HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-123-10/19/1999-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONIN RESOLUTION 99-123
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 PROVINCETOWNE PUD, FILING TWO - PRELIMINARY
WHEREAS,on August 5, 1999,the City Planning and Zoning Board(the`Board")approved
the Provincetowne PUD, Filing Two - Preliminary (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS,on August 16, 1999,a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with
the City Clerk by David G. Evans, Doug Sparks and Mark Menke (the "Appellants"), and an
Amended Notice of Appeal was filed by the Appellants with the City Clerk on September 3, 1999
(the "Amended Notice of Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1999, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal,reviewed the record on
appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties in interest and, after discussion,
decided to uphold the Board's decision; 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 Appellants' Notice of Appeal
conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2. That the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the City Code and Charter,specifically the provisions of the City's
Land Development Guidance System ("the LDGS"), in approving the Project,
nor did the Board deny the Appellants a fair hearing.
3. The Council specifically finds that:
(a) The Board did not lack jurisdiction to review the Project for any of
the reasons stated in Sections I through IX of the Appellants'
Amended Notice of Appeal. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale of
Real Property by and between the City of Fort Collins and Pridemark
Development Company ("Pridemark") dated April 2, 1996, and all
addenda thereto, were properly executed by the City Manager and
approved by the City Council in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the City Charter and Code, the requirements of
Ordinance No. 41, 1996,and all other applicable law. Moreover,the
applicant for the Project, Pridemark, and its predecessor in interest,
Kaufman and Broad of Colorado,Inc. ("Kaufman and Broad"), had
sufficient legal and ownership interest in the real property that is the
subject of the Project to submit the Project to the City for its review.
Said application was complete and was properly determined to be
complete by the City's Director of Current Planning for the purposes
of submitting the Project to the Board.
(b) The notice provided by the City to the Appellants and other parties in
interest was adequate in its content to provide the Appellants with
reasonable notice of the matters to be considered by the Board at its
hearing on the Project August 5, 1999,and information regarding the
requested variance was made available to the public, including the
Appellants,prior to said hearing and during City staff s presentation
at the hearing, prior to public input. Moreover, the notice, though
mailed sixteen (16) days rather than twenty-eight (28) days prior to
the hearing,still provided Appellants with reasonable advance notice
of the hearing,and neither the substance nor the timing of such notice
deprived the Appellants of a fair hearing. In addition,the Appellants
all attended and testified at the hearing.
(c) The findings of the Board with regard to the solar orientation variance
were properly set forth in writing in the minutes of the meeting of the
Board as required by Sec.29-526(k)of the City's Land Development
Guidance System ("LDGS") for planned unit developments, and
those findings were implicitly adopted by the Board, as set forth in
the City staff s report to the Board, upon the Board's approval of the
variance by the Board.
(d) Kaufman and Broad,as the applicant for the variance,met its burden
of demonstrating to the Board that the variance was justified under
the criteria of the LDGS, that is, that the variance would neither be
detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of
the LDGS,and that by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties
with the regard to solar orientation or access, a hardship would be
caused to Kaufman and Broad by the strict application of the solar
orientation ordinance. Based upon the evidence contained in the
record of the proceedings before the Board,and before the Council on
October 5, 1999, these findings are hereby approved and adopted by
the Council.
2
4. That the Board did not consider evidence relevant to its findings which was false
or grossly misleading with regard to the storm drainage issues related to the
Project, nor did it fail to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants
with regard to such issues. Any misinformation presented by Kaufman and
Broad at the hearing with regard to storm drainage was corrected by City staff
during the hearing, and the Council hereby finds that the Board did not fail to
properly interpret and apply the provisions of the City Code in determining that
the flows coming from the Project would be adequately handled through
properly dedicated storm drainage easements.
5. That, for the foregoing reasons, the Council hereby upholds the Board's decision
approving the Project.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of October,
A.D. 1999.
l
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3