HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-119-09/04/2001-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONINr
RESOLUTION 2001-119
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
RELATING TO THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
FOR THE BROPHY PROPERTY
WHEREAS,on June 7,2001,the City Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”)denied the
request of Mark Brophy for a modification of the standards contained in Sections 4.4(B)(3)(c)(1),
4.4(D)(3)(b)and 4.4(E)(2)(i)of the Land Use Code for the Brophy property located at 1109 West
Harmony Road;and
WHEREAS,on June 18,2001,a Notice of Appeal of the Board’s decision was filed with the
City Clerk by Mark Brophy (the “Appellant”),which appeal pertained to Sections 4.4(B)(3)(c)(1)
and 4.4(D)(3)(b)of the Land Use Code;and
WHEREAS,on August 21,2001,the City Council,after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3,of the City Code,considered said appeal,reviewed the record on
appeal,heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties in interest and,after discussion,
decided to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board;and
WHEREAS,City Code Section 2-56(e)provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing of an appeal,City Council shall adopt,by resolution,findings of fact in
support of its decision on the appeal.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that,pursuant to City Code Section 2-56(e),the Council hereby makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions:
1.That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal
conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2.That the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing and did not consider
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading.In particular:
(a)City Planner Steven Olt did not present to the Board substantially
false or grossly misleading evidence when he stated to the Board that
the Seneca Center,even though approved under the Land
Development Guidance System and not under the Land Use Code,
constitutes a “neighborhood center”for purposes of calculating the
spacing requirement that was established in the Land Use Code.The
question of whether the Seneca Center is a “neighborhood center”
r r
does not depend upon the process under which the Seneca Center was
reviewed and approved,but rather,upon the physical characteristics
of the Seneca Center,which characteristics fit the definition of a
“neighborhood center”as contained in the Land Use Code;and
(b)Steven Olt did not present evidence to the Board which was
substantially false or grossly misleading when he stated to the Board
that the reason for the separation requirements as established in the
Land Use Code is to prevent the proliferation of neighborhood
centers on arterial streets.
3.That the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter because:
(a)Seneca Center was reviewed and approved under the Land Development
Guidance System as a “neighborhood convenience shopping center”which
is the predecessor to the “neighborhood center”as contemplated in the
Land Use Code,and therefore,the separation requirement contained in
Sections 4.4(B)(3)(c)(l)and 4.4(D)(3)(b)should be applied to the
Appellants application and
(b)The granting of the modifications requested by the Appellant would have
been detrimental to the public good,and the Appellant failed to persuade
the Council that the granting of the modifications would satisfy the criteria
contained in Sections 2.8.2(H)(l),(2)or (3).
4.That the Council hereby upholds the decision of the Board denying the Appellant’s
request for modification of Land Use Code standards.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 4th day of September,
A.D.2001.
Mayor
1.
II
ATTEST:
City Clerk