HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL ..... 8/29/95 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 19-94C - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL0
mitigation by the developer. In approving this proposal, the board supported Staff `s conclusion
that the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. pertaining to wildlife habitat protection (A-
1.3) and natural features (A-2.3) have been satisfied.
IV. Allegation: Storm Drainage/Water Quality
The appellants allege that general area contains underground springs and that the natural
drainage outfall, the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch, is seriously eroding due to the recent high
runoff. Stormwater Engineer, Glen Schlueter is quoted as stating the Poudre Ridge
homeowners have reason for concern due to drainage issues related to this development.
Further, water quality issues were not properly addressed in the review of this P.U.D. As a
result, the board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant(2-48 [2d]).
Staff Response
There are three All Development Criteria in the L.D.G.S. which address these allegations:
A-3.2 Design Standards
A-3.3 Water Hazards
A-3.4 Geologic Hazards •
The Stormwater Utility has reviewed the Drainage Report, Drainage and Grading Plan, and
Erosion Control Plan for Woodland Park Estates Final P.U.D. Eased on review and evaluation,
the Stormwater Utility has advised the board that the P.U.D. satisfies the applicable criteria.
Evidence presented to the board included a report from Stormwater Utility Engineer Glen
Schlueter that the amount of surface runoff entering the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch will be reduced
due to the introduction of a stormwater detention pond. Such a pond will capture developed
storm flows at a natural low point and release these flows into the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch at a
controlled rate known as the "two-year historic rate." This rate is less than the undetained
"sheet" flows that currently run off the undeveloped property and impact the ditch. In addition,
this urban runoff will be conveyed by natural swales, not concrete, allowing sediment and
heavier particles to drop out before entering the ditch thus promoting water quality.
The attribution to Mr. Schlueter regarding stormwater concerns was made at a point in time prior
to full review of a detailed storm drainage analysis of the P.U.D. With subsequent
documentation, review, and evaluation, the Stormwater Utility reported to the board that the
P.U.D. satisfied the necessary drainage requirements.
5 0
•
Woodland Park Estates P.U.D. obtained at total of 75 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart
of the L.D.G.S. These points were reviewed and evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Board at
the consideration of the Preliminary P.U.D. which was granted on February 6, 1995. The
L.D.G.S. requires that no less than 60 points be earned for P.U.D.'s with a density of 6.00 or
fewer d.u./acre. The Final P.U.D. has been found by the board to be in substantial compliance
with the Preliminary P.U.D.
The open space areas that are provided consist of heavily wooded areas that were planted as an
agricultural windbreak decades ago. These areas satisfy the L.D.G.S requirement that:
"Recreation space shall mean privately owned open space which is designed for active
recreational use for more than three families and would qualify as one of the following
categories:
"A parcel of land not less than 10,000 square feet and not less than 50 linear feet in the
smallest dimension."
The wooded areas meet the dimensional requirements. The wooded areas will be held in a
separate tract and not part of the individual platted lots.
Staff evaluated the open space for its qualitative value and determined that opportunities exist for
active recreation within the wooded areas. Active recreation does not always have to consist of
structured organized play. Rather, non-traditional recreation such as exploring, tree climbing, and
hide-and-seek, are equally valid activities. Further, the preservation of the wooded areas
represents a valuable resource not usually found in our semi -arid climate. In approving this
application, the board concurred with these conclusions.
III. Allegation: Effect on Wildlife
The appellants allege that an independent wildlife biologist has found that the subject area
contains enough wildlife that displacement due to development will put pressure on other
nearby areas. Information from personal observation, slides, and photographs
documenting the wildlife values were presented to the board for consideration. These
concerns were ignored by the board. In addition, the P.U.D. will violate goal statements
made in the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the Land Use Policy Plan. The board
improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant (2-48 [2d]).
Staff Response
Both the Preliminary and Final P.U.D.'s were evaluated for natural resource values by the
Department of Natural Resources. On both occasions, the D.N.R. advised the Planning
• Department that these 35 acres do not contain sufficient amounts or type wildlife to warrant
4
•
I. Allegation: Incompatibility
The first allegation is that the P.U.D. is basically incompatible with the Poudre Ridge
neighborhood. The P.U.D., at 3.00 dwelling units per acre, is too dense for the
surroundings. The appellant's contend that the applicants should have requested, and the
board should have considered, a request for a variance from the absolute requirement of
the L.D.G.S. that residential planned unit developments be at least 3.00 d.u./acre. This
allegation consists of two components:
A. The board failed to properly interpret and apply sections of the
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County and
the Land Use Policies Plan (appeal criterion 2-48 [1]). The appeal contains language cited
from these two documents pertaining to land development and neighborhood
compatibility.
B. The board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure
(appeal criterion 2-48 [2d]).
The appellants reference an action by the board on another item, known as the Robert
Shields Second Annexation and Zoning, in which a 6.07 acre of ground, presently
containing two existing dwellings, was recommended to be zoned R-L, Low Density, .
Residential, WITHOUT the P.U.D. condition. By not containing the P.U.D. condition, this
6.07 acre parcel is free from the requirement of developing at a minimum of 3.00 d.u./acre
and to obtain 60 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. in order to
develop at 6.00 or fewer d.u./acre. The appellants cite this action as evidence that the
Woodland Park Estates P.U.D. could have been considered for a similar zoning resulting in
a lower density more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Staff Response:
A. Failure to Properly Interpret Sections of the Code and Charter:
The Intergovernmental Agreement is not the regulatory mechanism by which to review
residential development within the city limits. The I.G.A. applies only to those parcels located
outside the city limits and within the Urban Growth Area. For parcels located within the city, the
Zoning Code, the L.D.G.S, and the other adopted plans and policies are the regulatory tools by
which to evaluate land development proposals.
The document that is used to review and evaluate issues related to neighborhood compatibility is
the L.D.G.S. This document is used to regulate land use proposals that are submitted as planned
unit developments. The L.D.G.S. is the implementation tool of the Land Use Policies Plan.
2 0
• 0
The L.D.G.S. was substantially modified recently to remove the three previous criteria pertaining
to "compatibility" and replace them with the new, expanded All Development Criteria found in
the March 1994 Revised L.D.G.S. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the relevant
evidence and found that Woodland Park Estates P.U.D. complied with the All Development
Criteria of the L.D.G.S.-Gornt laea 77,
B. Substantially Ignored Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure:
It is true that Woodland Park Estates was zoned with the P.U.D. condition, while Robert Shields
Second Annexation and Zoning is recommended to not contain this condition. (The lack of
attaching a P.U.D. condition does not constitute a "variance".) The reason is there are significant
differences in terms of location and size that merit individual consideration.
For example, Woodland Park Estates is 35 acres and borders an arterial street, an industrial park,
and rural residential lots. These factors require a sophisticated analysis of compliance with City
policies and land development impacts on surrounding properties. Robert Shields Second
Annexation, on the other hand, is only 6.07 acres, already contains two dwellings, and is located
internal to the square mile, with no adjacent residential properties along its eastern border.
In evaluating these differences, the board determined that each parcel is best suited for review by
different criteria. This individual consideration of two different parcels by the board does not
constitute a failure to follow previously established rules of procedure.
II. Allegation: Points for Open Space/Recreation Area
The appellants state that there is an ordinance (#142-??) requiring that there be "sufficient
on -site recreation areas to protect the adjacent neighborhood." The appellants contend
that the P.U.D. does not contain such areas. The open areas for which points were granted
do not allow for traditional outdoor play opportunities for children. As such, there will be
trespassing on private properties. By granting points on the Residential Uses Point Chart
of the L.D.G.S., the board failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter (2-48 [11).
Staff Response
Staff is not aware of any Ordinance that requires each individual filing (straight subdivision or
P.U.D.) to provide sufficient on -site recreation areas to protect the adjacent neighborhood. In
addition, Staff is not aware of an Ordinance 142-?? that refers to open space. Rather, the City's
long-standing policy has been to assess a Parkland Development Fee on a per unit basis to fund
acquisition, planning, and construction of a network of neighborhood parks. Such parks are
considered to provide a higher level of recreational needs for the neighborhoods than private
open space provided by developers on a per filing basis.
0 3
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
Comn0ty i'lanr.;r.cy acd Fnviror.mentrvices
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
August 21, 1995
Mayor and Members of City Council
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
Woodland Park Estates, Final P.U.D., Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the appeal regarding the July 24, 1995
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board granting approval of the Woodland Park Estates Final
P.U.D., #19-94C.
Section 2-48 of the City Code states:
"A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Council the final decision of any board or
commission to which this appeal procedure applies in the manner provided in the Division. The •
permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission
committed one or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code or Charter.
b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established
rules of procedure; or
C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant.
•
281 north College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002
Citv CIA •
CitV of Fort Collins
•
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, August 29, 1995, at 6:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the 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 July 24, 1995 regarding Woodland Park Final PUD, #19-94C,
filed by Sandra Thomas and Scott Courtney for the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood. 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.
Written comments are also welcome. If you have any questions, require further information, or wish
to submit written materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the
Planning Department (221-6750). Agenda materials provided to the City Council will be available
to the public on Thursday, August 24, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
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 (221-6515) for assistance.
ki1t
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
August 15, 1995
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) 221-6515 9 FAX (970' 22-1-o-295
ADMINISTRATION
(c) In the event of multiple appeals involving
the same decision of a board or commission, the
Mayor, in his or her discretion, may modify the
procedure contained in subparagraph (a) above so
as to expedite the hearing of such appeals.
(Code 1972, § 3A-10; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 2, 9-1-
87; Ord. No. 174, 1988, §§ 2, 3, 12-20-88; Ord. No.
111, 1989, § 4, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 7, 4-3-
90; Ord. No. 139, 1990, 1-15-91; Ord. No. 59,
1994, § 4, 4-19-94)
Sec.2-56. New evidence; scope of review;
alternative actions available to
the City Council; date of final ac-
tion.
(a) The City Council shall consider an appeal
based upon the record on appeal, the relevant pro-
visions of the Code and Charter and the grounds
for appeal cited in the notice of appeal. New evi-
dence shall not be considered on appeal except to
the extent that such new evidence is 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. Any such
new evidenoe shall be limited io that which di-
rectly rebuts or supports the allegedly false or mis-
leading evidence. The Mayor, upon the advice of
the City Attorney, shall determine the admissibil-
ity of all evidence at the hearing on appeal, which
determination may be overturned by majority vote
of the members of the Council present at the hear-
ing.
(b) In considering an allegation that a board or
commission failed to properly interpret and apply
the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter as-
serted under § 2-48(1), the City Council shall de-
termine how such provisions should, in the Coun-
csl's judgment, be applied to the evidence con-
tained in the record on appeal.
§ 2-71
(c) At the conclusion of such hearing, the City
Council shall uphold, overturn or modify the deci-
sion of .the board or commission; provided, how-
ever, that the City Council shall instead remand
the matter for rehearing if it finds that the appel-
lant was denied a fair hearing before the board or
commission for any of the reasons stated in § 2-
48(2). No later than the date of its next regular
meeting, the City Council shall adopt, by resolu-
tion, findings of fact in support of its decision. The
date of passage of such resolution shall be the date
of final action of the City Council for the purpose
of any subsequent judicial review of the decision of
the City Council.
(Code 1972, § 3A-11; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 3, 9-1-
87; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 8, 4-3-90; Ord. No. 67,
1993) § 3, 7-20-93; Ord. No. 59, 1994, § 5, 4-19-94)
Secs.2-57-2-70. Reserved.
ARTICLE III. BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS*
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 2-71. Meetings defined, open meetings
required; exceptions.
(a) The following words, terms and phrases,
when used in this Division, shall have the mean-
ings ascribed to them in this Section:
Meeting shall mean any gathering of a quorum
or three (3) or more members, whichever is fewer,
of any board or commission of the city, or any
committee of such board or commission, at which
any public business is discussed or at which any
formal action may be taken, but shall not mean
any chance meeting or social gathering at which
the discussion of public business is not the central
purpose.
*Charter references -Appointive boards, Art. IV, § 1; Water
Board, Art.1QI, § 7.
Cross references -Open meetings, § 2.621 et seq.; Liquor
Licensing Authority established, § 3-31; Board of Elections cre-
ated, § 7-26; Massage Licensing Authority created, § 16-16;
Personnel Board created, § 21-26; Board of Trustees of the
Firefighters' Pension Plan created, § 2142; Retirement Com-
mittee created, § 21-86.
Supp. No. 31 163
§ 2-51 FORT COLLINS CODE
Sec.2-51. Amended notice of appeal per-
mitted.
An amended notice of appeal may be filed by the
appellant at any time prior to the time for mailing
by the City Clerk of notice of the appeal to other
parties -in -interest as contained in § 2-54. Such
amended notice of appeal shall contain all of the
information required under § 2-49 for the original
notice of appeal. Amendments to the notice of ap-
peal need not be limited to those defects, if any,
which have been identified by the City Attorney.
(Code 1972, § 3A-6; Ord. No. 111, 1989, § 3, 8-1-89;
Ord. No. 59, 1994, § 2, 4-19-94)
Sec. 2-52. Cost of appeal.
In all appeals except those filed by members of
the City Council, the appellant shall be charged a
fee of one hundred dollars ($100.) for the cost of
the appeal, to be paid to the City Clerk at the time
of the filing of the notice of appeal.
(Code 1972, §. 3A-7; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 4, 4-3-90)
Sec. 2-53. Record on appeal.
Any appeal to the City Council shall be an ap-
peal on the record of the hearing before the board
or commission. The record provided to the City
Council shall include the following:
(1) All exhibits, including, without limitation,
all writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs,
photographs and other tangible items re-
ceived or viewed by the board or comma ion
at the proceedings;
(2) A verbatim transcript of such proceedings
before the board or commission. The cost of
the transcript shall be borne by the city.
(3) If available, a videotape recording of such
proceedings before the board or commission.
The cost of reproducing any such videotape
for review by the City Council shall be borne
by the city. Additional copies shall be pro-
vided to any party -in -interest requesting the
same within a reasonable period of time
prior to the date for hearing the appeal, at a
cost not to exceed the actual reproduction
costs incurred by the city.
(Code 1972, § 3A-8; Ord. No. 174, 1988, § 1, 12-
20-88; Ord. No. 23, 1990, §§ 5, 6, 4-3-90; Ord. No.
59, 1994, § 3, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 5, 1995, 2-7-95)
Sec. 2-54. Scheduling of the hearing.
In the event of an appeal, the City Clerk shall
schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the
City Council as expeditiously as possible. The City
Clerk shall provide the appellant and all other
parties -in -interest fourteen (14) days' written no-
tice of the date, time and place of the hearing as
well as the grounds for the appeal as contained in
the written notice of appeal.
(Code 1972, § 3A-9)
Sec. 2-55. Procedure at the hearing.
(a) At the hearing on the appeal by the City
Council, the presentation of argument on the mer-
its of the appeal shall be made in the following or-
der, subject to such limitations in time and scope
as may be imposed at the discretion of the Mayor:
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and
presentation by city staff;
(2) Presentation of argument by the appellant
and any party -in -interest in support of the
appeal;
(3) Presentation of argument by any party -in -in-
terest who is an opponent of the appeal;
(4) Rebuttal presentation by the appellant and
any party -in -interest in support of the ap-
peal;
(5) Rebuttal presentation by any party -in -inter-
est who is an opponent of the appeal; and
(6) Motion, discussion and vote by the City
Council.
(b) No person making a presentation to the City
Council shall be subject to cross-examination ex-
cept that members of the City Council and the
City Attorney may inquire of such person for the
purpose of eliciting information and for the pur-
pose of clarifying information presented.
Supp. No. 34 162
no) anm09'IF%V(s).l
(6) Zoning Board of Appeals.
(Code 1972, § 3A-1)
Editor's note —Subsection (4) formerly referred to the Build-
ing Contractor Licensing Board, which is no longer in exis.
tence, being replaced by the Building Review Board pursuant to
Ord. No. 93, 1987. The editor has, therefore, deleted former
subsection (4) and has renumbered subsections (5)—(7) as
(4)—(6).
Cross references —Building Review Board, § 2-117 et seq.;
Landmark Preservation Commission, § 2-276 et seq.; Planning
and Zoning Board, § 2-351 et seq.; Storm Drainage Board, § 2-
411 at seq.; Zoning Board of Appeals, § 2-441 et seq.; Fire
Board of Appeals, §§ 9-2, 9-5.
Sec.2-4& Appeal of final decision per-
mitted.
A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Coun-
cil the final decision of any board or commission
to which this appeal procedure applies in the
manner provided in this Division. Except for ap-
peals by members of the City Council, for which
no grounds need be stated, the permissible
grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations
that the board or commission committed one (1)
or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply rele-
vant provisions of the Code and Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its
authority or jurisdiction as contained in
the Code or Charter;
b. The board or commission substantially
ignored its previously established rules
of procedure;
C. The board or commission considered ev-
idence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly mis-
leading; or
d. The board or commission improperly
failed to receive all relevant evidence of-
fered by the appellant.
(Code 1972, § 3A-3; Ord. No. 124, 1987, § 1, 9-1-
87; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 1, 4-3-90; Ord. No. 59,
1994, § 1, 4-19-94)
Sec. 2-49. Filing of notice of appeal.
§ 2-50
An appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of ap-
peal of the final decision of a board or commission
to which this Division applies with the City Clerk
within fourteen (14) days after the action which is
the subject of the appeal. Such notice of appeal
shall be signed by all appellants and shall include
the following information:
(1) The action of the board or commission which
is the subject of the appeal;
(2) The date of such action;
(3) The name, address, telephone number and
relationship of each appellant to the subject
of the action of the board or commission;
(4) For all appeals except those filed by mem-
bers of the City Council, the grounds for the
appeal, including specific allegations of error
and a summary of the facts contained in the
record on appeal which support those allega-
tions.
(Code 1972, § 3A-4; Ord. No. 111, 1989, § 1, 8-1-
89; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 2, 4-3-90; Ord. No. 67,
1993, § 2, 7-20-93)
Sec.2-50. Review of notice of appeal by
City Attorney.
Within five (5) working days of the date of the
filing of the notice of appeal, the notice shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney for any obvious de-
fects in form or substance. The City Clerk shall
notify the appellant in writing by certified mail of
any such defect in the notice of appeal, which no-
tice shall be mailed no more than ten (10) working
days from the date of filing of the notice of appeal
and which shall specify the period of time within
which any amended notice of appeal must be filed
under § 2-51.
(Code 1972, § 3A-5; Ord. No. 111, 1989, § 2, 8-1-
89; Ord. No. 23, 1990, § 3, 4-3-90)
Supp. No. 34 161
§ 2-34 FORT COLLINS CODE
or City Council committees for which public notice
is required to be given by the provisions of the
Code. The posting shall include, where possible,
information about the availability of agenda ma-
terials.
(Ord. No. 91, 1992, § 8, 9-15-92)
Sees.2-35-2-45. Reserved.
DMSION 3. APPEALS PROCEDURE'
See.2-46. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when
used in this Division, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this Section:
Appellant shall mean a party -in -interest who has
taken an appeal from a board or commission to
the City Council by the filing of a notice of appeal.
Applicant shall mean the person who or orga-
nization which submitted the application to the
board or commission whose decision has been
appealed.
Final decision shall mean the action of a board
or commission by a vote of a majority of its mem-
bers when no further rehearing is available before
such board or commission; provided, however,
that a recommendation to the City Council from a
board or commission shall not be considered as a
final decision of that board or commission.
New evidence shall mean any evidence relating
to the proposal or application which was the sub-
ject of final decision by a board or commission and
which was not presented at the hearing before
such board or commission.
'Cross references —Appeals from the Liquor Licensing Au-
thority, § 3-36; appeals from the Building Review Board may be
heard by the City Council. § 5-312; appeals from the decision of
the city regarding alarm permits to the City Council, § 15-36;
appeals from the determinations of the Building Review Board
regarding alarm permits to the City Council, § 15.41(b);
disapproval of pawnbroker's license may be appealed to the
City Council, § 15-265(c); applicant for license regarding places
of entertainment may appeal the decision to the City Council, §
15-298; appeals from the denial of the secondhand dealer's
license to the City Council, § 15-318(d); appeals for denial of a
license for a mobile home park may be appealed to the City
Council, § 18-5(d).
Party -in -interest shall mean a person who or
organization which has standing to appeal the
final decision of a board or commission. Such
standing to appeal shall be limited to the fol-
lowing.
(1) The applicant;
(2) Any party holding a proprietary or posses-
sory interest in the real or personal property
which was the subject of the decision of the
board or commission whose action is to be
appealed;
(3) Any person to whom or organization to
which the city mailed notice of the hearing
of the board or commission;
(4) Any person who or organization which sent
written comments to the board or commis-
sion prior to the action which is to be
appealed;
(5) Any person who appeared before the board
or commission at the hearing on the action
which is to be appealed;
(6) The City Council as represented by the re-
quest of a single member of the City Council.
(Code 1972, § 3A-2; Ord. No. 67, 1993, § 1, 7-20-
93)
Cross reference —Definitions and rules of construction gen-
erally, § 1-2.
Sec.2-47. Certain appeals to be taken to
City Council.
Appeals from the following boards and commis-
sions, permitted under the provisions of this Divi-
sion, shall be taken to the City Council in the
manner as set forth in this Division:
(1) Building Review Board;
(2) Fire Board of Appeals;
(3) Landmark Preservation Commission;
(4) Planning and Zoning Board;
(5) Storm Drainage Board;
Supp. No. 24 160
•
Mayor and Members of City Council
August 23, 1995
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION AS TO FINDINGS
Since there are allegations made that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing,
I would recommend that the Council first address those allegations and, if it determines that the
Board did fail to conduct a fair hearing, the Council must remand the matter to the Board for
rehearing. If the Council determines that the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing, then the
Council should address the issue of whether the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and either uphold, overturn or modify the decision of
the Board. If the Council finds that the Board did not properly interpret the Code and/or Charter,
it would be necessary to specify the particular Code or Charter provisions that were not properly
interpreted and applied.
At the next Council meeting, I will have a resolution summarizing the Council's findings and
decision.
WPE:med
Attachment (Appeal Provisions of Code,)
cc: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Services and Environmental Planning
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
Ted Shepard, City Planner
Vfi1LU1Lf Ta GorvoatT
A FniR HEPft.iN4 ,
ES
leCtIf(n+D FR1LUR.t TD pizec I
To Sn1`rby 1r"r nNn MPj,y
D}Z 9CWAOT PRovirifws OP
TMf COME.
A. Urm-o
5, r o01PI
C• O r M'UL(j —► C i rr The
PARr.tuM(l
CODE
fEer1 eN
Mayor and Members of City Council
August 23, 1995
Page 5
RECORD ON APPEAL
Section 2-53 provides that the appeal shall be "on the record," which record includes the minutes of
the Board meeting, as well as all exhibits received or viewed by the Board, the video tape of the
proceeding and the verbatim transcript of the proceedings pertaining to the appeal. Sec. 2-56 of the
Code provides that the City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal as well
as the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and also the grounds for appeal cited in the notice
of appeal.
Since there is no allegation that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading, new evidence could not be considered by the Council.
There are a couple of specific instances in this Notice of Appeal that could result in the improper
introduction of new evidence into the record. First, in the opening paragraph of the appeal, the
Appellants request that certain correspondence and other documents be "included with this appeal."
I have instructed Mr. Ted Shepard to examine carefully the record that was presented to the Planning
and Zoning Board and its July 24, 1995 meeting to insure that all items that were given to the Board
at that meeting are included in the packet that is presented to the City Council. If anything further
should be presented to the Council it would violate Sec. 2-53(1) which limits the items that can be
contained in the record on appeal. To the extent that the opening paragraph requests documents that
do not fit within that codified definition of the "record on appeal," they should not be received by
the Council. Secondly, in the Appellants's discussion of their first issue (pertaining to
compatibility/density) they make some allegations regarding statements that were made at the
February 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and also at the June 7, 1994, City Council
meeting. These statements may or may not be part of the "record on appeal" depending upon
whether the arguments were made by the Appellants at the July 24, 1995 meeting. I was not in
attendance at that meeting but I will review the tape prior to the City Council hearing so that if a
controversy should arise regarding this issue, I will at least have some familiarity with what
transpired at that meeting.
APPLICABLE LAW
In addition to the appeals provisions of the Code, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum,
the applicable law for the Council to consider in this appeal consists of the LDGS.
•
Mayor and Members of City Council
August 23, 1995
Page 4
Woodland Park P.U.D. The reason that the Board did not grant the variance was, by the admission
of the Appellants, because "this developer never asked for a variance."
Whether or not the Board has granted "variances" to others begs the question. The Board must
consider the applications that come before it as they are presented. If an applicant does not desire
to request a variance, the Board cannot, without the applicant's consent, reduce the residential
density of the application and impose upon the applicant, a variance to the law that requires
residential density of a lesser magnitude. (As mentioned above, the Board is not, under the terms
of the LDGS, at liberty to impose any additional requirements or conditions with regard to layout
and density at the time of final plan approval.) Although it is true that the Board can condition its
approval upon certain requirements, those conditions must be fashioned for the purpose of insuring
that the development will comply with the law. Conditions should not be imposed upon a
development without the consent of the applicant, which would require the development to violate
the law (in this case, the law requiring a minimum residential density of three dwelling units per
acre). The only way that the Board can authorize a "violation" of the law is through the granting of
a variance and if the applicant does not desire a variance, the Board cannot impose one unilaterally.
PROCEDURE FOR RECEIVING EVIDENCE
Section 2-55 of the Code prescribes the following manner in which presentations are to be made,
subject to such limitations in time and scope as may be imposed at the discretion of the Mayor:
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and presentation by City staff;
(2) Presentation of issues by the appellant and presentation of argument by any
party -in -interest in support of the appeal;
(3) Presentation of argument by any party -in -interest who is an opponent of the
appeal; and
(4) Rebuttal presentations by the appellant and any party -in -interest in support
of the appeal;
(5) Rebuttal presentation by any party -in -interest who is an opponent of the
appeal; and
(6) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council.
Mayor and Members of City Council
August 23, 1995
Page 3
the Code or Charter that pertains to the land use approval of a P.U.D. My research has not resulted
in the surfacing of any "Ordinance No. 142" that is relevant to this issue.
II. Failure to conduct a fair hearing/failure to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
Appellants.
The first issue raised by the Appellants (the compatibility/density issue) also contains an allegation
that the Board failed to receive (and consider) all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. It
appears from the Appellants arguments raised in their first issue that the Board may have "received"
all the evidence offered by the Appellants, but that the Appellants believe that the Board did not
"consider" some of their evidence. The Council may wish to inquire of the Appellants for
clarification on this point, however, Sec. 2-48 of the Code does not allow for a finding of a failure
to conduct a fair hearing if the Board simply failed to "consider" relevant evidence offered. The
Board must have failed to "receive" this evidence.
Another allegation that the Board failed to "consider" relevant evidence which was offered by the
Appellants was found in their third issue which pertains to wildlife in the area. Again, the argument
is made that two different opinions were given to the Board and that the Board "seemed to ignore
the second opinion." The Appellants argue that the Board did not "consider" relevant evidence
offered by the Appellants, however, as before, the Board is only required to "receive" all relevant
evidence offered. It does not have to agree with all of the evidence offered.
The fourth issue raised by the Appellants pertains to storm drainage and also contains an allegation
that the Board failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. In this instance, it
is alleged that the Board "failed to question Mr. Glen Schluter" about a comment that he had
allegedly made to some of the Appellants at a separate meeting. The Board has no legal obligation
to develop evidence. It is the obligation of the Applicant and the opponents of the Application to
present the evidence to the Board. Furthermore, it appears from the Notice of Appeal that the Board
may have had no knowledge of Mr. Schulter's statement and could not have developed evidence
even if it had desired to do so. Certainly, sometimes through questioning, the Board does develop
evidence but it has no obligation to do so.
III. Failure to conduct a fair hearing/ignoring its previously established rules of procedure.
The first issue raised by the Appellants (pertaining to compatibility/density) also includes an
allegation that the Board did not conduct a fair hearing because it substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure. This issue is based upon the allegation that the Board had earlier
granted some variances to the residential density requirements of the Land Development Guidance
System but did not grant a variance to the residential density requirements with respect to the
Mayor and Members of City Council
August 23, 1995
Page 2
The Land Development Guidance System is part of the City Code and, by reference through Chart
A-1.2, the Land Use Policies Plan is integrated into the Land Development Guidance System
through the requirement that the development be in accordance with the adopted elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. As I have indicated in the past, I believe that the City's Comprehensive Plan
as it is presently constituted does not make a legally sound enforcement tool because it was drafted
as an advisory document. It is my opinion that, with respect to many of its provisions, the
Comprehensive Plan may likely be too vague and overbroad to be used as an enforcement and
regulatory tool. Therefore, my advice has been that if a development is to be denied upon the basis
that it fails to comply with Chart A-1.2, I would strongly recommend that the Council also attempt
to find another criteria of the Land Development Guidance System that can be used to support the
denial of the plan, in conjunction with the usage of Chart A-1.2.
Perhaps the most important thing to note about the first issue is that it suggests that the Council
should overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on the basis of the residential density
approved for the project. Since the project was approved as a final P.U.D. plan, Sec. 29-526(F)(5)(c)
becomes applicable. That section is found at the top of page 94 of the Land Development Guidance
System and provides as follows:
The Final plan shall also comply with all other applicable criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System provided, however, that the Planning and Zoning
Board shall not impose additional requirements or conditions pertaining to the
general layout and densities as shown on the preliminary plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board was not at liberty to impose additional requirements or conditions
pertaining to general layout and density (from those shown on the preliminary plan) at the time it
reviewed the final plan. It seems that the Appellants are, in their first issue, principally questioning
the "general layout and density" of the development, which became established at the time of
approval of the preliminary plan. If "general layout and density" was intended by the Appellants
to be challenged, they should have appealed the Board's approval of the preliminary plan.
The second issue raised by the Appellants also seems to address the issue of whether the Board failed
to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Although the second
issue does not specifically cite that allegation, it makes the argument that a criterion regarding on -
site recreation areas "has not been met by the developer." The Appellants refer to this criterion as
being contained in Ordinance No. 142 without giving the year of enactment of that ordinance. With
respect to the second issue which was raised by the Appellants, even though the Notice of Appeal
did not cite a specific "allegation of error" as contained in Sec. 2-48 of the Code, I believe that it is
permissible for the Council to impute the allegation of error of "failure to properly interpret and
apply the Code" from the context of the issue raised by the Appellants. Even so, the fundamental
concern that I have with the issue is that the Appellants have not cited an identifiable provision of
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
City of Fort Collins
DATE: August 23, 1995
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembersj
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attome�
RE: Appeals Procedure— Woodland Park P.U.D. (Planning and Zoning Board Item #19-
94C)
A Notice of Appeal has been filed by Dick and Ellie Chinn, et al. with respect to the July 24, 1995
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board ("the Board") approving the Woodland Park P.U.D. Final
Plan. (Steve Roy has a conflict of interest regarding this item and will not be attending the meeting,
with the disconcerting result that you will have to make do with me.)
ISSUES ONAPPEAL:
Whether the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter (Sec. 2-48 (1) of the Code).
II. Whether the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it:
(A) Failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellants. (Sec. 2-48(2)(d) of
the Code).
(B) Substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure (Sec. 2-48(2)(b)
of the Code).
ANALYSIS:
I. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply the Code.
The first issue raised by the Appellants pertains to whether (principally because of its residential
density) the Woodland Park P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In support
of the Appellants' argument, the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Urban Growth Area and the
City Council's goals are cited. Neither of these constitute part of the Code or Charter of the City and
therefore do not fit within the proper grounds for appeal under the allegation of error that the Board
failed to "properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter." However, the
Appellants also refer to the Land Development Guidance System and the Land Use Policies Plan.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520
6oundations axe dug and ew is poured, it w.itl be -too Jeto have .the area. The
proposed 5ubd.iv.i,5ion, as it now stands, cuitt be an .isotated devetopment .in the midst
o6 a totatty d.io6erent .type o6 neighborhood and w.i,e7 be out o6 "sync" and not congruent
with it's surroundings. As the mayor, Ann Azar.i, was tecentty quoted as saying a6ten
attending a mayor's con6etenee, "There has aeways been a ptobtem with the one size bits
ate mentati,ty. " We ask that .the Fott Cotl.ins City Council not try to make this "size"
6i t this area.
This amended notice o6 appea.e .is submitted 14 August 1995 by the paxt.ies-in-.i .tersest
who own homes within 500 beet o6 the pnopohed woodland Park 5ubd.i.v.i,5ion, and/ot have
tece.ived notice. 06 meetings and hear.ing6 concerning the project, and/ot have appeared
at both neighborhood and P. K Z. Board meetings and/or have wtd tten tettM4 to the
City coneetn.ing the pro j eet.
Dick K Ettie Civnn
3731 E. floxsetooth Road
Font Cott u¢s, Cotoxado 80525
(970) 22.3-3214
Scott K Nancy Courtney
3256 Nite Count
Font Cott.ins, Cotoxado 80525
(970) 226-5502
Jim K Karen Gleason
3808 S. County Road 9
Fort CotZ.i.ns, Cototada
(970) 225-8018
Dan K Sue HendeA,son
3824 Nite Count
Fort Cot G.ns, Colorado
(970) 225-7225
Sam K Cathy Sands
3816 Nice Court
Fort Cot it.6, Cotoxado
(970) 226-3292
David K Sandra Thomas
4104 S. County Road 9
Font Cottins, Cotoxado
(910) 226-1903
80525
80525
80525
80525
Bitt watxen
3109 Micheete Lane
Font Cott.i.ns, Cotoxado 80525
(970) 223-0880
W,7itten tetters to P. K Z. Board
Spoke at P. K Z. Board meetings
Scott Co ttney /,' Nancy Cou
OL tten ettets to P. K Z. Boat
Spoke at P. K Z. Board meet.i.ngs
7.i.m Gleason Karen Gleason
Wti tten Zettets to P. K Z. Board
Attended neighborhood meetings
Van _Hend enbon "Sue l(endea5on:
Spoke at P. K Z. Board meetings
Spoke at P. K Z. Board meetings
W,Litte.n Zettens to P. 8 7. Ronnd
OcuneA o6 home wd th in 500' o6 proposed zubd.iuiz i,on
wti ttennZZettens to P. K Z. Board
SpOG�
7/B�IIP. Z. Board meetings
G�'—
a.c,cx rxen
Wxit en tettets to P. K Z. Board
Spoke at P. K Z. Board meeting
David Robertson ex ,
3241 N.ite Count wt.itte titters to P. K Z. Boar
Fort Cott.ins, Cotoxado 80525
(970) 223-8630
Any notices that may need to be malted may be sent to either Scoti
Sandra Thomas at thew Le,5pective addresses t.isted above.
•
fLttney or 0
be allowed on that tract o6 A. Once that dec.t6-ion was made P. & Z. Board
did not attow .the appeltantz a 6avr hearing on vat-iance and d' not 6ottow prev.iousty
estab.P..ushed ptocedure which had just oecuted. (Font Cott.i.nz City Code 2-48 b.)
F.i.natZy, at the Font Cottinz City Council meeting o6 07 June 7994 -there was a
tengthy discussion on .the Harmony Cort.i.dot Ptan (which .includes a portion o6 our
ne.ighbothood) and Counc.i.ewoman Kneeland stated, "Devetopment shoutd 6.i,t .into the
ne.ighbothood-s. " The Woodtand Patk subdiviz ion does not 6.i t .into the s neighborhood.
The P. $ Z. Board did not 6ottow .the tutes and gui.deP.inez as set 6otth .in .the IGA,
the Font Cottinz Land Use Pot.ie.i,es Ptan on the City Council Goats which state that
.land use ptans 'lane cons.i.stant with community and neighborhood values. "
2. The City o6 Font Cott.ins Otdinance N142 states that there be 11su66.i,c..ient
on -site tecneati.on areas to protect the adjacent neighborhood." This etiter.ia has
not been met by the developer and the P. 9 Z. Board erred in apptov.ing the plan as
presented. One o6 the areas shown as open space/recteat.ion area .is a thicket o6 trees
tunni.ng the length o6 the center o6 the property 6rom west to east. Another area .is
on the east side o6 the proposed woodland Park development a shout distance south o6 the
thicket o6 trees. This area Z6 a deep depruss.ion (about 8' deep) which cannot be used
not can it be bitted .in Got use since this depression continues Got some distance into
the adjoining property. A third area deset.ibed by the developer Got open space/tecteat.ion
area .Ls on the northwest corner o6 the 5ubd.ivZ,5 ion. HoweveA, this area .us to be taken
up almost ent tety with a club house, swimming pool and a day care center. This does not
constitute 11su66.i.c..ient on -.bite teeteation areas. " A 6ubdiv.i s.ion o6 th.i s size .i s t.i.kety
to have more than 150 children without any true, active open space 6ot teeteation. Many
o6 these chi dten ate apt to gtay.itate to the ne.ighboai.ng ptopert.ies where some o6 the
home -owners have horses, ponds, etc.
3. These .i s cons.i.detabte witdli.6e in this anew. Someone within the city w.i,ldt.i6e
department stated that there i,6 not an appteciabte witdli.6e habitat in this area. How-
eveA, we consulted a witdl.i6e b.iotog.ist who .in6otmed us that there is enough witdti6e
.in th.iA atea to be concerned. This b.iotogizt's reasoning is that the mote witdt.i6e
habitats taken up with to denti.at areas, the mote that witdt.i6e wilt be crowded .into
an area too small to suppott the displaced witdl.i6e. Even cons.i,det.ing the area to the
' east o6 the Fos,6it Creek Intet that the city teeentty purchased there iz not su66.ic.i.ent
space 6or art the witdt.i je being diAptaced. These ate .two very d.i66er.ing opinions and
so, at best, they may be cons.i,deted subjective, but the P. 8 Z. Board seemed to .ignore
the second opinion. The Naturat Ateas Pot.iey Plan 6or the City o6 Fott Cottins states
(page 1-1), "W.ithin the urban setting o6 Fott Collins, naturat areas ptov.i.de .important
habitats Got the conservation o6 ptants and an.i.mats and theia assoc.i.ate.d ecosystems."
Further, the pot.icy plan dtates as one goat to "consider the long-range eeotogicat
e66eets" and to "-insure that the type, design and tocation o6 new development be
eompat.ibte with envitonmentat cons.i.denati,ons." One o6 the City Council Goals as
estabt.ushed in Resotut.ion 93-90 ds to "protect and enhance out enuiaonment and to
ensure that env.inonmental quality .is an .integtat pact o6 the c tu's Land use ."
Atthough the appettanta provided .in6otmatiok 6tom another b.iotog.ist, as weft as slides
and photogtaphs, the P. d Z. Board did not consider tetevant evidence o66eted by the
appellants. (Fort Cote.inb City Code 2-48 d. )
Out 6outth concern .is with the storm dtainage. Thus area .is butt o6 underground
dpt.ing6 as weft as the Fod-sit Creek Intet. Storm drainage water can, and probabty wilt,
negatf.vety a66ect the spti.ngs and .i.ntet. Fossdt Cteeh Intet tuns very butt much o6 the
time and .i,s eontinuatty being eroded. In the Harmony Road Cott.i.dot Ptan Generat
Dtai.nage tequucements it states that .in the Fox Meadows Basin (which .includes this area)
"on site detention wilt be 4equi4ed" and that "water quatdty izsues may be a concern".
W. Gten SchtueteA, of the City staJ6, totd uz a hew months ago when he was ratted by a
member o6 our neighbothood that we "have reason to be concerned and I don't btame you
Jon J.ight.ing the development. " However, when he spoke to the P. 8 Z. Board he gave no
such comment. The P. B Z. Board bailed to question Mr. Schuetten about thus comment and,
• thus, 6a.ited to nece.ive alt tetevant evidence o66med by the appettants. (City Code 2-48 d
For the reasons stated heAein and Got the reasons which have been stated .in tetters,
minutes and iecotds o6 meetings, which we ask be tev.i.ewed in the appeat process, the
undersigned tupectgutty request that the decision o6 the P. & Z. Board o6 24 Juty 1995
to approve the Woodtand Punk subd.ivi,6ion be overturned on reversed by the Font Cott.i.nz
City Counc-il so that something mote compatible may be developed .in this area. Once
• 14 Alest 7995 �vTtjN
Font ColZins City CouncitJ1995
300 evert LaPorte Avenue Font Cottins, Cototado 80521
AUG 1 •
NOTICE OF APPEAL
CJTY CLF.RK
The unde�csigned patt.Les-dn-.i.nteaeh.t, as de6.i.ned by .the City o6 Font ott.i;is code
(Section 2-46), hereby submit th.i,5 Notice o6 Appeat to .the Font Cott.Lns City Council.
Thin appeal concetns .the action o6 .the City o6 Fott Cotti.ns Ptann.ing and Zoning Board
(P. 8 Z. Board) on 24 Juty 1995 .in apptov.i.ng .the Woodtand Path P.U.D. (agenda .item
419-94C). We atso 4espect6utty teques-t that att cottespondence to .the City o6
Fott Cott.ins Ptanning Department (beginning with a tettm dated 22 Apt -it 1994), att
cot,%upondenee to the Ft. CotZins City P. B Z. Board, att photogtaphs, att slides,
att tetteks to the Fott Cott.i.ns City Councit and att teeotds and minutes 6tom P. 8 Z.
Board meetings, City Councit meetings and neighborhood meetings (the 6.inst 06 6out
held 22 June 7994) be .inetuded with this appeat. The P. & Z. Board meetings o6 coneenn
were 24 October. 1994 (item #18-948), 19 DecembeA 1994 (.item a18-94B), 06 Febtuaty 1995
(-item a18-94B) and 24 Juty 7995 (.item a19-94C).
The gtounds Got thus appeat ate based on .Ln6otmation .in the Land Devetopment
Guidance System (LDGS), the Intetgovennmentat Agteement (IGA), The City o6 Font Cottim
Land Use Poti.c.ies Plan and the City o6 Font Cott.i.ns Council Goats pat 7993-1995
(Resotution 93-90).
Out bout main concetns are:
1. Incompatibitity o6 the Woodtand Path subdivision with the suttounding ne.ighbothood.
2. Poi is given Got open space/t ecteatio n area.
3. E66ect on witdZi.6e.
4. Stotm dtainage and the e66eet on the water and ecosystem.
1. Out 6itst concern .is the .i.ncompat.ibZUty o6 th,Lz subdLv.isZon with out neighbor- •
hood which has been estabtd.shed 6ot 30 yeats. Unfit 1994 onty one home pet every 2.39
acres was attowed. The proposed subdivizion w.itt .increase the poputation o6 the ne.ighbot-
hood by 813%. T6ws is not eompatibte with the naghbothood. The IGA states (Exhibit B,
page 4 -- .item 1.A), "New tes.i,dent.iat development .in the Utban Gtowth Atea (UGA) shatt
mitigate potentiat negative impacts on adjacent existing tes.i.dent.i.a.t development by
maintaining the chatacten and density o6 the exizt- ng development atong common boundt.ies."
The City o6 Fott Cottins Land Use Pot.ic.iez Ptan states, "Regutate the use o6 tand on
the basis o6 it's impact on the community of suttoundi.ng area." (p. 3) It 6utthet states.
''Bu66ets 6ot Mitigation Putposes: Cettain types o6 tand uses ate .i.nhetentty incompatible
(due to no.ize, tra66.ic genetati.on, .iRtum.i.nated tight otate, etc.) and must be shietded
of sepatated 6tom each other." (p. 12) These ct.it" i.a ate a pant ob the Land Devetopment
Gu.idence System and the P. 8 Z. Board baited to ptopety .i.ntetptet and appty these
ctiter.i,a in the A decizion bon the Woodtand Patk 6ubdi,vis.ion and 6aited to teee.ive and
cons.Lden att tetevant evidence o66eted by the appettants accotd.ing to the Font Cott.ins
C.i.to Code 2-48 d.
At the P. g Z. Board meeting on 06 Febtuaty 1995 when both the devetopet and the
ne,L.ghbothood presented theiA ptoposats there was cons.idetabte di scuss.Lon by the board.
At that time the devetopet ptesented a ptan 6ot a totat o6 110 units 6o4 the subdivision.
Members o6 the board stated they woutd give ptetim.inaty apptovat but woutd not give
6inal apptovat .i6 at the next meeting the devetopet did not come back with a eons.i,detabte
adjustment so as to ptov.i.de an adequate bu66et area. At the P. B Z. Board meeting on
24 Juty 1995 the devetopet ptesented a ptan with 107 units (a Qeduet.L.on o6 onty 3 units).
There was a discussion with the board tasting about an hour and a hat6 but u timatety
they approved the ptan. The argument the P. 8 Z. Board made at every meeting was .that
the city otdi.nance states that any properties within city t.im-its must have 3 or mote
units pet acre. However, there ate seu mat ateas within the city where variances have
been attowed. This devetopen never asked Got a vat.i,anee. At this same meeting, 24 Juty
7995, the board apptoved a 6.07 acre patcet (.item a19-94D) in the consent agenda which
wilt have a totat o6 six homes on the pateet. That pateet d.iAeetty adjoins the proposed
Woodtand Path subd.iva ion. We ate det.ighted with that decision as it seems a 6avc
comptomi,se and is mote compatibte with the exi-6ting ne.ighbothood. 16 the vat.ianee can
I •
6oundati.ons ate dug and cement .ins pouted, it Witt be .too tate0o save .the area. The
proposed subdivision, as it now stands, witt be an i6otated devetopment in the midst
o6 a totatty d.t66etent -type o6 ne,ighbothood and wilt be but o6 "sync" and not congtue.nt
with .it's suttoundi.ngs. As .the mayor, Ann Azat.i., was tecentky quoted as saying a6tet
attending a mayot's con.6etenee, "There has aZways been a ptobtem with the one size 6.its
att mental ty." we ask that the Fott Cotti.ns City Counc t not tty to make thdJ "sd,ze"
6.it th.iu area.
TW amended notice o6 appeat i.6 submitted 14 August 1995 by the patties-in-i tetest
who own homey within. 500 beet o6 the ptoposed woodtand Patk subdivision, and/ot have
teee,i.ved notice o6 meetings and heating-6 coneeAndng the ptoject, and/ot have appeared
at both ne.i.ghbothood and P. 9 Z. Board meetings and/ot have wti tten t ettens to the
City concetn.i.ng the ptoject. /I
Dick 9 EtZi.e Chinn
3731 E. Hotsetooth Road
Fott Cottins, Cototado 80525
(970) 223-3214
Scott 8 Nancy Couttney
3256 N.ite Count
Fott Cot i.ns, CoZotado 80525
(970) 226-5502
Jim & Katen Gt.eason
3808 S. County Road 9
Fott Cotti.na, Cototado 80525
(970) 225-8078
Dan 9 Sue Hendet,son
3824 N.ite Count
Fort Cottins, CoZotado 80525
(970) 225-1225
Sam 9 Cathy Sands
3876 N.i to Count
Fott Cotti.ns, Cototado 80525
(970) 226-3292
David 8 Sandta Thomas
4104 S. County Road 9
Fott Cott ina, CoLotado
(970) 226-7903
Bitt watten
3709 M.Lchettek_Ldne
Fott Cottins, CoZotado
(970) 223-0880
wtdtten tettets to P. 9 Z. Board
Spoke at P. 8 Z. Board meetings
Scott Co�ttney � Nancy Coo/ ney
wti,tten ettets to P. 8 Z. Boat
Spoke at P. & Z. Board meetings
,Sim Gkeason Katen Gxeason
wtdtten .eettens to P. 8 Z. Board
Attended neighbothood meetings
Dan_Hendet6on -Sue tiende
Spoke at P. 9 Z. Board meetings
Spoke at P. 9 Z. Board meeti.nga
wt.itten tettens to P. 9 Z. Board n,
,-David Thomas Sanata inomas
80525 Owners o6 home within 500' o6 ptoposed subd.ivi,6 ion
wt.i tten tettets to P. 9 Z. Board
SpoG��Z. Board meetings
80525
David Robertson
3241 N.ite Count
Font Cotti.ns, Cototado 80525
(970) 223-8630
wtdtKn tettets to P. 8 Z. Board
Spoke at P. 9 Z. Board meeting
O Any notices that may need to be mailed may be sent to e.ithet Scott Couttney of
Sandta Thomas at theit tespect.ive addtesses .Fisted above.
be attowed on that tract o9and .then .the P. 9 Z. Boand moby not attow.ing .i,t on
the tract bon. the Wood -and Path subdZvizion.
F.i.na-ty, at .the Fott Cottinh City Councit meeting o6 07 June 1994 thence wa4 a
Lengthy ddscuzs.ion on the Hatmony Cott.i.dot Pkan (which .i.nctudes a pottlon o6 out
ne.ighbothood) and Councilwoman Kneetand stated, "Deveropment 6houtd bit .into the
ne-ighbothoodb." The Wood -and Patk 6ubd.iv.is.ion does not 6.it into this ne.ighbothood.
The P. & Z. Boand did not 6ottow .the tutu and gui.detines ab bet 6onth .in the IGA,
the Fott CotL nb Land Ube PoZi.c.i.es P-an of the City Counc t Goats which state that
.-and use ptans "ate cona.i stant with community and nedghbothood vatues. "
2. The City o6 Fott Cot ins Otdi.nance #142 states that there be "sud6ic.i.ent
on-sZte tecteat.ion areas to protect the adjacent ne,ighbothood." This cti,tet.i.a hab
not been met by the devetopen and the P. $ Z. Boand erted .in apptoving the plan as
ptesented. One o6 the ateab shown as open space/tecteati.on area .is a thicket o6 ttees
tunning the Length o6 the center o6 the pnopeAty 6tom west to east. Another atea .iz
on the east side o6 the proposed Wood. -and Patk deve-opment a zhott dZ6tance south o6 the
thicket o6 ttees. This area .is a deep deptess.ion (about 8' deep) which cannot be u4ed
not can .it be 6i ted .in Got use since this depression continues Got some distance .into
the adjoining ptoperty. A third area ducr.ibed by the devetoper Got open space/tecteation
atea is on the northwest cotnen o6 the subdivision. However, this area .is to be taken
up atmost entirety with a ctub house, sw.imm.ing pool and a day cafe center. This does not
constitute 11su66.i.c.ient on -Mite tecteati.on areas." A subdivision o6 th.is size .is t.ikety
to have mote than 750 chi,-dnen without any true, active open space Got tecteati.on. Many
o6 these chi-.dren ate apt to gtay.itate to the ne,ighbot.ing ptopett.i.es where some o6 the
home -owners have hotses, ponds, etc.
3. These .is cons.iderabte witdt.i6e .in this area. Someone within the city witdti6e
department stated that there .is not an apprec.i,abte witdt.i6e habitat in phis atea. How-
ever, we conbutted a wiidt.i6e b.iotog,i st who ,i.n6otmed us that there .is enough witdtL6e
.in this atea to be concerned. TW b.iotog.ist's reasoning .is that the mote witdt.i6e
habitats taken up with resddentiat areas, the mote that witdt.i6e wilt be crowded .into
an area too smatt to suppott the dizptaced witdt,i6e. Even considet.ing the area to the
east o6 the Fossil Creek Inlet that the city tecentty putchased there .is not su66.ic.ient
space Got att the witdti, e being di.6ptaced. These ate two veAy d.i.66en.ing op.i.n.i.on4 and
so, at best, they may be cons.ideted subjective, but the P. 9 Z. Boand seemed to .ignore
the second opinion. The Natutat Ateas Pot.(.cy P.-an bon the City o6 Font CotLLu states
(page 1-1), "Within the urban setting o6 Fott Cottdns, natutat areas ptov.ide .important
habitats Got the consenvatZon o6 ptants and anima-s and theiA associated ecosystems."
Futther, the poti.cy plan states as one goat to "cons.i.det the tong -range ecotogicat
e66ect4" and to "insure that the type, design and tocat.ion o6 new devetopment be
compat.ibte with envitonmentat cons.i.denati.ons." One o6 the City Council Goats a4
estabt.ushed in Resotuti,on 93-90 is to "protect and enhance out enviAonment and to
ensute that envitonmentat quat ty .i s an .i,ntegtat pact o6 the c.i ty's Land use . . . "
We do not beti,eve these ctitet.ia and goats have been met and that the P. 8 Z. Boand
erted .in gtant.ing apptovat o6 tW devetopment.
4. Our 6outth concern iz with the storm drainage. This area .is 6u-,- o6 under-
ground spt.ings as wett as the Foss.it Creek Intet. Stotm dtac:nage water can, and ptobabty
wilt, negati.vety a66ect the 6pni.ng.6 and inlet. Foss.it Creek Intet runs very butt much
o6 the time and iz continuatty being eroded. In the Hatmony Road Conn.idot Ptan
Genera.- Dtainage Requin.ements it states that in the Fox Meadows Basin (which .i.nctudes
this area), "on site detent.ian-wilt_ be.tequ red" and that "water . quat i,ty .issues may be
a concern . A member o6 the city sta66 .toed us a hew months ago we had reason to be
concerned about this pnobtem but neglected to te-t the P. 9 Z. Board about thobe concerns.
We have not yet been given .in6otmati.on as to how this drainage wilt be handted and where
the detention area wilt be. We believe the P. 8 Z. Boand erted .in not getting 6utthen
.in6otmat.i,on on this matter and .in not .i.n6onm.ing the existing neighborhood.
Fot the reasons stated hetein and Got the reasons which have been stated .in tettens,
minutes and tecotds o6 meetings, which we ash be tev.iewed in the appeat ptoeess, the
undens.igned tespeet6u-ty request that the decision o6 the P. & Z. Boand o6 24 Juty 1995
to approve the Woodtand Patk subdivision be overtutned of teversed by the Font Cott -ins
City Councit 4o that something mote compatibte may be devetoped .in this area. Once
•
E
•
I •
• 14 Aug
1 D
Font Cott.ins City Council
300 We6t LaPorte Avenue j AU6 1 4 1995
Font Cottin6, Cotorado 80521 a
NOTICE OF APPEAL CITY CLERK
The under6dgned parties -in -.interest, as de6-i.ned by the City o6 Font CoZLin6 Code
(Section 2-46), hereby 6ubm.it this Notice o6 Appeat to the Font Cotti•ns City Counczt.
Thin appeal concerns the action o6 the City o6 Font Cottin6 Ptann.ing and Zoning Board
(P. & Z. Board) on 24 July 1995 in appnov.ing the Woodland Park P.U.D. (agenda .item
a19-94C). We atso re6peet6utty request that att correspondence to the City o6
Font Cottiin6 Ptanndng Department (beginning with a tetten dated 22 Aptit 1994), att
correspondence to the Ft. Cot i.n6 City P. 9 Z. Board, att photographs, att 6tides,
att 2ette76 to the Font Cottins City Council and att record6 and minutes 6rom P. 8 Z.
Board meet.ing6, City Council meeting6 and neighborhood meetings (the 6itst o6 6our
held 22 June 7994) be .i.nctuded with this appeal. The P. & Z. Board meetings o6 concern
were 24 October 1994 (.item 818-94B), 19 December 1994 (.item N18-948), 06 February 7995
(.item #18-948) and 24 Juty 1995 (item N19-94C).
The ground6 6o4 this appeat are based on .i.n6ormation .in the Land Devetopment
Guidance Sy6tem (LDGS), the IntergoveAnmentat Agreement (IGA), The City o6 Fort Cott.ins
Land Use Pot.ie.ies Ptan and the City o6 Fort Cottin6 Council Goals 6or 7993-1995
(Ruotut.ion 93-90).
Our hour main concern6 are:
1. Incompat.i.bit.Zty o6 the Woodtand Park subdi.vizZon with the 6urrounding neighborhood.
2. Points given 6or open space/recreation area.
3. E66eet on witdZi.6e.
4. Storm drainage and the eb6ect on the watm and eco6y6tem.
1 . Our 6it4t concern i,6 the .incompat.ib.i Zity o6 thiz subdZviA ion with our neighbor-
hood which ha6 been e6tabtished 6or 30 years. Untie 1994 onty one home per every 2.39
acres was attowed. The proposed 5ubd.ivi6ion wilt .increa6e the poputat.ion o6 the neighbor-
hood by 813%. Th.Ls .ice not eompat.ibte with the neighborhood. The IGA 6tates (Exhi.b.it B,
page 4 -- item 1.A), "New res.ident.i.at development in the Urban Growth Area (UGA) shatt
mitigate potenti.a.t negative .impact6 on adjacent existing res.identiat development by
maintaining the character and den6ity o6 the exd,5t.ing development atong common boundr.ies."
The City o6 Font Cott.in6 Land Ube Pot.ic.ies Ptan states, "Regulate the use o6 tand on
the ba6iz o6 dt'6 .impact on the community or surrounding area." (p. 3) It 6urther 6tate6,
"Bu66er6 6or Mitigation Purposes: Cea.ta.i.n types o6 tand u6es are .inherenntty .incompat.ibte
(due to noize, tra66.ic genenat.i.on, ittuminated tight gtare, etc. ) and mu6t be 6iuseded
or separated 6rom each other." (p. 12) These c,% ten.ia have not been met by the developer
and, there6ore, .the P. 8 Z. Board erred by approving the ptan6 6or the Woodtand Park
s ubdZv.is.io n.
At the P. 9 Z. Board meeting on 06 February 7995 when both the developer and the
neighborhood presented their propo6at4 .there wa6 cons.i.denabte d.iscuss.ion by the board.
At that time the deveeopet presented a plan 6or a totat o6 110 units 6or the 'Subdivision.
Members o6 the board 6tated they woutd give pretim.i•nary approvat but would not give
6.inat approvat 16 at the next meeting the devetoper did not come back with a eons.iderabte
adjustment so as to provide an adequate bu66er area. At the P. g Z. Board meeting on
24 Juty 1995 the devetoper presented a ptan with 707 unit6 (a reduction o6 onty 3 uni ts) .
There wa6 a dizcu66.ion with the board tasting about an hour and a hat6 but utt.imately
they approved the ptan. The argument the P. & Z. Board made at every meeting was that
the city ordinance status that any properties within city limits must have 3 or more
units per acre. However, there are 5evetat areas within the city where variances have
been attowed. This developer never asked 6or a variance. At thus Game meeting, 24 Juty
7995, the board approved a 6.07 acre parcet (.item #19-94D) in the con6ent agenda which
wit have a totat o6 s.ixx homes on the parcel. That pareet d.vr.ectty adjo.in6 the proposed
Woodtand Park 6ubdZv.isi.on. We are deLLghted with that decizion as it seem6 a bait
comprom.i,se and iz more compatibte with the ex.izting neighborhood. 16 the varucnce can
City Cler➢ •
CiFort Collins
August 9. 1995
Scott Courtney/Sandra Thomas
3256 Nite Ct.
Fort Collins. CO 80525
Dear Mr. Courtney/Ms. Thomas:
This letter is in reference to your
appealing the Planning and Zoning
subdivision. The City Attorney has
findings are set out in the attached
wi lI want to pay particular attention
memorandum.
Notice of Appeal dated July 31. 1995,
Board decision on the Woodland Park
reviewed the appeal document and his
memorandum dated August 8. 1995. You
to the recommendations suggested in his
Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may
be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by the
City Clerk of the notice of the appeal to parties -in -interest. The City
Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 29,
1995. at 6:30 p.m., and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed no
later than August 15. 1995. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted
NO LATER THAN 12:00 NOON on Monday. August 14, 1995 to allow sufficient time
for legal review and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed on
August 15. 1995.
Sincerely,
Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 • FAX N(303) 221-6295
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
August 8, 1995
Page 2
The Notice of Appeal must also include the "grounds" for the appeal, including specific allegations
of error and a summary of the facts contained in the record on appeal which support those
allegations. The letter which I reviewed did not contain any specific allegations of error and should
be amended to include those. The allegations of error that are authorized in the City Code are found
in Sec. 2-48, and the Notice of Appeal must specifically allege one or more of those allegations of
error as well as a summary of facts that support those allegations.
Also, although Ordinance No. 88, 1995, had not yet gone into effect at the time of filing of this
appeal, I would recommend that the Appellants comply with the new provision contained in that
Ordinance that requires that in the case of an appeal by more than one appellant, the name, address
and telephone number of one such appellant who shall be authorized to receive, on behalf of all
appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants under the provisions of Sec.
2-50 also be included in the Notice of Appeal.
•
It is also important to mention that the Appellants are free to amend their Notice of Appeal beyond
those items that I have addressed in this Memorandum as being defects in the original Notice of
Appeal. Sec. 2-51 of the Code gives specific authority for appellants to so amend their Notices of
Appeal. However, any amended Notice of Appeal must contain all of the information required under
Sec. 2-49 for the original Notice of Appeal. In short, I think it would be beneficial to the Appellants •
for them to carefully examine the provisions of Secs. 2-48, 2-49 and 2-51 of the Code of the City
for the purpose of assisting them in filing the Notice of Appeal.
WPE:med
0
• •
Citv Attornev
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 1995
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City AttorneyA
RE: July 31, 1995 letter from Sandra Thomas and Scott Courtney
I have examined the July 31, 1995 letter from Sandra Thomas and Scott Courtney to the Fort Collins
City Council which was received by your office on August 4, 1995. Although it does not expressly
so indicate, it is obvious that this letter is intended to constitute a "Notice of Appeal" filed pursuant
to Sec. 2-49 of the City. As a "Notice of Appeal" it fails to meet the requirements of Sec. 2-49, and
the purpose of this Memorandum is to advise you of the findings of my review for obvious defects
in form or substance as required pursuant to Sec. 2-50 of the Code.
I believe that it will be necessary for the Appellants to file an amended "Notice of Appeal" and, in
so doing, I would recommend that they specifically indicate on the form of the Notice that it is a
"Notice of Appeal." More importantly, Sec. 2-49 should be carefully followed by the Appellants
in completing their Amended Notice of Appeal. First, the Notice of Appeal must be signed by all
appellants. With respect to this particular matter, it is indicated in the letter that the Appellant is the
"Poudre Ridge Neighborhood." I do not believe that the "Poudre Ridge Neighborhood" is a legal
entity capable of filing an appeal. If there is an official homeowner's association or other official
duly established association, corporation or other entity that could be shown to constitute a "party -in -
interest" as that term is defined in Sec. 2-46 of the City Code, then that entity could file a Notice of
Appeal but I am fearful that the "Poudre Ridge Neighborhood" would fail to fit the definition of a
"party -in -interest," in which event the appeal could be subject to challenge by its opponents.
I would also recommend that the Appellants clearly identify the action of the Planning and Zoning
Board which is the subject of the appeal. Reference was made in the letter to the "Woodland Park
Subdivision." I would recommend that that reference be amended to indicate the item number on
the Planning and Zoning Board agenda and to indicate that the project was a P.U.D. so as to not
confuse the project with what we commonly refer to as "standard subdivisions." The letter did
indicate the date of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Notice of Appeal must also include the name, address, telephone number and relationship of
• each appellant to the subject of the action of the Board. Often appellants fail to include addresses
and telephone numbers and it is also important for appellants to include information regarding the
"relationship" of each appellant, meaning information regarding how each appellant is a "party -in -
interest" capable of filing an appeal.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Boy 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520
• PAGE 3
On July 24, 1995 when the Woodland Park Subdivision came up for final review of the
Planning and Zoning Board, we and the developer's representative, Mr. Eldon Ward, again
presented our cases. We stated the concerns mentioned herein. Mr. Ward stated that they had to
go ahead with the development as submitted because the City would not allow them to build less
than three units per acre. However, the developer never asked for a variance to see if the city
would allow less. That night there was nearly two hours of questioning by the Board, who
seemed to be trying to determine appropriate criteria which would allow them to consider an
alternative to the three units per acre. The development was eventually approved, and we were
advised that there was no alternative because of the ordinance stating there had to be three units
per acre. However, just two hours earlier at that same meeting, in the consent agenda, the Board
approved a six -acre tract adjoining the proposed Woodland Park subdivision for five houses on
the six acres. We were delighted with that decision for we felt it was a fair compromise to the
city ordinance and would be compatible with the neighborhood. If the variance can be allowed
there, it can be allowed on the adjoining thirty-five acres.
We ask that the City Council respectfully reverse the decision on Woodland Park and
permit a variance, so that the development will be more compatible with the established area and
neighborhood. Once foundations are dug and cement is poured, it will be too late forever to save
the area. All life styles do not fit into the same mold, nor should they, and not all areas are right
for a high density subdivision. The Woodland Park Subdivision east of County Road 9 will
become an isolated development, out of synch and not congruent with its surroundings. As the
mayor, Ann Azari, was recently quoted as saying after attending a mayor's conference, "There
always has been a problem with the one size fits all mentality." We ask that the Council not try to
make this "size" fit this area.
Thank you.
Sandra Thomas and�cott Co ney /
for the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood
•
•I
PAGE 2
When we met with the developer and asked him to compromise and put homes on acreage
in the subdivision, he said he would consider two houses per acre. This is a considerably greater
number than we feel is compatible but agreed to go that far to compromise. However, the
developer came back to us and said it would not be financially worthwhile to him. We have
investigated and know that larger lots are in demand and that they are being sold easily and
quickly in both Larimer and Weld counties. People are willing to pay the going rate for just such
properties. Unfortunately, those properties are developing even further from the city which adds
to the drive time and gasoline consumption which the city wants to reduce. The Woodland Park
subdivision property would be ideal for just such a development and the seller and the developer
would still make money.
We are concerned about questionable points given to the developer of Woodland Park for
recreation area. Some of the points granted were for thickets of trees which cannot be used in
any way for recreation. On the east side of the development property is a depression
approximately 8 feet deep which can be neither used for recreation nor filled in because it
continues onto the adjoining property. The other area for which points were given is on the
northwest corner of the property where there is to be a club house, a day care center and a
swimming pool built. This area leaves very limited open space for children to use for play. A
subdivision of this size is likely to have more than one hundred children without any true, active •
open space. Many of these children are apt to gravitate to the surrounding properties where some
homeowners have horses and ponds.
The third concern is for the wildlife. We have been told that someone within the city
wildlife department stated that there is not an appreciable wildlife habitat in this area. However,
a wildlife biologist has informed us that there is enough wildlife in this area to be concerned. The
biologist's reasoning is that the more wildlife habitats taken up with residential areas, the more
that wildlife will be crowded into a smaller area that won't support the wildlife which is being
displaced. Even considering the area to the east of us that the city recently purchased, there will
not be enough area for the displaced wildlife. These are two very differing opinions and so, at
best, they may be considered subjective. However, the best measure may not be an expert
opinion, but an observation by those of us who live here day in and day out and recognize first
hand what is here. The numbers have already increased noticeably and substantially with the
building that has occurred to the west of us.
Our fourth concern is with the storm drainage. This area is full of underground springs as
well as the Fossil Creek inlet. Storm drainage water can, and probably will, negatively affect the
springs and inlet. Fossil Creek inlet runs very full much of the time and is continually being
eroded.
•
I •
AUG 0 4 1995
31 July 1995
4104 S. County Road 9 CITY CLERK
Fort Collins, CO 80525 -
Fort Collins City Council
300 W. LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Members of the Council,
The Poudre Ridge Neighborhood is respectfully appealing the Planning and Zoning Board
decision made on July 24, 1995 to grant final approval for the Woodland Park subdivision. Since
March of 1994, we have been concerned with the proposed Woodland Park subdivision and the
effect it would have on this area of our community. Our four main concerns are as follows:
1. Incompatibility of the subdivision on the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Points for recreation area.
3. Effect on wildlife.
4. Storm drainage and the effect on the water.
Our first concern is that we are an established neighborhood where over the years the rule
has been only one house per every 2.39 acres. We know this is a county rule and something
different applies to the city. We had requested that this area not be annexed to the city and were
told by the county planning office not to worry, that we could deal with our concerns just as
easily once annexation took place. We wish to utilize the guidelines of the Intergovernmental
Agreement and the L.D.G.S. to present our case. We know variances can and are allowed, which
is what we are requesting in this case.
As stated in the IGA, "New residential development in the UGA shall mitigate potential
negative impacts on adjacent existing residential development by maintaining the character and
density of the existing residential development along common boundaries." To this end, the
neighborhood met on three or four occasions with the developer to try and work out a
compromise for a more compatible development, but was unsuccessful. The City of Fort Collins
Land Use Policies Plan states there must be buffers because "certain types of land uses are
inherently incompatible and must be shielded or separated from each other." This policy guide
should be implemented within this development with larger lot sizes than presently planned,
especially on the north, east and west sides.
There are presently fifteen homes on one hundred and ten acres. The smallest
parcels are 2.39 acres. This converts to one house for every seven and one half acres. When the
thirty-five acres earmarked for the Woodland Park subdivision is subtracted, the immediate
surrounding area will have on the average one house per five and one half acres in the remaining
approximately seventy-five acres. We question how the densities of three housing units per acre
is in the middle of this neighborhood are considered compatible.
AGENDA ITEIPSUMMARY ITESIUMBER: 3
DATE: August 29, 1995
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the July 24, 1995 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving, with a Condition, a Proposed Planned Unit Development Known As Woodland Park
Estates, Final.
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 decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On July 24, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Woodland Park Estates Final P.U.D.
The project consists of 77 single family lots, 20 patio home lots, and 10 townhome lots (107 total
lots) on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road #9, north of Hewlett-Packard.
On August 4, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the statement of appeal it is alleged 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 receive all evidence offered by the appellants.
The Planning and Zoning Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of
procedure.
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal, an Amended Notice of Appeal, the Planning
Department response to the Appeal, and the information packet that was received by the Planning
and Zoning Board. In addition, the minutes of the July 24, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
are included. The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2,
Article II, Division 3 of the City Code.