Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/14/1993-AdjournedADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government December 14, 1993 7:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 14, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Yeas: Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. Councilmembers Absent: Apt and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek and Roy. APPEAL OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1993 FINAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND BOARD APPROVAL OF THE PRESERVE PUD- FINAL. UPHELD The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 3, 1993 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve the Preserve PUD- Preliminary. On June 28, 1993 the Board voted 5-2 to approve the Preserve PUD- Final (with a separate 4-3 vote for the height variance). On July 12, 1993 an appeal of the final decision was made by Nancy and Jim Pieper and Mary Ellen Keen, residents of Newport Court, to the west of the subject property. On July 19, 1993 an amended appeal was made by the same individuals. On August 3, 1993 the City Council heard the appeal and voted to overturn the Board's approval of the height variance and the final PUD. On October 25, 1993 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to approve a resubmitted, revised Preserve PUD- Final. No height variance was requested as the proposed buildings do not exceed the City height limit of 40'. On November 5, 1993 an appeal of the final decision was made by Nancy and Jim Pieper and Mary E11en Keen. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Preserve PUD is a proposal for 276 apartment units and a clubhouse/swimming pool complex on 18.18 acres located at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Raintree Drive. The overall density is approximately 15.18 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). The project includes 14 two and three-story buildings, one recreation building, and garages. ' The architectural design of the apartment buildings, clubhouse, and garages provides a unified, cohesive, and residential character for the site. A two acre tract adjacent to the New Mercer Canal and Ross Open Space is to be dedicated as open space. Approximately 55 new trees and 46 shrubs are proposed to enhance the open space and buffer areas. Extensive street trees and landscaping are proposed along Drake Road and Raintree Drive. Approximately 250 trees and 2300 shrubs are proposed for the entire site, which currently is vacant. Approximately 54% of the site is in open space, landscaping, and active recreation. Building coverage amounts to approximately 24.5Y of the site. BACKGROUND: The proposed PUD was evaluated against the Residential Density Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System at the time of preliminary approval, as well as the A11 Development Chart of the LDGS at the time of preliminary and final. The PUD plans meet all current adopted City criteria and policies. Conditions of preliminary approval related to foundation plantings, streetscape landscaping along Drake Road, and bicycle parking were addressed with the final plans. Building heights were reduced from 45' to 37'10" for buildings along the open space area and from 43' to 39' and 40' for interior buildings. Because no building exceeds the 40' height limitation, no height variance was requested. ' Building plans will be reviewed by the building department for compliance with handicapped accessibility requirements, prior to issuance of building permits. One allegation of the first appeal was that the Planning and Zoning Board made its decision without sufficient evidence. At the second hearing for the final PUD the applicant and staff provided a detailed report explaining mitigation of any visual impacts of the project on the surrounding area as well as details about the visual appearance of the buildings, landscaping, and overall project, particularly as viewed from the Ross Open Space. Staff believed that concerns related to height and mass of the buildings, specifically concerning mitigation of visual impacts, had been addressed with the revised plans. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the Preserve PUD- Final with a condition related to completion and execution of the development agreement and final utility plans. This condition has been placed on previous PUDs to ensure that all utility plans are finalized and approved prior to filing.of the subdivision plat and issuance of building permits. In voting to approve the final plan the Board found that the Preserve PUD proposal satisfied all requirements and applicable criteria of the A17 Development Point Chart of the LOGS, including criterion #2 concerning compatibility with and sensitivity to the immediate environment, and was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary PUD. The Board voted 5-2 to approve the Preserve PUD- Final. THE APPEAL The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. "The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent evidence in the record." 2. "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing by exceeding its authority in ignoring Council's input despite the fact that Council's input was provided to the Planning and Zoning Board by dissenting member Lloyd Walker." 3. "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence that was offered by Mr. Walker, who appropriately noted to Planning and Zoning that the project's "footprints" had not changed, nor had other changes in the project addressed the City Council's concerns." SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION According to Section 2-48 of the City Code, the City Council should consider the following, as they relate to the above allegations: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record; 2. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; 3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the appeal process and Council's options. Councilmember• Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that there was sufficient evidence to hear the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the definition of party -in -interest. City Planner Kirsten Whetstone gave a brief description of the proposed project and stated she had slides and a location map available if needed. 3 AAoel l ants: ' Nancy Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, appellant, expressed concerns regarding the height, mass and size of the project and urged Council to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Dave Sawyer, 2436 Newport Court, appellant, spoke of the developers disregard of Council's direction. Jim Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, appellant, he stated he is not opposed to the developer building a complex but was opposed to the size and shape of the present plan. He stated the complex does not blend well with the community but overwhelms it. He presented Council with a map of the proposed project showing the density of the area. He spoke of increased traffic in the area and trip -ins. Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport Court, spoke of the grounds for the appeal. Developer: Bruce Hendee, with B&H Design Landscape Architects, spoke of buffering additions and of the height reduction of the project and stated reducing the height of the project also resulted in reduction of the bulk and mass.. He spoke of public transportation access available in the area. He noted that he has worked constantly with the mitigation measures indicated in the LOGS. Rob Cagen, 1225 Buttonwood Drive, supported the project and stated greater infill and density is needed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. I Appellant's Rebuttal: Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport Court, agreed with the developer regarding the landscaping and stated the site plan has been changed, but she reported the building size had not changed. Jim Pieper, 2424 Newport Court, stated he was opposed to the height and mass of the project. Developer's Rebuttal: Bruce Hendee, formally objected to the evidence submitted by the Piepers. Mayor Azari confirmed that the handout that was passed out by the Piepers had previously been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board. 4 Mr. Hendee withdrew his formal objection and disagreed that the length of the ' building would be perceived as a single length. He stated there is a definite separation between buildings. Amy Grubbs, 1442 Glen Haven Drive, spoke in support of the project. Ron Frank, Raintree Associates, supported the project and stated the appellants were not representing all residents of the neighborhood. Virginia Johnson, 2600 Canterbury Drive, stated she supported the project and spoke of the need for the development. Councilmember Janett spoke of the change in the building height and asked what had changed from the first time it was presented to Council. Mr. Hendee spoke of height reduction and clarified the height has been reduced to 40' so a variance would not be required. He clarified the original height was 44'11" which has been reduced to 39' 10" at the highest peak. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to find that the Planning and Zoning Board did conduct a fair hearing. Councilmember Kneeland clarified she was not voting on whether she approved of the development, but that she believed the Planning and Zoning Board held a fair hearing. Mayor Azari stated she believed that the evidence proved that a fair hearing was held. The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not abuse its discretion and the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be upheld. Councilmember Horak explained the reason for his motion and stated it was not Council's role to decide whether or not it approved of the project, but to decide if the Planning and Zoning Board had abused its discretion. Councilmember McCluskey concurred with Councilmember Horak stating the issue to be decided was a process issue, not a forum to rehear the project. Councilmember Janett spoke of the need for a -comprehensive plan to outline and determine where the density will be. Mayor Azari clarified that Council was looking at an appeal on a new final, which had been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated mitigation had been offered in the second plan and efforts for changes were made. 5 The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Emergency Ordinance No. 174, 1993 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Section 29-167 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Increasing the Minimum Lot Size In the N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zoning District. Failed to Pass Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director, gave a brief introduction on this item, and reported in an attempt to "beat" second reading of the ordinance, people have been acquiring building permits for secondary structures. City Attorney Steve Roy gave an explanation of the options available and explained the definition of Emergency Ordinance. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 174 Option A. City Attorney Steve Roy stated there had been a change to the ordinance after it was published and read changes into the record. Byrne clarified the only difference in the ordinance is that it would become I effective immediately. Councilmember Kneeland questioned the use of emergency ordinances. She asked if the Emergency Ordinance was adopted, what part of the process would citizens not be allowed to participate in. Phillips stated if the Emergency Ordinance was adopted, Council would be limiting the opportunity for further discussion since there would not be a Second Reading. Julie Sabin, 609 Whedbee, opposed the motion, stating she had been planning for sometime to build a guest house on her property Steven Schwartz, 627 Whedbee, thanked Council for its responsiveness to the issue. He noted that he did not believe Ms. Sabin's secondary structure would be such that it would not fit in with the surrounding architecture. Sandy Huett, 645 Whedbee, urged Council to adopt the Emergency Ordinance. Andy Cornetti, property owner, expressed concerns about longterm investments for existing property. He asked if the Emergency Ordinance was adopted would he be able to install a bathroom to his already existing structure to make it into a studio apartment. , 6 Phillips stated since Mr. Cornetti has already been granted a building permit there would be no effect on his construction project. Joe Stevens, 1325 West Mountain, supported the motion. David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, spoke of the importance of preserving the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. David Schelle, 605 Whedbee, urged Council to adopt the Emergency Ordinance..' Dennis Sylvik, builder and designer, expressed concerns regarding the �lack•of= guidelines for infill developments and stated additions should be done in an aesthetically pleasing way. Steven Schwartz, 627 Whedbee, stated adopting the Emergency Ordinance would send a strong message that guidelines are needed. Councilmember Janett supported the motion and stated Council needs to take a proactive approach to the problem. Councilmember McCluskey opposed the motion, questioning if the need was an emergency need and involved the health, safety and welfare of the community. Mayor Azari stated she believed secondary housing could be constructed in the neighborhood, however, she supported the motion stating that she did not like the fact that people were hurrying to pull building permits to build additional structures before the ordinance becomes effective. ' Councilmember McCluskey approved Emergency Ordinance of the substance in the ordinance, but opposed it adopting an stating sets a precedent he does not agree with. He stated if there were another procedure available to accomplish Council's goals, other than the Emergency Ordinance, he would support it. Councilmember Kneeland supported the content of the Ordinance but opposed the process. The vote on Councilmember Janett's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak and Janett. Nays: Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey. THE MOTION FAILED. NOTE: City Charter provides that Emergency Ordinances require the affirmative vote of at least five members of the Council before passage. Other Business Councilmember Horak stated he would request a call for a Special Meeting if Councilmembers Apt and Winokur, who were absent, are interested in dealing with this issue prior to the time it becomes effective. 7 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. City Clerk