Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/25/1994PLANNING & ZONING BOARD • MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1994 Gerry Barak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The April 25, 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, Bernie Strom, and Lloyd Walker. Member Winfree was absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Greg Byrne, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Jim Clark, Tom Shoemaker, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, and Carolyn Warden. FETTITIP T Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. Consent Agenda: Item 1. Minutes of the February 28 and March 7, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board meetings, Item 2. Silver Oaks PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #14-88L, Item 3. Columbine Care Center East PUD - Preliminary & Final, #12-94, Item 4. Country Club Corners PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #72-84D, Item 5. Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD, Phase 2 - Final, #66-93C, Item 6. Greenbriar Village PUD, 4th Filing - Final, #19-93G, Item 7. Prospect II PUD Amended Final, #82-79D, Item 8. Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #21-92G, Item 9. Best Western Transmission PUD, Lot 1 - Final, #15-93A, Item 10. Bennett Elementary School Site Plan Advisory Review, #13-94. Item 11. O'Dea Elementary School - Site Plan Advisory Review, #14-94, Item 12. Moore Elementary School - Site Plan Advisory Review, #15-94, Item 13. Resolution PZ94-3 Easement Vacation, Item 14. Resolution PZ94-4 Easement Vacation, Item 15. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval, Item 16. Amendment to the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan, #54-87N. Recommendation to Council: Item 18. Robert Shields Annexation and Zoning,. #19-94A and Item 19. Strachan Farm Annexation and Zoning, #18-94. Discussion Agenda: Item 20. Recommendation to City Council for Certain Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Chapter 29 (Zoning, Annexation and Development of Land) in regard to the Addition of Water Conservation Standards and Guidelines for Outdoor Landscaping and Irrigation Systems, #17-94, Item 21. K & M Rezoning, #17-94, Item 22. Hillcrest PUD - Preliminary, #6- 93A, Item 23. Westbury PUD - Preliminary, #11-94, Item 25. Coventry Subdivision, Filing One - Final, #80-93A, Item 26. Fairbrook PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #65-82Z, Item 27. Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, #71-93A, Item 28. Referral of an • Administrative Change, Lot 25, Paragon Point, #48-913. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 2 Member Strom had a minor correction for the minutes of February 28, 1994 on page 16 in the eleventh paragraph to read: 4. There is a desire for double loading parking driveways (it now reads "single loading"). Chair Clements had a conflict of interest on Items 3, 16 and 17 and a member of the audience requested item 4 be pulled for discussion. Member Klataske moved for approval Items 1 through 19 on the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 3, 41 16 and 17. Member winfree seconded the motion. Notion carried 7-0. Member Strom moved for approval of Items 3, 16 and 17. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Notion carried 6-0, with Chair Clements abstaining because of conflict of interest. DISCUSSION AGENDA Item 84D. Brian Ficker - 638 Agape Way - asked if the project had additional anchor stores other than Toddy's and proposed shopette store? He asked if there was any plans for R-Mart or Wal-Mart type stores locating in the northern Fort Collins area? Steve Olt replied that at this point in time, the staff is reviewing two uses, one, Toddy's supermarket grocery store and the other being an Osborne Hardware store. Those are the only two identified uses in proposal at this time. The second question regarding the super -stores located in the south of the community, these developers have the power to identify the sites they want to have and the Planning Staff was not aware of any large stores that wish to locate in Country Club Corners area. Member Cottier moved approval of Country Club Corners PUD, 3rd Filing, Final. member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 25, 1994 Page 3 ITEM 20 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS Mr. Jim Clark, from the City Water Utilities Department, gave a presentation beginning.with a brief history. There was a committee formed in 1991 consisting of the Water Board, City Council and Water Utilities Staff who developed the Water Conservation Policy. The ordinance for recommendation to the Council is for implementation for 2 of the 12 water conservation measures: (1) Landscaping and (2) Minimum standards for landscape irrigation systems. The committee combined those two measures together for the implementation process over the last few years because of their obvious overlap and compatibility. Mr. Clark stated that since April 1992, the implementation process has consisted of the following. They solicited input of relative City staff. Written and verbal input has been gathered from local developers, builders, architects, landscape designers, irrigation designers, contractors and anyone potentially • affected. Two committees were convened for each of these measures to formulate specific guidelines of the ordinance. The proposal was presented to the Water Board, to the Natural Resource Advisory Board and also Water Planning Committee, which is the new committee of City Council and Water Board. All three of the groups and City staff has recommended adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Clark further stated the two measures target the design and installation of commercial landscape and irrigation systems. Neither of these affect in any way the landscapes or sprinkler systems of single family residents. The intent is promote installation of (1) a landscape that requires less water and (2) an irrigation system that is able to more efficiently apply water. The estimated water savings will be 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 million gallons per year, and peak demand is also estimated to be reduced from 25,000 to 50,000 gallons per day. That corresponds to an annual savings to the City of $55,000 to $110,000. The cost outlay is $7,500 to $12,000 per year and paid with water utility funds. The changes to the development process will amend various sections of Chapter 29 of the City Code and the Land Development Guidance system. Mr. Clark stated that landscape plans are currently required as part of the development review process and processed through the • City Planning Department. This proposed ordinance will establish a parallel process and the same landscape plans being Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 4 reviewed by the water utility against the guidelines in the new All Development Criteria. The Water Utility Review and Recommendation would be included as part of the staff report that is received by the Planning and Zoning Board. As far as irrigation landscape, the City currently has no standards about the design or construction of landscape irrigation systems with exception of back load prevention. This would add new guidelines to water conservation as part of the community -wide criteria chart. in order to minimize expenses to the property owner and the City, irrigation plans will not be required as part of the development review process. These plans are required to be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit, which is later in the process and the Water Utility Committee will be responsible for reviewing those irrigation designs against the guidelines and for inspecting installation of the irrigation systems prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Ordinance applies to PUDs but there are also additional amendments of Chapter 29 so that landscape and irrigation plans for use -by -right, would have to meet this same criteria. Mr. Clark said it allows for some flexibility within those guidelines. The language is flexible allowing a case -by -case review. Member Walker asked why there wasn't a stronger statement of use of alternative turf grasses in a prescriptive manner and suggestion of xeriscape gardening as part of the ordinance? Mr. Clark stated that plant materials were studied throughout the process but the approach the committee took was to focus on some of the other elements of xeriscape with good design, mulches and efficient irrigation. Mr. Klataske asked if the criteria applies to common areas in residential subdivision, or greenbelt areas? Mr. Clark replied it does apply to common areas. Member Cottier asked why it didn't apply to single family? Mr. Clark said (1) there was not a guideline in place in the planning process to look at individual yards as there is for commercial and industrial and (2) there is not support to telling people what they can and cannot do in their own private yards. There are other measures to get to that place with public education rather than a mandatory action. Member Cottier said that is something that we could look at as a bonus category for PUDs if they would voluntarily comply (bonus Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 25, 1994 Page 5 system) with this for their single-family lots and there could be a note on the plat to that effect if it is initiated by the developer. Mr. Olt said that it is a good idea but pointed out that a mandate on a single-family residences would be restrictive and better education can be acquired. He said it could be incorporated into the LDGS and point charts and written into the code in the form of bonus points similar to what has been done for energy conservation and solar orientation. It is possible to explore that possibility but has not been pursued in depth. If the Board so desires, the ordinance could be revised accordingly. Member Cottier said it was just a suggestion and was not proposing it as an amendment but something that should be looked at in the future. Chair Clements asked for citizen participation, but no one responded. Citizen participation was closed. Member Walker continued that this is an excellent opportunity to . make a statement to move the community toward water conserving landscapes. He felt examples in the commercial and industrial landscape projects would be setting an example for water conservation with respect to plant materials, etc. He felt the ordinance could state more specifics. Member Fontana recommended approval of the recommendation to City council for certain amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Chapter 29 (Zoning, Annezation and Development of Land) in regard to the addition of water conservation standards and guidelines for outdoor landscaping and irrigation systems. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1, Member Walker voting in the negative. Item 21, E i M Comp_any$ezoning. •17-94 Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation, report and recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with a PUD and condition. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design represented the applicant; it is taking the property out of T-Transition zone and placing it in a developable zone. There is no master plan for the site at this time. Under the current LDGS, the multiple zoning becomes dosomewhat mute because the actual land uses are determined . through the PUD process. Underlining zoning does determine expectations for mixed use for the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 6 CITIZEN INPUT Gil Wilson - (did not sign in) - He wanted to know where it lined up with Adriel Hills and Mt. Vista Drive. (Planner Waido pointed out the locations on the map). Mr. Wilson referred to Item 27, zoned Limited Industrial, that was similar to this area. He thought that it wasn't logical to duplicate another industrial area close to a heavily populated residential area. He requested a change with the type of zoning because of the similarity to Item 27. Myrtle Housel - resides in Adriel Hills and County resident - She reported that the residential area was completely surrounded by agricultural land, she wondered what industrial development would be appropriate for this area. James Beattie - resident of Chesapeake that joins Adriel Hills - His concern was the configuration of the proposed mix and location of the industrial zoning to the eastern boundary, and the planned business across from Summitview Road and bring the residential plan from west to east, from single-family to multi- family. Some of the planners have conceived the possibility of an extension of Timberline to intersect this property with service facilities on the righthand (east) of the extension and not impact the residential area. He affirmed the zoning of mixed uses, but requested the above uses. Karen Ridder - 1000 N. Cree - She had a major concern with the industrial planning so close to the existing residential area and stated her opposition to the plans for it. Eric Spanier - 1807 Westover Ct. - Chesapeake Subdivision - His concern was primarily access. He mentioned the consideration of the railroad constraints. He suggested a four -lane artery to relieve congestion of traffic in the area created by the area. He was also concerned with safety. Holly Manley - Delwood Heights Subdivision - Her major concerns were traffic, school enrollments, and Vine Street (ability to handle additional traffic). She was very concerned about the mix right next to the neighborhood and did not believe an industrial park to be consistent at all and questioned the office park. She requested housing similar to surrounding areas. She was not totally opposed to development and was in favor of well -thought out, logical plans to keep the aesthetic beauty of the area and would like to know further plans for streets. 44A�s4A! JlkAEG)F-OL • Ll Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 7 Chair Clements opened questions rezoning, what it entails, when System (LDGS) comes in, when the considered and when they might be applicant. to Mr. Waido with the question of the Land Development Guidance neighbors input will be able to begin working with the Mr. Waido said the property is currently zoned T-transition and under the City Code no development proposal is allowed to be submitted under that zone. It is essentially a holding zone until some ultimate zone is contemplated. Zoning in the City of Fort Collins does not necessarily mean the same as most other communities, particularly those with a PUD condition attached, requiring the utilization of the LDGS. While the zoning district sets some expectations for use of the property, those uses are not guaranteed even though a portion of this property may be zoned IP for industrial uses, a proposal for an industry on that property would have to withstand the merits of criteria of the LDGS. If it passes that criteria and is accepted by the Board, with input, then the proposed use could approved. The same applies to the Planned Business Park (BP) as well as the residential zone (RLP). These would also have to come through the LDGS process, with a public hearing and reviewed against the criteria and eventual decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. There are no guarantees with the types of uses or the densities on any particular parcel. After a two months, the City is required to take the property out of the T-transition zone and place it into one or more zones. Any zoning district that has a PUD condition, the underlying zoning district, and the definition of that zoning district become mute, and the proposed land use on the property must stand on its own merits and be reviewed again under the LDGS. Mr. Waido indicated that the development process occurs in three stages: (1) an Overall Development Plan (ODP) where the entire property is planned as a unit and specific uses, or anticipated uses, densities, square footages of those uses will be placed on a plan. It takes a pubic hearing and is subject to public review which involves the Planning and Zoning Board. After the general nature of land uses are established, then a preliminary plan can be submitted. Often times a preliminary plan on a phase of the property comes through with the Overall Development Plan. (2) The preliminary plan is much more detailed, it show the street layouts, the types of uses, the siz • lots, landscaping, architectural characteristics a part of a preliminary plan which is scrutinized at neighborhood meetings and a public hearing in front begins to e of re all of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 8 Board. If the preliminary plan is approved, the final step of the process is a final plan, requiring a public hearing. in front of the Board. When the final decision is made, it is in terms of the detail planning of the property. Mr. Waido responded to a question raised by Chair Clements regarding the requirement of zoning on T-transition parcels. He said that the City Code makes requirement to designate zoning not the State. The districts requested are analyzed by staff in compliance with the City Land Use Policies. He went into detail of the zoning and policies by staff for this particular property. He summarized by saying it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall mix land uses are the driving policies which are being used staff to recommend approval of this particular zoning pattern. Chair Clements pointed out there were many comments from the citizens regarding the industrial area, possible elimination of the industrial area, configuration of the mix, etc., and asked Mr. Waido to comment. Mr. Waido addressed the question of using the IL zoning as used in Waterglen, Item 27. There are 160 acres of IL property and no industrial use is proposed within the development. The property immediately to the north of the eastern half of the property is zoned IG with a PUD condition. He discussed in further detail differences in zoning. There are no immediate development plans at this point in time. The proposed juxtaposition of these zones seems logical from a planning perspective and it is only when there is a real, live proposal would the appropriateness of the land use at that site, be determined. Chair Clements asked about auto traffic access, four -lane arterials, etc., in and through the property in questions. Mr. Waido said.Timberline Road is a major capital improvements project approved by the voters of the city when a 1/4 cent sales tax was approved as part of the Choices 195 Program. The extension of Timberline is a reality in the 1995 arena if necessary funds are available. A traffic study will be required, road improvements would be required as developments proceeds. Each project will be subject to off -site street ordinance, and any provision in the Urban Growth Area agreement dealing with roads. As developments proceeds, roads will be improved and traffic studies will determine what off -site improvements need to be made. Chair Clements asked about school projections for the development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 • Page 9 Mr. Waido said school projections will also be considered as part of the preliminary plans. The staff meets with the School District to update the proposed residential developments and passes that information to their school boundary committees to deal with capacity. Member Walker asked about the issue of existing neighborhood developments, and other commercial developments to the east, east of Road 9, etc. Mr. Waido explained the IG (General Industrial) zoning that is in place presently to the east, a portion of Anheuser-Busch, stating that the master plan calls for multi -family and single family in other portions of the area, a shopping center and business services, etc. There may be a 3-5 acre convenience center with some retail planned. The southern area is still in a T- transition zone with a few parcels not annexed to the City. Member Cottier asked for a response to the suggestion of moving the BP designation to the and the IP to the east. It would seem that this layout would minimize the impact to the residential neighbors and the eastern border consistent with the existing IG zoning for Anheuser-Busch. • Mr. Waido reminded the Board and audience that all of the proposed zoning has PUD conditions attached and through process the land uses will be made compatible with surrounding land uses or potential uses. He believed the IP zoning would be reasonable near the intersection, realizing single family residential would not likely locate there. Mr. Ward said the IP zoning with this site was chosen over BP because that zoning precludes residential uses. The intersection is not desirable for residential use. He thought it would not be a good use of land to have residential east of Summitview under an ODP according to City policy. The Anheuser-Busch to the east has 80-acres of the area will be a major detention pond and open space for mitigation of the land uses. The land use decisions will be made when the ODP stage is reached. Member Fontana moved to accept the E and K Company Rezoning. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Strom summarized that there will be several opportunities for the citizens to participate in the planning process and • encouraged them to watch for signage on the property, letters of notification of neighborhood meetings. Public input will be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 10 considered when there are more details in planning further in the process. It is reasonable to expect a mixed use south of County Road 50 and will support the motion. Member Winfree pointed out setting the zoning does not set exactly what is to go there. Item 27 came in as limited industrial and the present PUD is for all residential use. She encouraged citizen participation. Chair Clements also made statement to be involved early to be a positive process work with. Motion passed 7-0. item 22 Hillcrest Pup - Preliminary #6-93 Mr. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, read the staff report with two conditions and recommendations for approval. Ms. Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director Fort Collins Housing Authority. This project is an affordable rental housing development in keeping with the City's objective to expand rental housing opportunities. CDBG dollars are cooperative funding for the project, State of Colorado whole grant fund $423,200 and Fort Collins Housing conventional bank borrowings of $870,000. The Housing Authority Debt Service will be repaid with tenant grant collections. She read a detailed report explaining the details of marketing and qualifications for occupancy. Jim Bragonier - Bragonier Architects - 1913 Seminole Drive - architect consultant for the project. Gave a report on the development, drainage and layout. Member Walker asked about existing homes and access about the streets in the area, parking, cul-de-sac, etc. which were responded to in each area of concern by Mr. Bragonier. Citizen input was requested by Chair Clements; there was none. Member Strom had more questions for the parking areas with regard to landscaping and the turn around. Mr. Bragonier said they were under Poudre Fire Authority for minimum distance and explained the large 35-foot front and backyards but were not planning to landscape the cul-de-sac area. Member Cottier asked about fencing. Mr. Bragonier said it will be 6-foot high, but not on the north. The total lot will be fenced. Member Cottier also asked about .• • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 11 the immediate construction of a fence construction. Mr. Bragonier there was willing to do that for the neighbors. on the east side at not a commitment, but was Member Klataske asked about the school district boundaries and access issues. Mr. Bragonier explained Impala Drive and PR-1 parking lot access and no through bus traffic. Chair Clements asked more questions about fencing and concerns about enclaving the site. Mr. Bragonier explained their plans for screening and protection around the tot lot. Member Strom moved for approval of Hilicrest PUD - Preliminary with conditions as noted in the staff report, with an additional condition that the eastern fence be erected as soon as possible. Member seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, with Member Winfree abstaining for conflict of interest. Item 23, Westbury Pup - Preliminary 111-94, Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, read the staff report with two conditions. He stated to the Board a concern expressed in a letter about the deliverance of irrigation water. Mr. Eldon Ward, of Cityscape Urban Design, representing Mark Linder, the applicant, who was present. He explained that the conditions of approval can be met with minor design changes and explained in detail some alternatives. The drainage will be addressed. Chair Clements stated that Solar Orientation as a trade off and the applicant is requesting a variance. Mr. Ward explained the variance to the Board. Lila Nelion - 1309 W. Harmony - She stated the location of her property to the site, and that she liked the development, but had an objection regarding the right-of-way to her property. She was objecting to it and had no plans to develop the property. She suggested to extend the cul-de-sac instead. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 12 Maryann May - representative of the Bridge Homeowners Association - 4725 Regency Drive - She made statements of support for the developer's proposal. Mr. Olt answered the questions concerning the right-of-way request, discussing several options which could mean a loss of a lot to the developer. Chair Clements asked for more input from Mrs. Nelion. Mrs. Nelion said that they agreed with the plan, except the right-of-way request near her property. She made her arguments against and stated her preference would be off Maraposa if it is absolutely necessary, and didn't necessarily agree with it. Member Cottier discussed further with the applicant and city staff the right-of-way issue. Rich Ensdorff said to obtain the right-of-way at this time would allow options in the future. Member Fontane had some more questions about accesses. Mr. Olt responding that the neighbors prefer to see a cul-de-sac. If the right-of-way were never used for access, then it may become open space in the future. He discussed various concerns and ideas, constraints on plats, etc. Chair Clements said it may not be read, could the process be made more effective? Mr. Olt said an effective mechanism has yet to be developed for communication. Member Montane recommended approval of the Westbury PUD - Preliminary, #11-94 with staff conditions. Mr. Olt asked if it were clear that one of the conditions was in the staff report and a new one this evening with a Solar Variance Ordinance. He read the conditions from the report and memorandum. Member cottier requested to amend the motion with a new one stating "sufficient grass right -of -ray to the Neilon property." Member Montana agreed with the change. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Phillips said that "landscaped" rather than "grass" be used in the motion. Member Cottier felt that the owners of surrounding property bear the burden of not creating future problems. Member Strom amended the motion to include the Solar Variance, and that it be granted; that it vas equal to or better than the plan rather than the letter of the ordinance. Members Bontane and Cottier indicated that vas acceptable. Motion carried 7-0. y Mr. Ted Shepard read the staff report with conditions, there is an anticipation for Filing 2 and staff recommends approval. The staff report does not include the standard condition of the timely filing of the utility plans and development agreements, that condition if the recommendation is approved. . Chair Clements asked about the "centerline not be moved" issue of Crest Road agreement as requested by the Brookwood Neighborhood Association. Mr. Shepard said the Planning staff is working with the County Engineering Department. Mr. Mike Herzig, Planning Engineer, gave a brief summary with the developer trying to shift the centerline towards the east away from their property for room for driveways. Mr. Rex Burns of the County has been involved and stated it was okay to shift it. However, the neighbors on Crest Road would like it to remain. The most recent report is that it is shifted three feet off the centerline right-of-way. The Board can direct the developer through a condition. His professional opinion is that the street should be designed center on the current right-of-way, concurring with the Brookwood Homeowner's Association recommendation. Mr. Dick Kellogg - J. R. Engineering - reviewed the issue of Crest Road. Mr. Rex Burns was approached and stated that " the east property line was fixed, so that in the future, if the road was widened from 28 feet to the full width that the east full lane would stay constant and it would not move in the future." If the road is widened in the future for development, the west side would move correspondingly. That was their reasoning. • Jim Sell of Colorado Land Source Limited, applicant, gave the presentation. He pointed out some concerns: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 14 (1) the disparity of the size of the lots along Crest Road in relation to the county size on adjacent tracts. Some landscape medians and private driveways would serve the residents for landscape buffering along Crest Road. The Brookwood Homeowner's Association endorses that idea. (2) The Clarendon Hills Homeowners Association supports an effort to bring about a park sooner than projected year 2000 for development. There have been meetings with citizens, and the developer with Parks to create a park with funds from the homeowners and developer. He described the detail of the park with fields, courts, tot lots, etc. and a detention facility which would eliminate some function in the park. The Parks and Natural Resources Departments agree this is not a feasible condition. The developer opposes this condition. Bruce Heath - 4920 Crest Road - President of the Brookwood Homeowners Association - He referred to the PUD plan, he was concerned with access streets. His concern was with the amount of traffic to Crest Road and that the centerline be kept and brought up to City standards. The design is very nice. He was concerned with phasing of the development because of the detention pond problems and flood line. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED, Member Cottier asked if this was to be brought to City standards or remain a County road? Mr. Shepard said the compromise was that Crest Road would be a 28-foot street (not 36 feet), sidewalk on the west side only, still determining the exact curb edge of the east side and remain a County street with improvements. Member Strom moved to approval of Coventry Subdivision, Filing one, Final #80-93A with the preliminary agreement conditions. Member Fontana seconded the motion. Member Strom commented for the record that the intent of the Board is for the road to align on the existing easement centerline. Member Fontane commented and applauded the effort to get the park before the year 2000 and the cooperation of the developer and neighborhoods working together. A very good example in the community. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 15 Member Winfree cited that half the curbcuts were eliminated on Crest Road and the shared looping driveway access were positive to the development and neighbors to the east. Motion carried 7-0. Member Klataske stated his conflict of interest in regard to this plan. Ms. Whetstone, Project Planner, read the staff report including a slide presentation. Linda Ripley - Ripley Associates, representing Charlotte Jorgensen and Bill Neal. She said there are storm water concerns which need further study for location of an easement through the site. The applicant is working with the City on this. She explained the plans for the project with 4 d.u. per acre and that the site was appropriate for single-family. Bart Nelson - Vice President of the Pleasant Valley Lake Canal Company an irrigation ditch that crosses this property, showed the Board his concerns for drainage and the change of the original right-of-way and easement across the property. He was concerned about drainage problems in other developments of the area. He stated that his ditch company would not be liable for any damages caused by the development because the developer does not notify the prospective buyer of potential problems. The canal bridge at Prospect has a tremendous amount of runoff (he understood that the Choices 195 will widen this) and needs to be addressed.. He mentioned chemicals that could be washed to the ditch and contaminate it as a concern. What are the subdivision requirements above the canal with regard to storm drainage? He read from a detailed report. He said the Federal Government's Cold Water Act must be considered. Ms. Ripley stated that the developer will be working with all parties concerned with regard to this issue. Member Pontane commended the plan especially the density and recommended approval of the amended rairbrooke - Overall Development Plan, #65-828. Member Strom seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 16 Motion carried 6-0, With Member Ilataske abstaining due to conflict of interest. Item 27. Wateralen PUD - Preliminary. #71-93A. Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, conditions that no final plans report and natural areas plans departments. read the staff report with be submitted until a drainage are approved by the respective Mr. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design, represented the applicant and gave a presentation with support staff and legal counsel. The team present was Bill Reynolds and Libby Glass of W. W. Reynolds; Lucia Liley, legal assistance; Armando Valpag who prepared a noise impact study, Dr. Del Vincent assisting with wild life habitat questions; and Roger Walker, expert for manufactured housing. Mr. Ward addressed the questions from the work session and staff comments. (1) What is going on in the big picture for Northeast Fort Collins? Urban development is projected in the next decade, because of a limited inventory of large parcels for master plan development. He commented on land use possibilities and development. (2) Remoteness of the site is favorable for employment in the area but there is a need for other modes of transportation. With improvements planned for Vine Drive, one of which includes 3 miles of bike lanes. There is not enough population base to warrant mass transit-- carpooling is under investigation. (3) Clarification of terms for description of "conventional housing" which is typically stick built, framed houses and "modular," in Waterglen they are factory -built homes that are permanently anchored to spread footings and less permanently anchored to concrete pads. He gave examples. (4) vine Drive improvements are being worked with City staff. (5) All requirements for density, solar orientation, etc. have been met. (6) Cooper Slough was discussed with regard to water quality, quantity and temperature, and impacts with wildlife mitigated. Leven Associates prepared the study and found it is not a unique warm water reserve but has seepage from the Larimer-Weld Canal, and remains a desirable wildlife habitat. Criteria for buffering around the slough have been studied and preserve the wetlands. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 25, 1994 Page 11 There has been a request for a 300-foot setback, studied. Dr. Vincent gave a recommendation for setbacks that accomplish goals necessary for th and it has been e necessary area. (7) The developer requested that Condition 7 of the Planning Staff report be modified in the wording. The ,developer requested that the condition read: "written documentation of the description included, should be provided to and reviewed by the City prior to submission of final PUD plans for any portion of development and it is understood that minor changes to the layout of the site plan may be warranted due to impacts on natural areas in the development." If Natural Resources does not agree with the developers findings, then it is brought back to the Board to settle the difference. (8) A noise impact study was conducted by Armando Valpag and it stated that the berm needed to be taller. (9) Streets. Off -site street improvements have been reached with City staff with options left open with regard to Vine Drive improvements. Street oversizing is still being discussed with City Staff and is not part of the staff conditions. Street . widths of 28 feet had not be proposed for all local streets, just for some minor.loop streets. There will also be 36-foot wide streets. He discussed parking and striping, etc. for the 28-foot wide streets. (10) He addressed the three conditions (a) The wetlands are mapped and surveyed and the lots do not encroach into them. (b) The flood plain conflict with existing houses and day care facility. Mr. Valpag stated it did not conflict with the proposed day care center. (c) Notes on the final plan; the wording that should not be there will not be there. Member Strom asked about the secondary 28-foot looped streets. Mr. Ward located them on the slide. The street that intersects Waterglen Drive (a collector) with Waterglen Place and the northerly portion Ellen Park --all others have been changed to 36- feet. Improper parking will be controlled by an on -site management team. Lou Stitzel - 521 E. Laurel - She stated she supported the project and it needed to be encouraged in Fort Collins, for the lower -income families to have support services and amenities in a unique setting and comprehensive in nature. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 18 Betty Maloney - 1309 City Park Avenue - Spoke of her previous statement in favor of this much needed project in Fort Collins.. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED, Member Walker asked for the rational behind the smaller size landscaping for certain parts of the project. Mr. Olt said the developer is requesting a variance to reduce the size of the plans required to be able to use park rated materials in the natural area and the Cooper Slough drainage area, perimeter buffering and to install landscaping in common areas in longer term phases. Staff is requesting that the standard landscape requirements be met. Member Walker referred to recommendation #3 referring to some consultation to allow smaller landscape materials. This seems to deviate from what was stated. Mr. Olt agreed that the wording was misleading and the intent was to say " landscaping shall be installed as per the LDGS standard requirements." There could be a possibility that the standard landscaping could be negotiated to smaller sizes in certain areas. It would be a City-wide standard and not site specific. Member Klataske asked about the impacts with regard to schools. Mr. Olt said that Poudre R-1 is very much involved, and the tables for the capacities will fluctuate with standards set by the District. He stated from resource of Poudre R-1 that this is not a problem district wide. Mr. Ward said there are dynamics of the school population fluctuations within district lines changing; possible school sites have been explored, but not recommended at this time. Member Klataske asked questions regarding the noise level in certain portions of the site. Mr. Ward said that those levels have been mitigated for outside persons from the units and.are well within range because of berming. Member Klataske asked about setbacks of lots to open space. Mr. Ward responded by saying the intent is to keep as much open space under common maintenance as possible, including front yards to give a uniform appearance. Member Cottier asked about portable storage units? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 19 Mr. Ward stated that they are units not setting on permanent foundations and they can be moved to give flexibility and there is an electric easement in a portion of it where they are located. Also noise considerations are in play. Member Cottier asked for an update on the plans for the parcel to the left that would be donated. Mr. Ward indicated that W. W. Reynolds has donated four acres to a non-profit agency to have low-income subsidized housing in that area. There is a purpose to offer a full range of housing opportunities in the development to offer upward mobility without leaving the neighborhood. The proposed builder is studying the costs for all the infra -structure required for the project before a commitment is made. There is still interest. Points were not taken for this segment. The plan reflects their specific design. Member Cottier asked "What a reserve park was?" Mr. Olt said that it was already considered for a site that has been purchased by the City of Fort Collins for a future park . site. Mr. Ward said that properties are not always already owned by the City of Fort Collins. This park site was approved by the Parks Department at their December meeting. Chair Clements asked about the wording for Condition #7? Mr. Olt replied that staff was recommending the wording remain the same for #6 and #7 regarding storm drainage. Mr. Phillips stated that the staff proposal was recommending that Storm Drainage and Natural Resources approve the plans before the final submittal can be made. The suggestion by.the applicant is that they be submitted and reviewed but the word "approved" is left out. Member Strom commented that if there is a disagreement about approval, the applicant will always have the option of requesting review by the Board? Mr. Phillips stated that was correct, similar to the last item on the agenda of this meeting. Member Cottier asked why isn't a mitigation plan required as we have with other projects with significant natural resources --the • wording in the condition is not very strong? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 20 Mr. Phillips replied that requiring this plan needed approval before final submittal, this process will expedite the scheduling and it will be dealt with. Member Strom asked about the report by Dr. Vincent, requesting a summary. Dr. Vincent summarized the proposal citing the irrigation retention facilities. He said the proposed plan is comprehensive over all the water areas of the development, enhancing the wildlife areas of the,project, perhaps increasing water fowl nesting. Mitigation for wildlife and people interaction are being studied, a prototype of how development can be promoted and use nature educationally. Member Strom asked more questions regarding the 28-foot width streets and fire safety concerns. Mr. Herzig said the loop street have lots facing on both side that are relatively small with high parking. The method the Poudre Fire Authority uses requires a 20-foot clear space in the street to maneuver the vehicles and equipment. They found that 28-foot street widths work in the larger lot areas, serving fewer homes and fewer cars in the street. The technique of the operation determines the need requirements. Member Winfree moved for approval of Waterglen PUD, Preliminary #71-93A with the ten conditions outlined in the staff report and the letter from staff dated April 2SO 1994. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that it is a very good project in a less than ideal location and worthwhile for the community, a product that is needed. The open space design contiguous to small cell lots is unique for lower -income housing. The proposal of a Gitney bus is critical to making a project like this work. She was reluctant to support it because it is not where growth is desired at this stage of urban design development but it is outweighed by the nature of the product being proposed. Chair Clement agreed and stated that the policy statements with regard to Land Use Policy 22 states "preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous to existing developments within the City limits or consistent with the phasing plans for the City's Urban Growth Area." Without a plan, it cannot be utilized to make decisions for development. The Council directed that proposal that might be able to locate on the fringes will provide their own transportation, parks and open space surrounding natural area. She supported the motion with some reservation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 25, 1994 Page 21 Member Strom proposed a minor amendment to Condition #9 to say "the development may be located in the revised Box Elder Flood Creek Plain and the day care facility must be located outside the flood plainU. Member Strom further commented that the project is a very good one and will provide some badly needed housing relief for the middle and lower income families. He supported the preceding comments. He still did not fully endorse the 28-foot streets and requested more information and data from the Poudre Fire Authority for this project and others in Fort Collins, his concerns were especially in regard to use of extra asphalt. Mr. Phillips assured the Board that this information will be obtained from Poudre Fire Authority without a condition to the motion. Member Fontane supported the motion and was appreciative of the information provided by the developer about the future development. She supported the alternative transportation plans for the location of the site. • Member Winfree agreed with the concerns for the location of the project and agreed that the benefits of the project outweigh the location. She encouraged the alternative for transportation since it is not added as a condition. Motion passed 7-0. Mr. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the staff report and recommendations for approval. The purpose the Board is reviewing this was because it was a change to the PUD. Should the Board allow the Southridge Greens Boulevard, the plat would then have to be amended or replatted to lift the restriction. The Board is reviewing the land use PUD document and the plat restriction. Mr. Steve Dellenbach - owner of Lot 25 of Phase II Paragon Point stated that the administrative change was denied, so he made the presentation of his request for access of his home drive to the Board. He presented the unique situation of his lot and requiring drainage and location for safety. The street had two addresses 6413 Falcon Ridge Court or Southridge Green Boulevard. • Mr. Shepard said the homeowner can choose between addresses for the property and Mr. Dellenbach stated he was requesting 6418 Southridge Green Boulevard. There was discussion of the request among Board members regarding the correct 6418 Falcon Ridge, but it could also have a 6418 Southrigde Green Blvd. address common Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 25, 1994 Page 22 with lots that have double frontage. There have been five lots with restricted use of the Southridge Green Blvd. access. Member Walker asked about the location of the driveway. Member Strom believed it was a self-inflicted problem and asked for response. Mr. Dellenbach said he was restricted from having the access onto Southridge Green Blvd. because of traffic. After observation, he concluded this was not a problem and requested the change. Member Strom said that it was more than that, but that it was the original design and location of the house/garage with full knowledge of access to Falcon Ridge Court that created the problem of the steep drive. Member Fontane agreed and further stated the plat was approved with the location of the existing drive. Chair Clements opened citizen participation, being none, closed citizen participation. She had a question with regard to the five lots that were not granted access to Southridge Green Blvd.? Mr. Shepard said the street has a long length and serves an existing neighborhood and the Paragon neighborhood and is not designed with a collector standard. He believed it to be a 28- foot street but serves as a collector. To minimize the traffic loads on the street was to limited the driveway cuts onto the street thus creating two cul-de-sacs, which are local streets. Trilby will some day connect and Southridge will connect to Lemay. The Planning Department was thinking in terms of traffic volume, curb cuts and safety, given the choice, it is better from the public standpoint to make access of homes on local streets, not the collector. There was citizen concern about the traffic flows from this collector within the neighborhood in early planning stages. Discussion continued regarding driveway access among Board Members. Member Bontane made a motion to deny the Referral of an Administrative Change, Lot 25, Paragon Point, #48-91J. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier mentioned said this was a difficult decision and agreed that it was a self-imposed problem. When considering that there are 20 lots accessing Southridge Green, it seems • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 25, 1994 Page 23 insignificant that one more could be made. However, she remembered the importance of the issue as brought out by the neighborhood and reminded Mr. Dellenbach could appeal to council. Meeting was adjourned 11:05 p.m. • No Text