2004. And the entire property, the
10 entire 2 acres, was annexed into the City and zoned RL --
11 low density residential.
12 In the low density residential zoning district,
13 single family residential lots are permitted. There is
14 really minimal land use and development standards in the
15 RL zoning district. One, however, is that single family
16 lots be at least 6,000 square feet in size and, in this
17 case, all of them would be -- as in the proposal before
18 you -- would be 6,000 square feet in size.
19 The private drive has access to -- primary
20 access to 4 of the lots, would partially be on the lots.
21 That is permitted. A private drive does not require a
22 right of way. It requires an access easement. So as part
23 of the lots, there would be the private drive access
24 easement within that 6 to 7,000 square foot. The lots
25 along North Impala Drive could be.accessed from either the
0
1 The proposal is for 7 lots, single family lots,
2 and a out -lot, which is actually the required detention
3 pond -- storm water detention pond -- for this development
4 proposal. This first filing for Adrian 'Subdivision is in
5 conformance with a recently adopted over-all development
6 plan for the entire property. This is the 2 acres, West
7 Vine Drive, North Impala Drive. It was divided into 2
8 parcels, Parcel A, which is approximately 1.2 acres in
9 size and showing the detention pond in this location.
10 Parcel A is identified for single family
11 detached residential dwelling units, no more than 7 as
12 Parcel A identifies on this overall development. And this
13 is an approved overall development plan -- approved and
14 recorded -- no more than 7 lots.
15 Parcel B is approved for single family
16 residential, no more than 2 lots so ultimately, again,
17 this would allow the project or the property to be
18 developed in 2 phases. You're looking at Phase 1 or
19 Filing 1 tonight. Ultimately, based on the overall
20 development plan, there could be up to but no more than 8
21 single family lots on the property.
22 Going back to the plat again, now we're looking
23 at the Project Development Plan. It is in compliance with
24 the approved and recorded overall development plan in that
25 they're requesting subdivision plat for 7 lots, which is
4
1 of West Vine Drive at the southeast corner of Vine Drive
2 and North Impala Drive, and that's this north/south street
3 in this location. North Taft Hill Road is approximately
4 -- I think it's about a quarter of a mile, a quarter to a
5 third of a mile, to the east of the site. So those are
6 the main arterials and local streets in the area.
7 This property is surrounded by several
8 subdivisions to the west and the south. There is one
9 larger property directly south of the Adrian Subdivision
10 Proposal before you tonight. There is a larger property
11 directly to the east. And then we do have an existing
12 platted.subdivision to the east of that.
13 I would like to note that this site -- we're
14 actually looking at approximately 2/3rds of the site being
15 a total of about 2 acres in size. The project before you
16 tonight is 1.2 acres in size. It is a proposal for 7
17 single family residential lots. And I must note that this
18 has been qualified by the City of Fort Collins as an
19 affordable housing project.
20 We're looking at 7 single family lots on
21 approximately 1.2 acres. I'd like to go to the
22 subdivision plats. It shows up a little better. Along
23 the west side of the property is North Impala Drive. This
24 is West Vine Drive to the north. There's an existing home
25 in this location on the property. This is vacant.
3
1 know
that
I do
have that as part of
the evidence in
this
2 case.
Mr.
Olt,
I'm going to turn it
over to you.
If you
3 could
just
tell
me if proper notice
has been given
for
4 this hearing.
5 MR. OLT: Yes, proper notice has been given.
6 Again, the requirement for the Land Use Code is that the
7 property be signed at time of a development request made
8 to the City, and that was done. Then, also, the letter of
9 notification to all property owners within 500 feet, in
10 this particular case, of the development proposal, was
11 sent out 14 days prior to this public hearing. And then
12 the proper notification in a local newspaper in Colorado
13 was done.
14 HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
15 MR. OLT: So proper notification has been done
16 according to our Code. Thank you.
17 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
18 MR. OLT: Are we ready?
19 HEARING OFFICER: I'm ready.
20 MR. OLT: Okay. To locate this first -- and I
21 know it is hard to see the arrow. We're going to have to
22 get that taken care of someday -- but what we're looking
23 at is the Adrian Subdivision First Filing Project
24 Development Plan. The property is shown in a light yellow
25 cross -hatched in this location. It is on the south side
F
1 HEARING OFFICER: Steve, are we ready to go?
2 I'm going to open the public hearing on the Adrian
3 Subdivision First Filing PDP Case No. 42-03A. The
4 applicant is M. Torgerson Architects. It's approximately
5 6:50 on October 18th.
6 For those of you who weren't in the audience
7 when I went through this before, we're going to first
8 allow the planning staff to make it's presentation of the
9 case, followed by the applicant and any representatives of
10 the applicant. Then I'll be opening it up for public
11 comment. And if you could please state your name and
12 address, and relationship to the project in terms of where
13 you live, or whether you're in favor or against it, that
14 would be helpful for my purposes. And I hope all of you
15 have signed in at the front desk there before you entered,
16 so I have your correct name and address.
17 I guess we'll get started. I would like to say
18 that I have received various e-mail communications,
19 letters and petitions. I received one petition. The
20 petition representatives are Steve Schaeffer, Sandy Knox,
21 and Shelly Neth. All of this correspondence I will enter
22 into the record.
23 I have read most of your letters and will read
24 all of them before I render a decision. Steve, I think,
25 forwarded everything to me. I just wanted to let everyone
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Held October 18, 2004
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of
Adrian Subdivision First Filing
42-03A
Linda Michow, Hearing Officer