Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/30/1993PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 30, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The August 30, 1993 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree, Jennifer Fontane, Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Jim Kiataske was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman, Chief City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Diane Slater. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of. Item 15 - Rocky Ridge Sporting and Conservation Club - County Referral. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 16 - Summerhill PUD - • Preliminary; Item 17 - Raintree Townhome PUD, and Item 18 -Hampshire Pond PUD - Preliminary. Mr. Peterson reviewed a Recommendation Item: Manor Ridge Estates PUD, Sth Filing - County Referral - Case #52-93. Member Fontane requested that Item 15, Rocky Ridge Sporting and Conservation Club County Referral be pulled for discussion. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the Staff Report for the request to rezone a portion of this site to the O-Open Zone in the county and also for special review, recommending approval. She stated that this was a request for expansion of an existing hunting club, including additional hunting areas, dog kennels and a sporting clay shooting area. County staff has gone out and evaluated the noise potential and feel it will not pose a problem. • Mike Moreng, applicant, stated that this was an upland game bird hunting club established 8 years ago. He added that this club has not disturbed the outlying areas. Planning and Zoning Board . Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 2 Member Fontane was concerned about the use of lead shot and possible toxicity being used toward the water. Mr. Moreng responded that they would follow all federal regulations regarding the use of lead shot over water. Waterfowl cannot be hunted with lead shot and they are not proposing to shoot any clay shot over water. Steel shot would be used if any shooting were done over water. Member Clements -Cooney asked about how they monitor the use. Mr. Moreng said they depend on the honor system since hunters may or may not be guided. Member Fontane asked about the difference in price between lead and steel shot. Mr. Moreng responded that a box of 20 of steel shot would run several dollars over the lead. He noted that the sporting clay course is not set up at this time to shoot over water and that he personally does not want to throw clay targets into the water and would shoot targets away from the water. Member Fontane asked if waterfowl would be likely to eat the shot. Mr. Moreng said it would be very unlikely. Member Fontane asked if the shot could be reclaimed. Mr. Moreng said that it is reclaimed at trap ranges with constant shooting but he does not intend to shoot at that intensity. The shooting range is set up in an old gravel pit that is 400 yards away from any water. Member Clements -Cooney moved approval' for Rocky Ridge Sporting and Conservation Club Special Review and Rezoning. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Steve Olt gave the staff report, which is a request for preliminary approval for 68 multi -family residential dwelling units. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, represented the applicant, Mel Price. He introduced Roger Search, a realtor, and Terrance Hoagland from his staff. He stated this project was in the preliminary stage because of staffs determination that the two street terminuses be cul-de- v • • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 3 sacs and a question of whether the City open space to the south of the new Mercer Canal needed to have vehicular or just pedestrian access from this project. They are providing just a little over three spaces per unit with the garage, the tandem space in the driveway and an additional parking space. They have adapted the previously approved PUD to fit the requirements of the Guidance System and it is integrated into the neighborhood. Member Strom asked about the relationship to the existing single family unit on the comer and whether some berming is necessary. Also, what will happen to that property as a lone single- family unit surrounded by moderate -low density multi -family in the long-term. Mr. Ward responded that the owners had planted a number of trees which they didn't want to disturb with berming. The part of the house facing the units is the garage. There is about 60 feet of separation so small berms would be possible. Long-term, it might be possible to convert to duplex, three-plex or use the house as a community center. It will also make sewer service possible. Member Strom asked why the street doesn't come to the property line. Mr. Ward said that the Thayers felt it was more desirable to have a long driveway and increased landscape area rather than a large cul-de-sac with an island which brought headlights close to the house. They intend to deed over the area between the current single-family and the area for the cul-de-sac to the Thayers. Member Strom noted that he didn't see any plant materials between the house and the cul-de-sac. He suggested that they consult the Thayers and include the material in the final plan. Member Clements -Cooney asked if parking is allowed on the cul-de-sac and all along Westbridge Drive. Mr. Olt said that he understood that parking will not be allowed, it will be signed and painted in some way. Mr. Ward confirmed that no parking would be allowed from the south entrance into the Bridges around the cul-de-sac. Member Fontane made a motion to approve the Summerbill PUD Preliminary. Mr. Strom suggested a friendly amendment that the landscaping be addressed for the single family dwelling in the cul-de-sac and seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 4 RAEVMEE TOWNHOMES PUD - PRELIMINARY - CASE #42-93 Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval with 3 conditions. Ms. Kay Force, representing Jim Sell Design, introduced John McCoy, the applicant, and Larry Trampe,, the architect. She stated that one concern the applicant had was making the development architecturally compatible with the existing Senior Center --the siding and brickwork are similar. They were also concerned with buffering the project from Rolland Moore Park. They are maintaining the open space which now exists between the two ditches --the Larimer #2 Canal and the new Mercer Ditch which are directly north of the project and will be maintained as a natural area and provide about 140 ft. of open space there. Additionally, they will provide deciduous and evergreen landscaping to the north of the site between the units and the existing ditch. Ms. Force continued that a neighborhood concern was about access to the site. Access is from Evenstar Court and will be 28 feet wide and has been approved by the city. The developer will provide a pork chop island to direct traffic off Shields to right turns only. At some time in the future, there will be an opportunity to have access through the Raintree PUD and Senior Center PUD to the signalized intersection in the south. Chair Walker clarified that the land between the two canals is not part of the development but is park property. Member Clements -Cooney confirmed that the development will not address landscaping between the ditches. She mentioned the neighborhood was concerned that the ditches needed to be cleaned up. Ms. Whetstone agreed to send a memo to the ditch companies. Member Fontane noted that the neighborhood was concerned about traffic going through the Senior Center Parking lot to get to the light and asked if there was an access. Ms. Force responded that she believed this was to be a future dedicated right-of-way when there is redevelopment of the property. At this time, there would only be emergency access, with a curb. t 1 O11!_ Ms: Margaret Filmore, 2337 South Shields, the property owner of the residential property next to the project. In referring to Item #5 of the Staff Report, regarding Transportation, she was • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 5 concerned with the second paragraph which reads: "when properties to the south redevelop, a possible connection to Raintree Drive ... will be constructed", referring to their property. She has spoken with Ms. Whetstone and would like confirmation that no connection will be built as long as they are living there. They would lose 10-20 feet off the back of their property. She stated that she was also concerned about the local wildlife living in the area. She stated that she had spoken with Leslie Bryson of the City Parks and Recreation Department to ask about studies on the animals in this area. A study exists on the birds in the Ross Open Space. Ms. Bryson spoke with Ms. Karen Manci, Natural Resources Department, who said that she believed that with the City land and the ditches, the local animals would have enough room to pass through. Ms. Filmore listed a large number of wildlife that she has seen so far. this year in that area. She would like to see a study done about the impact on the wildlife of all the construction in this area. Chair Walker asked for clarification on the access road --where is it located and how and when might it be built. • Mr. Peterson responded that it is a potential access to the street that would be serving the townhouses. One option is to connect the Senior Center parking lot and Evenstar Court and one way of doing that is to use Ms. Fiimore's property. However, he stated that he is not aware of any plans to make that connection, some sort of compensation would be required, and a redesign of the parking lot would be required. Chair Walker noted that if this option was used, some sort of due process would be followed. Mr. Peterson concurred. Chair Walker confirmed that the proposed access is entirely on Ms. Filmore's property Ms. Whetstone elaborated that the Transportation Department sees some access difficulties with this option if the area were to redevelop. There is a piece of commercial property between the house and the Raintree Townhouses that is owned by part of the Raintree PUD and if that whole area is redeveloped, Transportation would like the Shields Street access to be closed. Chair Walker asked if this was in reference to Evenstar. Ms. Whetstone stated that would remain as a right-in/right-out. Chair Walker asked if the residents might feel it is inadequate. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 6 Mike Herzig, City Engineer, stated that it is the best that can be done at this time, which is why Transportation is interested in another possible access if the property redevelops although this current design will still function safely. Member Winfree said that the staff report contains a letter stating that a request for a variance was made for Evenstar Court. Ms. Whetstone responded that the variance was not required and that the 28 foot street is standard for development on one side. The request came from a traffic engineer who was unaware that there is provision is the street code for this situation. Member Winfree asked if parking will still be allowed on one side. Ms. Whetstone said yes. Member Cottier asked about the access on the west side of the Filmore property and if the Filmore property borders Raintree Drive to the south. Ms. Filmore said that she understood from Ronn Frank that it was 10 feet from the sidewalk on the south side of the house. Member Cottier summarized that any redevelopment would combine the Raintree PUD with the Filmore property and asked whether it would be preferable to have access off Raintree Drive and eliminate this potential access. Mr. Herzig said it can't be done at this time because this particular group owns the property surrounding the Filmores on three sides and there is a separate property on the north side. Member Cottier noted that using Raintree Drive would ensure traffic circulation on Evenstar Court. Mr. Herzig said that if a connection is made over to Raintree, the connection at Shields for Evenstar would be closed. Mr. Peterson commented that they would resolve the conflict over whether or not Evenstar would be closed. He stated that he hoped to eliminate the confusion. The City eventually would like access coming off Raintree Drive with Evenstar closed as an access to Shields. The City desires.to limit access on major arterial streets such as Shields whenever possible. This access depends on what happens with the redevelopment of the properties to the south. There are several options on handling the access --one would involve the Senior Center parking lot, another would involve the residence and a piece of the commercial property. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 7 Ms. Whetstone added that on the Senior Center subdivision plat on file, the east boundary has an access easement that has been dedicated and it would be half of the easement of a circulator and could be used if needed. Member Clements -Cooney asked about placing a condition that Evenstar Court be closed if the redevelopment occurs. Mr. Herzig thought it would be better to stay flexible about the safety. Member Clements -Cooney said that it appears that until there is redevelopment of the Raintree and Filmore properties, there will not be a future access drive built. Ms. Whetstone agreed. Mr. Peterson commented that they intend to let all interested parties know about the possibilities and long term plans ahead of time and the plan is to make a circulator on the western border of • the property. Member Clements -Cooney told Ms. Filmore that they had discussed the area between the ditches before they arrived and the property belongs to the park and will remain in its natural state. Member Fontane asked if the parcel to the north of the Filmore property were to develop by itself, it's access would for now would be from the cul-de-sac and not utilize the strip behind the house. Ms. Whetstone agreed and said that Ms. Filmore's property could not be used unless the property redevelops. Mr. Peterson brought up the land between the ditches as it relates to the storm drainage jssue. One of the options that the developer's engineer is looking at is being able to use the property between the ditches as a storm drainage area, which would require permission from the City and other options exist, such as keeping the drainage on the property. Member Clements -Cooney asked if this process would allow neighborhood input. Mr. Peterson said this process would be the best because if the City agrees to this option, it would be finalized over the next few months. • Member Cottier said that since the homeowner does have specific concerns about this area, that she would appreciate the City involving anyone with an interest. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Peterson said they will make an attempt to do so. Member Cottier asked if Parks and Recreation will consider wildlife in their decision. Mr. Peterson said he thought they would, as would Natural Resources. This land between the ditches east of Shield has always been thought of as a wildlife corridor. Chair Walker raised the question of using public land for storm drainage from a private parcel. He asked if there is an advantage to wildlife in having a storm detention pond. Mr. Peterson said that the City looks at storm drainage in terms of how fast the water gets off - site. Irrigation ditches are used as part of the storm drainage system in some parts of the City and not used in other parts. Chair Walker is concerned that detention ponds may be using engineering considerations rather than considering the other elements. Mr. Steve Human, from TST who are the engineers for the developer said they are looking at the land between the two ditches and that there is a similar situation between the Senior Center and the Preserve. Both projects are looking at detention ponds between the ditches although in the case of the Preserve, that property was part of the parcel. They are considering extending the Senior Center detention pond across the boundary line further up into the property, utilizing the same outfall that pond currently uses into Spring Creek and would not be increasing the flow into the creek. He said that detention ponds can and should be more of a wildlife habitat than what currently exists. Right now, it is flat and weedy and a detention pond can be built with a greater variety of habitats, including cattails and so on. They intend to do what they can to promote wetland habitat with the detention pond. He noted that it would take more than a third of the property to create a detention pond, which is unrealistic. He stated that it is not allowed for the ditches to carry any part of the drainage in this part of the City. Historically, non - developed flows are allowed to go in but once development occurs, that is not allowed at all. Member Fontane inquired about the size of the open space on the parcel all the way to Drake. Mr. Human estimated that the area between the ditches could be about 10-12 acres. Member Clements -Cooney expanded the idea and inquired about the length of the corridor. Mr. Human repeated that the length was 10-12 acres. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 9 Member Winfree asked staff about when this area redevelops if Evenstar Court would then need to be granted a variance because of the development on both sides or would it need to be widened. Ms. Whetstone said it depends on what happens with the half acre on Shields and if it were to develop, it would depend on the intensity. If it needed to be widened, it would be done on the property. Mr. Peterson said that if the generated traffic warranted, Evenstar would then become 36 feet wide rather than 28 feet. Member Clements -Cooney moved approval of Raintree Townhomes PUD Preliminary with the following conditions: 1) That additional shrubs and trees be provided between the masonry wall and Lot 1, to enhance the sound barrier; 2) That the design of the pork chop at the intersection with Shields Street be approved by the City Engineering and Transporta- tion departments prior to final, and; 3) That off -site drainage easements be obtained and • approved by the City Parks and Recreation Department and the City Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. Member Strom seconded the motion. Chair Walker commented that he would like to see City property used only if it is an enhancement and encourage staff to look closely that is an attribute. The motion passed 6-0. tilt. C11: ; ►11 J: hilt. _ Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval with one condition. Richard Storck, Storck Development and the applicant, said that they fit within this existing zoning on the parcel. They are proposing 74 units, would be allowed up to 108 units, on minimum 6,000 square foot lots. They are working within the following constraints: landlocked by the Light and Power parcel; the detention area; the open space with a trail on the south side; on the west side is private ownership and; Drake. They are looking at Hampshire Road being their main entrance and the only secondary access would be west off Drake and it just meets the minimum City requirements for spacing. The City is looking for a possible future connection down south so that would dictate the connections. The trail connections and solar ordinance seemed to work best with the design. He doesn't think that any of the streets are overly lengthy as far as traffic concerns. They are providing a minimum of one tree per lot. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Storck distributed a letter to the Board from Matt Delich, the traffic engineer, in response to the letter from Dr. Larry Kieft (see attached) summarizing neighborhood concerns. He believed this addresses the two issues raised in Dr. Kieft's letter. He stated that another issue that caused concern at the neighborhood meeting was lot size. That lot size is allowed per the current zoning on the property. At the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Storck agreed to put up a 6 foot fence along the edge of Dr. Kieft's property to act as additional buffering along with the planting that Dr. Kieft has already done. They would do this as part of the land development rather than wait for the homeowners to do so. He said that the only window facing the development is an upstairs window over the garage. Member Winfree asked if the 6 foot privacy fence would go the entire length of their western property line. Mr. Storck said it would. Member Winfree asked staff if they had any concerns about the closeness of the private drive to the westerly drive into the project. Mr. Olt said that was looked into as part of the traffic study. There is a minimum distance requirement on an arterial street such as West Drake Road between a private driveway and a local street and this distance here is acceptable. Member Clements -Cooney said that in the staff report it was noted that there is a 30 foot wide public utilities access easement being dedicated where there is currently under construction a bicycle and pedestrian trail. She asked if there was currently a buffer, not including the fence, between the trail and the homes that exist? She also asked about.the southern boundary. Mr. Storck said the trail is about 8 feet wide and meanders through the 30 foot wide space and green space. Mr. Walker noted that there appeared to be a three rail fence according to the diagram. Mr. Storck said that this was correct and they would be putting it in. Member Fontane thought the development looked very plain with the straight streets and high number of solar -oriented homes and asked if providing that large number of solar homes was the reason for this particular density. Also, she asked if some of the larger lots should be on the west because of the large size of the neighbor's lots on that side and thereby give more of a buffer. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Storck said he counted four lots on the western boundary and discussed the pros and cons of different densities within a development. Member Fontane asked about the possibility of building up speed on the long streets going south and east -west. Mr. Storck replied that he didn't think they were overly lengthy compared to other streets in the City and said they would have liked more curvilinear but the street dictated this configuration because coming down Featherstar, a curve can't be made quickly enough per criteria and then come back to the southwest. Dr. Larry Kieft, 2333 West Drake, said he was concerned with three particular points mentioned in his letter. First, he said he didn't know if the traffic study was done when school was in session but that with school buses and traffic, getting out of his driveway was difficult. Two more streets on the south side of Drake would seem to have some impact. He didn't know what the allowable space between a driveway and a public drive is. He said that he is one of only two neighbors who are directly adjacent to the property. The neighbors to the east have the • Light and Power and drainage to buffer their property and the owners to the south have a bike trail and the easement. He said that the developer misstated the number of homes along their property, which is actually seven lots. The lots are 60 feet wide. He stated that he has planted 300 trees on his property in anticipation of future development to create some green buffer. They have 3 acres and an irrigation ditch has put their home adjacent to the property line of the development. The homes will be predominantly two story homes, and he feels the 6 foot fence does not present much of a barrier. Dr. Kieft continued by stating that although the developer is constrained about the 100 foot depth of the lots, he is not limited to 60 foot wide lots. There is a potential for a larger buffer between acreage property and 6,000 square foot lots and they could be wider. Lastly, he was concerned about the landscaping along the property line and would like the developer to do what he can. Member Winfree asked what was the potential setback for the 7 lots that would be adjacent to the Kieft's. Mr. Storck said there were 4 lots next to his house and then 3 to the back of the property. The setback would be a 20 foot driveway and a home about 40 feet deep, leaving 40 feet at the back. She then asked if those homes could not have a second story deck or balcony and he said none were planned. There would be a window on the second story. She asked if there were any • plans for landscaping or trees to be planted along the property line and he said it would just be the fence. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 12 Member Clements -Cooney asked if it was up to the developer to provide the buffer whereas they are here using the fence as a buffer and saying the trees already on the adjacent property will provide additional buffering. Mr. Olt agreed that the more intense use is responsible for creating the buffer between two adjacent uses. Member Strom asked for clarification of the intent of the recommended. condition. Mr. Olt noted that the recommendation is that the developer provide an access point into this development from the east. Staff is suggesting that the first street on the plan be continued to create a future access point into the property to the north and east of Hampshire Pond since this is City -owned property for sale and do not know what sort of development may occur here. If it were to develop as residential property, it would be important that a street from that development loop in so there isn't an isolated Drake access. If the property were combine with other properties to allow some sort of commercial development, then a right-of-way would be indicated, although they wouldn't see a need for street development. In order for the developer to be able to develop the lots adjacent to the proposed turnaround, the developer would like it to be on City -owned property. He believes the developer is in negotiations with the City for that temporary turnaround easement. Member Strom asked about the southwest comer of the property where there is a stubbed street off Marshwood Drive headed to the property line and why no temporary turnaround is needed there. Mr. Olt said they do need one or several lots could not be built initially. Member Strom asked if a condition would be needed now or at final. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineer, said that at the time of final they would need to make a decision about whether they can obtain an off -site easement for the turnaround, if they are willing to not get building permits on those lots that take access of the stub street, or design some sort of turnaround on those lots which would then not be buildable until such time as the street is extended. She said this decision would be in the final design phase when they write the development agreement. Member Strom asked if there was a code requirement here so no condition is needed and Ms. Ashbeck concurred. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 13 Member Strom then asked why the access point limits the developer to a 100 foot depth on the lots, on the western property. Mr. Kieft said there has to be 300 feet between Hampshire and Featherstar, which leaves only 100 feet for those lots. Mr. Olt said it is at a minimum length and shifting Featherstar to the east to create larger depth lots would not meet the minimum separation requirements. Member Strom asked if this is dictated by the existing Hampshire Road to the north. Mr. Olt agreed. Member Fontane asked what is the minimum distance that Hampshire Road can be to the Drake and Taft intersection and does it need to line up with the existing Hampshire. Ms. Ashbeck said that it would have to be shifted far enough to the east so that both left turn • lanes would be adequate so lining it up makes it function as a full intersection. Mr. Olt then pointed out that there is the access into the Drake shopping center and by shifting Hampshire Road to the east, you would have offset requirements and another intersection into the shopping center to contend with. Mr. Storck commented that when they were working with Rick Ensdorff, the traffic study showed that the main collector street coming south from Brown Farm would be an alternative way for people to avoid going all the way west since they could come down Featherstar. Member Strom noted that traffic is not typically routed through a residential neighborhood, Chair Walker asked if there were any structures on the property located to the south of the Kieft's. Dr. Kieft said there is one dwelling which is at least 50 feet west of his home and the horse sheds on that property approximately line up with his home. Member Winfree asked about the condition that would be needed at final for the two southwest lots. Ms. Ashbeck said there is a code requirement about requiring a turnaround at the end of any • dead-end street for any lots with access off the street so it doesn't seem necessary. Mr. Peterson commented that if the Board wishes to, they may and it is occasionally done. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 14 Mr. Olt said the point of confusion may be why the condition is required in the northeast corner and not in the southwest corner. That is because the property is dedicated to the easement on Marshwood in the southwest corner down to the property line. The situation in the northeast still needs to be resolved as Ms. Ashbeck said. When the developer first submitted the proposal, the City said they saw a need but it was too late in the process to change the plans so the condition was placed so the Board would know that this issue would be resolved. Chair Walker said it is correct to point out the buffering is on Dr. Kieft's property and not on the development and he therefore considers it irrelevant to buffering. As staff stated, the more intense use is obligated for mitigation and he questions if a privacy fence is sufficient and maybe more transition would be needed, such as two larger lots instead of the four smaller. Member Clements -Cooney made a. motion for approval of Hampshire Pond PUD Preliminary with the condition that the developer of Hampshire Pond is required to provide adequate street right-of-way and a publicly dedicated temporary turnaround on this property and/or the City -owned property to the north and east (and south of West Drake Road) of Hampshire Pond prior to a final development request going before the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision and an additional condition that more buffering be provided to the west because this development is a more intense use. Options include reconfiguring the road so it's not so linear and a more creative plan to address the buffering to the west. Member Strom seconded the motion and noted that although he's usually reticent to get into too much buffering between single-family uses of varying densities, in this particular case, they are starting with a flat piece of ground with very few limitations on it and they have several ways to go about it either with heavier landscaping or redesigning the road on the west side to pick up some greater depth or other options. Member Fontane suggested that part of the consideration for making the buffering to the west would be the larger lots on that side. Chair Walker said consolidating the lots would be one simple solution and should be considered. Member Cottier mentioned the depth of the lots on the western side could be adjusted and that this project should be providing more buffering on the western side. Member Winfree said she also thinks that adequate buffering has not been provided so far.and it would be an important feature to consider at the final. The motion passed 6-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 15 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff review and recommendation which is for approval with condition. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Board's original approval of this master plan in 1988 was a recommendation for denial on the basis that the plan was not consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the county's land use plan for the corridor area. However, the County did approve the plan and the Board subsequently looked at an approval on the master plan. At that time, the Board was concerned about what is now designated an open space buffer,. intended to buffet future development from College Avenue and create the resemblance of an open space corridor. On that basis, Planning and Zoning did recommend approval and it was approved and developed to this point. Member Cottier said there is now a 250 foot buffer between the western boundary of this property line and College Avenue. Ms. Albertson -Clark said the plan does show 250 feet. • Member Cottier asked if perhaps the intent of originally designating this for some sort of public use was to enhance that buffer area. Ms. Albertson -Clark said it was possible and the notes from that time show a concern that the buffer be created and maintained. The conditions recommended at that time were also for buffering and fencing and she feels that the intent was to create a separation between the open space area and the development to the east. Ken Merritt, representing the applicant Robert Underwood, reiterated Ms. Albertson-Clark's comments and added that in the last 5 or 6 years, no one had shown interest in this particular parcel as a multi -use facility and the applicant would like to build single-family units that would be of similar character and density to the development to the north. He pointed out that the buffer area was not disturbed in the initial construction and the approximately 42 inch high white rail fence is already installed in that area. The fencing is primarily imaging rather than screening. The buffering itself occurs via the large amount of setback. The area is predomi- nantly flat land sloping down from Highway 287 (College Avenue) to the property lines. There are several feet of elevation difference between the road and the property. The lots appear to be 100 to 120 feet deep along the property line from front to rear, creating. about 300 feet of buffer between 287 and the rear of a dwelling unit. Member Strom asked about current discussions between Fort Collins and Loveland regarding • corridor options and how that might affect review of this parcel. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 16 Mr. Peterson said that the two cities have joined with Larimer County in an effort headed by Larimer County to start looking at planning for the entire corridor from the top of the large hogback clear to the Weld County line, going up from Harmony Road and County Road 28 in Loveland. The focus groups are now being formed and will be starting the public participation process on what could happen in the corridor. Elected officials in both cities have said that they do not want to be part of each other's cities and would like to do something before options disappear due to development pressure. He said that Planning is doing some inventory work but there is nothing yet to look at. He also noted that at the time the Board approved the master plan, there was an extensive landscaping plan attached and the County never made that a formal condition so the green space is there but no additional planting since 1988. Member Fontane said that the proposed density versus the density recommended for rural non- farm are very different and does not make sense if an area is to be maintained as open space. Mr. Merritt agreed and said that was the zoning density when it was originally conceived and the land plan depicted in Plan I and Plan II changed that. This particular parcel of property was contained within that newly designated density. The difference happened with the approval of the original development plan in 1988. He feels that the maintenance of the internal character of the project would be more compatible than a public -use facility due to concerns of traffic and character. He felt that the neighboring homes would be more positively affected by residential rather than public -use development. Member Fontane commented that she sees a community perspective when people travel down 287 and the condition of this area is crucial to the separation between the two towns. The affect of the neighboring homes is a neighborhood affect. She is not in favor of high density in that area. Mr. Merritt agreed but added that the loss'of separation between communities was accomplished in 1988 and felt that these 10 lots would not' further erode the separation. He said the open space is generous and the perceived density of this neighborhood as viewed from 287 is small as lots are large compared to the building pads of the homes. Member Cottier asked if the Board had ever seen subsequent filings since the time of the initial recommendations of denial and then approval of the master plan. Mr. Peterson answered that the Board has not approved anything but that the Board did make a recommendation to the County. Ms. Albertson -Clark said that typically happens with County items when there is a master plan and there may be a preliminary at the same stage, we do not see any finals on any County projects whether it's in the growth area or not. We would see a preliminary and she believes • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page 17 that this was seen at the time of the last review but there has never been a preliminary detail on this particular tract. Member Cottier asked if all the rest of the residential was recommended for approval at the same time as the master plan. Ms. Albertson -Clark concurred. Mr. Peterson said he thought that the Board was primarily interested in the 250 foot wide strip to preserve the sense of openness. Member Cottier said that she was concerned that the Board approved it initially and she thinks that reliance was placed on the space being more open if it was designated as public -use. She is disappointed that this is not in keeping with the rural -non -farm intent. She particularly feels that in light of the current discussions regarding the corridor, that it would not. be appropriate to approve higher density residential in this area. • Member Cottier moved to recommend denial because it is not consistent with the master plan that recommended this as a community use and it is not in keeping with the rural -non- farm density according to the County Land Use Plan. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Strom said that the courts have told the County that when there is a difference between the land use plan and their zoning that the zoning rules and therefore will not be supporting the motion although he feels that they need to encourage the County to align their zoning and land use planning. Member Cottier said she thought it important that the County get the feedback from the Board about what. is going on with the corridor. Member Fontane said she disagreed with the idea of just one little parcel not making a difference. Mr. Merritt said that on this particular project, it went from rural -non -farm in 1988 and is part of a density zone approved by the master plan and therefore is not inconsistent. Member Clements -Cooney agreed that the County land use plan and zoning are once again at odds and feels issue needs to be addressed. • Member Winfree said she would not be supporting the motion because it has already been approved in an overall master plan at a density approved for this area and these 10 units would Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 30, 1993 Page Is increase that by 4/100ths. It was approved for a commercial use, not as an open space or a buffer area and that the land that has developed around it makes this use consistent. Chair Walker hoped that this dilemma will be resolved with the corridor study. He recalled the Board struggling with this issue earlier and saying that the community use might provide a buffering element to help create some sense of delineation. The motion to deny approval passed 4-2 with Members Winfree and Strom in the negative. Mr. Peterson reminded the board of the work session on October 12 to deal with the sign code and the Historic Resources Preservation Plan. September 27 is the next regular meeting, at which time they will reorganize to select chair and vice -chair at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. No Text