Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING - PDP - 42-03A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILRUA 40wuaX+� dowwewl��'a'-�9� Jaw 40, Covv ul w�to4i� cap, ix 4t) uA o.,•kd� c.�%l+1 CleAey ukic 4c ec' ivy VvNe vaK 1 6 ;1 xe�ed � 2811y.Gol kgth�e, 3) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala Drive would be sensitive to the character of the existing surrounding neighborhoods. 4) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala Drive would adhere to the purpose of the Land Use code, which is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala Drive would allow building masses, building heights, outdoor spaces, and architectural character to be compatible to the surrounding area. This PDP with its high density on such a small area does NOT protect the public welfare. It would dramatically destroy our property values and our quality of life. This cluster PDP project would stigmatize our neighborhood. It is unethical for the developer to profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood. Please OMERTIBAN the decision of the decision maker Linda Michow Dr.'Steven L. SchaefferIrl601 North Impala Drivev Fort Collins, CO 80521 Steven@engr.colostate.edu 970.416.0498 Representative of 163 residents of the Green Acres Subdivision area, all whom have signed two separate petitions in opposition to this proposed development prior to this appeal. �iL1 A� Ms. Sandy Kn 2309 West Vine Drive Fort Collins, CO 80521 Sandyk 11224na)peoplepc. com 970.493.8266 Neighbor who received mailed notice and is designated to receive any notice of defects in the appeal notice. Page 5 of 5 immediate area of the proposed infill development". The PDP because of the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) and practically NO outdoor spaces. The immediate area has large lots (between 7500sf and 15000sf) with big front yards and very large backyards. 5) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B which also states " compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as similar relationships to the street as to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development". Only three of the PDP lots abut a street because of the private drive. All lots in the surrounding, immediate area abut a street. 6) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 C which states "buildings shall be similar in size and height and proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block". The PDP because of the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building masses and not similar to the scale of the single - story buildings on the same block. 7) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 D which states "elements of the development plan shall be arranged to minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses". The proposed private drive and high density of lots maximizes infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. 8) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 1.2.4 which states " a lot shall not be reduced in dimensions or area to an amount less than the minimum requirements". The private drive results in lots less than 6000 sf as required. G) Division 3.6.2 (Llb) states "a private drive, instead of a street, shall be allowed to provide access to an unusually shaped parcel of land". 1) The PDP parcel of land is NOT unusually shaped. In fact the PDP parcel is a rectangular shaped parcel of land. The parcel measures 175 feet from Impala Drive on the west to the existing private drive (not part of the parcel) on the east. All the existing lots to the south of the PDP to Cherry Street measure 195 feet when measured from Impala Drive to their back lot lines. 2) The PDP parcel if divided into four lots with all of them fronting on Impala Drive would have lot depths 20 feet less than the lot depths of the existing lots to the south. The use of a private drive is NOT warranted for this PDP parcel of land. Page 4 of 5 1) This area has very high groundwater. This PDP with a high density of lots on very small lots did not address this issue and as a result this would adversely effect the surrounding existing properties. F) Division 3.6.2 (Lla) states that "a private drive shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of the Land Use Code". 1) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 4.3.D.1 which states that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet". The lot areas in PDP #42-03A are less than 6,000 sq. ft. In article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive. When these lots are measured from the edge of the private drive the resulting areas are LESS THAN 6,000 sq. ft. 2) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 A which states " that the proposed buildings are to be compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area". Div 5.1.2 states that "compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development". The character of the existing neighborhood is single -story, ranch -style homes on large lots (between 7500sf and 15000sf) and on full-sized streets. The PDP because of the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building masses. The PDP is NOT sensitive to the character of the existing surrounding neighborhood. 3) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B, which states, "new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas". Again, Div 5.1.2 states that "compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development". The architectural character of the existing neighborhood is single -story; ranch -style homes on large lots (between 7500sf and 15000sf) and on full-sized streets. The PDP because of the private drive has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building masses. These large building masses are NOT sensitive to the established architectural character of the existing surrounding neighborhood. 4) The proposed private drive diminishes compliance with Div 3.5.1 B which also states " compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the use of similar proportions in outdoor spaces to those existing in the Page 3 of 5 C) Division 3.3.1 (B 1) states that "no lot in a subdivision shall have less area than required under the applicable zoning requirements of the city". 1) As stated above in A 1, The lot areas in PDP #42-03A are less than the required 6,000 sf. (Div 4.3 DI). In article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive. When these lots are measured from the edge of the private drive the resulting areas are LESS THAN 6,000 sq. ft. D) Division 3.3.1 (B 2) states that "the general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed development shall be designed in a way that enhances an interconnected street system within and between neighborhoods and otherwise accomplishes the purposes and intent of the Land Use Code". 1) The use of a private drive does not enhance the interconnected street system. It would only cause excessive traffic congestion too close to the intersection of Impala and Vine. 2) The high density of seven lots each with two, three, or more vehicles would also cause excessive traffic congestion, which does not enhance the interconnected street system. 3) The use of a private drive and layout of seven lots do not accomplish the purposes and intent of the Land Use Code. a) They do not improve or protect the public health, safety or welfare (sec 1.2.2.). b) They do not foster the safe use of the city's transportation infrastructure (sec 1.2.2 Q. c) They promote rather than avoid the inappropriate development of lands (sec1.2.2.E). d) They do not ensure development that is sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood (sec 1.2.2 W. In sec 5.1.2, character means definition and uniqueness. The character of the existing neighborhood is single -story; ranch -style homes on large lots (between 7500sf and 15000sf) and on full-sized streets. The PDP has small lots (between 3800sf and 6300sf) which would result in large building masses. The PDP is NOT sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood. E) Division 3.3.3 ( C) states that "any lands that are subject to high groundwater shall not be platted for building lots with basements". Page 2 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DEC 1 a1 1 December 2004 To whom it may concern: This is a notice of appeal. We are requesting that the Fort Collins City Council change and overturn the decision made by Linda Michow who was the decision maker concerning the Adrian Subdivision, first filing PDP-#42-03A. The public hearing was on 10/18/04. The action that is being appealed is Linda Michow's decision of approval with conditions. Her decision was made on November 1, 2004. Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. The following are the laws (not properly interpreted) and supporting summaries of facts: A) Division 4.3 low density residential district (R-L) section D 1 & 2. DI states that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet". D2 states that "the minimum lot width shall be sixty (60) feet for a single-family dwelling". 1) The lot areas in PDP 942-03A are less than 6,000 sq ft. In article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive. When these lots are measured from the edge of the private drive the resulting areas are LESS THAN 6,000 sq ft. 2) The lot widths in PDP 942-03A are less than 60 feet. In article 5, div 5.1.2 it states the a lot shall mean an area of land which abuts a private drive. When these lot widths are measured from the edge of the private drive the resulting widths are LESS THAN 60 feet. B) Division 3.2.3(E 2) (solar access, orientation, shading alternative compliance) states that "the decision -maker shall take into account whether the alternative design fosters nonvehicular access". 1) The alternative plan because of the private drive fosters excessive vehicular access thus prevents SAFE nonvehicular access. 2) Section 1.2.2 states the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, SAFETY and welfare. Page 1 of 5 to,.. CA . a City of Fort Collins City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, January 4, 2005at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer, made on November 1, 2004 regarding the Adrian Subdivision, first filing, PDP- #42-03A. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Current Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by December 28, 2004. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, December 29 after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. These materials will also be available on the City's Web site at: httt):Hfcp-ov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php (click on the link for the January 4 agenda). The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. %1*LV Vvta - . Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: December 16, 2004 cc: City Attorney Chair, Planning and Zoning Board Current Planning Department Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-05W • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295 January4, 2005 -2- Item No. 1a B) Division 3.2.3(E)(2) Solar Access, Orientation, Shading - Alternative Compliance states that "the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design fosters nonvehicular access". C) Division 3.3.1(B)(1) states that "no lot in a subdivision shall have less area than required under the applicable zoning requirements of the city". D) Division 3.3.1(B)(2) states that "the general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed development shall be designed in a way that enhances an interconnected street system within and between neighborhoods and otherwise accomplishes the purposes and intent of the Land Use Code". E) Division 3.3.3(C) states that "any lands that are subject to high groundwater shall not be platted for building lots with basements". F) Division 3.6.2(L)(1)(a) states that "a private drive shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of the Land Use Code". G) Division 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) states that "a private drive, instead of a street, shall be allowed to provide access to an unusually shaped parcel of land". This PDP with its high density on such a small area does NOT protect the public welfare. It would dramatically destroy our property values and our quality of life. This cluster PDP project would stigmatize our neighborhood. It is unethical for the developer to profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing. 2. Notice of Appeal (dated and received December 1, 2004). 3. Staff response to the Notice of Appeal. 4. Staff Report, with recommendation, to the Administrative Hearing Officer for the October 18, 2004 administrative public hearing. 5. Handouts pertaining to the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing - PDP development proposal that were presented to the Administrative Hearing Officer at the. October 18, 2004 administrative public hearing. 6. Minutes of the meeting before the Administrative Hearing Officer, held Monday, October 18, 2004. 7. Written response submitted by the applicant. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 'SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: 18 DATE: January 4, 2005 STAFF: Steve Olt Consideration of the Appeal of the November 1, 2004, Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer Regarding the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing - Project Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) uphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision, or (2) remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing Officer if appropriate under Section 2-56(d)(2) of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 18, 2004, an administrative public hearing was conducted to receive presentations and testimony on the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing - PDP, a single-family residential project on 1.2 acres. There would be a total of 7 residential dwelling units on the proposed 7 lots in the subdivision. On November 1, 2004, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing - PDP. The property was annexed into the city of Fort Collins in April, 2004 and is zoned RL - Low Density Residential. The project is located on a portion of a 2-acre property at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. On December 1, 2004, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. In the Amended Notice of Appeal from the Appellants Dr. Steven L. Schaeffer and Ms. Sandy Knox, it is alleged that: [Note that the following letters and numbers used in this AIS correspond to the lettering and numbering used in the Appellants' Notice of Appeal) Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. A) Division 4.3 RL - Low Density Residential District, Sections (D)(1) and (D)(2). (D)(1) states that "the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet". (D)(2) states that "the minimum lot width shall be sixty (60) feet for a single-family dwelling".