HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-083-06/03/1997-APPEAL CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS OF FACT PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD SCENIC VIEWS FINAL PUD RESOLUTION 97-83
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 SCENIC VIEWS FINAL PUD
WHEREAS, on March 10, 1997, the City Planning and Zoning Board ("the Board")
approved the Scenic Views Final PUD ("the Project") with a condition; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 1997, a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with
the City Clerk by Bill Roberts, Dennis Stenson, Mary Davidson, Steven Hazel, Tara Hazel, Evelyn
Anderson, and Phil Hackney ("the Appellants"); and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, and on May 20, 1997, 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 and heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties in
interest; 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:
Section 1. The grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellants'Notice of Appeal conform
to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
Section 2. That the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing for any of the reasons
stated in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal including, without limitation, Appellants' allegation that
the Board gave preliminary approval to the Project without first requiring the applicant to obtain a
certain off-site storm drainage easement and, as a consequence,that the Board substantially ignored
its previous established rules of procedure. The Council specifically finds that the Board's decision
to give preliminary approval to the Project without first requiring the Applicant to obtain a certain
off-site storm drainage easement was not a failure by the Board to follow its usual rules of
procedure.
Section 3. 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. The Council specifically finds that the
Board did not err in deciding that the Project satisfied all of the applicable criteria of the LDGS,
including all of the following LDGS criteria: Criterion A-1.2, Comprehensive Plan; Criterion A-1.9,
Water Quality; Criterion A-2.3,Natural Features; Criterion A-2.18, Hazardous Materials; Criterion
A-3.2, Design Standards; and Criterion A-3.3, Water Hazards.
Section 4. That for the foregoing reasons, the Council hereby upholds the Board's
decision approving the Project with the condition imposed by the Board.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Cou ela4his 3rd y of June, A.D.
1997.
ayor
f
ATTEST:
��, 4
City Clerk