HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-018-02/21/2006-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNIN RESOLUTION 2006-018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO
THE APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE
SHIELDS STREET LOFTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2005, the City's Planning and Zoning Board (the `Board")
denied the Shields Street Lofts Project Development Plan No. 15-05 (the"Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2005, a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed
with the City Clerk by M. Torgerson Architects (by Mikal S. Torgerson and Troy W. Jones) (the
"Appellants"); and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, 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,
remanded the Plan for rehearing before the Board, and requested the Board to consider the Plan in
light of the findings of fact and conclusions of the Council as set forth in this Resolution; 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 Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, 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 failed to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the
Land Use Code in denying the Plan on the basis of Section 3.5.1 of the Land
Use Code pertaining to size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. Contrary to the
Board's determination, the building complies with Section 3.5.1(C) since it
is articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and
scale of other structures on the same block upon which the building is
proposed to be located.
3. That the Plan complies with the parking requirements for the residential
component of the Plan as those standards are set out in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)
pertaining to residential parking requirements for the residential component
of the Plan. The nine parking spaces provided in accordance with the Plan
complies with the said section.
4. That the Board failed to adequately consider the parking impacts of the non-
residential component of the Plan. In particular,the Board failed to properly
interpret and apply Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code pertaining to project
compatibility, for the following reasons:
(a) Even though Section 3.2.2(K)(2)only sets forth a maximum number
of parking spaces (and no minimum number of parking spaces),
Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code authorizes the approval of
development projects only when they are compatible with the
surrounding area;
(b) The definition of 'compatibility" in Section 5.1.2 specifically
includes parking impacts as a component of compatibility.
(c) Section 3.2.2(B)requires the parking system within the development
to accommodate the movement of vehicles to and from surrounding
areas safely and conveniently;
(d) Section 3.5.1(J)authorizes the imposition of conditions to ensure that
new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods
and uses. Although subsection (J) contains a list of six possible
conditions or restrictions that may be imposed in order to ensure
compliance therewith, said list is not limited to those six issues, and
the compatibility of parking with existing neighborhoods and uses is
an additional appropriate topic for the imposition of a condition;and
5. That the Board, upon rehearing, should consider the parking that would be
reasonably necessary for the non-residential component of the Plan in order
to ensure project compatibility with the surrounding area and should impose
a condition requiring the supply of such necessary parking.
6. That,for the foregoing reasons,the decision of the Board denying the Shields
Street Lofts Project Development Plan No. 15-05 is hereby overturned and
is remanded for rehearing in accordance with these findings of fact and
conclusions.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City ncil held this 21 st day of February,
A.D. 2006.
Mayo ,
ATJkST=
�i 'LIA
City Clerk Rs