HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/23/1995PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 1995
STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANDHCARD
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT
The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Chairman Rene
Clements.
Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Strom,
Walker.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Olt, Eckman, Ludwig, Bracke,
Herzig, Wamhoff, Vosburg, Hamdan, Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent and
discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows:
1. (Continued)
Minutes of the October 24, 1994 Planning and
Zoning Board Hearing.
2. #53-85AI
Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 17th
Filing, "The Winslow" - Preliminary.
3. #72-84E
Country Club Corners PUD - Preliminary and
Final.
4. #3-84H
Uplands Prospect Business Park, Filing 1 -
Final.
5. #26-94A
Value Plastics PUD - Referral of an
Administrative Change.
• 6.
Modifications of Conditions of Final
Approval.
7. #3-95
Recommendation to City Council Regarding
Changes to the Municipal Code: Sections 29-
358 and 29-359, Regarding the EP, Employment
Park District and Sections 29-521 and 29-522,
Regarding Site Plan Design Supplemental
Review. (Continued).
Discussion Agenda:
8. Recommendation to City Council Regarding The
Congestion Management Plan.
9. #3-94B Willow Springs PUD, First Filing - Final.
10. #9-94B The Ponds at Overland Trail - RF Cluster
Development Plan Review.
The
following Items
will be heard at the
February
6, 1995
Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing:
11.
#2-95
Recommendation to City Council
Regarding the
North College Avenue
Corridor
Plan.
12.
#11-81M
Huntington Hills PUD,
Filing 5
- Preliminary
13.
#28-89D
Fort Collins Housing
Authority
Expansion PUD
- Final.
14.
•
#34-90A
Saturn PUD - Referral
of an Administrative
Change.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 2
15. #43-94A Horsetooth East Business Park PUD, Filing Two
- Preliminary.
16. #18-94B Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary.
Member Cottier pulled item #3, Country Club Corners for
discussion.
Chairman Clements pulled item #2 for a separate vote due to a
conflict of interest.
Member Cottier moved for approval of consent items 4, 5, 6.
Member Fontana seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked for a motion on item #2.
Member Fontane moved for approval of item #2 on the consent
agenda.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
COUNTRY CLUB CORNERS P.U.D., THIRD FILING - PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL, #72-84E (ALBERTSON'S SUPERMARKET).
Member Cottier expressed her concern about 24-hour operations
applied to the total Preliminary and Final approval. She
suggested that a note be added that 24-hour operations be allowed
for the Albertson's and any standard sit-down restaurant.
Ken Merritt, Landmark Engineering, representing the applicant,
Denver Holdings. Mr. Merritt stated the applicant was in
agreement with that condition of approval.
CITIZEN INPUT
Susan Flickinger, suggested an alternative to the restaurant.
She suggested a roller -rink on that corner. She also suggested
other uses for the site.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Mr. Olt gave a synopsis of the process the applicant went through
to arrive at the proposed land uses.
0
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 3
Mr. Dan Yacovetta, President of Denver Holdings also addressed
proposed land uses in the center.
Member Strom asked if Member Cottier was suggesting that other
uses would not be able to operate 24 hours.
Member Cottier responded yes.
Member Cottier moved for approval of Country Club Corners PUD,
Preliminary and Final with the additional note stating that no
business, with the exception of Albertson's on Lot 2 or a
standard sit-down restaurant will be allowed a 24-hour operation.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
Member Cottier addressed the land uses in the center and that the
uses proposed were clearly appropriate and needed in this area.
The motion was approved 7-0.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE CONGESTION
• MANAGEMENT PLAN
Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, gave the staff
presentation, talking about the process used over the past two
years; also, the recommended changes to the Overall Goals and
Objectives, the creation of new programs, and elements that
related to the 1995 work plan.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
None.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED
Member Carnes stated he was encouraged by this study, but also
asked that at some point, to get some objective input on the
information they get to the public as far as education awareness.
He thought it was a wonderful study and has resulted in some real
insights and some sure guidance of where we go in the future to
attempt to curb the growth in single occupancy vehicle travel and
achieve a greater shift to alternative modes.
Member Fontane stated that with her participation in the
Congestion Management Plan, there was an incredible amount of
discussion and communication between all different sectors of our
• community. It was very well worked out, there were a lot of
issues that came out and were chewed on and discussed. She was
very pleased that all that discussion came down to what they were
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 4
seeing tonight. She thought that the citizen participation was
incredible and the big battle ahead was going to be the educating
and sharing of this information to get people out of their cars
and use alternative modes.
Chairman Clements asked about the term "Congestion Management
Plan", and the fact that what they were doing is managing
traffic. She wondered if there was any thought given to calling
it what it is, and getting rid of the "single occupant vehicle"
and talk about cars, getting rid of "congestion management" and
talk about traffic. Putting it into black and white terms.
Mr. Bracke replied there had been a lot of discussion about
renaming it. They could not agree on what to rename it. Federal
Legislation required that areas that were non -attainment for
carbon monoxide do a Congestion Management Plan.
Member Fontana made a motion for the recommendation to City
Council for the Congestion Management Plan.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Chairman Clements noted for the record that this was a
recommendation to City Council, and for this item the Board was
not the final decision making authority, it did have another step
and would go to City Council.
The motion was approved 7-0.
WILLOW SPRINGS, FIRST FILING, FINAL P.U.D, #3-94C.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending
approval with a condition.
Mr. Shepard reported that the recommendation would be to
construct a collector street cross-section with bike lanes on the
street.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, stated that they had looked
at the alternatives, held another neighborhood meeting on January
12, and looked at the design and how it might change. Mr. Herzig
explained all of the alternatives and how they came to the
recommended alternative. This would be Option 2A, which save the
trees and keep the bike lanes on the street. Mr. Herzig reported
there might be some slope easements required from some of the
properties on the east side to grade the roadway to fit the
terrain of the land.
0
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 5
Member Strom asked why the south bound bike lane would not be
behind the trees and leave the north bound land on the street.
Mr. Herzig replied that it was primarily because they want to
leave bike lanes on the street. That is the standard design for
arterial and collector streets. If the bike lanes were not on
the street, there would still be an impact to the properties on
the east.
Member Strom asked if curb, gutter and sidewalk was going to be
run within 5 feet of the center line of the trees, were the trees
going to be able to be saved?
Mr. Herzig replied that would have to be looked in the design.
Mr. Shepard added that the City Forester has advised based upon
his inspection and analysis, that the trees were primarily
watered by an old irrigation lateral that is on the west side of
the trees, consequently that is where the root zone is the most
obvious. The area to the west of the tree is perhaps more
critical for preservation of the life of the trees, than the east
• side. Mr. Shepard also reported that by keeping the bikelanes on
the street, no additional right-of-way is needed.
Member Strom asked about bikelane connections east and west
through this property.
Mr. Shepard replied that the Keenland Drive connection to
Battlecreek would be an at grade street crossing that will have a
bikelane on the street. There are no plans to build a
bike/pedestrian path only. It would be some time from now, until
the City goes'to the Public Utilities Commission and gets
permission to cross the railroad tracks.
Member Strom thought that it should be considered due to the kids
from Preston Junior High School. He felt they should have a safe
place to cross the tracks.
Mr. Herzig responded that he did not think there were any at
grade pedestrian crossings other than the sidewalks that are
combined with the streets. It would still have to go through a
PUC review along with railroad review and permission to put a
pedestrian crossing in. He did not know if it would be difficult
or not.
Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design representing the applicant, gave a
• slide presentation with explanation of the property, including
the trees and bike lanes along Timberline Road. He also
discussed the recommended Option 2A, and the mitigation with the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 6
neighbors on the east side of the road. Mr. Sell reported that
even if the project is approved with Option 2A, there still would
be a final design process where by each individual property owner
would be consulted on their property on where trees, shrubs, and
berms would be relocated.
Mr. Steve Human, TST Engineering, spoke on drainage issues. He
reported that they had met Mr. Dusbabek's concerns and have
presented him with a signed agreement.
Member Walker asked about a new planting of trees on the west
side and was it to take the place of the existing cottonwood
trees?
Mr. Sell replied it was mitigation for the trees removed.
Member Strom asked about the new curb line in relation to the
pavement line. He stated the current drawings show a 24 foot
pavement centered on the section line and the interim
improvements appear to be about 20 feet from the section line to
the west.
Mr. Human, TST Engineers reported that was correct from edge of
pavement to face of curb. He thought that it would shift about 4
feet from the curb closer to the trees than the existing shoulder
might be at this point. This calculation has not been put to
paper as of yet.
Mr. Herzig, Engineering Department added that staff had not yet
seen a detailed design and could not confirm.
Mr. Shepard added that the face of curb would be determined by
the eastern most tree.
Mr. Sell stated that the City Forester had recommended Option 2A.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Ms. Bobbie Douglas, lives on County Road 36, spoke about her
concerns about the widening of Timberline Road and how that would
affect the neighbors in the County. Ms. Douglas was not
concerned with the trees but with the safety of driving and
riding bicycles on Timberline Road. Ms. Douglas stated that they
would like to see the bike lane on the west side of the road and
not interfere with the residents on the east side of Timberline
Road, preferably off of the roadway.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 7
Lorene Putnam, lives on south Timberline, spoke about her
concerns about not having a final design decision. She stated
that she would rather see the trees go rather than her front
yard. Ms. Putnam had concerns with the time frame of two years
until the road would be modified. Ms. Putnam presented a map of
the area and demonstrated the traffic flow and the present
conditions on Timberline Road. She felt that it was a safety
hazard because motorists do not know which way they are going,
and there are serious accidents in the area weekly. She strongly
urged the Board to do something about the road. Mr. Douglas was
upset about the Board voting on something that was not a final
design.
Sara Harkins, Member of Tree Council, voiced her concerns with
the trees and opposed the removal of the trees.
E4ZPail arm) KOT-) a]
Chairman Clements asked Mr. Shepard to respond to the comments
made regarding the credibility of the decisions made at final
• approval.
Mr. Shepard replied that the project was not in final design and
the Board was being asked for direction as to which broad
parameter to choose. Once that has been determined, the project
will go into final design. Mr. Shepard explained some of the
elements that were still to be determined. The affected property
owners would be worked with, and there were mitigation dollars
for landscaping. Mr. Shepard added that construction was
frustrating, that it is temporary, and the ultimate solution is
to have a design that works for everyone when the construction is
done.
Chairman Clements asked for explanation on the time frame of two
years.
Mr. Herzig responded that the length of time is covered in the
development agreement where it is specified from the developer
what their phasing and what their develop out is going to be.
Staff considers their impact on Timberline Road and whether the
existing road would serve the need until the estimated 1997 build
out by the developer. Staff would be looking at it in terms of
making sure the improvements are put in before they get too far
along and create too much of an impact on the road. Things are
usually tied to the number of building permits issued.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 8
Chairman Clements asked about the current conditions of
Timberline Road, and if there are safety concerns, how could that
be addressed?
Mr. Herzig replied that if the transitions on Timberline Road are
unsafe, staff has noted it, and will contact the Engineering
Inspection Department to look at the road; and, will make sure it
is adequately signed. Mr. Herzig offered to contact the
neighbors and keep them informed.
Mr. Shepard added that Matt Baker of the Engineering Department
has stated that this is not in final format, more work needed to
be done out there and will be done.
Member Bell asked to see a map a broader map of the area, and was
concerned with not just this development but the whole area.
Mr. Herzig stated that that was also a concern of staff, but
staff has not seen designs yet. The only design staff has seen
is the design from Stetson Creek and Timber Creek north to
Harmony Road. That design, when completed would fit into this
existing road. It does not account for what is proposed for
Willow Springs, that is what the developer of Willow Springs has
to incorporate into his design.
Mr. Herzig added that this is an arterial street, but what was
being built was a collector and would suffice in a collector
design for many years. Stetson Creek and Timber Creek were also
not constructing the road to full capacity at this time. Mr.
Herzig explained the current road construction in the area with
the current developments approved at this time.
Member Bell thought that not looking at the whole picture is a
critical problem.
Mr. Herzig responded that staff is looking at the whole thing.
Each of the stages of development is a part of the whole, and
staff is making sure that each piece that is being built would be
a part of the whole. Mr. Herzig demonstrated that on the map
with current development parcels and parcels that have not
developed yet and how that would all fit together.
Mr. Ron Phillips, Transportation Director added that this was
driven by development that takes place along the arterial road.
It was an overall policy that Timberline is looked at as a whole
entity. Mr. Phillips gave examples in the community of the same
situation occurring with previously developed County roads. This
was no different in that there is a policy that addresses the
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 9
arterial overall, but the actual improvements occur when
development takes place along the road. Mr. Phillips felt there
was no need for alarm, the transitions are designed to take place
and occur in safe configurations.
Member Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to address policy
for the residents on the east side of the road and what has to be
done with them before any physical changes take place.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that if the City is to do any
construction on property that it does not already own, then it
must acquire either ownership or an easement for that purpose.
If it cannot be done by negotiation, then it is purchased by
condemnation. If there is condemnation, the City Council would
have to authorize the proceedings.
Member Walker asked for clarification that the only thing the
City was looking for under the solutions proposed was a slope
easement on the private properties.
• Mr. Shepard replied that was correct and that it was temporary
during the construction phase.
Member Cottier asked if the proposed solution was all within
existing right-of-way.
Mr. Shepard replied that it was.
Member Cottier asked if the Board could require that the road be
shifted back to the west further south?
Mr. Shepard replied yes, after getting past the trees, it could
start to transition back to the west.
Member Cottier asked if Option 2A maintained the possibility that
at such time as the full arterial width is needed it could come
off of the west side and cause no further change on the east side
if the trees are dead?
Mr. Herzig replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if the Board could add a condition that if
and when the full arterial width is needed, that there not be a
sidewalk on the east side, if those properties are still in the
County.
• Mr. Shepard replied that the whole premise of the option is that
those decisions would be made in the future. The values of the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 10
community at the time, the condition of the trees, the input of
the citizens that live there at the time, and the current City
Council at the time, are in the best positions to make those
decisions.
Member Walker moved for approval of Willow Springs PUD with the
solution that is proposed, and the suggestion that south of the
trees that the alignment of the road be brought back further to
the west, including the staff condition.
Member Fontana seconded the motion.
Member Fontane commented that she appreciated the work and
clarification that has taken place in order to come down to the
decision of a three lane road. Ms. Fontane was please with the
work that will happen to work with the neighbors and their yards
being designed to their likings.
Member Walker commented that any development on the urbanizing
fringe would get partial solutions to transportation problems and
safety issues could be mitigated even with transitions. He
encouraged citizens with safety concerns to bring them to the
City's attention. He hoped that the City's values regarding
trees could work in with property owners value of their front
yards.
Member Fontane felt that this would be the opportunity for the
staff to finalize the design in the best interest of everyone.
Member Carnes commented that trees are a concern and a real value
in the community.
Member Strom would support the motion and commented that this
project had more detail than most and the Board was not the last
line of defense regarding design issues and encouraged the
residents to remain in the process.
Member Cottier would also support the motion due to the minimal
impact on the properties to the east and the proposed
improvements could be done within the existing right-of-way.
Member Strom encouraged staff to look at the pedestrian and bike
traffic east and west through this area.
The motion was approved 7-0.
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 11
TWO PONDS AT OVERLAND TRAIL - RF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
Chairman Clements had a conflict of interest on this item and
turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Cottier.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He stated
that this was not a Planned Unit Development reviewed by the Land
Development Guidance System. This was a site plan review allowed
under the RF Zone. This was considered a straight subdivision,
and is reviewed by the Zoning Code, not the Land Development
Guidance System.
The request was for 284 single family lots on 284.23 acres. The
site is located on the west side of Overland Trail, north of
Prospect Road, south of Elizabeth Street and the CSU Equine
Center. The planning staff is recommending conditions of
approval. One condition was being modified tonight, and the
Board received a one page memo. This condition of approval
referred to vested rights; and, that vested rights are held in
• abeyance until the final drainage plan is approved in connection
with the approval of the final subdivision plat, which in turn
has to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. That was
the first condition of approval.
The second condition of approval pertains to the hydrology study
needed to preserve the wetlands on sight and that was detailed in
the Board's staff report. The third condition of approval was
for a Forest Management Plan to have sensitive lot development
and try to preserve as much of the existing wind break as
possible.
Mr. Shepard presented slides for the Board showing overall areas,
giving background of the RF Zone; stating that the RF Zone must
be developed as a one -lot per 2.29 acres or as a cluster
development plan with an overall density of 1 unit per one acre,
with clustering at 3 to 5 units per acre. Slides of the
topographical contours of the area were shown, the areas to the
west of the Dixon Canyon lateral, and the 5250 line that is the
area that is proposed to be dedicated to the City.
Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, representing the
applicant showed slides defining various slopes of the property.
The site is divided on a north/south axis by the Dixon Canyon
lateral, 122 acres being west of the ditch, and 162 acres east of
the ditch. The ditch is about at an elevation of 5,210, and the
• top of the property at the western most boundary is at 5,510.
Overland Trail is about 5,115, and there is about 95 feet of drop
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 12
between the ditch and Overland Trail. The site is about 2,000
feet wide, and along Overland Trail it bulges out to 2,600 feet
wide at its widest point. There is about 3,200 feet across the
site up to the ditch, and another 2,000 feet above the ditch.
Mr. Vaught explained that the first 1,200 feet of the site,
slopes about 1.29c. The next 1,200 feet is about 3.3%. The third
800 feet is at about 5.6% slope. The average slope of the
developable portion of the land is about 3% from the ditch down
to Overland Trail.
The site has many natural features, and has a lot of other
features that have been imposed on them as far as drainage and
detention. There is a major water line easement that cuts the
site in half, it goes up to the water tank on the upper portion
of the property.
The Pleasant Valley Canal runs parallel in a curvlinear fashion
along Overland Trail. There is a good amount of trees and
natural area associated with that Canal. There is a pond that is
approximately 200 feet across in both directions. It was a pond
that was used for irrigation when the land was farmed. There is
a linear wetland that Riverside Technology went out on the site
and identified with Rob Wilkinson, and amounts to about 5.3 acres
of wetlands. .It varies from 100 feet across to 250 feet, to 20
feet across at the narrowest point. There is a spring that the
source of the water has not been identified. The water tends to
bubble out of the ground and contributes to the natural wetlands.
The assumption is that this wetland was created from drainage and
seepage from the Dixon Canyon Lateral and from the pond.
The Maxwell stone house is also located on the property, it was
built somewhere about 1937 and 1939, and has been identified as
having some historic significance.
The site has a fairly large detention requirement, about 44 acre
feet of water. They have handled that in about 22 acres of open
space that runs along the canal area in two places. There is a
sub -surface rock zone that is about 1,200 feet wide that runs all
the way through the property that was identified in the soils
testing. The rock zone is primarily a lime stone/silt stone
bedrock that is about 4 to 7 feet deep. It is shallower in the
southern zone.
There are natural drainage patterns that exist on site. The
primary one is the wetland area.
•
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 13
These are all features that offer opportunities as well
constraints in their design of the property.
Mr. Vaught stated that the Board will not be reviewing a PUD. It
is a cluster development plan, a subdivision plan that gets
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and has different
criteria than a straight forward subdivision. They could of
taken the approach of doing a subdivision with 2.29 acre lots,
but they felt that with the features explained earlier, this site
was unique and had a lot of opportunities and clustering would
give them the best opportunity to work around the features.
Clustering, they felt, has many benefits, one was providing a
variety, and it was felt that this piece of ground deserved a
variety of lot sizes. They also felt that it would minimize the
visual and environmental impact with a least change solution;
and, if they worked around the natural features, they could
impact the existing terrain and existing features in a minimal
way. They felt they had an opportunity to capitalize on the
sites positive natural characteristics. It would allow the
• opportunity to create a neighborhood. Mr. Vaught referenced
Paragon Point as a development similar to this one.
Mr. Vaught felt the components of any development plan are street
systems, lots, and open space. This parcel had some existing
conditions that were given to them. Transportation insisted that
they make a connection at Prospect and Overland Trail. They felt
that some day that intersection would be signalized and it would
make sense to provide an access point at that location. They
felt that the connection to Banyon was important to give the
multi -family that exists south of the site the opportunity to
recirculate north to get to the signal, so there was a safer
access onto Overland Trail than what currently exists to the
south.
Transportation also felt that they needed a second point of
access. They did not want to line up with any of the existing
streets to the development to the east. They also had some
constraints as to where the Pleasant Valley Canal crosses through
the property. They picked a central point location to bring a
boulevard street into the neighborhood that would make a
statement. On either side of the boulevard will be natural ponds
with the intention of recreating some of the wetlands being
disturbed along the 3 acre tract along Overland and leave it in a
natural state.
• Mr. Vaught stated there will not be manicured blue grass, it will
be natural grasses, natural ponds with augmented landscaping that
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 14
will support the existing material that is there. The boulevard
will become the main east/west street through the site.
They have observed the grades and the natural drainage and have a
maximum 6% in one area. The land generally slopes from west to
east, but there are portions of the land that gets steeper than
others and this was the only area that they could get in north of
the wetlands and climb up to the western portion of the site and
that becomes the steepest street section.
Mr. Vaught reported they have provided connections to the
adjacent properties to allow for recirculation to Prospect and
Overland. They have provided two streets that will go to the
property to the north in the event that that piece of property
develops, it will have the opportunity to recirculate and exit
onto Overland through their property. They have also allowed for
a future right-of-way that would connect into the four large
estate lots, but there is a portion of land that is remaining
that could develop at some future date. Transportation felt that
it was necessary that they incorporate some connection there that
would allow the future development to get back to Overland Trail.
Mr Vaught stated they wanted to provide a variety of lot sizes,
whereby creating a neighborhood, not just another subdivision
that's all 8,000 to 10,000 s.f. lots. They wanted to maximize
the number of lots on the open space. Out of 284 lots, they have
180 lots that back up to and have direct access to open space.
All of the other lots have access via some type of green space
connector. They wanted to design the lots to conform to the
terrain so they minimize the grading and filling and maximize the
opportunity to get walk out basements and to have solar access.
In fact, 681v of the lots that are required to have solar access,
to fulfill that criteria.
Mr. Vaught wanted to be respectful of the natural drainage
because the last thing any developer wants to do would be to
build a lot in the middle of an existing drainage pattern where
water is used to travel and in a heavy rainfall situation would
create a problem for those residents living in those homes. They
have located those lots, so they can accomplish all those items
he has mentioned.
The third component is the open space. There will be 195 acres,
which is 689,; of the total property dedicated to open space; 122
of those acres are above the Dixon Canyon Lateral, and 73 acres
are then incorporated in the wetlands, detention ponds and
natural areas that are featured on the plan. They wanted to
preserve the existing wetlands and enhance with the natural areas
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 15
along Overland Trail. They wanted to provide maximum setbacks
and buffering to the existing development. They want to provide
public access to the foothills open space via the bike trail.
The developer wanted to preserve large blocks of land that could
be left in a natural state in order to provide wildlife habitat
areas. They think there can be a development that can be
compatible and allow, given the amount of open space above the
ditch, that some of that wildlife certainly can co-habitate with
the development east of the ditch.
Mr. Vaught stated the developer wanted to accommodate the
regional detention requirements; and, 22 acres of open space is
dedicated to that detention use, and to use those areas as the
more manicured areas that could be used for active recreation.
They were seeing to the preservation of the old Maxwell house and
the potential for developing it into a community facility along
with picnic and recreation areas and some active recreation in
the form of football and soccer areas.
Mr. Vaught felt there had been a lot of discussion about density
and how it is calculated and how it relates to the overall
density. Tract A has about 66 lots on about 15.5 acres, that
calculates out to 4.25 units to the acre. Cluster B, is 86 lots
on 17.3 acres, that calculates to 4.97. The Cluster Plan
requires that you be in a range of 3 to 5 units per acre. This
would represent the highest end of their density. Cluster C is
35 lots on 10.7 acres, which is 3.27 units to the acre. Cluster
D is 52 lots on 13.6 acres, 3.82 units per acre. Cluster E
represents 40 lots on 28.3 acres, 1.4 units per acre. The 8.9
acres of developed land, which represents all the tracts, have
284 units, for an average density of 3.14 dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Vaught felt this is a unique development proposal. The
property has a mix of housing types that exist around it. They
originally had asked for 700 units, after a neighborhood meeting,
it dropped down to about 500 units. After a few other meetings,
it has now dropped down to under 300 units. He thought it has
evolved because of a lot of City and County Governmental
Agreements, as well as the neighbors not wanting a multi -family
component on this site. It is not an all single family
neighborhood on a piece of ground that offers amenities that you
don't find everyday in Fort Collins. He thought that the
proposal is unique and offers the City as well as the future
residents of this site, many benefits and opportunities.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 16
Mr. Vaught felt the first was the dedication of the 122 acres of
open space, second is the public access to this open space, third
is the preservation of the natural wetlands and the enhancement
of wetlands by adding additional wetlands to the Overland Trail
area. Fourth is that there is a drainage problem in this part of
town, this is the last piece of land to develop so the
responsibility of resolving a lot of those drainage issues rests
with this piece of property. It has become an opportunity, as
well as a constraint to resolve those drainage issues. Fifth is
the preservation of the old Historic Maxwell house. They have no
problem committing to making that preservation happen. Sixth is
the large buffer areas to the existing development, both along
Overland and to the south. Seventh, is the improvements to the
existing street system, with the connections to the surrounding
properties to allow for re -circulation to Overland Trail, a
potentially safer situation once the signal is installed. Eight,
is 73 more acres of open space within the residential use area,
providing wildlife areas, as well as active recreation space.
Nine is that they are providing a variety of lot sizes that
allows for a mix of housing types and housing costs.
Mr. Vaught mentioned that there are conditions associated with
staff's recommendation for approval. They have reviewed those
conditions and can accept them.
Member Bell asked about wind breaks and asked for those to be
pointed out.
Mr. Vaught pointed out a group of evergreens that they have
identified. They have tried to located the lot line between the
two lots to incorporate those trees being on that lot line so
there will be minimal disturbance. It is their goal to preserve
as many, if not all, of the trees as possible. He thought that
what they were agreeing to with the condition is that they will
meet with Tim Buchanan, identify which trees are acceptable and
which trees Mr. Buchanan would like to see removed. There is
some open space and some lots that would be effected.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Mr. Curt Fuller, 1202 Cascade Cou
this development. He agreed it i
reason it is a unique development
piece of land. You could come up
slice of a National Park as well.
to the foothills, he believes, is
122 acres that is being donated,
cannot take place on that
rt wanted to speak out against
s a unique development. The
is because it is on a unique
with a unique development on a
This is land that is adjacent
about to be mistreated. The
everybody knows that development
122 acres, it is not developable. He
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 17
did not believe that the developer should get credit for the 122
acres in the type of density that is being proposed. It was
being stated that the clustering is being done to minimize the
aesthetic impact on the foothills. The clustering is being done
to maximize the density of this development. If you want to
minimize the impact on the aesthetics, minimize the density.
Approval of this proposal will represent an unprecedented break-
out of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort
Collins and Larimer County with the use of this density transfer
that has been suggested. It will seriously impact the view of
the foothills, the damage will be permanent and it will lead to
further violations of the Intergovernmental Agreement. He
believes the citizens have made their feelings abundantly clear
through petitions and earlier input at these Board meetings. He
believed that the developer has shown contempt for the
Intergovernmental Agreement and has been forced to phase back the
densities of the proposed development. He believes they have
shown disregard for the citizens who have to live here. Not all
of the people on the development side are from Fort Collins.
• They are here to make their profits and move back to Denver. We
will be stuck with whatever mistakes are made in the development
and is something we will have to live with from now on. He hoped
that the proposed density here will be rejected.
Mr. Bob Davidson, lives east of the planned development, on the
east side of overland Trail. Mr. Davidson felt the plan itself
is not a bad plan. It has some nice aesthetics to it, and some
things have been taken into consideration. He added that if the
citizens would not have gotten involved in this, there would of
been 649 acres the first time they came before the Board. Most
of the Board did not know anything about the Intergovernmental
Agreement except for Member Walker. They also, during that time,
had to educate the City Planning Department about the
Intergovernmental Agreement. They did not know what they were
talking about half the time either, and since then they have come
up to speed.
Mr. Davidson stated what upset him most, is that he sees a lot of
interpretation going on. They try to interpret the
Intergovernmental Agreement to get what they wanted, high
density. Then they come up with cluster development and now they
have an interpretation for what that means. Nothing in writing,
no policy, nothing legal about it whatsoever as far as transfer
of density, no mention of it. Except for Mr. Ken Waido, he seems
to remember this from when they did this whole plan, but yet
nothing in writing, so we have to rely on him for their archives.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 18
The City Council went and gave this developer 10 years to
develop, when normally it is three years. Why ten years?
Because of economic considerations. Mr. Davidson believes it is
a ploy to get higher density later on down the road. His concern
was they could apply for rezoning any time they want, they can
apply for variances, they can seek to amend the Intergovernmental
Agreement so they can change the density. He was concerned about
that, and if they could lock this into writing where this zoning
and this density is all they will ever have to worry about in ten
years of development with this entity, as far as developer, he
would not have such an issue. It really bothers him that nothing
is locked in concrete here. As soon as the political climate
changes, or citizens move away or loose interest, and this
property is platted, there is no legal recourse after that unless
they rezone. He would like to see some things locked in
concrete.
Mr. Davidson stated they were also given three years, 14 months
or three years to turn over the open space to the City, to deed
it over. Why 14 months to three years. What happens if they go
belly up before three years. We have development over there,
torn up land and the City gets nothing, and the citizens get
nothing. It seems like a bad deal and not much forethought put
here. He would like to see this very specifically locked into
writing so that clever lawyers can't reinterpret down the line to
suit some other developer.
He also would like to see, if and when they do deed this open
space over to Fort Collins, the City of Fort Collins deed the
land over to a non-profit natural conservancy so we never have to
worry about the City deciding down the line that they want to
sell the land or develop it down the line. They way we can
guarantee this land stays as it was intended.
Mr. Davidson thinks the density of 284 is too much. They should
not be allowed extra credit for land they can't develop on. They
can't develop on because of the topography, soil conditions and
the grade of the land. City ordinance says they cannot build
above 5,200 feet, if they develop in the County they could get
three properties out of it, three units. Mr. Barnett, when he
came and talked at the City Council meeting, stated that based
upon his knowledge about land, that 34 units was the maximum he
would allow them. Here we are with 284. It does not make sense.
The land should not support that and he thought it was an eye
sore for the foothills. He could go with 170 for what they are
allowed, one unit per one acre for land that is developable east
of the Dixon Canal.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 19
Mr. Rex Miller, lives immediately south of the proposed project
stated he has 5 acres of ground that abutts the south line. He
personally thinks that what has evolved here represents
potentially, a very nice subdivision. He thinks that through the
negotiation process that has taken place over the last few weeks,
they have been considerate about their concerns in terms of
buffering. His only concern was that the City of Fort Collins
has a easement to access their water tower, which runs straight
up the south line of the proposed project. It does not follow
any contour, but when we have any sort of heavy rain, it acts
like a ditch. All the water runs down and will now end up on the
city street, it will be a muddy mess. It cuts through all the
green space on the proposed subdivision and his property. It
seems that if they were going to develop streets that would take
them up to necessary elevation to get to the water tower then it
would make more sense to utilize those streets, paved streets, to
get up to the Dixon Canal and then on up to the tank and
eliminate the present road.
Mr. Miller's other concern is the traffic situation on Prospect
• between Overland Trail and Shields. The City has sold a piece of
ground adjacent to Bauder School. For the purpose of improving
the streets. He has not heard what happened to the money. He
noticed that Bauder School had enough money to create a new
soccer field, but has not done anything to improve the streets in
front of the school. There is a lot of diagonal parking when
children are being let off and picked up from school. It creates
quite a bottle neck and with the increased traffic from this
subdivision, with the majority of it going down Prospect, he
thought it would be nice if the City would utilize the funds that
they have derived from the sale of the old farm to improve that
area. Maybe get Poudre R-1 to participate and get Prospect up to
speed. If that money is available, he would like to know when
the City and Poudre R-1 would respond.
Mr. Miller thought the subdivision had a lot of potential, and
had a lot of nice amenities.
Mr. Leon Heatherington stated he had been before the board twice
before on this matter over the past ten months. Mr.
Heatherington thanked Mr. Vaught for reworking his design and
coming up with answering many of the concerns of the neighbors.
Mr—Heatherington urged the condition of approval to have
simultaneous dedication of the open space west of the Dixon
Canal. He was concerned by delaying the dedication of that
• property for three years, up to a maximum of three years, that
the developer then would always have a certain leverage over this
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 20
Board to come in and want to change it. He hoped the City could
buy the open space and take that out of the picture in the
decision -making process tonight; it had been offered. He felt it
should be a condition of this approval.
Mr. Heatherington stated that from statements that the developer
had made that the developer has an option to purchase this land
in increments or in progressions. He was concerned that the
developer would develop some of the high -density next to Overland
Trail, and then, for whatever reason, the economy or the
economics of the project, they abandon the project. The property
that Mr. Knoll, as the owner, should now dedicate, is still in
limbo, and we're messed up with the future developers and
everything else. Get it now as a condition of approval.
Mr. Heatherington's main concern was he felt that the density was
too high. Six hundred people signed petitions. The petitions
say they can live with 170 units. He thought that was fair and
reasonable. He thought that when you have 153 homes of 60 by 100
lot size and 5 feet on each side of the building envelope on the
side lot line, 15 feet in the front and 20 feet in the back,
there would not be any open space. He felt the developer was
cramming in a lot of homes into the lower end. He would like to
see the lot size increased, less density to about 170, and have a
nicer overall development for the project. He did not think
there should be a density transfer off the side of the mountain
down to the true developable land. The rest of it is
undevelopable. It may not have much value, it cannot be built
on. There is no water, no services that can be furnished to the
property, yet we are going to strip the density of that land and
put it down here to absolutely maximize out this lower
development on one of the most unique pieces of property in the
City of Fort Collins.
Mr. Heatherington referenced the annexation agreement. He
appeared before the City Council to discuss the annexation and
the zoning, and that was in September. He went to the City
Clerks office in November and an annexation agreement had been
recorded that has language in it indicating that this developer
somehow is entitled to a transfer of density off the side of that
mountain. That would take away the Board's discretion and the
Board's function if the City Manager can just arbitrarily enter
into an agreement with the developer and say, "You are entitled
to a transfer of density;" and the zoning ordinance under cluster
development does not say undevelopable, unbuildable land.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 21
Mr. Heatherington closed by saying that this was unique to our
City. It was going to be there forever. he would like to see a
development we can live with clear into our future.
Mr. Dennis Stenson, 2820 West Elizabeth Street at the Happy Heart
Farm stated that the foothills zoning was not only going to be
affected in this particular area; but it was going to be affected
all up and down the front range; and the transfer of development
here that is being considered is going to affect the whole nature
of the front range and how it is developer. There are agreements
that are being considered right now up and down the Front Range,
so the precedent that is being taken here is incredibly
important. He urged the Board to not give credit for open space
that is not developable.
Mr. Stenson thought that the traffic was being nicely considered
in this subdivision, but 110 extra units were being considered
based upon that transfer of density. It is indicated that there
are 10 single occupancy vehicle trips per household. That would
account for another 1,100 extra additional single occupancy
• vehicle trips throughout the west side of town per day. Added up
to the 170 that we think is legal under the RF zoning, that is a
total of 1,700 single occupancy vehicle trips per year. That was
2,800 extra single occupancy vehicle trips in that part of town.
That would not only impact the subdivision, but Prospect Street,
Elizabeth Street, Mulberry Street, Drake Road if we can conclude
that most of the traffic is going to be moving from the west to
the east. The increase would impact air, noise, stress levels of
members of the existing community. The existing community is not
only the people that live in the area, but also deer, red foxes,
prairie dogs, the hawks and the bald eagles that already consider
that their neighborhood.
Mr. Stenson was concerned with the open space to be deeded by the
developer, perhaps three years after the development starts. He
would like to see that come as a condition of approval and not
when it comes together at the will of the developer. he would
like to have concrete guarantees in writing up front as a
condition.
Mr. Glen Wemhoff, 4025 Spruce Drive agreed with everything said
here tonight. He was concerned with the access to the 120 acre
of ground the developer was going to give the City. The only
access talked about is the bike trail. He does not ride a bike
and was concerned with the people who walk and were they would
park their cars.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 22
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the statement made regarding
the violations of the Urban Growth Area Agreement.
Mr. Shepard replied that staff did not feel it did. Staff felt
that it complied with the IGA with Larimer County for the
foothills area in that the RF zoning that was placed on the
ground by Council, that action in itself complies with the IGA.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked how the RF criteria was written, and
what was the City's position on how that should be interpreted.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the cluster development
plan portion of the RF Zone was found in Section 29.116,
Subparagraph 2, the section that deals with the issue of whether
density can be transferred from undevelopable, or other portions
of the property not proposed for development. Mr. Eckman stated
that you might have a property, an overall property that has a
lake on it or a wetland or, in this case, an upland, and that it
is undevelopable, either as a matter of fact from a practical
standpoint or as a matter of law, as in this case, because it
stands at an elevation too high.
Mr. Eckman stated that the code says that the overall gross
density of residential units on the Cluster Development Plan is
not greater than 1 unit per acre. The units are clustered
together, and the portion of the property designated on the plan
for residential use at a density of 3 to 5 units per acre and the
remainder of the property is permanently preserved in some manner
or another. Mr. Eckman said that in his judgement, "overall
gross density", the intention there was that you can look at
undevelopable portions to determine what that overall gross
density is. It can be based on the entire parcel and then
brought down into higher densities of 3 to 5. But on the
overall, it can only be at a maximum of 1 unit per acre.
Mr. Eckman also wanted to talk about the statement made that this
annexation agreement usurps the Board's authority, and maybe it
would be appropriate to touch on that. Mr. Eckman thought the
Board's authority has been and still is all wrapped up in the RF,
Foothills Residential District provision of the Code, and that
authority is to approve or deny this Cluster Development Plan.
The RF District is a Cluster Development Plan, subject to
approval by special approval of the Planning and Zoning Board,
may vary the requirements of this section of this subdivision,
and the ten criteria that needs to be looked at. The developer
has to comply with the basic premises of the RF Plan unless the
Board determines to vary those premises with the Cluster Plan.
The Board's decision is to decide whether or not this Cluster
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 23
Plan complies with all ten of those criteria and with that
introductory paragraph, to see if you should vote "yes" or "no"
If you vote "no", then some of the provisions of the annexation
agreement might become applicable, but the Board should just
decide whether or not it complies.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the annexation agreement. One,
that the annexation agreement guaranteed this property the
ability to transfer to the City from the portion above 5,250.
That is to say, it guaranteed them one unit per gross acre. So
since that was guaranteed by City Council in an annexation
agreement, can we make any other determination?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the Board could deny the
project. If the Board would do that, or if the Board approves
something, the Board would entertain a conditional approval at a
density that is different than the annexation agreement calls
for, then the provisions in the annexation agreement do not
control the Board's decision, such that they have to make any
different decision. It just means that the developer will have
• to make a determination as to whether to seek to disconnect from
the City.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the annexation agreement and
that the developer has 14 months to 3 years to turn over the open
space, and was that correct?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied it did say that.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if we would be within our rights to
put a condition that it had to be done concurrently with approval
of this?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied he did not remember why that
provision was included. It did say that the dedication will
occur not less than 14 months and not more than 36 months from
the effective date of annexation. As to whether the board could
approve a different condition and still end up with the result,
as long as the density was not changed, that the property could
not be disconnected, and would like to discuss that further
outside the context of the hearing, maybe with Mr. Spillane, and
get back to the Board with a better response.
Vice Chairman Cottier read that the cluster development
requirements also stated, "As a condition of approval of a
Cluster Development Plan, the City may require the property
• owners to maintain the dedicated space", which would assume it
had been dedicated; and, it states that that could be a condition
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 24
of approval of the Cluster Plan. Maybe there could be some input
on that. Also, some of the speakers mentioned that they would
like the open space to be of some guarantee that it would be
forever open space. Did this Cluster Plan dedication of open
space guarantee that the City could not sell it at some point in
the future or turn it over to some other uses like water towers
or water tanks or something?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the Cluster Development
Plan Ordinance refers to the remainder of the property being
permanently preserved as open space, either through dedication of
ownership, as proposed in this annexation agreement, but that
would not absolutely be necessary. It might have been proposed
as a conservation easement or something like that. It says,
"...or placement of an appropriate easement granted to the City
with such restrictive provisions and future interests as may be
necessary to insure continuation of the open space use as
intended". He believed the Board could make that a requirement.
Since the dedication has not yet occurred, we have some liberty
to draft it in such a way that it is permanent. He thought that
could be done.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked in terms of open space dedicated as a
requirement of getting a Cluster Development Plan approved and
the way it is described in this section, is that sufficient
guarantee that it would always be open?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he thought we could
draft the dedication in such a way that we do not have to deed
this to the Nature Conservancy or some other entities such as
that. He thought we could ensure that the City is obliged to
keep it as open space.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the access to the water tower
along the dirt road on the southern property boundary and could
it be abandoned?
Mr. Shepard replied that our water department would be happy to
take a paved -road access up to the water tank. At such time,
they would probably vacate the easement, but they probably would
want to wait until the roads were in before doing that.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if it would require some connection
through some of the upper cul-de-sacs?
Mr. Shepard replied there was a break between the lots already,
and that would probably be where they would get access, and then
they would take access on the ditch road.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 25
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the Prospect Street
improvements.
Mr. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, replied that there is an
approved development, Fairbrooke, Tract A; that the City is
trying to finalize in a development agreement. They will be
improving Prospect Road all the way from Taft Hill to the west
boundary of their site, which is about three-quarters of a mile
towards Overland Trial. If that project does not proceed, we
will still be dealing with off -site improvements with this
project. Somehow, those improvements have to be take care of to
upgrade that street to handle the impacts.
Member Carnes asked about Cluster E achieving a density of 3 to 5
units per acre as it stated in the Cluster Development Section
29.116, number 2.
Mr. Shepard replied that staff did not look at these as A through
E clusters. Staff looked at this as one cluster, and that one
cluster achieves a 3.14 dwelling in a per acre density in what we
• are calling the "receiving zone". Staff did not look at 5
clusters.
Member Carnes asked if that was a reasonable, possible, probable,
or unlikely interpretation.
Mr. Vaught replied that technically the intent was to achieve an
overall density between 3 to 5 units to the acre. In this case,
given that the lots along the ditch were up at the highest
elevation, it was their desire to make those lots larger inorder
to have less visual impact at the highest elevation on the site
and to be more compatible with the existing estate lots on the
south side of the property.
Member Carnes replied that he did not see that language here, so
that was his question.
Mr. Shepard replied that there is a reference to a Cluster
Development Plan; and then it says, "...is not greater than one
unit per acre. The units are clustered together on the portion
that is designated for residential use". That implies a single
clustering of units on th e area that is designated below the
5,200 foot elevation. The individual clustering that Mr. Vaught
has referred to is simply their way of designating or identifying
different areas and possibly different phases of the project.
• Mr. Carnes responded that his question remained. He also had a
question on number seven. "The Cluster Development Plan takes
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 26
into account the unique microclimate of the foothills, so the
building envelopes are selected and individual structures will be
built for protection from high winds and would function with
maximum conservation of energy". He asked for that to be
addressed.
Mr. Vaught replied 68 percent of the lots fulfill the
requirements of the City's solar ordinance. They feel that that
certainly addresses the energy conservation aspect of that
microclimate condition. They have been sensitive to location the
lots to that there is minimal disruption of existing topography
and maximum ability to tuck the buildings into the hillside to
allow walk -out conditions with basements, minimizing the amount
of house that is protruding above -grade.
Member Carnes asked about the language having to do with the high
winds. Was this area subject to high winds and from what
direction?
Mr. Vaught replied all of the foothill zone is subject to high
winds from the northwest direction. They had not done any wind
studies as it relates to this site; but there are probably
different zones of wind conditions based on the distance you are
from the peak of the ridge.
Member bell asked about pricing ranges from the western edge,
where the lots are bigger to those very small 6,000 square foot
lots?
Mr. Vaught gave an educated guess, because as planners of the
property, they are not involved with the actual construction of
the residences at the stage.
Member Bill asked about the topography to the west and in keeping
the views open through the wetlands. The houses have the
potential to be quite high and limit the views.
Mr. Vaught replied that all of their lots would be at a minimum 5
feet below the 5,200 line; and a maximum height of structure is
40 feet. Typically a house, even a tall two-story house, would
run more in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 feet depending on the
pitch of the roof. Most of the roofs will not be very high above
the ditch.
Member Bell raised the issue of the IGA and on page 172, 2.3
under Land Use Types, Section (b), it talks about open space,
"Areas designed to protect and enhance the natural physiographic
foothills and maintain them as an aesthetic backdrop..." et
u
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 27
cetera. Then it says, "Such areas could include private open
space, such as pastures and other agricultural uses exclusive of
improvements above 5,200 feet". How did that fit into what we
are discussing? Member Bell also referenced Section 29-114,
Maximum Topographic Limitation of Development, "No elevation of
any building...", which says that you do not build over the 5,200
foot mark. Member Bell asked those sections to be looked at.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied she was correct. The Code at
29-114 prohibits any development of a building built on a lot --
"No elevation of any building built on a lot shall exceed 55,250
feet elevation". If you go to the Urban Growth Area Agreement,
the number is 5,200. Mr. Eckman thought that the sections were
in harmony, especially when you read 2.4 following on page 18 of
the UGA Agreement. On page 17, it says that the areas are to be
left open above that elevation, which is true of this area. Then
on 2.4 it says, "Residential development will be allowed provided
that the gross density does not exceed one unit per two acres and
a development plan is approved as a part of a Planned Unit
Development". That was different than what our Cluster
Development Plan provides, he could not give the history on that.
Mr. Shepard added he did not have the history. He was aware that
the Foothills Area Study that was done between the City and
County resulted in some of the language that made it into the
IGA, then the next generation was the creation of the RF Zone.
The RF zone was designed to implement the findings of the
Foothills Area Study. In terms of the process, the creation of
the RF Zone went to City Council for two readings and was
adopted. Council at the time felt that it was in compliance with
the IGA with Larimer County.
Member Bell asked if this was the first time there was a transfer
like this and was this the first time the Board was being asked
to make an interpretation of what all of the words in these
documents mean?
Mr. Shepard replied that there have been two projects in the RF
zone prior to this, one built, one not built. One was called the
Stuart Property and one is called the Burns Ranch, Burns Ranch at
Quail Ridge. The Stuart Property was brought forward as an RF
Cluster Plan. It never got built because the City purchased the
property for the southwest park area and for some open space.
The Burns Ranch did develop, and both of those project met the
requirements of the RF Zone. Both projects had what we are
referring to as a "sending zone" and a "receiving zone" where
density was granted based on the overall acreage, the gross
acreage of the project.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 28
Member Bell asked if it included property above the 5,200 foot
line?
Mr. Shepard replied no. The Stuart Property did not have
property above 5,200. The Burns Ranch did. The Burns Ranch had
property that went above 5,250 and then dropped down again on the
west side of that. They had a different situation. His
recollection was the Burns Ranch did bring in property that was
above 5,250 for which they are preserving as open space.
Membet Bell asked if that was included in the overall density in
question.
Mr. Shepard replied it was.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that he remembered some
discussion around the same question when this came to the City
Council at the time of annexation; he did not remember the
details of it, but the gist of it was that the RF zone was an
evolution out the UGA Agreement and that the County had approved
of that in some document sent to the City as being in compliance
with the UGA Agreement for the foothills.
Mr. Shepard added that the RF zone is one of the newest zone
districts created out of a joint study with the County, and that
it is wholly appropriate that it be nothing but RF. One speaker
thought that there might be some manipulation of the platting
process, there might be some manipulation later in a different
political climate with a different council; that the developer
could somehow be brought back through the process, a request to
obtain greater density. Mr. Shepard thought that was difficult
to address because we do not know what the future will hold, but
thought it was the same for any property in the City of Fort
Collins; that any property owner at any time can petition the
legislative body for rezoning.
Member Walker asked about the dedication of the open space. If
the Board was to approve this as it was stated, given that it is
a Cluster Development Plan and the part of the stipulation is
that the land that is not being built upon h as to be permanently
preserved as open space, did that provide sufficient guarantees,
that the open space is tied to the development of this property.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he wanted to talk to the
developer's attorneybefore we went further with that, and he had
just done that. one alternative that he had suggested, was that
it might be possible to condition the approval that the
dedication must occur before more than 124 building permits were
10
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 29
issued, as one alternative. Another alternative might be an
escrowing of the deed in some way so that the deed would already
be in the hands of an escrow agent; and, upon the occurrence of
an event, maybe the passage of a certain date, the deed could
then be delivered to the City. There was some tax reasons why
the developer did not want to dedicated it just now, Mr. Spillane
would have to explain that.
Mr. John Spillane, Attorney for the developer stated that with
regard to the timing of this, part of it is philosophical and
part of it is practical. The thing to understand is, is what
they are asking this Board to do is approve this Cluster
Development Plan. One of the conditions is that it just be
permanently preserved as open space, and we invite the Commission
to make that condition. That is what they have agreed to do, and
did so in their annexation agreement. They have agreed that it
be a condition of the approval of the Cluster Development Plan.
Mr. Spillane went on to say that the timing of it, presents its
own set of problems. Some of the problems have been addressed
• here tonight, and that is, does the Board put it into a
conservation easement, what kinds of planning considerations do
you give when you are putting 120 acres into open space. The
City wanted to make sure that those issues got addressed and we
did not h ave to feel as if they were rushing into the mechanics
of how to make the dedication. The fact is that they have
agreed, as a condition of this Cluster Development Plan, that it
be maintained as permanent open space; and that is exactly what
they have agreed to do already.
Mr. Spillane stated that in terms of the timing, they wanted to
make sure there was enough time to adequately address how the
dedication gets made, what sort of accommodations do you make for
planning around the open space. Those are the things they wanted
to address as part of that process. The practical consideration
was there was tax implications. They were not buying this
property in phases. They were buying it all at once. It has
been agreed that the dedication would be made, and that was a
provision the City could enforce.
Mr. Spillane suggested that in context, since they have a
straight zone for 2.29 acres, that would be 124 units they are
entitled to under the straight zone. If the Board wanted to tie
the dedication of the 124th building permit, that is the sort of
thing that the City would do or the City oftentimes does. they
have no objection to it. The other suggestion he made is that if
• the City is concerned about whether the dedication is going to be
made, they could escrow the deed; but the fact of the matter is,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 30
for tax considerations, they have to make sure it does not happen
immediately. It has to happen 12 months from the time they have
agreed to do it. From the City's standpoint, the City wasn't
particularly concerned, because they would not develop above it
anyway once they have annexed and had the Cluster Development
approved. It was more a timing consideration and one that the
City was not particularly concerned about, as long as the City
knew it was going to get the property.
Mr. Spillane stated they were not trying to pull a fast one on
the City. They are not trying to keep that property from the
City. That it was the biggest reason they have submitted the
plan the way they have. There is a variety of ways to
accommodate the timing; but if the City were to say, "a condition
of you approval would be that the dedication had to be made right
away", that is a problem. He thought that by having it being a
condition of the plan approval gives the City the assurances it
needs and that way they could address it in the proper planning
perspective.
Member Walker asked since this is a Cluster Development Plan and
a preliminary plat, would they see this in some sort of final
form.
Mr. Shepard replied that the Board would see this again as it
comes in for a final subdivision plat on the first filing and all
subsequent filings.
Member Strom thought there should be some condition of approval
for the dedication.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman welcomed a condition. He thought
that if the Board is inclined to agree with the developer's
proposals, that land be dedicated prior to the issuance of not
more than 124 building permits. They currently have a right to
build 124 buildings without the Cluster Development Plan on the
2.29 acres scenario.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought that a concern by the
citizens that the City might not honor the open space could be
addressed by future interest possibilities of revert or some of
those old springing and shifting uses -type things where if the
City does not honor its commitment, then the land goes somewhere
else, to some other owner; and that is a pretty good lever.
Member Walker thought that it was clearly stated in our Code on
this issue that the Cluster Development Plan states that once the
Board has approved this, assuming we approve anything like this
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 31
with a cluster development, the Code says that, "...property is
permanently preserved as open space to dedication of ownership to
the City". That is pretty straight forward, and he thought that
this was a nonissue.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if it was ever discussed in terms of
keeping open -view corridors, as stated in criteria number six?
Mr. Shepard replied it was discussed in terms of preserving the
121 acres above the Dixon Lateral.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the open corridors from
Overland up to the 5,200 line.
Mr. Shepard replied those corridors were primarily addressed by
the input from our Natural Resources Department, preservation of
the wetland areas. That being a natural swell which feeds the
wetland areas down by Overland Trail, that those were considered
natural features that have the wetland areas. That was sort of
covered under a different category.
• Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the eight criteria, and that
the plan should show consideration for wildlife habitats by
leaving open large single blocks of land. Do we have any
information on what wildlife habitats there are? What might be
transit roots for the wildlife? Do these blocks of land that are
left open mesh with what the wildlife might want or need?
Mr. Shepard replied that certainly corridors are the best way to
preserve wildlife areas, to accommodate migration patterns and
feeding patterns; and so he thought we were getting the double
benefit of that by virtue of the wetland protection.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked about criteria nine, "Public access
must be provided to public recreational areas".
Mr. Shepard replied that the staff was still working with Parks
and Recreation on how active to make this area. The bike trail
would be part of one of the subdivision filings. Staff is
working with P & R to make this less than a Spring Creek Trail or
a Poudre Trail, in that, it would be less maintained and more
naturalistic.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if farm animals would be allowed.
Mr. Vaught replied that this would be submitted for the record.
• In the RF Zone, farm animals are not allowed in cluster
development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 32
Vice Chairman Cottier stated that it clearly said that farm
animals are allowed in RF. If did not say cluster or not.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman referred to Section 29-115 that
allows the farm animals in the standard scenario for RF.
Criteria number ten states, "If farm animals are intended to be
allowed within the area, the Cluster Development Plan must
indicate the portions of the area reserved for the keeping of
farm animals and mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas
from surrounding uses".
Planner Shepard asked if the developer wanted farm animals?
Mr. Vaught replied no.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked for the record to show.
Member Bell asked about the Code and the foothills residential
district. Her understanding was under Section 29-113, about
minimum lot widths and depths; and under Section 3, it indicates
that the building envelopes need to conform to the requirements
established in the RL, Low Density Residential District. Member
Bill asked if she was interpreting this correctly.
Mr. Shepard replied t
with the number three
calls "bulk and area
he RF Cluster Plan as proposed does comply
in that all the lots comply with what staff
requirements" of the RL Zoning Districts.
Member Bell asked if one was talking about RF and one RL?
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. Under 29-113, that is as
if you were doing a cluster plan; that would be as if you were
doing one lot per 2.29 acres. In Section 29-116, a Cluster
Development Plan where the bulk and area requirements are then
shifted to be the same as you would find in the RL Zone.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that there was some concern
about the permanent preservation of this property and open space
and the dedication and, since the Code did, in the Cluster
Development Plan section, require the Board to consider that
issue, he offered a condition, "That prior to the issuance of
more than 124 building permits, the dedication required in the
annexation agreement be completed by delivery of a warranty deed
conveying the property to the City, or to such other entity as
the City may determine, in such manner as to permanently preserve
the property as open space".
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 33
Vice Chairman Cottier asked what the effective date of annexation
was.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied September 30.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if the Board could get that
dedication of open space in ten months.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied not less than 14 months from
then nor more than 36 months.
Vice Chairman Cottier asked if the soonest the City could get it
would be ten months from now?
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was correct.
Member Carnes asked about criteria six having to do with
aesthetic impact, and was there any view of this project from a
perspective other than what the Board was looking at?
• Mr. Vaught replied there were site slides taken.
Mr. Shepard added there were slides shown at the worksession.
Mr. Vaught asked if he was looking for something that showed
views from different vantage points.
Member Carnes replied, simulation.
Mr. Vaught replied they have not done any computerized simulation
of what those views would be.
Member Carnes asked would Cluster E appear on that slide?
Mr. Vaught replied that Cluster E would be along the ditch, which
runs right along the edge of this development. The first 2,400
feet is not going to have much views away from the foothills, the
first 2,400 feet of the site is pretty flat. The last 800 feet
where the grade is increased to about 5.5 percent, allows you to
get some overlook views to units below you. Given the elevation
of that street at about 5,200, you have got 80 feet of difference
that will give you considerable views from the top third of the
property back out over the City.
Member Carnes stated his question was referring to this specific
criteria having to do with aesthetic impact, not views from
• Cluster E. Not of the City below, but views of this development
from outside of the development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 34
Member Fontane stated that if you look at the map, it shows the
73.27 acres of open space that is below the Dixon Canal. It all
followed natural drainage patterns. That was an incredible
amount of open space that was set aside for the large tracts
where wildlife can follow the natural patterns.
Member Fontane moved for approval of The Ponds at Overland Trail
Cluster Development Plan and preliminary plat with the condition
about the 124th building permit being the cutoff point or the
time in which the deed for the land above the 5,200 to some sort
of whatever, according to the City's choice. Another condition,
"no elevation of any building built on a lot in the RF district
shall extend above 5,250. Also staff conditions.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought that this added to the
condition in the annexation agreement. It did not replace it, so
that it may serve to shorten the time period in which the
dedication must be made; but, in his judgement, it did not
lengthen it. If development, for example, should lag very slowly
behind and they never get to 124 building permits, there still
would have to be the dedicated and honored in accordance with the
annexation agreement.
Member Walker commented that he believed that the intent of
Section 29-116 was being followed and is being satisfied.
Member Carnes disagreed. The overall gross density was not
greater than 1 unit per acres. The units are clustered together
in the portion of the property designated in the plan for
residential use at a density of 3 to 5 units per acres. His
concern was with Cluster E, which is a density of 1.5 units per
acre. He was not persuaded that putting large units on the
steepest and highest portion of the site would minimize aesthetic
impact upon views of the foothills from off -site, nor would it
minimize aesthetic impact on views from the foothills.
Member Carnes also felt this was an area subject to strong winds
and there was criteria seven which addresses that. Regarding
energy conservation, the more you are on a steep slope, the more
exposed you are to winds, and the greater the energy losses. He
questioned Cluster E meeting that criteria.
Member Fontane asked Member Carnes if he was saying that under
your definition of a cluster, Cluster E is 1.5 units per acre;
and if she read 29-116, under his definition, it would say that
Cluster E would have to be a minimum of 3 units per acre to a
0
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 35
maximum of 5. Did he think that 1.5 units per acre in a section
that size and in that location is less of an impact on that
location than 3 to 5 units per acre?
Member Carnes replied he thought that if you consider all ten
criteria that the area identified by the applicant as Cluster E
did not make sense at all.
Member Fontane stated that they way she read it was that the
clustering happens in the land that is available for development,
and that is the whole area that is below the area that has been
set aside for open space. That was why her motion stood the way
it was.
Member Bell stated that she would not be supporting the motion.
She has read the documents and she was not convinced. It seemed
like they were talking about a matter of interpretation here.
She did not feel the density question had been addressed
adequately. She also felt that number six and seven under the
ten criteria was not adequately being addressed.
• Member Strom commented that he seconded the motion and included
in his reasoning for that findings of fact and conclusions that
were included in the staff report. He also happened to agree
with the interpretation of the overall gross density of
residential units as described in Section Z9-116 as applying to
the entire site. In terms of visual effects, certainly depending
on where you choose to select as your viewpoint, you could find a
spot that could be impacted by this development. Member Strom
felt criteria six and sever were being met.
Member Walker also felt criteria six and seven were being met and
stated the reasons.
Member Bell thought that the Board was needing to also thing
about the spirit and the intent of the IGA, and wanted it to be
part of the record tonight that that is where she is coming from
in her interpretation of this plan. She thought they were
getting fixated on the Code portion rather than looking at the
broad picture.
Vice Chairman Cottier agreed with the interpretation of the RF
zone, that it does allow for transfer of density from the area
above 5,250. Secondly, she thought that the intent to not have
the foothills area developed, as every place else in Fort Collins
has, is met --that spirit is met in this proposal, and primarily
• because of the significant open space right --bordering Overland
Trail. She agreed with Member Walker's comments that that is
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 23, 1995
Page 36
what is really going to make a difference in terms of views of
the foothills, when you have that massive open space right along
the road. Thirdly, and aside from the numbers, talking of 282
versus 170 units. This proposal is very compatible with the
surrounding area, comparable densities to what is across the
street to the east, and there is considerable higher densities
and two-story or two -and -a -half story multi -family units
immediately to the south of this.
The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Carnes and Bell voting
in the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
W
LAMPLI(;HTC—R MOTEL
1809 Nortk College Ave.
January 16, 1995 -F:t. Collins, Colo. 80524
Prone (303) 484-2764
Mr. Steve Olt
City Planner
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Olt:
We are in receipt of your letter of 1/12/95 written in reference to the
proposed project known as Country Club Corners PUD. We are unable to
attend the scheduled meeting for this project but want you to know that we
strongly support it.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Cooke
January 18, 1995
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
On January 23, 1995 you will be taking action on the Planned Unit
Development for expansion of Fort Collins Housing Authority
administrative facility. I have serious concerns about the
compatibility of this expansion with the surrounding
neighborhood.
I am a past President of the City Park Neighborhood Association
and a citizen representative for development of the west Side
Neighborhood Plan (WSN). I am concerned that the proposed
Housing Authority project represents a continuation of the
failure of the City of Fort Collins to honor the policies and
actions recommended in the WSN.
Expansion of a nonconforming use at this location directly
contradicts the intent of both the historical preservation and
land use sections of WSN. The WSN has identified the Mountain
Avenue corridor and City Park as potential historical
preservation districts. It is inappropriate to expand a
nonconforming use in a potential historical district designed to
preserve the historical residential character of this area. This
is particularly true when it appears that the City has done
nothing to pursue historical designation, as recommended by WSN.
The second reason that this project violates the intent of WSN
relates to land use. The Housing Authority site is zoned
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL). One of the WSN land
use policies for single family areas is to "drop the use of the
L)GS in these areas." Land Use Implementation Action No. 6 is:
"The City should make appropriate changes to the LDGS and the
R-L, Low -Density Residential (now NCL ), zone to eliminate use of
the planned unit developments in this zone."
I would also like to address the inconsistency of the proposed
expansion with the Housing Authority lease of its current site.
This site was selected because it was centrally located in
relation to the 50 properties built by the Housing Authority by
1977. Central location was important because this site was to
also serve as a social facility for Housing Authority tenants.
The Housing Authority program has expanded well beyond 50
properties. To provide social amenities to its tenants at the
current site, as modified by this expansion, is simply not
practical and does not appear to be part of the plan.
Also the Housing Authority is no longer served by Transfort,
making it difficult to access by tenants without privately owned
vehicles.
January 20, 1995
RE: Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion
Dear Planning & Zoning Board Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion. The
board approved the preliminary plan and City Council supported the board's action on appeal. I
support the project and urge the board to approve the final plan. I live approximately 75
feet directly north of the Housing Authority. They have been a very good neighbor for the past
eleven years. Their need for additional administrative space is serious and I would rather see the
precious resources they have available spent on this expansion than on relocating to a new facility.
Thus saving more for affordable housing.
Some of my neighbors object on the principle that its a non -conforming use and should never have
been allowed there in the first place. If this was totally undeveloped land, I would be joining their
cause. But it's not The Housing Authority Building is there and the piece of land they want to
• put the addition on is already being used for outdoor storage. Therefore, I currently have to look
at metal sheds, construction materials and other household items laying around in their yard. I
definitely prefer the look of the proposed addition and would like all that stuff stored inside.
Several years ago, under the leadership of the former director, a similar addition was proposed. It
was out of scale with the residential character of the neighborhood. I opposed that project
because of its design The current proposal has been totally redesigned to fit in with the
surrounding neighborhood and I find it acceptable.
Sincerely,
Dec
Debra Kaestner
1700 West Mountain Avenue 42
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Commumty Planning and Environmental Se, vices
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
DATE: January 23, 1995
RE: Ponds at Overland - Condition of Approval
At the request of the City Attorneys Office, Staff recommends that
the first condition of approval (page 9) be reworded as follows:
In order to better address storm drainage issues, the cluster
Development Plan shall not carry any entitlements under the
Vested Rights section (29-512) of the coning code, or pursuant
to state law. vested rights are held in abeyance until the
Final Drainage Plan is approved in connection with the
approval of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
FAX (303) 221-6378 TDD (303) 224-6002