Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - PUBLIC NOTICECLOSING REMARKS This appeal should not be construed as an appeal against affordable housing. We suggest that just a portion of the tax money that might be saved by avoiding the City's, Poudre R-11s or the State's assumption of the probable costs of Waterglen: Public transportation, a new exit at 1-25 and Vine, sanitation district upgrading, park acquisition, inadequate police protection, school busing, road improvements and man other costs -would be more than sufficient as an incentive for a developer to build a similar development in an.appropriate location. We recognize the advantages of the type of development represented by Waterglen had it been located in the ample N.E. infill area (we understand that the current infill capacity ,exceeds. 275,000) that would conform to our planning codes. All the appellants understand the need and will support the effort to provide affordable housing in such places. Our case is, rather, an effort to defend the work and the wisdom of hundreds of citizens and staff members who were involved in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. We feel these policies we have referenced must now be adhered to. Meanwhile, The Waterglen plan does NOT meet the requirements for approval, and, with all due respect to the members who have on other occasions ruled correctly on such proposals, this decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be overturned. Amend Dated this loth day of December, 1994. 61Kj knv �.c� Doug Rice 484-1077 Unlisted Roger KcConnell 493-8122 Lisa Rice 482-7636 8 �rr• limitations, and these areas have not been set aside from development. E. The Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was 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 the we now have adequate public transportation because the developer proposed the "possible" 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 is not a serious -oroblem or that the criteria has been met. 7 i for assistance. f. Encourage non-residential use (agricultural open space extraction etc.) of flood prone areas See page 42, policies 53 and 54. One of the parties in interest attempted to explain that the potential for Box Elder Creek to flood has been underestimated and, because of the proposed berm to be constructed by the State Highway Department, any flooding would be directed back towards the development. (A letter attached to the record also notes that the proposed day care center is located close to or in the flood plane and may have to be moved). We argue that this issue was not appropriately addressed or resolved and is complicated by storm drainage needs still apparently unresolved (see video testimony by staff). D. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the following viable criteria: 1. Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (A-2.1) The additional traffic generated by the land uses within the project creates safety problems, and cannot be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems. Pedestrian and bicycle needs were not addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes could be integrated into the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system. 2. Emergency Access (A-2.5) The project does not provide adequate access for protection and emergency services because there is the project. This is a project which will result i the City of Berthoud, with only one access road. 3. Utility Capacity (A-3.1) n those agencies rendering fire only one major access road tc a population size larger thar. The development is not served by utility companies with adequate capacity nor have arrangements been made for extension and augmentation of utilities. 4. Water Hazards (A-3.3) The project includes a swift and deep irrigation canal on two sides and necessar}- precautions have not been taken to minimize any hazard to life or property. 5. Geological Hazards (A-3.4) In spite of the Boxelder flood control structures many miles north in this watershed, these structures have filled and spilled as recently as three years agc and this project does contain flood areas unfavorable to urban development. Tc our knowledge, special engineering precautions have not been taken to overcome the 9 Regarding street requirements, the record contains an April 15 letter from .Matt Baker in Engineering stating that the Waterglen proposal did not qualify for reimbursement on street oversizing because it "did not meet the contiguity criteria", that "Street Oversizing Criteria are intended to limit leapfrog development" (like Waterglen) and that Waterglen is "not an infill development". c. Protection of scarce resources like lands of agricultural importance See page 27, policy 11; page 39, policies 43a, 43b., and 43c; page 50, policy 84. There are farms contiguous to all four sides of the proposed subdivision. At the hearings one of the parties in interest attempted to present some of the problems 'local farmers would face as a result of this development. Such problems include: movement of farm equipment, chemical application, debris in the irrigation ditches (oft two sides), dogs, trailers full of livestock coming and gong from the nearby livestock auction, liability and other issues. These issues were raised but given almost no discussion by the board. The parcel is on the southern end of lands identified by both the Soil Conservation Service and the City/County Lands of Agricultural Importance Study as prime agriculture land. Rich soils, leveled fields, both surface and subsurface irrigation systems, and other existing infrastructure make this area a resource that will produce wealth from renewable resources for the community for an indefinite period, if protected. More than the parcel in question is at stake, since it will create an "impermanence syndrome" for a much larger area as producers witness the increase in the "hassle factor" that comes from a population larger than Berthoud being placed in their midst, and the 'lack of resolve by the City to adhere to their own policies and limit leapfrog growth into good agricultural land. d. Reducticn\of vehicle miles See page 41, policy 49; page 49, policy 80. Questions and potential costs associated were poorly addressed. Public transportation is not near or guaranteed, many school children (500+) will be bused each day, and there is no evidence that residents will work at nearby businesses like Anheuser Busch since most of those employees are already situated. e. Expansion of services by Special Districts should help produce a concentrated urban land use pattern See page 33, policies 30 and 31. No city services are available for water and sewage. Although it was indicated that Box Elder Sanitation District could handle the waste of 2000 people without city investment to upgrade the system, other citizens have indicated that Box Elder Sanitation District is near capacity and already discussing asking the city 9 ki W 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 adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan? (an absolute requirement). The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Policies specify that new development will be judged on its ability to comply with the infilling of vacant areas, contiguity with existing developments, phased expansion of services, protection of scarce resources like lands of agricultural importance, reducing vehicle miles, avoiding flood prone areas and others. In most cases these policies were not 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 Polices sections of the Land Use Plan. a. Infilling or locating development near existing development shopping recreation, transportation and employment Waterglen is a high density residential use and does not meet the requirements of being near existing residential development or the core area. the subdivision is approximately three miles east of the last contiguous development at LeMay and Vine. Existing land use is mostly agricultural for those three miles. It is not near existing employment, recreation, or shopping. It is not, as the plan requires, close to park facilities, or public transportation. No public transportation is available within close proximity (or even distant proximity) tc the site. The proposed plan for transportation in the form of a "trail period using Gitney bus" is stopgap, with no guarantee that the city will not be left with the problem thereafter. The Waterglen development was awarded points because it was ,allegedly in "north" Fort Collins. This is not the area that citizens and planners identified as an appropriate location where growth to the north should be encouraged. The "north" Fort collins criteria was meant to infill the areas like those east of JAX Surplus and near the old Sugar Factory, not 4 miles to the east. b. Phased expansion of utilities, facilities and services See page 29, poly 16; Page 31, policies 23 and 24; page 34, policy 32; page 48, policies 78 and page 49, policy 80. The site is not in conformity with the phasing plan of the City of Fort Collins. There is some question whether sewer facilities can be adequately provided by the closest rural sanitation district (Boxelder) and the future complications of utilizing this rural district have gone unexamined. It is likely that the city will again bear unnecessary costs. 4 r It is our position that LDGS criteria were used selectively and that approval for this development should be denied on the basis that it is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by section A-1.2 of the LDGS. We will substantiate this claim with specific references to policy for each of the grounds for appeal listed above. We will begin by listing 7 of the stated 13 purposes of the LDGS that were not 'adequately addressed and then proceed to the specific policies/codes (p. 7 LDGS) not addressed or complied with. 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; -,A and finally, and most important, (13) To ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. Two members of the Planning and Zoning Board stated that they had serious reservations about the development. The minutes of the last meeting reflect those misgivings. Two stated initially that they could not support the proposal. It is apparent that the Board felt that the provision of low cost "affordable" housing outweighed the problems of the "leapfrog" nature of this subdivision. The obligatory criteria were not addressed (or were dismissed) because of the desire of the Board to provide low cost housing. While we agree that the City of Fort Collins needs more moderately priced housing and that such housing could be located in the north/northeast part of the city, we are in complete disagreement t'-.at an inappropriately located subdivision should be approved solely because it does provide some of that housing. This latter issue served to detour the process from larger and still uncomplied with criteria which were never appropriately resolved by the Board and which we will now address specifically. 3 IA 't 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 Zoning Board "considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading". I. Relevant provisions of the City Code and Charter and established procedures were not properly interpreted or applied. The provisions not properly interpreted and applied include both: 1) the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan as enabled by the City Charter Article XIX and adopted as official policy -specifically the Land Use Policies Plan component and the Goals and Objectives. 2) the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) For Planned Unit Developments, Ordinance No. 33 of the City Code. A. Introduction The LDGS contains two review criteria: numbered and lettered. Numbered criteria are "absolute 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 "variable" criteria of the system. Each development must achieve a specified minimum percentage of these criteria. Evidence presented at both the preliminary and final hearings demonstrated that, while there may have been adequate attention to portions of the site -specific or design oriented portions of the LDGS found in the Neighborhood Compatibility criteria, adequate attention was not given to compliance with the Communitv Wi(7F Criteria of the LDGS. The Community Wide Criteria section asks what is perhaps the most important question that can be addressed at the beginning of the development process, "Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan?". It is this criteria which asks the first order questions, "Is the development in the right place to begin with?" The hearings, their minutes, the official record and the video substantiate our claims that this question was not addressed and that the majority of the dialogue was given over to site specific design questions and the issue of affordable housing. It is clear to us after scrutinizing the documents that guide the evaluation of proposed projects that this is improper procedure. 2 December 10, 1994 Ms. Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 To whom it may concern: Attached please find an amended Notice of Appeal for the Waterglen P.U.D Thank you,. ACTION BEING APPEALED: DATE OF BOARD ACTION: PARTIES IN INTEREST: NOTICE OF APPEAL Approval of the Waterglen P.U.D., #71-93B by the Planning and Zoning Board October 24th, 1994 (final hearing and date of approval) Doug Rice 5100 East County Road 48 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Roger McConnell 4430 East County Road 48 Fort Collins, CO 80524 All parties in interest spoke at the public hearings. Lisa Rice 429 Princeton Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Pursuant to Section 2-53 of the Code of the City of fort Collins, the appellants request that the record provided to the City Council include the following: (a) Detailed minutes of the proceedings before the Planning.and Zoning Board. (b) All exhibits, including, without limitation, all writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs, photographs, and other tangible items received or viewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. (c) Video tapes which recorded the proceedings before the Planning'and Zoning_ Board.