Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST ELIZABETH STREET REZONING - 2-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATION# 2 - 02 51L IZABFTh' sTP & i /r `4 1008 EAST EL / 4 SSE Th y /1. I RC CCR P®L Lj sT seoeiT�ii v SITE F I I: _ • •N['-^- ZONING /LAND USE BOUNDARY L. IRE PRELIMINARY ANO MAY BE AL, . rEo UPON DETAILED_ STUDY AT TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION EAST SID NEIGHBORHOOD za } I I '�'IT__ _.- �, -� ; nI jt I __F_ ! ! '►.'a LAN JL-- �-, ;I'7�• � I�t_i ,, I I ,_I I :NP I � IfRESMIATION Ly"��. It_ ... _.__..._ _ 14LK3li• sT/R[i � �� l 1 --- 11 +G ui ti rr _ r N—_I{ jiT-'IFI .____` ! _. _I _ _ r� T • - �I' W it ili ' r !_2 1 r & { --�• 'r i ' 1 EI�}'ir� � ' 1 � f �. I: w- _-y21_ � i I_ �..._:� !I.1_�i —II II � Ili I�i l , i �l `- �i�(11 � "I.ti��(; i C '� _ a�l'4M�`��';,•• Ir (i I'IT- :As1 4Ari�. AII''I l'-::7L rI I�_•, �y—•I• „ , tF_ h rI• , I rl I I i NP=�'I t J•'F �- _ ' �ai.a+.It�L_1. ��� ! S T' -iI _ ii; < 1 • «. p J rr�Il P4r4igV417C R-'PEA! 1j1I1I t III. r'-; �:;. 1. .:7,_.I- - Ir' OF ERit i LA Ulf - 1 �l �. J ti- •i II 1,��. .I: Ir- F.i - .. •I 'I I' _ I Ir Vj CFfc�t I_ ji '1. ' _ L Lr •�n D ^ T'tral -NE � -NB' BLS I I I _ .••• . ... - w � I�IWI�IAIlY 1�111 �Ivl i!a _ i"14Rc�atq; �i.•�- II it 11 !r � I .'.. I .. I � r �JI. , C I$` I _ E _ I PROPOSED LAND U!'E .AREAS i - il PRESERaN01N ArlEA. { DUFFER AREA ell a i ; I � :c S Ila W OL HINGE =REA _ ,e sNaat �nw u �' �. .. } All rigmW14 Item Ie. w . i .. � I,•., ��JJ P'R'is m 1ISIp'E C r`.. I: ` - R'<7 A D L l IMai�IY�tl�l�l>•Illelrl �l�ll�li1�11�10 FIGURE 4 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition April 1, 2002 Page 5 of Fort Collins as wrong as ours, and our property is certainly not in a normal or traditional single family neighborhood. We have also confirmed that our property meets all the criteria necessary for rezoning. We also believe we have requested the proper NCB buffer zoning for our property, which is also the zoning recommended for and will be used to correct the property adjacent to ours (Baker property). In fact, I guess you could say our situation was the model for the NCB zone. We are very happy that we finally have an opportunity to come before the Council on April 16`h. We really look on this situation as a correction that is long overdue, as is the case with the property adjacent to us on the east (Baker). I appreciate the opportunity to give you all this information, and hope it is not considered to be an imposition. Sincerely, Paul F. Harder PFH/cet Enc. East Elizabeth Street Rez. ig Petition April 1, 2002 Page 4 When I went before the Planning and Zoning Board, I was only able to deliver half of my presentation due to time constraints. That is really the reason for this letter to the Council. It is just impossible to present all the relative and important information and facts necessary in the time allotted, particularly in a distorted situation like ours. Probably the most important issue that I was unable to address was the Staff Report. This report states that our property is considered a Quasi -Judicial Rezoning, and that it should meet certain criteria as outlined in Section 2, Parts A, B, and C. In Part A, it states that our property should be "consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan". As we know, our property was designated to be part of the Lemay Avenue corridor back in the 1960's, and certainly the requested NCB buffer zone would be allowed. Another statement made in Part A is that "the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the zone districts recommended for these properties". Actually, if you read the ESNP, the proposed zoning for property adjacent to commercial in a residential area is the NCB buffer zone that we are requesting. In Part B, it states that a rezoning is allowed if "warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property". Of course, all the property around us has changed. The Lemay Avenue corridor has been one of the most active areas of change in the City. The hospital has influenced a lot of this change, and that is true with respect to our property. After we had purchased our property, the present shopping center on Lemay was developed on our north boundary. The large commercial building adjacent to the back of our property, which was originally retail, was purchased by the hospital and remodeled into a medical center. Just recently, a 125-car parking lot was added to the west end of this property. I believe this is as close as change can be. The only property that has not changed is our property, and a very few properties to the west of us. We have already mentioned this situation, where a so-called mistake in zoning negated our right to even ask for change. In Part C, it refers to "additional consideration for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings". The report actually states that "uses such as multi -family, medical and professional offices, could be included within this area and be compatible with the existing uses". It then goes on to say that the lots are narrow and may pose a problem with setback and buffering. That is why we have joined both properties to give a 130-foot frontage. As you can see, our properties meet all three of the criteria necessary to recommend approval of a rezoning. The irony of this situation is that Mr. Hyder's request for zoning 20 years ago actually sparked the beginning of the group that, along with others, was responsible for the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP). From the ESNP, the new NCB buffer zone was created to solve the problem of residential property jammed against commercial property. To solve that problem, you create a buffer to cushion the commercial property from infringing on the residential. So from conflict comes solutions. Our point here is, this new idea with its noble purpose was not used in the single family area where it is needed the most (our property). In every rezoning request there are two parts. The first part is whether the present zoning is correct, or should it be changed. I believe we have demonstrated that there is no zoning in all East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition April 1, 2002 Page 3 If we look at the ESNP map, we see that this new buffer zone (yellow color) has been used extensively to separate higher zones from higher residential areas, but has not been used at all in the single family (NCL) area, except for the Baker property at 1040 East Elizabeth. if the proposed correction is made. At the very eastern edge of the ESNP, all of the property is NC (Neighborhood Commercial colored red) or E (Employment colored blue), yet none of the single family residential property has been buffered. As you can see, our property is at the very eastern edge of this situation and has been impacted the most. This is not consistent with the recommended purpose or use of the ESNP as it applies to the rest of the East Side area. If you study the ESNP, it would seem that our property would have the most need and be the best qualified for a buffer zone in all of the East Side. This explains why our situation is so distorted and there is nothing like it in all of Fort Collins, because our property was not allowed to develop normally as originally planned, and then when new zoning regulations were adapted, they were not applied equally and similarly in our area. What this all amounts to, is that we have been denied the reasonable use of our property. Right now, a big "positive" is that the hype, hysteria, fear, and anger that existed 20 years ago seems to have finally subsided. We know now that commercial zoning was never planned to expand west on Elizabeth to Stover Street, and that would not have happened. Mr. Barkeen, with the Planning Department, told me that he had received only two telephone calls inquiring about the rezoning on all three of these properties. A neighborhood meeting was called and, out of approximately 140 notices that were sent, only eight interested parties attended, two of which were my daughter and my partner. One party had not received a notice and I assume was not in our area. Of the five left, only one person spoke out with concern about the zoning — the renter just west of our property at 1002 East Elizabeth. The renter, Katty, rents from her mother who owns the property and lives in Kentucky. All of the "interested parties" lived within two blocks of our property. There was really no one from the "Elizabeth and Laurel Residential Area" that had been so concerned and so active 20 years ago. Again, at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the only person who spoke before the Board with any concern was Katty, the renter just west of us. I would like to qualify Katty's "position". Mr. Hyder told me that when the Rezoning Notices were placed on the properties, Katty asked him what was going on. She made the remark that she really didn't care what was being proposed; she liked having this open lot next to her and was going to oppose anything being done with the land. Mr. Hyder said he thought that was an odd thing to say, since she must know that he and his property are also a part of the rezoning request. Since all of the interested parties at the neighborhood meeting lived so close, the real question asked was what could or would be built on the property to be rezoned. No one claimed or argued that the property was NGL single family residential. I believe that the owners living in this area on the north side of East Elizabeth from Robertson Street to Morgan Street, realize they are in a "transitional area" adjacent to commercial and business property. The normal and real single family "detached" neighborhood is west of Morgan Street on Elizabeth, where residential homes face residential homes. East Elizabeth Street ReZL .g Petition April 1, 2002 Page 2 for a long time in which existing homeowners are not "displaced", even though they may no longer live in a "residential" neighborhood. The City Plan, at that time, was that this property just west of Lemay (defined by the dark line shown on the left edge of the NC and E zones) would be zoned for use as business, office, apartments, and higher necessary uses to support the "Hospital Area". This property was annexed as part of the First Lemay Annexation in 1967, and all of our property was to be a part of the Lemay Avenue corridor. In 1968, Dr. Backus built the first medical building on the north side of Elizabeth (North-West comer of Lemay anti -lizabeth). In 1975, he built the second medical building, just west, which is 1040 East Elizabeth. This property is the zoning "mistake" that you are being asked to correct (Baker property shown in yellow with red lines on Site Plan). The property just west of Baker is the Hyder Property, 1008 East Elizabeth, purchased in 1961. The property just west of Hyder is the Harder -Conlon property, 1004 East Elizabeth, purchased in 1974. All three of these properties are shown in a red circle on the Site Plan and are before you for rezoning at this time. Our property has been in a very distorted and unusual zoning situation for the past 20 years. In fact, it is so unusual that there is no other property like it in all of Fort Collins. What has happened is that all the property around us, except on the west, has been allowed to develop normally as part of the Lemay Avenue corridor, but ours has not. This has created a "finger" or peninsula of NCL (single-family) sandwiched between two high intensity zones: commercial - and employment. To understand how this unusual situation happened, we must go back to 1980. There was a group of people in the neighborhood to the west of us concerned about the commercial development going on at the time. Their fear, and what was said at the time, was that commercial development was going to continue west down Elizabeth Street all the way to Stover, and absolutely destroy the neighborhood. So their initial purpose was to halt further growth along Elizabeth Street. They did accomplish this goal, and that is why our property on the north side of Elizabeth Street did not continue on a normal growth pattern. This was actually the beginning of what was to become the "East Side Neighborhood Group". Their fear and anger was so "real' and so strong that it motivated them to expand their purpose into the study of the planning and zoning for the whole east side area, thus the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) we have today. Since the main purpose of the ESN Group was to limit the impact of commercial development on residential neighborhoods, a new zone called a "buffer" zone was created. This is the zone we are proposing for our property. If we read in the ESNP manual, we see that the recommended use of this buffer zone is for properties adjacent and abutting commercial or high intensity areas to form a buffer, or "cushion", between the residential areas. Our property is in this position, not only adjacent, but also sandwiched between two higher zones. East Elizabeth Street Rezoning Petition TO: Fort Collins City Council FROM: Paul F. Harder, Owner and Representative for the Properties Phone # (970) 223-2408 DATE: April 1, 2002 SUBJECT: Rezoning of 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street to NCB (Buffer) The purpose of this letter is to inform the City Council of the unusual circumstances and history about these properties as it pertains to this zoning request. When the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted, the property adjacent to and east of our property was zoned NCL (single-family). There was a medical building on this property (Baker Property) at that time and the owner had the proper zoning for this use. This NCL zoning "mistake" literally took away his existing property rights and therefore his building was "non -conforming". At this same time, the propert} surrounding the Baker property with similar zoning and similar use was rezoned Employment (E). Since no individual notices were sent to property owners, Mr. Baker was not aware that his property had been "down -zoned" until recently, and has requested a correction. This request (1040 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning) is before you now. The effect of this "mistake" was to deny us the opportunity to go before the Council to request a correction in the same NCL (single family detached) zoning on our property, which is located in the "heart" of the Lemay Avenue corridor with commercial zoning (shopping center) to the north, and employment zoning (Hi -Density apartments) to the south. Our property is literally in the same location as the Baker property. Our property is surrounded by commercial, business, and apartment uses, and yet we were told by the Planning Department that they would not accept our application because the property to the east was zoned NCL (mistake), as was the property to the west. This, we were told, was "spot zoning" and was not allowed. I am sure you realize how happy we are that this "mistake" has come to light and we have the opportunity to speak up and be heard. I have included two enclosures with this letter (ESNP map and a Site Plan) to help to understand some of the comments I will make. I have also "colored" the zoning so that it is easier to recognize. The zoning on our property has been distorted for a long time. To understand this, it is necessary to explain some of the background and history of this area. The property directly south of us on Elizabeth was the CSU Agronomy Farm and was brought into the City for development in the 1960's (zoned E-Blue). This land was developed quickly because it was open and available. At the same time, the property to the north of us was established as commercial (zoned NC -Red). The property directly east of us on Elizabeth developed as it became available because there was existing housing. This has been a zoning policy (courtesy) GENE E. FISCHER, rc ERIK G. FISCHER, rc USA R. MARKS Mayor Ray Martinez City Council Members Via Facsimile to: 224-6107 FISCHER & FISCHER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 SOUTH HOWES, SUITE 900 POST OFFICE BOX 506 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522.0506 April 5, 2002 Re: Rezoning Request 1004-1008 E. Elizabeth Dear Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council: TELEPHONE (970) 482-47 10 FAcSIHILE (970) 482-4729 APR 0 5 2007 C I have been asked by my long time clients, Paul Harder and Dr. Bob Conlon, to review their rezoning request involving two properties known as 1004 and 1008 E. Elizabeth. I have been involved overthe years of my practice with literally hundreds ofrezoning requests. It appears that the situation with these properties is unique in the City and does not exist elsewhere in the City. Clearly, the Baker property should never have been "down zoned" from high density residential to single family residential. This has been labeled a mistake and after twenty years, it would be difficult to determine why this occurred. The properties known as 1004 and 1008 E. Elizabeth clearly appear in my opinion to be entitled to the requested rezoning and probably should be zoned E similar to much ofthe surrounding property. My clients will accept the rezoning to be included in the Buffer Zoning. I have also reviewed the staff comments on this rezoning request. I must respectfully disagree with all comments and do not believe that these comments can be supported by the actuality of the unique situation. I will not attend the actual hearing in front of the Council. I agree with Mr. Harder's letter and the statements made therein which appear to be irrefutable. Thank you for noting my comments, and I hope the requested rezoning will be approved. These lots in this area are not usable with single family zoning. „ ;cp 11y submitted, E. Fischer GEF/jr xc: Paul F. Harder Dr. Robert Conlon