HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE (HOFFMAN) PUD - PRELIMINARY (REVISED) ..... REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL - 31-95A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESJune 18, 1996
City Planner Steve Olt spoke of the Overall Development Plan for Richards Lake.
After comments by City Attorney Steve Roy regarding Code requirements and density issues,
Councilmember Apt stated additional direction to the Planning and Zoning Board would not be
appropriate.
Councilmember Smith stated he did not support the motion based on his concerns regarding density
issues.
Councilmember Janett supported the remand, and spoke of the need for the Planning and Zoning
Board to perform its function with very little Council direction.
Liley waived any right to precede with the appeal and approved the remand.
Ms. Schmidt concurred with comments made by Ms. Liley.
Margaret Phillips, Larimer Comity resident, spoke of density issues and did not agree with the
opinion that `one size fits all". She stated density should be decided on a case by case basis.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett,
McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 96-55 Approving the
Air Quality Action Plan Update for 1996-1 98, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
The proposed Air Quality Action Plait update is a set of actions to continue implementation of the
Air Quality Policy Plan (AQPP), an element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1993. Adopting
this resolution would complete the first biennial review and redirection of the City's air quality
programs, as called for in the AQPP. Once approved by City Council, the Action Plan becomes the
basis for staff work programs and budget reconiniendations.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year, staff and the Air Quality Advisory Board drafted the Air Quality Action Plan
update, containing 1996-1998 strategies to ineet the objectives of the AQPP. City Council reviewed
the proposed Action Plait update at its March 12, 1996, Study Session. Since that time, staff and the
22
June 18, 1996
On April 8, 1996, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from Lucia A. Liley, Attorney for the
Appellant Richards Lake Development Company, it is alleged that:
1. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and -
Charter [Section 2-48(1)].
2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing inthat it substantially ignored its previously .
established rules of procedure [Section 2-48(2)(b)].
3. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading [Section 2-48(2)(c)].
4. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellant [Section 2-48(2)(d)].
The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code. This hearing on the appeal was continued from May 21, 1996, at the request of the parties
in interest.
Enclosed is a copy of a joint petition signed by the developer and a representative of the neighbors
of the PUD for remand of the Hearthfire ODP and Hearthfire PUD to the Planning and Zoning
Board. Council will need to decide whether to remand the ODP and PUD to the Planning and
Zoning Board. "
City Attorney Steve Roy briefly outlined the appeal process, noting this item was postponed at the
request of the appellants and developer. He stated the parties -in -interest have requested this item
be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the developer, briefly explained the developer's request for
remand. She stated the developer is prepared to make revisions concerning the density variance area
request, making the project a more appropriate transition project.
Bridget Schmidt, spokesperson for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, requested the item be
remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to remand the item to
the Planning and Zoning Board with additional direction. ,
Ms. Schmidt spoke of the need to recognize that "one size doesn't fit all" and that there are times
when special considerations should be given.
21
June 18, 1996
Councilmember McCloskey spoke of a recent Finance Committee meeting, reporting the three issues
discussed were fiscal impact model, recreation fee policy and the revenue retention policy.
Councilmember Apt stated the Growth Management Committee met and discussed City Plan and
its implementation. He reported the Master Street and Road Plan and Pedestrian Level of Service
Plan were discussed.
Councilmember Smith, stated the Public Access Committee met to discuss technology issues. He
spoke of a meeting with the Metropolitan Planning Organization ("MPO") regarding an upcoming
demonstration of a passenger rail train system. I-Ie spoke briefly of activities planned for Bike Week.
Councilmember Janett gave an update of the Pioneer Mobile Home Park relocation effort, and spoke
of the information contained in the Commission on the Status of Women's report.
Consideration of the Appeal
of the March 25,1996, Decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board Denying the Development Projects Known
as the Hearthfire Overall Development Plan (ODP) and the
Hearthfire Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary, Remanded to P&Z.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On March 25, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Hearthfire ODP and the Hearthfire
PUD, Preliminary.
* The Hearthfire ODP consists of a request fora two-phase plait for 317 residential dwelling
units (with a mix of low, mediurn, and high densities), lirnited contnterciabbusiness, and open
space on 105.3 acres. The overall residential density of the ODP is 3.01 dwelling units per
acre.
* The Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary consists of a request for 245 residential dwelling units
(133 single family lots, 44 carriage house units on 44 of the single family lots, and 56 multi-
f nnily units) and commercial✓business uses on 77.34 acres. The gross residential density of
this phase is 3.17 dwelling units per acre.
A portion of the property is zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition
and a portion is zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential with no conditions. It is located north
and east of Richards Lake, south of Douglas Road, west of County Road 11, and east of Colorado
Highway 1.
20