Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/05/1996-AdjournedI March 5,1996 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 5:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith, and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice relating to an adversarial situation. The vote was as follows: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith. I THE MOTION CARRIED. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the adjourned meeting resumed. Resolution 96-22 Making Finding of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal from a Decision of the P&Z Board Relating to the Registry Ridge ODP and Preliminary PUD, Adopted (Option Q. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. uu1 On January 26, 1996, an Amended Notice of Appeal of the December 11, 1995 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95 and the Registry Ridge P. U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A was filed by the Appellant, LeAnn Thieman. In a memorandum to the City Clerk dated February 2, 1996, Mayor Pro Tern Janett identified additional issues for review by the Council. 129 March 5, 1996 On February 13, 1996, the City Council voted (4-3) to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's ' decision to approve the Registry Ridge O.D.P.,#32-95 and voted (4-3) to overturn the Board's decision to approve the Registry Ridge P. U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. The consideration of this matter was postponed from February 16 to a continuation of that same meeting on March 5. BACKGROUND: The Appellant's notice of appeal was based on allegations 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 conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; " and "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. " At the February 13, 1996 hearing on this matter, the City Council considered the testimony of City staff, the Appellant, and those who opposed the appeal. In a subsequent discussion at this hearing, I the City Council approved motions to the following effect: The Board did not fail to properly conduct a fair hearing in that the Board did not exceed its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter, nor did it ignore its previously established rules of procedure; 2. The Board 'Mail to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the City Code in approving the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan #32-95. 3. The Board did fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, specifically Criterion "g" and "p" of the Residential Uses Point Chart; and All - Development Criteria A-2.2, A-2.7, and A-2.12 of the Land Development Guidance System when considering the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A; For these reasons the City Council voted (4-3) to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to approve the Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95 and voted (4-3) to overturn the Board's decision to approve the Registry Ridge P. U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A. 130 1 March 5, 1996 ' At the meeting of February 20, 1996 Council postponed action on Resolution 96-22 at the request of the developer's attorney. The continuation was requested in view of the fact that Councilmember Wanner had indicated that he would be making a motion to reconsider or rescind the Council's decisions regarding the approval of the Overall Development Plan and Preliminary P. U.D. Because of the possibility that the Council decision on February 20 may be reconsidered, and in view of the fact that findings of fact must be adopted by Council at this meeting, four alternative resolutions have been prepared. All would find that the Appellant was not denied a fair hearing. Beyond that, the four options would be as follows: Option A would uphold the approval of the Overall Development Plan and overturn the approval of the P. U.D. Qption B would overturn the Board's approval of both the Overall Development Plan and the P. U.D. Qption C would uphold the Board's decision to approve both the Overall Development Plan and the P. U.D. Uption D would remand the matter to the Board for further consideration. If Council selects Option D, it should identify the particular issues raised on appeal that it believes should be further explored by the Board. " Councilmember Apt made a motion to rescind Council's actions of February 13 and adopt Resolution 96-22 (Option B) overturning the Board's approval of both the ODP and the PUD. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to rescind Council's actions of February 13 and adopt Resolution 96-22 (Option C) upholding the Board's decision to approve both the ODP and the PUD. Councilmember Apt asked if Shields St. north from Trilby Rd. would be improved to full arterial standards. Sheri Wamhoff, Civil Engineer I, responded that Shields would not be improved to full arterial standards, but would be improved to a 36 foot width. City Attorney Roy read the text of Resolution 96-22 (Option Q. Mayor Azari announced that each side (appellant and opponents to the appeal) would have 10 minutes to make presentations. 131 March 5, 1996 Mike Schultz, attorney representing the appellant LeAnn Thieman, asked for procedural clarification ' and objected to Council's consideration of a combined motion to both rescind its February 13 actions and adopt Resolution 96-22. City Attorney Roy responded that he had indicated in letters to Mr. Schultz and Ms. Liley that there would be a motion to rescind, combined with the adoption of a different course of action. He explained the difference between a motion to rescind and a motion to reconsider and stated that although Council has never formally adopted Roberts Rules of Order, a motion to reconsider needs to be made by a party on the prevailing side and made at the same meeting that the initial vote was taken or the next business day. That is not the case here and is one of the reasons a motion to rescind would be more appropriate. A motion to rescind has the effect of repealing the earlier action while the effect of a motion to reconsider puts the earlier motions back on the table. This is a more direct way for Council to change the outcome of the February 13 hearing. He stated that in his opinion the motion before the Council is appropriate although it could be divided if Council so chooses. Mike Schultz stated this Planned Unit Development is one of the most inappropriate land uses since the development of Manor Ridge between Fort Collins and Loveland. He addressed the conformity of the ODP with the master plan and the question of whether the PUD has earned enough points and satisfies the criteria of the LDGS. He pointed out that the LDGS requires that the PUD be in conformity with the comprehensive plan and stated he did not believe the development was in conformity with the general comprehensive plan and the land use policies plan. He stated that to have denied the PUD on a 4-3 vote on February 13 and to now possibly approve it, is an arbitrary and capricious act. He spoke of why the development was not in compliance with the City's land I use policies plan. Lucia Liley, attorney representing the property owner, made comments in support of the motion. She stated she was unaware of any ODP that had been denied based upon the specific locational criteria that appear in the land use policies plan. She stated the review criteria is to be the comprehensive plan. The land use policies plan is one element of the comprehensive plan that was designed primarily to deal with the City's urban growth area. It envisioned that the City would later adopt a phasing plan but does not contain a phasing plan. She stated the intent of the land use policies plan was to set general policies upon which the more specific criteria were to be based and the intent of the LDGS was to implement those policies into the point impact system. She stated the appellant misunderstands the land use plan to argue that a project complies with the LDGS point impact system but is inconsistent with the land use policies plan. She stated the points that have been taken are consistent both with the language of the ordinances that were in effect at the time the application was submitted and are consistent with the City's past practices and policies with regard to the day care center and the recreational facilities. The project greatly exceeded the number of points required under the residential point chart. With regard to the neighborhood compatibility/setback issue, the City has an absolute criterion requiring a minimum density of three dwelling units per acre. There is neighborhood objection to three dwelling units per acre that needs to be dealt with through good site planning. She spoke of the number of revisions that were made to increase set backs and lot sizes and to ensure buffering to accommodate the neighbors and urged support of the Resolution. 132 , March 5, 1996 ' City Attorney Roy spoke of the correspondence sent to Mr. Schultz and Ms. Liley on February 29, 1996, with regard to the notice and due process issues. He stated it would be appropriate for any Councilmember who wishes to support this motion, who earlier voted against approval of the PUD, to state for the record a brief explanation of his or her reasons based upon the evidence in the record. Councilmember Smith asked about infrastructure operation and maintenance costs that the location of this development will cause. Gary Diede, Transportation Operations and Projects Group Leader, replied that the arterial streets are required to be brought up to City standards structurally and to a width that carries two travel lanes and two bike lanes. The City would incur more costs because there will be more miles of roadway to be maintained. Larry Schneider, Streets Superintendent, spoke of street maintenance and snow removal costs which he estimated to be minimal. Mike Schultz asked for an additional two minutes to respond to Ms. Liley's comments. He referred Councilmembers to the LDGS which states the ODP will not be reviewed on the basis of the specific design standards and criteria but rather on the basis of conformance with the City's comprehensive plan. The land use policies plan is listed third among the elements that comprise the comprehensive plan but clearly is the most critical element of the plan when it comes to land use decision making. ' Councilmember Apt stated he would not be supporting the motion. He stated he believed the ODP should not have been approved on February 13 and that it does not meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan. He spoke of the impacts of the development on air quality and on the corridor plan. He stated Shields St. will not be built to full arterial standards which is a liability for the taxpayers and will make it difficult to maintain. Councilmember Smith expressed concern that students from this development will attend Loveland schools. He expressed concern over vehicle miles travelled and stated he had misunderstood the extent of the improvements to Shields St. north of the development. He initially believed no improvements would be built but now understands that section of Shields will be improved to travel lanes that have all of the appropriate changes to both the undergrading and the overlays and asphalt to make the street viable. Councilmember Kneeland commented on the corridor plan and the school boundary issue. She stated she supported maintaining open space between Fort Collins and Loveland but added this development is consistent with the preferred scenario in the corridor plan. Councilmember McCluskey stated this is an issue of county versus urban development. He stated the elements the City has asked for in this development have been met so the project should be approved. 1 133 March 5, 1996 Councilmember Wanner stated he agreed with Councilmember Apt's comments and would vote I against the motion. The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion to adopt Resolution 96-22 (Option C) was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Janett and Wanner. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting concluded at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: �' �• •• City Clerk 134 1