Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN ODP - 42-03B - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (18)Voting in favor of the present proposal would demonstrate disregard for the city land use code. The proposal to be discussed on Thursday evening involves dividing the property into two parcels: A and B. This would allow for construction to take place in two phases. It would exempt the developers from paying for improvements to the north side of the property (along Vine Drive) during the first phase of the development, after which they would probably elect to sell the existing house. The buyer would then have the opportunity to develop one more house along Vine Drive. By splitting the property into two parcels, the cost of improvements along Vine Drive would most likely be borne by taxpayers. In this neighborhood taxpaying homeowners are overwhelmingly against this high -density development. As stewards of taxpayers' money, it would be unethical to vote in favor of this proposal because it would "open the door" for the use of tax revenues to essentially subsidize a private development that homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood do not support. The proposed development is being billed as an "affordable housing project." This too is a "smokescreen" to obtain government funds to further "subsidize" the project. Perks from the City of Fort Collins would reduce the costs to the developer, however those costs do not simply disappear. Thus, more of the costs of development would be borne by the taxpayers! Note that houses for sale in the neighborhood are priced at $165,000, while the cost of the proposed "affordable" houses are projected to be around $203,000. Regardless of the his excluding himself from voting issues regarding this project, Mr. Mikal Torgerson chairs the planning and zoning board. Regardless of his exclusion, this presents a clear conflict of interest because he is the architect for the Adrian property and is most likely informally socially involved with other members of the board! Professionally, he interacts with members of the board regularly. This is an outrage!!! On a positive note, the planning and zoning board voted in favor (4-2) of the reduced zoning R-L from the proposed L-M-N zoning earlier this spring. The support received on recommending the lower density zoning was much appreciated by homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood. Members of the planning and zoning board voting against the L-M-N zoning earlier this spring have mostly the same reasons to vote against the current proposal. Please ioin us in sensibly rejecting this scourge to our tight knit neighborhood! TO: Sally Craig salcrgaa,aol.com Jennifer Carpenter jcgmenterOthe9roupinc.com Jerry Gavaldon JJG1973gaol.com Judy Meyer frconsaiMis.com Brigitte Schmidt bschmidt(o)ir.colostate.edu Dave Lingle dlingle(a,aller-lingle.com Cameron Gloss (staff) cgloss(cDf�c ov.com Greg Byrne (staff) gbyrne(@fcgov.com David Roy droy(iUcgov.com FROM: Dr. Steven L. Schaeffer 601 North Impala Drive Fort Collins, CO 80521 stevenO-enu r.colostate.ed u 970.416.0498 (H) 970.491.5140 (W) DATE: 10 SEPTEMBER 2004 SUBJ: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR 2333 W. VINE DR. On Thursday, 16 Sept., there will be a meeting of the City of Ft Collins Planning and Zoning Board at city hall at 6 PM. The future of the above development proposal plat and the number of allowable lots will be decided at this meeting. Please reject this proposal based on the following reasons. Presently, 8 (that is "eight") units have been planned for the property. The development proposal including drawings was turned in the month of July. While eight units are perhaps feasible within R-L zoning, this density is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood! Section 3.5.1 of the city land use code states that "New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary." "Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, [sic] etc." The manner in which this density is being proposed is unprecedented in the neighborhood, by the design of property boundaries bifurcating a private drive through the approximate 1.65-acre lot. Section 3.6.2.1 states, "Private drives shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provision of this land use code." Some of these lots are as small as 3,900 square feet excluding the area of the private drive! (The smallest lot on North Impala Drive [517] is 7,410 square feet).