HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCIL (3)m
w
the applicable criteria in the L.D.G.S., staff believes that the
Planning and Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied relevant
--- - -
provisions o e o?le and in its evaluation of the
Waterglen P.U.D. proposal.
E. The Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to
its findings which vas substantially false or grossly
misleading. .
obviously, we claim that it is grossly misleading to say that this
development is in accordance with the adopted elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Within that claim, much misleading information
has been included. Two examples follow:
It is grossly misleading to say that we now have adequate public
transportation because the developer proposed the 11possibleff use of
Gitney bus without a long term commitment by either the developer
or the City to this transportation system. A member of the Board
stated that the proposal of a Gitney bus was critical to make the
project work.
Since the storm drainage solution is obviously not complete
according to the testimony of staff, and since we feel that it is
likely that Boxelder Creek itself is the storm drainage location
that the developer has in mind, and since the Creek itself is
already prone to flooding, during a big storm there would not be
any storm drainage! It is misleading for staff to imply that this
not a serious problem or that the criteria have been met.
Staff Response:
The Gitney bus concept was offered by the developer, on a trial
basis, as a method to provide an alternative mode of transportation
between the Waterglen P.U.D. and services and facilities in the
City. The Planning and Zoning Board accepted the offer made by the
developer and placed a condition on their final approval relating
to the timing and responsibility for this transit service. At no
time did the development proposal receive points for being
contiguous to an existing transit route on any of the applicable
point charts in the L.D.G.S.
- The Stormwater Utility's response to the allegation about
incomplete storm drainage solutions is the same as its response to
the afore -mentioned allegation D, criterion A-3.4 Geological
Hazards, which is an "absolute requirement" in the L.D.G.S.
Staff believes that the Board received all relevant evidence
offered by the applicant and the appellants and did not consider
evidence substantially false or grossly misleading.
integrating into the existing City pedestrian/bicycle system.
— The—Watergie li—have—two--points --of -prima'ry—acceSS.
Waterglen Drive (a local collector) and Elgin Court (a local
street) will intersect with East Vine Drive on the. south side of
the development. These two streets will be looped via Waterglen
Place (a local street) with a connection, for emergency vehicles
only, through the parking areas for the proposed neighborhood park
at the northwest corner of the development.
r.,
�i
I`
* The Waterglen P.U.D. will provide 577 total dwelling
units and be home for approximately 11400 people (2.43
persons/dwelling unit). As a comparison, the 1990 census
shows the City of Berthoud to have had a population of
2,900 people at that time and Berthoud today has a
population of 3,300 people.
Water and sanitary sewer utilities for this development will be
served by the East Larimer County Water District and the Boxelder
Sanitation District. Both Districts have the service capacity, can
extend existing facilities to this site, and can provide adequate
pressure to serve the Waterglen P.U.D. development.
The Larimer and Weld Canal (Eaton Ditch) borders the 'Waterglen
P.U.D. development to the west and north. This is one of several
major ditches in the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area that
are bounded by and impacted by existing residential development.
Residential development adjacent to these irrigation water
providers is not a unique circumstance in the City and does not
ap ear too present a significant safety hazar�� O�
- ��c�nnti.Q u..�.�/.f,1.n.-n�...�- c•vw..�aliw.., u_...Pt � Gctnte✓F�/ un..�cx /�-w r+..v
The developer's a gineer has pro se improvements to the Boxelder
Creek and Cooper lough flood ins. They do take into account the
G potential Boxelde Creek ills.up to the 100 year event.ls(��
ggesed-- engine er g by the City Stormwater
� + Utility_ a all the Federal, State, and City requirements
The only remaining question is in regards to the proposed day car
- and office/clubhouse uses in existing buildings.. The concern is
about- high velocities in the temporary, channelized area that may
{ require armoring to protect the existing buildings. An option Gis to
t locate the buildings outside of the channeled. area..y�;,�,
_ e,Yr""�^`°
11 The Boxelder Creek ovezr
rf ow wises the future ;>
- -- -
rBoxeZder master plan- is o redirect flows o ,Boxelder Creek e-
, east of Interstate 25, thereby eliminating the
flows in this developmen At the time of Final Planning and Zoning
Board approval, the drain a and floodplain proposal was acceptable
to the Stormwater Utilit , realizing that*r"VM1tS still
necessary to receive fi 1 utili��
ty plan approvaa;,,-��
The stated criteria are numbered criteria anti are 'absolute
requirements" for approval of a development. Based on the P.U.D.
uv b.4 AA�"a. Wa, .AAu ua.vaw ...a .A., Jy r........ __F —.— — — — — — — ----1
provided by the applicant with the development review request, and
43c; page 50, policy 84. -- - - -'-- ---- ----
d. Reduction of vehicle miles
See page 41, policy 49; page 49, policy SO.
e. Expansion of services by Special Districts should help
produce a concentrated urban land use pattern
See page 33, policies 30 and.31.
f. Encourage non-residential use (agricultural open space,
extraction, etc.) of flood prone areas
See page 42, policies 53 and 54.
Staff response:
Staff believes that the Planning and Zoning Board considered the
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable policies
of the Land Use Policies Plan, the applicable criteria ,in the
L.D.G.S., and properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter in its evaluation of the Waterglen P.U.D.
development proposal.
D. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the following variable criteria:
1. Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (A-2.1)
2. Emergency access (A-2.5)
3. utility Capacity (A-3.1)
4. Water Hazards (A-3.3)
S. Geological Hazards (A-3.4)
Staff Resyonse•
The City Transportation Department was an integral part of the
review process from concept review through the Planning and Zoning
Board's final approval of the development proposal. Their
evaluation of the required traffic study indicated that, with the
required improvements to East Vine Drive from the Waterglen P.U.D.
west to Lemay Avenue, the street system impacted by this
development can handle the increased traffic volumes in the area
without creating safety problems. Sidewalks will be provided along
the East Vine Drive frontage and throughout the development, with
the walks being detached along East Vine and Waterglen Drive (to be
Vine Drive there will be space for on -street bicycle lanes on both
sides of the street connecting back to Lemay Aveni}p, -thus
N
The L.D.G.S. contains two review criteria: numbered and lettered. ----
Numbered criteria are "absolute requirements" of the All
- - -- --- -
Development Criteria which must be satisfied before approval can be
granted. These criteria are grouped into three criteria: (1)
Community Wide Criteria, (2) Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria
and (3) Engineering Criteria. The Waterglen P.U.D. was evaluated
against and considered to meet the applicable All Development
Criteria. The lettered criteria are "variable" criteria of the
system. A, development must earn a minimum percentage for the
criteria on the applicable lettered point chart. The Waterglen
P.U.D. met or exceeded the minimum requirements on the Auto -Related
and Roadside Commercial, Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center,
and Residential Uses Density point charts.
Based on the applicable criteria in the L.D.G.S., staff believes
that the Planning and Zoning Board considered and properly
interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the Code and Charter
in its evaluation of the Waterglen P.U.D. development proposal.
C. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the Community Wide Criteria A-1.2 that asks: Is the
development in accordance with the adopted elements of the
Comprehensive Plan? (an absolute requirement).
The Comprehensive Plants Land Use Policies specify that new
development will be Judged on its ability to comply with the
flood prone areas and others. In most` cases tnese pollcies were nor.
met by those proposing or reviewing Waterglen. In a few cases
(reducing vehicle miles and proximity to public transportation),
the issues were addressed at the last minute with stopgap measures.
The policies not appropriately addressed are listed by category,
referencing page and policy number, or stated purpose in the case
of the LDGs. Policies are referenced from the Growth Management,
Environmental and Locational Policies sections of the Land Use
Plan.
a.
employment
b. Phased expansion of utilities, facilities and services
See page 29, policy 16; page 31, policies 23 and 24; page
34, policy 32; page 48, policies 78 and page 49, policy
80.
c. Protection of scarce resources like lands of agricultural
see page 27, policy 11; page 39, policies 43a, 43b, and
Zoning Board 1•considered evidence relevant to_,its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleadingl•.
A. Introduction
The LDGS contains two .review criteria: numbered and lettered.
Numbered criteria are 11absolute requirements" which must be
satisfied before approval can be granted. These criteria are
grouped into three criteria: (1) Community Wide Criteria, (2)
Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria and (3) Engineering Criteria.
The lettered criteria are I'variablell criteria of the system. Each
development must achieve a specified minimum percentage of these
criteria.
B. Stated Purposes of the Land Development Guidance Were Not
Addressed.
The Purposes not adequately addressed or complied with include:
(1) To ensure that future growth and development which occurs
is in accord with the adopted elements of the
Comprehensive Plan and all planning policies of the City;
(6) To encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip
length of automobile travel and encourage trip'
consolidation;'
(8) To reduce energy consumption and demand;
(9) To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development;
(11) To foster a more rational pattern of relationship between
residential, business, and industrial uses for the mutual
benefit of all;
(12) To encourage development of vacant properties within
established areas;
and finally, and most important,
(13) To ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the
character of existing neighborhoods.
Staff Response•
The Purpose Statement in Section 29-526.B. in the Land Development
Guidance System (L.D.G.S.) states that "The purpose of this Section
is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by
pursuing the following objectives" and then lists 13 objectives.
The City has a goal or an aim for these objectives but they are not
absolute. The Section then goes into Process, Types of Criteria,
evaluatedand Evaluation of he criteria that development is,
against if subject to the L.D.G.S.
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor and Members of City Council
Stephen Olt, City Planner
Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner
December 6, 1994
Waterglen P.U.D., Final - Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding
the October 24, 1994 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
granting Final approval for the Waterglen P.U.D.
Section 2-48 of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals 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
or more of the following errors:
(1) Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied.
(2) The board or commission failed to hold a fair hearing by:
a. exceeding its authority or jurisdiction.
b. ignoring its previously established rules of
procedure.
C. considering substantially false or grossly
I
isleading evidence.
d. improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence
offered."
I. The Appeal: Appellants Doug Rice, Roger McConnell,
and Lisa Rice
(Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
1) based on Sec. 2-48(1) of the City Code, we feel that the
Planning and Zoning Board failed $$to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter@'.
2) based on Sec. 2-48(2)c of the City.Code, the Planning and