Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 45-01A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 6 - PUBLIC NOTICEGrounds for Appeal: 1. Errors in interpretation and application of the Land Use Code by the City and by the Hearing Officer. a. Section 3.8.17 (A)(3) "contextual height" requires adjacency of lots. The key error is saying that the project lot and the Marriott lot are adjacent. They are not. Webster's Third New International Dictionary clearly states that when the word adjacent is "Applied to things of the same type, it indicates either side -by -side proximity or lack of anything of the same nature intervening." This meaning coincides with how most of us understand what adjacent means. When applied to things usually of a differing nature (see examples in Webster), adjacent "is sometimes merely a synonym for near or close to". If Section 3.8.17(A)(3) said that the subject lots be "nearby" or "in the neighborhood of each other, then this project would qualify for the "contextual height" exception. It does not. The conclusion of Ms. Michow that our interpretation would defeat the purposes of Section 3.8.17 and Section 3.5.1(G) is patently incorrect. 3.8.17(A)(3) was originally written with more restrictions, and for a corner lot, required that contextual height be judged by an abutting lot. If this project were proposed for the adjacent vacant lot immediately to the east of the Marriott lot, then contextual height would be appropriate. Because of the use of the word adjacent instead of nearby, and proper interpretation of the code, leap -frogging of high-rise buildings into our neighborhoods is prevented by the code. The argument that most of the lots on the block on which the Marriott is located are all Lot 3 of an existing subdivision certainly creates a loophole for attaining adjacency. But each time Lot 3 was divided by parceling off lots such as the Marriott lot, those parcels qualify as lots by the definition of the LUC. The Zoning Map clearly shows the lots that exist today on that block. According to Section 1.4.3(C) of the Land Use Code, the Zoning Map is to be used along with the LUC for interpretations. Reference to Lot 3 in the legal descriptions of these lots is for reference only to help in location of the boundaries of those lots. b. Interpretation #2-02--Errors by Planning Director The interpretation request asked for a specific application of the code to the Bella Vista project. The interpretation issued was general in nature and did not specify how the code would be applied to this specific project. When asked to reissue the interpretation -to correct this error, the City staff refused. the hearing officer. Mr. Olt had told Mr. Kitze that all pertinent emails from and to the City would be submitted. Mr. Kitze and Mr. Olt met after the hearing, reviewed the submissions made by the City, and at Mr. Kitze's request, Mr. Olt sent copies of additional emails to the Hearing Officer, but these were not accepted. In summary, the City and the Hearing Officer have made errors in the interpretation and application of the Land Use Code in approving the Bella Vista Project. In addition, the evidence used by the Hearing Officer in reaching her conclusions is at least misleading, and sometimes false as shown by testimony of the opponents of this Project. Proper interpretation and application of the LUC by the City will result in denial of this Project. We respectfully ask the City Council to overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer on the Project: Bell Vista, Project Development Plan - Case No. 45-01A. The definition of adjacent by the Planning Director is flawed as explained above. The explanation of Section 4 height limits versus Section 3 height limits uses Section 1.7.2 which is not applicable because such a comparison is excepted by 1.7.2. Interpreting the code to say that granting application of 3.8.17(A)(3) to height eliminates the compatibility requirements of Section 3.5.1(C) flies in the face of City Plan policy (Policy EXN-1.4) for infill development to existing city neighborhoods. 2. Failure of the Hearing Officer to receive and acknowledge all relevant evidence offered. a. 3.5.1 The Hearing Officer report states that there was no testimony or evidence presented to contradict the staff report on Building and Project Compatibility. This is untrue. The packet of information given by Mr. Kitze to the Hearing Officer contains a section showing that the project is not compatible and not in context with the neighborhood. Ms. Numair also talked to this issue at the hearing. b. 3.5.1(G) The Hearing Officer erroneously states that Mr. Kitze provided material that shows that the only views affected from Aspen Leaf Apartments by the Project are those from the recreation area and parking lots. While these views may be most significant, Mr. Kitze did not say that these were the only views lost from the Aspen Leaf Apartments. There was testimony also presented that views from Cove Island, views from Horsetooth Road traveling west, and views from across Warren Lake would also be impacted. The City and the Hearing Officer fail to acknowledge that this testimony was presented. There was also testimony given that privacy would be lost by the fact that persons in upper stories of Bella Vista could look down into neighboring bedrooms and front yard areas. The residents of Cove Island disagree with City Staff that only 2 or 3 townhouses are adversely affected by the proposed buildings in the Bella Vista Project; all are affected. When discussing neighborhood scale, the Hearing Officer states that the evidence reflects that the surrounding buildings vary in height from 40' to 60.5'. This is in error as testimony in opposition shows that the site is immediately surrounded by 2-3 story buildings of less than 35'. The Marriott Hotel is over a city block away at 60.5'. The 40' building referred to by the City and the hearing officer appears to be the office building on the NE corner of Horsetooth Road and JFK Parkway, again not in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The immediately surrounding buildings represent context for this project, but that fact seems to have escaped both the City and the Hearing Officer. c. The City failed to deliver all pertinent emails from and to Mr. Kitze regarding the Project to I -) 2003 City Clerk City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 539 Spindrift Ct Fort Collins, CO 80535 May 7, 2003 Notice of Appeal --Bella Vista, Project Development Plan --Case No. 45-01A, Administrative Hearing Officer Decision of April 24, 2003 of Approval Appellants: Name Address Telephone Signature 1. Paul Thomas Kitze 539 Spindrift Ct 226-6651 Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood Resident Landings Community Association Designated Representative or Bella Vista (Designated to receive any notice of defects in the appeal n e) n 2. Jeff Emmel 543 Spindrift Ct 223-5430 Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood RS (Alternate to receive any notice of defects in the 3. David and Cindy Leary 555 Spindrift Ct 223-9027 Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood Resident 4. Shawki Ibrahim 571 Spindrift Ct 223-0141 Also owns 579 Spindrift Ct Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood Resident 5. Lynn Carlisle 559 Spindrift Ct 226-3754 Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood Resid 4e 6. Philip and Dorothy White 519 Spindrift Ct 226-4817 r Party -in -interest: Immediate Neighborhood Resident 17 a