HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2019 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingFrom: Eric Sutherland
To: Cameron Gloss; Tom Leeson; P&Z Board; City Leaders
Subject: Council appeal procedure amendments to be reviewed at P&Z
Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 6:53:42 PM
See
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=AGENDA&docid=3310018&board=PLANNING+AND+ZONING+BOARD&docdate=FEB-
21-2019
this is the first discussion item on the P & Z agenda and will not require significant time in order to address the changes.
The proposed changes are mostly academic. The two substantive changes I see are
1) eliminating leasehold parties from being parties in interest
2) changing when new information must be filed with the clerk
3) changing the rules for written materials that are used to support an appeal
4) changing the language regarding how new information is to be entered in the appeal
5) allowing council to amend its findings after the resolution is adopted for the first time after an appeal.
Not surprisingly, the authors of these amendments miss the big picture.
The rules are not being followed as they are written now and simply changing the rules does little if anything to ensure
compliance.
The biggest problem is still associated with the fact that decision makers (P&Z and hearing officers) do a terrible job of
vetting design proposals against the code. They ignore or simply don't understand the concerns and objections of
participants.
The absolute pinnacle of the absurdity of the process can be best understood by recognizing that a party in interest need
not even present or address a matter of non-compliance in a Type 1 or Type 2 review. They can simply wait and
include the allegation in the grounds for appeal.
It has been my theory all along that the timing belt is one tooth out of alignment from the beginning to the end of this
process. Council should not be hearing any appeals that raise new issues.
Instead, the process needs to be reformatted from the get go. A hearing should be held in which the applicant presents
his or her project and a staff member should take comments and questions from parties in interest. A preliminary
finding of compliance/non-compliance should be made. Only then should the issue be taken to P & Z Z or a hearing
officer. Only then, should the matter be considered in a quasi-judicial capacity.
P & Z and the hearing officer should still accept general comments. However, the understanding of all participants at
that point should be that the decision maker will only be considering those issues that may be properly framed within the
four corners of the requirements of the LUC. Parties in interest may make their arguments in the framework of the
LUC and be encouraged to do so. Parties in interest that lack sufficient understanding of the LUC may still argue their
case with the understanding that as long as the essence of their argument pertains to a provision of the LUC their
argument will be considered.
P & Z should never be required to pass on a development application on the same evening that it is heard as a quasi-
judicial matter. In fact, this practice should be discouraged not encouraged. P & Z should have full latitude to
continue a hearing to its next regular or special meeting for further deliberation , and, if necessary, further questions of
all participants. Upon vote of a majority of the Board, the board should be able to request further briefing on issues
from participants and allow all participants to submit written briefs on those subjects.
Upon the final decision in a type 1 or type 2 hearing, parties in interest should be granted right to request reconsideration
of issues raised in the proceeding.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Supplemental Pg. 1
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: Fwd: Citizens request a delay of recommendation on changes to the Appeal process
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:24:50 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kathryn Dubiel <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2019 12:43 PM
Subject: Citizens request a delay of recommendation on changes to the Appeal process
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>,Delynn Coldiron
<DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>,Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Cc: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Please forward to members of the P&Z Board re: discussion item 2 on the Discussion Agenda
for the February 21, 2019 Hearing
To Members of the P&Z Board,
We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Board delay their recommendation on this
item to another date but proceed with its discussion of it at the February 21 hearing. This will give
citizens the time to hear the item discussed and to subsequently provide an indepth written
response and relevant comments for the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting in March.
Our reasons for this request are as follows. The proposed changes to the Municipal Code are
characterized by City staff thusly: "to clarify aspects of the procedure and to improve the
appeal process." However, amongst the minor grammatical and outdated terminology
changes are definitions and procedural changes which are significant and for which
insufficient time has been provided for public review and response.
The changes were still under revision early on Tuesday, February 12 and finally made available
late that same day. We have concerns that the proposed changes will not have the public
input they require. Even if members of the public attend the Hearing to offer their comments,
the time limits placed on a speaker prevents meaningful and thorough input.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Patterson and Kathryn Dubiel
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Supplemental Pg. 2
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: Fwd: Delay recommendation of code update
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:25:33 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Tamme <eric@uphreak.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2019 7:38 AM
Subject: Delay recommendation of code update
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc:
To Members of the P&Z Board,
We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Board delay their recommendation on
this item to another date but proceed with its discussion of it at the February 21 hearing. This
will give citizens the time to hear the item discussed and to subsequently provide an indepth
written response and relevant comments for the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting in
March.
Our reasons for this request are as follows. The proposed changes to the Municipal Code are
characterized by City staff thusly: "to clarify aspects of the procedure and to improve the
appeal process." However, amongst the minor grammatical and outdated terminology
changes are definitions and procedural changes which are significant and for which
insufficient time has been provided for public review and response.
The changes were still under revision early on Tuesday, February 12 and finally made
available late that same day. We have concerns that the proposed changes will not have the
public input they require. Even if members of the public attend the Hearing to offer their
comments, the time limits placed on a speaker prevents meaningful and thorough input.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Tamme and Rory Schmidt
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Supplemental Pg. 3
From: Derbyshire,Elisabeth <Elisabeth.Derbyshire@ColoState.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: P&Z Board Meeting Today
Rebecca, will you please forward the following to the P&Z members before its meeting today. Thank you, liz
Planning and Zoning Board members,
This e-mail addresses my concerns with Agenda Item 3 up for discussion and recommendation at today’s meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
The original Agenda Project Description stated “The purpose of this item is for Planning & Zoning Board to provide a
recommendation to City Council regarding minor updates to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance."
The Executive Summary in the attachment states “City staff has drafted changes to the City Council appeals procedure
contained in City Code in order to clarify aspects of the appeals procedure and to improve the appeals process. City staff is
seeking a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council regarding the changes.”
I submit that apart from minor updates, there are, in addition, significant changes to the appeal process itself, and I very much
appreciate the Board’s action last Friday in moving this item from Consent to Discussion on today’s Agenda.
I respectfully request the Board to delay making a recommendation to Council until its March meeting, which would give
citizens time to study the proposal. The attachment itself is thirteen pages long and became available only last week.
liz derbyshire
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Supplemental Pg. 4
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Land Use Code PUD Amendment, Section 4.29(I)
DATE: February 20, 2019
At the February 15 work session, the Board provided feedback regarding the suggested
amendment of Land Use Code Section 4.29(I). The change proposed by City staff was to
substitute the term developer in place of applicant regarding the party that may request a PUD
amendment. This change was suggested because the applicant is at times a consultant and would
be the inappropriate party to request an amendment because the consultant would generally not
own or have legal control of property within the PUD. The Board questioned whether
“developer” was the proper term or whether a property owner should also be included. In light
of this feedback, I have changed the suggested language to include the applicant, property owner,
or developer, or any combination thereof, as the party or parties that may request a PUD
amendment. I also included a requirement that the name of the party or parties eligible to request
an amendment be included in the PUD Master Plan. This change provides flexibility regarding
the potential parties that may be authorized to request an amendment while simultaneously
providing certainty as to the identity of such parties because such information will be
memorialized in the PUD Master Plan.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Supplemental Pg. 5
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
Proposed Change to Land Use Code Division 4.29 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) OVERLAY, Subsection (I):
(I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment.
(1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in accordance with the
following provisions:
(a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following:
1. The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD Overlay; or
2. The City, provided no vested property right approved in connection with the PUD
Master Plan would be in effect upon termination.
(b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision maker of the PUD
Master Plan shall terminate unless termination is determined to be detrimental to the
public good after holding a public hearing to address the issue.
(c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the overlay designation on
the zoning map and the underlying zone district regulations in effect at the time of
such removal shall control.
(d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master
Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6.
(2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following
provisions:
(a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following:
1. The written request of all real property owners within the PUD Overlay; or
2. The written request of the original applicant, property owner, and/or developer for
the approved PUD Master Plan, or any successor or assign thereof authorized in
writing by such party or parties to have the ability pursuant to this Subsection to
request an amendment, provided the following conditions are met:
a. The name or names of the original applicant, property owner, and/or developer
authorized to request an amendment must be set forth in writing in the PUD
Master Plan.
b. The applicant authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or
assign, continues to owns or otherwise hasve legal control of real property within
the PUD Overlay; and
bc. The right of the applicant authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or
successor or assign, to amend the PUD Master Plan without the consent of other
owners of real property within the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding
covenant or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or
3. The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify, or terminate any
existing vested right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan without the
permission of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right.
(b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or otherwise under the
control of the applicantauthorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Supplemental Pg. 6
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
or assign, any approved amendment requested by the applicantauthorized applicant,
property owner, developer, or successor or assign, shall not apply to any other real
property within the PUD Overlay which:
1. Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan;
2. Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan; or
3. Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time the applicant's authorized
applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign request for
amendment is submitted to the City.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Supplemental Pg. 7
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 2019
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Director
Shawna VanZee, Planning Associate
RE: Supplement to February 21, 2019 Staff Report for Appeal of
Administrative Decision Approving 1032 W Prospect Road
Extra Occupancy, BDR180033
On February 21, the Planning and Zoning Board will hear the appeal of an application
for an extra occupancy rental, BDR180033, located at 1032 W. Prospect Road. This
memorandum supplements the information provided in the staff report for this item and
provides information regarding a covenant contained on the 1956 Woods Resubdivision
plat (See Attachment 1) and why the Extra Occupancy application complies with the
covenant. The property at 1032 W Prospect is subject to the covenants contained on
the 1956 Woods Resubdivision plat.
Background:
The 1956 Woods Resubdivision plat contains ten (10) protective covenants, the first of
which states the following:
“No lot shall be used for other than residential purposes and no building shall be
erected, placed, altered or permitted to remain on any lot, other than one,
detached single family dwelling . . .”
During the review of Basic Development Review (BDR) 180033 for an Extra Occupancy
at 1032 W. Prospect, staff discussed if the protective covenant places any restrictions
on the approval of an Extra Occupancy and determined that the covenant does not
prohibit the Extra Occupancy use.
Discussion:
The covenant pre-dates the Land Use Code (LUC) and does not provide any
definition of the terms “residential purposes” or “detached single family dwelling.”
As a result, the covenant is open to interpretation. When viewed through
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12
Supplemental Pg. 8
- 2 -
the lens of the LUC, the application appears to comply with the covenant. With
regards to “residential purposes,” the LUC has been interpreted to include long term
rental of a dwelling for residential purposes to be a residential use. Additionally, the
covenant appears to be referring to a structure type when it specifies a “detached
single family dwelling.” The LUC defines a single-family dwelling as a dwelling
containing no more than one dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is in turn defined as one
or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least one bathroom designed, occupied, or
intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use of a single family for
living, cooking and sanitary purposes. It appears from the floor plan that the
structure was originally designed or intended for occupancy by a single family even
though at this point in time, it is being utilized by persons not comprising a family.
Under the LUC, three unrelated persons may occupy a detached single-family
dwelling, and this does not transform the detached single-family dwelling into
another structure. Extending this logic to the requested five unrelated persons living
together, the structure is seemingly unchanged as a single-family detached dwelling
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12
Supplemental Pg. 9
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12
Supplemental Pg. 10
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12
Supplemental Pg. 11