HomeMy WebLinkAboutULTIMATE LOVING CARE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY - PDP - 27-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (15)sections of the City Plan and Land Use Codes that support the need for residential neighborhoods and the
need for encouraging and maintaining the stability of existing residential communities.
The general statement of the City Plan regarding Housing reads: "Housing policies are intended to
produce positive outcomes for: housing prices, availability and choice; availability of housing for low-
income households; and neighborhood stability." HSG-3.1 further states: "The character of stable
residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to
neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques. "
It appears to us that the development proposal violates three of the four general statements in the overall
housing principles. First, allowing a group home in a residential neighborhood will lower housing prices.
Prices are proportional to demand; and the demand to live next to a group home will be less than the
demand to live in a residential neighborhood.
Second, this proposal will limit the availability and choice of homebuyers. There will be one less family
oriented residential neighborhood if this proposal is granted. The City obviously values a residential
community by creating an RL zoning designation. The RL zoning designation that was assigned to
Dakota Ridge was intended to protect the needs of residential communities. It was not intended that the
RL zoning characteristics be voided at the whim of any developer that sees an opportunity for profit.
Third, by altering the characteristics of Dakota Ridge, this proposal will affect neighborhood stability.
This proposal has already affected neighborhood stability. We have a petition of more than fifty
signatures of residents that do not want the City to rezone Dakota Ridge. This development proposal
does not preserve our neighborhood per HSG-3.1; and Current Planning is not assisting the Dakota Ridge
neighborhood community by entertaining this proposal.
The fourth principle of increasing the availability of housing for low-income households has already been
fulfilled in our neighborhood. There are three areas of multiple family residences in our neighborhood.
One of these is within one block of the proposed development. In the wording of HSG-1.5, does
"dispersed" housing needs mean every other lot?
We feel you have done our community a great disservice by entertaining a faulty development proposal.
You have not done the work necessary in considering a proposal of this sort; and as a result have caused
the residents of Dakota Ridge a lot of unnecessary grief and anxiety. These are not just the concerns of a
few neighbors. We have the support of everyone we have spoken with. We have a petition of more than
50 signatures of people who oppose this development proposal. These are individuals that want to live in
a family oriented residential community. We do not expect the City to disregard the need for special
housing; rather we are asking that the City consider the appropriateness of this location for the
development proposed. As such we ask that you observe our covenant, and the wishes of the many
residents of Dakota Ridge, and reject this business proposal.
Sincerely,
Glen Lindstrom Ragins Kelly Lindstrom Ragins
CC:
Karen Weitkunat, City Council, District 2
Guy Helme
Glen and Kelly Lindstrom Ragins
3125 San Luis St.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Troy W.Jones
City Planner
Community Planning and Environmental Services
City of Fort Collins
July 10, 2002
Dear Mr. Jones:
In our previous letter we outlined three concerns of the Dakota Ridge community regarding the proposed
development of 3107 San Luis St. Your response dealt with two of our three concerns. You did not
address our concerns that there was no practical or business reasons to alter the Dakota Ridge zoning
characteristics. There are three potential sites for a group home within one mile of 3107 San Luis St.
There is an apartment complex that can fill the demand for special needs housing within 500 feet of this
home. Why would a developer want to add bathrooms, provide handicap accessible components, meet
parking needs and partition rooms in a single family house when many of these considerations can be
easily met in the multiple family housing structures that already exist?
Your letter talked about our other two concerns of the legality of the development proposal, and the moral
issues surrounding the development proposal. I would ask that you reconsider both. Regarding the legal
issues of the development proposal, you state "that it is not the role of the City to enforce private
restrictive covenants".
We disagree. The Land Use Code specifically discusses covenants and the intent of the most restrictive
standards in governing land use. Section 29-2c of the Land Use Code states: "These regulations (the
Land Use Codes) are not intended to abrogate or annul: ... Any easement, covenant or any other private
agreement." In addition, Sec 29-2 states "...whichever restrictions are more restrictive or impose higher
standards of requirements shall govern". Our covenant was filed with the City and as such is a legally
binding contract. The City would not request that covenants were filed with the City, if they did not
intend to consider and enforce such a contract in the dealings of the City and in the dealings of private
parties.
Your actions to approve of rezoning Dakota Ridge cannot legally take place without also setting aside the
existing covenant. You are not only not enforcing the covenant and therefore the Land Use Code, you are
actively setting aside an existing covenant.
Is it not the responsibility of Current Planning to determine what the existing zoning, easements, and
covenants are on a property before granting a business zoning and license? Has any member of the staff
of Current Planning been to the site to determine whether this is a reasonable proposal? 3107 San Luis St.
is a single family home located less than 500 feet from an existing multiple resident dwelling.
You further addressed our moral concerns of approving a group home in a residential neighborhood by
quoting the City Plan and implying that we, as members of the Dakota Ridge homeowners are being
selfish by not allowing a group home in our midst. As we have previously stated, the demand for special
needs housing has already been met and exceeded at and around Dakota Ridge. We are not advocating
the abandonment of the elderly. We are advocating maximizing the resources available to everyone.
We interpret the City Plan as supporting family neighborhoods, and not supporting the perceived needs of
a developer to create further multiple residential dwellings in a residential neighborhood. There are many