Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMERHILL PUD FINAL FIRST P & Z BOARD HEARING - 41 93A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 21 Zoning Board has not happened in this process. She said she believed the city loses credibility if this is not accomplished and she has genuine concerns about this project. Mr. Eckman restated the motion to postpone the Summerhill Final until next month, to hold a neighborhood meeting based on a good APO list and to insure that at the next month's continued meeting, the Board will have the latitude to address layouts and densities which it would not otherwise have the opportunity to do. He asked Mr. Ward if that was correct for next month's meeting as well. Mr. Ward stated that, after conferring with Mr. Search, this would be acceptable. Mr. Eckman asked if this would be an acceptable procedure for Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. McMaster as a compromise for lack of notice for the original preliminary hearing. Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. McMaster stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Eckman said there would be an appeal right from that hearing. Mr. McMaster commented that this was a creative attempt to deal with this problem and had no objections. He still believed there was a lack of empowerment by the neighbors and that when this project comes up for final approval, it was a "done deal." He said that several people believed that because they had missed the initial hearing, so why should they show up for the hearing. He said it was hard to get people's inertia to express their concerns, noting there were members of the neighborhood present tonight but choosing not to speak. Mr. Eckman asked if this was a fair compromise and provides due process to come back before the Board and have an appeal right on the substantive issues of the plan and to dispose of this notice matter. Mr. McMaster agreed that was acceptable. Member Fontane asked if the review of the Thayer plat would be addressed on November 15. Mr. Peterson replied yes. Mr. Eckman pointed out that even though there was an agreement between the three parties, and that there won't be other issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, there is no guarantee. Motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 20 did have a fair hearing and resolve differences that way. He said another solution would be to open this up for discussion this evening which might be satisfactory for the neighbors. Member Strom asked if there was a neighborhood meeting held. Mr. Olt replied that there was a meeting held on June 30 with six people in attendance. Member Fontane moved to postpone the Summerhill PUD Final until the November 15, 1993, P&Z Board meeting with a neighborhood meeting to be held between now and then. Member Winfree seconded the motion with the condition that the developer would be open to discussion of density and layout. Member Winfree further added her concern for the inadequate notification of surrounding residents for the preliminary hearing, the question of the sign placement on the property that was not highly visible because of construction on Prospect with alternate routes and if the Triangle Review notice was properly published. She stated not enough people were notified to take part in the PUD process. Member Strom asked for clarification of the notification area and if it was expanded for the list or simply that it was corrected. Mr. Olt stated it was expanded well in excess of 500 feet. Member Strom asked why it was expanded. Mr. Olt said it was expanded after receiving a call after the preliminary hearing from Mrs. McMaster saying they had not been notified and expressed concerns for future notification. He was uncertain of the 100 people not notified and that he would estimate 30 or so more, regardless of the number of people missed. He stated that the map was updated. Mr. Peterson stated that yes, there were people that were missed in the normal area considered for mailing in this preliminary hearing for the Summerhill project. Member Klataske asked if the neighborhood list was the same as for the preliminary hearing. Mr. Olt replied that it was the same list for both meetings. Chair Clements -Cooney said she had mixed feelings about the motion because (a) the City Council appointed this Board based on their knowledge of planning and that they were competent individuals to address concerns that were in the best interest of the community, and (b) she believed that the process by which the public can work with the developer and the Planning and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 19 Member Winfree asked for a legal opinion with regard to the error in the first public notification and how the Board should respond to that situation. Mr. Eckman replied it was correct that this evening's meeting was adequate. He said the only notice that was really required was the vested rights notice publication in the newspaper, seven days prior to tonight's meeting. He said tonight's meeting notification was perfectly adequate. He said the preliminary hearing was no doubt inadequate. He said, however, the appeal time has passed for the preliminary hearing and no appeal was filed, although this issue may come up later in some other context in the form of appeal or court hearing. He said that this problem cannot be cured without some creative thinking on the part of the developer and stated he had spoken to Mr. Ward about exploring possibilities in that regard. He stated that the Board has the following choices: (1) to proceed with the final this evening; (2) to reject the plan on the basis that there wasn't a proper preliminary meeting that would cause the developer to start over; or (3) to develop some compromise with the neighborhood members, the developer and the Board to address issues they would have posed in the preliminary meeting. Member Winfree stated she was interested in creative solutions. Mr. Ward stated that if there was any cloud on the preliminary approval, the Board could consider both preliminary and final this evening, opening it up for full review to the public. He stated that, as discussed with Mr. Eckman, when a valid preliminary approval and the final comes back before the Board, the Board technically cannot reopen discussion on site layout and densities. He said the applicant's intent was to be open and to discuss these areas fully with the public tonight. Member Winfree asked if the Board had denied the neighborhood the input that would have been accomplished at a neighborhood meeting and discuss the project with the developer. Mr. Ward said the neighborhood meeting was a discretionary meeting set by the Planning Staff and no one knew where the original map originated. He stated that the intent of the applicant was to clearly notify all residents in the appropriate area and perhaps met the letter of the law but not the intended area, given some incomplete address and an incomplete area of notification. Member Fontane requested that this entire project be postponed for review on November 15, 1993, with another neighborhood meeting to be held in the meantime. Attorney Eckman said there would be no harm in postponing the project, with a neighborhood meeting scheduled with appropriate notification, perhaps with the developer's consent to layout and density so that every issue that would have been before the Board at a preliminary PUD hearing would be before the Board again, providing that the residents affected would feel they Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 18 Mr. Olt replied that it did include the misaddressed notices. Member Cottier asked Mr. McMaster if his letter asked for clarification of his concern for the site plan accuracy. Mr. McMaster replied there were several issues concerning this. The northwest corner of the Underhill project was being developed as part of the 220 units allowed, with 68 units for Summerhill added and would give a clearer view of the overall density. He noted that among other comments on the impact of this proposed density to the public schools and didn't see it discussed in the planning. Mr. Peterson addressed the school projections and said they are projected by the applicant based on bedrooms. He stated that the information was given to the school district. He stated that the school district has an elaborate tracking system for ages coming in. He said that the school district determines the boundaries for schools and willingly accepts any new data concerning planning for areas within the city. He said the school district maintains its own operation that carefully analyzes where students are coming from and where they would fit into the system. Mr. Olt addressed Mr. McMaster's concern of the location of the building. He said the proposed building, with consideration of the newly widened road and curb line to the south, is 105 feet and 8 inches. Mr. Ward clarified that there were 85 units originally proposed for Summerhill and the new project has 68 units. All projects collectively have been considered and there was no deception in the total number of units proposed. Member Winfree asked for further clarification on the mailing list for this evening's meeting. Mr. Peterson addressed the issues of notification by stating that the map used for the first notification had indistinct lot lines and the map used for the second mailing had more clarification. He apologized for the first errant mailing and believed it was corrected for the second mailing which was the notice of the final hearing. Mr. Olt stated that there were approximately 252 names on the most current property owners list. The letter sent out for the August 12, 1993, public hearing for the Summerhill project going before the Board did include Mr. McCaffrey's address and all other owners in the cul-de- sac. Mr. McCaffrey asked if, as a Board, they would let Fort Collins know that they were looking out for the citizen's interest in what they have to say. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 17 the City, not private individuals, and suggested that it be done through a separate deed between the applicant and the Thayers. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider a condition to allow the Thayers time to review the plat before it is filed. Chair Clements -Cooney asked for confirmation of the condition on the plat to be reviewed before it filing. Mr. Peterson replied yes, there were enough public questions that need to be resolved. Member Winfree asked Mr. Ward to address the questions of the preparation of the mailing list. Mr. Ward replied that Mr. Roger Search, the real estate agent involved in this project, prepared the first list and then APO Colorado prepared the second list. Mr. Ward said he was not directly involved with either mailing. Mr. Roger Search, Wheeler Realty, stated that he was not familiar with the list for the second mailing other than he made arrangements to have it done with APO of Colorado. Member Winfree asked if he was aware of how many differences there may have been between the two lists. Mr. Search replied that he was unaware of this. He said the only thing he was aware of was the original map given to him to prepare the first list and the revised map to prepare the second list. Member Winfree asked what was the difference between the two. Mr. Search said there were about 100 names not included in the first mailing. Member Winfree asked if there was a difference in the perimeter of the two maps. Mr. Olt said that there was a difference. He presented both maps and stated the first map submitted for the neighborhood meetings had an unknown origin and that it was not typical of a city generated map. He said he prepared the second map for the second mailing for notification. Member Winfree asked about the difference of 100 names and if it included the misaddressed notices. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 16 PUBLIC INPUT Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Dr., stated he was a neighbor involved with the Summerhill PUD project. He referred to a letter he had written to the Board listing his concerns. He specifically addressed two major concerns: (1) The issue of notification and believed that was inadequate, not all residents within 500 feet of the project were notified nor were some house addresses correct and (2) The posting of notification on Prospect Road, which was closed for construction during most of the summer, was inadequate. He stated that he could not justify acceptance of final approval of this project since appropriate community notification criteria had not been met. He stated that Planning Staff had been helpful and cooperative and commended them. Mr. McMaster also pointed out the property in question was listed as low -density residential but higher density developments had gone in and proposed higher density developments were planned in the surrounding area which was changing the original character of the neighborhood dramatically, having impact on traffic, density of people, loss of open space, etc. He stated his disapproval of the project. Clifford McCaffrey, 1720 West Prospect, stated that he lived across the street from the proposed site and never saw any notification other than the real estate sign designating the property for sale. He cited a project east of the proposed site with many residents per unit creating a parking overflow problem and was concerned about this relative to the proposed plan. He knew 128 parking spaces were allocated to the proposed 68 units. He objected to the notification process and was not informed of the neighborhood meeting except through a neighbor. He was not in favor of the plan. Mr. Ward discussed easements and the driveway easement on Lot 2. Chair Clements -Cooney questioned the final plat or a diagonal easement line that was no longer germane and would have been eliminated on the final. Mr. Ward stated that he was not sure and questioned if it was part of the driveway easement. He said he would double check and remove it unless there was a third party involved who was granted an easement. He stated that when this was a 220 unit project, both roads were to extend over the Mercer Canal and loop down through the city open space. He questioned whether they could legally vacate the easement by deleting it from the subdivision plat. Mr. Eckman replied that easements can be vacated on replats, so he believed that an easement vacation could be done. He also stated that after talking with Mr. Herzig, a well easement was a private easement for the benefit of the Thayers, not public, so that would be able to be corrected on the plat. He stated that the plat just contemplated the dedication of easements to Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 15 If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted form the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated he represented Mel Price, the applicant. He stated that in addition to the preliminary presentation, this was the site previously approved as Underhill PUD, 220 units, including a portion purchased by the City as open space and the older plan had 85 units in the area where the new plan proposed 68. He noted this was a lower density plan transition from developments to the north and west. He reported there was some question about the mailing list and notification to the neighborhood and that Roger Search was prepared to address this issue. He said APO of Colorado generated a new list including expanded boundaries for the mailing list. Member Winfree inquired about the mailing list. Mr. Ward replied that the City procedure was that the applicant provide a mailing list in the form of labels to the Planning Department who in turn, does the mailing. He assumed the Planning Department followed through with the mailing for tonight's meeting. Mr. Olt stated that was correct and that a notification letter was mailed a week ago last Friday. Chair Clements -Cooney asked what forms of notification were used for preliminary and final. Mr. Peterson replied that there were two standard forms of notification used for preliminary and final projects: (1) publication in the newspaper, in this case the Triangle Review, 7 days prior to the public hearing with the date, time and information of the application in question; and (2) post the property with a sign with the proposed development and the phone number of the Planning Department to call for further information. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 14 Member Cottier said she was still not in favor of the proposal but agreed on the concept of "all cost" and agreed that the appeal fees should be viewed. In addition, she would like to see a study of benefits of development when considering appropriate fees. She believed it was a missing part of the equation. She stated that she would not support the proposed recommendation for increasing the fees as much as proposed at this time. Member Strom affirmed that benefits from development needed to be reviewed, as well as costs from a community standpoint. He believed that development review fees was a separate consideration. The motion passed 4-3, with Members Klataske, Fontane and Cottier in the negative. SUMMERHILL PUD - FINAL #41-93A Steve Olt gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (December 13, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of he extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board of resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) 0 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD �. MEETING MINUTES October 25, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The October 25, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene` Clements -Cooney, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree and Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Joe Frank, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Carolyn Worden and Heidi Phelps. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of August 2, August 23, August 30, (September 27 minutes pulled, incomplete), and October 4, 19939 P & Z Meetings. Item 2 - East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Preliminary, #58-93; Item 3 - A Big A Storage PUD - Preliminary, #57-93; Item 4 - Poudre High School Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review, #59-93; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD, 1st Filing, Phases 14 - Final, #73-82R; Item 6 - Fossil Creek Meter Station PUD - Preliminary & Final, #60-93; Item 7 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #19-93E, Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #19-93 (postponed until November 15 meeting), Item 9 - Victorian Gables at Silverplume PUD - Replat, #62-89E, Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A (postponed until November 15 meeting); Item 11 - Wildwood Farm PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #90-85I; Item 12 - Hampshire Pond PUD - Final, #44-93A; Item 13 - PZ93-9 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 14 - PZ93-10 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 15 - PZ93-11 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 16 - PZ93-13 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 17 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 18 - Amendment to South College Avenue Access Control Plan, #69-93; Item 19 REA Annexation and Zoning, #64-93A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20 - PZ93-12 Historic Resources Preservation Program; Item 21 - Planning Fees, #62-92; Item 22 - Summerhill PUD - Final, #41-93A; and Item 23 - The Preserve Apartments PUD - Final, #146-79P. Staff pulled Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing and Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final. Chair Clements -Cooney requested Item 19 be pulled. Item 12 was pulled by an audience member. U