Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/27/1994. PLANNING i ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 27, 1994 Gerry Norsk, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, staff support Liaison The June, 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. Board members present included Chair Clements, Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, Member Fontane, James Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree. Member Bernie Strom was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Joe Frank, Bob Blanchard, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Tom Shoemaker, Tom Vosburg, Kirsten Whetstone, Rob Wilkinson and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Ron Phillips, Planning Director read the agenda review items. Consent Agenda: Item 1. Minutes of the April 4 and April 25, 1994, P & Z Board Meetings; Item 2. Oakridge, Elk. 1, 3rd Filing PAD, Courtyard by Marriott - Preliminary, #13-82BG; Stone ridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #21-92I, Item 4. Oak Hill Apartments PUD • - Final, #54-87V; Item 5. Courtyards @ Miramont, 2nd Filing - Final, #54-87U; Item 6. Centre for Advanced Technology PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #53-85AH; Item 7. Windtrail Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #66-93D; Item 8. Raintree PUD, Schlotzsky's - Final, #146-79Q; Item 9. The Cottages at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-87Q; Item 10 Resolution PZ94-8 - Easement Vacation; Item 11. Resolution PZ94-9 - Easement Vacation; Item 12 Resolution PZ94-10 Easement Vacation; Item 13. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Discussion Agenda: Item 14. Amendment to Section 29-526 (Land Development Guidance System) of the City Code - Residential Density/Phasing, #35-94; Item 15. Fossil Creek Estates PUD - Final, #50-92F; Item 16. Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning, #9-94, A; Item 17. Willow Springs PUD - Preliminary; Item 18. Ridgewood Hills Overall Development Plan, Amendment to the Del Webb Master Plan, #55-84B; Item 19. Ridgewood Hills PUD - Preliminary, #55-84C; Item 20. Dakota Ridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #60-91K; Item 21. Lindenmeier Estates PUD - Preliminary, #24-94. Mr. Phillips had a point of clarification on the Agenda Review, the Item 20. - Dakota Ridge PAD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #60- 91K, that has been brought out by Chair Clements. The agendas that are provided at the table at the back of the room do not show this as being continued. The agendas that the Board has does --he wanted to notify the audience that it has been postponed until July 25, 1994. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 2 DISCUSSION AGENDA Mr. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, read the staff report to the Board. Mr. Frank said four issues have been given the most attention including: (1) The policies and procedures for how requests for annexations are processed and how broad planning issues can be addressed at this early stage of development. (2) Extensive discussions regarding the public policy issues of residential density and phasing of residential development. (3) Discussions regarding the changes to the existing criteria for granting amendments for the overall development plan (ODP). (4) Attention has been focused on the urban growth agreement. For the past six months the Council's Growth Management Committee and the City staff have been looking at various interim actions to address these issues. This process has included several opportunities for public review and comment. For example, last April, the City Council and City staff hosted a city-wide roundtable forum on growth management during which the focus of the meeting was on specific short-term actions. Staff has also met with the Chamber of Commerce Managed Growth Committee as well as meeting with various boards and commissions of the city. More recently, staff has conducted several successful focus group meetings, which included representatives of the development industry and various neighborhood interests. Mr. Frank stated that on April 12, 1994, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board met in joint work session. The purpose of the April 12 meeting was to share their thoughts and growth management issues and short-term actions, and for Council to provide direction to staff on how to proceed. The direction on April 12, from the City Council was as follows: (1) The proposal of increasing the minimum density for residential projects for three dwelling units per acre to five dwelling units per acre was to be tabled for now. However, the issues for phasing, infill, and residential . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 3 density was to be addressed from changing the point charts on the LDGS to encourage development near existing facilities and services. These amendments were to be presented and discussed in the community and better defined over the next 60 to 90 days. (2) The Council gave direction in the changes to the criteria regarding amendments for ODP's was also tabled. (3) The Council gave direction to City staff to prepare for Council approval a resolution for the purpose of providing focus for future discussions with Larimer County Commissioners regarding updating the UGA agreement. A resolution was prepared by City staff and adopted by City Council last month. (4) Finally, regarding annexation, Council's direction was for City staff to continue discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board and other interested groups regarding the City's annexation policies and bring forth the recommendation of the City Council in the next 90 days. • This evening, the Planning and Zoning Board is being asked to give comments and recommendations regarding the issues of residential density, and phasing in the Land Development Guidance System. The density and phasing criteria being considered this evening are recommended to be adopted on an interim basis, with the interim period to be no more than two years. During the interim period, the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the City staff and general public will conduct planning studies and subsequent Comprehensive Plan implementation amendments as part of the general update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. At the termination of the two-year interim period, permanent criteria for phasing and residential density will be developed and put in place of the interim ordinance. It should also be noted that the recommended changes will not affect preliminary or final Planned Unit Development Plans, which have been granted approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, subsequent to the enactment of the ordinances. The proposed changes to the Land Use Development Guidance System are as follows: (1) Increase public notice and awareness of higher residential densities as a community objective. we are recommending that this be accomplished by adding a new community -wide criterion to the Land Development • Guidance System which more fully describes the intent and the objective of the existing minimum density Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 4 requirement of three dwelling units per acre, including guidelines for implementation and interpretation. (2) The existing residential density chart in the LDGS be amended to give more credit for being close to existing public developed facilities of major destinations, and less credit for planned and undeveloped facilities and destinations. More specifically, the staff is recommending that the existing criteria for public parks and a neighborhood shopping center be amended to allow 20 points for proximity to existing developed parks and neighborhood shopping centers, and 10 points for proximity to parks and shopping centers which are planned but not built nor developed. Mr. Frank said another recommendation is to raise the credit and the density chart for proximity to transit stops, from ten points to twenty points, and to allow credit for this criteria for only those projects for having a density of at least six dwelling units per acre. Mr. Frank said another change is that credit shall be given to only proximity to existing school sites and no credit for planned school sites. The amendment proposed is to increase the maximum distance wherein credit would be earned for proximity to schools from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet. (3) Mr. Frank said the third major change is to establish a higher floor of points that must be earned on the density chart. The proposal is to require a minimum of 60 points for projects having 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre. Currently, low -density projects can be approved with as little as 30 points. The affect of the proposed amendment is that any development would have to be much better located according to City policies in order to proceed. Mr. Frank concluded that the Council Committee on Growth Management and staff are recommending an amendment to criterion A2.1 in the Land Development Guidance System, which would strengthen the requirement of projects to connect on -site, sidewalks and bikelanes to the existing off -site City-wide bicycle and pedestrian system. The amended criterion would also require that the project sidewalk and bike system be connected to nearby parks, schools, transit stops and bike trail system. Member Klataske asked about the 2,500 feet required to a school site, is that "line of site"7 Mr. Frank answered "yes," it is "as the crow flies." Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 5 CITIZEN INPUT. Mr. Tim Dolan - 4212 New Hampton Court - He supported this change --stating it is a good beginning. The committee and staff efforts are appreciated. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design - Mr. Ward stated he would like to talk about the process.. These are changes that are fairly fundamental to the way planning projects are proposed and reviewed in Fort Collins. While the overall growth management questions and issue of the month have gotten discussion, this item has not received the broad spectrum of review it should have. This is a pretty sweeping change. The projects that have been approved by the Board in the last two years, 40 percent of the projects wouldn't make the points under this system. He thought there needed to be fine tuning in the point chart, but didn't believe it needed to be enacted on a two-year basis. For example, one of the stated items is to communicate the general goal of increasing density, and yet what has happened is making it harder to achieve the number of points needed to do higher densities. One of the stated intents was to increase the points . obtained for infill projects. Other than transit stops, he was not sure if any points have been increased several have been decreased to discourage outlying development and that may be right or wrong. He was not sure it has received enough review. The changes in criteria for parks did not make sense to him. The Parks Department operating procedure is not to acquire parkland and start getting serious about developing a park, until 40 percent of the homes to be served by that park had pulled permits, and thereby paid the parkland fees. What the plan is saying now is there won't be any houses if there is not a new park because there are not any new houses to generate a new parkland fee. There are a very limited number of sights that are by existing parks because it is houses that paid for the parks. Maybe that is a logical goal, but it needs more review. He confirmed that projects that are in process are not retroactively affected by this. If there is an approved preliminary in place, under the existing system, it would be allowed to proceed to final even if it came up short of the 60 points under this system? Mr. Jim MCCory - Colorado Land Source Limited. If the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to stop growth, then why don't we: discourage job formation, stop the University from growing, eliminate the out-of-state students? Housing is being treated as a method of growth, rather than the jobs that create the growth. As far as the items related to this ordinance, the apparent criteria appear to be schools (neither of the school districts have money to build today), parks give bonus points (as a matter Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 6 of procedure we buy sites next to schools, future and existing). He said he was very involved and could say that the City is 10 years in arrears in payment of parks. The park system is run, as social security --you may own the land but do not have the money for park development. You are conveying the criteria to a Parks Department that follows a school district, and the school district that buys sites wants to get bond funding. To his knowledge, there is no criteria in the proposed ordinance that will allow a subdivision to be developed in the entire northeast Fort Collins. And for those to the south, basically he sees it working with donations of 50% of land to get approval, that brings up the cost of housing. If your intent is to have people live in Windsor and work here, then this ordinance should be passed. Leon Hetherington - 4017 Spruce Drive - Mr. Hetherington attended the work session and he believed Ms. Cottier made statement to the Board regarding the fact that the citizens need more education with respect to why higher densities are important. He wanted an explanation of why the City wants increased densities. He thought it would increase traffic, pollution, noise, all of the big city items that many people try to move away from and come into the smaller frontier community. Les Kaplan - Mr. Kaplan said he came before the Board about six months ago to voice his opinion on the predecessor ordinance to increase the minimum density from 3 to 5 units per acre. He had presented a "manifesto" with 10 reasons, but it basically boiled down to 2 categories of reasons, the first was he thought the 5 units an acre was poorly crafted, simplistic and didn't address issues intended. The second reason, by simply increasing density to accomplish objectives of efficiency of utilities, mass transit, reduction of traffic, air pollution, etc., the problem would be exacerbated rather than mitigating it. His statements were supportive to the proposed ordinance, however, he stressed the need for closer evaluation, a regional context to review with the county and northern Colorado in general. He desired not to create satellite communities around Fort Collins. He used Boulder as an example to a poorly conceived ordinance that leads to further ramifications. He brought out Boulder's increased parking needs, the manner in which low-income housing is included in new developments, etc. He asked for close study to defer undistinguishable sprawl in Fort Collins and analyze the ground available and that it be evaluated in a comprehensive context. He encouraged more planning than less planning. Bob Davidson - He wasn't sure he was totally opposed to it but had concerns. Two aspects need to be considered when the City is trying to get higher density. He attended Congress of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 7 Neighborhoods and Growth and Density meetings at the Lincoln Center. He thought if you increased the density and there are fewer arteries going to the main artery, then the density of traffic will be increased onto secondary arteries going to the main arteries, which will create more traffic congestion. Also higher densities affect air quality and results in more cars in concentrated areas, increased road erosion. For infra -structure, the City may save money. The sociological aspects with increased concentrations of people will cause more violence and acting out. Byron Collins - 6125 Paragon Ct. - Mr. Collins said he was a developer in Fort Collins and stated he was having difficulty figuring the points. He was also concerned about property owners being unaware of the results from this decision. What about the properties that are owned by the City of Fort Collins in the south part of town? By the point system, they are deficient from meeting the criterion. He believed the City was still paying interest on bonds for Lemay section of Fort Collins. When and how is the interest going to be stopped, if it cannot be developed as residential properties? • CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked Mr. Frank about the process, the focus groups, input brought together in the development of the proposed changes and how the proposal was reached? Mr. Frank said the discussion of phasing and infill has been going on for 18 months. It became more active this year with formation of the Council Committee on Growth Management. A public forum was held that discussed these kinds of recommendations, not specifically in the proposal, but close. The staff met with Boards and Commissions, met with the Chamber of Commerce, etc. The best input received were the focus groups held in February and March. More recently, a few focus groups met to go over these recommendations --design professionals, developers, builders, contractors, neighborhood groups, banks, local planning consultants, and some criteria were not accepted. The Council Committee, comprised of three Council members and a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, has been meeting every few weeks for the past 6 months. Chair Clements asked if any focus group been able to review the draft or is it Council's intent that this evenings meeting was to be a review session and the meeting where this will be heard at City Council will be another review session? is Mr. Frank said the focus group that was most recently formed reviewed these drafts. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 8 Chair Clements asked if it was favorable? Other criteria were dropped, there was concern about impacts, and there was elimination of certain proposals. Analysis was presented to the focus group. There will be minutes of these meetings available. Chair Clements asked how this will affect current projects that are in process? Mr. Frank replied that the City's intent that approved site - specific development plans, as defined by statute, their rights would be protected by this ordinance. Also under the City Code, preliminary PUD's which have been approved, layout and densities are protected by the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance would exempt approved final PUD and approved preliminary PUD's. Chair Clements stated that an important point was brought up that the plan may not work unless it is placed in a regional context and the City work with the County. Are we actively working on issues such as this? Mr. Phillips stated relations with the County Planning and City Planning Departments are quite good. The Community Planning and Environmental Service staff is working closely with the County Planning Staff as well as the Loveland Planning Staff, on the Fort Collins, Loveland Corridor Plan. The Task Force is meeting this evening for the last time and believe progress has been made. The County is also working with the municipalities and Weld County and its municipalities, on approaching a regional planning effort. We are not in a position where all the solutions are evident or in place, but progress is being made. Mr. Frank added that a successful project being worked on from a regional standpoint is the Metropolitan Planning organization, involving Greeley, Weld County, Loveland, and Larimer County. It has been a very successful effort to plan transportation on a regional level. Further regional land use planning will take more time. Chair Clements said the County is very anxious to work with the City, and the representatives in the County that she had talked with and said it is very important to them. Has the County had a chance to review what City Council may adopt and do they have some concerns that we are going to be throwing our development out into the County? Mr. Phillips said in the first go around where the emphasis was on increasing minimum density, it was presented to the County • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission and, received their comments. He believed they have seen and been involved in discussion on this proposal as well. He thought there was concern on everyone's part to try to not push development and urban sprawl into the County and that the County does their part in controlling that as well. Some of that is already happening, and the forces that influence where growth is taking place are not totally a result of any proposal before Planning and Zoning Board of this community or any other community. There is development pressure in the County no matter what is taking place here. Chair Clements stated that Member Walker would address why higher densities are important to us in this community, how it affects growth in Fort Collins. Member Walker gave his perspective on this issue. The whole public perception idea of density has a certain counter intuitiveness to it, more people, more cars, therefore, results in more congestion. What is being attempted in the City is to provide alternative ways to get around to do things --a paradigm shift in the way people approach how they live, recreate, shop. Basically, the notion is if there is a more compact city, things can happen in a way that will actually reduce traffic, that is a long view. Public and private infra -structure can be better utilized. The neighborhood shopping center concept is a very workable one providing daily needs for shopping, postal service, dry cleaning, gasoline, day-to-day things. He explained higher density residential surrounding shopping areas, encouraging less use of the automobile. He recognized the possibility of creating certain social problems and they should be considered in planning. Use of the existing infra -structures is a way to conserve our resources. The purpose of the proposal is to take control of a situation that has had too much randomness with the end result being a more livable and workable City. Chair Clements commented that sometimes when people think of higher density, people envision 20 stories, packed together buildings. She mentioned that she resides in a high density area of town which many would not consider as one --her homes is located near Toddy's. There are four-plexes, Governor's Park Apartments, Scotch Pines Condominiums and Apartments, Parkwood single-family homes, neighborhood shopping component, job component with Woodward Governor comprising the development. It is a very nice area of town and it is high density. "Classism" is not something which is not encouraged in Fort Collins. The City is looking at locational policies where it is appropriate to have higher density housing. She was concerned with the idea • that if higher density were reduced and single family were increased, how much land would be available? This is what is Planning and zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 10 called "sprawl". She thought there was a good argument for higher density and she believed it could be done tactfully and with neighborhood input so it is attractive and workable. She mentioned seniors are living in higher density housing. She appreciated Member Walker's comments and Council's position as to why higher densities does work in some locations. Member Walker raised the issue of the parks, location, and concurred with comments that Parks follow development. Mr. Frank said that the issue has come up during previous discussions and it is true that the way parks are developed are through parkland fees which are collected as building permits are issued. Sites are purchased and parks are developed as there is enough money for each neighborhood. This has been discussed with the Council on Growth Management Committee and will be an issue that will be continued to be discussed, along with other tools and policies that may affect phasing development as the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan continues. Member Walker asked if the parks could have a different distance factor as has been done with schools? By the time the park is in existence, you have quite a bit of development. Some standards to encourage an infill approach, should there be changes in the distance or should it be maintained at that distance? Mr. Frank said that 3,500 feet is based on national standards about how far people will walk to a neighborhood park. The staff is comfortable with the 3,500 feet as a standard. Member Walker believed there needed to be an easily measurable criteria to determine distances. Member Walker said that one of the things the Council has dealt with is to add a criteria to the LDGS which suggested locational land use consideration as part of that process. The proposed amendment is to handle growth in our community. The City encourages growth in areas that will alleviate issues of the downside of growth. Locational criteria is a determining factor for growth patterns. This is an interim measure to meet the needs of the community in the planning process. our goal is a more compact city. The park issue is a focused concern. He supported the concepts. Porosity is accessibility to the existing public uses --in Fort Collins there is difficulty in moving through to these destinations. The need to tie in these uses and utilize existing infra -structure is vitally important. Member Walker said although there is need to work regionally, our house needs to be in order. Boulder is now looking at radical . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 11 solutions, taking charge of their own growth, trying to cope with everything around them, but ultimately they can't be responsible for what happens in other surrounding communities. In closing he stated that our community is a "unique oasis" to this part of Colorado with a finite area to develop. Member Cottier said that this has not been looked at in the comprehensive enough context and not looked at regionally. The LDGS is being approached for changes in little pieces one month at a time and she didn't feel that they fit together. An effort to justify this was looking at past projects and evaluating how they would have done on the revised point system. The proposed point system would not support projects in northeast Fort Collins. The impacts have not be considered. She agreed that there is a great need for updating the LDGS continually, but the way it is proposed has not been thought out well or address changes that ought to be made. (1) Member Cottier discussed the residential density minimum to all development criteria which did not seem to accomplish anything, citing a specific example. • (2) She asked about giving points to an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center and gave an example. (3) She pointed out giving credit for transit stops and said that it would only apply to only six or more dwelling units per acre. If there is a transit route going by a higher density project, the probability will be that people will use the buses. She believed it inappropriate to say "bus stop" --what is important is transit route. (4) Publicly owned or developed neighborhood community parks. The point is to get new development in proximity to open spaces and what about open spaces not intending to be developed, such as the Cathy Fromme Prairie. That is not a developed area, but a project in close proximity should get some credit. (5) Proximity to schools that are within the allowable distance. An example was the project that came before the Board last month where a school was within 1,000 feet but inaccessible from the project. She disagreed with "as the crow flies," as the way to measure distance. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 12 Member Cottier summarized that she has pointed out problems with the way criteria are defined and has no problem with making changes to the LDGS. What is happening is a piece -meal approach, "bandaids," and is not sure that it will accomplish what may be very valid goals. Chair Clements asked if Council will receive input from the Planning and Zoning Board. Is it only in the form of our minutes? Mr. Frank said that generally staff will summarize what the input in the Agenda Item summary, primarily coming from the minutes or in some cases, a representative of the Planning and Zoning Board can attend the Council hearing and relay comments directly to City Council. Chair Clements supported some of the comments of Member Cottier and asked that they be submitted to Council. Chair Clements said the Board received a summary of the effects of changes to the density chart and what that would include. She briefly reviewed them. (1) Her purpose was to show with the changes properties which are close to shopping centers, schools, parks, would have an advantage in terms of achieving points of achieving points on the density chart over properties located on the periphery. (2) That some developers would chose not to develop on properties located at the periphery of the city until services and facilities are in place and available. (3) That some developers may choose to plan or develop shopping centers, employment centers, child care centers, as part of their projects to earn more points. (4) Developers may chose the option to earn more points through the bonus criteria of the density chart which includes energy conservation, low-income housing, active recreation space, etc. (5) Some developers may chose to develop "sprawl sites" not subject to LDGS review. This would include property in unincorporated Larimer County as well as other cities in the region. She said this one really concerned her. Chair Clements summarized that the purpose is to make positive changes to get a handle on growth in the community. She was inclined to support the proposal if it had a couple of additions: • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 13 (1) The request to amend the LDGS as follows with the four points and that there be a fifth point that somehow we incorporate Larimer County, a type of component where they could have input and make appropriate changes so that Fort Collins is not throwing its development into the County. (2) There needs to be a sixth point for some type of accommodation for north Fort Collins. Encouragement of development north of town has been a theme, but the development has gone south. Part of that problem is the City's criteria for trying to encourage development north of town is just "lip service." It is not encouraged through trying to get bonus points nor assist applicants, developers. She has concerns about how the proposal is written and that it may create some problems. Member Fontane stressed the importance of "air quality" and as far as changing the pattern of development in our community that we already know that our existing sprawl will lead to air quality • unacceptable to EPA standards. If the growth continues in the fashion presently, the City will not meet the standards. Ideas are often leading toward changing behavior patterns, changing the way we get from one place to another. It is not an easy thing to accept, it is not easy to change, for a community to say it is important for you to get out of your car to go by bike or by foot. Those behavior changes may never come. These are some of the reasons that higher density is encouraged. She supported the idea of making peripheral development more difficult because the infill development should come first and should be easier than out on the periphery. If there is development out on the periphery, they should work very hard and go out of their way to make it happen to the best possible way, not increasing vehicle miles traveled. She supported continuing to modify and update the LDGS and supported Member Cottier's points. There are many points that need to be refined to make things work right. Chair Clements further commented: Many developers do not like to do infill sites that have been vacant for years, in the middle of neighborhoods. When a site has been vacant for a long time, neighbors tend to enjoy the open land in their area and a lot of fear comes when someone says they are going to develop on the site. She wanted this comment to be sent to City Council, if they are going to make these changes, wanting to encourage infill • site development where there is currently infra -structure in place, that they back their decision. Many neighborhoods get very upset when the Planning and Zoning Board vote on infill sites, higher density, and citizens appeal successfully to City Council. Once it leaves our Board it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 14 becomes a political decision, they have constituents they represent. If they are making these changes, they had better back their decision. Mr. Frank commented on the growth to the north, the density chart has a criterion giving 20 points for being in North Fort Collins. Mr. Frank said the transit criteria is currently measured from the "transit stop." He didn't believe the bus would stop just anywhere. At one time they did do that, but as the system has gotten larger, they will stop only at transit stops. If there is a big enough demand to warrant another stop, he believed they would evaluate and make a decision. It could then be used to generate density. It used to be "transit route" but interpretation needs it was changed to "transit stop." Member Cottier said that she understood that the bus wouldn't just stop for anybody who waives their hand, her point was that a project denser than 6 units per acre, probably they can work with Transfort to get them to allow one. In that context, it is relevant that they are next to the transit route, even if an existing bus stop is a mile away. Mr. Frank agreed and he thought what would happen with 6 dwelling units per acre or a shopping center, something that generates enough to designate a new stop, the City could allow credit for that stop once it was designated. Member Winfree said she agreed with a lot of the good comments that have been made and agreed to a certain extent that it is a "bandaid" approach but sometimes you need to provide a bandaid for an intermediate treatment until you establish a more permanent treatment and she thought this is what is being looked at in having a two-year cap on it. What she was hopeful for that in Fort Collins, we are more "pro -active" and not so reactionary as to create a moratorium on growth as in Boulder. It is more controlled planning. Member Cottier asked for point of clarification if this was being a two-year sunset, or in the next 24 months other changes will be looked at? Mr. Frank said it will be a interim ordinance that will have a sunset to it. During that time, staff will look at other tools and policies and replace the ordinance with something more permanent in 18-24 months. The update to the Comprehensive Plan and LDGS will take that long. Chair Clements reminded the Board that this is a recommendation to Council and we are not the final decision making authority. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 15 Member Walker made a motion recommending to City Council to adopt the Amendment to Section 29-526 (Land Development Guidance System) of the City Code - Residential Density/Phasing, i35-94. Member Walker commented that the LDGS has been a dynamic planning tool and has seen the document evolve. One of the things accomplished is that the Board follows the LDGS. He emphasized that growth management is a critical issue. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-2, with Members Cottier and Klataske voting in the negative. ITEM 15. FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES PUD - FINAL.450-92F. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, read the staff report to the Board. The conditions of preliminary approval have been satisfied. The Board received a letter from Fossil Creek Partners and also a memo from Tom Shoemaker, the Natural Resources Director. He attached the input from the Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting; a memo from Bill Miller, June 3, 1994; and a letter from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, stating that the findings of Federal Review --basically concluded that phase one of the project will not affect the bald eagle habitat. Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, represented the applicant. Mr. Sell gave a brief presentation to be followed by a presentation from Lucia Liley. He requested a time of rebuttal after citizen input if he has not addressed an issue during this presentation. He referred to Jerry Craig, the State of Colorado raptors expert, who has been quoted many times regarding this project, that Phase I does not involve issues related to raptures. He gave a brief slide presentation for Phase I. He reported 2.9 units per acre for density, open space was doubled from the previous plan, the lot size average is 11,000 square feet with patio homes along Shield Street. He talked about the cotton woods along the ditch, and negotiations going on between the applicant and the ditch company to work out an agreement for the disposition and maintenance of that ditch. He addressed the street plans and landscaping with buffering. A naturalized landscape rendering was presented to show the entrance feature and how it incorporates the texture and feel of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Fossil Creek Partners - the owner and applicant of the project - submitted a packet of information to the Board for the record and briefly summarized what it contained. The comments are only about the Final PUD for Phase I. It is independent and stands on its own, separate from Phases II and III. There have been nine hearings to date. She Planning and zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 16 talked about environmental impact issues, prior to the 9th hearing, the Natural Resources Department sent a memo to City Council, dated February 18, 1994. They had findings about the "night roost site" (on the Robbin's property). The memo advised staff to take the following two steps to determine whether or not the project meets the City's criteria: (1) the Colorado Division of Wildlife should conduct a formal review, (2) Natural Resources would hire an individual consulting firm to review the previous analysis. These steps are to insure this development is sensitive to the special environment to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. A letter was sent from the Natural Resources Department to the Partnership indicating that the City's Consultants, Shalkey- Walker, had special expertise in this area and that they were very familiar with the Fort Collins habitat and the planning system. She read from materials submitted to the Board. The conclusions of the impact study were there is no impact on the 2.25 acre wetland area and it is not likely to impact the "night roost site", a quarter of a mile away. The study recommended a buffer area and the topographic break at the ridgeline. Potential options were mentioned: (1) allow Phase I to proceed forward (2) not to approve Phases II and III, and (3) Phase I would be an "observation site" for the City of Fort Collins for viewing the Cathy Fromme Prairie. She referred to a memo of Tom Shoemaker dated March 28, 1994, indicating that Phase I was not affected and the focus of view should be on Phases II and III where the issues lie. The May hearing was postponed to June 6, 1994. Staff was recommending approval of the Phase I for meeting all criteria. Federal 404 permit process was mentioned. Phase I is in conformance with those requirements. Ms. Liley reported that on June 1, 1994, the Natural Resources Advisory Board had a special meeting. The Partnership was advised of the meeting at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting and was unable to attend, as he was in Denver and had other commitments. The memo, summarizing the meeting, reflected denial of Phase I, and acquisition of all three phases of this project. The applicant was then asked to table the item, as the previous Staff condition was not sufficient and Natural Resources Staff wanted the applicant to go through a whole Federal process to insure that there wasn't a problem with the permit and the Federal Endangered Species Act. There was an objection by the Partnership to continue, but they reached an agreement to continue the item to this meeting. The last item Ms. Liley presented was reports from the Federal Agencies stating they have reviewed this and find no affect on Bald Eagles as a result of the Phase I development. Ms. Liley concluded that all reviewing agencies have come to agreement that Phase I does not negatively impact the Bald Eagles. Another issue is intertwined regarding the City's desire to acquire all or part of property comprising the three phases of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 17 this development. The timing of that proposal, in conjunction with review of the final PUD is inappropriate. This should be an independent land use process. Fair market value has a direct tie between land use approval. She urged the Board to view the evidence for Phase I and to note that there is no evidence that this project should be turned down on the basis of environmental impacts. An independent consultant was present who would address any of these issues, if the Board desired. CITI2EN INPUT Mark Schulteis- Mr. Schulteis said he was a member of the Fromme Neighborhood Association, an organization of individuals and homeowner's associations in the area, and stated they were ordinary citizens and not members of the City in any way. This development is, in fact, about bald eagles and wildlife. It will have impacts in a few different ways that could affect whether or not these bald eagles stay in the area and also will impact other wildlife. You are all aware of the fact that the Fromme Prairie is adjacent to this particular development. The City has a substantial investment in that property of around $657.00 that is actually, the tax payers. It is important that the City work to protect its interest in that property. The Fromme area is designated as the highest sensitive area as it exists. The intention is to leave it as a natural area. He discussed the buffer not being enough, impacts of the development on the prairie, and that Natural Resources staff has brought out the issue of 50-100 feet eradication of prairie dogs in buffer zones (plagues/relocation). These items need mitigation from the side of the prairie. He discussed lowering densities to its minimum of 1.5 per acre rather than the maximum of 3 units per acre to allow a buffer area on the development side of Fromme Prairie. He suggested moving the road so as to not pave the prairie area. He believed there were things that could be done to preserve substantial investment that the taxpayers have made in the area and allow development to proceed. Mrs. Sandra Robbins - 5801 S. Shields - She read a prepared statement regarding raptures roosting sites and gave a slide presentation of existing land which is undeveloped and outside the urban growth area. She suggested that density does have impact on the wildlife. She cited the surrounding areas having a lesser density than the proposed development which is heavily loaded and suggested lowering it to 1.5 units per acre. She showed several slides supporting the "night roost" of bald eagles or hawks through different seasons at the southwest corner of the development. She brought out the issue of building height of . 40 feet. She quoted the LDGS page 11 regarding neighborhood compatibility criteria to support less density and some impacts of the development. She also referred to the Natural Resources Department's report supporting her position of preserving these roosting sites. She also quoted Jerry Craig's comments regarding Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 18 the bald eagles and density impacts. Aside from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, he was unaware of other roosting sites for bald eagles in the area. Mrs. Ann Yang - 420 Apple Blossom Lane - Vice President of the Applewood Homeowner's Association - She read from a prepared statement. She urged the Board to disapprove the Phase I of Fossil Creek Estate. She believed the plan is in violation of the LDGS Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria 8-23, Natural Features. She spoke to the issue of the density and buffering and entrance to the Fromme Prairie. She quoted a report from the Natural Resources Department regarding the access to the prairie. She addressed the paved trail along the southern boundary and the desirability of locating it to the north because of hawks perching in the southern part of the Prairie. She believed buffering of the Phase I, to the sensitive wildlife area, is inadequate. Mrs. Yang also said the development was in violation of LDGS Neighborhood Criteria A-2.13, Landscape. The integration and buffering are inadequate citing the road and irrigated blue grass. She referred to the consultant's report for a 25-foot buffer for a transition zone. She was opposed to the formal landscaped entrance, as offensive and incompatible with other neighborhood entrances. Mrs. Yang was in disagreement with the drainage plan with respect not only to seepage into the Fromme area but the drainage to Fossil Creek without any on -site detention or treatment. Mrs. Yang also brought out the issues of the prairie dogs. She quoted an article in the Triangle Review newspaper, the Walt Graw, Regional Manager of the Division of Wildlife, and letter of February 28, 1994, to Natural Resources. The letter stated the natural area is for the habitat of the species in the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Mrs. Yang urged the Board to not accept Phase I of Fossil Creek Estates at this time. Jim Robbins - 5801 South Shields - He represented farm and agricultural use and is a member of the Larimer County Corridor Task Force. He referred to the transition to the Fromme area but pointed out the need for transitions to the agricultural areas. He reported the complaints of the neighbors concerning livestock odors, ditch burning, and he quoted John Barnett May 16, 1994 article about this issue of agriculture uses adjacent to residential areas. He brought out the issues of drainage and irrigation, and homeowner's association liability. Homeowners were told that there would be a Veterinary Clinic on Phase I, but that changed last fall. June 28, 1994, is the last night of the REA meeting of the Larimer County Corridor Task Force. He • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 19 affirmed the City and County are working together on issues of concern. He quoted Jim News (sp?) who addressed one of the Task Force meetings and stated it was expensive to back up after you have made mistakes on land use. He cautioned making mistakes that will affect future generations. He stated the boundaries of the corridor and the purpose of the corridor planning project extending into urban growth areas, and goals of preserving the natural beauty and character of the area, preserving open space, etc. He urged disapproval of the project. Robert Musselman - 717 Scenic Drive - President of Scenic Knolls Water Association and a member of the Trilby Lateral Ditch Company - Mr. Musselman stated he would like this development to maintain the integrity of the ditch. The ditch has been present since the 1860's. The Ditch Company wants to maintain water flow in the ditch. He brought out issues concerning the possibilities of lining the ditch, providing access to the right-of-way to maintain the flow, restricting access for safety and liability, and homeowner association liability for possible accidents along the ditch. There is no written agreement that any of this will be mitigated, it has only been discussed, and accommodations to • the ditch company have not been made for these needs. He brought out the issues of the equestrian trail along the ditch and stated the size and the pitch of the ditch would not be compatible for use by horses. He felt it important to keep livestock away from the ditch by fencing, restricting also pets and human access for safety and liability issues. A written agreement of the developer is needed to maintain the integrity of the ditch and ditch company signing off on the plat. He explained that the ditch company is not a utility company, but privately owned by stockholders. He concluded that the water flow must be maintained and preserved for the ownership by the stockholders. Bill Miller - 322 Scott Avenue - Chair of the Natural Resources Advisory Board - He stated that this issue has been worked on for over a year. He had ambivalent feelings concerning it, however, there was not "just cause" to deny the application by the developer. The new issue of the roost site of hawks and eagles this last winter have been entered into consideration, including concerns of the State of Colorado. He stated that the development will cause a visual barrier for the birds and prevent utilization of the Prairie. Management plans for these natural areas have not been developed and control and guidance for development along peripheries of these areas have not been determined. This is a learning process, to be fair to all parties, the developer and the taxpayers are opposing answers. To set precedence, there is a road encroachment into the natural • area and he hoped it would not become the way for future open space with development in surrounding areas. There are safety considerations to evaluate, though. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 20 Frank Oldham - 1109 Hepplewhite Court - He is a property owner of land that is on the northern edge of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. He pointed out this is a sensitive area that should exist as it originally had in nature and desired to minimize the development's impact. He was opposed to the density. He said that the density the City desires to have is in relation to shopping, schools and parks and there is none in this development, if creating sprawl. He believed this would negatively impact the area. He asked the Board not to approve the project and to re-evaluate the 1.5 du/acre as originally presented under Phase I. Fred Nittman - 1000 Scenic Drive - Mr. Nittman stated he lived across the street from the proposal. He supported the comments of the neighbors. He asked if safety issues of the development issues been addressed, such as, the traffic issue of cresting over the hill to the intersection for the development. He believed that within the last eighteen months there have been over 30 accidents in this specific area. He was not satisfied with the school issue. He believed the issue of busing and how the children will get to school has not been addressed. He pointed out the lack of sidewalks and was very concerned that these issues be taken care of before approval of the project. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements summarized concerns from the citizens. The first was the ditch, its water flow, lining the ditch, restricting homeowner's access, no existing agreement, etc. She asked the applicant how these concerns will be mitigated. Mr. Sell said there are negotiations on -going and Ms. Liley, legal counsel, said all of the rights of the ditch company since 1860 are valid to date and would remain. The City of Fort Collins could impose additional rights on the developer if it chose to, but they have not. It is a legal issue outside this arena that the developer is currently working on. Chair Clements asked Kirsten Whetstone if the equestrian trail along the ditch being pursued? Ms. Whetstone said a trail was proposed by the applicant and the City thought it a good idea for alternative transportation, and a recreational amenity, it is not a requirement. This was to be an amenity for people in the area who have horses. Mr. Carter Ewing said he would like to address this issue, as the applicant. The originally proposed plan had bike trails, pedestrian access, equestrian trails, etc. The thought process was that the area be incorporated into Fromme Prairie City's system. It was found out very quickly that it was not desired by the neighborhood or the Natural Resources Department to provide • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 21 these connections. The current position regarding the equestrian trail is that it is not desired. It encroaches into the access and maintenance is a factor. It is not planned at this time. Chair Clements asked how school children can access the schools without sidewalks. Will there be a traffic light? Ms. Whetstone said there is currently a sidewalk on the east side of Shields, to Harmony. The School District will decide where the children will go to school. They may decide that they attend schools elsewhere in the District. The School District determines where the children go to school, year by year. She pointed out that there is an underpass under Shields Street from the Fromme Prairie to Clarendon Hills Subdivision and the east sidewalk. There is no access to that at this time. Shields will be widened eventually and will involve the Fromme Prairie property. There will be a 5' detached sidewalk on the west side of the street, at the time Shields is widened to a full 4-lane arterial, along the frontage of the Fromme Prairie. Chair Clements asked why the City didn't act to purchase the land . that is now being developed or Phase II and III, when the Fromme natural area was originally purchased? Mr. Rob Wilkinson said the answer is complicated. This property was being sold for development when Fromme Prairie was being acquired. The initial move to purchase took place before the sales tax initiative, so funding was not adequate at that time. They also were not fully aware of the value of the trees to the south of the property for bald eagles and hawks. Chair Clements asked if this property was owned by the Robbins? Mr. Wilkinson said yes. Chair Clements asked the applicant if they were considering 28 foot streets with parking one side? Mr. Sell said yes, it has been done in other projects and are willing to do it here. The project has been designed with 36' wide streets to meet City street standards. Member Walker asked about the prairie dog buffer strip and asked how the City normally reacts with the prairie dog issue. In terms of purchasing the Fromme Prairie, management of the prairie dogs would occur within the boundaries of the prairie • area. The buffering would control the prairie dogs, however, no specific guidelines have been set. The science is very experimental and little is known that is loot effective. The City has the responsibility to control prairie dogs on City property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 22 Member Winfree restated the City's responsibility of controlling the population in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural area, not only adjacent to the proposed development, but also to the existing properties? Mr. Wilkinson said if staff felt there was a complaint from the owners of adjacent property, the City would put stronger controls along the boundaries. Member Winfree asked about the purchase of roughly 600 acres for the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area, if it were 400 or 1,000 acres would we still be responsible for buffering the adjacent properties? What determines what the natural area is, where it starts. Mr. Wilkinson said yes. There are a variety of factors of how the ecology of the site develops and the range of the prairie dogs. He said that prairie dogs have been seen to the south and west of this property. Member Winfree said if we are looking at the undeveloped property around the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area to buffer that natural area, what determines whether to extend the area to 600 acres? Mr. Wilkinson said they look at key habitat components, including vegetation and species. He pointed out that the eagles use the Fossil Creek Reservoir to the east and areas of the foothills, as well. Member Winfree asked how long they stay in an area? Is it their habit to stay in one area. ' Mr. Wilkinson stated he wasn't an expert and they don't know how long eagles have been using this area, nor how long they will continue. It has only really been observed last winter. The patterns are unknown at this time. Member Winfree asked about the management plan for the area and how are people going to view the area if the access to the prairie is only through the proposed development? Mr. Wilkinson stated there is no current management plan. There was mention of a trail/bikepath that would connect the Fossil Creek Trail System to the east and west to ultimately Poudre River and foothills. Properties to the west of Fromme Prairie are being investigated, the management plan will determine the proper location of access through the area. Chair Clements pointed out this was a final and land use has been determined at preliminary. This was approved at 3.0 units per acre, it was appealed, went to City Council and the P & Z Board's decision was upheld, but reduced the units per acre. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 23 Ms. Whetstone said there were actually two separate items before Council. one was the appeal of the preliminary and the Council upheld the Board's decision on the preliminary plan. The second meeting was to determine the zoning of Phases II and III. Council voted to put a cap of 2 units per acre on those Phases. . The density issue for Phase I was resolved at preliminary. Chair Clements asked what the Board should be looking at in making a decision for the Final? Mr. Eckman said the layout and densities are established at preliminary according to the LDGS, so the Board cannot change the layout and density at final. Any other criteria of the LDGS you can still use to evaluate the development, all development criteria, Mr. Eckman said that there should not be any thought in mind about purchasing this property. Their decision should be for the land use process only. He is not aware of the City's interest (there may be other boards or committees) but it certainly should not go into the equation that the Board uses to calculate whether . this project should be approved or disapproved. Member Cottier recalled from materials received from the past, that the Cathy Fromme area was purchased to include its own buffer area. The large size, it was determined, buffers itself. It seems some new issue comes up every other week and of particular concern is the Natural Resources Board's desire to purchase more land. Do they follow a guideline of expanding existing holdings or plan of equitably distributing natural areas throughout the city or is it purely based on what is considered most sensitive and most under pressure at the time. Mr. Wilkinson said the Natural Resources Board does play a role in reviewing, supporting or motion to acquisition to staff. The Board is referred to get a sense of community concern. There is also direction from Council with other factors. The recommendation came out of the concern for the roost, a piece of information that arose late in the process. He believed that this was not the time to talk about acquisition. Regulatory criteria should be used to evaluate Phases II and III only. There is not enough evidence to recommend denial on Phase I, regarding it being a detriment to the eagle roost site. Chair Clements stated there have been four reports from four agencies that this development would not affect the eagle's roost. Can you site what those authorities are? • Mr. Wilkinson said staff would be one authority, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife and also Shalkey-walker Associates. He stated the roost site was the critical point in determining these Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 24 findings and Phase I would not have an impact on it. That is their best judgment. Member Fontane asked for history of this property. Are both the Fromme Prairie and this property part of the Urban Growth Area? Ms. Whetstone said she didn't have the exact date, but this property was annexed in 1992. The Cathy Fromme area and The Ridge were brought in as an enclave annexation. Maybe five or six years ago. A T-zone was put on the Prairie because there were no immediate developments. ,She made comments on density of the surrounding properties. Member Cottier asked about Condition 10, added by Member Strom at Preliminary, concerning the trees, which we thought were on the Robbins property, but really are on this property? Those trees will remain? Ms. Whetstone said that was Correct, the trees will remain. Member Walker asked about the rationale behind the landscaped entry to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Ms. Whetstone said it was her understanding the landscaped area on the north side was to be removed from the plans. The developer affirmed this to be true. Member Walker commented that the Cathy Fromme Prairie natural area is, if.you will, "self buffering". This area is being preserved in an urbanizing community and one can always argue there is not enough buffering. This is where boundaries are set and, it is enough given the context. Chair Clements commented on a work session discussion about 28- foot wide streets with parking on one side, and asked that 28' streets be included in the motion. It is a fact she wishes no impacts on the natural area but there is growth and existing neighbors. The policies and guidelines set by City Council are what the Board upholds regarding this proposal. Member winfree made the motion that the Board approve Fossil Creek Estates First PUD - Final with the condition as stated in the staff report. Member Rlataske seconded the motion. He commented that he didn't understand that under this setting, why was a need for a boulevard type entrance going into this property. This should be a narrower street going into the area and would not impact the natural area as much. He suggested perhaps a landscaped median contributing to the natural area setting. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 25 • Ms. Whetstone said there is a fire code regulation determining the width of the road for the two points of entry requirement and consideration for the future of Phases II and III. Chair Clements agreed it was a standard but may be negotiable. Mr. Sell said there was no objection to having less than 28 feet of paving on the boulevard, if there is no need for parking on the street. Member Hlataske said that a condition needs to be added that there not be parking on the boulevard and it be a maximum of 28 feet. Ms. Whetstone said there would need to be a minimum of 20 feet on each side of the boulevard. The plan shows 28 feet and is the current standard the Fire Department requests, with parking for the Fromme Prairie. Member Fontane asked if the boulevard consideration is necessary to extend the road to the west, to Taft Hill Road? Ms. Whetstone said that part of the layout requires the boulevard configuration that was approved at preliminary. Member Hlataske withdrew his condition. This parking would be used for viewing the natural area and part of what we want to do is provide a point where people can appreciate the area. Motion passed 6-0. Chair Clements closed the meeting and postponed the remaining agenda items to July 11, 1994. There will be a special work session July 14 of the Board to consider presentations of the Water and Waste Water Department and Storm Water Department, and also to discuss the memo Member Cottier prepared. Meeting adjourned 10:35 p.m. No Text