Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARAGON POINT PUD FINAL - 48 91B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - APPLICANT COMMUNICATIONY February 4, 1992 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Paragon Point PUD Overall Development Plan is a 148.4 acre site proposed for 355 single family and multi -family dwelling units, commercial uses, parks/open space, and natural areas. The site is located at the northeast corner of South Lemay Avenue and Trilby Road and south of Southridge Golf Course. The Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 is a preliminary plan consisting of 62 single family lots, a neighborhood park, and park/open space on 44 acres. This proposal is located in the northeast and northwest corners of the Paragon Point Overall Development Plan. Proposed access for this phase will be from South Lemay Avenue and a southward extension of existing Southridge Greens Boulevard. The proposed Phase 1 PUD was evaluated against the "Residential Density Chart" and the "All Development Chart" of the Land Development Guidance System. The proposed density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre is supported by the 50% achieved on the Density Chart and the Planning and Zoning Board approved the applicant's requested variance for a density of less than 3 DU/acre, as required in the LDGS. Planning staff found that the proposed Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 project was in conformance with the Overall Development Plan and the A71 Development Criteria in the LDGS. On this basis, staff recommended approval with two conditions. In voting to approve this proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board members concurred with the findings and believed that the applicant had done a good job of laying out the various use areas to mitigate concerns about the Fossil Creek floodplain and natural areas. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Paragon Point PUD, Phase 1 Preliminary Plan with the following conditions: 1. No changes will be made from the present natural condition' of the 15.3 acre Park/Open Space parcel unless and until the Planning and Zoning Board approves such change to specific use(s) upon this site as a part of the Final PUD Plan. 2. Due to the peculiar and unique characteristics of this development, which characteristics include rock outcroppings as perching areas, roosting trees, topographical characteristics which produce wind updrafts ideal for the flight of birds of prey, water supply and the specific sightings of eagles and hawks feeding on prairie dogs as prey on the site, the conservation easement area sha11 be redrawn as necessary to include all significant rock outcroppings. suitable for perching of birds of prey (and to include natural drainage.channe7sj located on Lots 10 and 23 through 29. Any such change in the configuration of the conservation easement shall be based on a field study to be conducted by the Developer and the City prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 3. Southridge Greens Boulevard be barricaded. at the very northern most portion of this project until the first home is to be occupied. 154 February 4, 1992 THE APPEAL The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. In approving this form of access for the east portion of Phase 1 of this proposed PUD, the Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily so acting without support of competent evidence. 2. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its authority and jurisdiction, substantially ignored its established rules, and considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code. SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. 2. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; c. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading." Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to hear the appeal of the Paragon Point PUD on the grounds that the allegations in the appeal conform to the requirements of the City Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Steve Olt, City project planner, made a presentation on the Paragon Point PUD. Councilmember Fromme inquired about the Board's condition requiring barricading of Southridge Greens Boulevard until the first home is occupied. Olt replied it was done to direct construction traffic. Councilmember Horak inquired about the fire lane standards at the time the PUD 155 February 4, 1992 was approved. Development Engineering Manager Mike Herzig stated utility plans met the standards which are the same today. The access as originally built met the criteria, but over time the surface has ,not been well -maintained. Councilmember Horak asked about the difference between a temporary access and a permanent access. Herzig replied that the fire department wants a street as a permanent access. Councilmember Horak asked whether the definition of permanent and temporary access are spelled out in the Fire Code and why the road ends in a cul-de-sac. Herzig replied the developer elected to make the turn -around more permanent because of the unknown timeframe for the extension. Councilmember Horak clarified that the wider portion of Southridge Greens is designed as a collector street above Hummel. He questioned how a street could function as both A & B in traffic flow. Matt Dellich, preparer of the traffic study for Paragon Point, replied the level of service would be A or B depending,on the volume and the location on the street. Councilmember Horak asked who pays for the road across Southridge Greens. Herzig replied there is an escrow account set up.by the developer of the Greenridge PUD to pay for the extension of the road to the south property line of the golf course. Councilmember Horak inquired about creating another temporary cul-de-sac on the other end. Herzig replied the developer didn't propose that type of development to the south. The creation of the longer cul-de-sac would be a step toward eliminating the cul-de-sac by carrying the street further south toward Trilby Road. A temporary fire access would have to be constructed to Trilby Road. Councilmember Horak clarified that the standards for fire access have remained the same, i.e. a gravel access: He inquired about the fire lane approval. Poudre Fire Authority Fire Marshall Warren Jones replied that a compromise was worked out. A temporary access does not meet all the design criteria of a permanent access. In this instance, there are problems with the grade. The present criteria are: the access be of substantial construction, support the weight of a fully loaded fire apparatus, be of a proper grade, surfaced with an all-weather surface and graded for drainage. 156 February 4, 1992 Councilmember Horak inquired if there is a Code definition difference between permanent and temporary. Jones replied there is not. Councilmember Fromme asked if the plan was to bring Southridge Greens Boulevard up to standards by widening the 36' width into proper collector street width. Herzig replied that is not the plan. The proposed development doesn't add enough traffic to justify a street widening. Councilmember Fromme asked if the traffic volume would decrease when the road is connected to Trilby. Traffic Engineer, Eric Bracke replied that once Phase IV is completed there will be a better distribution of traffic. Currently, the only way into and out of the development is on SouthRidge Greens Boulevard from Lemay Avenue. With another access to Trilby Road, the traffic will split both ways. The design of the road does not lend itself to use as a shortcut to Lemay. Councilmember Fromme asked about standards for driveways backing out onto collectors. Bracke replied that Southridge Greens Boulevard is designed as a local street at a 36' width, but has a minor collector function as it is the only way into and out of the development. It was intended to go through if there was compatible land use to the south. Mayor Kirkpatrick clarified that in the All Development Criteria #6 and #35 were an issue for the Planning and Zoning Board. Rick Zier, First Tower Building, attorney representing the SouthRidge Greens Community PUD Association, objected to "new evidence" in the testimonies of Mike Herzig, Warren Jones and Eric Bracke. He spoke against the approval of the extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard southward across the golf course as a through collector street for the following reasons: I. The notice for the replat of the golf course, approved administratively in summer, 1991, did not mention the right-of-way realignment. 2. The Planning and Zoning Board and staff relied on a 1984 site plan for Greenridge showing a 54' right-of-way. Site plans are not recorded and are not found in title searches. Site plans can be amended administratively without notice. 3. No evidence was given in the hearing that Southridge Greens Boulevard was designed as a collector or intended as a collector. 4. There are existing safety problems for the residents on that street and Paragon Point will aggravate that further. 5. The golf course and existing cul-de-sac make it appear there were no plans 157 February 4, 1992 to extend Southridge Greens Boulevard. 6. There is no assurance or security that the developer will complete the road work. 7. The Fire Department twice recommended the emergency access across the golf course to the west. 8. Paragon Point is contiguous to 2 arterial streets. David Osborn, Old Town Square, attorney representing the developer, asked that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be sustained. Based on the traffic studies done by the City and the developer, the functioning of Southridge Greens Boulevard was below acceptable standards. On the issue of safety, Mr. Jones testified at the hearing that safety would be enhanced by the extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard to Trilby. Regarding the extension of the street,. the intent on the Master Plan and dedications was that the street would be extended. Further, a cul-de-sac with a length of 9/10 of a mile is not the City's normal standard. With respect to the lack of assurance on the completion of the road, this issue is addressed in final approval and in the required development agreement. John Huisjen, 1136 E. Stuart, attorney representing Lutheran Church Extension. Fund, owner of the property to the south, supported the property being completed as planned and supported the Planning and Zoning Board decision. In rebuttal, Rick Zier clarified that Center Greens and Paragon Point Phase I will add 60+ units besides the additional units to be built in Southridge. The golf hole in question is one of the best in northern Colorado. The street will become a collector if it goes through to Trilby. He urged Council to overturn the Planning and Zoning Board decision. In rebuttal, Dave Osborn reminded that the level of traffic on complete build -out will be well below the standards used by transportation experts. This extension has been part of the Master Plan for almost 10 years and the present fire access is inadequate. He stated there is substantial evidence in the record and urged -- `Council to -sustain —the Planning and Zoning Board decision. -- - Councilmember Winokur clarified the Fire Department's significant professional concerns about fire access safety if the temporary access lane remains. He inquired whether there would be an improvement in the emergency access if only the preliminary phase is built. Jones replied that the connection between the first phase and Trilby Road would be improved so it would be superior to the present temporary access lane across the golf course. Councilmember Horak inquired about the difference in standards between a temporary access lane and permanent access lane. 1161.1 February 4, 1992 Jones replied there has been one permanent access lane approved in the City in recent years. The major difference from a temporary access is surfacing material and design characteristics. Councilmember Maxey clarified that Southridge Greens Boulevard as presently exists has been accepted by the City for maintenance. He further clarified that there are funds in escrow to complete the street to the property line. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Horak expressed his concerns about continuing the street into a longer cul-de-sac. Councilmember Edwards spoke against the motion, supporting the process and decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against the motion, supporting the process and decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Azari spoke against the motion and gave her concerns about the lack of clearness in information regarding future plans for undeveloped land. Councilmember Fromme gave her concerns about a neighborhood being brought into an adversarial relationship with the City and about the fire standards used when the development was built. She recommended seeking other solutions. Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in favor of policies and rules of development (the Comprehensive Plan and All Development Criteria). Councilmember Fromme expressed concern that no one on the cul-de-sac was told that the street would be a through street when they purchased their property. Councilmember Horak gave his concerns that the developer's proposal didn't show access off Trilby then extending Southridge Greens through. Councilmember Winokur spoke of .his concerns about the fire access, traffic access, and safety, stating there was not enough evidence that the Planning and Zoning Board was wrong in its judgement. Councilmember Maxey stated that, based on the record, the street was intended to be connecting in the planning of the original Southridge development. The matter of the through access will be considered on final approval. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak and Fromme. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, .and Winokur. 159 February 4, 1992 THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to direct the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the imposition of an additional condition at the tilne of final PUD approval that Southridge Greens Boulevard be extended to Trilby Road to standardsthat would meet the requirements of All Development Criteria #9. Councilmember Edwards accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Edwards clarified that the Planning and Zoning Board would still be following Council direction if, after consideration, it determined the condition to extend the road was not warranted. Councilmember Azari, as seconder on the motion, did not accept the friendly amendment. Councilmember Maxey seconded the main motion with the proposed amendment. Councilmember Azari spoke against the amendment as confusing the issue. Councilmember Fromme spoke against the motion. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's amendment was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Horak, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Fromme, and Kirkpatrick. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak gave his concerns about versus the function, the issue of safety al-ternat-i-ves . - the fire lane, the street design and the lack of exploration of The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Fromme and Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee, Option "C", Ordinance No. 13, 1992, Repealing Chapter 26, Article VIII of the Code, entitled "Transportation Utility". Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item: T-11 February 4, 1992 1[�:[x�Ltll%��►lu7u : A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 11, 1992, Amending Section 26- 580 of the Code Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1992, Amending Sections 26- 511 and 26-580 of the Code Pertaining to the Transportation Utility Fee. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1992, Repealing Chapter 26, Article VI77 of the Code, entitled "Transportation Utility." BACKGROUND: In 1984, as a funding alternative to the General Fund for local street maintenance, the City of Fort Collins adopted the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) on the premise that such maintenance should be funded by the parties most frequently contributing to the use of the streets and most directly benefiting from their maintenance. The City collected the fee for about three years utilizing the fund for the stated purpose. A class action suit was filed against the City in 1985 in District Court. The plaintiffs in the suit generally claimed that the TUF was in fact a tax being disguised as a fee. They also challenged the TUF under various other legal theories. The City lost the case in District Court but appealed to the Supreme Court where the TUF was successfully defended. (The Supreme Court invalidated only the section of the Ordinance which permitted excess revenues to be used for general municipal purposes.) The collection of fees was suspended during the appeal process. During this interim period, the citizens of Fort Collins approved a quarter cent sales tax through December 31, 1997 to fund street maintenance. The majority of this money goes towards the annual overlay program. Approximately $400,000 of TUF money remains in a reserve account pending completion of the legal process. ISSUE: The TUF is once again on appeal, but the trial court has dissolved the injunctions which had previously prevented the City from enforcing the TUF or expending the revenues collected. The City currently faces two issues it must address in terms of the Code provisions: 1. Whether to continue collecting the TUF. There seem to be three options: a) amend the ordinance to delete the "pour over" provision and begin collecting and spending the fee again, 161