Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 45-01A - REPORTS - CITY COUNCILSubdivision, Third Filing that contains the Marriott Hotel and several other office buildings. There are no other intervening platted properties. The parcels referenced in the Appellants Notice of Appeal have been created by the Larimer County Tax Assessor's office for the purpose of assessing property taxes on each of the separate buildings on Lot 3. They do not qualify individually as "lots" by the definition in the City's LUC because they have not been established by plat or subdivision. Also, they are not always shown on the City's Zoning Map when updated versions are printed. 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. Staff Response The primary question in .Paul T. Kitze's interpretation request centers around Section 3.8.17(A)(3) - Contextual Height of the LUC, which states: "Regardless of the maximum building height limit imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be allowed to use a "contextual" height limit. The allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on a lot that is adjacent to the subject lot. This provision shall not be interpreted as requiring greater minimum heights or lower maximum heights than imposed by the underlying zone district." The Current Planning Director did issue Administrative Interpretation #2-02, dated April 12, 2002, in response to Mr. Kitze's Request for Interpretation of the Land Use Code as Applied to The Bella Vista Project at the NE Corner of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road, dated March 1, 2002. The responses in the INTERPRETATION section did directly address Mr. Kitze's questions. On April 30, 2002, Mr. Kitze sent an e-mail message to the Current Planning Director indicating that the administrative interpretation was not sufficient to answer his request because there was no specific application of the parts of the LUC that related to the Bella Vista project. Mr. Kitze did state that he expected a re -issuance of the interpretation to address how it applied to the Bella Vista project. On May 20, 2002, the Current Planning Director responded to Mr. Kitze via e-mail. In his e-mail the Director stated that his position expressed in Administrative Interpretation #2-02 4 c. The City failed to deliver all pertinent a -mails from and to Mr. Kitze regarding the project to 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. Staff Response The a -mails referred to by Mr. Kitze contain rebuttals regarding the Current Planning Director's administrative interpretation on "contextual" height, a question about whether or not to appeal the administrative interpretation to the Planning and Zoning Board, questions about two recent changes to Sections 3.8.17(A)(3) and 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)4 of the LUC, a question about City staffs interpretation of the definition of "lot" in the LUC and how it relates to "adjacency", and a question about the actual height of the Marriott Hotel (which has since been verified by 3 parties to everyone's satisfaction). These a -mails were considered to not be germane to the hearing officer's review of and decision on the Bella Vista, PDP. There are 49 a -mails and letters from citizens expressing concerns and opposition to the Bella Vista project and 24 a -mails and letters from citizens in support of the Bella Vista project that were provided to the hearing officer prior to the administrative public hearing on April 10, 2003. 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: Bella Vista, Project Development Plan - Case No. 45-01 A. Staff Response This is a summary of the Appellants allegations cited in the Notice of Appeal, their position on the interpretation and application of the LUC as it relates to the Bella Vista, PDP, and their request for City Council to overturn the administrative decision on the development proposal. No response from City staff is necessary. R new 4 to 6 story high buildings in the Bella Vista project. The 2 or 3 homes referenced are at the east end of Cove Island and will have uninterrupted views of the proposed new buildings. Also, the Staff Report goes on to say that the views from several dwelling units in the Aspen Leaf Apartments will be affected. However, because of grade and horizontal distance separations and existing large mature trees between the two projects, interruption of the views should be minimal. 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. Staff Response The Staff Report by City staff that was provided to the hearing officer for the administrative public hearing states, in the discussion about Section 3.8.17 - Building Height, that there are 2-story, 3-story, and 6-story buildings in the surrounding area, ranging from approximately 30'-0" to 60'-6" in height. The surrounding area, and how it relates to neighborhood scale, does include the properties and office/commercial buildings in a cluster to the west (of Stanford Road) that share parking and driveways. They are all on Lot 3 of the Strachan Subdivision, Third Filing and are in a "block" defined by East Horsetooth Road to the south, JFK Parkway to the west, Stanford Road to the east, and East Monroe Drive to the north. The Marriott Hotel is 6 stories and 60'-6" in height and is 500' west of the subject property. There is a 3-story building that is about 40' high and is 400' west of the subject property. These buildings visually relate to the Bella Vista, PDP site and the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff Response A packet of information titled Issues from the Landings for Bella Vista Project was submitted to the hearing officer by Paul T. Kitze at the administrative public hearing on April 10, 2003. Included in the packet was a letter from the Landings Community Association, Inc. (dated February 15, 2002) that contained discussion on several issues related to the Bella Vista, PDP. One specific issue dealt with Division 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility in the LUC and how the Bella Vista, PDP was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Also, at the administrative public hearing several members of the public gave testimony regarding the perceived incompatibility of the project and buildings as proposed. 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. Staff Response In the packet of information titled Issues from the Landings for Bella Vista Project that was submitted to the hearing officer by Paul T. Kitze at the administrative public hearing on April 10, 2003, there was a section titled' Effect of Bella Vista on Views and Privacy. Included was an outline, with several photographs from different locations in the area, that was meant to define the potential visual impacts of the Bella Vista project on the surrounding neighborhoods. As stated by City staff in the Staff Report to the hearing officer for the administrative public hearing, because of the significant earthen berm and dense mature landscaping in front of the Cove Island homes on the south side of East Horsetooth Road, views for only 2 or 3 homes will be adversely affected by the 11 remained unchanged. The appropriate determination of whether the Bella Vista, PDP complied with the contextual height limits lies with the decision maker (either an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board, dependent upon the last plan submittal). A copy of the administrative interpretation is attached to this memorandum. 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. Staff Response The Current Planning Director, in the Administrative Interpretation #2-02 dated April 12, 2002, did restate Paul T. Kitze's questions stated in his Request for Interpretation of the Land Use Code as Applied to The Bella Vista Project at the NE Corner of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road, dated March 1, 2002. The Director categorically responded to Mr. Kitze's questions in the INTERPRETATION section of Administrative Interpretation #2-02, dealing with each cited LUC section and its relativity to other cited sections, as applicable. As previously stated, a copy of the administrative interpretation is attached to this memorandum. 2. Failure of the Hearing Officer to receive and acknowledge all relevant evidence offered. a. 3.5.1 The Hearing Officer reports 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. 5 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. Staff Response During the development review of the Bella Vista, PDP, City staff determined that the subject site is considered to be adjacent to Lot 3 of the Strachan Subdivision, Third Filing on the west side of Stanford Road. Lot 3 contains the Marriott Hotel and several office buildings. The definition of Lot in the City of Fort Collins LUC is as follows: "Lot shall mean a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision or otherwise permitted by law to be used, occupied or designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, and which abuts a dedicated right-of-way, private street or private drive, any of which is at least twenty (20) feet wide at all points." The Strachan Subdivision, Third Filing is divided into 3 separate lots, with Lot 3 abutting the dedicated Stanford Road street right-of-way directly across the street from the Bella Vista, PDP site. Only the street right-of-way separates the property that would contain the Bella Vista, PDP project and Lot 3 of the Strachan 3 The Appeal: Appellants Paul Thomas Kitze 539 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Jeff Emmel 543 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 David and Cindy Leary 555 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Shawki Ibrahim 571 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Lynn Carlisle 559 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Philip and Dorothy White 519 Spindrift Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Grounds for Appeal: (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document. The numbers used in this response correspond to the numbering used in the Appellants Notice of 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 2 City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director DATE: June 25, 2003 RE: BELLA VISTA, Project Development Plan (PDP) — Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the April 24, 2003 decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the Bella Vista, PDP. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more, of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." 1 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020