Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONER SUBDIVISION - PDP - PDP130005 - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION• Also related to the above, Item G discusses the rear yard setbacks. For proposed Lot 2 the distance from the south property lot boundary to the existing detached garage structure is approximately 8 feet. This conforms within the standard side yard setbacks for the Kenwood Heights lots and is not considered by anyone commenting to be a problem. Yet the discussion in the text of item G becomes twisted (IMHO again) into describing it just as a rear yard setback. In that context the garage structure then becomes nonconforming due to failing rear yard setback requirements, leading to further development restrictions for any future use or alteration of the garage structure. • An existing 27 inch caliper American Elm tree in poor condition is portrayed on the plan directly on top of the southeast corner of proposed Lot 2. As such, the main trunk of the tree was either planted or allowed to grow where it has become a clear encroachment onto the public alley right of way. Fortunately for planners and engineers the tree is now nearly completely dead and no one discussing this has voiced concern over removing it, as noted on the SITE LANDSCAPE AND UTILITY PLAN graphic. Removing it would remedy an existing danger of falling dead branches or collapse of the entire tree, as well as it existing as a direct impediment within the public right of way. • As with the Elm tree above, other landscape features such as bushes and lawn sprinkler system have been planted, allowed to grow, or constructed within the public travel right of way. Some of these specific concerns have been dealt with by City staff in the RECOMMENDATION. • Statements in the plan documents are unfounded which indicate that the creation of two household lots from the now single household lot would not increase usage of the alley for access. Only light access to the detached garage has existed in most years since it was built. This might be as expected for a house on a large corner lot with city street parking on two sides, as well as the additional garage which is directly attached to the existing house. However in recent years the Stoner residence building has had a portion rented to tenants as well as a portion owner occupied. During this time extra tenant usage of the detached garage then revealed drainage and turning radius problems in parking in front of the existing detached garage from the alley access. Additional load will certainly be created by doubling the total household residence lots, lessening the city street parking available to existing lots as well as wholly new lots. Making the concrete driveway length shorter requires engineering detail to assure best usage and handling alley water flow as well as traffic to and beyond the garage fronting to the alley. • Additional runoff water from new impervious structures created on the proposed new lot will exacerbate impacts all along the alley frontage to proposed Lot 2. Given the observations above and other concerns, my preference would be to postpone decision on whether to allow the proposed development. A decision to allow the proposed development could be made at such time as more complete planning and engineering detail is presented for review by City staff and the Public. As observed above, RECOMMENDATION item 2 is a requirement for horizontal and vertical design of the alley right of way along the east frontage of Lot 2. Such detail should exist prior to the hearing so as to be available for planning and hearing reference. I feel that the Hearing decision may create or impact later precedence for interpreting the land use code concerning such special situation development projects. Sincerely, James E. Kramer (aka Jim Kramer) 1011 Magnolia St. (970)631-6830 i imkramer(a)hotmail. com From: JHolland@fcgov.com To: jimkramer@hotmail.com CC: SBumett@fcgov.com z Jason Holland From: Jim Kramer <jimkramer@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:42 AM To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Stone Subdivision Hearing City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer and for the record, I have today reviewed all of the information provided to me and posted at City web pages regarding the Stoner Subdivision Hearing now scheduled for May 30, 2013. That content confirms previous discussions on details of specific interest to me, dealing particularly with the proposed Lot 2. I am the owner and resident of the neighboring property across the 20 foot wide alley on the east side of proposed Lot 2. I will be directly effected by results of planning and any actual building or alteration of features along the alley as well as the area on Magnolia Street in general. I believe that the current presentation lacks some clarity of intention and reasons for staff RECOMMENDATION, which may invite misunderstanding and allow an uncertain engineering result. Some observations follow which relate to the PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN and City staff RECOMMENDATION: • RECOMMENDATION item 2 is a requirement for horizontal and vertical design of the alley right of way along the east frontage of Lot 2. I believe this should detail the full 20 feet of alley width and also indicate significant features of the neighboring property immediately on the east side of the alley. This should include existing and proposed setbacks, driveways, curbs, storm water drainage, datum elevations, floodway location, fences, trees, landscaping and location of utility connections. This design documentation should substantially exist prior to the hearing so as to be available for planning and hearing reference. • Several references are made regarding the existing detached garage on proposed Lot 2 and the lot setback distances. The garage and driveway were allowed to be built under a City Permit issued in February 2000, on the original Kenwood Heights lots forming the rear of the 502 Wayne Street property and fronting onto the alley as it exists today . As built in year 2000, the concrete garage driveway encroached onto the alley right way over the full 18 foot driveway width to an extent of approximately 33 inches (or 2.75 feet). This encroachment does appear on the SITE LANDSCAPE AND UTILITY PLAN graphic document, along with a note there that the width of concrete is to be removed. This appears to be an intended remedy to an existing problem created in year 2000. However, nowhere has it been noted that the per se setback of the garage door to the alley edge is then 17.25 feet, which may not conform to applicable standards. Regardless of conformance, many vehicles on the road today are near or greater than that length which invites problems with such driveway parked cars extending into the public right of way. Failure to fully disclose this at this time would be a disservice to new owners, current residents and the planning process. • Related to the above item, creation of proposed Lot 2 orients the intended newly residential building to be built facing Magnolia Street to the north, forming a corner lot to the alley frontage with public access on the east as well. Are the resulting building setback distances then treated as those for corner lots fronting public streets? Item F (on page 4) in the textual discussion seems confused or ambiguous for proposed new lots 1 and 2. Creation of Lot 2 duplicates the nonconformance acknowledged with the existing residential structure on proposed Lot 1. The statement that "the existing detached garage on Lot 2 is in excess of the minimum 20 foot garage setback" appears to be a misapplication of measures, at odds with the intent of the standards, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).