HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCIL (5)A
/V/ ni f
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 for assistance.
Of.Encouraae non-residential use (agricultural opens ace 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 berm constructed by the
State Highway Dept. Any flooding will 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 serious issue
was not appropriately addressed or resolved and is complicated by storm drainage needs
still apparently unresolved (see video testimony by staff). - C/
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)
The additional traffic generated by the. land uses within the project creates safety
problems 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 emergency vehicles and for those
persons rendering fire protection and emergency services because there is only one major
access road to the project. This is a project which will result in a population size larger
than the City of Berthoud, with only one access road.
V�" „,;/��i. - _ yC��.� A �-f'/�'GfJ�•�'�'9R.r�,f .'./� rlf�.��..f..dU.✓.. �✓��
/ 7 tc Q
"/��-
leapfrog police protection, school busing, road improvements and many 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 of all the months, 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 in other occasions have ruled well on such
proposals, this decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be overturned.
Dated this 7th day of November, 1994.
Doug Rice
Roger. McConnell
m Ferrand
MikTTTee Rice
r
Krim Rice
Lisa Rice
9
suggest that just a portion of the tax money that might be saved by avoiding the City's,
Poudre R-1's,or the State's assumption of the probable costs for Waterglen: public
transport, a new exit at I-25 and Vine, sanitation district upgrading, park acquisition,
leapfrog police protection, school busing, road improvements and many 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 areas
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 of all the months, the wisdom of hundreds of citizens and
staff members who were involved in the development of the Comprehensive Plan which
we feel must now be adhered unless the policies we reference herein are changed.
Meanwhile, The Waterglen plan does NOT meet the requirements for approval, and,
with all due respects to the members who have in other occasions have ruled well on
such proposals, this decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be overturned.
Dated this 7th day of November, 1994.
Doug Rice Kristi Rice
1;7��
Roge "'McConnell
m Farrand Greg Farran
Mike Rice Lisa Rice
fVeRf le .S-e /"rii'6wP� VPrS/OK �7z
E
3. Utility Capacity (A-3.1)
The development is may not served by utility companies with adequate capacity nor have
arrangements been made for extension and augmentation of utilities.
4o Water Hazards (A-3.3)
The project includes an swift and deep irrigation canal on two sides and necessary
precautions have not been taken to minimize any hazard to life or property.
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 ago and this project
does contains flood areas unfavorable to urban development. To our knowledge, special
engincv, nr-cautions have not been taken to overcome the limitations and these areas
-have not been set aside from development. , t SLjme 4oue dip• ]p�•/oos_��1
_ D-tkr -S SiO flex el,
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 that we how 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._
COVA pl`Cnok {rl f �rG O/ 1 F�fn �Frr�Jx
ce the storm drainage solu ionis obviously not complete according t� the testimony of
staff, an since ee t at 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 misleading for
staff to imply that this not a serious problem or that the criteria have been met.
\-V�P F,.O.v'� rove( r✓.(�-�:o�:rCi{'G.��
y(J; is '�•rous
CLOSING RENLApKS l/u._5 -
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-1's or the State's assumption of the probable costs for Waterglen: public
transport, a new exit at I-25 and Vine, sanitation district upgrading, park acquisition,
�;l
I
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.
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 (on two sides), dogs,
trailers full of livestock coming and going from the nearby livestock auction, liability and
other issues. These issues were raised but given almost no discussion by the board.
This 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 "hassel factor" that comes from a
population larger than Berthoud being placed in their midst and the lack of resolve of
the City to adhere to their own policies and limit leapfrog growth into good ag land.
d. Reduction 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 Anhauser Busch since
most of those employees are already situated.
Cil
appropriately resolved by the Board and which we will now address specifically.
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 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
development, phased expansion of services, protection of scarce resources like lands of
agricultural importance, reducing vehicle miles, avoidingflood 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 Policies sections of the Land Use Plan.
a. Infilling or locatingdevelopment evelopment near existing development, shopping, recreation,
transportation and employment
See page 49, policy 80; page 24, policy 3.d; page 33, policy 28; page 37, policy 41;
page 37, policy 42;
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 most 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) to the site. The proposed plan for transportation in the form of a
"trial 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" Ft.
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" Ft. 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, policy 16; Page 31, policies 23 and 24; page 34, policy 32; page 48,
5
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;
J
(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 bf existing
neighborhoods.
Many 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 thatthe 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 that 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
4
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
1) based on Sec. 248(1) of the City Code, we feel that the P & Z 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 P & Z Board "considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading".
I. Relevant provisions of the City Code and Charier and established procedures
were not properly interpreted or applied.
The provisions not properly interpreted and applied include both:
1) the Ft. 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 demonstrates 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 Community Wide Criteria, portions of the
Neighborhood Com atibility and possibly the Engineering 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 question, "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
go 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.
3
I
(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) A video tape recording of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Board.
Appellant request that a copy of a video tape of the April 25 before the Planning and
Zoning Board be provided to them.
2
-;7l�1,
l..i. ,; jc.�,11r1
`I ii
November 4, 1994
Ms. Wanda Krajicek,
City Clerk
300 Laporte Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
To whom it may concern:
Attached please find a Notice of Appeal for the Waterglen P.U.D. We reserve the right
to amend this appeal once we have a copy of the hearing transcripts and/or videos.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
ACTION BEING APPEALED: Approval of the Waterglen P.U.D., #71-93B by the
Planning and Zoning Board
DATE OF BOARD ACTION: April 25th, 1994 (preliminary) and October 24th, 1994
(final hearing and date of approval)
PARTIES IN INTEREST: - Doug and Kristi Rice
5100 East County 48
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Roger McConnell
4430 East County Road 48
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Kim and Greg Farrand
4628 East County Road 48
Fort.Collins, CO 80524
Mike and Lisa Rice
429 Princeton Road
Fort Collins, CO 805255
All parties in interest either attended the public hearings and/or spoke at the public
hearings.
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.
1
C�CD�M wls_-TCVR.
City )uncil
City of Fort Collins
November 15, 1994
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Appeal of the Waterglen PUD, Final
Dear Ms. Krajicek:
C
On November 1, 1994, I filed with your office a Notice of Appeal of the Planning and
Zoning Board's decision on October 24, 1994, .approving the Waterglen PUD, Final. This
appeal was filed on behalf of the City Council according to the appeals procedure described in
Chapter 2, Division 3 of the City Code.
Since that time, a second appeal of this same decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
has been filed by Doug and Kristi Rice, Roger McConnell, Kim and Greg Farrand and Mike and
Lisa Rice. Because this new appeal appears to adequately frame the issues that I believe Council
should review, I wanted to advise you that if the second appeal proceeds to a hearing as
presently scheduled on January 3, 1995, I intend to withdraw my appeal in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Apt "
City Councilmember
AP/SJR:whm ROUTING -REQUEST
DATE: q �'� X BobSmith
FROM: — Susan Hayes
^ E)ttMcBr]re
Return bttieN renus
Forward "'
G!�Imzl'�eter
Discard lbers
MikeGrimm
Jean Pakech
Shannon Gallegos
COMMENTS: We Pkorij)dt6[4 metey d/.TtUsS
-fA; S a 1` mp r Oct Du r Ht &P 7670
11
300 LaPorte Avc
kJvJj LLA-w05