HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO CITIZEN (10)Steve Olt - Re: Fwd. Zoning of Cove Isle 'Townhouses Page 2
>>> Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com> 10/02/02 02:16PM >>>
Cameron, for whatever reason, your phone response of July 23 on
the matter of the MMN zoning of the Cove Island townhouses did not get
through to me. In recently reviewing my email log, I found my earlier
two requests on this matter and no response so felt the followup email
was appropriate. I would like to say, that in almost all contacts with
you and Steve Olt, as well as with others in City government, that
responses have been prompt and professional. This is greatly
appreciated.
With regard to the City, stating that the MMN zoning of our
townhouse cluster was an error, I would suggest that we should be zoned
the same as the rest of the properties surrounding Warren Lake, as we
are part of that neighborhood, separated from the properties to the
north by a major arterial street, Horsetooth Road. That designation is
RL, Low Density Residential District, which accommodates residential
areas like ours which were existing at the time of adoption of the
present Land Use Code. Article 4.4 (B)(2) appears to cover this.
Other parts of the Landings adjacent to us, the adjacent Warren Shores,
and the Jamestown townhouse cluster are zoned RL. We should be the
same. The LMN designation you propose on only our townhouse cluster
separates us from our neighborhood.
You mentioned the 3-page interpretation that you had completed at
my request regarding the application of the "contextual height"
regulation of 3.8.17. As I indicated to you after I received this
interpretation, it did not answer my specific request for application
of this part of the code to the Bella Vista Development Project. The
City has undoubtedly researched extensively how this development meets
requirements of the code to qualify for contextual height. After my
review of the Land Use Code, Zoning Map, and definitions of adjacent in
the Webster Dictionary, the property fails to meet the requirement for
the Marriott being on an adjacent lot. Your interpretation does not
clarify the City position as applied to this specific project, which
was what I sought. Since this is a critical issue, I was surprised
when you told me that you are deferring to the decision maker to decide
a City position at the time of public hearing. I assume we will have
prior access to the arguments to be used by the developer and/or City
when and if this project goes to hearing.
While you indicate that any change in zoning of Cove Island will
have no effect on the Bella Vista project review, the MMN zoning
existing on Cove Island gives the appearance of a buffer between Bella
Vista and the adjacent single family residential neighborhood which is
deceiving.
Thanks for your help in these matters. Again, sorry for the miss
on the phone call.
Tom
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
htto://sbc.yahoo.com
Steve Olt ®Re7 Fwd µ Zoningrtof Cove Islr�'Townhouses Page 1
From: Cameron Gloss
To: "paulkitze@yahoo.com".GWIA.FC1
Date: 10/3/02 5:12PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Zoning of Cove Island Townhouses
Mr. Kitze:
The existing development within Cove Island doesn't match that permitted in the RL - Low Density
Residential district; the closest match is LMN (Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood). The current
requirements in the RL District, as they were also at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code, are:
" single family detached dwellings;
• minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet;
• minimum lot width of 60 feet;
• minimum front yard depth of 20 feet;
" minimum rear yard depth of 15 feet; and,
• minimum side yard depth of 5 feet.
The actual specifics of Cove Island (on Spindrift Court) are:
* there are 20 dwelling units in 6 buildings, all 3-plexes or 4-plexes (attached units);
• lot sizes of 2,100 square feet to 3,360 square feet,
• lot widths of 30 feet;
• front yard depths, for the most part, of 11 feet to 15 feet;
• rear yard depths, for the most part, of 10 feet; and,
* zero lot lines (no side yard depth) on all lots.
Cove Island also has a residential density of 8 dwelling units per acre (20 dwelling units on 2.49 acres)
This is higher than that permitted under the RL zoning district or the prior Code.
At the time of adoption of the Land Use Code, Cove Island was in the RP - Planned Residential Zoning
District, not the RL District. The zoning for the other portions of the Landings development around Cove
Island was RLP - Low Density Planned Residential.
In your e-mail, you state that
"..........That designation is RL, Low Density Residential District, which accommodates residential areas
like ours which were existing at the time of adoption of the present Land Use Code. Article 4.4(B)(2)
appears to cover this.........." The section of the LUC that you cite is from the LMN - Low Density
Mixed -Use Residential Zoning District, dealing with permitted Type I uses.
Therefore, for all of the reasons cited above, the Cove Island Townhouses should be zoned LMN.
With respect to the contextual building height issue, that will be resolved by the Administrative Hearings
Officer (if the project remains a Type I review) or by the Planning and Zoning Board if it's determined to be
a Type II review based on the proposed uses.
Please contact me if you have further questions
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Current Planning Director