Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/26/1993• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 26, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The July 26, 1993 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree, Jim Klataske, Jennifer Fontane, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Bernie Strom was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, City Attorney Steve Roy, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes of the June 28, 1993 Minutes; Item 2 - Southside Service Center, Amended Site Plan Advisory Review, Case #52-82E; Item 3 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing, Final, Case #60-91J; Item 4 - Greenstone PUD, Phase Three, Final, Case #54-92F; Item 5 - Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #54-87J; Item 6 - Centre for Advance Technology 15th, • Tract 3, New Mercer Office PUD, Final, Case #53-85E; Item 7 - Sunstone Village PUD, 8th Filing, Preliminary, Case #57-86L; Item 8 - Fox Creek PUD, Final, Case #5-93C and; Item 9 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 10 - Topanga at Hillpond PUD, Preliminary, Case #2-87H; Item 11 - Cobblestone Corners PUD, Preliminary, Case #55-87E; Item 12 - Paragon Point PUD, Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #48-91H and; Item 13 - Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing, Preliminary and Final, Case #48-91I. Mr. Peterson added that the Board proceed with the election of a Vice -Chair to the P&Z Board. I Pal imaj v LoIcKela.I 1 I Chairman Walker introduced and welcomed Sharon Winfree and Jennifer Fontane as the new P&Z Board members. ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR Member Cottier nominated Member Clements -Cooney as Vice -Chair. Member Klataske seconded the nomination. Upon a vote of 6-0, Member Clements -Cooney was elected as Vice -Chair. • Member Cottier asked that Item 5, Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD Preliminary and Final be pulled from Consent for discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 2 Member Klataske moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 39 4, 69 7, 8 and 9. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. ASTLE RIDGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELINIINARY AND FINAL CASE #54-87. Member Collier asked why the density requested variance for less than 3DU/AC was not included in the packet and why it was justified. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated that the density variance request was submitted by the applicant but was inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report. He stated that the lower density request by the applicant was justified because the overall density of the residential portions of the Oak/Cottonwood Farms ODP was over 4DU/AC. The ODP was approved in June 1992 which established at that time a maximum of 848 dwelling units on 184 acres for an overall density of 4.6DU/AC. The ODP indicated densities less than 3DU/AC in the area that has since been platted as Upper Meadow at Castle Ridge and at other appropriate locations. They are currently conceptualizing the site plan. He added that in the final analysis, it was conceivable that the ODP would contain a 728 dwelling units on 173 acres for an overall density of 4.2DU/AC. He stated that this site includes some of the steepest slopes at Oak/Cottonwood Farms, a wooded area of approximately 1/3 acre, the inclusion of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north, and the Werner Elementary School to the south, which in all, would create the need for this. Sensitivity to all of these elements is best achieved with the plan and the density between 1 and 1-1/2 DU/AC is what is proposed for this project, which is 1.3DU/AC. The direction of the slopes at Castle Ridge would provide lots of over 15,000 square feet which would allow homeowners the option to respect the natural topography and still maintain the solar access to these lots. Chairman Walker asked why topography was an issue to lower the density. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. and consultant for the applicant, replied that the topography was given on the ODP. This had been reviewed by the applicant and established a maximum number of units on the ODP for the various residential parcels. The applicant did not want to represent an ODP with 20 units and then go before the Board with 30 units. The estimates in the ODP were based on the thought that the piece could be divided with two parallel cul-de-sacs through it and smaller lots than what are currently being proposed. The applicant then reviewed the details of the topography and the City's Engineering requirements. He added that by taking this approach, they were able to design downhill lots with walk -outs to preserve the views, etc. He stated that to force another row of lots would have made a less livable situation and more of a scarred hillside for view from the surrounding areas. n u • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 3 Member Cottier moved for approval of Castle Ridge at Miramont PUD Preliminary and Final with conditions presented by Staff. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. KjJO►[I%WAL*ILIA@;L UI 111 J' lull► I•�lfi Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, gave a Staff Report for the proposed project recommending approval with four Staff conditions. He stated that, based on the P&Z worksession discussion, condition of approval #1 would include a 20 percent level of participation in the off -site improvement and condition of approval #4 would include a change in language to read "at the time of Final PUD, Building "T", illustrated to be a three-story 12-plex, shall be substituted by a building with a smaller envelope and reduced in height in order to provide the necessary transition in scale and mass on the east side of the site." Steve Roy, City Attorney, stated that when there is a PUD that includes a variance request, two votes should be taken, after a complete presentation, with the first vote being on the variance • request and the second on the proposal. Should the variance request be denied, a second vote could still be taken on the proposal. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects and representative of the applicant, Mr. Ron Gray, gave a brief history of the area, prior projects in the area that were approved or denied by the Board, design, style and height of the buildings, roof materials, building exterior colors, and the proposed diversified rental program. He stated that they have met with the neighborhood on this proposal. The proposed plan is an evolution of the comments made at that neighborhood meeting and from Staff. The major changes made was the elimination of the tennis courts, the removal of the buildings along the eastern boundary of the parking lot and relocation of the maintenance building into that area, the incorporation of an internal bike trail that ties into the Spring Creek Trail exiting at the northwest corner of the project, the addition of water quality ponds to filter pollutants from the parking lots, the intensification of landscaping and berming along the eastern boundary, the placement of smaller buildings along the eastern side of the project, the increase of the setbacks from residences along the eastern boundary from 240 feet to 350 feet, and the redesign of the roof lines from gabled roofs to hip roofs. He stated that the height of the buildings have been reduced from 40 feet to 33 feet. He presented a slide comparing the Ram Village building heights with the proposed project's building heights. He discussed the location of the proposed berming and existing vegetation along the Spring Creek Trail and the tie in with proposed landscaping. • Mr. Vaught continued by stating that the density of this project compared equal to or lower than other similar existing projects in the community. He stated that the number of four -bedroom units has been reduced from 180 units to 66 units, which is 30% of the total amount of units in Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 4 the proposal. He added that, unlike College Park, this project will allow options for married college student tenants and non-traditional age students, as well as 88 of the ground level units being designed to comply with the Fair Housing Act and will be accessible to the physically disabled. He stated that, during the summer, Ram Village leases out to "snow birds" or conference attendees at CSU since they are fully furnished units. He commented that this proposal has achieved a transition in scale with distance, the reduction in the size of buildings, landscaping, and a variety of building materials, the reduction of density, more variety in building design with different roof designs, color and materials, and the lowering of building height. He concluded by stating that this plan supported the progressive approach established by the LDGS, is consistent with the Land Use Policies Plan, provides much needed housing type for the city, offers a superior alternative to the single family conversions, encourages an alternative means of transportation through a system of bike trails, and has a recommendation of approval by City Staff. Member Clements -Cooney asked for more detail on the diversified rental plan proposal Mr. Vaught replied that during the summer months, there would be a variety of different people, such as "snow birds" and CSU conference attendees, that could occupy the units. He stated that there will be a number of one -bedroom units that would be more financially reasonable for married students. The one -bedroom units will be the only units that can be rented to two people. All of the other bedroom units would be leased on a per individual basis. Leases would be written for there or four individuals on those units. If one individual leaves the unit, it would not impact the other two or three people living in the unit. The price of the units has not been determined yet but it would be competitive in that the units are totally furnished. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there would be enough parking spaces and if it would be designated that there would be no parking allowed on Hobbit Street. Mr. Vaught replied that, currently, there is no "No Parking" signs posted on Hobbit Street. He stated that the applicant would have no problem with posting "No Parking" signs along Hobbit Street. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the applicant or the City would be responsible for posting these signs. Mr. Shepard stated that this would be a City responsibility. He stated that Hobbit is a local street and is designed and legal to park on both sides. Other streets have been analyzed, such as Plum Street, that have been recently converted to a no parking situation primarily because of the transportation element of bicycle traffic. A similar analysis would have to be done for Hobbit Street to be converted. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 5 Member Fontane asked what the transportation impacts for this project would be onto Prospect and Shields/Prospect. Mr. Vaught stated that this has been addressed in the Traffic Impact Study and reviewed by City Staff which stated that there would be very little negative impact in terms of level of operations. He added that outside trips, such as to grocery stores, seem to be void in this square mile, other than going to College Avenue or to King Soopers to the west. Member Clements -Cooney asked for more detail on the two bridges and how age groups would be separated. Mr. Shepard stated that the object is that the two bridges would have two different destinations. Although they both outlet onto Wallenberg Drive, they do not connect. He stated that the northerly bridge would connect over to Hobbit Street and the southerly bridge would feed into the Topanga site. Member Cottier asked what would be the terms of the individual rental contracts and if there • would be a resident manager. Mr. Vaught replied that they would be either 10 month rental or 12 month rental. He stated that there would be a resident manager who would live on the site and would have a fairly rigid security. Member Fontane asked for details regarding the air quality or air flow since this is a basin. Mr. Vaught replied that anything that is proposed on this site, would have some impact on air quality. There were specific reasons why criteria was established in the Land Use Policies Plan_ which was to promote alternate means of transportation. Building around CSU would have impacts but there would be more community -wide benefits to not building this facility out by the football stadium or on North College because the number of trips would be increased. Member Winfree asked where the existing Transfort stop is located. Eric Bracke, City Transportation Planner, showed on a slide where the existing stop is located. He stated that, in regards to air quality and air flow, the carbon monoxide emissions will now to lower levels, such as this basin, in the evening hours. He stated that the City does have policies that state that it is acceptable to allow this if it reduces basin -wide emissions over the long term. Projects such as this that have a high emphasis on alternative modes is acceptable • under the existing policies. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 6 PUBLIC INPUT Emily Smith, 1000 W. Prospect and President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the association opposes this project and the request to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in 66 of the dwelling units. She stated that issues the association had concerns with have not been addressed and include the neighborhood and social compatibility and the intensity and impacts of this proposed use upon the residential neighborhood. She stated that included in their neighborhood boundary are high density developments such as Heather Ridge, Lake Condominiums, Lake West, Highland, New Colony, Stone Creek, Northwood, The Bridges, Landmark Apartments, and the dormitories on the southern side of the CSU campus. She stated that this targeted market and the neighborhood impact of this market are basic reasons why this project could not adequately meet the All Development Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria nor social compatibility criterion of the LDGS. Ms. Smith added that Item K of the Variance Procedure states that "The applicant demonstrates that the plan submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which the variance is requested." She believed that the applicant has not demonstrated that the circumstances that allow a variance to the three unrelated limitations are present, has not met the equal to or better than criterion of the variance procedure. She questioned how the addition of one more bedroom in 66 of the units be a qualifying circumstance for the equal to or better than exception. She questioned what standard was being used in this comparison. She stated that the association's interpretation is as follows: 1) Neighborhood Standards - The developer has not demonstrated that the variance would make this project equal to or better than the standards endorsed by the adjacent single family residential area or by the neighborhood as a whole. 2) City Standards - This standard is not more than three unrelated persons living in a dwelling unit. This proposal does not meet City Standards since the developer is requesting a variance above what the City legally allows. 3) Community Standards - These standards do not dictate acceptance of more than three unrelated persons per dwelling unit. 4) Other comparable development standards - The Staff Report makes comparisons with Ram Village as the only existing comparable apartment project that utilizes the four bedroom unit. The association objects to the use of this particular comparison. Ms. Smith continued that it was previously stated by the Board that approval of the Ram Village project would not set a precedence for granting of future variances. In order to justify the variance, the developer has agreed to pay for some public facility improvements for the City. Agreements, such as these, are enticing incentives for project approval. She encouraged the Board to look beyond these incentives to the long range impacts that approval of the variance would have upon a viable and productive core neighborhood. She stated that if the issue of negative impacts from monolithic student housing proposals is not addressed in the LDGS and the City Code, then the issue must be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Board. She added • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 7 that this proposal adds a concentrated intensity of high density to an area that already has the highest concentrated density in the City. She concluded that the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association requests that the Board deny approval of this project and the developer's request to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in 66 of the dwelling units. She stated that they also request a moratorium on development within their boundaries until a neighborhood plan can be created and implemented for the Prospect/Shields neighborhood. Member Cottier clarified that the basis on which the number of unrelated persons per dwelling unit is evaluated is not as a variance using the "equal to or better than" criteria. The basis of evaluation as established in the ordinance is if it meets the All Development Criteria, the Residential Point Chart and does the particular project provide adequate open space, recreational facilities and public facilities. Rick Steadman, 1901-C Winterberry Way and President of the Hillpond Homeowners Association, stated that the association opposes this project and the variance request. He stated concerns regarding the close proximity this project will have to the Hillpond residents and that . mitigation impacts to the south have not been resolved. He stated that the vegetation between the proposed project and Hillpond is deciduous and would create a high intensity of population very near to Hillpond. He stated that auto traffic on Shields is currently high and this project would greatly impact the existing situation. Currently, there is only one entrance/exit for Hillpond and Sundering and a light at this entrance is not warranted. The association opposed the project because of the intensity that this project will bring, the non -diversity of the units, and will increase in noise, traffic, bike and air pollution that will affect the residents of Hillpond. Victor A. Koelzer, 1801 Sheely and professional engineer, stated that he had evaluated the project and viewed this project as College Park H but with a much better design than what was offered previously. However, it is the same basic project that was objectionable then. He had concerns with neighborhood compatibility. He believed that Criteria 2, 3 and 4 of the LDGS has not been met and that the project should be denied. Scott Townsend, area resident, stated that the Prospect/Shields intersection is a dangerous intersection now and adding this development would make it more dangerous. He believed that there is a need for housing in Fort Collins but believed that this project would create a high traffic concern. John Purzow, resident of the area, stated that the area is currently at a good balance of household incomes, real estate values and short and long term residents. He believed that this development, if approved, will change the balance of population, the rural setting, and the • character and identity of the area. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 8 Jim Greuel, 800 Birky Place, stated that he was not for or against specific details of this project. He stated that, however, he was in support of the basic concept of having housing for students in this area. He believed that it would put the students close to campus so they can make use of non-polluting forms of transportation, and will help to relieve the student housing shortage. He commented that there will be some increase in auto traffic but students are far more regular users of non-polluting forms of transportation than the rest of the community if they are allowed to live close to campus. He added that he would be proud to live on a street that is a showcase for non-polluting forms of transportation. The solution for traffic congestion is not to bar neighborhoods from certain classes of people but rather look for alternative ways of transportation. He concluded that college students are people too and that they make a valuable contribution to the diversity of our community and that he was in support of the basic concept of having students in this area. Ward Luthi, property owner adjacent to Ram Village, believed that the Staff Report was put together rather hastily in support of the project without adequate support of the planning statistics. He stated that, as a multi -family housing project, the Executive Summary states that the preliminary PUD support of the Goals and Objectives and the Land Use Policies Plan addressing higher density residential uses. He believed that the P&Z Board needs to be fair to the developer and to the neighborhood and community -at -large. He believed that mass transit was leading this development. He stated that the criteria was not being met that states development should be encouraged and promoted in the north side of Fort Collins. He believed that it was unfair to the neighborhood to take a development and go to certain points out of hundreds and choose those to help support a project. He proceeded to relate how Ram Village negatively affects his neighborhood. He questioned why points were given for Criterion C, a project within 4,000 feet of a regional shopping area, and Criterion F, a project being within 3,000 feet of a major employment which would be CSU. He questioned why points were for Criterion M for having 31 % of the site and open space and recreational use, and Criterion U, providing automatic fire extinguishing systems. He stated that by receiving more than 100% points, a parcel is allowed to support the density of 10 or more dwelling units per acre. He stated that he would like these points specifically addressed. Mr. Luthi asked if the improvements to the intersections and the streets would only operate acceptably, would this mean that the Board would have to deny any new projects in any proximity to Shields Street. He asked that the Staff Reports be written with more specific documentation. He asked for quantification of "the heavy planting of trees on the eastern fringe of the project will have a beneficial effect on air quality in the Spring Creek Basin." Mr. Luthi asked that if these units are built and be a positive effect for the community and CSU, why isn't more usable open space being provided directly on the project rather than impacting a city project that will have to be paid for by someone else. He recommended that when a report is written, all the quantifications should be included. . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 9 Dick Thomas, property owner of Wallenberg Drive, stated that he was opposed to the variance request. He believed that the City should encourage the provision of low income housing and other important goals of the City through an incentive program. He believed that if this project is approved, the Board would be voting on indirectly subsidizing the landowner, indirectly subsidizing the developer, unilaterally promoting student housing for CSU, negating any possibility for low income housing on this property, and are subject to interpretation of the LDGS. Doug Edgerton, area resident, stated that much of this area is open space that will eventually be developed one way or another, of which much of it will only be suitable for apartment or commercial type use. He stated that these proposed buildings would be towering buildings in an area that is suitable for other types of housing. He believed that this area would be composed primarily of apartments which was not compatible with the City as a whole. Parking is a nightly event where parking along Hobbit Street is almost full. Rolland Moore Park is presently vastly overused and parking is very difficult around this area the better part of the time. He stated that another problem that will exist is the out-of-state vehicles that will be related to this project in . that they will not be required to conform to the air pollution requirements. He believed that this project was driven by large dollar investment by an investor who consequently will receive a high return on his investment. This project is not conducive of the location in which it will be placed. He stated that he was strongly opposed to the four bedroom variance. Hank Hoesli, 1909 Wallenberg, believed that CSU was hurting this situation, not helping it in that students do not have to abide by the same pollution standards with their cars. Yet, many of them live here 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 years straight. He commented that eliminating the tennis courts does not make the project better. He stated that there was nothing that addressed the people problems that this project presents. He stated that the second slide shows an area that is not on the proposed site; it is an area several hundred if not 1,000 feet, from the site. This was improper representation. He stated that a project that has come this far in the process and the experience that the developer has should have some conceptual idea what kind of rental income there will be. He had strong concerns that this project will have the potential to house over 800 students. He believed that if the variance request is approved, the Board would be doing nothing short of okayirtg dormitories to be built in a residential neighborhood. Jack Applin, 1608 Sheely Drive, asked for clarification of the bike trails that are supposed to connect with CSU. John Roehrig, 1800 Wallenberg, stated there should be a neighborhood plan for this area. He stated that the density for this project would be 29 people per acre while the density for the • Wallenberg subdivision is 11-15 people per acre. He stated that the real pollution problem that will exist with this project will not be the transport to campus but rather the transport to other facilities such as grocery stores, shopping malls, etc., everything that is not in this region. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 10 Don Crews, 1820 Wallenberg, stated that this proposal is the antithesis of diversity and that it fosters the idea of sameness. He stated that for at least 10 months of the year, the vast majority of the tenants will be single, most will have an age range of 19-25, all will be students and have a common destination of CSU, and few, if any, children. Diversity is definitely not a character of this proposal. He stated that because this development has such a narrow and specific clientele, it will be difficult to adjust the units over time to rapidly changing demographics of college enrollment. He believed that the area south of Prospect, on either side of Shields, has the highest population density in the City and is known as the center of apartment life in Fort Collins. He compared this to a statement in the LDGS, that relates to group homes, which states that group homes are care facilities for a variety of folks, developmentally disabled, alcohol and drug rehab, home care for the elderly, etc., and can be located in any neighborhood or area. The reason for this is to prevent an area from becoming known as "that group home" neighborhood. He stated that if the variance request is granted, he would ask the Board to consider waiving the recreational area requirement and ask them to not build the swimming pool. This would be the largest source of noise pollution since it will be closer to the residential area and available to more people. He stated that each CSU student pays an annual fee of $80 to use the new CSU Recreation Center on campus, which has a large pool and is less than 800 yards from this proposed development. He concluded by commenting to Staff that the comparisons to College Park proposal was troubling to him because 1/3 of the Board was not on the Board when the College Park proposal was denied and they do not have the knowledge of what that proposal was about. Secondly, he understood that each proposal that comes before the Board would be judged on its own merits and not compared to what was done before. The College Park proposal should have little or no bearing on what is being considered tonight. He stated if it does play an important part of the decision -making, then it should be denied for many of the same reasons that the College Park proposal was denied. Debbie Homan, Sundering subdivision resident, stated that the issue of traffic from the C.A.T. development and the proposed six-plex movie theater and the Pulse development at Shields and Drake has not been addressed. 111: I ' I 1 Chairman Walker commented that any reference to College Park was irrelevant and that this proposal was a new project with a clean slate. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification on what requirements must be met for this variance request to be granted. Mr. Shepard replied that Staff was not using the criteria of the "equal to or better than" clause or the significant hardship clause found in the LDGS. This is a separate procedure that is allowed by City ordinance which was passed in 1987 by City Council to review these specific • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 11 kinds of requests. The criteria, as stated in the Staff Report, is a two-part test, the first part being does it meet the All Development Criteria of the LDGS and does it meet the Variable Criteria as in the Residential Uses Point Chart. The second part asks if this project provides enough of what is needed to mitigate to impact the nature of the request, which is to increase the number of occupants per unit, including open space, recreation, parking and public facilities. Chairman Walker commented that the Board needs to decide if this project adequately serves the occupants of the development and does it protect the adjacent neighborhoods. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the regional shopping center that was identified in the density chart and how Staff arrived at the number of points that were given. Mr. Shepard stated that credit was given for regional shopping which was identified as South College Avenue being a major retail center. He stated that CSU is the major employer in Fort Collins, there is no larger employer. He stated that automatic fire extinguishers has been in the criteria since 1981 and this project does meet that criteria. In terms of open space, he removed • from the calculations the two easements that encompass the importation canal and the Spring Creek corridor which includes the bike trail in Spring Creek. He stated that with those calculations removed, he arrived at much less and he gave points accordingly. Member Clements -Cooney asked for an outline of the proposed bike connections to CSU. Mr. Shepard responded that there are three bicycle distribution points. The first one connects directly through the middle of the site onto Shields to connect the on -street bike lanes. These are being built as part of the Choices 95 project through the about -to -be -completed intersection that goes to points on the west side of the campus. Another point is at the two bridge area which is another distribution point. He stated that there was an unreal expectation for residents of this project not to be able to use that point. The third point would be at the Spring Creek Trail to other connecting points, down the current trail to where it turns 90 degrees to the south, then would go across Arthur Ditch, over Spring Creek, up along the back side of the homes on Whitcomb, and over to Centre Avenue which connects to a signalized intersection, and Centre Avenue leads to the heart of the campus. Member Clements -Cooney asked when the on -street bike lanes that are currently being constructed would be completed. Mr. Shepard believed that this project would begin in the Spring of 1994. 0 Member Clements -Cooney asked if the leases were set by the bedroom. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Vaught stated that this was correct. He stated that Ram Village was operated under those guidelines and this project would follow the same guidelines. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was the potential for a four -bedroom to house eight to ten people. Mr. Vaught stated that if this occurred, due to the financial arrangement that people have spoken to regarding the cost of this type of lifestyle, does attract a student who could afford that type of housing arrangement and self -monitors this from happening. He stated that if there were 3 or 4 people in a unit and they were each paying, individually, for the bedroom they have and the common space that they share, and a fifth or sixth person showed up on a regular basis, the experience is that the other 2 or 3 occupants of that unit would begin to complain to the management. Member Cottier asked if there were any penalties written into the lease for having more occupants than allowed. Mr. Vaught replied that there will be penalties included in the agreement. He stated that there are regulations about having a guest and they would have to apply at the office for a permit to allow that person to stay for a designated period of time, which is about 3-5 days. The guests would have to check into the office, both personally and with their vehicles. If the tenant was caught with other people staying for extended periods of time, there would be a fine of approximately $10 per day. He stated that the intent is to have one person per one bedroom and would be very carefully regulated by the on -site manager. Mr. Roy stated that, on the variance question, it would be helpful to clarify that the definition of "family" as any unrelated group of persons consisting of not more than three persons or not more than two unrelated adults and their related children, if any. The intent of the definition was to cut back on the number of unrelated adults if children were introduced into the situation so there wouldn't be a totally unmanageable number of people. He asked for clarification that the request was to increase both of those to 4. He stated that if this is approved, there could be a question of interpretation in the future. Mr. Vaught stated that the request was simply to increase the number of unrelated adults to reside together. He stated that typically there would not be a family in a four -bedroom situation. He stated that they were requesting that the number of unrelated persons without children be changed from 3 to 4. Chairman Walker asked if there were any approved plans for the undeveloped parcels in this area and what is the nature of these plans, if any. n �J • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Shepard stated that there is a master plan for the Centre for Advanced Technology with a preliminary PUD submittal for a six-plex movie theater which is located in Tract R. This immediate corner of Shields and Drake has been master planned as a retail center since 1985 which is about 20-30 acres in size. The traffic study that was done then accounted for that neighborhood retail center. He stated that the other portions of C.A.T. can be divided between the CSURF portions and the Everitt portions in that the CSURF portions do not have definitive plans. The Everitt portion is primarily market -driven, on a lot -by -lot basis, with the most recent completed plan being for the Alzheimer care unit and the elderly care unit. He stated that the Mullaney property on the west side of Shields is being marketed. The Stone Creek Phase II area, adjacent to the Mullaney property, is not built although Stone Creek Phase I is built. West of Stone Creek is Heather Ridge, then west of that is residences, and then The Bridges, then west of that is a submittal for duplexes and multi -family. Member Winfree asked when would be the completion of Arthur Ditch and the bridge. Mr. Peterson stated that the Arthur Ditch spur is not relevant to this project. He stated that it • could be built this fall or Spring 1994. Member Cottier asked the applicant what they consider transition on the south side of the project and how close is the nearest house on the south side. Mr. Vaught replied that there is a variety of distances. There would be a bank of units that run along Hillpond and a long building that would rum parallel to Hobbit Street. He stated that the shortest distance is 160 feet and the greatest distance would be 300 feet. He stated that they have offset the buildings to create a pocket of landscaping along Spring Creek. He stated that along the edge of the easement line down to the trail there is a 10 foot drop. This area has Russian Olives, Chokecherry trees and pine trees which are mixed intermittently among the Russian Olives and the Chokecherry trees. Member Fontane asked if the applicant could perform the same step down procedure in the border area that are closest to the Hillpond properties. Mr. Vaught replied that they would entertain the Board's thoughts on this suggestion. Member Winfree asked what was the elevation of this property on the south adjacent to Hillpond and comparative to Hillpond. Mr. Vaught stated that he did not know what the topography was on the south side of the creek • and could not give an accurate representation. He stated that it was about 8 feet above the trail. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 14 Member Cottier asked for some detail on out-of-state students not being required to have Colorado license plates therefore not meeting Colorado emissions. Mr. Bracke stated that along the Front Range there is an air program that requires autos to go through an inspection maintenance program. He stated that if license plates are not purchased in Larimer County, you are not required to have that inspection. He noted that, in Fort Collins, according to the Air Pollution Control Division figures, 85 % of the vehicles that go through the Inspection Maintenance Program, there is only a 15% failure rate. Member Cottier stated that virtually all new cars pass the emissions test. Mr. Bracke stated that if it costs too much to fix, you would not be required to fix it. Jerry Cash, owner of Foothills Chrysler in Fort Collins and area resident, stated that in his business he is very familiar with the air pollution laws. He stated that the Emission Control standards along the Front Range are among the most stringent m the United States and exceed the California requirements. The 15 % may apply on the cars that are being tested locally because those are the vehicles that have to pass year after year and we are accustom to it in this area. He stated that as a result in seeing a lot of people move into Fort Collins, we are seeing a failure rate that exceeds that. He stated that you see a high failure rate in the older vehicles which he believed was fair to associate with college students. Mr. Peterson stated that along the Front Range, many people would register their vehicles on the western slope, particularly rental car companies, to avoid the air control restrictions. He stated that there was an attempt to change the state law in registration of vehicles a few years ago. He believed that the change did not occur. Chairman Walker stated that there is a very high population density in this area. Yet, as opposed to the 3DU/AC as a floor, there is no ceiling on density. He believed that there are a lot of issues that the charts do not reflect. He stated that there is a way of serving the occupants of the development and still protect the adjacent neighborhood which would be placing a very intense development with this type of variance on the number of unrelated adults. He was concerned that this area was being overloaded with the high density. In this situation, as opposed to Ram Village, there is a mix but there is also quite a number of multi -family existing there. The concept that this will be rent -by -the -bedroom development suggests that this will be something other than a normal multi -family development. He stated that there were certain attributes to the project that were commendable in the way that these issues have been addressed, such as the methods of buffering. He had concerns that the addressed issues would be enough to serve the occupants of the development and still protect the neighborhood. n U • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 15 Member Fontane commented that this project has come a long way. She stated that in reviewing the point chart and the points given, it may be appropriate to say that this is a facility that is being taxed, such as Rolland Moore Park. She stated that, as far as commercial, she had concerns with the lack of area that can' be accessed by the bicyclist or the pedestrian. She believed that the commercial aspect in this part of town should be addressed in more detail. Member Cottier commented that students are a very legitimate segment of our community. Their housing needs are just as valid as elderly and disabled. She stated that, theoretically, CSU could provide 100% housing for all of their students but there is trade-offs in terms of monetary priorities. There is an economic value to having students here and believed it wasn't fair to turn our backs on them when it comes to housing because nobody wants high density housing in their neighborhood. Member Fontane stated that many of the students find this community as beautiful as residents do and that after they graduate, they remain in Fort Collins. . Chairman Walker commented that the Board has some unique circumstances in that students are a part of our community and their needs should be addressed. At the same time, viable neighborhoods are part of our community and their needs should be addressed. He stated that this is where the debate appears to be focused. He asked Mr. Roy if the Board should combine both of their findings that it meets all the All Development Criteria and has other special amenities to serve the occupants and protect the neighborhood or the additional amenities that allow the four people per unit. Mr. Roy replied that the Board should review both. He stated that the motion could be to either approve or deny the variance request but the reasons in support of the motion should be framed in terms of these criteria. Chairman Walker clarified that this would be the All Development Criteria as well as the requirement that open space, recreation areas, parking spaces, and public facilities are there to adequately serve the occupants and protect the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Roy replied that it should be the All Development plus the variable criteria and the other facilities and amenities that Chairman Walker mentioned and whether they would be adequate to serve the additional number of people that might be introduced into the project by reason of the granting of the variance. Member Winfree commented that, in reviewing the unrelated persons living in a dwelling • ordinance, the City was recognizing that four unrelated individuals do have a different impact on the surrounding neighbors. She stated that this needs to be taken into consideration when making a determination on granting the variance. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 16 Member Clements -Cooney commented that the developer has requested a variance to increase the number of unrelated persons living in a unit. This happens all over the City that causes an impact and those people have not come before the Board with a variance request. She believed that the developer was being penalized for acting appropriately. She had concerns about the process in that she has not heard much by way of the neighbors saying that they could work with the developer for mitigation. Member Fontane stated that if this were an approved proposal for 3 bedroom, the community has such a poor attitude of students, she believed that they would still be against it. Carolyn Peterson, resident of the Sheely area, stated that the students are not the issue. The issue was the traffic that goes through their backyards and the high density area. Chairman Walker stated that comments he heard was not a negative attitude toward students, but rather a monolithic, single use targeted population and the intensity of the types of individuals that are targeted for this development. Member Klataske moved for approval of the variance for four persons in the 66 units of this proposal. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Klataske commented that several single family homes have been converted to student rentals in single family neighborhoods. People would buy these homes and then convert them. There have been problems with rentals in single family neighborhoods, parking, and there was a safety factor. This is how this ordinance was derived and it has served the community well. He stated that in an area where there will predominantly be students, he did not believe that this ordinance was meant to apply. He believed that it was appropriate to have a certain number of units if there is provisions made for parking, for on -site recreational activities, and alternate modes of transportation. Member Cottier addressed the ordinance by stating that she concurs with Staff's interpretation that this project does meet the All Development criteria and has the necessary points according to the Residential Density chart. She stated that in evaluating on whether it provides additional open space, recreational areas, parking spaces and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants, she stated that it was her judgement that it does when compared to other similar projects. She stated that if this project were proposed for any other place in the City, the community would believe that it was a terrific plan. She stated that she realized this was a sensitive area and believed that this project does have significant buffering. Chairman Walker commented that the could not support this motion because he believed that this would not protect the adjacent neighborhood. He had concerns about the context within which this is being put in. He stated that, in effect, granting this variance sets a character for this . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 17 particular development and, by that character, he was not convinced that it would protect the adjacent neighborhood. He believed that this area was the most heavily populated area of town and that interjecting a complex of this type would cater to a certain type of renter would create an intrusive and disruptive element in this neighborhood. The motion to approve the variance failed 4-2 with Members Winfree, Fontane, Walker and Clements -Cooney in the negative. Mr. Vaught stated that, since the variance request was denied, the Board could evaluate the plan on its merits assuming that the project would not contain four -bedroom units. Mr. Roy stated that there were alternative actions that the Board could take if they did not believe that they had adequate information at this point as to the redesign of the project. One of those options would be to postpone consideration until a redesigned plan is submitted. However, if the Board believes the information is adequate at the preliminary stage, then it would be appropriate to move ahead. • Chairman Walker asked about the nature of the management of the complex now that it may have the possibility of three -bedroom units. Mr. Vaught replied that these units would continue to be rented out by the bedroom. Chairman Walker asked Staff what was the purpose of the variance for Building "T" Mr. Shepard stated that the purpose was that Building "T," being on the eastern 1/3 of the property and with the direct relationship to the existing homes, that this be reviewed to be substituted by a building of a smaller envelope or a building with a reduced height. Mr. Roy recommended to the Board that they focus on the plan and the acceptability of it in relation to those criteria irrespective of who the intended market might be. Absence of facts on the record that suggest that students as a population would have certain affects on certain criteria should not be donsidered. He suggested that the Board should review the project and accept or reject it on its merits regardless of who may occupy it. Member Clements -Cooney commented that given the variance was not granted, the applicant could reduce the amount of parking to provide more buffering to the south. Chairman Walker suggested that, once comments are provided, this project be postponed to a • later date with the stipulation that there be further neighborhood input through meetings with the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 18 Member Cottier believed that this could be voted upon on a preliminary basis since the applicant stated that the four -bedroom units would become three -bedroom units. Member Fontane moved to approve this proposal with the condition that the four -bedroom units would be three -bedroom units and with the following Staff conditions: 1) At the time of Final PUD, the PUD shall indicate graphically, and the developer shall indicate in writing, a commitment to financially participate in design and construction of the "Arthur Spur" to mitigate the potential impact of bicycle traffic generated by the PUD.; 2) At the time of Final PUD, the easterly buffered zone shall contain a mix of plant material whereby 33% of the trees are specified to exceed the minimum of 6 to 8 feet in height for evergreen trees and 2 inches in caliper for deciduous trees. 3) At the time of Final PUD, Building "T", illustrated to be a three story 12-plex, shall be substituted by a building with a smaller envelope and reduced height in order to provide the necessary transition in scale and mass on the east side of the site. 4) At the time of Final PUD, the landscaping along the side elevations of the 6-plex and 10-plex structures shall be upgraded with increased plant material in order to mitigate height and promote neighborhood compatibility. Member Cottier seconded the motion with the condition that additional buffering be indicated on the south side. Member Fontane agreed to the condition set forth by Member Cottier. Member Cottier stated that, in supporting of this project, it does meet all the City's policies for where a project of high density should locate. She added that this project also encourages alternate modes of transportation. Chairman Walker believed that the Board is attempting to redesign the project and felt uncomfortable doing this. He believed that this project should be postponed. Member Winfree commented that she did not believe that she was seeing the project as it will be presented at final. She had concerns on whether it would meet the neighborhood compatibility for All Development Criteria 4. The motion to approve failed on a 3-3 vote. Members Winfree, Walker and Clements - Cooney were in the negative. Member Clements -Cooney moved to postpone this project to the August 23 regular P&Z meeting. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. Chairman Walker stated that Paragon Point PUD Amended Overall Development Plan and Paragon Point PUD 4th Filing Preliminary and Final would be continued to the August 2, 1993 meeting. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 19 __114ham► Mr. Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval with three conditions. Merle Haworth, of Robb, Brenner, Brelig and representative of the applicant, briefly discussed the history of this project, the concerns of the neighborhood, utility access from the south, temporary access off of Richmond, the lessening of the impact on the neighbors, the moving of two buildings that mostly affect neighbors to facilitate buffering, the addition of trees, fencing and berms for buffering, the rearrangement of some of the units to take buildings away from the north property line, and the height of the buildings. He added that they have not yet resolved with Staff the site lighting issue or the buffering concept. PUBLIC INPUT Dr. Douglas Leidholt, 3818 Richmond Drive, stated that he was not opposed to the project but believed that as proposed was not compatible. He stated that their major concern was the • security factor since they have livestock on their property. He was concerned that the fencing for the proposed project was not being carried to the full extent of the proposed project. Therefore, the access to the back of their property would be available. He stated that they currently have a three -wire fence and an electrical fence which could be a safety factor if children were to try to go over the fence. Another concern was an environmental block which has been addressed by the applicant but not enough for their situation. He requested that the applicant address this issue more significantly. He had concerns with mass versus height in the 4-plex units. He requested that the landscaping that goes into that area be for both solar access to his property as well as to the buffering and environmental effects. He added that they are attempting to move the Cunningham Bam to their property for use as a museum, which would add one more security problem. Julie Birdsall, area resident, believed that most of the neighborhood would agree that if they had a preference, this proposed property would become an open space. She stated that in lieu of that, they are aware that this project is targeted for retirement age people which would blend in with their neighborhood. Her primary concern was the size and mass of the structures to the west of her property. She stated that the fencing has a break in it and would prefer that it be one solid fence. Bill Trippel, Richmond Drive property owner, stated that his major concern was security on Richmond Drive. He stated that he would like to see Richmond Drive closed and used only temporarily for emergency access. He was also concerned that basements would be part of these • units. All of the homes in this area have wells and when the water table goes down, he was concerned what this would do to the wells in this area. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 20 Howard Enos, resident of Richmond Drive, stated that the security issue was of great concern to him. He stated that if this project is allowed to go through without an adequate security fence across the north end of the proposed property, children will find their way coming down the existing properties onto Richmond Drive. I' !I 1►1� Y • � Member Clements -Cooney asked if the fencing issue has been resolved. Mr. Shepard stated that the fencing has not been designed and the exact nature of the buffer treatment is still in the preliminary form. A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted and commented on. There is more work that needs to be done on this and that is why the condition of approval has been added. Member Clements -Cooney asked for more detail regarding the height and mass of the structures. Mr. Haworth replied that the four unit buildings are ranch style buildings and the bulk is by footprint and about 20 feet high at the ridge line. He added that the only shadow on the adjacent existing property would be from one 1-1/2 story unit casting a shadow along the edge of the fence and probably not higher than the fence shadow. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the alignment with Dr. Leidholt's property. Mr. Haworth replied that with the street layout, it would not work well to turn the unit. However, through the buffering process, the landscaping could be increased to mitigate that concern. He stated that a significant amount of evergreens, or different species of evergreens that won't grow too tall, would be used to create a more permanent buffer in this area. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there would be a potential problem with the water table with this development. Mr. Haworth stated that, in the past, this area has had problems with high and fluctuating water tables due to the irrigation and leakage from the ditch and this general region being flood irrigated in the summertime. Flood irrigating has ceased and the developers of the area to the south and west are planning to do some remediation on the ditch. He stated that the soils test taken this summer indicated that the water table was approximately 9 feet below the surface of the ground indicating that there would be no problem with basements. Member Fontane asked what was the life of the Poudre Fire access. U Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Haworth stated that the access would be used until Wabash connects with Troutman Parkway, which is part of the next phase of Mountain Ridge. At the time that the streets are completed, the easement would be eliminated and the access would only be used for a utility access for Water and Sewer stubbed at the end of Richmond Drive. He stated that this has been discussed with the Poudre Fire Authority and they are willing to allow the developer to fence across with a gate that is permanently locked which they would have to cut to get through in case of an emergency. He added that the residential board type fencing is not suitable for livestock and they will discuss alternative fencing with Dr. Leidholt. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the developer was marketing only seniors. Mr. Haworth replied that their target would be directed toward "empty nesters" or young people that have not yet started their families and do not want to deal with the full ramifications of homeownership. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Cobblestone Corners PUD Preliminary with • the following four conditions: 1) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the design of the temporary second point of access into Richmond Drive shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority for compliance with the Poudre Fire Code. In addition, the design of the area impacted by the temporary fire access shall be provided addressing the permanent condition after removal of the temporary improvements. 2) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the fencing, landscape, and berming treatment along the north property line shall be enhanced so that a solid screen of material, at maturity, shall be provided adjacent to the living areas of the two residences to the north. 3) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the selection of plant material, designed to promote buffering and screening along the north property line, should not have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent properties to the north in the distribution of natural light or precludes the functional use of solar energy technology. 4) Buildings Al, A2, Bl and B2 shall be reduced from two-story units to 1-1/2 story units. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. 0