Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/13/1997-AdjournedMay 13, 1997 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, and Wanner. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Duval, Krajicek. Consideration of the Appeal of the March 10, 1997 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving the Final Application of the Scenic Views PUD. 93-96A. Postponed to May 20, 1997. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Sununary Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and, after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or (2) uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision. Consideration of this appeal was continued to this date and time because of a lack of a quorum at the May 13 meeting. On March 10, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-1 to approve the final application of the Scenic Views PUD, 43-96A. On March 24, 1997, a Notice of Appeal from eight individuals was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the Board's decision (see attached Notice of Appeal). The appellants cite Section 2-48(b)(I)of the City Code as the basis for the appeal: (b) except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one (1) or more of the following errors: M1 May 13, 1997 (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The appeal focused on one part of the approved project -the stormwater retention pond. Because of this concentration, the staff response has focused on retention pond issues also. " Councilmember Byrne withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Assistant City Attorney John Duval briefly outlined the appeal process, clarifying the definition of parties -in -interest and spoke of the appellants' allegations. Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard gave a slide presentation outlining the location of the project and gave a brief staff presentation on this item. He stated the final PUD, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, did meet substantial compliance with the previously approved preliminary PUD. Appellant Dennis Stenson, 2820 West Elizabeth, expressed concerns regarding stormwater run-off , density, wetlands, wildlife, and traffic issues. He reported the developer was granted a continuance before final approval, with the stipulation differences with the neighborhood be resolved. He spoke of meetings between the neighborhood and developer (mediated by the Neighborhood Resources Center) and commented the developer was not willing to be flexible on any concerns raised. He expressed concerns regarding the effect the stormwater nmoff would have on his produce and urged Council to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Bill Roberts, 2922 West Elizabeth, spoke of concerns regarding water quality from the CSU stormwater runoff and of the developer's lack of participation with the neighborhood. He spoke of water quality analysis reports results, and stated it was irresponsible of the City, CSU and the developer to allow the stormwater to be held in the detention pond. Applicant Bill Veio, Manager of Solitaire Properties and developer of Scenic Views, show slides of the proposed development and stated the site was appropriate for the proposed use. He commented on the amenities and affordability that the project offers. He reported on changes made to the size and depth of the detention pond as directed by the Stormwater Utility. Rebuttal Appellant: Bill Roberts, 2922 West Elizabeth, showed an aerial view of the site and outlined the drainage flow. 401 May 13, 1997 Mary Davidson, 2212 Charolais Drive, spoke of the financial responsibility imposed on the Homeowner's Association for maintaining and monitoring any future system upgrades. She urged Council to direct the applicant to open a contingency account to fund a backup system in case the system fails. She stated safety issues were not adequately addressed. Sur Rebuttal Mr. Veio responded to allegations made by the neighborhood and state a full time maintenance person would be employed by the Homeowner's Association and would monitor the detention pond pumps. He stated the ditch company has procedures in place in case of an emergency flood. He clarified there is an escrow fund set up to maintain the park, detention pond and equipment and stated ditch pumping is permitted by the ditch company at any time. He spoke of several meetings held with the neighborhood and clarified water quality was not an issue, but the appearance of the detention pond was. He clarified ditch water is not required to meet water quality standards. Blanchard spoke of the definition of recreational space and stated the wetlands and side slopes were not included in the point chart calculations. He showed slides of the area and pointed out where the bike path is currently located and where it would feed into the development. Mr. Vein responded to Council comments and spoke of the detention pond design and clarified how and when the wetland area was created. Bill Roberts presented an aerial photo showing the west side of the site. Blanchard stated there are no submittal requirements for storm drainage easements at the time of preliminary review. Senior Stormwater Engineer Glen Schlueter stated it is a standard requirement for the Homeowner's Association to maintain the storm drainage system. He spoke of the differences between a retention pond and a detention pond. Kevin McBride spoke of stormwater quality issues, reporting stormwater is not designated or suitable for primary contact water. He stated sampling of stormwater is not expected to be performed by the Homeowner's Association and spoke of the ditch flow pattern and the types of pollutants found in the ditch water. Assistant City Attorney Duval responded to Council questions regarding obligations of the Homeowner's Association, commenting it is its obligation to maintain common facilities. He spoke of the action that could be taken by the City if the Homeowner's Association failed in its responsibility. 402 May 13, 1997 Councilmember Kneeland expressed concerns regarding costs to taxpayers, ditch company, and/or the Homeowner's Association if the system failed. Veio responded to Council questions stating the City maintains the pumps and spoke of how the land would be irrigated and the projected costs to be passed on to the Homeowners. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, that the Planning and Zoning Board did conduct a fair hearing in accordance with its rules, regulations and procedures. Duval briefly outlined Council's options for consideration. Councilmember Mason commented the appellants failed to file an appeal on the preliminary within the allowable time period and stated he had spoken with members of the Planning and Zoning Board regarding neighborhood involvement at the preliminary stage of the project. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal issues that may be adversarial concerning the decision about to be made. Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kneeland, Mason and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Councilmember Wanner stated Councilmember Mason was ineligible to vote on this issue because of a previous discussion on this item with members of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated this issue needs to be reconsidered at the May 20 regular Council meeting to meet quorum requirements. Assistant City Attorney John Duval gave a brief explanation of "ex parte" conversations and stated Council's decision could be appealed to the District Court and used as grounds to reverse or remand the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Veio stated he had no objection to Council voting on the item and believed Council had received adequate information to make an informed decision. He stated he would not waive his rights to appeal the outcome of the decision to the District Court. Councilmember Wanner stated Councilmember's Byrne and Mason would need to withdraw from discussion under the conflict of interest provisions. Duval clarified both sides would have the same allotment of time to give their presentations at the May 20 meeting. Duval reported on interpretations made by the District Court and stated this meeting could be considered "part of the record". 403 May 13, 1997 Councilmember Kneeland and Councilmember Bertschy, as maker and seconder of the motion, withdrew their earlier motion. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of May 20 to consider the Scenic Views Appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kneeland, Mason, and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk Adjournment .I, 11 Mayor