The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP ..... 6/03/2014 - FDP130056 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL3. That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Sections 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5. ] (J) of the Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the major amendment upon Spring Creek. 4. That the Decision is hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of the impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek and for consideration of the reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi -family development in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of June, A.D. 2014. ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Mayor RESOLUTION 2014-050 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE MARCH 19, 2014, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER DECISION REGARDING THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on March 19, 2014, Administrative Hearing Officer, Marcus McAskin (the "Hearing Officer") approved a major amendment to the Summit on College Project Development Plan (#130056) located west of the intersection of College Avenue and Stuart Street (the "Decision"); and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, a Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed by Jeffrey Leef, et. al, on behalf of the owners of a new restaurant known as The Laboratory (Appellant Leef); and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, an Amended Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed with the City Clerk by Councilmember Ross Cunniff (Appellant Cunniff); and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, an Amended Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed by Lester M. Kaplan as owner of the subject property located at 1801 South College Avenue (Appellant Kaplan); and WHEREAS, Appellant Leef, et. al., Appellant Cunniff and Appellant Kaplan will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the Appellants; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeals, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties -in -interest and, after discussion remanded the Decision to the Hearing Officer for further consideration; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-57(g) provides that no later than the date of its 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 2-57(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellants' Notices of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Agenda Item 25 Appellant Lester M. Kaplan and Appellant Jeffrey Leef: • Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code and Charter. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: o The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; o The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Appellant Councilmember Cunniff: • Other. At the May 20, 2014 hearing on the matter, Council considered said appeal, reviewed the record of appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties -of -interest and, after discussion, remanded the Decision to the Hearing Officer. Council voted 6-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing in approving the Major Amendment; and voted 5-1 (Nays: Weitkunat; Troxell absent) that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(1)(2) and 3.5.1(J), and remanded the decision to the Hearing Officer. Council directed the Hearing Officer to further consider the impact of the Major Amendment on Spring Creek and for consideration of the reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi -family development in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. On May 24, 2014, the developer of the proposed parking structure, through his attorney, submitted a written request to the City that the City Council consider amending its decision on this appeal so as to modify the hearing officer's decision by approving the Major Amendment but requiring that: 1. the height of the structure be reduced by one level to a height dimension of approximately 27' on the north, east, south and most of the west elevation; and 2. additional green screening be included on the south fagade of the structure to further soften the view from Spring Creek. Therefore, two alternative actions are available to the Council. The first would be to finalize the appeal by adopting the proposed resolution. The second would be to continue the matter to June 24, 2014, for possible consideration of a motion to amend the action taken by the Council at the conclusion of the hearing on May 20, 2014. If the Council chooses the latter course of action, all parties -in -interest to the appeal will be noted of the possibility that the outcome of the appeal may be changed and that they will be given an opportunity on June 24 to speak to the request that the applicant/developer has made. Item # 25 Page 2 Agenda Item 25 STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir SUBJECT Items Relating to Three Appeals of the Summit on College Project Development Plan Major Amendment Pertaining to a Parking Structure. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2014-050 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the March 19, 2014, Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Regarding the Major Amendment to the Summit on College Project Development Plan. or B. Motion to Continue to Adjourned Meeting on June 24, 2014, to Consider Motion to Amend Decision On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the Hearing Officer's March 19, 2014 Decision to Approve the Summit on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment. On May 20, 2014, City Council voted 6-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing in approving the Major Amendment; and voted 5-1 (Nays: Weitkunat; Troxell absent) that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(1)(2) and 3.5.1(J), and remanded the decision to the Hearing Officer. On May 24, 2014, the developer of the proposed parking structure, through his attorney, submitted a written request to the City that the City Council consider amending its decision on this appeal so as to modify the hearing officer's decision by approving the Major Amendment but adding two conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends consideration of the two options outlined as follows BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing Officer considered the application for the Summit on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment. The Hearing Officer issued a decision to approve the Major Amendment with conditions. The application consisted of a request to construct a parking structure with 440 parking spaces. The proposed structure will be built over an existing surface parking lot, resulting in a net gain of 352 spaces. The parking structure consists of 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 3'/2 stories. On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal; the grounds for appeal are as follows: Item # 25 Page 1