Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLANDS PUD - ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 27-95 - REPORTS - CITY COUNCILNEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING for Project:madam 1- City of Fort Collins Meetina Location: w, TFAAA, Date: 2� Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to receive minutes of this meeting. Did You Receive iCorrect Written Notification of this meeting? Address. Name Address Zip Yes No Yes No Out �Axq, L5 �iIurt,k `-bAin GRca-, ply 3G AGItk c 20,vn C1 US -2 n rN+�l�l r?' L) L_ r17 �( L 4 l W41f /� h k g S 1 % i � I � a.� G+��i G L_L.� G'L L3;// �rr��se James yy/,2 ,boa-(-ro6ol? goS.�?(o ,. eil 5���7i -�"� trJl CIL�W�YYIUr� yti3-, sia-t� SSo5D'� ✓ ✓ 6. QUESTION: Will there be college kids here? ANSWER: The nature of tax credits being applied for and the financing will preclude students from living in this project. 7. QUESTION: What will this do to my property taxes? 8. COMMENT: We are worried about traffic from this development. Wakerobin will turn into a speedway. 9. QUESTION: How large are the apartments? ANSWER: The 2-bedroom units will be up to 900 square feet in size and the 3-bedroom units will be up to 1,000 square feet in size. 10. QUESTION: Is there an approved convenience store plan for the future commercial at the east end? ANSWER: No, that was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board in the middle to late 1980's. 11. COMMENT: The project is scheduled -to break ground in the Fall of 1995. 12. QUESTION: Is there any limit for the number of people living in the 120 dwelling units? ANSWER: The development is subject to the Fair Housing Law. 13. QUESTION: Will you be doing the policing (management) of this development? ANSWER: We will be using a management company to do that. 14. COMMENT: We have a concern about the safety for kids crossing Shields Street. 9 City of Fort Collins Date: Applicant: Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning Neighborhood Meeting Minutes for the WOODLANDS P.U.D., SECOND FILING February 13, 1995 Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group City Planner: Steve Olt The purpose of this neighborhood information meeting was to update the affected property owners in the area about the potential for a development group to complete a multi -family residential project that had been approved by the City in August, 1980. 1. COMMENT: The proposal is to complete the approved 120 multi- family dwelling units as, approved in August, 1980. 2. QUESTION: Will there be a signal at Wakerobin and Shields Street? ANSWER: The City Transportation Department does not think that there will ever be a signal at this intersection. 3. QUESTION: Are these to be condominiums or apartments? ANSWER: The proposal is for these units to be apartments. 4. QUESTION: What is the rent going to be? Will we have low income people here? ANSWER: This is not low income housing. Tax credits will be applied for to maintain lower rents for people in the 600 of median income bracket. 5. QUESTION: Is this subsidized housing? ANSWER: We will be looking at tax credits to help assist in the financing and to keep the rents at an affordable rate. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002 AM HT IN VAKEROB" aL -E A..... i.m., DETE, 10 ILIIUN. COMMERICAL TRACT 6) ACTIVE OPEN MR.ACT SKIN IIII -13AC 30 AWAGE EASEMENT ZWX 21 IRST MiNAHAIN PRELIMINARY PL N MAH WOODLAND 0 Im ISrw2w CONDOMINIUMS MARCH I H. -4 r r PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 24, 1980 Board Present: Paul Eckman, Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Ross, Gary Spahr, Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Explained function of the Planning and Zoning Board. Advised the audience to contact city staff to determine the date an item will go to Council. 5. 1. Approval of minutes of February 25, 1980. 2. #60-79A Woodlands P.U.D., Phase II Consent 3. #11-80 Platte River Power Authority P.U.D., Amendment, Preliminary Agenda 4. #230-79A The Landings Phase IV, Revision 5. #14-80 Coachliaht Plaza P.U.D. Wells: Explained the purpose of the consent agenda, and asked whether anyone wished any items be removed from consent. (No such requests.) Introduced planning staff. Asked for additions and corrections to the minutes. Van Driel: Submitted correction. Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the consent agenda. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. Wells: Described the criteria for consideration of rezoning requests, pointing out that the most important were those in the Land Use Plan. Stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to justify the need for change of zoning, and explained the procedure to be followed in hearing the rezoning petition. 6. #221-79 Prospect Lemay Rezoning A request to rezone 5.1 acres from R-P, Planned Residential, to B-P, Planned Business, and 6.7 acres from R-P to R-H, High Density Residential, located at the southeast corner of.Prospect St. and Lemay Avenue. Applicant: Reid Rosenthal, 300 Spinnaker Ln., Fort Collins, CO 80525. Waido: Described the site and the requested zoning. Gene Mitchell: Stated he had opposed rezonings in the past, but that in this case there would be no bulk mass commercial.which could be competitive with the Scotch Pines market area or deletrious to the neighborhood. Said they planned a campus -type mix of commercial with small offices. MEETING DATE: April .15, 1980 ITEM NO. 26 (continued) Woodlands Phase II PAGE NO. 2 Coverage Buildings Street R.O.W. Parking & Drives Open Space Active Residual Parking Required Provided 1.2 acres 12.2% 2.9 acres 29.6% 1.6 acres 16.3% 3.0 acres 33.7% 1.1 acres 10.2% 191 (153 Standard) . 229 (147 Standard, 34 compact, 10 handicapped, 24 motorcycle) Maximum Building Height 40' from average finish grade Woodlands Overall Density to Date 6.0 DU/AC Recommendation: At their regular business meeting on March 24, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the preliminary P.U.D. plat of the Woodlands Phase II 060-79A). CITY OF FORT COLLINS MEETING DATE: April 'I,,, 1980 ITEM NUMBER: 26 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SUBJECT: Woodlands Phase II, Preliminary P.U.D. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Board: Approval (5-0) Planning Staff: Approval BACKGROUND SUMMARY: FROM: The applicants are requesting preliminary planned unit development approval for 9.8 acres consisting of 120 multiple family units. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential and is presently vacant. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Harmony Road and Shields Street. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RLP; Vacant (proposed single family residences in the Woodlands, Phase I) S: FA1; Larimer County Voc-Tech Center W: FA1; Vacant E: RLP; Vacant (proposed convenient shopping center in the remaining portion of the Woodlands) Land Use Breakdown Total Gross Area 426,900 square feet 9.80 Acres Total Net Area 301,400 square feet 6.92 Acres Dwelling Units 1 Bedroom 78 units 2 Bedroom 42 units Total Units 120 units Density Gross 12.2 DU/AC Net 17.3 DU/AC Building Areas Type 1 12 units/bldg. 11,360 sq. ft. Type 2 12 units/bldg. 12,690 sq. ft. Type 3 24 units/bldg. 20,700 sq. ft. CITY OF FORT COLLINS , August 5, 1980 Item #6 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97; 1980, Appropriating Unanti- cipated Revenues in the Capital Projects.Fund.. Item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance. No. 98, 1980, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund. Item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1980, Appropriating Unanti- cipated Prior Year Reserves in the Community Services Fund. Item #9 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1980, Providing a_ Permit System for the Carrying of Concea ed Weapons. Item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102,. 1980, Rezoning Property Known as Fox Meadows II. Item #11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1980, Rezonin Known as Ti ey-C aner Rezoning. Item #12 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1980,. Annexing Pr Known as Dixon Creek Annexation. Item #13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1980, Zoning Property Known as Dixonxo�x Creek to Conditional R-P. Planned Residentia . Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. Item #16 Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 106,_1980, Increasing Street Oversizing Fees. Item #17 Hearing .and First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1980, Appro- priating Funds from Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund. Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, Reeves, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 271 August 5, 1980 19. New Hampshire Subdivision, Final. This is a request for final approval of a 4 lot subdivision plat on 37.02 acres. The site is located north of Danfield Court, south of Meadows East Subdivision, west of Timberline Road and west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The property is zoned R-H, High Density Residential, and R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. 20. Woodlands Phase II, Condominiums Final P.U.D. This is a final P.U.D. proposal for Phase II of the Woodlands. The applicant is requesting final approval of a 120 multiple family units, on 9.8 acres, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. The site is located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Harmony and Shields Street. 21. Greenfield Village, Master Plan. The applicant is requesting master plan approval on 69.3 acres, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Horsetooth Road acid Timberline Road. The master plan consists of 54 acres of mixed . residential units including single family units, condominium townhomes and apartments, and 57 mid -rise dwelling units. The proposal for the site also includes a 15.3 acre neighborhood shopping center. . 22. Greenfield Village, Phase I, Final. This is a final proposal for Phase I, a 66 single-family lot area in the Greenfield Village Master Plan Area, located on the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Timberline Road. 23. Twin Spruce Farm, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat. The applicant is requesting preliminary subdivision plat approval for a one -lot subdivision. The 2.27 acre site.is located south of Mul- berry Street, and approximately 165 feet west of Taft. Hill Road. END CONSENT ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Kraj icek. Item #5 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 96 1980, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Seven Year Capital Fund. `fin August 5, 1980 C. Agreements for Mulberry Street Improvement District No. 74 as follows: FEE SIMPLE GRANTOR CONSIDERATION TEMP. CONST. CONSIDERATION PERMANENT EASEMENT CONSIDERATION Nelson $ 190.00 $ 60.00 $ Fredman 250.00 100.00 Mason 218.75 31.25 Hannah 180.00 70.00 Moore 123.75 41.25 Fletcher Heinrich.(Revised) United Pentacostal Church Ricketts 380.00 (175.00) 210.00 500.00 70.00 (75.00) 65.00 180.00 300.00 50.00 402.19 50.00 420.00 TOTAL CONSIDERATION $ 250.00 650.00 250.00 300.00 600.00 (rounded) 450.00 + 50.00 275.00 1,100.00 D. Easement agreement with Alden T..Hill, Alden V. Hill and Ann L. Deseran for the South Shields Street Water ine, paralTeTTing Shields between Horsetooth and Harmony. This permanent easement is 20' by 1320' and is being granted for a consideration of $2,848 plus $605 for a temporary construction easement ($.015 per sq.ft.). 16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance -No. 106, 1980 Increasing Street Oversizing Fees. The Ordinance increases the street oversizing fee to $254.00 per D.U. for residential and $2,296.00 per acre for commercial and industrial. 17. Hearing and First. Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1980, Appropriating Funds from Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund. Council reviewed a proposed study to analyze the feasibility of a Convention Center Complex in downtown Fort Collins. The cost of this feasibility study was $45,000. This Ordinance appropriates $45,000 from prior year reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund since it is a one time expense and may be reimbursed later in the project. 18. Golden Meadows Fourth Filing, Final. This is a final P.U.D. proposal for the 4th filing of Golden Meadows. The P.U.D. is for 147 single family units on 27.95 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, located east of Lemay Avenue and north of Wheaton Drive. 269 August 5, 1980 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1980, Rezoning Property Known as Tiey-C an er Rezoning. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and is a request to rezone approximately 69.2 acres currently zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, to I-P, Industrial Park District, located on Timberline Road, south of Horsetooth Road. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1049 1980, Annexing Property Known as Dixon Creek Annexation. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and is a request .for annexation of 58.7 acres, located south of Drake Road, east of Overland Trail extended and approximately one-half mile west of Taft Hill Road. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1980, Zoning Property Known as Dixon Creek to Conditional R-P, Planned Residential. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a 5-1 vote on July 15 and would, zone the proposed 58.7 acre Dixon Creek Annexation R-P, Planned Residential with a maximum density of 8 DU/acre. 14. Appointment of Wanda Krajicek as Acting City Clerk. The Charter requires that Council confirm the City Manager's appoint- ment of the City Clerk. The City Manager has appointed Wanda Kraji.cek as Acting City Clerk, effective August 4, 1980. Council needs to confirm the appointment. 15. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Storm drainage easement from John and Dorothy Neutze containing 0.2089 acre at a cost of $920 0e per sq.ft. ocated paral- lel to the extended Wood Street. This easement is needed for storm drainage portion of the Equipment Services facility pro- ject, to be completed by August 15th. The City is also obtaining a temporary access easement at this location to reduce by two miles the travel distance to the Poudre Trails construction site.. The temporary access easement contains 0851 acre and .is being granted by Neutze for a consideration of $1.00. ,. B. Exchange of property with the S & F Agency south of Highway 14, to accommodate the realignment7 of the PoRre Trails across the Schneider property. There is no consideration for this ex- change. August 5, 1980. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1980, Appropriating. Prior Year Reserves in the S&ven Year Capital Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and would appropriate $232,000 from the Seven Year Capital Fund to be used for the Downtown Employee Parking Lot and the Street Rehabilitation Program. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1980, Appropriating Unantici Revenues in the Capff—aT Projects Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and would appropriate $554,409.27 for the Downtown Employee Parking Lot, Street Rehabilitation Program, and Street Capital. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1980, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and would appropriate $6,237 to cover the estimated 1980 cost for the use of a City truck by Recycle Something. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1980, Appropriating Unantici Prior Year Reserves in the Community Services Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and would appropriate a transfer from the Revenue Sharing Fund to the Community Services Fund for expenditure in 1980. The expense of $6,237 is for equipment fund rents when Recycle Something utilizes a city truck on an emergency basis. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1980, Providing a Permit System for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and would authorize the Chief of Police to issue• permits for concealed weapons. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1980, Rezoning Property Known as Fox Meadows II. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 15 and is a request to change the zoning of approximately 15.27 acres cur- rently in the T. Transition Zoning District, to R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential District, located at the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road. 267 I August 5, 1980 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 5, 1980, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Council - members: Bowling, Kross, Reeves, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.- Absent: Mayor Gray and Councilmember St. Croix. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lewis, Lanspery, Krajicek, C. Smith, Krempel, and D. Johnson. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager John Arnold noted that there were no changes to the agenda and no items of other business. Councilman Wilkinson asked that Item #14, Appointment of .Wanda Krajicek as Acting City Clerk, be removed from the Consent Calendar. Assistant Mayor Wilmarth asked that Item #17, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1980, Appropriating Funds�_trom Prior Year eserTt ve in the ev�fF enue 3FaringFund',` be removed from theConsent Calendar. Patricia Hoffman, 2211 W. Mulberry asked that Item #23, Twin Spruce Farm, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat, be removed from the Consent a en- dar. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. 4. Consider approval of the Minutes of the Regular_ Meeting of July 15, I980. 266 AM, or A. LANDSrLDn�`(�; )00 u CONDOMINIUMS MARCH t Im A MEETING DATE: August 5; 1980 ITEM NUMBER: 20 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FROM: John E. Arnold SUBJECT: Woodlands Phase II, Condominiums Final P.U.D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends Approval. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: This is a final P.U.D. proposal for Phase II of the Woodlands. The appli- cant is requesting final approval of a 120 multiple family units, on 9.8 acres, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. The site is located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Harmony and Shields Street. At their regular business meeting on March 24, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the preliminary P.U.D. City Council approved the preliminary P.U.D. April 15, 1980. The staff recommends approval of the Woodlands Phase II, Condominiums, Final P.U.D. (#60-79B). CITY OF FORT COLLINS Section 2. That, for the foregoing reasons, the proposed amendment does not constitute "a major change" to the Project and is not subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 3. That the Planning and Zoning Board's decision with regard to the Project is hereby overturned. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of Council of the City of Fort Collins this 5th day of September, A.D. 1995. ATTEST: City Clerk 2 Mayor RESOLUTION 95431 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO OVERTURN CITY STAFF'S DECISION TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE FOR THE WOODLANDS CONDOMINIUMS P.U.D., SECOND FILING WHEREAS, on June 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board") overturned City staff s decision to administratively approve a proposed amendment to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing, (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, a timely Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc., affected parties -in -interest, alleging that, in making its decision, the Board: (1) failed to properly interpret or apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; and (2) the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previous established rules of procedure and considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, WHEREAS, on August 22,1995, the City Council considered the foregoing appeal, reviewed the record on appeal and heard presentations regarding the same; and WHEREAS, at the hearing on the appeal, the attorney for the Appellants withdrew the Appellants' allegation that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in this matter; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing, the City Council determined that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply Section 29-526(F)(6)(d) of the Land Development Guidance System in finding that the proposed amendment to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. Second Filing constituted a major change to the Project; and WHEREAS, Section 2-56(c) of the City Code requires that, no later than the date of its next regular meeting, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the proposed amendment to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. Second Filing does not change the character of the Project, increase the problems of traffic circulation or public utilities associated with the Project, reduce by greater than three percent (3%) the approved open space for the Project, increase the approved gross leasable floor area of any commercial buildings in the Project, or increase the approved number of residential dwelling units in the Project. W VC ed>>om Page� of the project along with the num- ber of bedrooms, parking spaces and use of open space. On May 12, according to Sun- ness' complaint, the city plamring department approved the changes. However, the city's Land Development Guidance , System requires "major changes"to be ap- proved only by the city's Planning and Zoning Board. Neighbors filed an appeal of the changes and were granted a June 26 hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. The board voted 5-2 to overturn the planning department ruling, agreeing with neighborhood resi- lents that the changesto the area?" Sunness said Wednesday. City Attorney Steve Roy said Wednesday that new utility plans and traffic studies will have to be done before the project can move forward. Under city land -use guidelines, Roy said the council looked only at physical.changes to the project when making its Aug. 22 decision. Roy j said the fact that the project`: changed from owner - owned ':condos to apartments wasn't relevant to the changes considered by planning stag' and council. `What's really a'private matter," Roy said. . A:, hearing on the complaint, which will be heard by Judge Wil- liam F. Dressel, has not yet been set. Worry_____ HP donates. $500,000 :W+ Uea from Page ei toward- new computer lab Their message: Change is com- Project were major. But the developer then ap- pealed that decision to the City Council, which voted Aug. 22 to overturn the Planning and Zoning Board ruling. On Sept. 5, the council adopted a resolution say- ing the project changes were not major and therefore not subject to review by the planning. board. '.,. In effect, the council reaffirmed the original planning department decision to allow the changes. Sunness said the revised' project, with the changes allowed., by City Council, make it a very different proposal than the one approved in 1980. "It may have been appropriate then, but what impact will it have now in.view of the growth in the 19, and it probably won't be pop- 'y DThe CobrHALEY lar. -1 remember a year ago we 'ere talking about health-care re- trm, and we all know what.hap- ened to health-care reform;" said avid Selleck, Medicaid expert ith the Health Care Finance Ad- inistration, the government or- mization that oversees Medicare id Medicaid. He was referring to resident Clinton's much bal- hooed — and nearly universally oiled — health-care reform pro - am killed by intense and power- 1 lobbying. Engineering students at Colo- rado State University soon will get more of the hands-on experi- ence needed to compete profes- sionally, thanks to a newly un- veiled half -million -dollar com- puter lab. .For. many Years, engine was an art, a craft, but for the last 20 years, it was more of a sci- ence," said Allan Kirkpatrick, as- sociate department head in me- chanical engineering. "(This labo- ratory) really allows us to have an CSU Porate and private ,money has been used to set up engineering .experiments on the network, ac- cording to CSU. The laboratory has 30 com- puter workstations and a series of Programmed engineering experi- ments. Once students hook their projects up to the computers, they7l receive immediate feed- back on possible glitches. School makes wish ey CAN HAM The Cobtadom Hoping to build on this year's windfall of funding from the state Legislature, Colorado State Uni- versity has strung together a wish list that includes more than $18 million in capital construction and building repairs for the next year. And that's only for top -priority projects. CSU officials contend aging, di- lapidated buildings on campus have created a backlog of more than $82 million in deferred maintenance. That figure contin- ues . to grow every Year, despite CSUs efforts every year to get more money to . Patch up the school's worst areas: Of the more than $18 million CSU is asking for, only $7.5 mil- lion would be used for deferred maintenance. Those repairs could range from upgrading electrical Systems 6 rePlacing plumbing.' c The rest of the money would be used for new construction of reno- vation that changes the use of the building.- . But any cash must first be rec- ommended by the state Legisla- ture's Capital_ Development Com- mittee, then approved by the General Assembly. The com- mittee, recently visited the,: Fort Collins campus during a two -lay Maternity Clothing New • Quality Consignments 344 E. Foothills Parkwav CSU tour of campuses. It's far too early to much money,. if any, CS get, but the committee stands the`ireed to fund d maintenance, said ,com member Rep. Peggy Reev Fort Collins;'. If you don't maintain ftO, the cotif to renovate Pai just increases dra►iiati Reeves said:::_:."I think the mittee understands the Colorado St4has." Part of the ooimnittee's tA CSU: ran through the engine building, which] CSU has as its next big project. Ogici" Pect it will cost between $13 lion and $15 million to reno the building and attach a 15,1 square=foot addition. CSU wants $1.3, million f the state. to cover;the prof planning, consulting fees. thinit`it's a tremendous vantage for. (le gislatbrs) to 1 their time:and come and se firsthand, { said Geary Born CSU s vice' president �or admi trativeey,go and the, space.see'...:.faci crammed into old : `offices` i Unique Clothing and Gifts for Kids- _ _ the table call for elimi- edicare/Medicaid as en- : programs, meaning r longer mandatory fed- ams to which people are �d access. think the politicians are the situation of low- derly," said Garrison, a �acher/homemaker and recipient. "What I fear are too many political Garrison was one of about 50 people who attended a public forum on the topic at the Fort Col- lins Senior Center, 1200 Raintree Drive. The forum, "Changes in Medi- care/Medicaid: How They Will Af- fect You," was sponsored by Cath- olic Charities Northern and fea- tured four local and state health- care experts. See WORRY, Page 64 "Changes -In Medicare/Medicaid: How They Will Affect You," a free public forum sponsored by Catholic Charities Northern, will be held a second time Saturday at the Chil- son Senior Center, 700 E. 4th St., Loveland. Registration is at 9 a.m. The pro- gram runs from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Gerontologist James Reisberg will lead the discussion. Featured speakers: ■ Lynda Nielsen, executive di - - - g1YlJ t�ti�lf�k"F'H� c' b n Michael Madridrrhe Coloradoan rate of speed is dis- er. The unit was placed on North Lemay Avenue on Wednesday. The nienfs SMART trail- ' trailer is one tool in the citys fight to slow down motorists. peelers get the :picture t drive range for a demon - of camera radar, call tllins police at 221- Id ask for one of the in the traffic unit, or Davis at 221-6550. back of an incronspicu- g vehicle will clock speeds, take a pho- f their license plates to tickets that will be the scofflaws. d "camera radar," and coming soon to a street near you. "I'm very excited," said Fort Collins police officer Jeff Groves. "When you get down to the bot- tom line, with the growth that Fort Collins has experienced and the community problem of speeding that we have, we're not succeeding in our current efforts to slow traffic down." As part of the process, Fort Collins police officers will be demonstrating the camera radar system over the next few weeks to any groups that want to see it. The City Council will consider entering a formal contract with the company that markets the camera radar system, and the evaluation and demonstrations will play a part in that decision. The camera radar system, won't cost the city any money — a portion of each fine goes to the company that makes it — and does the work of 19 officers. It sounds like a good idea to Richard Bader, who in the past year has seen four motorists skid into neighbors' yards be- cause they were driving too fast. At least one member of the City Council will vote for it. "I support it absolutely une- quivocally," Councilman Will Smith said. "Not a problem." rector of the Health Care Access Coalition of Larimer County. ■ David Selleck, of the Medicaid division of the Health Care. Finance Administration. ■ Richard Jackson, of the HCFA's Medicare division. ■ Robert Pierce, of the Colorado Insurance Commission. For more information on the pro- gram, call Catholic Charities North- em at 404-5010 in Fort Collins. or 663-1880 in Loveland. City sued over. vote on housing By STEVE PORTER The Coloradoan A Fort Collins man is asking a Larimer District Court judge to overturn a City Council decision on a 116-unit housing project on the city's southwest side. Eric A Sunness, a local lawyer and resident of a neighborhood that would be affected by Wood- lands Apartments Planned Unit Development, filed the civil action against the city and city council this week. Sunness is arguing that the project needs a more complete re- view before construction starts. That was the position taken by the city's Planning and Zoning Board earlier this year. The City Council, however, overruled the planning body and voted to let the project proceed. Woodlands Apartments is a housing project planned for the northeast intersection of South Shields Street and Harmony Road. The project would add 116 apartments to the mostly residen- tial neighborhood, which is north of Front Range Community Col- lege. Sunness said residents • are upset by project changes approved by city planning staff in May. They include changing the project from condominiums to apart- ments and adding 74 bedrooms and 15 more parking spaces. The Woodlands Condominiums project was approved by the city in 1980 but never built. On May 4, the developers, Kaufman and Broad Multi - Housing Group Inc. based in Cali - forma, asked the city to change the name and character See VOTE, Page 04 5. Granting the Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED this 3rd day of October, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Eric A. Sunness, #22690 Plaintiff 4406 Rosecrown Court f Fort Collins, CO 80526 (970)223-5207 G WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for a judgment against the Defendant as follows: 1. Directing the Defendant's to certify to this Court according to C.R.C.P. 106 (a) (4) (i) all of the records of the hearing held by the City Council on August 22, 1995 regarding the Appeal and resolution 95-131 making findings and conclusions regarding the Appeal, including a videotape of the hearing of August 22, 1995 and a written transcript thereof and further including all evidence and written objections incorporated into the record of such hearings; (ii) all tapes and transcripts of the Planning Board's hearing of June 26, 1995 in which the Planning Board overturned City staffs decision to administratively approve a proposed amendment to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing. (iii) a certified copy of Resolution 95-131 of the City and a certified copy of the charter of the City; and (iv) all ordinances and regulations of the City pertaining to the subject matter of this action, including but not limited to, Chapter 29 of the Code (Zoning, Annexation and Development of Land); the LDGS Regulations, including all amendments, exhibits and addenda thereto; Article II of Chapter 2 of the Code, Sections 2-351 through 2-355, inclusive, of the Code; (v) the Files of the City Planning Department and staff related to the Preliminary Plan, and any other information including but not limited to Staff Reports, which were certified to the City Council as part of the record at the hearing on the appeal. 2. Declaring the action of the City Council overturning the Planning Board's June 26, 1995 decisions to deny an administrative change request to the project to be invalid. 3. Declaring that the City Council improperly allowed the introduction of evidence which was not presented at the June 26, 1995 Planning Board hearing. 4. Ordering the City Council to issue its resolution affuming the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board overturning the City Planning Department's decision to administratively approve a change request to the project. 5 17. The actions and decisions of the City Council complained of herein were taken by the City Council as an inferior tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions. 18. The decision of the City Council on the appeal to overturn the Planning and Zoning Board's June 26, 1995 decisions exceeded the jurisdiction of that body. 19. The decision of the City Council to overturn the decisions of the Planning Board constituted an abuse of discretion. 20. The action of the City Council in considering new evidence and accepting the Appeal on grounds different than those contained in the record of the June 26, 1995 Planning Board action exceeded the jurisdiction of that body.,*,. 21. The action of the City Council in considering new evidence and accepting the Appeal on grounds different than those contained in the record of the June 26, 1995 Planning Board action constituted an abuse of discretion. 22. The action of the City Council acting as an appellate body constituted a trial de novo as if no action whatever had been held by the Planning Board in the first instance, exceeded the jurisdiction of that body. 23. The action of the City Council acting as an appellate body constituted a trial de novo as if no action whatever had been held by the Planning Board in the first instance, constituted an abuse of discretion. 24. The Action of the City Council failed to properly consider whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented to support the decision of the Planning Board, and exceeded the jurisdiction of that body. 25. The Action of the City Council failed to properly consider whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented to support the decision of the Planning Board, and constituted an abuse of discretion. 26. The Plaintiff has no plain, speedy or adequate relief at law 27. The City Council did not properly apply the LDGS Regulations and the Code in acting on the Appeal. 28. A genuine controversy exists between the parties. 29. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. 4 vested property rights which included among other things, changing the name of the project from Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. to the Woodlands Apartments P.U.D., a change in the number of bedrooms, parking spaces, and use of open space within the project. 11. On May 12, 1995, the City Planning Director administratively approved the change request for the subject property, submitted by Kaufman. 12. On May 26, 1995, the neighbors, represented by David M. Herrera, Attorney at Law, filed an appeal of the City staff's decision to approve the requested changes to the project administratively, and were granted a hearing before the Planning Board. 13. Section 29-526.F (6)(a) of the Land development Guidance System, ("LDGS") states that "major changes" to a P.U.D. shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board. 14. On June 26, 1995, the Planning Board in a five to two vote, overturned the City staffs decision to approve the administrative changes to the project, determining that the project (as proposed) constituted a "major change" to the P.U.D pursuant to the LDGS Regulations. 15. On July 10, 1995, Kaufman filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to overturn the City staff s decision. In the Notice of Appeal, Kaufman alleged that: 1. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter [Section 2-48(1), City Code]. 2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter [Section 2-48 (2)a., City Code]. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ( C.R.C.P. 106 [a] [4] [III] ) 16. The Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 hereinabove as if fully set forth herein. 3 4. The City is a home -rule municipality and has the authority to adopt and enforce zoning and subdivision regulations for the incorporated territory within its boundaries. As part of its zoning regulations, the City has adopted the Land Development Guidance System ("LDGS Regulations") for the development of property as a planned unit development ("PUD"). 5. The LDGS Regulations require that both a preliminary and final PUD plan for a proposed project be submitted to the City and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board of the City ("Planning Board"). Pursuant to Section 2-353 of the Code of the City ("Code"), the Planning Board has the authority to take final action on all planning matters, subject only to the right of a party -in -interest to appeal such final action to the City Council. 6. Pursuant to Sections 2-46 through 2-56, inclusive, of the Code("Appeal Procedure") an appeal filed by a party -in -interest who is not a member of the City Council must allege certain errors committed by the Planning Board. The. Appeal Procedure requires that the appeal shall be an appeal on the record of the hearing of the Planning Board and that the City Council shall, after a determination of the sufficiency of the grounds for an appeal and consideration of the merits, uphold, overturn, modify or, under some circumstances, remand the decision of the Planning Board based upon such record. 7. Pursuant to Section 2-56 (a) of the City Code, new evidence shall not be considered on appeal except to the extent that such new evidence is offered in support or in opposition to an allegation under Section 2-48 (2) of the Code that a board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Any such new evidence shall be limited to that which directly rebuts or supports the allegedly false or misleading evidence. 8. The subject property , The Woodlands Condominiums PUD, which is located at the Northeast Quadrant of South Shields Street and West Harmony Road, was originally approved by the City on or about August 5, 1980, for 120 multi -family residential dwelling units on 9.8 acres. 9. - At an informational meeting which was held on February, 13, 1995, the City ber3 f Planning staff informed^;'"residing m the neighborhood adjacent to the project, ("neighbors") that the final approval file had been misplaced. There was no way to determine, therefore, whether the final approval was conditional and, if so, whether the conditions had been satisfied. 10. On May 4, 1995, the developers, Kaufman and -Broad -Multi -Housing -Group, Inc., a California corporation, ("Kaufman"), requested an administrative change to the 2 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 95 CV Courtroom o� COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 106 [a] [4] ERIC A. SUNNESS, Plaintiff, VS. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ANN AZARI, GINA C. JANETT, CHRIS KNEELAND, WILL SMITH, CHARDS WANNER, BOB McCLUSKEY AND ALAN APT, Defendants. The Plaintiff, Eric A. Sunness, states and alleges for his complaint against the Defendants as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. The Plaintiff is a party -in -interest and owns real property which is located within five hundred (500) feet of the real property which is the subject of this action ("The Property"). 2. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado ("City"), is a Colorado Municipal Corporation, the incorporated territory of which is situated in Larimer County, Colorado. The property is located within the municipal boundaries of the City. 3. The City Council of the City ("City Council") is the governing body of the City. At all times pertaining to the actions complained of, Defendants, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, Smith, Wanner, McLuskey and Apt, were the duly -elected and acting - members of the City Council. The following documents are served herewith: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT DONE this 3rd day of October, 1995. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ERIC A. SUNNESS, ESQ. NOTE: This is an Attorney issued document. Eric A. Sunness, Esq. #22690 Plaintiff 4406 Rosecrown Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 (970)223-5207 0 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 9J`�C ;/�po?o Courtroom SUMMONS ERIC A. SUNNESS, Plaintiff, VS. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ANN AZARI, GINA C. JANETT, CHRIS KNEELAND, WILL SMITH, CHARLES WANNER, BOB McCLUSKEY AND ALAN APT, Defendants. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court an Answer or other response to the attached Complaint. This Complaint may not yet be on file with the District Court Clerk. If not, it will be filed within ten (10) days after service upon you in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR ANSWER IS DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE UPON YOU AND NOT WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT IS FILED. If service of the Summons and Complaint was made upon you outside of the State of Colorado, you are required to file you Answer or other response within (30) days after said service. If you fail to file your Answer or other response to the Complaint in writing, within the applicable time period, judgement by default may be entered against you by the Court for the relief demanded in the Complaint without further notice. . AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 23 DATE: September 5, 1995 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Stephen Olt SUBJECT: Resolution 95-131 Makin, Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the June 26, 1995 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to Overturn City Staff's Decision to Approve an Administrative Change for the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 10, 1995, an appeal of the June 26. 1995 final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to overturn City Staff's decision to approve an administrative change for the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing was filed by Appellant Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc. On August 22, 1995, City Council voted 5-1 to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. BACKGROUND: The appellants' notice of appeal was based on allegations that: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter;" "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter." At the August 22, 1995 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the appellant, the attomey for the appellant, and opponents to the appeal. After discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Board did not properly interpret relevant provisions of the City Code and Charter. The appellant withdrew the allegation that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing. City Council determined to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.