HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/04/1993• 0
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
October 4, 1993
Continuation of the September 27, 1993 Meeting
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The October 4, 1993 meeting of Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included: Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Jennifer Fontane, and Jim Klataske.
Members Clements -Cooney and Walker were absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Chief Planner Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Kayla
Ballard and Carolyn Worden.
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20. Rangeview PUD -
Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #28-80D; Item 21. Jacob Center at New Beginnings
• PUD -Referral of Administrative Change, Case #56-93; Item 22. Cunningham Corner,
Tract C - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #4-83N; Item 23. Rose Tree Village
at Cunningham Corner - Preliminary, Case #4-830; Item 24. Matterhorn PUD -
Preliminary, Case #49-93; Item 25. Orchard Place PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #40-
93A.
0i. @ITA.1K$ljUV htJllL.
The approval of the minutes for the September meetings was postponed until the next regular
Planning & Zoning Board meeting in October.
PLANNING FEES
Ms: Albertson -Clark introduced the planning fees for adoption. She stated that sub -elements
have been discussed by City Council, one the park -land increase (implemented) and the second
to re-evaluate the existing planning fee schedule to present to Council. She stated that the
amount of time staff involved in reviewing applications was considered for annexations, zonings,
PUDs, subdivisions and a variety of site plans. The current fee schedule has not been evaluated
on a comprehensive basis, nor has it been increased. As a result, they are at the same level they
have been at for the last 10 years. These fees are 2-12 percent of the current cost, in all areas
of review (Community Planning and Environmental Services, Utility Department and a variety
of other city departments that provide development review as a service to the community). She
• added that many of the costs are not being compensated for or recovered. An evaluation of
current fee policy that was adopted last year brings us to recommend an increase in these fees.
She stated that Staff was recommending 50 percent recovery of the community -at -large benefits
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 2
as a result of development review. She stated that six options were included in the Board's
packet and that Staff was recommending Option #3. (Costs are determined as recorded in
Option #3.) She continued that the current fees don't begin to touch the costs the City was
presently incurring for these types of services. She stated that Staff was asking the Board for
recommendation to Council for hearing on November 2, 1993.
411t)0COB Q liy�
Stan Everitt, resident of Fort Collins, stated three issues the Board should consider regarding
the planning fee increase, which are as follows:
1. Philosophical - Community -at -large is the beneficiary of the review of these plans
and should pay for the process.
2. Financial - The total amount that new development incurs has not been calculated
with review of departments. Felt that it was inappropriate to raise fees until this
calculation was accomplished.
3. Responsible Government- Need to adjust these fees to the annual inflation rate.
Mr. Everitt suggested the addition of Option #7 for recommendation to City Council which was
to direct the Planning Department to pursue Phase Il of the Cost of Development study, which
should quantify what revenue the City takes in, and what each department spends on, new
development. He stated that the community should know all of the financial facts before making
drastic changes.
John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, stated that he was a CPA and that costs are driven by staff
time and believed it was important to have the average dollar cost on record for the public's
input. He added that an adjustment in a fee schedule that was ten years old needs to be made,
however, further research is needed for the staff recommended fees.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Cottier commented that from the shift in philosophy to community benefit was that
of the developer.
Mr. Albertson -Clark responded that there was no record of the rationale on philosophy or policy
at the time the fees were set. She stated that the current rate was $50 for most items and
disappeared shortly after an item was routed.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 3
Chairperson Cottier asked for postponement of fee increases until Phase H was pursued, in order
to research further cost information. She asked if the intention of Phase H was to review
contributions to the General Fund where Council would look at the issue of use tax and the
philosophical question involved in that.
Member Strom indicted the direction that the Board has followed in the past was the
recommendation of studies in July for Phase I. He was uncertain that use tax and philosophical
questions would be completed.
Chairperson Cottier asked for information on staff salaries.
Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a rough hourly rate as follows: Planners at $30/hr. including
benefits, clerical and technical average of $15-17/hr, including benefits.
Board discussion continued regarding services rendered per lot ($100 approximately). The
Board stated that factoring in controversial proposals was difficult. Examples were tracked,
• elements of technical aspects were consistent.
Chairperson Cottier asked for clarification on what this type of increase will do for this type of
development. She stated that, specifically the smaller projects, the Board would like them to
come in as PUD but believed they would not because of a $2,700 fee.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that some applicants would be discouraged with other options to
develop as a use -by -right and chose not to come through. She stated that submittal requirements
to developers would preclude speculative plans.
Member Fontane commented on the process for the appropriate application process and
suggested more research on staff time required for these projects.
Chairperson Cottier commented that she concurred that fees were token, but the increase was
so dramatic compared to other communities. In Grand Junction, for example, they have a full
cost recovery policy, which was a final PUD cost that would be seven times higher in a Fort
Collins proposal. She asked where was the money going and what is the City getting for it.
She questioned, although Fort Collins has a higher level of review, how much does Fort.Collins
want to keep putting into this and financing continued increases in development fees. She asked
what was the relationship of this increase to the City fee policy and its benefit to the fee payer.
She commented that she would not like to see this fee placed on the developer, as it is a benefit
to the community -at -large. She favored looking at contributions of new development and user
• taxes to be factored in and an attempt made at a sliding scale. The fee as proposed will increase
180-1,400 percent and believed that this was unreasonable.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 4
Member Strom commented that he would like to see further study done. He believed that the
tax benefits may not be germane to the fee issue, but needed to deal with the overall question
of cost of revenues and development. He stated that he supported the idea not to discourage the
PUD process on smaller projects. ,
Mr. Peterson suggested discussing the item at the October 12 worksession of the Board.
Member Strom moved for continuance of the Planning Fees to the October meeting.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
The motion passed 40.
Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the staff report. She stated that the solar orientation variance was
justified on the basis of hardship. She believed that the site was compatible to the surrounding
environment. The buildings were proposed as one- and two-story units, using the same brick
as the current units and some additional wood frames as was currently being used. She stated
that Staff recommended approval of this project.
Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., and representative for the applicant, Robart Development,
stated that one of the main reasons for the amendment was to meet the needs of today's market
from the original plans of 1983. He stated that the market was requiring larger units and
additional open useable space around the units, thus reducing units planned from 38 to 26 units.
The new units were in harmony with existing buildings. He briefly discussed landscaping and
the distance to other existing single-family homes.
There was no public input.
Member Strom moved for approval of Rangeview Preliminary and Final with conditions
as indicated in the Staff Report and the addition of approval of the solar orientation
variance based on the fact that they were working with existing streets and utilities due to
hardship.
Member Fontane second the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 5
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report. She stated that an administrative
change of use was referred to the Board. The LDGS was used as criteria and Staff
recommended approval. She stated that there were several representatives of the County Youth
Services that were present and would be fast to speak.
PUBLIC INPUT
Brent Nittman, Manager of Juvenile Division of Larimer County Corrections for 13 years, stated
that there were further qualifications for mandatory screening of residents in the facility. He
submitted a flow chart for the Judicial System as it applies to juveniles and to relevant statutes.
He addressed two issues which include form and function as to the use of facilities. He raised
a question as to the proposed facilities with regard to control of the youth population.
• Laurie Kluf, Larimer County Sheriff's Department and chairperson of the Community Review
Board appointed by the County, explained the function of the Review Board.
Jan DeWitt, Administrator of the Child and Family Services Division for the Larimer County
Social Services, explained adolescent care, screening and placement process.
John Carlson, applicant and Director of the Jacob Center, stated that the proposal submitted was
Phase I. He stated that they were seeking approval for the location and land use of the facility.
They have had neighborhood meetings and have shared their concerns of security and the need
for an advisory board composed of professionals and 4-5 neighbor residents. He stated that
there would be a 30-35 day assessment of residents and a 3-6 month stay at the facility. He
added that Phase H of the plan was to work with the local agencies involved. He stated that they
would emphasize serving local children when possible. He believed that there was still a need
to set up the advisory board and complete the licensing process. He stated that Phase III would
be the implementation of the program at the new facility.
Freda Weaver, resident of Greenbriar Subdivision, recited a letter in favor of the Jacob Center
which was written by her husband, John Weaver, who was unable to attend tonight's hearing.
Karen Martinez, resident 807 Quail Run, shared concerns about the advisory board liaison with
the neighborhood and veto power for 4-5 people on that board to screen residential applicants.
She believed that the number of 40 residents was high for this facility. She had concerns about
at -risk residents being allowed off -campus privileges as well as a mandate that only youth from
• Larimer County or. rural areas, not from inner cities, would be allowed.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 6
Kim Severson, resident 913 Grouse Circle, had concerns for the safety of the neighborhood
children, neighboring low-income teens in area, and residents of neighboring mobile home parks.
She wanted all questions to be answered before the proposal was approved.
Diane Matthew, resident 1550 Blue Spruce Drive, indicated that there were approximately 80
children residing in her low-income area. She stated that some are high -risk kids and she was
concerned about security and limiting the areas the Jacob Center residents may come from. She
stated these types of care facilities were mostly located in the northern portion of Fort Collins.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Cottier inquired about the neighborhood representation, the selection process and
what control would the Jacob Center have over the selection process of the residents.
Mr. Carlson replied that, initially, they would be determined by the by-laws and submittal of
names from the neighborhood. The requirement would be that a definite number of
representatives on the Advisory Board would come from the local community. The selection
of the youth for residency may be difficult, as advisory boards, as a rule, decide on issues of
policy and criteria rather than which specific youth would reside at the facility. He stated that
the neighborhood advisory board members would be allowed to be involved in the selection
process for informational purposes only.
Chairperson Cottier stated that she understood that there would be no veto power with the
advisory board. The power to reject an applicant remains with Jacob Center which will receive
input from the advisory board. She understood that if a youth was in a local school, they could
be allowed to continue their education there.
Member Strom asked if the Jacob Center residents would continue in their schools and not be
allowed to attend adjacent neighborhood schools.
Ms. Carlson replied that this was possible for certain youth and others would be schooled at the
site.
Laurie Kluth, Community Services Board, stated that she was reluctant to approve of the Jacob
Center without addressing supervision and documentation of materials, curriculum, and training.
She added that there will be a meeting of the Community Services Board on Thursday, October
7, to discuss this issue.
Ms. DeWitt, Child and Family Services Division, stated that her purpose was not to approve or
disapprove of the Jacob Center but only to provide information about services available. She
stated her concern was for safety, well -run therapeutic programs, and good solid supervision and
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 7
security. This was not a locked facility and review of residents was critical. She added that the
Jacob Center has not yet been licensed.
Member Fontane asked if there were children placed from outside the area.
Ms. DeWitt stated there were 33 county residents whose length of stay of 12-16 months was out
of the county.
Mr. Nittman concurred with Ms. DeWitt that there was a need for well -run therapeutic programs
of this nature in the Larimer County area. The judicial system has a communication concern
with Jacob Center in that there has been no meeting with them to date. He did receive some
written information this evening. He stated that he was meeting with the Larimer County
Commissioners on October 13 to talk with the Jacob Center about a population of youth in the
"correctional" realm and temporary holding. He believed there was a need for higher planning
standards in this arena.
• Chairperson Cottier stated that, as the Planning and Zoning Board, the concern was in regard
to land use and not "program design" of the Jacob Center. She stated that the Board cannot
divorce themselves from looking at the program contents, that is why they have had social
services staff present. She stated that for Phase I, the Board's concern was whether this facility
was appropriate land use for this site and the surrounding neighborhood. She asked about
licensing the Jacob Center through proper channels with approval of the program.
Mr. Carlson replied that the Jacob Center will be licensed by the State Department of Social
Services and a bid or contract could be obtained through the Division of Corrections if the
program was approved by proper channels.
Member Fontane stated her concern about a ceiling of high -risk youth and questioned if this
could be done.
Mr. Carlson indicated the advisory board would set that limit.
Chairperson Cottier asked Mr. Eckman how much the Board should be considering program
design or content.
Mr. Eckman replied that the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) indicates that the
Planning Director has discretion in these matters and "unfettered discretion" should not be
exercised. He stated that the Board should focus their attention in compliance with LDGS
• criteria. The "All Development Criteria" indicates that the Board can determine neighborhood
compatibility, neighborhood meetings, neighborhood character, land use conflicts, and adverse
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 8
traffic impacts as stated in the LDGS. He focused on land use conflicts criteria under
Administrative Guidelines, in particular question #3, which reads as follows:
"Have the conflicts that have presumed to exist between the proposed development and
the surrounding land uses, as examined in Administrative Guidelines pertaining to land
use conflicts been effectively mitigated in the Planned Unit Development?"
Mr. Eckman stated the Board may have analysis under Land Use Conflicts as it relates to safety
and privacy, beyond traffic safety.
Chairperson Cottier further asked to the appropriateness of the Board's approval of program
elements, such as restriction of correctional juvenile justice system youth to social service youth
only.
Mr. Eckman replied that the Board's decision and conditions would need to be tied clearly to
criteria stated in the LDGS so there is governmental purpose behind the condition.
Member Fontane commented on the possibility of youth's unauthorized leave from the facility.
Mr. Carlson stated that Jacob Center has a "staff secure" facility and that there would be as
much physical security as can be set up in the facility without it being locked. Locked facilities
have different criterion and licensing status. This was proposed as a treatment center and not
a detention center. Security is important and there will be an "awake staff" around'the clock.
The design of the facility allowed only limited physical egress (delayed locks will be examined).
Youth will not be allowed visits other than from families and professionals which are planned.
Private cars would not be allowed.
Member Strom asked if this facility would be used as the previous facility was used.
Ms. DeWitt stated that RCCF was not a locked facility. She stated that it was difficult to
summarize if the types of youth using the facility are similar to residents of the previous use.
The population of youth is different.
Mr. Eckman asked if RCCF was required to be locked for some regulatory reason.
Ms. DeWitt replied that, by definition, RCCF cannot be locked. She stated that they would need
to go to a higher level of residential treatment center for a locked facility.
Member Strom observed that the Board was not changing the physical character of the facility
and that the Board doesn't have a significant problem with traffic or transportation impacts. He
added that the City doesn't have a substantive privacy issue with surrounding land uses. He
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 9
stated that there are issues of safety and compatibility with the neighborhood. He commented
that there was a concern about the guidelines for the advisory board.
Member Fontane suggested greater understanding between county agencies regarding the Jacob
Center and understand that Phase I was for land use approval.
Member Strom moved for approval of the Jacob Center Phase I with the condition that
four (as a minimum) neighborhood representatives be on the advisory board that is
establishing policy and that a limit of 40 youth residents be allowed.
Member Mataske second the motion.
Chairperson Cottier commented that the social services agencies, when considering the licensing
of the Jacob Center, should consider the compatibility of the neighborhood to the use of the
facility as discussed this evening. She encouraged more communication with the neighborhood
and governmental agencies in a responsible and positive manner.
• Mr. Eckman brought the question of the definition of the neighborhood. He suggested that the
advisory board be selected from a one mile radius.
Member Fontane offered the list of notification of the site plans as being a good reference point.
Mr. Peterson recommended a one mile radius.
Members Strom and Klataske agreed to the amendment to the motion that the
"neighborhood" be defined as a one mile radius of the site.
Member Strom commented that our community needs these kinds of facilities, for example, 33
out of 37 adolescents that would qualify for this type of program were currently placed outside
the county. He hoped to provide for these needs in our own community and from a land use
viewpoint. He stated that he was very. pleased by the neighborhood participation working
together in the process of planning, rather than just in opposition.
Chairperson Cottier commented on the duration of stay.
Mr. Carlson stated there was no restriction, by statute, that each individual be reviewed every
six months by various reviewing bodies and agencies.
0
The motion. passed 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 10
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report.
Member Strom asked about the existing cottonwood trees on the site.
Ms. Whetstone replied that the City Forester recommended that most of the existing trees
remain.
Tom Sibbald, Vice President, Chief Operating Officer of the Shields Street Corporation,
developer of Cunningham Comer introduced Nancy McCambridge of Neighbor to Neighbor, a
co-sponsor of the project, and Frank Vaught, Project Architect.
Mr. Vaught gave a history of the site and a slide presentation to the Board. He responded to
the concerns of the neighborhood and noted several changes to the plans, which were as follows:
1. Density - There has been a 15 percent reduction from 140-148 to 120 units. This allows
for more open space. Approximately 49% of the site was open, landscaped area.
2. Traffic - Because of the change of zoning from commercial to residential, studies have
shown there will be less traffic in the area of the site. Safety issues were considered.
He showed the traffic patterns, and ingress and egress to the site.
3. Building Height -The height of the 8-plex buildings has not been reduced; however, they
reduced the number of buildings which are located in the center of the project and near
the large existing trees. The heights of several buildings have been reduced to 31 and
34 feet. These buildings are located on the site's perimeter, along Horsetooth Road.
4. Architectural Character - The proposed buildings were in harmony with Hickory Hill
Village, with the exception of the 8-plex buildings, which are smaller and relate well to
Chestnut Village adjacent. Cunningham Comer will have its own identity, however, the
project was designed to be consistent with surrounding development.
Location of Garages - Garages have been located to screen primarily the adjoining
commercial use buildings. The other garages were located back to back within the site.
Mr. Vaught commented that the proposal was in compliance with the LDGS and will be a major
visual improvement to the area.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 11
Member Strom questioned the points taken for energy savings.
Mr. Vaught said that there was a unique heating system which was very efficient and was
demonstrated to staff. '
Mr. Sibbald indicated that the insulation was twice that of the Colorado Energy Code and was,
therefore, awarded points.
There was no public input.
Mr. Sibbald addressed the three areas of staff comments:
1. Street Landscaping - They would be willing to negotiate with replacement of trees on
island and median strip landscaping.
2. Architectural Detailing - They would be willing to examine costs more closely to comply
with request, but would not recommend additional brick because of cost factors and
building modifications.
3. Pedestrian Access - The major concern was for the residents of the project, not public
access and the additional cost this modification would incur.
Member Strom discussed with Staff the recommended additional brick in question. The
pedestrian access concerns were also reviewed with Staff.
Member Fontane moved approval of the Cunningham Corner, Tract C - Amended Overall
Development Plan.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Chairperson Cottier commented on the overall positive impact this project will have with regard
to traffic flow.
The motion passed 4-0.
There was a brief discussion about the location of a bus stop, sidewalk connections and
pedestrian access to the recreational facility, the right turn lane on Horsetooth Road, and the
drainage detention pond.
Mr. Sibbald did not recommend sidewalks.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 12
Eric Bracke, Transportation Planner, stated that egress from the site was the responsibility of
the "city -at -large" as a capital project expense.
Mr. Bracke stated that the detention pond has been certified by the Storm Water Department for
the entire Cunningham area. Pedestrian access through the detention area has been approved
relative to the Five Oaks Village PUD Plan. This was a valid PUD but it remains undeveloped,
therefore, the path has not been built.
Mr. Bracke added that parking lot landscaping has been discussed, with an objection by the
applicant to change plans. Cost and maintenance was cited. The applicant did not want the
negotiation in regard to parking lot landscaping done with this preliminary approval, but as a
part of the development agreement negotiations.
Mr. Eckman commented on condition A2 of the Staff Report stating the use and meaning of the
word "should," which is often times referred to as optional term, be changed to "shall," which
is more mandatory, if the Board is inclined to impose that condition.
Member Strom moved to approve the Rosetree Village at Cunningham Corner -
Preliminary with the following three conditions: 1) That additional landscaping be added
to the Horsetooth Road and Richmond Drive frontages sufficient to adequately buffer and
screen the parking areas and building facades. Additional evergreen trees, evergreen and
deciduous shrubs, and berming to mitigate the impacts of this project along these two street
frontages shall be provided; 2) That additional landscaped islands with trees be added to
break-up the large expanses of asphalt paving in the parking lots south of Buildings C and
E. 3) That pedestrian connections be provided from the site to the adjacent streets to
facilitate pedestrian activity and alternative modes of travel from this site to sidewalks and
bikeways on Horsetooth Road, Shields Street, and Richmond Drive. Staff was also
recommending that a safe and efficient pedestrian connection be provided through this site
to provide pedestrian access to the adjacent commercial site (7-11 store). Member Strom
also advised that Staff and the proponents architect meet to further discuss and review
additional brick detailing on the buildings, keeping in mind compatibility with the
surrounding developments.
There was further discussion among Board members about the recommendation and compliance
with the LDGS. It was stated that the project represented appropriate land use for this location,
based on criteria of the LDGS. Parking lot and site landscaping requirements and pedestrian
connections were also addressed on specific criteria in the LDGS.
Member Foutane seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 13
• ' �WOUMMKink, VITMENT'
Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the Staff Report. She stated that revised staff reports were given to
the Board, with point charts attached, to replace those given in the packet last week.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects and applicant, gave a presentation of the proposed project
with visual aids, showing traffic patterns and bridges over existing ditches, location of existing
buildings proposed, parking, etc. He stated that they will submit written agreements from the
surrounding property owners prior to final approval.
The Board asked questions of the applicant with regard to traffic access and flows, deliveries,
building design, variances, lighting, safety and compliance to LDGS and State standards.
Eric Bracke, Transportation Planner, clarified concerns of the Board with regard to compliance.
Mr. Peterson addressed questions with regard to traffic to access streets and design standards.
Member Fontane had concerns about a nearby video store which was not submitted as a PUD,
but developed as a use -by -right.
Member Fontane motioned to approve Matterhorn PUD - Preliminary, with conditions 1
through 4 as submitted in the Staff Report and with the condition that the project be in
compliance with LDGS criterion #4, #35, #5 and #8.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Chairperson Cottier positively commended the site design as an enhancement of the existing
corner, especially considering the difficulty of the ditch being present.
Member Strom asked Staff about Business Services Criterion #1 and compliance.
Mr. Peterson commented that if the South College Access Plan was modified, it would need to
be a separate action of the Board and would proceed through a separate hearing process.
Mr. Eckman recommended specific approval of the point chart within the motion.
Member Klataske voiced concern about site lighting.
The motion passed 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 4, 1993
Page 14
ORCHARD PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. CASE #40-93A
Kirsten Whetstone gave the Staff Report.
Don Richmond, Richmond Associates, represented Lew Limited. He commented that they were
affirmative to accept the proposed plan and that it would be an asset to the community.
Chairperson Cottier asked about the energy points.
Ms. Whetstone believed the LDGS was not specific in these matters and 25 % reduction in
energy cost could reflect a 25% reduction in energy use.
Mr. Richmond pointed out that the project used the City's Energy Score System, which was
accurate in evaluating energy savings. He added that the evaluation of the PUD was above the
minimum requirement.
Chairperson Colder asked that if the project would drop below 100 points, would it be referred
back to the Board.
Ms. Whetstone replied that it would.
There was no public input.
Member Strom moved to approve Orchard Place PUD - Preliminary and Final as submitted
with the conditions as written in the Staff Report.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Chairperson Cottier reminded the Board of the work session on Tuesday, October 12, 4:00 to
6:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
No Text