HomeMy WebLinkAboutGREAT DANE MINOR SUBDIVISION (A.K.A. MORNINGSIDE VILLAS) - MINOR SUBDIVISION - 36-95 - CORRESPONDENCE - PROJECT NARRATIVETQd Shepard - Morningside Villas Sub.
Page 2
Upon review, and when plan is in compliance with LUC, P.D.P. will be forwarded to decision maker.
Paul, how's my logic? Applicant will scream that we are "throwing the book" at him but there are no more
Minor Subs. Does the gap between September of 1997 through May of 1999 hold any significance?
Under the LUC, how can we process a request to subdivide without a P.D.P./F.C.?
Sorry this was so verbose, but it helps to think "out -loud."
Ted Shepard - Morningside Villas Sub.
Page 1
From: Ted Shepard
To: Ted Shepard, WPaul Eckman
Subject: Morningside Villas Sub.
Paul, let me work through the chronology and then tell me if my conclusion makes sense.
1. August 14, 1995: Application submitted for the "Great Dane Minor Subdivision. Fee paid: $896.00. A
two lot sub on a left over parcel on Morningside Drive. (The bulk of this property was purchased by the
City for the Stover Street bridge and bike path extension.)
2. September 7, 1995: Applicant informed, in writing, that Lot 2, at 4,200 square feet, did not meet the
required minimum of 6,000 square feet for the R-M, Medium Density zone district. Applicant informed that
a P.U.D. must be submitted, not a Minor Sub.
3. April/May and July of 1996: Applicant's consulting engineer continues to revise plans in accordance
with the Staff comments received in August of 1995. Staff responds with additional comments on the
Utility Plans. Lot 2, however, remains out of compliance. No P.U.D. submitted. Project remains a Minor
Sub but is not further processed by Planning Dept due to Lot 2 being under 6,000 sq.ft.
4. July - December of 1996: Applicant informed that City is undergoing a Comprehensive Plan update,
called City Plan and that new zone districts, with new lot size minimums are likely to be forthcoming.
5. Applicant no longer responds to comments and waits until City Plan is complete. Applicant is holding
out for relief from the 6,000 square foot required minimum lot size.
6. March of 1997: City adopts City Plan. Subject site is rezoned to L-M-N. As predicted, there is no
minimum lot size requirement in the L-M-N zone district.
7. August/September of 1997: Applicant resurrects project. Old plans are re -submitted with Lot 2
remaining 4,200 sq.ft. Comments sent back Sept. 1997.
8. September 1997 to May of 1999: During this period, applicant sells property to new owner, Brett Nnj
Larimer. f-7yt7r
9. May 24, 1999: Brett Larimer "re -submits" plans, (plat and utility plans but no site plan or landscape LA'W IGE
plans. Architectural elevations are reduced drawings on 8.5 x 17.) along with an explanation of how the 1/E.r7ib
September of 1997 comments are addressed. Project is renamed to Morningside Villas. 4 iG HTJ
10. Present Day: Staff has completed another round of review for Morningside Villas. Comments are
ready to be transmitted.
Conclusion:
Since prior to adoption of the new L-M-N zone district, the proposed Great Dane Minor Sub remained out
of compliance with the R-M zone, and since no P.U.D. was ever submitted to grant relief from the
requirements of the R-M zone, the project never had a chance of being forwarded to a public hearing with
the Planning Director as a "Minor Sub." Cnu&a NHVE 1 6CC%J P•� �+ntgc* r✓� w �etcoiIMFIIJ 774A
� r ,Oc'v"t a .
Since the only way this project had a chance of being approved was through the L-M-N zone, City now
needs a complete submittal including a P.D.P./F.0 with a public hearing with the decision maker.
Lack of a site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations on 24 x 36 renders the May 24, 1999
submittal incomplete. Plans cannot be reviewed for compliance with the LUC.
Staff is willing to work with applicant on a re -submittal basis as long as revised plans include site and
landscape and arch. plans.
--(�- -n iR L -m -d (Tgae s) XE/idW o Pr /t P A P. / F e