Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/22/1995-AdjournedI August 22, 1995 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORT 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, August 22, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. in the Cormcil Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Jarrett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmember Absent: Apt. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy. Appeal of the Jute 26,1995 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to Overturn City Staff's Decision to Approve an Administrative Change for the Woodlands Condominiums PUD Second Filing P&7 Overturned ' The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Sunuuatx On June 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board overturned City, staffs decision to approve an administrative chcurge to the Woodlands Condominiums P. U.D., Second Filing, citing that the protect (as proposed) he considered a major change, based on the fact that the change in the bedroom mix represented a significant change in character ol'the development. As set forth in the Land Development Guidance System, major changes to a P. U.D. shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board. The property is zoned RLP - bm Density Planed Residential. Oil July 10, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc., it is alleged that: The Board failed to property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter [Section 2-48(I ), City Code]. 2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter (Section 2-48(2)a., City Code]. 1 268 August 22, 1995 The attached documents include: I * the appeal * the Planning Department response to the appeal * the Staff Report for the Appeal of the Approval of an Administrative Change to the Woodlands Condominiums P. U.D., ,Second Filing that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the June 26, 1995, public hearing * the Verbatim Minutes of the June 26, 1995, Planning and Zoning Board public hearing 7'he procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. " City Attorney Roy described the appeal procedure. He stated the appeal is based on the record and is not entirely a new hearing but is decided by the Council based upon the exhibits and evidence presented to the P&Z Board at the hearing, a verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the Board, and a video tape of the proceedings. He stated time limitations would be ' established on the presentations by parties in interest, who include the applicants, or any party holding a proprietary or possessory interest in the property that is the subject of the appeal, any person that the City mailed notice of the P&Z hearing, any person who appeared before the Board, or a Councilmentber. Ile stated this particular appeal has it limited scope. The P&Z Board dealt with a proposed amendment to a previously approved PUD. The question tonight is not whether or not the PUD amendment should be approved, (not an examination of the merits of the proposed change), the decision is a more limited one ... whether the amendment constitutes a major or a minor change to the PUD. If it is a major change as the Board concluded, then the proposed amendment would come back before the P&Z Board for review under the relevant LDGS criteria. If Council disagrees with the Board and finds that it is a minor change which can be administratively approved, then it has already been administratively approved and that would be the end of the matter. City Planner Steve Olt gave an explanation of the nature of the appeal and a brief overview of the actions taken on the subject property to date. He stated an administrative change to the Woodlands PUD was submitted in May of 1995. The request was for approval of a name change from Woodlands Condominiums PUD to Woodlands Apartments PUD, to eliminate four dwelling units resulting in l l6 dwelling units rather than the previously approved 120, to change the use in it portion of one of the residential buildings to include a manager's office, rental office, mail room, kitchen area, party/game/assembly room and attached laundry room and to change the unit mix from 60 one -bedroom and 60 two -bedroom units to 14 one -bedroom, 66 , 269 August 22, 1995 ' two -bedroom and 36 three -bedroom dwelling units. The number of on -site parkin aces parking spaces I would increase from 196 to 211 to provide for the parking requirements for the new unit mix. Staff reviewed the administrative change request and determined the proposed changes were minor in nature. An appeal of the approval of the administrative change was received on May 26. On June 26, the P&Z Board overturned staffs decision to approve the administrative change citing the proposed change was a major change based on the fact that the change to the bedroom mix represented a significant change in the character of the development and it would appeal to a different clientele. An appeal of the P&Z decision was filed by the project developer, Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, on July 10. Michael Costa, President, Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, spoke of his company's commitment to affordable housing. He spoke of the reasons for creating a community center oil the site and of the company's attempts to work within guidelines for an administrative approval. He stated the market had dictated a change to the mix of units and of the company's commitment to quality and affordability. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Kaufinan and Broad, emphasized that this is an approved Final PUD for 120 multi -family units and the staff has determined that there is a vested right today to pull a building permit mid to build 120 units oil this site. She pointed out it is not a question of whether the land use is appropriate or what impacts it may have. The only relevant evaluation is the amendment requested and how it affects the neighborhood and how it interplays with the LDGS criteria. The developer worked with staff to determine that the changes were minor and could be approved administratively and that as minor changes to the approved PUD, the amendment met all the LDGS All Development Criteria. The neighborhood appeal stated the amendment was a major change requiring that it go back through the full PUD process and a hearing in front of the P&Z Board. The P&Z Board heard the appeal and after hearing testimony on many issues, made a motion "to consider this a major change based on the fact that the change in the bedroom mix represents a significant change in character". The developer believes the sole issue for Council decision is ..... was the Board's decision supportable to overturn the approved administrative amendment to the final PUD on the specifically stated grounds that it was a major change because the change in the bedroom mix changed the character of the project. She stated the appellant believes it was not supportable and the Board's decision is a failure to properly interpret the LDGS requirements. She stated the appellant is withdrawing the second ground, "a failure to hold a fair hearing on the basis the Board exceeded its jurisdiction", because the arguments are identical in either case and the appellant would prefer that the Council make a decision and not remand the matter back to the P&Z Board for another hearing. She spoke of the meaning of "character" in the context of development project and added it was primarily defined by land use but also by major design elements. Liley stated Deputy City Attorney Eckman defined the character of the project as the fundamental features of a project. Not every change is a change in the character of a project. It must be something Fundamental to the project. In any of the definitions there is no reference to bedroom mix or to 270 August 22, 1995 the owner versus rental nature of the occupants of the project. The proposed amendments do not constitute a change in the character of the project. Change in bedroom mix could only be a change in character if it resulted in changing some essential feature of the project. She stated arguments relating to ownership versus rental occupancy legally are irrelevant and impermissible in a land use decision. Liley stated the City's Code, the LDGS requirements and the traffic analysis used by the City are primarily based on land use and secondly with residential uses, on dwelling uses and not numbers of bedrooms and who occupies those bedrooms. She asked that Council overturn the decision of the P&Z Board and let stand the approval of the administrative change on the basis that the Board failed to properly interpret the Code when making a decision that a change in bedroom mix constitutes a change in character of the project. Scott Carlson, P. O. Box 247, Eastlake, Colorado, representing RockCreek Partnership, owner of the property, stated the only issue is the proposed change in bedroom mix. He stated he believed the amendment serves as an upgrade to the project an its impact to the City. Eric Sourness, 4406 Rosecrown Ct., stated the neighborhood believes the decision of the Board was a proper decision. The Board decided the changes represented major changes and that the project should be sent back through the review process. He stated Council needed to determine whether the Board heard enough competent evidence sufficient to lead it to the conclusion it came to. He stated the Board heard testimony on many issues including the change in bedroom ' mix. He spoke of the need for an updated traffic study and the change from condominiums to apartments. He asked that the decision of the P&Z Board be upheld. Wiley Smith, 4430 Hollyhock St., spoke of the change in character of the project and the impacts to the neighborhood. He stated ownership versus rental units is a major change. Denise James, 4412 Rosecrown Ct., spoke of the discussion at the P&Z Board hearing and added that although the bedroom mix was the only change voted on, the others were a part of the decision making. Elizabeth MacRilchie, 4406 Rosecrown Ct., stated the major neighborhood issue is safety. She spoke of the need for a traffic study and stated the P&Z Board was correct when asking that the project be reviewed. William James, 4412 Rosecrown Ct., spoke of the difference between condominiums and apartments and stated there are enough apartment complexes on Shields north of Harmony. Linda Smith, 4430 Hollyhock St., addressed the character issue and expressed concern abort the lack of a homeowner's association. 271 r August 22, 1995 IMelissa Funk, 948 Wakerobin, expressed traffic and parking concerns and suggested an u updated 1 traffic study was needed. Matt Goulet, 1043 Bitterbrush, expressed a preference for condominiums over apartments. Mark Ball, 4443 Hollyhock St., slated the project needed further review because it is a different project from the project approved in 1980. Rebuttal - Appellant: Lucia Liley, attorney representing Kaufman and Broad, emphasized that bedroom mix was the sole reason upon which the Board voted to determine the amendment was a mayor change. Other issues were discussed but in the final analysis, bedroom mix was the basis for the decision. She spoke of the comments relating to a new traffic study and reminded the project does not need to be reviewed..... the impacts of the amendment need to be reviewed. She stated that if the original project were built, no traffic study would be required. The question is not does the project increase problems in traffic circulation but does the amendment increase traffic circulation problems. She pointed out that at the P&Z hearing, the Traffic Engineer testified that from a traffic impact standpoint, there is virtually no change between the project as ' approved and the proposed project with the amendment. She stated the applicant volunteered and the staff imposed a condition on the administrative change that a new traffic study would be done that would look at not just the administrative change but at the whole project. If the study is not done, the administrative change approval is void. She stated the project is being built to address a specific market need. Rebuttal - Opposition: Eric Sunness, 4406 Rosecrown Ct., spoke of the criteria for a major or minor change. He stated the Board decided the neighbors should have an opportunity to be heard and not have the amendment approved administratively and asked Council to uphold the P&Z Board. Melissa Funk, 948 Wakerobin, stated the traffic study is all issue and spoke of the increases since 1980. Council Discussion: Councilmember Kneeland asked if, when defining multi -family units, the LDGS differentiates between condominiums or apartments. She asked about the need for an updated traffic study and whether number of bedrooms is a criterion used in making a decision about density. 272 August 22, 1995 Olt responded that the LDGS makes no distinction between condominiums, apartments or town homes. They are all multi -family in nature. He stated the traffic engineer at the time of approval of the administrative change stated the intersection levels of service would likely be consistent with the level of service standards approved, with the condition that the applicant's traffic study shows acceptable operations of access points. The applicant is required to submit an updated traffic study in conjunction with the approval of the administrative change. He stated residential density is based on dwelling units only. There is no reference to bedrooms other than from parking requirement standards. He reminded the project has a vested right based on substantial completion of the project. The project was evaluated against 1980 criteria and if it were to be evaluated today against the City's All Development Criteria and the residential density point chart, it is likely the project would score well and would be looked at favorably. Councilmember Smith clarified that relative to traffic, the applicant will do a new traffic study and if it is found that any intersection operates at less than Level of Service "D", the entire project must go back for review. Lucia Liley stated the applicant's understanding of the condition is that there are very defined service levels to be mct. If they are not met, the applicant will have to make improvements to make the level of service equal to "D", or the administrative approval is void. ' Mayor Azari clarified that Ms. Liley had withdrawn the "failed to conduct a fair hearing" allegation. City Attorney Roy replied that it was his understanding and it will no longer be necessary for the Council to reach a decision as to whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board because they failed to properly interpret the Code. Councilmember Kneeland stated that based on the information provided, land use and design elements like bulk, mass, layout, height, etc., are the criteria to be considered. She stated she did not believe those elements had been changed in a major way. Councilmember McCluskey stated he would not support the motion because the character of the project has changed with regard to the number of bedrooms. Councilmember Smith stated he would support the motion because it is unclear that major changes in character have occurred. 273 August 22, 1995 ICouncilmember Wanner stated he would support the motion and added he believed it is a dangerous precedent to differentiate between ownership and rental occupancy. Councilmember Janett stated she would support the motion and pointed out the change in bedroom mix may add more children to the project. There is no evidence the children will be of driving age and thus contributing to the traffic problem. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to overturn the P&Z Board decision was as follows: Yeas: Councilmember:s Azari, Janett, Kneeland, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember McCluskey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 114,1995, Amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 179, 1993, for the Purpose of Extending the Expiration Date of Said Ordinance Until March 1 1926 Adopted on First Reading, The following is staff's memorandum oil this item. ' "Executive Summary Ordinance Nai. 179, 1993 amended the rninintum lot size of the NCM, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zoning district. the amendment ryas for a limited tune period to preclude the development of secondary residential structures within the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods until December 31, 1994 or until design criteria supplemental to the neighborhood plans could be developed, whichever came first. Because of delays in the project, three previous extensions of the termination date of Ordinance No. 179, 1993 have been approved by the Council. An additional extension is needed in order to allow tine for additional public outreach and consensus building with the goal of developing modifications to the proposed standards and guidelines, or the development of zoning changes, or a combination of both that will work best to protect the welfare of the neighborhoods. Staff proposes to prepare and present for Council consideration the product of such public outreach for first reading on February 6, 1996 and for second reading on February 20, 1996. This ivill result in the new laws going into effect on March 1, 1990, ant which time Ordinance No. 179, 1993 should expire." Nancy Eason, 1019 Remington, asked why the expiration date was being extended to March I and asked that public hearing dales be publicized. 274 August 22, 1995 ' Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, spoke of the number of applications for zoning variances that can be expected prior to March I, 1996. He suggested the variances be reviewed against the proposed Eastside/Westside Guidelines to gain an idea of what impact they might create. He spoke of the problems associated with floor area calculations and those associated with the percentage of ownership question. lie stated data indicates that in the areas approximate to the campus, the number of non-resident occupants is 60%+. This could substantially affect how the Guidelines are viewed and how their impacts are judged. Conncilmember Janett stated it was her goal to complete the process sooner. She. stated her willingness to extend the expiration date is based on the view that the continued process will result in adopted guidelines. The null alternative is not acceptable. Councihnetnber Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance No. 114, 1995, on First Reading. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business ' Councilmember Smith stated it was not his intent that staff and Council solve the Eastside/Westside Guidelines problem. He asked that the parties in opposition and in support be brought together to work towards solutions. Councilmember Janett spoke of (lie Eastside/Westside process and expressed the concern that more public meetings will not accomplish what is needed. She asked that staff meet with her and Councilmember Wanner as soon as possible to flesh out the process. She asked for more information on the issues raised by Mr. Bridges. Mayor Azari stated she believed Council provided clear direction on how the Eastside/Westside process might proceed. It was not to repeat what has already been done but was to clarify and simplify the document and to provide options. The supporters and opponents need a chance to sit down together and begin to resolve their differences. Councihnember Janett asked for a two -page memo on the status of the completion of the west end of the Poudre River bike trail. 275 F 1 1 August 22, 1995 Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adjourn the meeting to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29 to hear an appeal from the P&Z decision on Woodlands Park PUD. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting concluded at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: o City Clerk 276