CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

Transcription

1 Page 77 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: 6 STAFF: LONNA THELEN FILE NO(S): AR PFP (AP) QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: DUBLIN BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 APPELLANT: OWNER: COLLETTE DIVINE ESTATE OF BONNIE M. FITZPATRICK SITE

2 Page 78 PROJECT SUMMARY: 1. Project Description: This is an appeal by Collette Divine (appellant), of an administrative decision for the approval a preliminary and final plat for 6440 and 6450 Brook Park Drive owned by the Estate of Bonnie Fitzpatrick (applicant). (FIGURE 1) The preliminary and final plat would subdivide the existing lot with two single family homes into two lots, each with a single family home. The preliminary and final plat was approved on December 10, (FIGURE 2). 2. Appellants Appeal Statement: (FIGURE 3) 3. Applicant s response to the Appeal Statement: (FIGURE 4) 4. City Planning Department s Recommendation: Denial of the appeal. BACKGROUND: 1. Site Address: 6440 and 6450 Brook Park Drive 2. Existing Zoning/Land Use: R Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: North: R and R5 / Single family and daycare South: OC/cu / Church East: OC/cu / Church West: OC/cr and PF / offices and fire department 4. Comprehensive Plan/Designated 2020 Land Use: General Residential 5. Annexation: Brookwood Addition #2, Master Plan/Designated Master Plan Land Use: n/a 7. Subdivision: Dublin Business Park Filing No. 1, Zoning Enforcement Action: n/a 9. Physical Characteristics: There are two existing homes on this property. The property slopes up from the north to the south. There is a terrace on the north property up to a large flat area for the two existing homes and then a terrace up to the south property line. The large flat area where the two homes are located is approximately eleven feet below Brook Park Drive. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND INVOLVEMENT: At the Planner s discretion, the initial submittal for the preliminary and final plat was not publicly noticed because the application was to separate two existing homes on one lot into two lots. This separation would not create additional density. Had notification been given, the appellant would not have received notice, because she is not a property owner in the neighborhood. The appellant provided comment prior to the approval of the plat. (FIGURE 5) The appellant s concern is that the plat does not require the depicted access to the proposed Lot 1 to be built prior to approval of the plat. ANALYSIS OF REVIEW CRITERIA/MAJOR ISSUES/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE: 1. Appeal Criteria / Review Criteria / Design & Development Issues: Criteria for an appeal of an administrative decision: In accordance with the City Code Section (A3) appellants filing appeals of an administrative decision made by City Planning staff must substantiate the following in written form: 1. Identify the explicit ordinance provisions which are in dispute. The appellant notes City Code Sections (D)8.b and as the ordinance provisions in dispute. 2. Show that the administrative decision is incorrect because of one or more of the following: a) It was against the express language of the Zoning Ordinance, or b) It was against the express intent of the Zoning Ordinance, or c) It is unreasonable, or d) It is erroneous, or e) It is clearly contrary to law. The appellant believes that the subdivision plat was approved without adequate, suitable access as required by City Code Sections (D)8.b and The appellant argues that a driveway should be constructed prior to approval of the plat because the house on the property is already existing and needs access when the plat is approved.

3 Page 79 The preliminary plat provides proof that a driveway can be provided that works with the current grade to access the garage on the property. (The approximate slope of the driveway is 11%, with the maximum slope of approximately 12%. The City allows a maximum of 20% slope for driveways on individual lots, the maximum slope for City Streets is 12%.) Section (D)8.b does not state specifically that the driveway must exist or be constructed prior to approval of the plat; it requires that the access be clearly indicated on the preliminary plat. City Engineering has reviewed the plan and does not see any issues with the driveway grade. 3. Identify the benefits and adverse impacts created by the decision, describe the distribution of the benefits and impacts between the community and the appellant, and show that the burdens placed on the appellant outweigh the benefits accrued by the community. The Appellant will have a Life Estate in proposed Lot 1 (refer to FIGURE 3)and is concerned that without driveway access the police department, fire department, utilties department and El Paso County Assessor will not have access to the lot and thus the decision by Staff is a detriment to the community and appellant. The City has reviewed the subdivision plat and ensured that a driveway access can be built. The property owner is able to build this driveway. Emergency services can access the property now via the adjacent public street. The Police and Fire Department reviewed the plat and have no objection. Review Criteria for preliminary and final plat: The applicant for the project has fufilled all review criteria for the approval of the subdivision plat. The current preliminary plat shows access to Lot 1 (the western lot) via a curb cut on Brook Park and a proposed 12ft. wide driveway. Per City Code, the review of the plat must contain the following: 1 parking space for a single-family dwelling Provision of Adequate Access: Proof of adequate, suitable access must be provided and clearly indicated on the face of the plat D.8.b A parking space, via the garage or adjacent to the garage, has been provided on the property. The preliminary plat provides proof that a driveway can be constructed that works with the current grade to access the garage on the property. Historically, the house was accessed via an easement from the property to the west and/or a driveway from the access point on Brook Park Drive that would go through the proposed Lot Conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan 2020 Land Use Map: General Residential Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives: General Residential Objective N 1: Focus On Neighborhoods Objective LU 2: Develop A Land Use Pattern That Preserves the City s Natural Environment, Livability, And Sense of Community Objective N 2: Enhance Neighborhoods Strategy N 201c: Evaluate Land Use Proposals Recognizing Anticipated Changes to Neighborhood Conditions Strategy N 203c: Support a Mix of Housing Types and Densities Policy N 301: Identify and Develop Mutually Supportive Mixed Uses 3. Conformance with the Area s Master Plan: No master plan exists for this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Item No: 6 AR PFP (AP) APPEAL OF FINAL PLAT Deny the appeal, thereby affirming the approval of the Dublin Business Park Subdivision Filing No. 10, allowing the property to be subdivided into two lots, based on the finding that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code Section

4 Page 80

5 Page 81

6 Page 82

7 Page 83

8 Page 84

9 Page 85

10 Page 86

11 Page 87

12 Page 88

13 Page 89

14 Page 90

15 Page 91

16 Page 92

17 Page 93

18 Page 94

19 Page 95

20 Page 96

21 Page 97