Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCROWNE AT OLD TOWN NORTH - PDP170007 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAgenda Item Third Question from Appeal: The appellant asserts with their third allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board did not receive all evidence and thus did not conduct a fair hearing. More specifically, the appellant claims the Board was only provided with cursory notice of their concern regarding compliance with the enclosed bicycle parking standard. The appellant's e-mail was included as part of the Planning and Zoning Board's packet (page 6, 9 — Document Log and Supporting Documents). Staff also provided a brief overview of the appellant's e-mail prior to the staff's presentation during the hearing (lines 9-10, page 2, 4 — Verbatim Minutes). Fourth Question from Appeal: The appellant, with their fourth allegation, claims the Planning and Zoning Board has too close of a relationship with staff and thus relies too heavily on staff's recommendations for development projects. This close relationship impairs the Board's ability to make clear judgments and has resulted in an unfair hearing, according to the appellant. Staff finds nothing in the record that relates directly to this assertion Item # Page 3 C Agenda Item The first allegation references Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b), which is contained below. "3.2.2(C)(4)(b) — Bicycle Parking Space Requirements The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed. The appeal asserts the project failed to provide adequate enclosed bicycle parking. The appellant alleges balconies in multi -family buildings do not meet the intent of the definition for enclosed bicycle parking spaces. The appellant argues balconies are not convenient locations since they are not easily accessible to entrances and walkways of buildings. The Code defines enclosed bicycle parking as, "...bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building, including, without limitation, a shed or carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access." The code language is vague on what constitutes enclosed bicycle parking by design. The code language allows developers to meet the code requirement in a variety of ways. Staff recommended approval of the proposed enclosed bicycle parking that used balconies and patios towards meeting the enclosed bicycle parking requirement. Page 7 of the staff report discusses compliance with the bicycle parking requirement. After discussing the project's approach to meeting the enclosed bicycle parking requirement with the appellant, staff agreed that it could be argued that the proposed bicycle parking could satisfy the Code, the bicycle parking could be redesigned to better meet the intent of the Code. Staff then worked with the applicant to develop a plan more in line with the intent of Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b). On June 28, 2017, the applicant filed for a Minor Amendment to place all enclosed bicycle parking spaces on the ground level next to entrances and walkways. Staff did not process this Minor Amendment due to the pending appeal. Second Question from Appeal: The appeal asserts that staff based their recommendation of approval on grossly misleading evidence with respect to the bicycle parking requirements. The appellant claims staff did not perform due diligence to ensure the proposal met the enclosed bicycle parking requirement. By approving the project based on this grossly misleading evidence, the applicant claims the Planning & Zoning Board did not conduct a fair hearing. The site plan contains a description of how many enclosed bicycle parking spaces were contained on balconies and patios. The applicant noted that they counted each balcony and patio with the exception of studio units towards meeting the bicycle parking requirement. This note implies the count is for the buildings 2- 6 based on the math. The calculation shown on the site plan, however, was erroneous. The site plan indicates this would result in 284 enclosed bicycle parking spaces when it would only result in 282 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. This means the total would have been 321 total covered bike parking spaces. This total would still result in a compliant plan if balconies counted towards meeting the requirement of this code section. This count, furthermore, did not include all of the balconies and patios seen on the building elevations. Had the applicant chosen to count all balconies and patios to count towards meeting the requirement the applicant could have counted four additional spaces towards meeting this requirement, resulting in a total of 286 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. Item # Page 2 Agenda Item STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner SUBJECT Crowne at Old Town North Appeal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision, on June 15, 2017, approving the Crowne at Old Town North Project Development Plan. The appeal was filed on June 29, 2017. The appeal alleges the following: • Failure to properly interpret Land Use Code (Code) Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b). The appellant alleges the project did not provide sufficient enclosed bicycle parking. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the recommendation of approval made by staff was based on grossly misleading evidence with respect to the enclosed bicycle parking requirement. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board was not provided with enough information regarding the concerns of the appellant prior to or during the hearing, resulting in a failure to receive all evidence. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board did not inquire further about the allegation raised by the appellant. Instead, the Planning and Zoning Board relied on staff's recommendation of approval, which shows that the Board has a close relationship with staff that interfered with their judgment. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the application for the Crowne at Old Town North Project Development Plan. The project was approved on a vote of 5-0 (Heinz, Rollins absent) based on the findings of fact and information contained in the Staff Report. The Staff Report is attached. The questions for City Council regarding the appeal are: 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) by approving a project with insufficient enclosed bicycle parking? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing by considering grossly misleading evidence from City staff? 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing by not considering the allegation from the appellant? 4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing due to their close relationship with staff? First Question from Appeal: Item # Page 1 Agenda Item Summary STAFF: Clay Frickey SUBJECT Resolution 2017-XXX Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve the Crowne at Old Town North Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions regarding the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve the Crowne at Old Town North Project Development Plan. The appeal was heard by City Council on September 5, 2017. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On June 15, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Crowne at Old Town North Project Development Plan (PDP). On June 28, 2017, a community member filed an appeal with the following allegations: • Failure to properly interpret Land Use Code (Code) Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b). The appellant alleges the project did not provide sufficient enclosed bicycle parking. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the recommendation of approval made by staff was based on grossly misleading evidence with respect to the enclosed bicycle parking requirement. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board was not provided with enough information regarding the concerns of the appellant prior to or during the hearing, resulting in a failure to receive all evidence. • Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board did not inquire further about the allegation raised by the appellant. Instead, the Planning and Zoning Board relied on staff's recommendation of approval, which shows that the Board has a close relationship with staff that interfered with their judgment. On September 5, 2017, City Council considered the appeal allegations and testimony from parties in interest. Council discussed all specific assertions of the appeal. City Council denied the appeal while also finding the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret Land Use Code section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) relating to enclosed bicycle parking. City Council made a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the site so that the enclosed bicycle parking meet the 60 percent requirement using ground level spaces next to entrances and walkways and using garage spaces or interior corridors, but excluding balconies and outdoor patios.