HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING - PDP - 42-03A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL3) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala
Drive would be sensitive to the character of the existing surrounding
neighborhoods.
4) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala
Drive would adhere to the purpose of the Land Use code, which is to
improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare.
5) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala
Drive would allow building masses, building heights, outdoor spaces, and
architectural character to be compatible to the surrounding area.
This PDP with its high density on such a small area does NOT protect the public
welfare. It would dramatically destroy our property values and our quality of life.
This cluster PDP project would stigmatize our neighborhood. It is unethical for the
developer to profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood.
Please ONERTVIAN_ the decision of the decision maker Linda Michow.
Dr.'Steven L. Schaeffer
60l North Impala Driv
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Steven@engr.colostate.edu
970.416.0498
Representative of 163 residents of the Green Acres Subdivision area, all whom have signed two
separate petitions in opposition to this proposed development prior to this appeal.
d4MA "A K� -
Ms. Sandy KnU
2309 West Vine Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Sandyk11224 peoplepc.com
970.493.8266
Neighbor who received mailed notice and is designated to receive any notice of defects in the
appeal notice.
Page 5 of 5
immediate area of the proposed infill development". The PDP because of the
private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) and practically NO
outdoor spaces. The immediate area has large lots (between 7500sf and
15000sf) with big front yards and very large backyards.
5) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B which
also states " compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as
similar relationships to the street as to those existing in the immediate area
of the proposed infill development". Only three of the PDP lots abut a
street because of the private drive. All lots in the surrounding, immediate
area abut a street.
6) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 C which
states "buildings shall be similar in size and height and proportional to the
mass and scale of other structures on the same block". The PDP because of
the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would
result in large building masses and not similar to the scale of the single -
story buildings on the same block.
7) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 D which
states "elements of the development plan shall be arranged to minimize
infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses". The proposed private
drive and high density of lots maximizes infringement on the privacy of
adjoining land uses.
8) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 1.2.4 which
states " a lot shall not be reduced in dimensions or area to an amount less
than the minimum requirements". The private drive results in lots less than
6000 sf as required.
G) Division 3.6.2 (Llb) states "a private drive, instead of a street, shall be
allowed to provide access to an unusually shaped parcel of land".
1) The PDP parcel of land is NOT unusually shaped. In fact the PDP parcel is
a rectangular shaped parcel of land. The parcel measures 175 feet from
Impala Drive on the west to the existing private drive (not part of the
parcel) on the east. All the existing lots to the south of the PDP to Cherry
Street measure 195 feet when measured from Impala Drive to their back lot
lines.
2) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala
Drive would have lot depths 20 feet less than the lot depths of the existing
lots to the south. The use of a private drive is NOT warranted for this PDP
parcel of land.
Page 4 of 5
1) This area has very high groundwater. This PDP with a high density of lots
on very small lots did not address this issue and as a result this would
adversely effect the surrounding existing properties.
F) Division 3.6.2 (Ll a) states that "a private drive shall not be permitted if it
prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of the Land Use
Code".
1) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 4.3.D.1 which
states that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000)
square feet". The lot areas in PDP #42-03A are less than 6,000 sq. ft. In
article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a
private drive. When these lots are measured from the edge of the private
drive the resulting areas are LESS THAN 6,000 sq. ft.
2) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 A which
states " that the proposed buildings are to be compatible when considered
within the context of the surrounding area". Div 5.1.2 states that
"compatibility refers to the sensitivity. of development proposals in
maintaining the character of existing development". The character of the
existing neighborhood is single -story, ranch -style homes on large lots
(between 7500sf and 15000sf) and on full-sized streets. The PDP because
of the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which
would result in large building masses. The PDP is NOT sensitive to the
character of the existing surrounding neighborhood.
3) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B, which
states, "new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall
be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas".
Again, Div 5.1.2 states that "compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals in maintaining the character of existing
development". The architectural character of the existing neighborhood is
single -story; ranch -style homes on large lots (between 7500sf and 15000st)
and on full-sized streets. The PDP because of the private drive has small
lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building
masses. These large building masses are NOT sensitive to the established
architectural character of the existing surrounding neighborhood.
4) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B which
also states " compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the
use of similar proportions in outdoor spaces to those existing in the
Page 3 of 5
C) Division 3.3.1 (B 1) states that "no lot in a subdivision shall have less area than
required under the applicable zoning requirements of the city'
1) As stated above in A 1, The lot areas in PDP #42-03A are less than the
required 6,000 sf (Div 4.3 D1). In article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot
shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive. When these lots
are measured from the edge of the private drive the resulting areas are
LESS THAN 6,000 sq. ft.
D) Division 3.3.1 (B 2) states that "the general layout of lots, roads, driveways,
utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed
development shall be designed in a way that enhances an interconnected street
system within and between neighborhoods and otherwise accomplishes the
purposes and intent of the Land Use Code".
1) The use of a private drive does not enhance the interconnected street
system. It would only cause excessive traffic congestion too close to the
intersection of Impala and Vine.
2) The high density of seven lots each with two, three, or more vehicles would
also cause excessive traffic congestion, which does not enhance the
interconnected street system.
3) The use of a private drive and layout of seven lots do not accomplish the
purposes and intent of the Land Use Code.
a) They do not improve or protect the public health, safety or welfare (sec
1.2.2.).
b) They do not foster the safe use of the city's transportation infrastructure
(sec 1.2.2 Q.
c) They promote rather than avoid the inappropriate development of lands
(sec1.2.2.E).
d) They do not ensure development that is sensitive to the character of the
existing neighborhood (sec 1.2.21v1). In sec 5.1.2, character means
definition and uniqueness. The character of the existing neighborhood
is single -story; ranch -style homes on large lots (between 7500sf and
15000sf) and on full-sized streets. The PDP has small lots (between
3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building masses. The
PDP is NOT sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood.
E) Division 3.3.3 ( C) states that "any lands that are subject to high groundwater
shall not be platted for building lots with basements".
Page 2 of 5
OEC I M
I December 2004
To whom it may concern:
This is a notice of appeal. We are requesting that the Fort Collins City Council
change and overturn the decision made by Linda Michow who was the decision
maker concerning the Adrian Subdivision, first filing PDP-#42-03A. The public
hearing was on 10/18/04.
The action that is being appealed is Linda Michow's decision of approval with
conditions.
Her decision was made on November 1, 2004.
Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. The following are the
laws (not properly interpreted) and supporting summaries of facts:
A) Division 4.3 low density residential district (R-L) section D 1 & 2. Dl states
that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square
feet". D2 states that "the minimum lot width shall be sixty (60) feet for a
single-family dwelling".
1) The lot areas in PDP #42-03A are less than 6,000 sq ft. In article 5, div
5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area'of land which abuts a private
drive. When these lots are measured from the edge of the private drive the
resulting areas are LESS THAN 6,000 sq ft.
2) The lot widths in PDP #42-03A are less than 60 feet. In article 5, div 5.1.2
it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive.
When these lot widths are measured from the edge of the private drive the
resulting widths are LESS THAN 60 feet.
B) Division 3.2.3(E 2) (solar access, orientation, shading alternative compliance)
states that "the decision -maker shall take into account whether the alternative
design fosters nonvehicular access".
1) The alternative plan because of the private drive fosters excessive
vehicular access thus prevents SAFE nonvehicular access.
2) Section 1.2.2 states the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and
protect the public health, SAFETY and welfare.
Page 1 of 5