HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING - PDP - 42-03A - CORRESPONDENCE - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (6)be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of
this Land Use Code." The appellants contend that the proposed private drive would
diminish compliance with compatibility requirements of the LUC. Both staff and the
hearing officer have found the project to be compatible with surroundings. The definition
of compatibility in the LUC states, "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of
different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent
to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height,
scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important
characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and
architecture. Compatibility does not mean `the same as.' Rather, compatibility
refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of
existing development." I"d like to point out that this definition includes the phrase
"compatibility does not mean "the same as." To that end, it is our contention that (with
regard to characteristics such as lot sizes, setbacks, maximum building heights, and
access) the zone district standards have been put into place to define the limits of what is
compatible. Our project complies with all zone district standards, as required. As far as
the compatibility of the scale, mass, bulk of structures, and the architecture, the hearing
officer has addressed these issues by imposing the following condition on the approval of
the Adrian Subdivision: "The developer, at the time of building permit application to
the City of Fort Collins, must provide building elevatiouns suffient to convey
information enabling City staff to determine if the structures comply with the
requirements set forth in 3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale of the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. This condition of approval ensures
compatibility, therefore the appellants' allegations are unfounded.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the allegations of this appeal.
S ncerely,
Troy)Arch
s A.I. P.
M. T ects
t
City Council
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525
December 29, 2004
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council,
This purpose of this letter is to respond to the appeal of our project, the
Adrian Subdivision, that was submitted to the City Clerk on December 1,
2004.
The appellants contend that the area of our proposed lots do not meet the
minimum lot area requirements and that our proposed lots do not meet the
minimum lot width requirements. The appellants are using an incomplete
portion of the definition of "Lot" in the LUC to make their argument.
Article 5 of the LUC defines lot as "Lot shall mean a designated parcel,
tract or area of land established by plat, subDivision or otherwise
permitted by law to be used, occupied or designed to be occupied by
one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, and which abuts a
dedicated right-of-way, private street or private drive, any of which is
at least twenty (20) feet wide at all points." The appellants have taken a
portion of this definition out of context, and have come up with the
following misleading definition of lot: "a lot shall mean an area of land
which abuts a private drive." The key element of a lot is that the limits of
such lot are established by a plat. The definition of lot does not preclude
having a private drive be located on a lot, it simply states that a lot
typically abuts either a street or a private drive.
Additionally the appellants contend that the proposed subdivision fails to
foster non -vehicular access. This simply isn't true. Every tot is served by
either a public sidewalk or a sidewalk along the private drive.
The appellants also contend that 3.6.2(L)(1)(a) of the LUC was not
properly applied to the project. This code section states, "Internal access
or additional cross -access. Private drives shall be allowed in a
development, provided that their function will only be to provide
access to property within the development or additional cross -access
between developments that are also connected by a street(s). Private
drives shall not be permitted if (by plan or circumstance) such drives
would, in the judgment of the City Engineer, attract `through traffic'
in such volumes as to render such drives necessary as connections
between developments, neighborhoods or other origins and
destinations outside of the development plan. A private drive shall not
M.Twgerson
tr3 r td*
904W431
IK4W431
Far 910.4PA]435
FmA ■W6com