Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/11/1994• PLANNING i ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 111 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The July 11, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Roll call was answered by: Chair Clements, -and Members Bell, Cottier, Fontane, Strom, and Walker. Board Member Absent: Winfree Staff Members Present: Ashbeck, Blanchard, Deines, Eckman, Herzig, Shepard, Vosburg, and Whetstone. c ,p Item 17. Willow Springs PIID - Preliminary #3-94B Item IS. Ridgewood Hills Overall Development Plan, Amendment to the Del Webb Master Plan, #53-84B Item 19. Ridgewood Hills PIID - Preliminary, #SS-84C Item 20. Dakota Ridge PIID, 3rd Piling - Preliminary, #60-91Kt Item 21'. Lindenmeir Estates PIID Preliminary, #24-94. • DISCUSSION AGENDA: Item 17 Willow Springs - PIID Preliminary. #3 94B. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, gave the staff report with recommendations. He referred to a memo presented to the Board as Alternative IA, the Keenland alignment. This is the most controversial aspect of the project, the design, shape, and crossing at the railroad tracks. Staff has made the position that the connection needs to happen to fulfill the collector street function with less speed and volume. Working with all parties concerned, they have developed four alternatives for the site plan. Staff recommended to the Board that they approve Alternative 1 and lA for the preliminary. Chair Clements commended Mr. Shepard for working closely with the neighbors, and developer tq develop alternatives. She asked if they supported his recommendation. Mr. Shepard reserved judgment on their support, but the meeting was very positive. Chair Clements asked if the Board makes decisions concerning changes to street plans? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Shepard stated the City Council has the final authority. If the Master Plan is not followed, a separate motion needs to be made for the recommendation to City Council. This could be in the form of a resolution, motion, or recommendation. Member Strom asked that if the variance were granted, is it specific to the day care/recreation use? Mr. Shepard said the variance would run with the 3.9 acre parcel, identified as the day care/recreational facility, specific for day care and recreational uses as noted on the PUD. Member Strom asked why the project needed 3 points to make 50 percent? Is there the option to require an energy conservation criteria? Mr. Shepard said it was scored "0" because there were no criteria available that it had been achieved. Member Walker asked what issues were being dealt with in Alternative lA and what is unusual about it? Mr. Vosburg said Alternative 1 is the alignment of Keenland Drive as proposed by the applicant and is a direct connection to the railroad tracks, curving to Timber Creek Drive. Alternative IA is a slight variation but introduces a 90 degree corner. There are two major issues: 1. Overall design philosophy for collector streets and function. The purpose is to collect traffic from the neighborhood and to allow the traffic to flow freely out to the arterials. There are a minimum of obstacles introduced to them. Another line of thinking is to break up the flow. The main purpose of the collector cannot be interrupted a great deal. 2. Design configuration for the curve. He demonstrated with a slide of the design configuration to slow the traffic down and make it less attractive to use other than as a collector street. Storage for left turning traffic is a concern. Residences are buffered from Keenland traffic by buffering from the road with substantial setback. The time table to cross the tracks with development is independent of Willow Springs. It will be a capital project funded by the City and not by the developer. The time frame.would be 10 to 15 years before traffic would warrant a crossing. It would involve a hearing and a funding package (like the Choices 195 package), and would involve the public review process. I • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 3 Member Walker asked if the use of the railway could possibly not be needed within the time frame? Mr. Vosburg said he wasn't aware of removing it and assumed the railway would stay. Mr. Jim Sell of Jim Sell Design, representing the applicant Truster, Inc., gave the presentation. He supported the recommended alignment of Keenland Drive as outlined by Alternative 1 and 1A. He discussed the 3/4 mile Harmony stretch south edge of Rock Creek development. There is a maximum of 4 intersections that are allowed in that distance, showing the need to connect Keenland. He presented slides showing the con- figuration of the neighborhood of acreage tracts, the buffering, loop streets, walkways to major amenities, the ditch, open space, retention pond, duplex, four-plex, eight-plex homes, irrigation by raw water, greenbelts, walk -out units, the architecture design, etc. Member Walker asked if the vacant parcel of land southeast is waiting for development? A citizen in the audience responded that the parcel has a home on it and is a deeded parcel. Member Walker asked about the park and detention area west of the tract in Oak Ridge, specifically, who owns it? Mr. Sell said it serves as a park when it is dry, but it is a detention pond and is a part of the City required storm drainage system for Oak Ridge. Bobbie Douglas - 2313 E. County Road 36 - The home sites in her neighborhood are from 5 to 29 acres with no multiple housing. She stated they were a more contiguous neighborhood than Oak Ridge. There is no buffer offered between the development and their homes. They were not interested in the higher density nor the view of it. She was a member of the Corridor Task Force to determine land use between Harmony Road and 57th Street in Loveland. The desire of the Task Force is for low -density and there is a concern for the aggressiveness of the City of Fort Collins to have higher density development in the Corridor area. It is not her neighborhood's desire for this to impact the area. She stated opposition to the density level of Willow Springs. She is a County resident. Vern Mobley - 2521 ECR 36 - He stated that the Fossil Creek Estates development, which was allowed by Council to drop to two Planning and 2cning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 4 units per acre, is half of what is proposed for Willow Springs. He supported lower density and found the multi -family incompatible to the existing neighborhood. He is a County resident. Richard Patterson - 5348 Wheaton Dr. - He lives in Oak Ridge, 2nd Filing, 94 homes with about 225 people --there are 3 other filings in Oak Ridge along Keenland Drive. He opposed the extension of Keenland Drive. At least 30 children live in a one -and -a -half block radius of Keenland Drive and McMurray. He has read the purpose of elected officials and they are to represent what their constituents want. He believed the majority of the neighbors oppose this extension as well. Kristi Bennett - 1624 Redberry Ct. She is a mother and objected to the extension of Keenland mainly because it divides the neighborhoods. She said it seems to represent Fort Collins' rapid growth plans that are not looking forward to the future. She referred to the Master Plan as not being set in stone. The Goals and Objectives of the City, amended in 1991 (page 4), supports her view with regard to pollution and transportation aspects of not having the road go through. She considers it a major impact on the existing neighborhood, in a negative way. She offered the alternative to be a bike trail. Safety is an issue. Neighborhood integrity and the impact of the railroad doesn't meet the criteria of discouraging growth and use of single occupant vehicle miles traveled. She pointed out ingress and egress issues for -different land uses (commercial/ residential), pedestrian safety and pollution. She urged the Board to consider this document, not just the Master Street Plan. David Rau - 1600 Redberry Ct. - He commended the developers in meeting to formulate Alternative 1A. He said that Keenland was referred to as a collector, but he viewed it as an arterial, however, it will slow traffic down. There should be a variance to the street standard to calm the traffic. He reminded the Committee that Master Plans are working documents. He didn't believe that it should be approved with the two alternatives proposed, because there is no guarantee that Alternative lA would be given full implementation. Milan Hanson 1624 Redberry Ct. - He appreciated the efforts of the neighborhood meeting with staff and the applicant to address concerns. He believed it was clear that the residents of Oak Ridge are opposed to the extension of Keenland Drive. He believed Keenland serves well in Oak Ridge and would serve well in Willow Springs without a railroad crossing. In the absence of a collector in the two miles between Harmony Road and Trilby, connecting Timberline and Lemay, there will be a lot of temptation to take a short cut through Keenland and avoid • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 5 Harmony. There is only one impediment to slow traffic in Alternative 1, and that is a stop sign at McMurry and Keenland. The Transportation Department projects about 4,000 daily trips on Keenland by the year 2015. There are now about 1,500 trips. With that low of flow (800), he questioned the value of crossing the railroad. He supports the Alternative lA with a realignment to calm the traffic. Iry Christy - 1627 River Oak Dr. - He thanked the Board for reviewing their minutes of the neighborhood meeting. He addressed the Master Street Plan that originally called for Keenland to stop at Harmony Road. He said there was a variance that was added to the street plan which connected Keenland to Boardwalk and made the extension across four arterial streets. He questioned the validity of the traffic estimates on Keenland from 1,500 cars per day presently, from a deadend street, to 4,000 in 2015. There are several hundred homes going in along Timberline. The traffic will all go onto Keenland to arrive at various destinations. He pointed out the park area which is used as a sledding area for small children in the winter months. In spring, summer and fall it is used as a soccer field, which • relieves the burden of other city parks. The homeowner's association is taking the wear and tear of the park to allow use by the children. Jeff Stoltman - 1433 Redberry Ct. - He supported the previous speakers comments and agreed that there were many people impacted in this neighborhood and it should not be taken lightly. He believed the most important issue is where Keenland crosses four arterials. He believed it would be a short cut rather than a designed collector street to destinations in south Fort Collins. He questioned the projections for traffic use. He underscored that the park is a private park, the neighbors pay for it, including liability insurance. If it were a City park, it would not be as great a concern. Gary Thomas - 1533 River Oak Dr. - He spoke of "good faith", meaning that the City Planning Department represent the neighborhood after they have heard concerns at neighborhood meetings. He believed there should be more recommendations for alternative plans for Keenland. He directed his concerns regarding the Willow Springd developers, Are they to get their development approved by meeting transportation criteria? Is that in "good faith"? Will there need to be follow-up hearings in future years on this same issue of Keenland extension? There needs to be other alternatives. Do we need the road through? He wanted the Board to comment. Member Walker had mentioned the • importance of listening to all constituents, there is a strong need for a bike path in the community. There is none proposed. He believed the extension should be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 6 Harmony Corridor and clearly understand its impact. He commented that routing could be made in another direction through other properties, linking it to Oak Ridge Drive, controlling access and traffic flow. In conclusion, the safety of children is number one. A park is adjacent to Keenland Road. He was opposed to the extension. Suzanne Gillespie - a resident of Oak Ridge near the park and Keenland. She believed the "collector street" status will quickly become an "arterial" and safety issues are a concern. She was opposed to the connection over the railroad tracks. The plan for extending it splits the community. The park area is also affected and the sidewalk will no longer be safe --changing the complexion and appeal of the neighborhood. She was concerned about the "intent" of a 4-way stop not occurring until there had been some serious accident. Cindy.Brown - 5107 Saffron Ct. - She had moved into the neighborhood for its reputation as a family neighborhood where children were safe. The proposal of the extension of Keenland, will alter the safety and desirability of the neighborhood for family life. She was opposed to the extension. Gerald Dusbabek - 1613 Trailwood - owner of the property of Keenland Road east of the railroad track. Mr. Dusbabek said he was in favor of the Keenland extension and believed the children would be safer if the crossing was placed. He discouraged the use of the Harmony Road for access. He was in favor of Alternative 1A. Chair Clements pointed out to the audience that all plans which have been adopted for City growth and development are considered in making decisions. The Board represents, as constituents, all of the City of Fort Collins citizenry. All proposals are considered with regard to their impact on street systems, infra- structure, schools, etc. The Board views each project to the whole plan for proper functioning. Master Plans do change as time goes on with citizen input, it is not just City staff or Council, but is representative of citizenry. These plans do change and adapt as the city grows. Changes to the plan will occur with regard to needs, policies, goals and objectives. Chair Clements stated it was her understanding if Keenland were connected, there would be bike lanes on the proposed street. Mr. Shepard said there would be bike lanes in each direction, six feet in width. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • July 11, 1994 Page 7 Chair Clements asked if one plan required Keenland to be stopped at Harmony? Mr. Vosburg said that Keenland, when it reaches Lemay, aligns to Boardwalk to intersect Harmony and continue on up to college. In an earlier version, Boardwalk didn't make that connection and Keenland was in between Lemay and Timberline. This portion of the plan has been changed. Chair Clements asked about the projection of 4,000 trips per day being a reasonable projection? Mr. Matt Delich prepared this study for the development and said the number was the volume projected crossing the tracks on Keenland as an estimate. As the traffic moves toward Lemay, it will be higher than 4,000. Chair Clements asked if collectors typically border neighborhood parks throughout the city? Mr. Shepard said the City likes to have street frontages on parks IS for visibility and parking, and does not want to bury or hide parks. There is no set pattern or policy for local or collector streets to serve that function. Member Walker asked what the City's Master Plan is for other crossings of the railroad tracks south of Harmony? Mr. Vosburg said there is no other crossing identified between Harmony and Trilby. It would be the only crossing point because there is a golf course in its place. Further south, there is more dramatic topography, steeper hillsides, complicating another alignment in the Fossil Creek area. Member Bell asked about notification of neighbors for discussion of plans for the area and wanted to know where the neighborhood was located. Bobbi Douglas answered that County planning disallowed the spreading out of the homes, even though there were larger acreage because of irrigating fields behind them. She gave details of the Blem Sub., running the first half mile and other details of location, and acreage vary. She stated they were notified of the neighborhood meeting and received information regarding this Board meeting. No notification was received relating to other meetings held, specifically the traffic planning issues. • Member Bell asked for clarification and if there could be discussion before City Council on modifying the street plan, so citizens may know their rights. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Shepard said there will be changes in the Master Street Plan to the City Council this summer. Mr. Vosburg said elements of the Master Street Plan can be updated in a variety of ways. There is the Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor Plan, the Fort Collins Master Street Plan, and they are planned to be updated 1994-95. Member Bell asked if the citizens can go to these meetings this summer and voice their concerns in regard to the extension of Keenland. Is there an opportunity for them? Mr. Vosburg said yes there was. Chair Clements asked if the Northeast Transportation Committee was involved in making the recommendations and changes? Mr. Vosburg said yes. Member Fontane asked about criteria used in the planning process in determining if Keenland should go through, was the original intention to be a deadend street? Is this an attempt to disperse traffic and control volume? Mr. Vosburg said that all neighborhoods have a collector system; and whenever master planning of neighborhood areas occur, there are mapped out collector systems that allow traffic within the neighborhoods to disperse to arterials. There is no section line road crossing between Timberline and Lemay. They normally occur at one -mile intervals. There is a need for a collector street in this area. The collector street increases convenience for people to exit the neighborhood, allows the traffic to be dispersed across the arterial grid. If the connection is not made, then the intersection at Timberline and Harmony will operate at Level Service D in 2015. With the connection, it will operate at Level Service C. A collector supports alternative modes of transportation, bikelanes, and transit vehicles. Trips are shorter, more direct, to achieve air quality goals. Member Fontane also asked about the design of Keenland and how it accesses. Was there a purpose that no homes access the street? Mr. Vosburg said he was not familiar with the design process at Oak Ridge, but acknowledged that the current design has the effect of buffering residences from Keenland quite well. The actual buffers are drainage swalles. He was not familiar with the exact plans. Member Fontane asked if safety was being sacrificed in order to get a reduction in the MT? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Vosburg recognized the fact that greater volumes of traffic increases potential safety risks. The Keenland Drive is on the upper scale of traffic volume, but within the accepted range. Member Fontana commented that many collector streets have homes facing on them and that Keenland is one of the safer streets in this design. Mr. Vosburg agreed, stating that the buffering is better than other collector streets in the city. Member Fontane asked about air quality? Mr. Vosburg said with Level Service D at the intersection of Timberline and Harmony, there is'more idle time. Making the Keenland connection one point in a process of trying to make an efficient network. Not making the connection is a step in the opposite direction. Chair Clements asked if the City continually violates the EPA Air Standards, what does that mean for our City? • Mr. Vosburg said if we are not in compliance with EPA air quality standards, eventually we get our Federal highway funds severely restricted. The City needs to come up with a plan of achieving those goals and implement it. The network building for streets proposed is consistent with that approach. Chair Clements said the monies received not only improve roads in the community but also support amenities such as the trolley and bike lanes. Member Bell said she drove through the area and asked if the traffic volumes are based the entire geographic area, or just the Willow Springs area up to 4,000 daily trips? Mr. Delich said it includes more than the Willow Springs and Oak Ridge area, it includes the Timber Creek, Stetson Creek, Harmony Crossing, the residential and commercial area to the,north, PVH hospital site, Miramont, and other developments to the south yet undeveloped. Not all of the traffic will use Keenland. The traffic counts tend to be high in prediction. Member Bell felt that collector volumes need to be evaluated and what burden to the neighborhoods are they asked to bear in order to move traffic. She also asked about the Harmony Corridor "moratorium" and was curious how far south is the.corridor • considered? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Shepard stated it is defined as one-half mile north or south of Harmony Road. Member Cottier discussed the convenience of routing traffic on Keenland as a connector to College. In summary, it will not create an access to College, but rather create a residential route to areas in Willow Springs and those east of Timberline -- not traffic -perhaps to or from I-25. Mr. Delich said that was correct. Member Walker asked about unique characteristics of the street because it will create the only collector at Harmony and Timberline in this area. Will it serve another purpose? Mr. Vosburg said there are two fundamental criteria that determines a collector street: (1) volumes --forecasts are at the high end of the standard, (2) alignment and function --arterials are envisioned to move traffic directly across broad expansions of the city, whereas collectors perform more of a residential collector function. Keenland is not a typical collector; it will have more of an arterial role than typical. There is expected more of this function than other collectors because there is no arterial street in the area. It is classified a collector because it does deadend; if it aligned at Timberline and further east, then it would be a pattern for an arterial. It was compared to the way in which Swallow functions, to Dunbar. It will be similar then at Keenland and Boardwalk. Member Walker asked about other calming effects for Alternative 1 traffic proposal? Mr. Vosburg said there are things that could be done, stop signs are one, and there are specific criteria that warrant them. Intersections can be evaluated. Landscaped medians, other landscaping along the intersection, creating visual congestion to control the traffic --speed bumps are not an option. Chair Clements clarified that the Board's intention is to potentially preserve the right-of-way should the City decide to connect it. The option is there but the road is not going to go through with this proposal. Mr. Vosburg stated that was correct, the Board does not have the authority to approve the connection across the railroad tracks. Colorado Public Utilities Commission is the body that has the authority to approve making that connection. That.process requires a public hearing process and that is dictated by State law. 11 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 11 Chair Clements stated again that it is only an option. Should the Colorado Public Utilities Commission approve, then funding would go through City Council. Mr. Vosburg said that was true, it is unfunded. it is an option that needs to be preserved. Member Walker asked the applicant regarding mitigation of densities, preserving the character of the surrounding neighborhood east of Timberline? Mr. Sell spoke of the development that was changed from duplexes to single-family homes with lot widths comparable, and use of fences or walls with landscaping. Chair Clements commented that it would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors on the east. Member Fontane asked about the ditch, storm water run-off, water quality and quantity, that will be provided to the east side. Mr. Sell deferred the question to their engineer Steve Human from TST. Mr. Human spoke of the property drainage from the south to the north, there is an irrigation ditch on the high side of the ditch, but the entire property drains away from the ditch to the McClellend Creek. The volume being released is less than historic and at a lower frequency. There are a number of detention areas and there are culverts and no longer overtopping of the stormwater. Member Fontane was concerned about the ditch as irrigation as well for agricultural needs. Mr. Human said all of the water being detained will be released over a longer time period, there is no shortage of water downstream. Member Cottier asked Mr. Sell about the pool and day care facilities. Mr. Sell said it included both. Member Cottier asked about the triangular piece of property west of the railroad tracks, what is the present location, size and potential use? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Sell located it on a map and stated it was 5.3 acres with potential park usage --golf course or open space, but no final determination has been made. Member Bell said she had heard that if a railroad crossing is improved in one area, can you make a trade somewhere else in the City? Mr. Shepard said he had not heard of anything like that. Member Bell also asked about some of the goals and objectives of the Corridor Study going on in Fort Collins and Loveland. Mr. Shepard said it was his understanding that there was a mile separation between urban growth area for the City of Fort Collins and the urban growth area for the City of Loveland. That was the original corridor, a joint County concern for the two cities. Now that there is a task force convening, consisting of the Larimer County residences, Loveland, folks in the UGA, Fort Collins, this area has increased in size. It is a dumbell shaped affair with a wide space by the foothills, another wide space by the interstate and a long narrow space connecting the two. He went on to explain the land uses and boundaries of the City. He concluded that the Willow Springs project is not in conflict with the corridor studies. Member Walker said the Keenland issue and the density is addressed by the Board with policy and its current standards with the City. City standards suggests that three units per acre is a minimum. He mentioned that Council changes policy, not the Board, as was done with the Fossil Creek Estates Project. The Board does not change policy with street plans and the Board also agrees there should be reservation.of the land in accordance with the Master -Street Plan. He commented that the Keenland Street now feels like a local street, but is designed as a collector street. He summarized the broad concept of the Master Street Plan to move traffic effectively throughout the community, and perform specific functions and positively connect neighborhoods. He believed there was consideration given to the large lot homes surrounding the development. Because of Keenland's unique characteristics, careful review and consideration still needs to be made concerning this collector street. Member Strom asked a legal question about the issue of variance, what are the options. He didn't think a variance was needed. There are opportunities for the developer to meet the standard. The question was: Do we need the variance? or do we need to approve the land use and have the developer come back with better information with revisions that will allow them to meet standard? Some of the point chart issues are really not in the control of 11 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • July 11, 1994 Page 13 the developer or land owner. He felt, however, the energy conservation issue is. Mr. Eckman said that he thought the developer could meet the point chart variance. That would seem to be a preferable option if the Board feels the energy conservation points are critical to deny the variance which would force the developer to go back and get the additional points without the granting of the variance. Grant the variance on some type of condition, but it doesn't seem to be a straight -forward approach to grant a variance on the condition that the points be accomplished in some other way, it loses its logic. Either the Board grants the variance or denies it, in the hope that the denial would get the energy conservation points up. Member Strom asked Mr. Shepard what happens when the Board does deny and the Board thinks the uses are reasonable but could achieve points? Mr. Shepard said there are 1.39 acres that do not have preliminary PUD status based on the Board's action tonight. They • would have to come back at final and for the 1.39 acres, the Board would be considering a preliminary and final PUD. The pulling of this acreage at this time needs the direction given to the developer. Member Strom said that is something that the Board can consider as a reasonable approach. He commented on the Keenland Drive issue and agreed with Member Walker's comments. He first thought it made sense to put it through, and reconsidered that it may not be necessary during the context of this development. He did think that future UGA patterns would determine the use and it would be important to preserve the option. on the other hand, if success is reducing travel, if the UGA boundaries remain constant, it may be determined that the street would not be needed. He supported the Alternative IA. There was some discussion about Alternative 1 versus lA with varying opinions among Board members. Member Fontana made the motion to approve willow springs PUD Preliminary with conditions from staff, Alternative i and LA, and that the variance be denied (#S). Member Strom stated that the developer could come back to the Board without delay and present the preliminary and final • together with the energy points, on the 1.39 acre recreation parcel. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 14 Member Walker seconded the notion. Members Cottier and Strom wanted to amend the motion to include only Alternative 1A. Mr. Vosburg commented that staff wasn't sure that Alternative IA was feasible and assessment needed to be made to provide a 90 degree corner at the railroad. The staff needed to evaluate the stacking and volumes created. Member Strom withdrew the original statement for amendment and suggested an amendment to include both Alternatives with the priority be placed on 1A until the time of final when the Board could look at that issue with the arguments from staff. Member Fontana agreed. Member Walker said basically his intent was to maintain the potential street with the crossing in conformance with the Master Plan as the goal, consider mitigation that would provide for the unique characteristics of the street, and to relax standards in order to create a "calming effect" on the traffic. Chair Clements concurred and offered options of landscaped medians or other options to slow traffic. Mr. Shepard said one of the definitions of "final" is that the choices are narrowed down to one specific design to achieve a final design. It would be cumbersome to expect that options be presented at final. Staff is responsible for analyzing options and to come up with a recommendation. Member Walker stated that there needs to be mitigation of alternatives but didn't intend to have the Board analyze options. Member Cottier said she agreed with preserving the option to connect it. She questioned whether it was needed. She hoped that indicating a preference should the connection occur, would be more acceptable and carry more volume so that the Oak Ridge citizens would find it more acceptable. She encouraged the residents to give input to the Master Street Plan and recognize there are opportunities to get it changed. If the overall street connection does go through, she hoped the trade-off of a little more traffic for the Oak Ridge neighborhood would be balanced by the convenience of getting to the schools to the east. She did support the motion and wasn't too concerned about the pool - recreation area. She would approve it with a variance if energy is an issue that cannot be addressed. She emphasized that the overall site design is good, especially the multi -family abutting onto open space, improving the quality of the project. Motion passed 6-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 15 Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report and recommendations of approval with conditions. Chair Clements asked about the ownership of duplexes by Good Samaritan and the possibility of ownership by the elderly. Ms. Whetstone showed the location of the retirement buildings and the development. It would be a private arrangement for the elderly to use the duplexes exclusively. If it were a "group home", that would be reviewed as a group home. If the duplexes are owned by the Good Samaritan Retirement Village, a business could rent them out or own them, it would be a private situation. At this time, it is not presented as affordable housing. Mr. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design. Mr. Ward gave a brief presentation showing practical reasons for making changes from the original master plan of ten years ago and is working with Natural Resources. The key points were for opportunities for • preserving the natural area on the hillside, to look at the land - use mix in light of changes in the community and other employment centers, etc. He spoke of a neighborhood convenience store, plans for a group home or assisted living. The developer is not presenting it as affordable housing, nor elderly housing and that there will be patio homes for the "empty nester" market. Mr. Ward stated the developer has changed the design to allow a greater setback with an open space view. The neighbors are satisfied with the change. He requested approval by the Board. Chair Clements spoke of fencing covenants. Mr. Ward commented that a concept of 3-foot high solid fencing with landscaped treatment between the developed area and the natural hillside be used. Open fencing does not provide the kind of separation needed for wildlife or domestic animal control. rN Florence Brown - Planning Specialist from the Thompson School District - Ms. Brown spoke of the project being located in the District and appreciated the potential school sites and park conjunction sites within the development. Buses would run along Trilby Road and requested a pull -off from the road to allow easy access. She requested that pedestrian paths lead to the bus stop. She said there would be trips to middle and high schools, • so the turnouts would not be wasted. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 16 Ms. Whetstone said that was the first time she had heard the request. It could be requested at the time of design of Trilby Road at the time of final. Mr. Ward stated that Transfort service for sometime in the future is planned at this location. The project plan will have pedestrian access, and pedestrian destinations with circulation near the park and school. Chair Clements reviewed the size of the neighborhood streets. An outcome of planning meetings indicates that asphalt is used to a greater degree than desired; a more narrow street gives a more neighborhood feeling. Chair Clements said she believed the city street standard could be relaxed. Mr. Ward agreed with her but stated it was difficult to get consensus for approval by staff, the Board, and the developer in the preliminary review. The applicant decided not to pursue it. He believed that he did not have clear direction for narrowing the street at this time. Member 8trom moved for approval of the Ridgewood Hills Overall Development Plan, Amendment to the Del Webb Master Plan, with the findings of the staff report. Member Walker seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Chair Clements asked if, with the preliminary, the Board would need to make the bus stop pull-out a condition? Ms. Whetstone said she wasn't sure it needed to be a condition but a strong recommendation to be worked into the final plan. Member Bell asked if the road to Highway 287 was to be used in the future as a transportation corridor, extending the South College Access Control Plan beyond Trilby Road. Would staff take a look at the proposed intersection? Ms. Whetstone said yes and it had been brought out with an early conceptual review along College Avenue. The comment was made for the South College Access Plan to include it and the State Highway Department to recommend signals and access points along South College ending at Trilby which is the border of the UGA. Member Bell's concern was for time for public discussion and input at a later time for the appropriateness of these signals, etc. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 17 Ms. Whetstone said definitely yes, but it will come as a separate item to the Planning and Zoning Board and there would be time for an opportunity for public review. Chair Clements commented that a memo could be sent to Transportation with carbon copies to the Mayor and City Council and other staff concerned to see this study area extended. Ms. Whetstone said that was a good suggestion, however, this project doesn't have frontage along Highway 287, and was approved with the Del Webb access point, with reasonable alignment. Mr. Eckman spoke of the school bus facilities and that school bus facilities could be part of the layout of the plan. Since layout is one of the items that gets to be a "right" upon preliminary, he recommend that the Board include it as a condition. Member walker moved approval the Ridgewood Hills BUD - Preliminary with the conditions by staff and the additional condition that accommodations be made on the plan for an appropriate bus stop with consultation of the school District. is Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. item 21 - Lindenmeier Estates BUD - Preliminary. #24-94 Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report. He addressed the contiguity to an existing urban development and details of points accrued for the project. The second condition that had been changed after discussion with the Natural Resources Department, was given to the Board in the form of a memo. Member Walker asked if the City would be require both units be built at the time of construction or would it be possible to build one or the other at a later date? Mr. Olt stated the intent would not necessarily requiring that both living units be built at the same time. Therefore, this was an enforcement issue. He pointed out in the new residential phasing ordinance, one of the criterion in the ordinance encourages mixed residential uses, a "granny -flat type" concept, which this project uses. Member Walker asked about the "related family members", and if it would appear on the plats. Does the City have assurance of that? • The developer has indicated that this would be through the covenants but where does the City's interest in this lie? Should Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 18 we be satisfied with the covenants or should there be something on the plats so the City could have some recourse? Mr. Olt indicated that this type of thing must be most effectively regulated by the homeowner's association or covenants. It is the intent of staff, however, that this clearly be defined with the final site plan since it is vague in the preliminary plan. The final site plan will clearly have to define this. However, this is rarely seen by property owners. Therefore, conceivably it will have to be on the subdivision plat. The private documents are where the weight of the enforcement will have to occur. Member Walker wanted the City to have recourse to enforce the intent by having some note on the plat to that effect. Member Fontane said since we are breaking new ground, we can write our own rules as far as how we want to address some of these issues. If the "granny -flat" is to be in Phase II or addressed individually per lot, the lots will have offsets and setbacks for the first dwelling unit to allow for planning of the location of the "granny flat". Chair Clements asked if the "granny flat" would be a separate building on the lot or a part of the house? Mr. Olt said it could be either. The options are open, but leaning towards an attached.unit, a second unit could be incorporated very well. Chair Clements expressed endorsement of this concept for the elderly and as a growing need for the extended family concept. However, we need to realize that all kinds of people live in granny flats. There are students, other extended family members, etc. She admonished the Board to proceed with caution because it will set precedence when this preliminary proposal is made. Mr. Ed Zdenek with ZTI Group, and Ed Lawler, partner in this development, gave a short report on this undefined market for "granny flats". Currently there is no way of having a second unit or related individual in your own home, short of having a "duplex". In the City, you could request a single family structure on a duplex site. This is a neighborhood of large lots in a very prestigious part of the community. There have been two neighborhood meetings, sharing concerns. Mr. Zdenek referred to Mr. Olt's document for the short-term growth management program. He said he was on the committee working on this topic and the project fits closely with those • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 19 concepts. The purpose of the community -wide criteria and mixed criteria was read at this point. Mr. zdenek said the project has a unique characteristic because it interfaces with a natural and wildlife area owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City has requested development be very sensitive to the interface for conservation purposes. The developer has complied to urban density 3 or more dwellings units per acre. He expressed their willingness to be compatible to the neighborhood and in compliance with the City standards. The larger lots are a big consideration and the relationship to the natural area. The neighbors concerns are important with an attendance of 30 people at the first neighborhood meeting. Mr. Zdenek described in detail the area of development, setbacks, streets, natural area, water line and easements, irrigation ditch and proposed bike trail, extensive architectural controls, homeowners association, maintenance of open space, and mentioned that the secondary units are to be limited to 800 square feet in size. There is a total of 4.6 acres to be developed and be available to related individuals only and they cannot be sold • individually. The design is infill development and is compatible with the community which encourages alternative transportation. He asked the Board for approval of this project. There was discussion between Board members and applicant regarding provision of access to properties and easements for wildlife in the area. Dr. Bill O'Halloran, the property owner adjacent to the development, said that the City has an easement that goes down the ditch line to Lemay. Member Strom spoke of concern about density, that the market is not as demanding as anticipated and also concern about the assurance to the neighbors that their interests will be protected in terms of the overall architectural presentation design. Mr. Zdenek said that they have agreed (1) to work with the neighborhood on architectural controls, to lend assurance of compatibility; and (2) that the developer establish their criteria at final submittal regarding setbacks and landscape requirements that will not be required by the homeowners association. The designs will be individually selected with a series of architectural controls. Member Strom asked if those performance standards would be seen • at final? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 20 Mr. Zdenek said yes. It will be reviewed by the neighborhood before it is brought back to the Board. Member Fontane asked if time frames were set for building the additional unit and what the lot depths were. Mr. Zdenek said "no", rather it will be left as an option. It is a function of the needs of the particular family owner when the second unit will be built. The depths of the lots on Lemay will be 165-170 feet. Member Bell referred to the word "option" and asked about the assurance of the developer to meet the density if it is only an "option." Mr. Zdenek indicated they would require an additional 9 lots to achieve the required density as a standard development. He said the density requirements are met with this project. He said there is no guarantee the units will be built, but the point is the density may not be guaranteed if they were developed as duplex lots either. Member Bell asked for clarification if someone were to use that option, would there be a minimum of 800 square feet for the second unit? Mr. Zdenek said "a maximum" of 800 square feet. This will control the size of the structures. Chair Clements said the "granny flat" concept is a good idea; however, she didn't think it would work as an option. Can the Board require that if a person purchases a lot and wishes to build an accessory unit, that it be part of their plan or not? Mr. Eckman said he believed that was how it was to be presented with two living units on the lots. Chair Clements pointed out that they would be used for immediate family or other individuals. She believed it should be open to options to other individuals. Mr. Eckman said the intent of definition of "family" in the code is two types (1) persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other duly authorized custodial relationships, such as foster care, and (2) unrelated persons so long as there are no more than three. It is up to the developer what the restriction is. There was further discussion regarding the "granny flat" concept and the ramifications of occupancy. Minimal units would be • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 11, 1994 Page 21 defined. as a dwelling unit per acre, one or more rooms and a single kitchen. Mr. Lawler, marketing expert for is entirely new to Fort Collins, flexibility as an option. ZTI, indicated that this concept and would like to have the Bill O'Halloran - owner of adjacent property - He pointed out that he supported this unique idea and he had participated in neighborhood meetings. He desired to address density issues. He believed this was a way to preserve the wetlands and its habitat. Member Walker commented that this was an approach to meet minimum density criteria and requirements. If there are plans for a second unit, there are things that need to be done right from the start, it cannot effectively be an "add -on." He believed details should be handled under private covenants. As the units are built, they should have the second unit approved at the time of issuance of the building permit. Chair Clements agreed. Member Cottier also agreed and further stated that if this is just an "option" that people build it some time in the future, it could be a way around the issue to approve larger single-family lots. She agreed with Dr. O'Halloran that it will preserve the look of the area, but she supported getting approval of the second lot for density. Member Walker said that this was a PUD and was opposed to getting area lots developed under three units per acre. Member Pontine moved to approve the Lindenmeier Rotates POD, Preliminary, with staff recommendation for conditions for drainage, the condition of Natural Resources, and with the requirement that the second unit be designed and built at the time of the first unit on all lots. Member Strom seconded the motion with the three conditions. Motion carried s-o. Meeting adjourned 12:05 p.m.