Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/22/1996-AdjournedOctober 22,1996 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 7:15 p.m. A adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 22, 1996, at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Jensen. Consideration of the Appeals of the August 26, 1996 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82R, Remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Sutnmaa On August 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to approve the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82R with a condition as stated in the staff memo. On September 9, 1996, Notices of Appeal were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board from the following parties: Brittany Knoll Homeowners c% Moselle Kleppinger & Mark Cheesbrough et. al. 815 Courtenay Circler Fort Collins, CO 80525 2. CDL Partnership c% Chuck Betters, General Partner 6201 Eagle Ridge Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 3. Neighbors of Eagle Tree c% Doug Sparks et. al. 97 October 22, 1996 900 Deerhurst Circle Fort Collins, CO 80525 Amended Notices of Appeal were received by the City Clerk's Office on September 20, 1996, front CDL Partnership; on September 23, 1996 from Brittany Knoll Homeowners; and on September 24, 1996 from Neighbors oj'Eagle Tree regarding the same decision. The appellants cite the following Sections of the City Code as the basis for the appeals: Section 2-48(b)(1): The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Section 2-48(b)(2a): The appellants allege that the Planting and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board exceeded it authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter. Section 2-48(b)(2b): The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. Section 2-48(b)(2c): The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board considered evidence relevant to its finding which was substantially false or grossly misleading. The attached docianents include the Notices of Appeal and the Amended Notices of Appeal; the Planning Departinent response to the Amended Notices of Appeal; and the injornation packet that was received by the P & Z Board for the August 26, 1996 neeting. In addition, a verbatim transcript and videotape recording of the P & Z Board ineeting are included. The procedures for consider and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code." City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the background and process for hearing the appeal. He noted 3 separate appeals would be heard and spoke of Council's options. Representatives for the appellants identified themselves: Rick Zier, representing CDL Partnership; Mark Cheesbrough on behalf of residents of Brittany Knolls; and Dan Culver representing Eagle Tree residents. Mayor Azari spoke of the time allowed and of the process. She encouraged appellant representatives to keep their testimony brief and try to avoid repetitive comments. Jim Harmon, representing PrideMark Development Company, introduced members of the project team. m October 22. 1996 Mayor Azari clarified both sides would receive equal time, I hour for testimony and 30 minutes for rebuttal. City Attorney Steve Roy briefly spoke of the definition of "on the record" and "new evidence". City Planner Mike Ludwig gave the staff presentation on this item summarizing the history of the property, showing slides of the area. He spoke of the Planning and Zoning Board's adoption of the Overall Development Plan (the "ODP") submitted in 1987, noting the ODP was amended in 1993. He spoke of the allegations contained in the appeals and of the section of the Code they relate to. He commented staff would be available to answer Council questions. Appellant Testimony: Rick Zier, attorney for CDL Partnership, spoke of interior traffic issues and the originally adopted ODP. He requested a written supplement to his oral presentation be considered for submittal into the record. Judy McNurdy, attorney for PrideMark, objected to the inclusion of Mr. Zier's written comments stating that information concerning PrideMark's contract for purchase of the property is not relevant to issues being discussed. She noted that slides Mr. Zier asked to show have not been reviewed. Zier commented the contract was the general subject for discussion at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, commenting the RFP was only briefly discussed. After further discussion City Attorney Steve Roy and Mayor Azari concluded the supplement, in its entirety, would be received and reviewed by Council. Mr. Zier requested Council overturn or remand the issue to the Planning and Zoning Board with specific instructions. He stated affordable housing and subsidies are not the issue, and stated many residents never received notification. He stated the City ignored its own policy regarding location of high residential density uses and stated there is currently no criteria regarding school capacity issues. He believed many issues were not adequately addressed and stated he believed the City has a conflict of interest regarding this project. He refuted statements regarding the number of units proposed, expressing concerns regarding inadequate buffering. He spoke of the need for mixed uses vs. mass density development and urged Council to consider traffic, density, and open space issues. He requested Council overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Dan Culver, 900 Benson Lane, spoke of the grounds for Eagle Tree's appeal, citing the lack of notification of the project. He stated the original ODP called for additional collector streets, and stated those have been eliminated from the proposed ODP. He expressed concerns regarding traffic October 22, 1996 impact at intersections and commented changes would not occur until an accident record has been compiled. He stated the area currently does not receive public transit and it has not been proposed. He spoke of unanswered issues regarding the Robert Benson dam and spoke of information in a staff report that stated determination of the Provincetowne ODP be conditioned upon the disposition of the reservoir. He stated landowners adjacent to the dam were not notified of the hearing. He spoke of the number of school age children residing in the development and of the impact it would have on the Loveland schools. He urged Council to be cautious not to show favoritism because the land is City owned. He urged Council to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and advise the Board to review the Plan to address all of the above mentioned concerns. Mark Cheesbrough, representing residents of Brittany Knolls, spoke of concerns regarding increased traffic congestion and commercial district access. He stated high density is not in accordance with existing planning guidelines and expressed concerns regarding the lack of transitioning. He stated the Plan does not allow for additional collector streets. He spoke of the amount of trips generated daily, and commented he did not believe this high density development to be compatible with existing development. Maria Jolly, 6945 West Port, expressed concerns regarding traffic issues. Ann McSay, 6422 Kyle Avenue, spoke of the traffic concerns on Trilby Road. Applicant Testimony Jim Harmon, representing PrideMark Development, spoke of the need to further address traffic issues. Phil Scott, representing Lee, Scott and Cleary 1889 York Street, Denver, Colorado, reported on the conclusions of the completed traffic study for the Provincetowne Plan, stating traffic at peak hours would operate at an acceptable level based on his study and based on traffic controls in place at the time of the study. Mr. Harmon stated the original ODP was more dangerous in terms of impaired turning movements. Bruce Downing, President of Downing, Thorpe and James, Boulder, Colorado, spoke of traffic, density and school issues. He responded to allegations by the appellants that land use issues have not been addressed and spoke of the difficulty in addressing density and transit issues. He stated the developer has been working with the Transportation Department to provide bus service. Mr. Harmon clarified setback distances were calculated from Eagle Tree's PUD Plan and spoke of the proposed parks for the development, noting 2017c of the property purchased would be designated as open space. He spoke of attempts to comply with all parties' concerns and interests. 100 October 22, 1996 Project Planner Rick Volte representing Downing, Thorpe and James, reported on recent meetings held with the Loveland School District regarding capacity issues. He reported that the School District has documentation regarding the proposed development dated back to 1987 and stated the District has not expressed overcrowding concerns. Judy McNurdy, attorney for applicant, spoke of due process issues and notification of development issues to parties -in -interest stating many parties -in -interest were notified of the hearings. She stated the Code and the procedures of the Planning Department were followed and stated due process was given. She clarified credit was not given for open space property and spoke of the need for issues to be resolved. She stated it would be rare for all issues to be addressed at this point in the process and emphasized the Planning and Zoning Board understood density issues before it approval. She requested the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld. Mr. Harmon stated traffic issues were adequately addressed and stated density issues would be addressed before the final development plan. He urged that the decision of the Planning and Zoning board be upheld and reported a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled to further discuss the plan. He spoke of the need to resolve issues surrounding the Robert Benson Reservoir. Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, member of the Affordable Housing Task Force, spoke of the appropriate land use for the project and added the project conforms to the City's Visions and Goals Plan. Lou Stitzel, 512 E. Laurel, spoke in support of the project and of the number of citizens who it would benefit. Appellant Rebuttal Rick Zier spoke of the need to ensure that homeowners receive proper notification and refuted statements that Eagle Tree offered no amenities. He disagreed with statements that the natural area was not a major component of the Plan. He questioned remarks regarding the School District's position with regard to overcrowding, and clarified notice was not given to homeowners on the southern boundary. He stated the project needs to offer convenient access, compatible density, better buffering as well as acceptable transitioning. Mark Lange, 395 Regina Drive, refuted the statement that residents of Victoria Estates were in favor of the project, he stated residents favored preserving the open space. Mr. Culver spoke of the increased traffic on neighborhood residential collector streets, inadequate buffering, and of the need for school issues to be resolved. He stated there were too many unresolved issues for the project to be allowed to proceed. 101 October 22, 1996 Mr. Lange questioned the statement that commercial development is more desirable than large industrial, stating Woodward Governor is an example of what large industrial development can look like. Dick Bernhart, President of the North Lauden Ditch and Reservoir Company, spoke of issues regarding the dam and stated he would like to see the lake brought up to an appropriate level. Anolicant Rebuttal Jim Harmon stated many of the unresolved issues would be addressed at appropriate stages of the process. He spoke of the many amenities included in the project. He stated open space is part of the development plan but emphasized it is not included as part of the density. He clarified the School District has been planning for the development for over 10 years. Bob Long, resident of Victoria Estates, urged Council to consider changes between the original ODP and the current ODP and urged Council to support the plan. Ludwig responded to Council questions regarding notification, stating the applicant provided the mailing list to staff, who then mailed the notice. He clarified the southern boundary stopped at County Road 32. Traffic Engineer Eric Bracke stated traffic and road improvement issues are not formally addressed at the ODP level, noting traffic studies have been completed to determine if the existing system could handle the increased volume of traffic. He clarified road improvement issues are addressed at preliminary and final reviews. He commented that it was likely that bus service would be provided to students due to crossing of arterial streets. Ludwig clarified the different criteria for an ODP vs. PUD. Councilmember Kneeland asked if existing collector streets would be able to handle the traffic volume. Bracke stated this ODP significantly reduces the number of trips per day compared to the original ODP and spoke of intersections with similar volumes of traffic. Ludwig responded to Council questions and stated the open space area was calculated in the 500 foot notification distance. He reported the location of the Transit Center is within close proximity of the project and Transfort has been contacted about options for providing service. He stated credit would not be awarded for public open space at the ODP stage of the project, emphasizing that school capacity issues are not a part of criteria approval. 102 October 22, 1996 Ludwig reported on the process of withdrawing certain parcels of land from the original CDP, commenting that the proposed CDP needed to be amended to include the remaining parcels of land. Senior Stormwater Engineer for Development Review Glen Schlueter stated repairs to the Robert Benson dam would not be as extensive as originally believed and spoke of options available to make it a viable amenity without completely repairing it. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to remand this issue to the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the confusion regarding notification. She spoke of the need to consider additional collector streets, better buffering, and consideration of lower densities. She commented that she did not believe the City had a conflict of interest regarding the project and of the importance of not treating the development differently. Councilmember McCluskey concurred with comments by Councilmember Kneeland and spoke of the need to look at level of service issues. Councilmember Smith opposed the motion stating this was an CDP review, noting there would be opportunity for change before adoption of the PUD. Councilmember Wanner spoke in opposition of the motion. Councilmember Janett opposed the motion and believed at its hearing the Planning and Zoning Board did address all issues adequately, and stated more detailed plans would occur when considering the PUD. Mayor Azari supported the motion and commented on notification issues. She stated she supported making changes during the CDP process, not waiting for PUD adoption. City Attorney Steve Roy stated remanding does not direct the Planning and Zoning Board to make any changes but stated additional information could be received by the Board regarding stated issues. Councilmember Kneeland restated her motion, to remand the plan to the Planning and Zoning Board to consider lower density, additional collector streets and better buffering. Councilmember Apt stated he would not support the remand stating the process for the CDP was appropriate and there would be additional opportunities for input. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. 103 1. .'I ' October 22, 1996 THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to remand to the Planning and Zoning Board with direction to review notification and transportation issues. After further discussion Councilmember McCluskey stated the intent of his motion was to find that the appellants were denied a fair hearing due to inadequate notice without reference to the traffic issue. Ludwig clarified that notice boundaries would be amended and spoke of the process involved before final adoption by the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Apt opposed the motion, stating he believed reasonable notice was given. City Attorney Steve Roy clarified if the motion to remand was adopted, the Planning and Zoning Board would rehear this issue. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to remand this issue to the Planning and Zoning Board based on traffic engineering and collector street issues. Bracke stated traffic issues are already being discussed and would be addressed during the PUD process. The vote on Councilmember Wanner's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari. Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Apt, Janett and Smith. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1 1:50 p.m. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk 104