Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/04/1994PLANNING i ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 4, 1994 Gerry Norsk, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The April 4, 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 Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, James Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Lloyd Walker. Chair Clements and Member Fontane were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Greg Byrne, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank, Tom Shoemaker, Kirsten Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REV Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. Item 20. Huntington Hills PUD - Overall Development Plan, #11-81H, Item 21. Huntington Hills PUD, 4th Filing - Preliminary and Final, 11-81L, Recommendation to City Council: Item 22. Growth Management Short -Term Actions. DISCUSSION AGENDA: TEN 20. HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD, OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 911-8 Ms. Whetstone, Project Planner, reviewed the overall development plan and staff recommendations as stated in the staff report. Member Lloyd Walker brought out a point concerning the open space area and Fossil Creek Parkway. He requested a report from Transportation and/or Natural Resources on where the issue stands and a discussion of options and potential development plans. Planner Whetstone gave background information showing the Fossil Creek Parkway extending from College to the end of Fossil Creek Meadows Subdivision and continuing south of Portner Reservoir, connecting to Lemay Avenue. There are issues concerning the roadway and the impact to the value of the natural area. Any change will require an amendment to Master Street Plan from City Council because the ODP shows the future connection in order to be in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan as an element. The Planning Department does not have the authority to change the Master Street Plan. Member Walker asked if Fossil Creek Parkway would become a cul-de- sac on each end and is workable as far as Planning sees it? Ms. Whetstone stated that Planning staff still has concerns with Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 2 that; there is not enough information regarding impacts on the area and intersections (Lemay-Trilby, College -Trilby, Lemay-Harmony). There are basically two miles through this area, without an east - west connection, with the exception of the Skyway connection. Planning's perspective is that there is an obligation to make connections to schools, the community park and between neighborhoods. Pedestrian connections will also be considered. Planning would like to see connections to Parcel J at Miramont-- there are still many things that need to be studied and considered before Planning would recommend deleting the Fossil Creek Parkway connection. Mr. Phillips indicated that the connection on the Transportation Master Plan is a very important connection. It needs to remain, unless there is another critical element, if it is a natural area via acquisition and the roadway impacts cannot be mitigated. As of this point, the Planning Department states it is critical to have the connection shown on the ODP to be built in the future. Member Walker asked if the roadway would not go through, procedurally what would happen? Would the City Council have to revise the street master plan? Mr. Phillips said there would have to be a new way of connecting areas, studied, planned and alternatives evaluated and the Master Street Plan would have to be amended by action of the City Council. This project has been delayed from when the applicant would have liked to have it heard because of this issue and have come to the point where it can't be resolved in a timely enough manner to have them wait longer. That is the reason it is presented to you to be included on the ODP and if it is later agreed to be, there are a number of things needing to be mitigated. Tom Shoemaker said that this particular development proposal is occurring in the context of a larger area, the Southside Service Center, some City -owned property and further to the west is a 59- acre tract of land with habitat values. The City of Fort Collins owns the 99-acre park site, a habitat area for birds and animals. Because there are no present plans for a park development with unknowns, it has been a slow process. The note on the ODP represents the outcome of mutual agreement and comment with City staff and the developer to continue to look at several areas and attempt to arrive at a conclusion in 30 days. Member Winfree had a question on the density decreases. She asked how the figures were arrived at. Ms. whetstone said about 90 acres that were in the previous master Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 3 plan for higher density are no longer part of this ODP, as they are now the future park area. This explains the reduction in density. The first three filings of Huntington Hills were at 3-4 acres. The gross acreage is different. Mark Palkowitsh, the applicant, owner and developer gave a presentation and ideas for the plan compared to the original ODP. He commented that the reduction in density was desirable considering the surrounding neighborhood. He worked with Tom Shoemaker to resolve Natural Resource issues and with Transportation, resolve transportation issues. Mr. Ensdorff said that a connection must be provided to the north, as well as the Skyway Drive connection. He indicated that there is a portion that has not been acquired for Skyway along the Kelmar Strip. He has been working with property owners to obtain a ROW. He addressed Fossil Creek Parkway and said the first submittal presented to homeowners in the area showed the Parkway continuing through. This was not well received. The developer then modified the master plan. The traffic study showed that the Fossil Creek Parkway connection is not a necessary element within the project. The staff said either way was acceptable. The natural resource study shows that if the roadway goes through, it limits a major portion of benefits that could be derived from the parkland for open space and natural wildlife. More study time is required to make an appropriate decision for everyone's best interest. There could be 70-100 acres to the City available for parkland, areas around the creek area and other parcels. The developer will not ask anything more for approval until the issue is resolved. David Frick reiterated the effort to meet goals of the Natural Resources and Transportation Departments regarding the park area. He described the topography of the development and has been in contact with the City Parks Department. Robert Layton, landscape architect with Design Concepts, discussed some of the natural features of the landscape. The intent is to create a positive image for this development as well as the overall community. They propose to create this image through common area site development, including entry features and materials to unify the overall development plan to give a sense of community. Matt Delich, traffic engineer, said the Huntington Hills Development can function with or without the Fossil Creek Parkway connection from College Avenue to Lemay, there will be a collective level street from College to Lemay and other alignments. He stated the school traffic will have to be on arterials, the furthest home will be within a mile of the school and pedestrian walkways are planned. He said at this time, the residents of Fossil Creek Meadows desire not to have Fossil Creek Parkway through. In his Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 4 judgment they would be the ones most impacted by the decision. Karen Schnel-McDonald, wildlife biologist with Cedar Creek and Associates, and has as worked on the habitat and wildlife associated in this project. She briefly outlined the process used to create a possible wildlife corridor, connecting current wildlife areas north and south of the project. They studied advantages and disadvantages of the plants and vegetation for the areas. Some of the problems and constraints included pedestrian, bikeway and traffic impacts. The continuation of the corridor will bisect one of the larger areas that is present. She stated that this is an island of natural features in the sea of developments surrounding it. There needs to be a minimum of 100 acres and it must not be traversed by roadways or any kind of development or disturbances. The proposal includes 140 acres for the proposed natural area and will include a reservoir, associated wetlands, floodplains and an extension of open space areas to complete the area. She spoke about the quality of species in the area and plans for increasing the bio-diversity. Mr. Osborne, the attorney for the project, has been involved with the project since April 1992, and he spoke of the Natural Resources involvement in the planning for a very unique site and the overall enhancement it will bring to the area. The plan is presented with all the issues of transportation and neighborhood balance. He requested approval of the plans. CITIZEN INPUT Roger Marshall - 5514 Fossil Ridge Dr. E. - Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowners Association. He stated that if the plans for development are as stated, the Association is in 100% agreement. What they do not agree to is bringing the road to cross the area. The reasoning is the Master Plan is dated and believed it could be changed and noted that Skyview goes all the way across offering an alternative route. He asked who would fund the upgrading or new construction if it were to occur. The one access to the school is not up to standard and believed plans should consider the location of school and appropriate funding. He referred to Parcel J and the multi -family dwellings near the habitat area and the increased traffic. He was in communication with the Miramont developers who have arranged a bus stop at the back of the school, so children can access it easily. He did not receive the prints of the plans from the Planning Department as they had promised. Rod Van Velson - 316 Parkway Cir. N. - has resided 10 years in the Fossil Creek Subdivision. He was in favor of the developers plans and in opposition of the bisecting of the open space within the parkway. If the parkway does go through, the City needs to E Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 5 consider a retention pond system for drainage for additional run- off. He did not see enough justification of the Master Transportation plan to override what is being prepared for this area. Vice Chair Cottier asked for the need for Fossil Creek if Skyway that is extended across? Mr. Ensdorff said that he thought both are important and provided history for his reason. The Master Street Plan conducted in 1981 showed Fossil Creek as an arterial. In 1987, the staff worked with the neighborhoods and it became obvious that an arterial was not appropriate and was changed to a collector street. This is a two- mile area from Harmony to Trilby. A connected collector street is good design. He did not agree with Mr. Delich that the street system would work without it. There is not an agreement for Skyway to College but is being worked on. He said if the Planning and. Zoning Board wishes to change the Master Street Plan they need to . recommend to City Council the change. He summarized that there needs to be more than one collector in a neighborhood for good urban street design. This will prohibit mass transit penetrating the neighborhood. The street width can be negotiated and connections to schools and parks by bicycles and pedestrians is included. Member Strom stated he understood that Transportation was in the process of re-evaluating the Master Street System city wide? Where are we in the process and have you looked at this area in particular? Are you able to give more detailed input for these areas? Mr. Ensdorff said that they are not at the level of this updating process of the Master Street Plan and cannot yet look at individual streets. He said they are looking at the general concept of streets and it is in the first phase of updating. The Congestion Management Plan is dealing with types of streets, land use, and alternative modes to meet objectives. The Plan is to be completed this summer or fall and there is some entanglement with Growth Management Issues. Member Walker asked if there will be accesses to the community park off Lemay or other entries into the area? Mr. Ensdorff said he has not seen the latest version of the park plan. The original concept for the regional park is that there would be access off Lemay and off this collector system. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 6 Member Walker asked for Parcel J which is a residential site, is Southridge Green Blvd. going to be extended west of Lemay to provide a link into that area? Mr. Ensdorff said yes. The issue that relates to this, is Miramont to the north that has an ODP to work out a connection south and realize that there are significant issues to that. There is a connect at Southridge Green. Member Walker asked about the two-mile stretch and collector links, is that the goal for Transportation? Mr. Ensdorff said yes, the planning done previously on the Master Street Plan for these connections would provide adequate traffic circulation in the range of 3,000-5,000 rides per day. He stated this is comparable to Dunbar but it will not be a Swallow (8,000- 9,000 vehicles per day). Member Walker addressed the issue of the parkland and asked if Skyway were connected to the system connection of Miramont and Parcel J and Fossil Creek Parkway, is it possible to run a connector there to avoid cutting through Fossil Creek to achieve the Transportation goals or is that not a possibility? Mr. Ensdorff reported that the Miramont owners have been contacted and there would be two systems, one to the north and one on the south. This would be a step in the right direction. They have not closed the idea, but there are definitely issues with that. Vice Chair Cottier said she would like to raise the issues of the citizens. Would staff comment on retention in the area? Ms. Whetstone said that any development proposal on Huntington Hills ODP, as a PUD, will have a requirement of a storm drainage report, utility and grading plans, erosion control documents; and for this area, on -site detention is not normally a requirement if the flows can get directly to Fossil Creek. Some of the Fossil Creek residents have had some problems but this area is downstream from the flow. Vice Chair Cottier then asked about density in Parcel J if Fossil Creek is connected and reflected the neighbors requested lower density for this is the natural area. Would it be better to have lower density and still attempt to maintain some attributes of the natural area? Ms. Whetstone said Planning staff has looked at 5-10 dwelling units per acre. Five is still possible, but it is probably more a patio home to townhouses. It is easier to provide buffers of open space with this design. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 7 Member Winfree asked how is the park plan to be developed, ball diamonds, night lights, etc.? What kind of impact will that have on an adjacent natural area? Ms. Whetstone said there is a plan for the Fossil Creek Park approved by City Council that is an improved park, but the Parks Department has reduced some of the water activity, making the Fossil Creek Reservoir smaller than an acre on the plan. It will be similar to Edora Park with baseball fields, soccer fields and tennis courts, as a community park. Mr. Shoemaker said "retro-fitting" will be implemented to see what kind of natural open space can and should be left in this whole area, including the proposed site. At this time the plans are not finalized and unclear. The Park staff will plan active uses and it is a question of how much of the space will be occupied and the transitions to the more natural area considering human access to those areas. Vice -Chair Cottier asked if this 30-acres is considered a priority acquisition area in Parcel J? Mr. Shoemaker said the recommendation has not specified that amount of acreage but it is included within a larger 260-acre site which is identified as a priority acquisition site. It was not the Park Department's expectation to obtain or acquire all of that site because there has been a lot of previous development and planning. The intent was to explore different alternatives to see how much could be achieved. Vice -Chair Cottier asked the status of the Dahl property to the south and the City -owned Bus barn property? Will they be maintained as open space and is there any development on the Bus barn property? Mr. Shoemaker said that the Bus barn property includes the existing Transfort facility and the Poudre-R-1 Bus barn, which is under construction. Staff is researching to identify additional future needs from the City of Fort Collins for that area. There might be an additional 5 acres that the City would keep out for potential development and the remainder would be that the natural areas program would acquire it. The Dahl property maybe purchased. The intent was to provide land bulk to those two properties, with some of this development's land, but that hasn't proved to be feasible. Member Walker asked about the proposed condition that the developer's report and mitigation recommendations have not been accepted. Why is that and what is your view of it? What is the issue for mitigation for collection of properties to contribute as parkland and how is it viewed by the Parks Department? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Shoemaker said that Karen Schelling-McDonald defined some of the constraints that are operating, and additional constraints include are for the developer to develop certain areas that will not be acquired. There is merit in assembling additional open space parcels for natural parkland along the Fossil Creek drainage way. There are questions beyond the strictly natural area considerations such as birds of prey and where should the developer spend his funds for park land. If the parcel is not developed and left open and Fossil Creek is extended, then the City of Fort Collins will need to bear the cost of the local street portion. There are factors that need to be investigated before the City acquires the parkland from the developer. He was not prepared to say this open space area would work. Member Walker asked about the issue of extending Fossil Creek Parkway off Fossil Creek. If that were to happen would that Parcel J, that the City is considering for park open space, would that compromise the open space attributes in a significant manner that would degrade it and cause it to not remain as open space? What would it take to provide adequate mitigation to make that open space work? Mr. Shoemaker said the road does negatively impact the open space natural area values for that parcel. It needs to be viewed from a couple of different natural area perspectives (1) the rapture use, the birds of prey are more adaptable to vehicles passing by than they are to pedestrian traffic; land mass needs to be evaluated to achieve those values in a particular location and (2) there is a concern for bridges that may be constructed across the drainage ways, what is the design needed and how will it impact the area habitat wise and aesthetically? Member Klataske asked Mr. Ensdorff about the extension of Skyway Drive. He noted that it does not go straight across and asked for the reasoning? Mr. Ensdorff said it is designed in this manner to break up the direct -shot nature in the ODP and bringing it in as a T- intersection is a good way to make it a collector street without a straight shot. If we are intending to change the Master Street Plan and not have Fossil Creek connect, it is his belief to re- evaluate the Skyway area because that is how the plan has proceeded in the past. Member Winfree asked Mr. Shoemaker about the raptures being more negatively impacted by pedestrians than by vehicles. If, the road doesn't go through, there is a pedestrian passage way that is proposed through that area, what are the concerns about the pedestrian passage way through there? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Shoemaker said the same concerns. He said that the raptures in the area are one set of values in the area and he thought there is a lot of community merit in having a fairly wide open space natural area along the Fossil Creek Drainage. There would be a substantial benefit under either scenario as well. Some of the issues have to do with the larger context of trying to maintain two large blocks of rapture habitat in or near Fort Collins. This overall area is both experiencing a lot of development and also use by the birds of prey. If the road went through and the corridor is cut along Fossil Creek and open space natural area, it would still be a nice open space area. Vice -Chair Cottier said if the road goes through and the City Park is half active with at least ball diamonds and lighting, soccer fields, is it still reasonable to try to attempt to maintain over 100 acres of contiguous open space for raptures? The 100-acre size of contiguous open space is being defined as being the requirement for raptures. If these two developments that significantly would affect the desirability for raptures, do we still want to try to get 100 acres? Mr. Shoemaker replied that he did not have a firm answer to the questions. He further stated that what is proposed is what staff thinks is the best approach to be used. There are serious questions about the viability of doing that it should be looked at from different perspectives: (1) The likelihood of maintaining the habitat. (2) The cost to both to private and citizens of Fort Collins. (3) The trade-offs with the transportation system. (4) The air -quality issues. (5) The pedestrian and automotive connections. This will not be resolved with the 4th Filing, but at least there can be more effort be spent to come up with some reasonable set of recommendations as to how best to resolve several questions in this area. Vice -Chair Cottier asked Ms. Whetstone with respect to the mitigation plan, the note needing to be added to the ODP? Isn't that typically attached to individual development proposals? Ms. Whetstone said that is correct. The Overall Development Plan basically identifies street systems and potential land uses. In this case, there are a lot of unanswered questions that Natural Resources asked that the note be added to the ODP as a note rather than a condition, emphasizing that any filing PUD coming in will be subject to a specific mitigation plan. The filings are automatically subject to criteria in the LDGS, concerning wetlands habitat and natural resources areas. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Eckman said that concerning the topic of mitigation plan, the last sentence says that "any modifications to the open areas shown on the ODP due to the final mitigation plan, shall not be considered modifications (the word 'major' has been deleted) to the ODP affecting other rights and entitlements conferred by the ODP approval." He has discussed it with Tom Shoemaker and the intention of that was that a mitigation plan results in some modifications, it means that they would not have to start all over again with the ODP. The modification would be limited to changes in the size or location of the open areas or the way they are managed. If the mitigation plans should call for such changes, the intention is whatever rights if any that are developed from the ODP, those rights remain in place, particularly as to the densities, land uses, and the changes would only occur in the size location or management of the open areas. Mr. Eckman submitted another consideration that has not been submitted in writing for the Board is the question of the parkway location, or whether it will be extended through, or whether the Master Street Plan should be changed. He would not like to see the approval of the Overall Development Plan as giving any indication to the developer that the developer has the right to build the parkway there even if the Master Street Plan should be changed. He read the proposed condition: "The City has the right to deny future Planned Unit Development Plans showing Fossil Creek Parkway in a location that does not comply with the City's Master Street Plan, in effect at the time of consideration of such future PUD plans." So that if the Master Street Plan were changed in the future, it would imply that we could deny future PUD plans if they didn't comply with the new Master Street Plan. He thought it would be helpful to clarify if the Master Street Plan is changed by the City, the Board is not bound to approve plans under this ODP, that do not comply with the New Master Street Plan. Vice -Chair Cottier said it sounds confusing because she thought the developers are of the opinion that they prefer the parkway not to be connected. Mr. Eckman said that he didn't think there was an objection on the part of the developer at all. Member Strom asked Mr. Shoemaker about the open space in Paragon Point development to the east with raptures, how large is the open space and is there still a substantial amount of rapture use there ' and how much interaction is there between this piece? Mr. Shoemaker said that the developer has a couple of wildlife consultants who are also well qualified and are present tonight. The area that was included in the Paragon Point development and the proposed area were a complex of prairie dog towns as the "southeast 11 0 Planning and Zoning April 4, 1994 Page 11 Board Minutes rapture complex". There was a fairly large area designated as open space in Paragon Point, he recalled a 60+ acres in non -developed park. The eradication of the prairie dogs reduced the number of raptures in the area. There is still use of the area that includes the Dahl property, southeast service center site, Mark Palkowitsh's property and the Fossil Creek park site. They are not observing a lot of continued rapture use at Paragon Point. Presently, there is construction occurring there and that has an effect on the use now. Member Strom asked about the proposal of prairie dogs in this vicinity? He recalled that the prairie dogs at Paragon Point were not compatible with the development. As this area develops, will we have the same situation here? Mr. Shoemaker said there were concerns about interactions and conflicts between prairie dogs and people --that will not disappear in any location. There are different perspectives if that is worth the trouble. The difference between this proposal and Paragon Point is that the land there remained in private ownership versus this proposal, which will have public ownership; therefore, the City of Fort Collins will make a determination over time. There are no immediate plans to eradicate the prairie dogs from lands that would be left open under this proposal. Member Winfree asked where the predominant prairie dog population in this ODP now? Ms. McDonald said the dense populations are cited on the location map of the proposal and would be eradicated by development. It seems the prairie dogs are on the move, at this time, to recolonize an area that they were formally eradicated from, north of the site. Member Walker made the following observation that the issue revolves around linking a natural area with street systems and the community. There is a Ross Open Space next to Rolland Moore Park he is more familiar with and in his judgment linking these, especially along a drainage has real attributes. It enhances the park area, allows for more variety of recreation in a contiguous manner (ball diamonds, etc., at one end of the complex and the other have wetlands and pedestrian/bikeways linked together). There is the same potential in this site that parts of Fossil Creek already are an open space, provides anchoring with another to provide a nice complex. There are arguments about the raptures in the area, but there are attributes to be noted for this contiguous linking of the parcels. Member Walker asked about the parkway and his understanding that the creation of enclaves is undesirable, yet it seems there are other ways to accomplish the transportation issue. Mr. Ensdorff Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 12 indicated there were other choices for the collector streets north. It seems there are goals for both the natural areas and linking transportation and a different approach could be made for the corridor. He questioned only recommending Skyway with expensive bridge work needed, when there were other options. He said the Skyway plan is expensive to do, would disrupt the natural area and he thought other alternatives need to be explored. He would like to see Parcel J become part of the contiguous open space and change Fossil Creek Parkway. Member Strom commented that he was not prepared that the ODP go forward without an existing major street plan and the feasibility of alternatives. He said that Mr. EnsdorffIs point made about connections is valid, when intended connections are cut off, traffic is forced into some other neighborhoods with limited number of alternatives. There is a need for collector streets in neighborhood planning. In general, the concepts of the ODP are acceptable except changing the Master Street Plan at this time. He would like to explore transportation alternatives and preserve some of the open space along the creek. Member Klataske could not see, at this point, extending Fossil Creek Drive to tie into Skyway and then over to Lemay is not adding that much to justify going through the natural area. He was concerned without seeing an alternate transportation plan, how Fossil Creek goes over to Lemay from the Transportation Department to know how it all could function. Member Winfree said she was not ready to abandon the collector street that is designated on the Master Street Plan with regard to this evening's information, and would like to see alternative transportation sources that are approved by Transportation. Member Strom moved approval of the ODP with the two conditions on the open space and the Master Street Plan. He added a third a strong recommendation to staff that they look at what the alternatives are in terms of a Master Street Plan and how it interacts with the open space of this area and mitigations in the planning efforts. Member Walker seconded the motion. He suggested the importance of both Transportation and Natural Resources Departments working together to think creatively about this area. The drainages through town are few and unique; and anytime we can preserve them for the natural attributes they bring to our community, it is worth doing. In concept, the ODP is acceptable. Vice -Chair Cottier made a final comment that the developer has tried to work with the Natural Resources Department's concerns. She encouraged a final plan be arrived at soon. Motion passed 5-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 13 ITEM 21, HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD, 4TH FILING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL #11-81L. Ms. Whetstone gave the staff report. There is a variance request submitted and staff recommends approval. This variance is in regard to the absolute criterion regarding the 3 du/acre for all PUDs according to the density chart. The PUD was evaluated against applicable criteria of the LDGS. A Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan has been submitted with this PUD to address Natural Resource Criteria. Staff recommends conditions relating to the signing and the execution of the development agreement, and final utility plans and considers the proposed use to be compatible with the surrounding area.. Mr. Palkowitsh, the applicant, gave his presentation describing the details of the development, lot size, extensive landscaping (to be maintained by the Fossil Creek Homeowners Association and an agreement that within 90 days of certificate of occupancy in the homes), compatibility, drainageways, open space corridor on the western boundary,and underground utilities. Mr. Rob Van Velson addressed the special entrance features and landscaping treatment throughout the project. The use of stone throughout the development area will provide special features to unify various portions of the project. Member Walker asked for clarification of fencing along the lake front and the relationship of those lots to the lake. He cited that on the ODP that there is a pedestrian access and a public trail. Is he correct in assuming there is a space between the lots and the lake front that is actually a part of the community park with a trail? Mr. Van Velson said that is correct. The trail space is a designated alignment and the fencing is shown to be open for (1) to enjoy the view of the park beyond and (2) to have the landscaping more appealing without stockade fencing. The recommendation is for open style fencing. Member Walker asked if that was noted as a requirement on the plan? Mr. Van Velson said that is correct. Ms. Whetstone commented that staff would expect a trail be added to the Huntington Hills, 4th Filing Plans before these are filed, showing a possible or future trail there. Parks and Recreation has identified this as a possible area for Fossil Creek Trail or a spur to go on around the lake. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 14 Vice -Chair Cottier asked about any mitigation plans tied to this phase? Does the overall mitigation plan assume to cover everything that happens with the ODP and the timing of these things? Will there be any specific actions required, for instance, with regard to disturbance of the Prairie Dog habitat in this area? The developer commented that they were projecting that the southern boundary is being primarily a natural area, not a high use area. There may be opportunities for water fowl nesting with the creation of wetlands along that perimeter. The intent is to leave it as natural as possible with the planned trail development around that perimeter. Ms. Whetstone said the understanding of the mitigation plan is that Planning had asked the developer to break that out to determine which would be for this particular filing. The mitigation plan affects the entire ODP and it is somewhat difficult to sort out. Vice -Chair Cottier said the buffer area to the south would be considered a mitigation measure as proposed. What is the width of the buffer area? Ms. Whetstone said that was correct. Mr. Van velson said the lot depths are 200' feet along that area. A 50' deep tract is to be dedicated to the City. It is adjacent to the existing open space and wetlands that was dedicated to the City as part of Ridge Knolls development. Mr. Shoemaker said the overall mitigation plan is tied to the ODP and it was not found necessary to break it out by phase because the impacts are associated with all the phases of development. The note that you approved in the previous motion, was an attempt to have some insurance that the proposals that have been made to date would be the minimum that would be carried through. Member Walker asked for clarification on the ODP condition that states "this plan is approved prior to preliminary plat approval of Phases 3 through 7 and 9 and 10 of the ODP. Which phase is the Board working on tonight. Vice -Chair Cottier said she believed it was Phase 2 in terms of the way the condition is stated. Mr. Shoemaker said yes it is Phase 2 and would not affect this particular filing. Member Walker moved to approve Huntington Hills 4th Filing Preliminary and Final. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 15 Mr. Eckman asked if the motion included the granting of the variance to the density requirements. Member Walker said yes, since the property in other parts of the ODP brings the density to the minimum density required by the City, and the fact that it is coming in first, justifies this type of variance. The motion is to include staff conditions. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. ITEM 22, GROWTH MANAGEMENT SHORT-TERM ACTIONS. Mr. Ron Phillips gave a report from the Growth Management Committee for consideration of short-term items and long-term strategies for dealing with impacts of growth in Fort Collins. He mentioned that there had been a memorandum submitted to the Board stating the Goals. Written comments were submitted from the Growth Management Committee and a citizen input meeting March 31, 1994 at the Lincoln Center attended by 120 people. Three items are requested to be addressed by the Board for their recommendation. 1. Should minimum density be raised to a new "floor" of 5 dwelling units per acre for all new residential developments and requiring a higher minimum point threshold for planned unit developments; 2. Establishment of certain policies and identification of certain concerns with respect to the provisions of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) Agreement and the boundaries of the UGA; and 3. Adopting new criteria for reviewing amendments of Overall Development Plans, particularly when those amendments result in the reduction of the overall density and/or mix of land uses of the plan. He submitted a proposed Resolution that simply states a proposed intent to look at various areas of the Urban Growth Area agreement that will strengthen the mutual commitment with the County to prevent urban sprawl, to review the Urban Growth Agreement every 5 years instead of every two, and prohibit annexation of property outside the urban growth area. It would change the name of the Urban Growth Area to "Fort Collins Urban Reserve Area" and eliminate the requirement that sets a ceiling on residential density in the UGA. . Mr. Phillips referred to the third item that deals with suggesting new criteria to be used when considering amendments to ODPs. There is an ordinance submitted to the Board for additional criteria Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 16 stating generally that multi -family densities will not be reduced in favor of single family development unless the multi -family use is provided elsewhere in the plan at the same or higher density. The same would apply to commercial areas which would not be eliminated in favor of residential development unless comparable uses are provided elsewhere in the ODP, or presently exists 1,500 feet from its boundary. The Planning and Zoning Board must be satisfied that sufficient public process has been utilized and impacts of development have been addressed and found to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Phillips indicated that the Annexation Policy recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board will be postponed for 90 days to allow for more study, analysis and more public discussion as the Board had recommended. Vice -Chair Cottier said that draft ordinances were distributed in the work session pertaining to the UGA and amendments to the ODP, is the Board responding to those as well? Mr. Greg Byrne , Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services, stated that ODP and UGA resolution are the only two items for which specific language has been drafted by the City Attorney's Office. That has been attached, the committee has reviewed it, as have boards and commissions of the City. The Committee would appreciate the Board's comments on the proposed legislative items as well as general comments on density and infill issues. Member Walker said these are referred to as "short-term" items, what does that mean? Mr. Phillips stated that the nomenclature "short term" applies to how quickly the committee felt that action could be taken on these items, but does not apply to the length of time these will be in effect. He assumed the affect of these items could be for some time in the future, depending on how effective they are. The "short term" applies to the time to address these issues and adopt them. "Long term" would be looking at goals and objectives and visioning for the community which would anticipate take a longer period of time to accomplish. Member Walker asked if there was a "long term" process underway too? Mr. Phillips said yes. Member Strom asked if the Board is to be taking formal action on the items? and if so, are we making recommendations to the Committee, the Council, where does the Board fit? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 17 Mr. Phillips said he believed the Board's recommendations are being made formally to the Committee. If there are specific recommendations on wording for the Resolution and the Ordinance, that will go to the Council as well, if the Committee recommends those items to go to Council for final action. All of the Board's comments will be considered. There is a joint meeting with the City Council, on April 12, in a work session. Some consensus made on the three items in terms of a motion would be preferable, but comments will also be considered. Bill Bartran - 1601 Lakeridge Ct. - He wanted to know who was on the Growth Management Committee? Mr.. Phillips replied that Allen Apt, Chairperson, Bob McCluskey, Gina Janett, and Sharon Winfree representing the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Bartran asked how the criteria was arrived at. Mr. Phillips replied it was done under the direction of the committee. Mr. Bartran asked if the staff has looked at the long-range implications of this particular change and a comprehensive analysis of what will result from it in many years? Are any members of the development community at all involved in any of these discussions? Mr. Bartran continued stating, he found the implications of this ordinance change will have severe impact on all of the citizenry of Fort Collins, not just those living in apartments but those living in single family as well. The entire complexion of this community will change radically. He commented that Fort Collins is considered a 3-dwelling unit per acre community but in the last 120 days 1,400 apartments have been approved. This ordinance will do more to destroy affordable housing in Fort Collins than any rules coming from this City Council than he has witnessed in 35 years of building in Fort Collins. It will hurt the majority in Fort Collins, not the affluent, but the majority. Mr. Dick Jeffries - 1609 Wagontongue Court - He spoke for Associated Contractors in Northern Colorado. He asked if the Committee believes increasing densities reduces traffic and is there supporting statistical data for that? He stated a comprehensive transportation plan has to be working hand -in -hand with the growth management studies otherwise increasing traffic will exist. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 18 Mr. Jeffries said that Item 7 states that Public Capital Operating Maintenance costs for streets, sewers and water systems, emergency services, parks will be reduced as densities are increased. He believed this statement was in conflict with existing policies today. Mr. Jeffries believed that the public process must be involved. The neighborhood meeting held March 31, 1994, has been the only meeting advertised to the public regarding this item. The consensus of that meeting should weigh heavily on the Board's decision tonight. Mr. Jeffries commented on the wording on the ODP process needing clarification, Section 4.e. Who will be the determining body of these areas? All the policies seem too general, and long-term ramifications need to be studied. Mr. Jeffries said the Contractor's Association feels strongly about how important it is for Fort Collins to move forward in growth management policies. The emotionalism needs to be taken out of the issue and review of statistical hard data needed. More review is needed. Mr. Ed Stoner - 2236 Apache Court - He complemented staff and previous and present governing bodies for the LDGS. At the present time, it seems that the purpose of the LDGS is not realized. It is designed for growth management and our fine community reflects that fact. The Neighborhood Compatibility Study issue under the LDGS needs reviewing to make the system work better. He was opposed to the 5-dwelling unit per acre proposal. If the City wants continued growth in the UGA, why is it being called the Fort Collins Reserve Area. The area outside the UGA should be called that. He believed the worse case scenario was the Boulder area and surrounding towns. He believed the public process is the way to arrive at certain conclusions and their input evaluated. Was the Committee including this element? Due process needs to be made with more input. Mr. Les Kaplan - 1060 Sailor's Reef - He stated his belief that this was a Comprehensive Rezoning Law of Fort Collins. The LDGS states 3 units per acre and increase it to 5 units per acre and apply that across Fort Collins and annexations, that is defacto rezoning of Fort Collins. This has sweeping and fundamental long- range effect on the dynamics for development in the County and in northern Colorado. The "short-range" approach undermines the public hearing process and is not responsible leadership nor planning. He indicated that he is not a developer but was the first Director of Planning in Fort Collins, in 1975. He wrote the first PUD ordinance, there was a comprehensive change to the subdivision ordinance to all -zoning district designations, he Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 19 started the first forerunner to the LDGS and UGA evolving after his employ. He knows the process. He has been a land use planning consultant in Fort Collins since 1978. He believed these were not well thought out ordinances and opposed their approval. He re- emphasized the need for an adequate public hearing process in order to evaluate adequately. He had submitted a 13-page document called "The Compacting of Fort Collins" which presents areas of another point of view from what is proposed tonight. It is not intended to be an impact statement of what will happen only to raise the subject areas needing to be explored. Karl Carson -1119 Parkwood Drive - He served on the first Planning Board in the City of Fort Collins appointed by Mayor Allen. He was concerned about the direction of Fort Collins in the process for development, being concerned about what negative results have occurred in Boulder. The density issue was a concern and the forced mix implied in the proposal. Adequate time for public input is needed. He believed the plan for 5-units per acre a disaster. David Osborn - 3401 Warrenshore Road - He believed that this is a total rezoning in a wholesale downzoning of the entire community involving millions of dollars of destroyed market value if the ordinance is passed. He believed there has been insufficient public process. He attended the Neighborhood Meeting for Growth Management and more than 80 percent were opposed to the ordinance, more specifically because it totally forgoes market forces, determining where and how we are going to live. It is clear most societies are more efficient if the market is used as a tool rather than governmental forces. He believed this ordinance proposal the wrong direction. He has been a resident for 40 years and believes the LDGS works very well with the infill needing fine tuning. There is no mandate nor public referendum as to how the City will be organized. There needs to be time for public forum, public input and adjust compromises. He believed inadequate notice was given even for this meeting. This has massive implications and needs careful review and public process. More empirical data needs to be gathered. Then a balance and reasoned reaction to the input can be made. Mr. Tom Jackson - 700 Willox Lane - He believed there was inadequate public input concerning the real ramifications of this proposal. He believed it not to be a well thought-out plan. He believed most of Fort Collins is unaware of the implications of the proposal. If they were aware, many would be in opposition to it. He believed the plan detrimental to the growth of Fort Collins and will create more problems. . Mr. Byron Collins - 6125 Paragon Ct. - He was the developer where he lives in Paragon Point, his first, and felt this proposal threatens the types of communities that he hopes to develop in the , Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 20 future. He believed more time should be given to the public (he had two days) to respond to such a impact on the community. He had questions about the facts on the city's traffic improving under this plan. He has no facts that the air quality will improve. What are the economic ramifications of the ordinance? What studies have been conducted by staff? What about affordable housing and large single-family housing? He believed that the Paragon Point he developed would not be allowed under this ordinance. He had concerns about the "Boulder" problems coming to Fort Collins. A proposal he was ready to present to the Board in February, waiting annexation, would not meet the criteria under this ordinance, therefore, the City is moving too fast. He was opposed to the renaming "urban reserve area" designation for Fort Collins, being concerned of implications that there is something behind it --who or what is proposing these changes? Dan Jensen - 5105 Mail Creek Lane - He has been in business for 30 years in Fort Collins. He only found out today that this was going to be on the agenda and believed the ramifications are too great and public impact is needed. He made statement of his love for the community and need to preserve the quality of life. There are many issues that face the community and asked the Board to weigh the seriousness of decisions regarding the implications of the proposal. Don Taranto - President of TST Consulting Engineers - 748 Whalers Warf - He too did not receive adequate notice of this ordinance review. His business has been in Fort Collins for 16 years. He believed more technical information is needed for proper decision making regarding this proposal that will change the character of Fort Collins. He was opposed to the density proposal, favoring the existing LDGS plan. Ramifications need to be studied. Blair Kiefer - 360 Linden - Has the Planning and Zoning Board received the opinion of the staff regarding this ordinance change? Vice -Chair Cottier replied there was no staff recommendation. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Vice -Chair Cottier raised some questions to staff. 1. Implications. Has anyone reviewed what 5-units per acre will mean in terms of broad implications of overall development in the City? 2. Notification. Was there any notification of this meeting and what attempts to date to get the development community involved in these proposals. Planning and Zoning April 4, 1994 Page 21 Board Minutes 3. Assessment. Has there been any input in the Air Quality Task Force or any assessment of any air quality impacts that the 5-unit per acre will cause? 4. Recommendation. Is there a staff recommendation with regard to these questions? Mr. Greg Byrne said with regard to the implications, Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, ran scenarios of housing mix to comply with the 5-dwelling unit per acre minimum on any lot and provided breakdowns, with current conditions under this density. It would be significantly different. Any residential development would require a mix of housing with varying densities. There are an infinite number of combinations that could be done, requiring medium and higher density within a project if there were larger single-family lot developments included. Mr. Byrne said with regard to notification, he said it has been on a fast tract with the Growth Management Committee. The committee has been looking at these as "short-term" items meaning enactment • rather rapidly. A focus group has been formed primarily representing the development industry. There have been three meetings to finish their review of these proposals. The comments that have been heard are similar to those heard tonight. There is not much overlap in terms of the individuals involved in the committee and those present this evening. Mr. Byrne reported the Air Quality Task Force had reviewed recommendations and referred the answer for Mr. Phillips. He said the staff recommendations are in an unusual position of direction by Council to proceed with the items and have been similarly directed by the Growth Management Committee. It is largely the Committee's direction the staff is following. The staff cannot recommend a sweeping 5-dwelling units per acre on all lots. It would not be the staff recommendation. The staff would recommend much more aggressive regional cooperation as is indicated in the Urban Growth Area Resolution, and similarly recommend that changes to ODP be more difficult to achieve and the Planning and Zoning Board need criteria to measure those applications for amendments to ODPs. Mr. Byrne said the annexation item has been postponed for 90 days and staff believes this will afford opportunity for the broad range of the public to comment and are generally neighborhood groups and the development industry. It is better to have more information at the time of annexation than less, parallel processing of those items is generally found to be desirable. Mr. Phillips said the Air Quality Task Force got more into discussing and suggesting additional kinds of actions to be taken Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 22 to improve air quality. Generally the broad range view of the congestion management plan that is being developed at this time and what could be done to increase the use of mass transportation in the community, increase use of bicycles and pedestrians to limit the use of the automobile. In addition, it is the goal of the staff and implicit in the LDGS it is desirable to have mixed density in residential developments. The proposal of 5-dwelling units per acre does not mean that all development should be developed at 5-units per acre spread across the entire development. The goal would be to have 5-dwelling units per acre but achieving a mix of residential densities in a neighborhood. The Board has seen the density slide show that staff has shown to various groups which give excellent examples of well -designed neighborhoods that are over 5-dwelling units per acre, for example, the Parkwood development, Scotch Pines (8 upa). So some of the neighborhoods being looked at being very desirable in Fort Collins have a higher density than what is being proposed here. There has been support of mixed residential densities by the staff for a number of years and that is still seen as desirable. vice -Chair Cottier said there was one more question about public process. Does the Council have any plans for public process relating to growth management issues, have they given notice of any plans for hearings? Mr. Byrne said they are tentatively to be scheduled to be considered by the full Council at their April 19 regular meeting. If they are not all considered at that meeting, they will be taken up at subsequent meetings. Any item requiring an ordinance change would require two public hearings, first and second readings. Through the month of March, all the City's board's and commissions have reviewed the proposal, there have been two and will be a third with the industry group tomorrow. There was the public roundtable discussion meeting on March 31. That has been the total of the public process for the "short term" items from original conception at the Council work session last fall. Density. Member Strom asked for clarification of 5-dwelling units per acre. There is one policy recommendation that states "minimum" of 5-units per acre as the standard, which is different from an overall "average residential density" of 5-dwelling units per acre which is shown in the community -wide criterion draft. what is meant by 5- dwelling units per acre? Mr. Byrne responded that it will be on a development by development basis --not trying to achieve a total density in the entire community of five dwelling units per acre, but each residential portion of a PUD that comes before the Board for review, would have Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 23 to achieve a mix of housing types from large lot single family to high -density apartment.. That is the intent. Member Strom questioned the statement "a new minimum density requirement of 5-dwelling units per acre" which meant to him that nothing would be approved less than 5 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Byrne said the intent would be an average of 5-units per acre on a total project basis, an example would be the Huntington Hills project that was looked at this evening, coming in at a total average density of somewhere at 4-units per acre. That project would have to raise its minimum density under this proposal to 5- units per acre taken as a whole in the ODP, although various phases of that project may come in differently. Member Strom said another aspect is one that the Board has wrestled with for years regarding the spacial unit that you are talking about when referring to "mixed densities" and "average densities". What standard is being viewed? He was concerned about "short term" issues that have long "unknown" implications. Additional work needs to be accomplished to find probably results. He wanted to know what Joe Frank's scenarios were and be a part of public discussion. Mr. Byrne said these scenarios were presented at the work session by Mr. Frank (who handed copies of the report to the Board and the audience). Member Strom commented that one of the concerns being addressed is increasing densities to achieve and better support mass -transit capabilities and he wondered what kinds of densities are needed to support mass transit? Mr. Byrne said mass transit does not support itself regardless of the densities it operates in. He didn't know of one that operates on a break-even basis on revenues --they do not make sense from an economic view. From an operations view, to use it efficiently and to its maximum advantage it needs to run through a residential area of densities of 8-12 dwelling units per acre for a fixed route bus system, like Transfort. Further analysis needs to be done to look at target populations and activity centers in a community. Areas of heavy employment concentrations in particular kinds of jobs where people go to a job, stay there, then go home, rather than one that uses an automobile. There needs to be tailoring to a particular set of circumstances. He said 5-dwelling units per acre is not conducive for mass transit operation. Member Strom stated that there is a process of Congestion Management Planning that has gone on for a number of months and is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 24 on -going down the road. Wouldn't it make sense to our evaluation of density policies to be dovetailed with that effort? Mr. Byrne said the Congestion Management effort involves a significant amount of computer modeling of various densities at various locations in the community forecasting the effects of that 20 years forward, being unable to do it on a year -by -year basis. One of the scenarios has yet to be run which is activity centers served by transit and other systems. Member Strom commented on the density issue and stated that less than six months ago there was policy change in the community that required a reduction in density, requiring lot sizes on eastside and westside neighborhood plans for the secondary units. He believed it important to look at density but in the context of transportation system overall and terms of the policies that are trying to be accomplished with it and the ramifications of it. It is a more complex issue than bumping it from 3 to 5 units per acre. Mr. Phillips responded to the eastside-westside density issue. The change was done to try to hold-up development of secondary residential units until design guidelines can be developed and adopted. The change only goes until December 31, 1994. The long term intent is to allow that kind of density to develop in secondary residential units in those areas. The justification in terms of transit is 5-dwellings units per acre will help increase transit use over 3-dwelling units per acre. It may not be the optimum density but this has been driven by the information that is being developed as part of the Congestion Management Planning Process. Many of the scenarios that have been developed and modeled have encouraged this step because of the kinds of results being determined in vehicle miles traveled and seeing how increased density can reduce the amount of VMTs over the future. Member Strom agreed that at some level increasing densities will improve chances for supporting transit alternatives. Some neighborhood plans are being done and part of that process needs to be viewed in the broader context and city-wide to support objectives trying to be achieved. He was not convinced that a change in this time -frame is accomplishing what is hoped to be accomplished. Member Walker restated citizen concerns with regard to 5-dwelling units per acre and the need for hard data and public process. He agreed this needs to happen, the Board's frustration comes from the policy that states there needs to be a mix of housing types in an area, operating presently 3—dwelling units per acre as a minimum, often times becomes a maximum. Once an ODP is approved, the City moves ahead and makes plans for infra -structure and changes, there • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 25 is a potential cost to the City in terms of the infra -structure not being used efficiently. He believed the 5-dwelling units per acre will still allow single family dwelling units, the argument that single-family housing will be eliminated is not correct. For example, Huntington Hills is 4.1-dwelling units per acre and there is quite a mix of housing between 1/2 acre subdivisions and 15 unit apartments. A little change in the mix and you would get 5 units per acre and still have all types of housing in the community. With regard to market forces, the higher density is met with inconsistent growth patterns with large single-family units "hot on the market" now, but a lot of apartments coming in lately, there are affordable housing proposals, such as the Waterglen and others. It seems more haphazard because the market tends to surge in one direction then another direction and is confounding the planning process. He agreed with Member Strom's comments with respect to transit planning than just 5-dwelling units per acre. The City needs to plan in this area of transportation. He hoped that this process would lead to other discussions and would like the larger issue brought to the public. The time frame needs to be longer than one month. Member Winfree agreed with the points previous Board members have made, and she was not convinced that requiring a minimum of 5- dwelling units per acre will give the growth management committee or City Council or the City their expectations. Even if the 5-du minimum were in place, ODPs will come in looking not very different from what is presented now. She thought large lot single-family development will continue, and small high density multi -family segment, that is never going to be built. She thought the City would end up with what we have now but there would be more "throw away" acreage that would come through in the ODPs. It also needs more time for process. Member Klataske appreciated City Council's need for wanting to get things approved and it seems to take a long time to get anything done, coming up with big ideas during a members term and seems to drag on past that term, months to years. What he did not want to see happen was a short-term reaction to accomplish something and then the City has to live with its impact for 10-20 years. He believed that we could work together as a community to allow more citizen input and know what impacts of planning and densities will be. Will 5-dwelling units per acre cause urban growth outside the area? Perhaps the school board needs to be involved in the planning; if we are concerned about mass transit, perhaps eliminated school buses and use mass transit for transportation of students, or use of individual autos be closed on campuses. There are many things to be considered, not just density. More public input is needed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 26 Vice -Chair Cottier said she would like to make comment on the housing density and phasing issue. She agreed with the members stating a closer look at the ramifications of this policy and particularly one aspect needs to be examined. What is the cost associated with land that remains vacant because the market is not there to support the higher density components of an ODP? What is the cost to the City for that over periods of time? This type of policy doesn't work with small parcels. What happens to those? Would it force infill parcels to have 5-dwelling units per acre or they cannot develop? This is much more restrictive to the small parcel than the large parcel owner. In terms of infill, for true infill properties in more developed parts of town, higher densities are appropriate and would have no objection to a 5-dwelling units per acre minimum. This, again, ties to some of the other issues where that minimum is appropriate has to be defined. In terms of phasing and the idea of using the point chart to help control leapfrog development, she did not think raising the minimum density to 5-du (requiring a minimum of 50 points on the residential point chart) would be prohibitive in terms of getting building permits because many of the low -density projects still manage to get 50 points on the residential point chart. If we want to use the point chart, or something else as a "phasing tool", it would be much more appropriate to look at interpreting the point chart to award points only for "existing facilities" rather than existing or planned. It would seem to be a real clear way to deal with leapfrog development. She could think of some projects that scored over 50 points that are leapfrog developments but if points were considered in terms of just existing facilities they would not pass. Vice -Chair Cottier commented on the existing proposals for the revisions on the LDGS on the Community -wide criteria. She agreed with Member Strom to define what area is being considered to apply the average to. It needs to be something bigger than a single ODP if it is desired to accommodate the smaller parcels. The definition stating that "maximum density shall be set by neighborhood plans and/or the capacity of the site neighborhood". Do the eastside and westside plans define the maximum densities Mr. Frank? Mr. Frank said yes, they define density ranges. Vice -Chair Cottier further commented on maximum densities asking who determines the capacity of a site or neighborhood? That is up for interpretation by anyone. It was determined by the Board to make a motion for each item. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 27 Member Strom moved that the Board recommend against a blanket 5- dwelling unit per acre change at this time and that the Board supports the idea of reviewing densities and policies that would move towards the existing goals, which may include changes in density. There needs to be more public discussion regarding the ramifications and what the City is trying to accomplish with this policy. At the present time, this ordinance is moving too fast, the discussion is not complete and, therefore, the change is not recommended by the Board. Member Walker seconded the motion. He commented that there are too many unanswered questions. If a goal of City policy is to provide a mix of housing types, then there can't be monolithic single- family houses at 5-units per acre, where there can be at 3-units per acre. Is that really a City policy we want? He was concerned about single family sprawl that is happening under the 3-units per acre. There needs to be more planning and public forums. He was troubled with the term "short term actions" --meaning they occur in the short-term but may have long-term ramifications. Motion passed 5-0. Urban Growth Area. Member Walker said he represents the City on the Urban Growth Area Review Board. The purpose of the Review Board is similar to the Planning and Zoning Board with representatives from the city and county affected by the UGA. Their purpose is to arrive at recommendations to the county government. His frustration is with presenting the City's perspective, but it is strictly a recommendation. Ultimately, the commissioners make the decisions. That is a real flaw in the ordinance for the City, which does not state any provision for a board, functioning as the Planning and Zoning Board, for the Urban Growth Area that make final decisions, unless there are appeals. The way it exists now, the UGA Board only makes recommendations to the County. There seems to be no effective decision -making entity with final authority where the City and County are working together. There needs to be a better balance of sharing in power concerning the UGA. Vice -Chair Cottier asked why would the resolution eliminate a ceiling for density in the UGA? Mr. Byrne said there is a provision in the agreement that sets a ceiling on density limited to 150 percent of what is on an adjacent parcel. In some cases that has worked to bring densities down to what the City would otherwise like to see occur under the agreement. He clarified that the resolution would not serve to change that agreement. The agreement is a contract between the two bodies, the County and the City. The resolution would put before the County and the public, the Council's point of view but would Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 28 not have the affect of amending the agreement by passage of the resolution. Member Strom referred to page 2 of the proposed resolution Item b. Why is the review period being extended from two years to five? Mr. Eckman stated that in earlier sections the tenor of the resolution is to make the Urban Growth Boundary more permanent. He thought the intention of the UGA agreement to be reviewed every five years is the concept the boundary not change every two years, not even be studied on that point but every five years. This is to lengthen the time the UGA boundary is in place. Member Strom asked if this section just apply the boundary or to all aspects? How does it work now? Mr. Eckman said it does change all aspects of it, not just to the boundary. He referred to Item f on the same page to "establish a considerable degree of permanence". Item b would apply to the entire agreement. Member Strom asked what does it mean to say a "considerable degree of certainty and permanence except that it may be amended as deemed necessary"? Mr. Phillips said that it is just a statement of intent that clarifies the Council Growth Management desire that it not be changed but leaves a window of where it could be. It leaves nothing that is binding. The way that it is actually played out, is that the agreement is only addressed very five years. The fact is that is has not been reviewed on a 2-year interval. Member Strom said that he did not recall that Urban Growth Boundary has changed very much over the years, but only a few times an item has come up. Mr. Byrne said that only 4 or 5 changes have occurred and have only been minor in scope in terms of area. The most recent one was the Greenstone annexation on the southeast, conforming to State law where there could not be a division of single property ownership through annexation, right at the edge of the urban growth boundary. By virtue of annexing that parcel, the boundary was extended. There are other examples in the foothills to incorporate properties under the Foothills Ordinance. Mr. Eckman stated the biggest boundary change had to be Anheuser- Busch. Member Strom said he did not see the harm nor did he see an urgent need for it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 29 Vice -Chair Cottier commented on past boundary changes that they haven't been limited to the two-year review schedule at all, occurring on development interest. Changing the review schedule to five years does nothing other than the Board will look at it that infrequently. If the idea is to make the boundary firmer, it might be more appropriate to define specific types of criteria that would be looked at to allow to expand the boundary and include language to that effect. If it is to be expanded, certain specific criteria will be pursued under certain circumstances. Member Strom moved to recommend to Council that the Board doesn't find any particular problems with the boundaries for UGA one way or another. If more permanence to the boundaries are to be established, the best way would be to develop specific criteria as to how that start the process of a boundary change. Member Rlataske commented that perhaps if this is going to be extended from two years to five years, the City should have actual voting rights, not just recommendations on boundaries. 0 Member Strom said he would amend his motion to that effect. Member walker seconded the motion. He commented that a different form of partnership with the County needed to be formed if the UGA boundary, and method of dealing with it, will be effective. The land in the UGA needs to be recognized as unique in proximity to Fort Collins to adequately address growth in the area. Motion carried 5-0. ODP Amendments, Member Walker stated that this is an ordinance probably born out of frustration by both Council and the Planning and Zoning Board because consistency in growth policy needs stating. ODP approvals come in and they look like it will work, and modifications happen changing the whole manner in which the project impacts ,the community. This way, there may be more certainty in the planning process. A market -driven process can result in havoc for planning for services, infra -structure, transportation, etc. There needs to be flexibility and certainty with regard to growth and development. Vice -Chair Cottier asked for definition of "major and minor changes". Minor changes states, 10 percent less in density Mr. Eckman said that they are defined in the LDGS. Mr. Byrne reported that there was discussion among development review staff with Ron Phillips and Joe Frank. One of the issues the staff raised was the number of relatively minor changes that occurs in projects that exceeds the definition in the LOGS for minor changes. They recommended that we take a hard look at Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 30 allowing those to be done on an administrative basis rather than preparing an agenda item summary, preparing a notice, sits on consent agenda and is really never discussed. An example was a bathroom added to an industrial building, the floor area exceeded the LDGS and it needed P & Z action. Vice -Chair Cottier asked what is said about density? Mr. Eckman read from page 92 of the LDGS and read the definitions for minor and. major "use or character, increase of traffic circulation or public utilities. An increase of 2 percent of approved gross leasable floor area of PUDs and an increase of greater than 1 percent in the approved number of residential dwelling units." That is what makes up a major change and anything less than that would be minor. Member Strom said Section I of the first page where there are specific prohibitions against changing density without compensating or mitigating for it somewhere else in the ODP. Some of this depends on the scale of the project presented and there are not necessarily any minimum standards for the size of an ODP. Trade offs for larger sections of land may be reasonable, however, for smaller sections, it may not be so reasonable. Mr. Eckman stated that ODP's are require only on projects that are to be developed in phases. That may not work into how large the project is. Section 1B deals with amendments relating to commercial areas, and indicates that "commercial areas will not be eliminated in favor of residential developments unless a comparable commercial use is provided for in the ODP or is presently existing within 1,500 feet." He said "presently existing" is left to interpretation, it can be on an approved PUD plan, but not yet built. He checked this with Mr. Phillips and the intent was to mean "constructed." If there will be a recommendation for approval, the words "and constructed" be added with "existing" to eliminate possible debate for clarification in the future. vice -Chair Cottier asked for clarification for points A and B. In point A it states a "multi -family density will not be reduced unless the multi -family use is provided for at the same or higher density use elsewhere". Why are there two parcels, in the ODP, each 10 units per acre, you can knock out one of them, and you still have one of them at 10 units per acre, according to the way it is written, and the same for the commercial? Mr. Eckman stated that the multi -family density would not be reduced in the ODP. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 31 Mr. Phillips said the prohibition is against the reduction without substituting for it somewhere else, that is the intent. We may need to re -write it to make it more clear. The intent is not to reduce the overall multi -family or the overall planned commercial acreage. Mr. Strom said given the fact that the Board basically subscribes to some extent, a market -driven land development guidance, this particular proposal seems to "fly in the face" of that. He made the statement because over the past several years there has been frustration with reducing densities in ODPs and have been trying to maintain density levels. He would be more comfortable with standards and criteria rather than an absolute prohibition; which in effect, anytime you get an ODP approved, that is where you are locked in terms of overall density. Member Klataske stated he shared the same concerns. The LDGS and PUD process as it is set up now and at the time it was designed, were looking for higher densities. Developers were coming in with higher density complexes wanting to go 15-20 units per acre and the trade off was more landscaping, open space, street width, etc. Now the pendulum is swung the other way with 3 units per acre the maximum. Perhaps fine tuning the LDGS to say if you want to go to a lower density, if you want to change your use from your ODP, what are benefits to the community for allowing you to do that and not being locked into any specific zoning, such as commercial? How will the community pay for the infra -structure required in commercial areas, or if it is changed to residential, how will the community be repaid for that? To have residential with absolutes requiring development within the ODP, it is like old zoning patterns, this needs to be more flexible in mitigation. Member Walker referred to Section 1D2, "prior to approving such amendments to ODP, sufficient opportunities are provided for the neighborhood surrounding to comment on the ODP"". Certainly we have seen where neighborhoods have been surprised because things change, there is some merit to this, but does this imply any change to an ODP would require a neighborhood meeting? Or what does "sufficient opportunity" mean? Mr. Phillips said that would be part of "sufficient opportunity" as well as for the Board. Mr. Walker said that ODPs get changed and people say this was understood to be patio homes and now it is townhomes or apartments and seems to raise a lot of credibility questions with the whole process. So something like this is a good idea regardless of where we go with the rest of it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 32 Vice -Chair Cottier asked if it would be useful to throw in a time element to say a plan couldn't be changed within a year without these kinds of adjustments to it or these kinds of trade offs? If you are getting into a longer time period, there could be many changing factors suggesting it is appropriate to change an ODP. If the City decides that some of the land in the ODP should be a natural area, then what do you do with the residential density? In general, her feeling was that she agreed with the previous Board comments and is concerned with the absolute nature of this and doesn't take into account the situations where it is appropriate to change an ODP or recognizes impacts of essentially stagnating a piece of property. Member Strom moved that there be more study done on this ODP issue. it is one that deserves attention, but this answer for ODPs isn't satisfactory yet. Member Winfree stated that amended ODPs are coming in just to increase large lot single-family developments and there is the frustration of that. There are more questions needing to be answered before there can be a recommendation. Member Walker seconded the motion. He commented on density per acre, in some ways a lot of concerns would be satisfied because at that point, there is a multi -family element with 5-units per acre, proposing this without resolving the other issue doesn't result in balanced decision making from the Board's perspective. Motion passed 5-0. Member Strom summarized saying Member Walker caught the essence of the issue. Taking each item in isolation is not the best way to approach this item. There are a lot of things going on in the City in terms of comprehensive perspective of traffic, congestion and issues of growth and development and pacing. He was troubled with the idea of taking developments in bits and pieces without having the kinds of discussions going on, but there still needs more work. Because the turnout was significant last week, that needs to be part of the input the Board has in dealing with some of these issues to a greater degree than we were tonight. Vice -Chair Cottier said it came across very clear from those who spoke tonight that public process was not adequate. That might not have come across clear enough to the Council and she would urge Council to have a very open and public process about this. The Board recommended to Council to have a 90-day process for the Annexation and Timing of Submittal issue, and she thought something similar with these issues. All of them are obviously very closely related. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 33 Mr. Phillips reported there will be joint work session with City Council, scheduled Tuesday, April 12, at 6:15 in the CIC room. Mr. Phillips said in looking toward next month, the staff is examining the possibility that there be two weeks between the Planning and Zoning Board meetings. For instance, the regular meeting is scheduled for April 25 and instead of having the second meeting the next week, have it in two weeks. This would give extra time for meetings and the second meeting has been conflicting with the Chair who has a professional meeting on that date regularly. Is that acceptable to the Board with the checking of the schedule for the room. This would not change submittal schedules and would simply be a continuation of P & Z Board meeting a week later. There will be a number of issues pertaining to work load, but now it doesn't affect submittal times. There seems to be no objection as long as staff is responsible for scheduling the meetings. More thought will be made and it might help with Board attendance and scheduling problems. The agenda review would remain the same with one work session. Ordinarily there will be no delay in the information packets for the second half of the agenda. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 0