Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/29/1995-AdjournedI August 29,1995 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, August 29, 1995, 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: Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmember Absent: Janett. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Eckman. Appeal of the July 24,1995 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving, with a Condition a Proposed PUD Known as Woodland Park Estates, Final, Planning and Zoning Upheld. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary On July 24, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Woodland Park Estates Final P. U.D. The project consists of 77 single family lots, 20 patio home lots, and 10 townhome lots (107 total lots) on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road #9, north of Hewlett- Packard. On August 4, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the statement of appeal it is alleged that: The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to receive all evidence offered by the appellants. The Planning and Zoning Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal, an Amended Notice of Appeal, the Planning Department response to the Appeal, and the information packet that was received by 1 277 August 29, 1995 the Planning and Zoning Board. In addition, the minutes to the July 24, 1995 P & Z Board meeting ' are included. The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II., Division 3 of the City Code. " Deputy City Attorney Eckman 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 Councilmember. Senior City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation and explained the nature of the appeal. He presented slides describing the boundaries of the site. Sandra Thomas, 4104 S. County Rd. 9, read a statement expressing concerns about density, storm drainage, impacts on wildlife habitat, and lack of recreation areas and opportunities. She asked Council not to make an urban subdivision fit into a rural atmosphere and requested the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be overturned. Dick Chinn, 3131 E. Horsetooth Rd., spoke of an adjacent property that had recently received ' preliminary approval for one -acre lots. Catherine Sands, 3816 Nite Ct., spoke of neighborhood meetings scheduled in an attempt to reach a compromise. She stated the developer has not been willing to meet the neighbors half -way. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the developer, described the evolution of the project, addressed density concerns and described compromise efforts with the neighbors. Lucia Liley, attorney representing the developer, addressed the four specific appeal issues and the three allegations of error. She stated that one contention is that the IGA between Larimer County and the City is the appropriate legal criteria to used to determine density. She stated the City's response and the developer's response has consistently been that the IGA is for properties in the Urban Growth Area but outside of City limits. Once property is annexed, it is governed solely by the City's land use policies and by the LDGS, which includes a minimum three dwelling units per acre for residential development. She stated another allegation of error is "the failure to receive evidence regarding compatibility and density". Since there is no factual basis stated, she was not able to respond. She stated the last ground of error under compatibility is "that the Board ignored its previously established rules of procedure". She stated this ground presumably refers to density variances. She stated variances are handled on a case by case basis so"it-difficult tci stated --the -- established rules. She stated variances have been granted in the past when 1) the Council has set a density restriction of less than two dwelling units per acre in the zoning or 2) when a developer ' 278 August 29, 1995 ' requests a variance and there are some extraordinary circumstances surrounding the property that would justify lowering the density beyond the minimum requirements. She pointed out the developer did not request a variance and the Board specifically found that there were no unusual circumstances that would justify any request for a variance. She stated density was established at the time of preliminary approval and at this point, it is not appropriate to be discussing the number of dwelling units for the project. Liley stated the second appeal issue deals with recreation areas. There are no specific allegations stated in the appeal. She stated the LDGS permits a project to take points on the residential uses point chart if the total acres devoted to recreation areas equal a certain percentage. The requirements are defined in the Code and stated recreation areas must be privately held separate parcels with certain dimension requirements. Both have been met with this proposal. Liley stated the third issue deals with wildlife and the error alleged states "the Board failed to receive relevant evidence related to a second opinion of a wildlife biologist and slides and photos on the wildlife issue". She stated the question for Council is what evidence did the Board fail to receive. She stated slides and photos shown at the time of preliminary approval were available at the final hearing and were part of the record. The appellants offered no new slides or photos at the final hearing. No second opinion or report was offered into evidence at the final hearing so it is difficult to say the Board failed to received it if it wasn't in evidence. She stated the evidence in the record ' shows the Natural Resources Board had reviewed the site and concluded the site did not meet the criteria of being "significant and in particular need of attention", in part based on a study, the Poudre River Landscape Opportunity Study. Liley stated the fourth appeal issue is storm drainage. She spoke of a statement the appellants allege was made to them by a Storm Drainage staff person. The appellants stated the Board failed to questions that staff person about the statement and therefore failed to receive evidence. She referred to the transcript and stated no mention was made of the statement so it is difficult to say the Board failed to receive it. She cited transcript reference to questions and testimony related to the project meeting all the City's criteria, that the storm drainage plan was consistent with the Fox Meadows Master Drainage Plan and water coming into the Fossil Creek inlet would be significantly reduced over the historic flow currently coming in through a sheet flow basin. Liley stated that looking at the record, the applicant does not believe that the allegations made are justified or that overturning a unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Board would be justified. Rebuttal - appellants: Sandra Thomas, 4104 S. County Rd. 9, stated this project will affect more than those neighbors immediately adjacent to it. She stated the neighbors met four times with the developer and did not 11419 August 29, 1995 believe they had a chance to reach a compromise. She spoke of adjustments between preliminary I and final approval and stated the only adjustment made was to reduce the total lots by three. Dan Henderson, 3824 Nite Ct., spoke of an surrounding properties recently annexed into the City. Nancy Courtney, 3256 Nite Ct., asked that Council continue to look at the uniqueness of the area and asked that the decision of the P&Z Board be overturned. Rebuttal - opposition: Lucia Liley, attorney representing the developer, clarified that the only real issue at the time of the Final PUD was the status of the storm drainage and whether it met the City's criteria. She stated overall density is the main issue and added the history of the project shows the developer has done many things to address the neighbors' concerns and still be consistent with the City's minimum density requirement. Councilmember McCluskey asked for clarification on what rights are vested at the time of preliminary approval versus final approval. Senior City Planner Ted Shepard quoted the LDGS, "approval of a preliminary plan shall not constitute final approval of the final plan, rather it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the layout and density submitted on the preliminary plan as a guide to the preparation of the final plan". ' He stated the point chart is evaluated at the time of the preliminary PUD and many of the compatibility issues are solved, in terms of whether the project complies with the All Development Criteria and the Variable Criteria. If a preliminary plan received approval, the final must be in substantial compliance with the preliminary. In this case the final was in substantial compliance with the preliminary which gained approval in February of 1995. Deputy City Attorney Eckman agreed that the LDGS intends preliminary approval to be an expression of approval of layout and density. He stated the LDGS states "the final plan shall also comply with all other applicable criteria of the LDGS provided however, that the Planning and Zoning Board shall not impose additional requirements or conditions pertaining to the general layout and densities as shown on the preliminary plan". He stated the two sections of the LDGS taken together lead him to conclude that the preliminary plan is the time when layout and density is established for the project. Councilmember Kneeland asked if the storm drainage issues have been mitigated. Glenn Schlueter, title, stated the drainage reports are still being reviewed although submittals at the time of final review were fairly complete. The reports will be required to meet the City's criteria as part of the utility plan approval which follows P&Z approval. August 29, 1995 Councilmember Apt asked what percentage of the total project was open space and how it compared with other projects of this type. Shepard replied that the open space areas are about 10% of the project. He added the developer received 5 points on the point chart and stated he did not have data on other projects. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, that a fair hearing was conducted by the P&Z Board and the Board did not ignore its previously established rules of procedure. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Kneeland stated she believed that the proposal as presented, and as it was interpreted by the P&Z Board, is in compliance with the City's policies. She stated much has been done to mitigate the issues of incompatibility and acknowledged neighbors will not be happy with this decision. ' Councilmember Apt stated the development is a model of what the City is trying to encourage. He acknowledged that as development occurs in the Urban Growth Area, there will be conflicts between larger lot development and higher density developments. Councilmember Smith stated the development meets all Code requirements and efforts at transitioning have been made. He stated one row of houses is not truly a buffer. He expressed concern that as development moves across County Rd. 9, more open space and natural area will be lost. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion to uphold the decision of the P&Z Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 95-122 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Dry Creek Annexation. Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 281 August 29, 1995 "Executive Summary The applicant, Parsons & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Fort Collins Airpark - Industrial, LTD., has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 70.1945 acres located south of East Vine Drive and west of Summit View Drive. The property is currently vacant. The proposed zoning for this annexation is MM -Mobile Home Medium Density. The surrounding properties are zoned T-Transition to the City and I - Industrial and O- Open in Larimer County. The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Lorimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreementfor the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. the City will agree to consider annexation of the property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the East Vine Drive 6th Annexation to the north. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation I The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on September 25, 1995, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. " Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Resolution 95-122. Louise Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, supported the annexation since it involved an existing mobile home zoned area. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 282 August 29, 1995 I Other Business Interim City Manager Jones reported that Mayor Azari and staff met with the Larimer County Commissioners to discuss the concept of building a juvenile holding facility to serve Larimer County and the cities within the County. Everyone agreed that it is important to begin planning for such a facility. The group will begin to develop options and work out funding strategies that would be processed through the Council Health and Safety Committee. Some decision among the cities and County will be made by the end of 1995. Councilmember Smith clarified that the construction at the intersection of Horsetooth and Timberline is a project managed by the Poudre R-1 School District not the City of Fort Collins. Councilmember Kneeland spoke of options neighborhoods have for traffic calming. She suggested a pamphlet or brochure be part of a "tool kit" available to neighborhoods working on the problem.. Adjournment The meeting concluded at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk 1 283