HomeMy WebLinkAboutWAFFLE HOUSE - PDP - 17-02 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILJITA
JIPTAM mi I I *M�-- M
* 1,1*,.*
I
c ir 1
A{>p�.AL ON DEGISIOQ Doi
bIb S.6OLL6Gt- AVVr. rVP-011-02
�I
■ ;- R IMM
)~+CIS'(1NG REiA1L �UIL.DI4Jf�
0
C>
---3
N
.A
1
IV
O
O
N
Z
C
N
CD
co
--o
3
n
-�G
r-.
I
OCT-24-2002 THU 02:58 PM CITY CLERK FAX NO. 9702216295 P. 02/04
2. The decision maker failed to properly interpret and applyrelevant provisions of
the code.
The appellants will present arguments and exbbits relevant to the following sections of the
code that were improperly uiterpretedi'"
Section 3.4.7 (E): Historic and L%itural Resources, New Cohstruction.
Section 3.5.1 (A)t "The purpgse of this Section is to ensure tliat the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered
within the context of the,surrounding area." issues of kitchen exhaust fumes and odor
were not properly considered. \\\
Section 3.5.1 B): "Compatibility shall be achieved through techrugi
repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building\ma
similar relationship's,'to the street, similar window and door patterns:
building matermis1diat have color shades and textures similar to tho;
immediate area of the proposed in -fill development." Exhibit #1 is a
which addresses site planning aspects of the code referenced above.
with this appeal);ij
Section 3.5.1; E 'll ): "Building materials shall either be similar to d
being used in theneighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are beinil
characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural'dej
texture, shall,be:utilized to ensure that enough similarity exist Or,d
compatible, despite differences in materials." Exhibit #3 is an,itn
Darrah House -
Section 3.5.3 1 : i ` appellants will present
the proposed awning ,will show compatible o
Signed:
":Judith A. Reid
C
-Grant W. Reid
#2).
such as the
and outdoor spaces,
id/or the use of
existing in the
designed site plan
:educed copy filed
materials already
posed, other
Ting, color and
building to be
e of the historic
incompatibility of
OCT-24-2002 THU 02:58 PM CITY CLERK FAX NO. 9702216295
P. 01/04
OCT 2 k 2002
City Clerk YtCI:T�CLERK October 24, 2002
City of Fort Collins
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL.
Action being Appealed:
Findings, conclusions, and decisions on 616 So. College Avenue ( PDP- #17-02)
The decision of approval with conditions was made on September 30, 2002.
At
Appellants: Q`a x fir►''
Judith A. Reid, owner of Darrah House at 612 So. College which lies adjacent and to the
north of 616. So. College. Cal
Phone number: 470-229-1527 (VA
Phone
Grant W. Reid,.ASL.A, husband of Darrah House owner and Landscape Architect.
Phone numbers: hm 970-226-2963; wk 970-491-7098
Address of both;appellants: 1020 Cunningham Drive #3, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Grounds for Appeal:
1) The decision: maker failed to conduct a fair, hearing.
'i
a) The established rules of procedure were not.properly followed.
Prior to the official hearing by the Hearing Officer, Linda C. Nlichow, Esq., no
neighborhood _meeting was called and no contact was made with the adjacent owners;
Judith ail Grant Reid, to show plans and elicit their input. Accordingly, the Reids had no
time to investigate and digest proposals prior to the hearing. As a result, the hearing
officer did not have the benefit of the Reids' response.
b) Some evidence presented at the meeting was substantially false and misleading. 4�0 \P Atn
The plan displayed by Land Images, Inc. showed the Darrah House to be significantly y
further away'#i m the joint property line than is the case. This plan also showed the curb
as it relates.to the frontage property line in a significantly incorrect location.�?�`�
Note Both of these misleading elements are relevant to the City Code of Article 3 - V
By authority of ipity Code Section 2.48 (21(e) "the right to rebut false or misleading
evidence", the'appellants are prepared to display a plan showing correct relationships.
c) The decision maker. failed to receive all relevant evidence. ((��
Sections 3.5.1 (A and 3.5.1 (B) of the General Development Standarg'_',Was substantially
passed overrby, the decision maker because of the absence of evidence from appellants.
y
.11 .,'1"Se &S coti. -10
cave I