Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINNOVATION ISLAND - ODP - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL - 40-05 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILDID YOU KNOW? /I "Habitat for Humanity" has a plan to build 27 low income multi -family housing units close to your neighborhood. The immediate impacts will be increased traffic congestion and straining our already overcrowded schools etc. Knowing the potential impacts associated with this plan will you join us in our opposition? NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE / N4/ ;,772 q;7 a cZZae, -j6,'JA7'6,, 2-. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. <E xhi x I / z 1r\ DID YOU KNOW? "Habitat for Humanity" has a plan to build 27 low income multi -family housing units close to your neighborhood. The immediate impacts will be increased traffic congestion and straining our already overcrowded schools etc. Knowing the potential impacts associated with this plan will you join us in our opposition? NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE 2. 1 7 4.2,24a b9A VrbI4 . AV �4 5. ZZ 6.. 7. 8. 9. c) C7 A 10. livp L4LX1,,,tL 4,-, r ( - -) 4�-cl -7-4�, 11. Yakt (C4V �-t U 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Exbf,Aj / :2 3 0 I %IL.-,- DID YOU KNOW? "Habitat for Humanity" has a plan to build 27 low income multi -family housing units close to your neighborhood. The immediate impacts will be increased traffic congestion and straining our already overcrowded schools etc. Knowing the potential impacts associated with this plan will you join us in our opposition? I�AME ^^ ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE 2.6 Dc ialz( �dscyc�Za3 0�37= 1le�,�� 1903 L 60KO LIT (� 4..S I A/F rY1 i< 1 i) F O A I[ K1 G 2 --i- 5 5 [l giaivraulu)k LV) 3?71*2 6.PAW Slcl it,14 LJaIt3 1qU? Lbovau#-Ln ZVZ-3 72¢-- 7. f2e) -B CA Q J l Ci u Lom,k,o,,T�-a.c 207g 8. rhkyL / ac &ab �o h 7 9. Cf////V tIla Oriv re D *I W,01 4OWCx,l Lh. (99C)ZoG/qP Al 10. 11. ► �r��� �{ZZ} Lei Lh Ck7)133 -ZS7 y'Z lei�--��8 13. �4n�m IN"1�iGrnC %u6 F 2/CA L-VZ 14. 15. 16. 17. EKh[Lr'�Z 2 a.7c y DID YOU "Habitat for Humanity" has a plan to 1 units close to your neighborhood. The congestion and straining our already o potential impacts associated with this 1 NAME ADDRESS f 27 low income multi -family housing iediate impacts will be increased traffic rowded schools etc. Knowing the will you join us in our opposition? PHONE CIi1NAIMDU 7. �.iln:s .ic►ca V�,no� `i2.1(o 1 is 1: 1; 14 15. 16. 17. l acr y /7 fsj APPELLENTS- Name Address Phone # Signatum John Lund 4203 Lookout Ln Primary contact 214-4911 - Cath Lund 4203 Lookout Ln 214-4911 y .* Joel Powell 1902 Lookout Ln 222-3476 Steve Weming 1903 Lookout Ln 223-5450 Micki Weming 1903 Lookout Ln 223-5450 ; Patric Wafts 1908 Lookout Ln 282-3724 Stefanie Wafts 1908 Lookout Ln 282-3724 a U,,- L , Howard Spivak 1914 Lookout Ln 225-9769 Dottie Spivak 1914 Lookout Ln 225-9769 Ron Oberto 1915 Lookout Ln 282-0855 Donna Oberto 1915 Lookout Ln 282-MS + 1 Rodney Dick 1921 Lookout Ln 223-0537 Rob Canum 1926 Lookout Ln 207-0114.. r Denise Canum 1926 Lookout Ln 207-0114 Cy Cyndee Durand 2002 Lookout Ln 206-0603 'Keith Bruner 2008 Lookout Ln 267-9161 coda Bruner 2008 Lookout Ln 267-9161�z, Dan Kroll 2009 Lookout Ln 484-7738 f 7 " _ /.7i Wayne Younger 2026 Lookout Ln 223-8530.- Josh Hu fer 2032 Lookout Ln 310-8843— eon Fagerberg 4221 Lookout Ln 204-6630 _ . 3anet Fagerberg 14221 Lookout Ln 204-6630 Amy Prieto 4227 Lookout Ln 617-233-2814 E-xhfb -� SAFETY/HEALTH RISK TO CHILDREN: - Vignette and Habitat for Humanity's proposed location for the play ground was not all that well thought out: 1. The fence surrounding the play ground will be split rail; this configuration is not very conducive to keeping children safely confined to a given location. 2. This location is right next to Harmony Road and South Taft Hill Road which are two very busy roads. 3. With the proximity so close to the streets all those exhaust fumes could prove toxic to the children. DIVISION 2.2 COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2.2.2 Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings (A) Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process, the city shall require a neighborhood meeting between citizens of area neighborhoods, applicants and the Director for any development proposal that is subject to P&Z review unless the Director determines that the development proposal would not have significant neighborhood impact. Citizens are urged to attend and actively participate in these meetings. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is for such development applications to be presented to citizens of area neighborhoods and for the citizens to identify, list and discuss issues related to the development proposal. Working jointly with staff and the applicant, citizens help seek solutions for these issues. Neighborhood meetings are held during the conceptual planning stage of the proposal so that neighborhoods may give input on the proposal before time and effort have been expended by the applicant to submit a formal development application to the city. . (E) Summary of Neighborhood Meeting. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting shall be prepared by the Director. The written summary shall be included in the staff report provided to the decision maker at the time of the public hearing to consider the proposed development Our question to this subsection 2.2.2.(E) of Fort Collins LUC, is the Director Vignette and Habitat for Humanity? Because they are the ones that prepared the Neighborhood meeting notes for the staff report. GATHERED SIGNATURES: Prior the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on 17 November 2005, citizens from the Overlook Citizens Action Committee went into the surrounding communities of the Gates Subdivision and Taft Canyon Subdivision gathering signatures in support of our opposition. Most of these people were never informed of this project proposal and they share most of the same concerns as us. We would like to submit the signatures as supporting evidence that not only are the people in the immediate area of the proposed innovation island development project affected but also people in the surrounding communities. (Please see attached signatures, exhibit 2). 8 of 8 which is quite a rarity for attached dwellings. However, all of the sold units were loaded with expensive up -grades. These included hardwood flooring in kitchen and dining room, tiled bathrooms, up -graded carpeting and cabinets, lighting packages, fireplaces and air conditioning. Most also had either a deck or patio. All had one car garages. I would be happy to supply MLS numbers if so desired". "My question is "Do the proposed units have these up -grades? If not, what other criteria was used to place the stated market value on these units? I am not questioning anyone's ability, just looking for clarification for my own education." OVER ABUNDANCE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The southwest comer of Fort Collins and developed Larimer County land (Which is part of the Fort Collins GMA) adjacent to the proposed Innovation Island project site, has a sizable amount of affordable housing in the immediate area already. Affordable housing units within a'% mile the proposed Innovation Island project • 500 + units in 2 trailer parks Timber Ridge North & South on northwest Taft Hill • 30 units housing on Goodell St. located on the northeast side of Harmony • 60 + units in Springfield Court (Mercy housing) northwest Taft Hill Why is this area of town being targeted for affordable housing for the entire city? MISLEADING EVIDENCE: When asked of Habitat for Humanity, why are you building it here? Their answer is: "Again, this is an in -fill lot, meaning that it's already in the confines of the City, but has not already been developed. This is a great area for Habitat homeowners to live. It's close to schools (this is true, but the schools are at capacity or nearing capacity) and shopping, (JJ's convenience store, liquor store and bar is the closest shopping in the area) doctors, (there are no doctors offices or urgent care facilities in this area) and is also on a bus route. (TOTALLY false as there is no busing in this area and Fort Collins is, in fact, cutting back busing due to budget constraints) It is difficult for lower -income families to live in the outskirts, because it's difficult to get to those important facilities and because gas is becoming more expensive all the time". The above is Vignette and Habitat for Humanity's words as to why they want to develop this plot of land. As noted from our responses it is easy to see that this plot of land is not a good fit in many ways. Habitat for Humanity is asking for 3 separate considerations for .relief of the Fort Collins LUC, these modifications are to allow Habitat for Humanity to meet economical feasibility of the project, (ie; the number of units allowed for them to meet cost goals). The physical size and configuration of this lot is not optimal for this project. Once again we ask, why are you building it here? 7 of 8 earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches.. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. MISLEADING EVIDENCE: Habitat for Humanity and Vignette all along has been telling us that they want to be good neighbors and have Innovation Island blend with the surrounding neighborhood. From their documentation, and the number of times The Overlook subdivision is mentioned in presentation and source documentation it can be inferred "The Overlook" is the neighborhood that they want to blend in with. It has been mentioned to us on more than one occasion that these units will be 900, 1100 & 1400 square feet, not including the basements. Our concern is- basements were not part of the projected plans. At the ONLY community meeting held in September, we were told that these units would be sold for around $133,000. We asked the projected price point of the three unit types. Vignette gave us a $133,000 price point, not differentiating between actual build cost and market value. We further tried to clarify by stating our homes market value would decrease if they built and sold their unit at the $133,000 price point. This concern was brought up by a licensed Fort Collins real estate agent from our neighborhood. At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on November 17 2005, Vignette told the board that we were mistaking the "construction cost & market value". These homes would sell to Habitat families starting at $185,000. This is another example of our concerns being misrepresented. MARKET RESEARCH: A realtor that lives in our neighborhood sent an email to City Planner Steve Olt, Councilman, Kurt Kastein, & Mayor Doug Hutchinson on 11/17/05. In this letter he stated that an independent Realtor had placed a value of $185,000 on the Habitat larger units. These units, incidentally, have gotten larger and now have basements. "I am a licensed Realtor in Colorado and attempted to verify these results on the Multiple Listing Service. As I'm sure you are aware, the most generally accepted way to place a value on a piece of property is to do a MLS search on comparable properties that have sold recently in the same general area. Ideally, you want to find properties that have closed within the previous 3 months, in some cases you need to extend that time period to find comparables. I searched for closed properties that sold from 01/01/05 thru 11/16/05 and came up with 9 different properties that fit the broad category. These ranged in square footage from 1212 sq ft to 1316 sq ft. None were larger. Sold prices ranged from $169,000 to $178,000. The proposed development is now supposed to have square footage ranging from 1184 to 1476 sq feet. None of the comparables have a basement, r 6of8 Evergreen Tree Ornamental Tree Shrubs Canopy Shade Tree as a street tree on a Residential Local Street Only 6.0' height balled and burlapped or equivalent 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design intent 1.25" caliper container or equivalent (5) Reduced Minimum Sizes for Affordable Housing Projects. In any affordable housing project, the following minimum sizes shall be required: Type Minimum Size Canopy Shade Tree 1.0" caliper container or equivalent Evergreen Tree 4.0' height container or equivalent Ornamental Tree 1.0" caliper container or equivalent Shrubs 1 gallon Canopy Shade Tree 1.25" caliper container or equivalent as a street tree on a Local or Collector Street only Albeit they meet the requirement of LUC 3.2.1 (D)(5) as it pertains to affordable housing, That is not the specifications stated during the November 17 2005 P & Z meeting by the Fort Collins city planner Steve Olt. He stated specifications from (4) above. The Innovation Island project plan also does not meet the intent of • LUC 3.2.1(E)(1)(c) • LUC 3.2. 1 (E)(1)(d) • LUC 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) having the largest violation (b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from abutting uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights. Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, 5 of 8 towards the Taft/Harmony intersection. Our street is an enclosed community with only one access road to South Taft Road and one access road to Harmony Road. Residents from the Taft Canyon subdivision already use our closed loop roadway as a thoroughfare to Harmony Road to avoid the Taft/Harmony intersection. With this increased traffic in The Overlook subdivision, it is already difficult, if not impossible, to allow our children to play in our front yards, or ride their bikes around our neighborhood due to the ever increasing volume of traffic. For us it is a quality of life issue. CONSTRUCTION TIME: The information we have received from the Fort Collins city staff is Innovation Island's PDP, once gaining final approval, they are ONLY required to develop their infrastructure with in 3 years after PDP approval; our major concern is: How long is this area going to be a major construction site? Is it 3 years, 5 years or 10 years? The information we received from Habitat for Humanity and Vignette is that this will be a phased construction project building one unit at a time. Habitat for Humanity is informing us that they must sell, train & that the people must provide between 300-500 hours of sweat equity and $1000 down payment before moving into their new home. Our major concern as a neighborhood is that it will be in development for many years. With the greatest impact being felt by the residents located directly to the south of the Innovation Island project site. LANDSCAPING: During the Planning & Zoning meeting, Steve Olt stated shade trees must be a minimum of 2" caliber. Several people from the citizen's coalition tried to establish a point of fact about the Innovation Island landscaping plans indicating shade trees will be 1" caliber. We were told by Judy Meyer to be quiet or leave. Our concern as to our privacy was never addressed. The information we are also receiving from Habitat for Humanity and Vignette is that the greenbelt buffer between our neighborhood and Innovation Island will not be planted until all units that may affect the plants are complete. What this indicates to us is that our privacy concerns may never be addressed, and if they are, it may be 20 years before they are resolved, given the afore mentioned building scenario in the construction time paragraph above. The planting specifications that were submitted and approved by the Planning & Zoning Board do not meet the LUC, as stated by Steve Olt during the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on 17 November 2005, the LUC states: (4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes. The Director shall provide a recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements for landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street trees. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in subparagraph (5) below): Type Minimum Size Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent 4of8 The standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(2) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. This section requires that every residential building containing 4 or more dwelling units have at least one building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. Buildings B & C, both 5-plexes, do not have at least one building entry facing an adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial. There will be no public streets adjacent to or within this development other than the existing South Taft Road, to the west, and West Harmony Road. Vignette and Habitat for Humanity's explanation and reason for relief is that by changing their plan they would not be able meet cost goals. It appears to us that the project is not the right fit for the proposed plot of land. The Standard located in Section 3.5.2(D)(1) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. This section requires that every residential building be set back a minimum of 30' from any arterial street right-of-way (ROW). Buildings D & E are proposed to be set back from the South Taft Hill Road ROW a distance of 20.3' and 20.5', respectively. How is it not detrimental to the public good when in fact this could give up ROW rights and possible expansions of Taft Hill and Harmony roads by allowing the building setbacks to be less than city code? Vignette and Habitat for Humanity's explanation and reason for relief is that by changing their plan they would not be able meet cost goals. It appears to us that the project is not the right fit for the proposed plot of land. TRAFFIC DANGERS: In the Spring of 2006 the city of Fort Collins will be expanding South Taft Hill Road from Horsetooth Road to Harmony Road widening that section of South Taft Hill Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes this will cause further congestion at the Taft/Harmony intersection funneling traffic on South Taft Hill Road from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes of traffic. For the future residents of Innovation Island to go West on Harmony Road, they will have to leave Innovation Island and turn left across at least 3 lanes of traffic, without a protected left hand turn signal and no left hand turn lane in the project, also there is a concrete median less then 40 feet in front of them. Basically you have a car crossing a bike lane, 2 lanes of east bound traffic, around a median in the middle of Harmony Road, and merge with west bound lane traffic that's an accident waiting to happen. For Innovation Island residents to go north on South Taft Hill Road, they will have to cross 1 bike lane, 2 lanes of east bound traffic on Harmony Road, around a median, cross over 2 lanes of west bound traffic on Harmony Road and get to the right hand turn lane all of which is probably less than 300 ft from the South Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road intersection. The more probable scenario is the residents wanting to go north on South Taft Hill Road, will turn right from Innovation Island on to West Harmony Road, go east to Green Gate (entrance into the Overlook subdivision) travel through our closed loop community roadway to Brixton Avenue, turn right on to South Taft Hill Road and go north back 3 of 8 city attorney informed her that it was customary to allow 3 minutes per person. Judy Meyers comment to the city attorney was,"you're the legal beagle, you win". Judy Meyer also decided that she wanted to join the ODP & the PDP as a single discussion, by joining the ODP & the PDP together, we as citizens were only allowed to voice our concerns'on the ODP & the PDP combined instead of as separate issues. This effectively cut our citizen participation in half, which was the intent of Judy Meyer from the onset. She also told us that we don't need to continually go over what others have mentioned, even if they have taken our steam away, they (Planning and Zoning Board) "get it". When she asked if anyone else wanted to talk, one other person got up to the podium; Judy Meyers comment was "well I should have spoke faster". Many of our concerns were not followed up. She did not let us rebut or clarify any inaccurate or misleading information that Habitat for Humanity and/or Vignette and/or city staff had stated. In fact, we were told to be quiet or we would have to leave. ALL requested modifications to LUC were approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. This entire project was pushed on the (Fast track) because it is considered an affordable housing project. Our feeling was that the board was biased/prejudice and was going to pass the Innovation Island project plan at all costs, barring risks or citizen input, and only for the simple fact that it is 100% affordable housing, our concems/arguments as to the Innovation Island project plan were not taken seriously. The Innovation Island, PDP development proposal does not comply with the following requirements of Fort Collins LUC. The standard located in Section 3.5.2 (C)(1)(b) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Orientation to a.Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine. Buildings B & C have primary entrances that are greater than 200' but less than 350' from street sidewalks on West Harmony Road and South Taft Hill Road. However, their primary entrances do not face and open directly onto connecting walkways that qualify as major walkway spines. 2of8 We the Citizens of the Overlook Citizens Action Committee (see attached for Name, Address, and signatures of all appellants, exhibit 1) are appealing the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board agenda item ODP Agenda Items 42 (40-05) and PDP Agenda Item 3 (40-05A) from the meeting held on November 17, 2005. Primary POC Cathy Lund 4203 Lookout Lane Fort Collins CO. 80526 (970)-214-4911 All persons listed on exhibit 1 are Parties -in -Interest by receiving the mailed notice or spoke at, the hearing of the board or both. We are using the following grounds for our appeal • Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied • The planning and zoning board failed to hold a fair hearing by: o Ignoring its previously established rules of procedure o Considered substantially false or grossly misleading evidence o Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered 1. We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Boards "Approval" of ODP for Innovation Island 2. We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Boards "Approval" of PDP for Innovation Island 3. We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Boards "Approval" as to modification of the Fort Collins LUC The standard located in Section 3.5.2 (C)(1)(b) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 4. We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Boards "Approval" as to modification of the Fort Collins LUC The standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(2) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 5. We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Boards "Approval' as to modification of the Fort Collins LUC The Standard located in Section 3.5.2(D)(1) of ARTICLE 3-GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Our evidence will consist of this appeal application plus attached exhibits, the video from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on November 17, 2005, written transcripts of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on November 17, 2005 and any other evidence requested from us by the City. We feel that the Planning and Zoning Board was positively biased towards Vignette and Habitat for Humanity giving them wide leniency do to the fact that this project was framed as a 100% affordable housing project. It was very apparent, that the Board was biased and very prejudiced towards us. Judy Meyer was extremely disrespectful to the people who opposed the Innovation Island development project, as well as to the city's attorney. We feel we had valid concerns regarding the Innovation Island project plan. It is fully apparent that Judy Meyer did not want to be there and was trying to speed up the meeting by suggesting if we had one spokesperson that person would be granted 10 minutes to speak. Judy Meyers other option to us was to limit citizen participation to 2 minutes per person; at that point the 1 of 8 Appeal of decisions made by Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Items ODP Agenda Item #2 (40-05) PDP Agenda Item #3 (40-05A) BY Overlook Citizens Action Committee At the meeting held on November 17, 2005. Appellant's Notice of Appeal Mayor City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on November 17, 2005, regarding the Innovation Island ODP and PDP. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750). Any written materials that any party -in -interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11 [Section 2-54 (b) of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 10. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party -in -interest, will be available to the public on Thursday, January 12, after 12:00 noon in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515 (TDD 970-224-6001) for assistance. (iAtl�� Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: January 6, 2006 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6505 • FAX (970) 224-6107 • TDD (970) 224-6001 www.fcgov.com City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to parties -in -interest on January 6, 2006 January 17, 2006 -11- Item No. 20 ATTACHMENTS • City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to parties -in -interest on January 6, 2006 • Appellant's Notice of Appeal • Agenda materials provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for the Overall Development Plan • Agenda materials provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for the Project Development Plan • Emails provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for the November 17, 2005 public hearing • Verbatim transcript of the November 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board hearing on the Innovation Island ODP and PDP January 17, 2006 -10- Item No. 20 • Residential Building Orientation (3.5.2 (C)(1)(b) and (C)(2)) (C) Relationship ojDwellings to Streets and Parking. (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine. (2) Street -Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. • Residential Building Setback from an Arterial Street (3.5.2(D)(1)) (D) Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size. (1) Setback from Arterial Streets. The minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any arterial street right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet. Alternative Actions City Council May Take A. If the Council finds that an unfair hearing was conducted, the Council must remand the matter to Planning and Zoning Board for rehearing. B. If the Council finds that the hearing was fair, then Council should: • Uphold; • Overturn; • Modify the Planning and Zoning Board Decision; • Remand the matter to Planning and Zoning Board for rehearing to consider additional information. January 17, 2006 -9- Item No. 20 mitigate conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses or building designs, one (1) or more of the following landscape buffering techniques shall be used to mitigate the conflicts. (c) Establishing privacy: establishing vertical landscape elements to screen views into or between windows and defined outdoor spaces where privacy is important, such as where larger buildings are proposed next to side or rear yards of smaller buildings; (d) Visual integration of fences or walls: providing plant material in conjunction with a screen panel, arbor, garden wall, privacy fence or security fence to avoid the visual effect created by unattractive screening or security fences; • Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping 3.2.1 (E)(4)(b) (4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards: (b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from abutting uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights. Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. January 17, 2006 -8- Item No. 20 the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Landscaping for Affordable Housing (3.2.1 (D)(5)) (5) Reduced Minimum Sizes forAffordable Housing Projects. In any affordable housing project, the following minimum sizes shall be required: Type Canopy Shade Tree Evergreen Tree Ornamental Tree Shrubs Canopy Shade Tree as a street tree on a Local or Collector Street only Minimum Size 1.0" caliper container or equivalent 4.0' height container or equivalent 1.0" caliper container or equivalent 1 gallon 1.25" caliper container or equivalent • Landscaping between Incompatible Uses and Activities (3.2.1 (E)(1)(C) and (D)) (E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape plans that meet the following minimum standards: (1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In situations where the Director determines that the arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately January 17, 2006 -7- Item No. 20 List of Issues Staff Considers to be Irrelevant • Misleading Evidence: Applicant Statements Allegation that the Developer and the Applicant have been telling the Appellants that they want to be good neighbors and have Innovation Island blend with the surrounding neighborhood. The expressed intent to be a "good neighbor" is neither a review criterion nor a specific Land Use Code regulation. • Construction Time Allegation that, based on the Developer's information, the Innovation Island project will be under construction for many years, with the greatest impact felt by residents located directly to the south of the project. Not applicable as there are no code provisions dictating the length of construction period. • Market Research Allegation that a neighborhood resident adjacent to Innovation Island has received a per dwelling unit appraisal for Innovation Island from an independent real estate agent. This information was e-mailed to the Mayor, the District City Council member, and the City Planner. In order to qualify as a certified "affordable housing project" the applicant must commit to restrictions on unit sale price; therefore, this information is irrelevant. • Size and Configuration of Property for Affordable Housing Allegation that this site is not a good "fit "for lower -income families in that the physical size and configuration of this lot is not "optimal" for this project. There are no size and lot configuration standards within the Land Use Code specific to affordable housing development. List of Relevant Code Provisions • Standards for Granting Modifications. 2.8(H) - Step 8 (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of January 17, 2006 -6- Item No. 20 • Failure to Receive Relevant Information Allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board Chairperson failed to permit citizens to rebut or clarify misleading statements. It is at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board to exclude testimony or evidence that it finds to be irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. The Board followed the order of proceedings at a public hearing as outlined in the Land Use Code. • Traffic Dangers Allegation that future widening of South Taft Hill Road between West Harmony Road and West Horsetooth Road will cause further congestion at the South Taft Hill Road/West Harmony Road intersection. As indicated in the Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Transportation Impact Analysis, and through testimony, provided at the hearing, the applicable development standards for traffic operations are met. • Safety/Health Risks to Children Allegation that the Applicant's and Developer's proposed location for the playground was not well thought out. Beyond building code standards for play equipment, there are no specific Land Use Code standards applicable to the location and design of the playground area. From the staff s perspective, the playground location and design will not pose a significant risk to health and life safety. • Failure to Properly Apply Modification of Standards Criteria Allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply the review criteria applicable to the three Modification of Standards requests. More specifically, the three requested modifications related to building setback relative to the S. Taft Hill frontage requirements, the pedestrian walkway connection, and the street facing building facades applicable to two internally -located buildings. The Planning and Zoning Board found that the modification requests were not detrimental to the public good and helped to bring the plan to fruition that would address an important community need, namely the need for affordable housing. • Overabundance of Affordable Housing The appellants allege that there is an overabundance of affordable housing. Visual images provided to the Planning and Zoning Board during the hearing that displayed the distribution of qualified affordable housing within the community. There was no evidence provided within the images which would indicate that there is an overabundance of affordable housing community -wide or within this portion of the community. Further, there are no specific standards or criteria within the Land Use Code which limit the total number and/or geographic distribution of affordable units. January 17, 2006 -5- Item No. 20 Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied; and The Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing by: Ignoring its previously established rules of procedure Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence - Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered Ouestions City Council Needs to Answer a. Did the Planning and Zoning Board conduct a fair hearing? - Did the Planning and Zoning Board show bias? Did the Planning and Zoning Board consider false or misleading evidence? If NO, remand to the Planning and Zoning Board If YES, consider whether the Planning and Zoning Board followed provisions of the Land Use Code. b. Did the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code? Staff Analysis of Relevant Issues • Public Notification ("Gathered Signatures") Allegation that, prior to the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on November 17, 2005, citizens from the Overlook Citizens Action Committee went into the surrounding communities of the Gates and Taft Canyon Subdivisions gathering signatures in opposition to the Innovation Island project because most of those people were never informed of this development proposal. Evidence presented to the Planning and Zoning Board established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted; legal notices were mailed and notice published. Misleading Evidence: Neighborhood Meeting Information Allegation that, since the applicant's representative helped to record a written summary captured at the neighborhood meeting, such summary was inaccurate. There was no evidence provided at the public hearing substantiating any particularly misleading information found within the neighborhood meeting written summary. • Misleading Evidence: Landscaping All applicable City standards for landscaping have been met, including all tree planting, plant size specifications, and parking lot landscaping requirements. It is acknowledged that the City Planner made an inaccurate statement regarding landscaping standards applicable to the project; however, this inaccuracy had no impact on the Board's decision since the landscape standards have been met through the proposed design. January 17, 2006 -4- Item No. 20 The Innovation Island PDP, an affordable multi -family housing project on Parcel A of the ODP, consists of a total of 27 dwelling units in five buildings on 3.2 acres. On November 17, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Innovation Island ODP and PDP. Allegations on Appeal On December 20, 2005, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellants Cathy Lund (Primary Person of Contact) and 23 other adjacent property owners, it is alleged that: January 17, 2006 -3- Item No. 20 The Innovation Island ODP consists ofParcel A, which contains 27 affordable dwelling units on 3.2 acres; and, Parcel B, which contains 20,000 square feet of non-residential uses in a building (or buildings) on 1.3 acres. At the present time, development is being limited to Parcel A. Parcel B will be developed at some future date. ---""`: -, ��-r^'4' III, a W..yV "°+.,, •••qa THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE FM _ 1 > •.,.. 464,466 ZOM MG: RL i.IMM1 ..•.+ e i 1 POTVf Tl L ACCESS , - ,� �••. PARCEL B PARCELA 1 ZOMMG:LMM 1 Za*CG LMM 1 t;.1.21ACRES A •,*� 3.16 ACRES . \ 21 (Rtl15 1 WOWS 1 7.7 DL'AC GROSS 1 15 DD/AC CJM 1 1 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDQiIUL AMFAMLY RESIDEM7AL 1 1 OR COMMERCIAL ♦ L •, _ 25TURIE5 1 20.000 SF MAX MDVG 25TORES MAX N..N�,,M• ACCESS 1 00• 711E NERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE PUD \ ♦ 11 ZOMIMC: RL S IP I � w ow r �cev+rc C N C 0 C C ®emu January 17, 2006 -2- Item No. 20 Proiect Location WESTFIELD DR Z J 7. J J WESTFIELD OR J w coutm Raw 3w i MN / R aid 4 �pAJT tN 'f. ZL ewxTON RD rx RowNo GOAE i / V SILV RGATE RD ly #40-05 Innovation Island ODP - Type II 10&2005 N 1 inch equals 300 feet A AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: 20 DATE: January 17, 2006 STAFF: Steve Olt Consideration of the Appeal of the November 17, 2005, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Approve the Innovation Island ODP and PDP. RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decisions. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2005, a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing was conducted to receive presentations and testimony on the Innovation Island development proposal, a qualified affordable, mixed -use (residential and commercial) project on 4.4 acres. The Board considered both the Innovation Island, ODP and the Innovation Island, PDP. The property is at the southeast corner of West Harmony Road and South Taft Hill Road and is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.