Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/26/1994PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 Council Liaison, Garry Norsk Planning and Zoning Board Liaison, Bob Blanchard The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Strom, Walker, Cottier, Clements. Chief Planner Bob Blanchard invited the Board to the Council Worksession on October llth regarding Congestion Management. The worksession will focus on transportation demand management and some of the relationships that occur between transportation and land use. AGENDA REVIEW: Chief Planner Bob Blanchard reviewed the agenda noting that the first item would be electing new officers for the 1995 year. Chief Planner Blanchard noted that the consent agenda items are of no known opposition or concern and are considered for approval as a group. Any member of the Board, the staff, or the audience may pull any item for discussion. Chief Planner Blanchard noted a change in Item 17 in their packets in that the date should read September 26, 1994 instead of August 22, 1994. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. 2. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22 AND 29, 1994 P i Z MEETINGS. 3. #54-87AA MIRAMONT PUD, FITNESS AND TENNIS CENTER - FINAL 4. #13-62BI OAKRIDGE RETAIL CENTER PUD, BLOCK ONE, 4TH FILING - PRELIMINARY S. #96-810 THE MARKET Q EORSETOOTH COMMONS, LOT 3A, SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY PUD - AMENDED PRELIMINARY 6. #28-89C FORT COLLINS SOUSING AUTHORITY EXPANSION PUD - 7. #54-87AB HARMONY MARKET PUD, 8TE FILING, OUTBACK STEAKHOUS - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 8. #41-93B SUMMZRHILL PUD - REPLAT 9. 13-82BJ OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 17TH FILING, INNOVATION DRIVE PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 10. #54-87■ BANK ONE PUD - FINAL 11. #65-82AB FAIRBROOKE PUD, TRACT A - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 12. #60-91K DAKOTA RIDGE PUD, THIRD FILING - PRELIMINARY 13. #55-87K THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE PUD, 4TH FILING - FINAL 14. #19-93I GREEMBRIAR VIi"GE Pop, 3RD PILING - FINAL 15. RESOLUTION 9"4-12 EASEMENT VACATION Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 2 16. RESOLUTION P294-13 BASEMENT VACATION 17MODIFICATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF FINAL APPROVAL is: #36-94 PLATINUM AUTO BROKERS PUD - FINAL Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the discussion agenda which included Platinum Auto Brokers PUD. Chairman Clements asked for the first item on the agenda, which was election of officers. She asked for nominations for chairman. Member Cottier nominated Chairman Clements. Member Strom seconded the nomination. Chairman Clements asked for any other nominations. There were none. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Clements asked for nominations for vice -Chairman. Member Bell nominated vice -Chairman Cottier. Vice -Chairman Cottier accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations. Member Strom seconded the nomination. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Clements asked if any member of the Board would like to pull any item from the agenda. Member Walker pulled item #5, Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion. Item #10 was also pulled from the consent agenda, Fairbrooke PUD, Tract A, Preliminary and Final PUD. Chairman Clements also pulled items 2, 3 and 8 because of a conflict of interest Chairman Clements asked for any other items pulled for discussion. There were none. Planning and September 26, Page 3 Zoning Board Minutes 1994 Member eontane moved for approval of items 4, 6, 7, 9, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Member Cottier seconded the action. Motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Clements asked for legal advise on the items Chairman Clements had a conflict of interest on and Member Cottier had questions on. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that Vice -Chair Cottier should chair the meeting. Chairman Clements turned the meeting over to Vice -Chair Cottier. Vice Chair Cottier asked for explanations on items 3 and 8 because they are in the Harmony Corridor, and why they are not subject to the current moratorium on commercial development. City Planner Olt replied that the two items in question were Oakridge Retail Center PUD and Oakridge Business Park, 17th Filing, Innovation Drive PUD Preliminary and Final. Planner Olt explained that the Oakridge Center Retail PUD conformed with the approved Oakridge/Oakridge West Amended Overall Development Plan and that it was part of Parcel A of the approved ODP. Also, the proposed uses were considered retail or commercial development, by the City's definition. Planner Olt went on to verify that the City Council had approved a moratorium for suspension for this type of use in the.Harmony Corridor, however, Section 5 of that Ordinance states that the provisions of the Ordinance should not apply to the review or approval of the proposed uses within parcels A, N and M of the approved Oakridge/Oakridge West Amended Overall Development Plan. Therefore, this was exempt due to the existing ordinance. Vice -Chairman Cottier thought that it would be good to get this publicly stated in the record due to, where the projects were located. Vice -Chairman Cottier asked about item #8. Planner Olt replied that it was office/warehouse, and it was not included in the list that had been temporarily suspended with the moratorium. Vice -Chairman Cottier asked for a motion on items 2, 3, and 8. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 4 Member Strom moved for approval of items 2, 3 and 8. Member Fontana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with Chairman Clements abstaining because of a conflict of interest. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY EXPANSION PUD PRELIMINARY, #28-89C. Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner, noted that there was a packet of information before each board member that included previous meeting minutes they had requested at the worksession on Friday. Chief Planner Blanchard read the staff report, stating that the proposal was a request for a preliminary PUD approval for a 2,660 square foot expansion to the existing structure on West Mountain Avenue. He stated that the property was currently a non- conforming use in the NCL, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density zoning district. Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the surrounding land uses which were to the north, Medium Density Residential which, include single family and townhomes (Mountain Court PUD). To the east is multi -family zoned property, which are Housing Authority units. To the south, property zoned Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, which includes the City Park ball fields and golf course. To the west was also Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, which includes City Park Nine golf course and the Trolley Building. Chief Planner Blanchard stated this structure was on a 16,766 square foot parcel which received its original lease from the City in 1976. The original building was constructed in 1977. At that time the Housing Authority was a use -by -right in the Low Density Residential Zoning District. In 1982, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a 1,000 s.f. addition to the original building, and in 1988 there was a 300 s.f. addition approved. Both of the additions were approved as expansions to a non- conforming use, based on changed interpretations to the RL zoning district and also changed code provisions that addressed the set backs of the buildings. The existing building is non -conforming today within the NCL Zoning District. That zoning occurred as a result of the West Side Rezoning in 1991. In 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a previous application for a 2,688 square foot addition. The denial was based in part on the design of the proposed addition being inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The following month after the denial of the PUD request, in April Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 5 of 1992, the Board approved a final subdivision plat, creating the site that the current operation sits on. The addition before the Board tonight was proposed to be used for enclosed vehicle storage, for additional supply storage and also shop space. The number of employees will remain the same, however, the office uses will expand into the existing garage area. Chief Planner Blanchard explained that the project earned 52% on the Business Service uses point chart from the LDGS. It received points for being located outside of the South College Avenue Corridor, for joint parking with City Park, with contiguity to existing urban development, and also received points for energy conservation. He went on to say that the Housing Authority site is located in the West Side Neighborhood Plan area. In researching the policies of the plan and discussion of the plan with the project manager, who carried the project through its development, they determined that there were no policies related directly to the Housing Authority operation or to the specific site. While the site is within the area designated as City Park on the future land use map, it is not functionally part of the City Park. Since the Housing Authority has been at this site since 1977 and the plan was adopted in 1989, Staff feels it safe to assume that this operation was recognized within the plan at the time it was adopted. Because the expansion does not exceed the land area of the platted site and also the site that was subject to the original lease and the use is not changing, Staff feels that this application specifically should not be subject to the neighborhood plan policies. Chief Planner Blanchard stated that the applicant was proposing to build the addition rapping around the west side of the current building. The entire expansion would be fit within the platted site and within the area that is currently fenced. The design of the addition in the previous submittal, which the Board denied in 1992, included a stored roof which extended approximately 8 feet above the existing roof line. The previous submittal was also a two-story structure and included a loft inside. While it was residential in character, it was determined to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal before the Board tonight, was much less intrusive and extends approximately two to three feet above the existing roofline. It was also proposed that the exterior of the addition will include brick and siding to match the existing building. He stated that a neighborhood information meeting had been held in July of 1994. A summary of the meeting was included in the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 6 Board's packet. Nine property owner's attended. Those that expressed concerns focused primarily on the perception of the continuing intrusion into City Park, possible increases in traffic and what the future of this building would be should the Housing Authority ever decided to relocate. In fact, this expansion does not represent a further intrusion into the park. The building addition was wholly within the lot that was subdivided and totally within the area that was currently fenced. The area of the expansion is currently an outdoor gravel storage area. There was no planned increase in staff or maintenance vehicles, and the Housing Authority has indicated they don't anticipate leaving the site unless the City chooses not to renew their lease in the year 2017. The applicant has requested a variance to the requirement for on - site water detention for this project. This variance does not require Planning and Zoning Board approval, instead it will be approved by Stormwater Utility. The request is based on the small size of the proposed addition, relative to the large green area in the adjacent softball fields, and also the City Park Nine Golf Course. Staff was recommending approval of this project. Rachele Stevens, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, stated their agency was established by City Council in 1971. They have been at 1715 West Mountain since 1975. The building was constructed with HUD dollars on the property site that was lease, to them by the City for a 40 year term for a very minimal fee. To their credit, they are attending to the assisted housing needs of 685 families in Fort Collins. That included the elderly and disabled population. They also contract to manage 42 units with the Town of Wellington for their public housing developments. They have grown in proportion to the City's population. Today, an applicant waits two and a half to four years before being served. Their waiting list at their last count was in excess of two thousand households. It increases 50 household applicants monthly. They try to be good neighbors, not only in the conduct of their business administratively, but to the very east of their properties, they have created decent, safe and sanitary housing at the Mountain Park homes. That was in replacement of a blighted community eye sore trailer park. The expansion plans before the Board were conservative, responsible and practical. Relocation on their part would be extremely costly. Their monies could be better utilized for housing programs and not for more expensive office space. The proposed building design keeps them 0 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 7 within the plotted boundaries, no parkland would be intruded upon. They have addressed the neighborhood concerns of their last submittal so that the proposed one story structure was compatible with surrounding neighborhood structures. Their expansion design was not intrusive. Fencing and environmentally responsible shrubbery and vegetation will attend to any aesthetic concealment to where it would be barely visible. Their occupancy at the north end of City Park is with responsibility, "as they aesthetically maintain their property, even to the clean up and debris removal that follows the weekend recreational and organized sports programs in the park and ballpark areas. Administratively, the Fort Collins Housing Authority was designated a high performer by HUD. They have achieved three consecutive years of PHMAC, Public Housing Management Assistance Program. They have achieved outstanding scores in excess of 95%. This honor, affords the housing authority national recognition for performance. She thanked the City for the cooperation they have provided to them. The primary neighborhood opposition that they encountered with the last neighborhood meetings was philosophical, there was a concern that they would expand again. However, they could not go beyond their plotted boundaries. Their growth as a quasi - municipality agency was truly reflected of the City of Fort Collins growth, and the affordable housing needs that are attendant to the lower income earning households that are not adequately being not by the private sector. In 1986, they served 474 households. when she says served, she means with actual dollars and programs in place. That was not the waiting list. Their service demands today, are serving 685 households with over 2,000 applicants on their list growing at alarming rates, and the waiting list at two and a half to four years. In affect, they have increased their service delivery by 53% in seven years. They are in place to respond to the communities unmet assisted housing needs and to work cooperatively with the City's departments to address the comprehensive housing affordability strategies (CHAS), those goals and those objectives. For the record, she submitted the lease agreement enacted between the City and the Housing Authority that was effective in 1976 and subsequently renewed. She read from the agreement, "that said parcel of land was centrally located in relation to the facilities constructed by the authority, and which is an ideal Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page S location for the said administrative headquarters of the Authority". She also submitted a chronology of zoning events that was prepared by City Staff from 1974 to 1992. She turned the next section of their presentation over to Jim Kline of the Housing Authority. Jim Kline of the Housing Authority stated that in 1991-92, they proposed a two-story building. They felt they had maximized the most out of the property and came to the Board with it. They were shown several things that were not liked by the Board and not liked by the residents. They have taken the proposal back, looked at it and asked themselves what they could do with this. One objection was the two-story configuration and the fear of overlapping the existing parkland. They went back and got the property platted so the Housing Authority has lot lines and boundaries that it cannot exceed. They also looked at the building and thought the two-story configuration was a little more commercial type of building than residential. They have no more than surrounded the existing garage, staying in the same front line as the existing building and keeping to the same setback in the rear. This has maintained all their setbacks and left them a sideyard and they feel that this was the best configuration they could do on the property. It has also taken out the two-story configuration. They do have property lines and they have come to the maximum amount of building they could put on the land. Their long-range plans are such that the way they have it now, they will outgrow this building. Their ultimate plan is to keep their administration in this building. They can do that in a long-range plan by using the garage facility that they have now, converting that to offices and then they would be forced to have a satellite operation as a maintenance facility in another part of town. They refrain from wanting to do that at this time, because it disrupts their operation. They have good continuity between their management and their maintenance staff so that they interact and everyone knows what is going on. He thought they would loose efficiency if it was separated at this point. with this long-term plan in place, he thought they could make arrangements to look for the ideal spot for this to happen in the City. He thought that this location was ideal in that, it is c'ose to their residents, centrally located, and was frankly, a r --e place for it. Chairman Clements asked for any Board questions for the applicant at this time. • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 9 There was none. CITIZEN INPUT John Messineo, 137 Bryan Street, handed out materials to the Board. He stated he was again at the Board for the same reason, this was a non -conforming use. He mentioned that both Jim and Shelly had brought up, that at one time it was considered an ideal location. But 20 years ago, he remembered thinking that McDonald's at University Mall was at the end of town. We have expanded southward and eastward tremendously, and while this might fit where they have their buildings right now, this is not a central location. The information the Board received, led Staff to place this item on the consent agenda. From the notes given to them by a Staff member that is no longer working for the City, the Board assumed there was no opposition. The Board may not have been told, that people in opposition to this addition, were present at all three neighborhood meetings. Those at the meetings generally held the same views as he does. It has nothing to do with the plans, the concern is the addition to a non -conforming use area. They have no complaint with them as neighbors, what the facility looks like or anything like that. This site was first given a non -conforming use as a 1200.square foot building. This square footage is about the average size of the homes in the area. An additional 3 or 4 requests for space has resulted in the building being close to 4,000 square feet. Tonight's request is for another 2,600 square feet, plus a little bit, in a residential area with most dwelling units at 1200 square feet. A business complex of 6,800 square feet is gigantic. The last time the Fort Collins Housing Authority asked for approval, they were denied. The Director of the Housing Authority stood right here and said regardless of the outcome, he would seek no further additions. The Board is now presented with a new proposal. They don't seem to be bound by decisions of their predecessors, but they should be. The previous Planning Board took into account the need to have contiguity with a neighborhood and voted to stop increasing the size of the non -conforming use building. When it was first established, the building was not intended as a garage/shop. The original 1200 square feet housed an office space and a kitchen. Besides going against the intent of the original grant of a non- conforming use, the addition goes against City policy. The West Side Neighborhood Plan urges protection of the Mountain Avenue Neighborhood. The plan stresses the intent of keeping the neighborhood residential in flavor. Increasing the size of an industrial building does not fit within those guidelines. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 10 The project does not conform with the guidelines set up with Community Planning and Environmental Services Transportation Division. The main thrust of the guidelines they had is increase the residential feel of Mountain Avenue. They are doing this by decreasing the use of automobiles and encouraging the use of bicycles. The Transportation Division states that the intent was to down grade traffic on Mountain Avenue to local residential use only. Increasing the size of the Housing Authority facility does not fit into any of the City's plans for Mountain Avenue. while it may not happen overnight, any increase in the facility was sure to result in the increase of traffic. He remembered when there was only two to three cars in their parking lot. Now it is not unusual to see 20 to 30 cars at one time. As the business and facilities have increased,.so has the traffic. He can understand how the Housing Authority would like to keep both warehouse and office under one roof, but they need to be more realistic and notice that the City and the County and private businesses have needed to place departments in different locations. The town is growing and the Housing Authority will grow with it, and as a result the future will find them needing more space. What will they do then? Get more land from the City? Or try for a special variance to build bigger on the lot? They need to understand that they have outgrown the intended use of the building. If their warehouse/garage department has outgrown their space, they should do as other businesses have done and move to a location that is conducive to growth. His understanding was that the Housing Authority staff does not even make full use of the space they have in the current building. He says this because he knows space is sub -leased or loaned to at least one person, perhaps others who have no direct connection with the Housing Authority. The building is on parkland and is leased to the Housing Authority for $1 per year. He would want to stay there too. He has no qualms with that. Giving up parkland 20 years ago was no great concern, but the size of the City has doubled since then, and with the population continuing to grow, parkland is at a premium. It seems out of the question that the Housing Authority be allowed to increase square footage at the expense of public parkland. He realizes it has been zoned and plotted out as their own plot of land, but the expansion represents increased building in a park area. When their lease is up, the City may intend to use it as other uses. He asks that the Board respect that the application represents continued additions to a non -conforming use that do not fit the City's plans on Mountain and that the Board deny this request. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 11 Nancy Gray, spoke here two years ago as well. She lives at 110 Fishback, which is almost around the corner from the Housing Authority. She hoped that speaking in opposition to this expansion, in no way indicates that they don't appreciate the Housing Authority. When the Housing Authority removed the trailer park, it did a great service to the neighborhood. It enhanced the neighborhood, they see the neighborhood now. responding with more single family dwellings that are permanent in nature, less non -related people rentals, and they are very proud of what is happening to the neighborhood. They do thank the Housing Authority for doing that. She thought at the time it was appropriate that the Housing Authority was there. She thought it was appropriate that the Housing Authority remains there. She could understand that the Housing Authority has administrative space problems. She does not like that heavy, or medium sized equipment is parked behind a fence at the Housing Authority. Perhaps to most people, it would be more desirable to have that equipment enclosed in a garage. But this decision on the Board's part, should have nothing to do with whether this is the Housing Authority or whether it is a private property management company asking for an expansion and to expand it's warehouse/garage and maintenance facilities so it can be contiguous to it's administration. She thought the Board should look at this and say, is this good land use. Should a neighborhood, and by the way, that eighth of a mile from Bryan Street to Grandview Cemetery, will in the not so distant future, will become historical. It's probable one of the loveliest areas in the City. A little bit to the east of that, you can see old Fort Collins and how it grew from not only from the turn -of -the -century, to the early part of the century and to the depression. There is a very interesting mix. The new housing that has gone up in the area has re -captured the Victorian approach to many of the houses. She wants the Housing Authority to stay there. She wants them to do business there. She does not like it that it became a subdivision. She was pretty naive, she just glanced at that and thought it protected them from using this area from using this area as a warehouse/garage. It is very clear that it opened the way for people, the Planning Staff, and the Housing Authority to justify this turning into a maintenance facility. All of the additional square footage is going into a maintenance/storage/garage facility, all of it. There is no reason that since there is the space there for expansion into the existing garage units, why it can't be done. She does not accept the fact that you cannot administer service personnel and maintenance personnel in separate facilities. The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 12 City of Fort Collins has done it for years. Larimer County has done it for years. Any major property management organization does it, and has done it because their administrative offices would not be in compliance with the zoning philosophy and the zoning laws of this City. She loves the Housing Authority, but she does not think that it is appropriate that the Board permit them to use this area as a warehouse and maintenance facility and the Board needs to be doubly careful because it is quasi - municipal. The Board has to be very careful of that perception. John Kasofolas, 604 Sycamore. He wished to speak of another reason the Board should approve this request for the expansion. He also would like to comment that Nancy's comments were not accurate regarding the expansion. He works in the building. He works with Project Self -Sufficiency, which is a non-profit agency here in Larimer County that provides services to single parent families. He is currently working with 29 families, and essentially, they try to support them in making decisions about education and employment. Right now, the current situation is that the building is very crowded, and it is affecting the kind of customer service that they provide to people. His space is just on the other side of the main lobby where people come in, and just opposite of the conference room. Basically it is an enclosure, and there is serious concerns about confidentiality and also noise levels. When he meets with a participant in the program, it is very difficult to conduct business because there are people in the lobby that are there to pick-up applications, etc. His main point is that the Housing Authority building is very crowded and is affecting the performance that they do in terms of the people that they serve. The relationship that project Self - Sufficiency has with the Housing Authority is such that they are a separate entity, but the Housing Authority provides a space in order for them to do what they need to do. He would ask that the Board give a lot of thought to this and hope the Board decides in a favorable way. Rob Jefferson, 100 S. Bryan, approximately 50 to 75 yards to the east of the Housing Authority and has lived there 5 years. He sees no reason not to approve this project. Currently, the impact to the neighborhood is minimal and insignificant as far as the amount of traffic that comes and goes from there. Even if the size doubled or tripled, they still would not notice it. There is enough other traffic going in and out of City Park that it is insignificant. The only thing he notices around there is the ballpark. They can hear the ballpark late at night, and that is basically -the only noise they can hear. He is in favor of it. ft Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 13 Evelyn Clark, wanted to speak as a tax -payer. She would like to ask that the Board approve the expansion of the Fort Collins Housing Authority facility. She personally appreciates the staff that wants to consider the tax -payer and appreciates the fact that they want to use the money they receive to serve the low- income families instead of spending the money on a new expensive facility. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Member Walker stated that he thought the Board was revisiting the argument of two years ago. There has been an expressed need for more space for the Housing Authority for a variety of reasons. On the plan he sees more office space and a garage. This to him indicates that it was a growing type operation that needs more room, and the point was well taken that if this were to be approved, this would suffice for awhile. It was expressed that ultimately this would all go to office space as the Authority grows as it likely would as the City grows. His question to the Board was that, where's the cut point on this? This is a non- conforming use and as the general policy with a non -conforming use, we try to resolve that at some point in the future. This is certainly not resolving a non -conforming use. As this expands into a large facility, was this compromising the sense of the neighborhood? Also with the Housing Authority, it sounds like at some point, they will be separating their service element from their administrative element. It sounded like should they do it now. He still has the same concerns as when it came up before and that is that we are taking something out of non -conforming use and while there is some unique characteristics of the fact of what the Housing Authority is and does, he was inclined to apply the same standards as if a private entity were coming in. From a planning point, he has some very serious concerns. If there needs to be some larger operation for the Housing Authority, perhaps the Housing Authority and City Council should discuss where they are going with this. Now the site will be maxed out and next time they will have to go elsewhere with service facilities. He was concerned about the fact that they were revisiting this issue, that it is a non -conforming use, and he did not like the Board to promote a policy of encouraging non- conforming uses on particular sites. Member Bell asked in the year 2017, should the City decide not to renew the lease, what's the status of the building? Does the City have to buy the building from the Housing Authority? Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied he had not read the lease. Typically if a fixture is attached to the ground, the fixture Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 14 will go with the land and would become property of the City, but without reading the lease there might be some stipulations that the tenant may be able to remove the building from the property. He offered to take a look at it and get back to her later. Chairman Clements asked if the City currently owned the property and then leases it to the Housing Authority. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was correct. Member Bell asked about the parking spaces and the public comment about 30 or more cars being parked there daily. She asked if someone from the City observed that? Do we know what the traffic counts are in that area, and is there adequate parking in that area available. Chief Planner Blanchard replied that staff did not have traffic counts in the area, but the parking area is a joint parking arrangement with City Park. The parking lot to the east and to the southeast is the parking lot for the softball fields. Their hours of operation are totally separate. He did not know the timing of the first ball game at night, typically it is after hours, and so there was no conflict between Housing Authority traffic and recreational traffic. Deputy City Attorney explained that he had found the provision. It stated, "upon the expiration of the term of the lease, or any renewal hereof, all facilities erected by the Authority on the demised premises, shall become the property of the City. Member Bell asked if the Housing Authority was sub -leasing some of their currently space to other tenants. Ms. Stevens of the Housing Authority replied that the office space, which is literally a cubical, is provided to project Self - Sufficiency at no fee. It is an "in -kind" donation in that Project Self -Sufficiency not only attends to Project Self - Sufficiency, but the new terminology is Family Self -Sufficiency. That is working in tandem with HUD funded programs to provide capacity building educational application and job training so that young starter families can evolve from dependency from public dollars into their own self-sufficiency and independence and main stream. There is no cost or fee for sub -letting. Just use our space, our phone and facilities as a service. Chairman Clements asked if it was related. Ms. Stevens replied that was correct. It is related to the auxiliary housing programs, not just shelter, but all the other attendant programs for capacity building. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 15 Member Cottier asked about the statement made regarding no increase in traffic and would like more discussion on that. She did not see how adding five offices would not add traffic. Also, in reading the neighborhood meeting notes, there was a mention of a need for fencing for security reasons. She asked it there was any security lighting. Thirdly, she wanted an explanation of the fencing situation along the south edge of the property. Mr. Kline responded that the Housing Authority was growing. They have been maintaining in the building with the staff they had, adding one or two periodically. In 1991, their application said they had 17 employees, at this time they have 20. That same 17 and now 20, is crowded into the same building that was there in 1991. As he had expressed, they have a plan that this would be administrative someday and their maintenance facility would move off on its own. That is the intention. With that, the maintenance traffic and staff will disappear and it will allow a lot more parking spaces for future employees. There is a fence and lighting, but it is no more than a hop over the fence, and their trucks are vandalized. They have had this happen in the past, and in their last presentation, that was why they asked for an indoor facility. Again, that is why they ask for it now. When the Housing Authority was first put in place, it was no more than administrative and recreational use. The City of Fort Collins allowed a 1,000 square foot garage to handle this matter. It handled it for along time, and now again they are at a dilemma for indoor parking space and office space. Member Cottier again asked about thesecurity lighting and the fencing situation on the south side of the building. Mr. Kline replied that on the south side of the building, they have a 6 foot privacy fence that extends all the way around the yard. They have lights that are on darkness sensors. Member Cottier asked about the statement on the plan, that the fence in the southwest corner is to be relocated. Mr. Kline replied that was correct. Member Cottier asked if that would be on the property line. Mr. Kline replied no, it no more than extends out a little bit. The fence that would be moved the most would be the western fence. As it is, it is running perpendicular with the building and they propose to push it out to maximize their property to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 16 about a foot or two inside the property line and configure it so it runs on the angle of the property line. Again, that would be to maximize the land they have. Member Cottier stated she was trying to get some feel for what the existing lighting is. is it intrusive, and is any additional lighting proposed to be added? Mr. Kline replied that it was not intrusive, at least no one has voiced it from the neighborhood over the years. No one from the neighborhood has voiced any complaint about their activities. They do not intend to increase the lighting, they feel it is sufficient, it would just move as the building expands. Ms. Stevens added that the Housing Authority is hooked -up to a service, which is sensor operated, so if there is any break-in, or a non -key admittance on the part of the individual, an alarm will go off at Denver Burglar Alarm. Mr. Jefferson, 100 S. Bryan added that the 100 year old trees next to the irrigation ditch also provide a barrier from the lighting. Chairman Clements commented that she did not foresee any additional traffic. She has been in the building the Housing Authority is in, and agreed that they do have a confidentiality problems, very limited space. There is a lot of people packed into small cubicals. From first hand knowledge of being in the building and, the services this building provides, they need more office space in order to provide more customer service and confidentiality. There was also some concern earlier that this building expanding, and it being the Housing Authority, perhaps it's a non -conforming use, what is the cut-off point, do we keep expanding. She thought this was a necessary expansion and would like to see, as our community continues to grow, that perhaps the Housing Authority would look into a satellite facility as their properties start to grow. As we hopefully try to get more properties into the south of town, perhaps the Housing Authority would need an expansion to the south. She compared this to the Poudre Valley Hospital expansion, in the middle of a residential neighborhood that has been growing, and they are at the cut-off point and are looking at services to the south of town. She does not feel that this is the monster that everyone thinks it will be and will grow beyond the scope of the neighborhood. She feels that some of these issues warrant an expansion. ft • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 17 Unknown Citizens asked that Chairman Clements excuse herself from voting due to a conflict of interest of working with the Housing Authority. Chairman Clements replied she did not have a conflict of interest, there were many people she has worked with in this room in a variety of ways. As her role as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, she has to serve as a representative of the Planning and Zoning Board to many committees and task forces the City Council asks them to serve on. She stated she has been in the building only. Member Fontana stated that she was not on the Board in 1992 when the plot was designated. It seemed to her that the decision was made back then to allocate a certain amount of land that would be appropriate for this use, even knowing that it was a non- conforming use and that the growth of this building could not expand outside of this. There is a limit with the setbacks it would have to use as guidelines. There was a limit to the growth. She thought it was a good location and a good decision and would improve the safety by providing indoor storage. Member Cottier asked for a clarification on the reasoning for the plat. She did not think that it had anything to do with saying that the Housing Authority could expand as much as they want within this area. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he did not know the history of it, but suspected that there was a need for a building permit and the code does not allow the issuance of a building permit unless the land upon which the building permit is to be issued has been made a part of an official subdivision. That would be the most logical reason the land was subdivided. Member Cottier stated she was one of the members that voted and approved that subdivision plat. It was with no understanding that it was o.k. for the Housing Authority to expand within that property. Member Fontana stated that it did put a limit. If they did not plot that, they could ask for expansions that would be outside of the limits that were set. Member Bell asked for some explanation from other Board members as to their recollection of the purpose. Member Cottier replied that Mr. Eckman had stated it. The purpose of subdividing the lot and giving it a legal description was to conform to requirements to getting a building permit. Planning and zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page IS Member Carnes also stated he was not here two years ago. He sees it as a difficult balancing of a lot of considerations and to him it seems like conflicting City policies. They were not there to set City policy. They do make allowances for undue hardship when it comes to a private developer. He was not certain this was an undue hardship to continue the situation as it is, but he thought he would vote in favor of this proposal. No substantial change in use, no use on weekends, good neighbors by improving the neighborhood, not having complaints, the platting of the property, which has no likelihood of being changed in the future and also no likelihood of any further expansion being approved. Member Carnes moved for approval of the Housing Authority expansion. Member Fontana seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated she would not be supporting this motion. She feels very strongly that this proposal is not in keeping with the West Side Neighborhood Plan. It has been glossed over. She thought neighbors in the past have very strongly quoted the West Side Neighborhood Plan and she would do so also because it specifically says that, "any new facilities or construction in City Park or Lee Martinez Park should be reviewed with adjacent property owners. Projects that diminish open space, significantly increase the size of the maintenance facility, detract from the historic character of City Park or adversely impact adjacent residences should be avoided". She thought that this very directly speaks to this specific site. The Board is being asked to increase the existing facility by 70%, largely for maintenance purposes. She in no way has any argument with the Housing Authority's need to expand their administrative purposes. She did think it was time -to find a different site for the maintenance facilities. She thought this was not consistent with the West Side Neighborhood Plan intent to conserve the residential areas. This is an expansion of a business in a residential area. Yes, the Housing Authority should be credited with helping to revitalize the little pocket at Bryan Street project. That was what was desired and intended in that area, to conserve the residential stock and encourage redevelopment to be residential, not office or not maintenance. She thought that one of the residents comments that the City's need for park space has increased with growth should be considered. City Park has defined boundaries and that would not expand. This is part of City Park. Another point is the use of tax -payer dollars. If you consider the potential'of this facility being taken over by the City in 30 years, with all the money the Housing Authority has put into this, it would be much 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 19 more beneficial, and a guaranteed benefit to the Housing Authority to put their maintenance facilities somewhere else. Member Walker stated he would not be supporting the motion as made by his earlier comments. He felt they had reached a point of a non -conforming use that is out of compliance with the West Side Plan as was quoted. There is a need for this type of facility in town, but this has outgrown it's existing need. Not only would there be a change with the addition, but now a fence line would be expanded within the limits of the platted lot so that the whole sense of space would change. The net effect to encroach on space that was not intended for such uses, hence the fact that this use is non -conforming. He did not see that since there is a platted lot that the goal should be to max it out. He suggested that the Housing Authority should maintain its existing offices and move the maintenance facility elsewhere and start looking for satellite locations for administration. He did not think they should build more on this site. Member Fontane commented that with a 40-year lease, it was presumed that Fort Collins would grow and the need for this facility would grow. She hoped that those considerations were taken into consideration to put a 40-year lease at such a deal. She was not comfortable taking the responsibility of saying, they should move their maintenance facility. In respecting the process that took place, a 40-year lease means that growth was taken into consideration. She was not ready to take some past decision and throw that aside. Member Cottier commented that it was 15 years after the lease was written that the West Side Neighborhood Plan was adopted with two years of input from the neighbors as to what they wanted in that area. She thought that what may or may not have been intended when a lease was drawn up 20 years ago should not be the dominant consideration. Member Cottier cited LDGS All Development Criteria A.22, building placement and orientation, that this is not consistent with the established neighborhood character. Also Criteria A.27, architecture, that the architecture does not contribute to the neighborhoods appearance in a positive way. She did not think that an over 6,000 square foot facility would be consistent with the generally small, single family residences in this area. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked Mr. Carnes in the making of his motion if he also wanted to include as findings of fact, that the preliminary P.U.D. satisfies all of the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and also passes the point chart. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 20 It was necessary in the making of a positive motion, the finding be made that all of the All Development Criteria in the Land Development Guidance System have been met by this plan. He wanted to make sure that the record was clear that he had made some reasons as to why he made the motion. He did not hear that in his findings that all of the criteria had been met. Member Carnes moved that this proposal, this application be approved and that findings of fact is met, and has not the All Development Criteria according to the Staff. Member Cottier stated that the applicant had also requested a variance from on -site detention. She would like an explanation, and consider that in light of whether this platted parcel is adequate for this expansion. She asked for the requirement for on -site detention and how much area that would cover. Mr. Kline replied that from their last proposal, the drainage was accepted. They were putting in the same amount of square footage that they were last time, maybe a little less. It was felt that with the open space surrounding to the south that it was adequate ground cover there, adequate impervious surface there that it would be absorb the water, any water that would be displaced. It was also felt that it was not a significant amount of addition to really to put detention into place. Member Cottier asked for the City's comments on that. Basil Hamden, City Stormwater Utility. He stated there was a variance request regarding stormwater detention facility on the site. He stated that stormwater detention facility on the site is required for additional impervious areas that are developed in the City. Most generally, they only allow them to release at historic rates so they do not increase the discharge rates, not the volumes. When you add impervious, you are adding volume. To mitigate for the discharge, they make them put in some type of detention area so it would release the water over a longer period of time and would hopefully not adversely impact the neighbors. In this case, the applicant has requested that no additional detention be provided on this site with this addition. Usually the cut-off pint is 350 square feet. Any addition above 350 square feet, hey require them to do some kind of detention. In this case they have received a variance request, but they have not approved it yet until they sign the plans, they do not consider the variance to be approved. Chairman Clements asked if this could go forward until it is approved and would not go forward if it is not approved by their department. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 21 Mr. Hamden replied that if it is not approved, if they find that the surrounding area system would be impacted adversely, even though they may be increasing the discharge rate, but the downstream system can handle that increased run-off, then they would approve the variance. If they find that no, the added run- off would cause some impact on the outfall, then they will deny the request and require them to put some additional detention to take care of the added impervious surface. Member Cottier asked in Mr. Hamdens judgement, was there room on this site to provided for the additional detention? Mr. Hamden replied, at this point he had not looked at it to the point to give an answer. At this point, they were not talking about large volumes, 6,000 square feet is not a very large addition. Even though it will require detention, the amount of volume you would need to mitigate for that is not that significant and there would probably be enough room. Motion passed 4-3, with Members Cattier, Walker and Bell voting in the negative. Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval and approval of a variance to the solar orientation requirements. Chief Planner Blanchard clarified for the record that the school enrollment page in the Boards staff report was incorrect. It should read Bauder Elementary school with a design capacity of 728 students, with a 1993 enrollment of 653 students. Chairman Clements asked about the concerns with the school and if the School District reviews new development and could accommodate it. Chief Planner Blanchard replied that the School District did review all proposals and each year make decisions about where their student population would come from and make any adjustments necessary. Chairman Clements also addressed the neighbors concerns about keeping this parcel for open space/recreational uses. She clarified that the City did not own this land and that it was under private ownership. Chief Planner Blanchard responded that the parcel was currently under the City's management and it was currently under contract Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 22 for ownership with the applicants for this application. This parcel came under the City's ownership because of the failed Special Improvement District and the City has an obligation to sell the property which is the backup of the Special Assessment Bonds. The City may purchase this property or put it up for sale. In this instance it is being sold. Chairman Clements asked if this property has been looked at by the Parks Department. Chief Planner Blanchard responded that the Parks Department also reviews all applications. Chairman Clements asked if they had any interest in pursuing this as open space/recreation. Chief Planner Blanchard replied that staff did not received any comments back regarding possible purchase. Chairman Clements asked about Natural Resources purchasing this property, with tax -payer dollars, and was it on their priority list of purchases. Chief Planner Blanchard replied it was not. Member Fontane asked about the pipeline configuration and the storm water runoff in the canal and why was Stormwater supporting this. Basil Hampden, Stormwater Utility, stated that PV & L Canal currently carried quite a bit of stormwater flows because the City has allowed some subdivisions upstream to drain into the canal and use it as a temporary way to transport stormwater. Currently there are problems with flooding from the PV & L Canal at some locations. Due to the existing conditions, they were trying not to increase an already existing problem and try to mitigate for it. Due to the existing condition, there needed to be a solution so the whole system would work. Mr. Hampden went on to say that one of the alternative solutions the applicant presented was to reduce the 66 foot right-of-way and use one large ditch for both flows and that was rejected by the canal company. The second proposal was to put the irrigation water in the pipe and allow the stormwater flows to go where the canal is currently going. Member Fontane asked if there was any concern with the water quality, and where the piping end, would the water from stormwater and, irrigation come together, and would there be a problem at that location. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 23 Mr. Hampden replied that the canal company has expressed concern about water quality. They did not want stormwater discharging into their system. The pipe, will reduce the amount of mixing of irrigation water and stormwater discharge. In the mean time, the pipe might not be built now with this development, it will be built with the master drainage improvements, they are still proposing the two detention areas. Mr. Hampden also stated that the system would be discharged at West Drake into Spring Creek. Member Fontane asked about the master plan and the piping and the responsibility of the pipe going to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Hampden replied that the developer would have the Homeowners Association maintain the pipe with a note on the plan. Member Bell asked if the City giving approval for this was in any way, legally, going to come back and haunt the City if there are problems. Mr. Hampden asked if she meant maintenance. Member Bell replied maintenance, breakage, residential flooding in basements. Mr. Hampden replied that not only would it be on the plans, but also in the development agreement, which is a legal document. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, replied that the City is covered in the development agreement language, that essentially the developer and his engineer is responsible for the engineering that takes place to design their system. Staff reviews it and if there are any errors, omissions or anything else overlooked, the developer is responsible. Deputy City Attorney stated he has not seen any development agreements with the City or the Canal Company yet, but it would be advisable for Mr. Herzig to consider an agreement with the Canal Company that spells out the nature of this relationship so we know that the Company agrees to this. Member Carnes had difficulty placing this sort of thing on future homeowners, a potential long-term maintenance problem. He had not heard anything that would give him reassurance that this is a good thing to do. He thought this needed to look at this further and more consideration given to the future homeowner. Member Strom also had concerns about the responsibility of the future homeowners and would like to see some idea of what the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 25 Ms. Ripley stated that the petition went on to request three things. First, was that the development be stringently evaluated in natural resources. She replied that they had been in the process for seven months and have met all the criteria in the Land Development Guidance System. Second, was the need for housing in this price range. Finally, that the project be required to provide a minimum of 20% open space. She replied that the project was providing 18% and in addition there will be fencing restrictions along the canal and will appear to have more open space and an opportunity in the future for a canal. Ms. Ripley stated that the developer was also proposing a streetscape along Prospect Road that runs the whole length. It will be partially fenced and has a variety of plant materials, street trees, detached walk, evergreen trees and berming behind. It will also have an entry feature for the development. Chief Planner Blanchard pointed out that Stormwater Utility had estimated that the pipeline lifetime would be 50 years with the understanding that it is a closed system. The homeowners would be required to maintain the pipe system and the City would maintain the canal system that handles the stormwater flows. Mary Wanrad, Northern Engineering, stated what they had come up with after several alternatives. What was agreed upon by the City and the ditch company was rather than the Master Plan going with the dual ditch, which took up over 100 feet of right-of-way, they would go with the open canal for stormwater and the closed pipe for irrigation. Ms. Wanrad went on to say that as far as the irrigation flows being conveyed in a concrete pipe, it would be a closed system, and would have a life expectancy of about 50 years. The City would maintain their own open channel for stormwater. Member Strom asked if he understood that the pipe would not be installed until the year 2000. Basil Hampden replied that the plan now calls for an interim solution where the P V & L would still carry stormwater flows. It did not make sense to put the pipe in now until the whole system is in. What Ms. Wanrad was trying to say is that the pipe system would be put in at the same time that the master plan improvements are put in. When this is budgeted and found to be the highest priority item then the master plan improvement would be done. Member Strom asked if the developer would provide a bond or escrow funds to develop this segment of pipe through this development. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 24 life expectancy of this sort of design and what the long-term maintenance costs were. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, representing Bill Neal and Charolette Jorgensen, developers of the property gave a presentation addressing the neighbors concerns and commented on the stormwater issues. Ms. Ripley stated that the stormwater issues were very complex and that the issues have been worked on continuously since March to resolve. The problem was that the City had master planned a stormwater facility with the dual canals. The City had overlooked getting right-of-way for this solution downstream and homes were already built there. The City's master plan solution would no longer work. Her client paid his engineer to figure out a way for it all to work. The pipe was the solution that worked for the City, the Canal Company and her client. She was not taking it lightly that the responsibility was being put onto the homeowners. She would have her engineer address that later in the presentation. She felt her client had gone a long way to resolve a problem that the City created. Ms. Ripley addressed the neighborhood concerns, first with the objection of the property remaining open space or to become a park. She pointed out that the City does have ownership of the property and if they so desire could create a park. The neighborhood also had the opportunity to purchase the property if they wanted to incorporate the land as open space in their neighborhood. In regard to deteriorating the quality of life, she pointed out that the proposed project is very compatible with their neighborhood with similar density, architectural structure and price ranges to their homes. Ms. Ripley addressed the school problem. She stated that the School District does review projects and had the opportunity to realign boundaries if the school is going to be overcrowded. Ms. Ripley also addressed the concerns with circulation and traffic. She stated that there was an approved project on Tract A before this one for 163 townhomes to 70 single family lots. The traffic generation has been cut in half. The traffic analysis confirms that this project would not create safety or congestion problems in their neighborhood. Ms. Ripley addressed the final objection with regards to the need for housing. She stated that a recent home sales report for April and June of 1994 reported that 47% of home sales during that period were in the $120„QDO to $180,000. This project was in that range. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 26 Mr. Hampden replied they would require an escrow fund. Member Strom asked if that would be for the entire pipe or would the pipe ultimately go across other developments as well. Mr. Hampden replied that the pipe that goes across the neighboring development would be the responsibility of the City. Member Strom asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the rest of the pipe. Mr. Hampden replied it depended on how far the pipe goes and the negotiation with the Canal Company. If they say no, then the City would have to take it on. Member Strom asked about the 50-year life span and what did that mean as far as risk to the homeowner. Mr. Hampden replied that the main problem was that it was a closed conduit system. The main problem would be from siltation and sediment that would come in through the irrigation canal and clog. They will be required to put in several manholes to clean c.:t the pipes. He has seen pipes over 150 years old that are still working. Member Strom asked how big the pipe was. Mr. Hampden replied 54". Member Strom asked what the likelihood of a clog in a pipe that size. Mr. Hampden replied unlikely, it is a very large pipe. Bill Neal, applicant, 407 C.omrad Court, stated since 1981 he had developed every lot in Faribrooke. He was sensitive to the Board's concerns about who's responsibility it would be for maintaining the pipe. He stated that he was comfortable accepting responsibility for the maintenance of the pipe due to the fact that the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal has only two customers and one woul' be drying up next year due to development. Also, thc-, flow of the irrigation canal since the original drainage study has changed. It is now at 40 second feet of flow, or down to nothing depending on what happens to the Canal Companies two remaining clients. What sounds like a formidable challenge for responsibility on the irrigation water is slowing to a trickle. He was not comfortable accepting responsibility for stormdrainage in perpetuity on this project. LI Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 27 Member Cottier thought there might be some discrepancy on the size of the pipe being put it and the amount of flow in the irrigation ditch. How much oversized is the pipe? Mr. Hampden stated that Mr. Neal was correct in stating that the original master plan called for 150 cfs of irrigation flows. As the City has developed there is less need for irrigation flows. Mr. Hampden stated that they have a letter from Mr. Willis Smith, President of the P V & L stating that the maximum amount of flow expected was 40 cfs in the future in that canal. He stated that 40 cfs was about double the capacity for the size of the pipe. The reason for the largeness of the pipe if that the irrigation company likes for it's people to be able to walk inside of it and inspect it. Member Carnes asked until such time in which the pipe would be built, if stormwater would flowing with the irrigation water and would staff anticipate any flooding. Member Carnes asked about the dual canal design and what were the pros and cons of that. Mr. Hampden stated if regard to the first question, that they would not allow this development go into the canal undetained. There would be detentions put in to release the water at a slower rate. Currently the water is not being detained. Chairman Clements asked if the dual canals could even be done anymore due to the fact that the right-of-way was not reserved. Mr. Hampden replied that the only other way it could be done would be to take it around these developments. The applicant would loose a lot of land and also the adjoining property would be adversely effected. Mr. Hamden replied to Member Carnes second question being the pros and cons of an open system versus a closed system. He stated that the open system was easier to maintain. The closed system has a higher initial capital cost. Putting in the pipe would, in the long-term, would be less maintenance. The initial outlay of capital is the biggest disadvantage, but that would be done by the applicant. Member Bell asked about the storms this summer and were they 5- year or 10-year storms. Mr. Hamden replied that the concept of a 100-year storm is that a storm like that would only come every 100 years. This summer, on the average was 50-year in some parts of town, and 25-year in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 28 others, and some parts of town were 5-year. It varies with storm patterns. CITIZEN PARTICIPATI0N Kim Innes, lives in Fairbrooke, stated that in talking with over 200 people, only two were not opposed to this development. She questioned the 18% of open space. She said that the neighborhood did not care about a signature concept for their development, but rather open space. She stated that Overland Park was not accessible to their neighborhood due to having to cross Prospect Road. She felt that it was a low priority and did not know that the neighborhood could purchase the land and it would be too expensive. She felt that Blevins park was poorly equipped and people do not go there because it is too crowded. She felt with the density of the neighborhood that this area was the least served area with park space. She felt that the developers were making large sums of money on these developments and should contribute to more open space. She was concerned about a master plan for the entire community and the amount of open space. Ms. Innes was also concerned with circulation of the area, the additional traffic of 70 new homes, the impact on the neighborhood, the safety of the children walking to and from school, and the overcrowding in the schools and that some kids may have to be bused to other schools . She felt her concerns have not been adequately addressed in this plan. She felt that the neighbors have been cheated by the false information given by developers when purchasing their homes to the fact that there would be a park and open space. She thought that the community development policies should more adequately reflect what the community desires, more carefully planned growth policies, and more weight put on educational, open space needs, and quality of life. Ralph Pacella, 1945 Etton Drive, pointed out on the map the canal and where his backyard extended to the center of the P V & L Canal. He was one of the people flooded by the storms this summer. He spoke on his concerns with flooding of the canal and the effects on his and his neighbors properties. Cheryl Finney, 2337 Suffex Street, reiterated what Mr. Innes had said. She was concerned with the overcrowding of the school and asked what procedure was used to evaluate the school population. Chairman Clements stated that the School District reviewed all proposals and then evaluated the boundary lines according to new r� Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 29 development. The Planning and Zoning Board receives school projection reports with their packets with each new development. Ms. Finney asked if the School District felt they could accommodate this new development because there was also development occurring on the east side of Hampshire and also in Fairbrooke. She stated that the teachers felt there was overcrowding in the school and they were not doing their best for the students. She felt there was a discrepancy in the school projections and the actual population of the school. Ms. Finney was concerned about air pollution in this area and that the kids in the area are breathing bad air. She was concerned with growth and stability and the amount of development in their area. She thought there should be a better balance. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairman Clements asked about the 18% open space. Ms. Ripley replied that the 18% was a gross figure and it did include some public right-of-way. The net figure was 17%. Chairman Clements asked for Ms. Ripley to point out the open space on the plan. Ms. Ripley pointed out that the open space was in the detention areas and along Prospect Road. Some of this was public right-of- way and the other land dedicated by the developer as open space. Ms. Ripley agreed with the neighbors concerns about the amount of open space in the area and the barrier of Prospect Road to Overland Park, but with the eventual trail, she thought there was enough land to provide a lot of interesting recreational opportunities in the future. She thought that if the neighbors worked with Parks and Recreation, they could get some attention for facilities with land that was already available. Chairman Clements asked about the neighbors concerns about their meetings with Parks and Recreation and that they were not taken seriously. She asked Chief Planner Blanchard if he had any history as to these meetings. Chief Planner Blanchard replied that the review the Parks Department had was the same as all the other City agencies. There was no comments from the City Forester or Parks Department about the need for an additional park site or public recreational facilities on this site. C Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 30 Chairman Clements addressed park fees and how they are assessed. Chief Planner Blanchard replied they were assessed by house not by land. Chairman Clements asked how that was calculated per house. Chief Planner Blanchard replied it was by lot. Chairman Clements asked what the fee was. Chief Planner Blanchard replied it was in the $800.00 range. Chairman Clements asked where the money went. Chief Planner Blanchard replied it went to the Parks Department for future development. Chairman Clements asked if it went for this square block area. Chief Planner Blanchard replied it was a regional area. It was not just related to just Fairbrooke. Ms. Ripley added it was the square mile. Chairman Clements asked about the neighbors concerns about the traffic on Cedarwood. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Planner replied that when the original ODP for the Fairbrooke area a was submitted, traffic impact analysis was conducted for that Overall Development Plan. The analysis assumed higher densities for development for the entire ODP. There was multi -family included in the original OPD, so the original traffic analysis assumed more trips and the original analysis indicated that the proposed street system could handle the traffic without problems. As each phase of Fairbrooke comes in with a lower density housing proposed than the original analysis, no extensive update has been required. There has been no newly updated traffic analysis for this particular phase of Fairbrooke, he could not site specific estimated volumes for any of the roads, except that Staff was confident that it was not going to create any problems as did the original analysis. Chairman Clements asked Mr. Vosburg to address the bike path in this area. Mr. Vosburg replied that his understanding that it was not proposed in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a recreational trail. Everyone recognizes that it could be a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 31 potential connection in the future. There was no official City plan for it and no one department is taking the lead on it and there was no dollars allocated for it at this time. There was a ditch, and there have been efforts to retain right-of-way and space along the ditch so some where in the future, the Parks or Transportation Departments would take responsibility for a bike trail. Chairman Clements asked that the neighbors concerns with the school be addressed. Chief Planner Blanchard replied that school information is contained in each of the Boards packets. He went over the formula that is used to calculated estimated populations of students in new developments and how it is applied to the current design capacity. He stated that development did not occur immediately and each year the School District has the opportunities to adjust their boundaries if needed. Member Carnes commented about advantages of a closed system for the ditch and the reduced maintenance costs for the ditch company. He saw the applicant willing to pay capital costs for the pipe. His concern was that this was a preliminary and final proposal, and this proposal pointed out the wisdom of having a preliminary and a final plan to review separate to address these issues, in less time that the Board had spent at one time in one session. Chairman Clements followed up saying that in the past, if there are concerns that the Board has that they feel they would like more information on, the Board has separated them and only voted on the preliminary plan and asked that issues be resolved before the plan is given final approval. That was an option on this plan. Member Bell agreed with Member Carnes about having a preliminary and final at the same time not being very prudent. She was not convinced about the ditch and the pipe handling the stormwater runoff with the amount of development occurring. She thought 10 years down the road after development has occurred was along time to wait to take care of existing problems. She would not be supporting this project as it stands now. Member Cottier commented on the preliminary and final plan submittal, that the stormwater issues had been resolved to the City's satisfaction and that was what allowed this to be a joint submittal at this point. it was her understanding that the original preliminary submittal was delayed so these issues could be resolved and that is what was being proposed now. She was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 32 concerned about the Board questioning this now after it had been such a long process to come up with a solution. Member Walker concurred with Member Cottier in that this solution was workable and suggested that the duration of pipelines should resolve any concern with the future liability of homeowners. He also concurred with the fact that the future need for the P V & L Canal would disappear in terms of conveying irrigation water within the lifetime of this pipe. Member Walker thought there were several options in this area regarding parks. He understood the concerns of the neighbors but it has always been planned as a developable area. He thought that the parks in the area were sufficient and questioned the parcel being suitable for the kind of park the City would be envisioning. He thought the traffic issues had been addressed to his satisfaction. Member Strom did have concerns with the pipe and the long-term maintenance, but was convinced that this was a workable solution in not laying undue burdens on the homeowners in this area. He thought overall that this development was acceptable. Chief Planner Blanchard reminded the Board when making their motion there was a variance to the solar -orientation criteria and a final approval condition regarding development agreements and final utility plans. Member Strom moved for approval of Fairbrooke P.U.D., Tract A, Preliminary and Final with the standard utility condition and approval of the solar variance based on the constraints of the site. Member Fontana seconded the motion. Chairman Clements commented that the Board hears a lot of citizen frustration about growth in Fort Collins. She suggested using alternative modes of transportation for reducing air pollution. She addressed density and growth issues in Fort Collins and without a moratorium on the entire city, we were going to have growth. It was the Boards job to try to ensure that as growth occurs that it meets the policies put forth by City Council and it meets the All Development Criteria. There is a highly qualified staff that lives in this community and wants the development that is going in to be high quality. She stated she would be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 6-1, with Member Bell voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 33 Chairman Clements stated that this was a reconsideration of final approval. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, stated this was a reconsideration of a final decision. The original decision was made on August 22, 1994. There was a continued meeting until August 30. On August 30, there was a vote to reconsider the final decision. Tonight the Board would address additional language to be placed on the P.U.D. document. This language was worked out in cooperation with the applicant. The applicant has reviewed this language and is in agreement with it. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the language did not need to be added as a condition of approval. The language just needed to be included by the applicant as part of the application. Chairman Clements asked for the applicants presentation. There was none. Chairman Clements asked for citizen participation. There was none. Member Cottier stated she has had the most concerns about this in the past due to her involvement with the North College Avenue Advisory Committee. Her concern was that a P.U.D. being approved with lower standards than a typical P.U.D. when North College is on the verge of having a new plan adopted with design standards and guidelines. For that reason, she would like to see.better improvements on this site in relation to the standards that would be on North College. Member Cottier appreciated the applicant's commitment to comply with those standards when they do get adopted, which is scheduled in about six months. Member Cottier stated that their task tonight was to consider final approval which also entails approving a variance to the point chart. The items discussed previously, the final design items arrived at in the previous final approval, were that there were to be two 8' x 8' landscape islands at the north edge of the north access and the south edge of the south access. There was to be one tree in each of those. Those two landscape areas, as well as the center island will be landscaped with juniper bushes and they will be set off by railroad ties. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 26, 1994 Page 34 Member Cottier stated she would also like the approval to specify that no vehicle, trailer, or other appliance could be parked within 8 feet of the eastern property line. Member Cattier moved for final approval with the stipulations stated. Member Fontana seconded the motion. The Motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.