Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/25/1997-Adjourneda February 25, 1997 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Yeas: Councilmembers Janett, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Apt and Mayor Azari. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek. Consideration of the Appeals of the December 16, 1996 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan #73-82R The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive .Sumnim Ott December 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board held a re -hearing of the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan as directed by the City Council in Resohition 96-137. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to approve the Provincetowne Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82R with a condition limiting the maximum number of chvelling units to 955, a residential density of 5.97 dwelling units per acre. On December 27, 1996 a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board from the following party: CDL Partnership ("the Appellant CDL ) c% Chuck Betters, General Partner 6201 Eagle Ridge Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 On December 30, 1996 a separate Notice of Appeal ivas received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board from the following party: 312 February 25, 1997 Property Owners of the Eagle Tree Subdivision of the Provincetowne PUD, Brittany Knolls Subdivision, and surrounding area residents, as signed ("the Appellant Eagle Tree') clo Doug Sparks et. at 900 Deerhurst Circle Fort Collins, CO 80525 Amended Notices of Appeal were received by the City Clerk's Office on December 30, 1996 from the Appellant CDL; January 28, 1997 from the Appellant Eagle Tree; and a Second Amended Notice of Appeal on February 6, 1997 from the Appellant CDL; all 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 Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter. Section 2-48(b)(2h): The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the hoard 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 hoard considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Section 2-48(h)(2d): The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. The attached documents include the Notices of Appeal and the Amended Notices of Appeal; the Planning Department response to the Amended Notices of Appeal; and the information packet that was received by the P & Z Board for the December 16, 1996 meeting. In addition, a verbatim transcript and videotape recording of the P & Z Board meeting have been provided. The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article It Division 3 of the City Code. " City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the appeal process, clarifying the definition of parties -in - interest and spoke of the appellants allegations. 313 February 25, 1997 Mayor Pro Tem Janett informed both parties of the time limits that would be imposed. Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard gave a brief staff presentation on this item, outlined the location of the project and clarified that staff received two appeals on the project. Dan Cover, 900 Benson Lane, representing the property owners of Eagle Tree and Brittany Knolls, requested the plan be remanded, with direction, to the Planning and Zoning Board. He listed the following issues he would be addressing: 1) mismanagement of the process and proceedings; 2) perceived bias on the part of Council; 3) misleading and contradictory statements by staff and the applicant; 4) confusion on the part of the Planning and Zoning Board with regards to what their charges are on the ODP level; and 5) concerns regarding density and compatibility and the lack of definition and guidelines. He stated the neighborhood meeting did not allow adequate time to evaluate a plan of this size and expressed concerns regarding the neighborhoods request for additional meetings with staff to discuss the project. He spoke of concerns regarding impacts on property values and transportation concerns. He stated currently there is no definition for low, medium or high density so precedence should be relied upon to make a resolve this situation. He reported the neighborhood is not opposed to development of the property but would like to see compatible density in the area. Rick Zier, attorney representing CDL Partnership - Developer of Eagle Tree PUD, requested the Land -Use Policies Plan and the Goals and Objectives (principle elements of the Comprehensive Plan) be made a part of the record. (Secretary's Note: All parties -in -interest agreed to the request.) Zier suggested looking at reducing density in planning areas adjoining the Eagle Tree development and of the need to enforce density bonus's for affordable housing. He suggested a compromise of 4.5 dwelling units per acre and reported that the previously approved ODP was at a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre. Denise Prizler, 412 Diamond Drive, expressed concerns regarding the notification process, compatibility of the project, and the impact it would have on open space. Timothy Maholka, 1000 Summerly Lane, stated the density is incompatible with the surrounding area and urged Council to direct the Planning and Zoning Board to lower the density. Mark Cheesbrough, 1815 Courtney Circle, spoke of traffic and density concerns and requested the item be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Board with clear direction. Gregg Kinnes, 918 Battsford Circle, spoke of public transportation issues. 314 February 25, 1997 Jim Harmon, 10701 Melody Drive, Northglenn, representing PrideMark Development Company, outlined changes made to the proposal because of concerns expressed by the neighbors and Council, outlining changes for arterial and connector streets. He responded to questions regarding the school district's knowledge of the development proposal, stating they have been aware of it since 1987. Betty Maloney, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force of Larimer County, supported the proposed development. Lou Stitzel, 512 E. Laurel, spoke in support of the public process. Bob Long, a Fort Collins resident, supported reducing the density and commented on the improvements made to the project since the original ODP was adopted. OTL. m Dan Cover, 900 Benson Lane, commented that although changes have been made in response to the appellants concerns, density issues have not be been adequately addressed. Mark Cheesbrough, reemphasized traffic safety issues and the number of trips in and out of the area. He opposed using the open space area in density calculations. Denise Prizler, 412 Diamond Drive, spoke of density concerns. Tim Moholka, 1000 Summerly, spoke of the need for the development to fit into the precedent which already exists in the area. Rick Zier supported either remanding the issue back to the Planning and Zoning Board with clear instructions or that Council overturn the decision of the Board. Jim Harmon, PrideMark Development, stated he believed that the needs of the community have been met with the changes to assure compatibility with the neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney John Duvall responded to Council questions and defined the differences between ODP's and PUD's. He clarified when a project is submitted under a preliminary plan the minimum density requirement is 3 dwelling units per acre. 315 Februmy 25, 1997 Blanchard reported 2 public meetings were held prior to submittal, noting the Code only requires that one be held. Traffic Systems Technician Fred Jones responded to questions regarding the sight line on Tribly Road and clarified the newly proposed collector street, west of Brittany, meets City standards and is a safe intersection. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that the Planning and Zoning Board did conduct a fair and proper hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not error in finding that the amended ODP complied with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld. Councilmember Smith commented on the motion compared points in the ODP with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Kneeland opposed the motion stating that she did not believe density issues and concerns were adequately addressed. Councilmember McCluskey spoke in opposition of the motion stating although,the developer. had made several favorable changes, additional work to the proposal is needed. ' Mayor Pro Tern Janett spoke of Council's limited scope of review and stated she supported the motion because she believed the project meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that one method of achieving affordable housing is to increase densities because of high land prices. The vote on Councilmember Warner's motion to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember's Kneeland and McCluskey. THE MOTION CARRIED. 316 February 25, 1997 Councilmember Kneeland requested information regarding a flashing school zone light for Spring Creek Country Day School. She also requested staff work with effected property owners between first and second reading of the Land Use Code to gather information on how they would be effected. Councilmember McCluskey requested information on current policies on signage and speed bumps in new subdivisions. Mayor Pro Tern Janett spoke of the need for transitioning provisions for property that would be rezoned under the new Land -Use Plan. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: •IN i 317