HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIENA (OVERLAND RIDGE) PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 39-95A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (3)not the cars, streets, parking lots and buildings that dominate the landscape of Fort
Collins.
Certainly, people need places to live and work, and these places are not always pretty.
But now that Fort Collins has reached the often -worshipped magical population mark of
100,000, how many more people need to live here? How much longer will we continue to
focus on increasing the quantity of human life at the expense of the quality of life for
Northern Colorado's existing people, plants and animals.
We have all contributed to these problems. We must face the fact that we practice
hypocrisy when we move to Fort Collins and then want to shut the door. But if we resign
ourselves to never resisting a larger population because we would be hypocrites, then
development will never end. It will gobble up all open space within city limits. It will
climb the hogbacks and foothills as people scramble to get "closer to nature" and obtain
the elusive "great view," meanwhile destroying wildlife habitat and proving to their
neighbors how elusive a great view really is. A latter-day Frank Lloyd Wright may decide
to cap Horsetooth Rock with an "architectural marvel." Poudre Canyon will fill with
people wanting to escape the big city, but expansion will flow upstream and eventually
engulf them.
Development will also spread across the plains east of town. But unlike a rejuvenating
wildfire, the spread of development will consume the land. Protected areas of shortgrass
prairie, such as Pawnee National Grassland, will lose valuable buffer zones and experience
a severe increase in use that will send the shortgrass prairie and associated wildlife into a
decline. As new residents move into nearby former Dust Bowl areas, they will still want
their bluegrass lawns and maple trees, causing further demand on regional water supplies
and speeding the emptying of groundwater sources.
All of these processes have begun. At what point do we decide that they've gone too far?
When will we look beyond short-term gains for a small segment of the population and
recognize the long-term consequences for the city as a whole? Who runs Fort Collins --
developers, real estate companies and lawyers, or the citizens and their elected officials?
5
Infill development of open areas within city limits has been proposed as a solution to the
problem of sprawl. But infill development increases traffic, removes "breathing room,"
and takes away the Waal character prized by many residents. This makes the city less
pleasant to live in, prompting people to move outside the city and contributing to the very
sprawl we want to prevent. The boom in population east and south of Fort Collins is
partly due to this.
Proposed developments are considered piecemeal rather than in context with other
developments, the existing city and the environment. It is difficult to measure the effect of
one development on traffic, air quality, wildlife habitat and the pace of life in Fort Collins,
but as additional developments are added these effects multiply to produce a devastating
impact. Only after enough tiny losses have accumulated do we finally notice that
something we once valued is gone.
Developers sneer at environmentalists' concerns and then turn around and lure customers
with promises of nature. Consider this recent advertisement in the Coloradoan for
Country Cottages at Red Fox Meadow:
"This old fashioned neighborhood atmosphere with charming English Country
Cottage architecture is adjacent to the 27 acre Red Fox Meadows Natural Area.
Come home to the quiet peace of nature and walk along the secluded trails. Off
Prospect west of Shields. Close to nature - close to town."
According to several stories in the Coloradoan, a red fox mother and her kits are being
evicted by the Red Fox Meadow developer. Of course, as long as you don't notice the
disappearance of red foxes from their namesake development, you'll still feel "close to
nature."
Looking at the names of area developments, you might get the impression that Fort
Collins is one big nature walk: The Ponds, Spring Hollow, Fossil Creek, Greenbriar,
Dakota Ridge, Cedar Village, Scotch Pines, Sunstone, Indian Hills, Summerhill, Eagle
Tree, Quail Hollow, The Mallards, Meadowlark, Valley Hi, Countryside, Skyview, and so
on. But you won't find many ponds, stones, briars, eagles, mallards, pines, cedars, hills
and views of the sky in these places. It's as though developers are playing a cruel joke in
which giving a development a name that evokes natural things is compensation for the
destruction of those very things.
Of course, developers choose such names because they know that these images appeal to
people. If you had the choice, would you want to live in Destroyed Native Habitat
Estates, Used To Be A Meadow, The Sardine Can, or Brown Cloud View? But these
latter names call attention to realities that are often ignored or downplayed in the
development review process.
The fact that people like nature is apparent in other ways. During the city's recent Visual
Preference Survey, the slide that was most preferred by citizen respondents was a picture
of an undeveloped stretch of the Poudre River. The photographs of council members that
are outside Council Chambers show each of you standing by trees, natural areas and trails,
4
not have any right to protest. The landlord usually does not spend much time at the
premises and cares little about quality -of -life issues like the view, the traffic or the schools.
To him, the house is a business.
People who start out with low motivation to participate in a lengthy process quickly lose
interest, reducing the number of neighbors who give input about the impact of the
development.
The city planner for the Siena development contributed to the frustration of neighbors by
acting as a promoter for the development. Ted Shepard mentioned to several neighbors
that developer John Minatta's family sold land to the city for use as a stormwater detention
area several years ago and in return should be allowed to develop their remaining land. It
seems to us that the Minatta family is being given under-the-counter extra credit for their
proposed development even though "previously sold land to the city" doesn't appear on
the official LDGS checklist of criteria. On several occasions when Mr. Shepard was
presented with neighbors' objections to the development, instead of merely noting them,
he would argue against them. We don't feel that it is Mr. Shepard's place as a city
employee to tell citizens that their objections are not valid.
Is this the way you want the development review process to proceed? Do you want the
development staffers to act as advocates for development? Do you want citizens to be
worn down by all the obstacles in the process? Most citizens lead busy lives and they find
it unrewarding to invest time in a process that seems designed to discourage them from
pursuing valid concerns. We need an input process that is geared toward the average busy
lifestyle. And we need a planning department that considers the interests of the citizens,
not just the interests of the developers.
In the city's attempt to bend over backwards to be fair to developers and avoid their
lawsuits, a process was created that is very unfair to Fort Collins citizens.
Concerns about the Impact of Development
The developer -friendly review process facilitates the ill-advised growth that is negatively
impacting Northern Colorado. We are sacrificing many of the region's good qualities to
the constant push for growth.
We often hear that development pays its own way in Fort Collins. We know this is not
true. Despite record sales tax revenues, city officials are looking for more money to pay
for street maintenance and other traditional government services. Development has not
paid for an improved city bus system that would mitigate the growth -related problems of
traffic, pollution and noise. Despite the park development fee levied on each new house,
there are not enough parks to meet city goals and needs.
3
meeting of every development review, when a large turnout of neighbors is likely?
Neighbors quickly become frustrated with the process when the only city official present
will not provide specific answers to specific questions and acts offended by those
questions.
Small wonder that people left the meeting feeling frustrated and feeling that their time had
been wasted. In discussions among ourselves, over and over we heard people say: "It
doesn't matter what I say, they'll approve it anyway," "I've got better things to do with my
time," "If it's not this development it'll be something worse," "It's too hard to fight the
system," "Oh well, I'm going to be moving anyway."
Very few people showed up at the second neighborhood meeting. Some people did not
receive the notice for the second meeting. Others had given up.
Neighbors attended the scheduled preliminary hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Board, but the Overland Ridge development was not considered that night. The hearing
was delayed for several weeks, and very few people attended the rescheduled hearing.
The final hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was tentatively scheduled and
rescheduled several times. Neighbors who called to learn the date of the hearing were told
January 22, then February 26, then March 4. Official notice of the meeting was finally
mailed for March 4.
Between the preliminary hearing and the final hearing, the developer changed the
development name from Overland Ridge to Siena. One neighbor who received a mailed
notice for the final hearing on the Siena development said he thought the notice referred to
another development at Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail and he could only spare time
to focus on the development closest to his home.
Despite vocal and written objections to the development, the final hearing was listed on
the consent agenda, which is supposed to be reserved for items of no known opposition.
Neighbors attended the scheduled final hearing and sat through four hours of the meeting
before learning that their issue would not be discussed that night. The hearing was
rescheduled for March 6. Fewer neighbors attended the rescheduled hearing.
Even people who are highly motivated to participate in the review process are worn down
by such repeated delays.
Unfortunately, some of the people affected by this proposed development are not strongly
motivated to give input through formal channels. Some of the affected houses are rental
units. Very few of the tenants or landlords of rental units care to get involved in the
lengthy process of protesting a development. The tenants often do not plan to remain
there much longer, so they do not feel that they have a personal stake in the matter as the
long-term homeowner does. They also feel that because they don't own the land, they do
2
April 24, 1996
Robert Clark
Judy Harrington
2613 Flintridge Place
Fort Collins CO 80521
Dear Ann Azari:
This is an open letter to City Council members expressing concerns about the development
review process and about the impact of development in Fort Collins.
Concerns about the Development Review Process
Whether or not it's intentional, the development review process discourages citizens from
pursuing their concerns. This was evident in the Overland Ridge/Siena PUD review.
A notice about the time and place of a neighborhood meeting for the Overland Ridge PUD
was sent by the city to each neighbor of the development. When we (the neighbors)
arrived for the meeting, we discovered that the doors of the meeting place were locked.
After about 10 minutes City Planner Ted Shepard arrived and told us that the meeting was
being moved to Fort Ram. He gave us directions on how to get there. He also told us
where to park and said that the police might write us parking tickets, but he would take
care of them. Some of us realized from the directions that the new meeting place was
actually Ram Village, not Fort Ram. The meeting finally began approximately 1/2 hour
late. Whether due to confusion about the location, the lateness of the meeting interfering
with busy schedules, or the simple hassle of it all, a few of the people who had arrived on
time at the original meeting place did not show up at Ram Village.
At this meeting, the neighbors expressed many concerns about the development's effects
on the adjacent park, their childrens' safety, the schools, traffic, flooding, water pressure,
and density of the development. Mr. Shepard assumed a defensive attitude when
responding to questions and comments. If one of the goals of an initial neighborhood
meeting is to defuse emotion, his approach did not accomplish this. Quite often he
"answered" a question by saying that this was the responsibility of other city departments
and the school district and he couldn't do anything about it. We finally pushed him to
invite representatives of the city's traffic, parks, water and stormwater departments and the
Poudre School District to attend a second neighborhood meeting to answer our questions.
Mr. Shepard seemed to think that this was a novel thing to do.
We probably expressed many of the same concerns and asked similar questions that other
neighborhoods do at their first meeting. If the goal is to address the neighborhood's
concerns, shouldn't the department representatives be available at the first neighborhood
Mayor and City Councilmembers
May 2, 1996
Page 2
(2) A verbatim transcript of such proceedings before the board or
commission....;
(3) If available, a videotape recording of such proceedings before the board or
commission....
Finally, Section 2-56(b) of the Code prohibits the consideration of new evidence on appeal except
under the following circumstances:
(1) When offered in support of or in opposition to an allegation under § 2-48(2)c
that a board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
(2) When offered by city staff or parties -in -interest in response to questions
presented by Councilmembers under § 2-55(b).
In applying these standards to the letter in question, it is clear that the letter is not part of the
record on appeal. Therefore, the facts contained in the letter should be considered by the Council
only if the evidence is offered at the hearing either in response to questions presented by
Councilmembers or in support of or opposition to evidence that was alleged in the Notice of
Appeal to be substantially false or grossly misleading.
Insofar as the letter may contain argument relevant to the appeal, the appellants will have an
opportunity to make those same points during their presentation on Tuesday night.
SJR: meg
Attachment
cc: Greg Byrne, Director of CPES
Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
OVERVIEW
City Attorneys s`ip lcl
CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
May 2, 1996
Mayor and City Councilmembers
Steve Roy, City Attorney /��—
Open Letter from Robert Clark and Judy Harrington
Councilmembers apparently received in the mail an "open letter' from Robert Clark and Judy
Harrington, the appellants in the Siena PUD appeal. In part, the letter expresses general concerns
about the City's development review process and development trends in the City. However, it
also contains specific concerns about the neighborhood meetings and the Planning and Zoning
Board hearing held in conjunction with the Siena PUD. The question presented by this letter is
whether Council should take into consideration the evidence and argument offered in the letter in
deciding the appeal of the Siena PUD. In my opinion, the answer is no, unless at the hearing next
Tuesday, the information contained in the letter is offered as new evidence either: (1) in support
of or in opposition to evidence that has been alleged to be substantially false or grossly misleading,
or (2) in response to questions asked by Councilmembers at the hearing.
The City Code states in Section 2-56(a) as follows:
The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal, the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the
notice of appeal and any additional issues identified by a member of the City
Council prior to the hearing.
The "record on appeal" is defined in Section 2-53 as consisting of the following:
(1) All exhibits, including, without limitation, all writings, drawings, maps,
charts, graphs, photographs and other tangible items received or viewed by the
board or commission at the proceedings;
300 LaPorte Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327