HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/28/1993• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 28, 1993
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The June 28, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell,
Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig,
Kerrie Ashbeck and Heidi Phelps.
PRESENTATION
Chairman Walker presented outgoing Board member O'Dell with a plaque recognizing her eight
years of service on the Planning & Zoning Board.
• AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1- Minutes of the May
3 and May 24, 1993 P & Z Meetings; Item 2 - Save More Self Storage PUD - Preliminary
& Final, #27-93; Item 3 - Orchard Park Apartments PUD - Final, #25-93; Item 4 - Gateway
at Harmony road PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary & Final, #1-88F; Item 5 - 424 West Oak
PUD - Final, #40-92B; Item 6 - English Ranch Subdivision, 3rd Filing - Final, #75-86J;
Item 7 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 8 - Modification of Conditions
of Final Approval for Best Western Transmission PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 9 -
Frame Annexation and Zoning - #11-93; Item 10 - Karl Peterson Annexation and Zoning -
#29-93,A; Item 11 - Ricketts First Annexation and Zoning - #33-93,A; and Item 12 -
Ricketts Second Annexation and Zoning - #34-93,A.
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item #13 - The Preserve at Fort
Collins Apartments PUD - Final, #146-790; Item 14 - Lindimer Subdivision - Preliminary -
#26-93; Item #15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #19-93; and Item
#15 - Greenbriar Village PUD - First Filing - Preliminary & Final - #19-93A.
Discussion Items #17, Provincetowne PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #73-82P and
#18 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary - #73-82N were continued to the July Planning &
Zoning Board Meeting at the applicant's request.
Staff pulled Item #5, 424 West Oak PUD - Final.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 2
Chairman Walker asked if there was anyone from the Board or public that would like to pull an
item for discussion.
Mr. Nicholas Kendall, 4808 Cambridge Avenue, requested that Items #11 and #12 - Ricketts
First and Second Annexations and Zoning, be pulled from the. Consent Agenda for discussion.
Member Strom moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
424 WEST OAK PUD - FINAL. #4
Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated that the
project had been approved at preliminary with the condition that there be additional landscaping
at the back of 120 S. Sherwood.
Mr. Olt showed a map of the PUD.
Mr. Olt said that at this point in time, the staff was looking for the intent of the applicant
regarding that landscaping condition.
Don Richmond, co -applicant with Lynda Williams, and co-owner of 424 W. Oak, stated that
they would be future owners of a Victorian home to be built at 120 S. Sherwood.
Mr. Richmond stated that the reason for the delay in meeting the landscaping condition, was that
the applicants had turned part of the project over to CSU to pursue a grant through the State
Department of Water Conservation.
Mr. Richmond said that his ongoing interest in energy conservation had led to the concept of
this house being used as a demonstration project. Mr. Richmond cited contact with the State
Office of Energy Conservation and passed out related materials [attachment to original Minutes].
Mr. Richmond assured the Board that it would be provided with a detailed landscaping plan.
Member Cottier stated that she was the Board member who originally requested the landscaping
condition, since she wanted to ensure that the property at 120 S. Sherwood had the best chance
of keeping its residential character. Member Colder said that it was her understanding that there
would be just a fence between this property and the properties where houses were being
converted to offices. She added that she did not believe that the fence alone was an adequate
buffer.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Richmond made an assurance of adequate buffering.
Member Strom said he wondered that since the grant application was still in process, if it wasn't
a "cart before the horse" situation procedurally.
Tom Peterson, Planning Director, stated that he believed staff had reached a resolution regarding
the situation. Mr. Peterson explained that since a structure needed to be built at 120 S.
Sherwood, the suggestion was to attach a condition to the final, stating that the landscape plan
be approved by Planning staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Member Strom asked for some clarification on the grant.
Mr. Richmond gave more details on the grant and eligible energy conservation measures.
Chair Walker asked when the grant applications were due.
Mr. Richmond stated that they were due in December, with awards being announced several
months after that. He added that the applicant should know more within a few months. Mr.
Richmond emphasized that the grant application via a public agency was requested of him by
• the State Office of Energy Conservation.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Richmond if he planned to live at 120 S.Sherwood.
Mr. Richmond answered in the affirmative.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification on the demonstration aspect of the house.
Mr. Richmond stated that the house would be part of the "Parade of Homes" tour in 1994, with
two months committed to holding Open Houses.
Chair Walker asked for clarification regarding construction sequence vs. the grant application
and award process. He noted that many of the eligible grant activities were tied to structural
needs of the house.
Mr. Richmond stated that many of the grant items were activities which would normally occur
at the tail end of construction, and that applicable construction for infrastructure such as
plumbing was designed with the grant possibilities in mind.
Member Carroll stated that he was satisfied with the staff condition attaching issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy to landscape plan approval.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 4
Member Carroll asked for clarification on whether the landscape plan was being subject to staff
approval or Board approval.
Mr. Peterson said that staff approval was being suggested, but that Board approval was another
alternative.
PUBLIC INPUT,
None.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED.
.Member Cottier said that regardless of involvement with a grant application, that she would still
like to see landscaping that distinctly separated the 120 S. Sherwood property from the rest of
the complex. She added that she would be more comfortable with the landscaping approval
coming back to the Board.
Member Cottier moved for approval of 424 W. Oak - Final, with the condition as stated
by staff, except that the landscape plan approval come back to the Board.
Mr. Eckman advised that as a part of the motion, that Member Cottier mention what she was
looking for in the landscaping, such as she had mentioned earlier.
Mr. Peterson suggested incorporating her clarifying remarks as part of the condition.
Member Cottier asked if the clarifying remarks could be added to the motion.
Mr. Eckman answered in the affirmative.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion containing the more detailed condition.
Member Strom shared that he was uncomfortable with a condition being placed on final
approval. He stated that only because of the pending grant application and the related desirable
and scientific goals, would he support the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
RICKETTS FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #33-93.A
RICKETTS SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #34-93.A
Richard Keller, one of five residents on Cambridge Avenue, stated that three of the five
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 5
residents were opposed to the annexation and zoning. Mr. Keller stated that the neighbors
needed more time to find out what the landowner's intent was, whether there would be a buffer
zone, etc.
Mr. Keller requested a deferment to a later date.
Chair Walker said that a full discussion was in order, and asked if it was appropriate to discuss
both annexations at the same time.
Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative.
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval of annexation
and requested zoning for both parcels. Ms. Whetstone noted that it was a voluntary annexation
and that the applicants were the property owners.
Ms. Whetstone said that it was her understanding that there was no intent to develop the
property at this time. Ms. Whetstone indicated that the owners wanted to do a Minor
Subdivision on the land, a procedure which was not allowed in the County. She added that the
parcel was contiguous to the City -- which made that land eligible for annexation, and that
• therefore the County had deferred the applicants to the City for the Minor Subdivision
application.
Ms. Whetstone stated that staff was recommending that the proposed zoning be EP (Employment
Park Zone). She said the Zoning District was created with the Harmony Corridor Plan and was
in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Whetstone added that the EP Zone
requires a Special Review for any use that would come in; there are no residential uses -by -right
in that Zone. Ms. Whetstone stated that all "permitted" uses must be submitted to the Planning
and Zoning Board for its review and approval.
Ms. Whetstone said the annexation was also in accordance with policies and agreements
established between the City and Larimer County. She added that the area met all State law
criteria to qualify for annexation.
Ms. Whetstone informed those present that on July 6, 1993, City Council would be considering
a resolution to set forth the intent to annex the property and to establish a date for a public
hearing. Ms. Whetstone continued by saying that notice of that hearing would be given for four
consecutive Sundays and that Council would hear the ordinance on August 17, 1993.
Chair Walker summarized by saying that since there was no development proposal, that the
matter before the Board was the suitability of the land to be annexed in terms of land use,
zoning and legal criteria.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 6
Ms. Whetstone affirmed that that was correct.
Member Carroll asked for clarification on procedural issues for possible future development for
the parcel.
Ms. Whetstone explained the procedure for Special Review, adding that a neighborhood meeting
as well as a Planning and Zoning.Board hearing were part of the process.
Norma Ricketts, 4300 Cambridge Avenue, co -applicant with her husband, Van Ricketts, outlined
their reasons for requesting the annexation. She stated that there was a dwelling on the second
annexation, which they were selling because they were being transferred.
Ms. Ricketts added that the applicants wanted to keep ownership of the first annexation. She
added that they had no current plans to develop, but wanted to keep the land for future
possibilities such as retirement.
PUBLIC INPUT
Nicholas Kendall, 4808 Cambridge Drive, stated that he had difficulty understanding the
process. He asked for clarification on voting rights of neighbors.
Mr. Peterson stated that the "50 percent" rule cited by Mr. Kendall applied only to situations
where additional land was added onto the original annexation, i.e., pulling in neighboring
properties. He added that that portion of the State law did not Apply to this case (a voluntary
annexation by property owners of their own property).
Mr. Kendall also said that neighbors were concerned about future sale of the property and
increased commercialization.
Mr. Peterson said that any future proposed land use change of the first annexation would have
to come before the Planning and Zoning Board, and that neighbors would always have an
opportunity for input at that time.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED,
Member Clements -Cooney clarified for those present that the Board was simply making a
recommendation to City Council and that it was not the final decision making authority.
Member Cottier asked Ms. Whetstone to explain why she was also recommending EP for the
southern parcel, as opposed to residential.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 7
Ms. Whetstone explained that the Harmony Corridor Plan recommended the FsP Zone for the
area one mile north and one mile south of Harmony Road, since it allows for a mix of uses.
She added that staff believed they should go with the recommendation of the Harmony Corridor
Plan.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend to City Council the Ricketts First Annexation and
Zoning.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Member Carroll gave a word of advice to the neighbors in attendance. He urged them to
continue to become informed and to get and stay involved in the process. Member Carroll
said he would be supporting the motion.
Member Strom reminded interested parties that they had an opportunity to raise questions and
concerns before or at the Public Hearing on August 17th. Member Strom said he would support
the motion.
Member Cottier said she would support the motion. She noted for those present that zoning the
• parcel EP meant that it would = make it hard to keep the land use as residential. She added
that the Board was not suggesting that it become industrial or commercial.
Chair Walker referenced the Harmony Corridor Plan as a guiding document for future land use
decisions in that area. He stated that he believed that any decision the Board would make would
have to be in conformance with that Plan, which had included an extensive public review
process.
The motion passed, 7-0.
Member Strom moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the
Ricketts Second Annexation and Zoning.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Chair Walker noted that all the comments regarding the Ricketts First Annexation applied to the
Ricketts second annexation.
The motion passed, 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 8
X11 Of ILIKI)INT5 75,414u1__►1 cmII I �I
1Grsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report and stated that conditions of
preliminary approval had been met. Staff recommended approval, with a variance to the 40-foot
height limitation based on the "equal to or better than" clause of the Variance Procedures section
of the LQGS, and with the following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan
upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final
PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer
and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting
(August 23, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which
this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so
executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the
Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of
time unless it shall first fmd that there exists with respect to said planned unit
development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances
which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and
unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that
such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the
development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for
resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding
monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both
the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient
information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to
table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such
decision is made).
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as
applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become
null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit
development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes
of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time
for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article H, Division 3, of the City
Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the
time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that the dispute is presented
to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development
agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision"
shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 9
Mr. Doug Wagner, Wagner Architectural Group, spoke representing the applicant and reviewed
the project.
Mr. Wagner provided a history of the site. Raintree PUD was approved in 1980 and contained
448 units, a gross 15.8 DU/acre (net 16.14). He stated that the Preserve's density was based
on the net and not on the gross, that net figure being 15.18. Mr. Wagner said that the current
proposal was for 276 units.
Mr. Wagner noted some of the changes to the Raintree PUD, such as the Senior Center (9 acres)
and the proposed change of zoning from Commercial to Residential on 1.76 acres. He said he
believed the changes to the site plan all worked to decrease impact in the area.
Mr. Wagner added that it was an infrll site and that over a million dollars in development fees
would be generated without any infrastructure burden on the City. He also said that the
developer would be making improvements to Drake Road.
Mr. Wagner shared about some of the changes to site details. He said that surface parking along
Drake Road had been eliminated. Mr. Wagner stated that all buildings had been provided with
concrete pad bike parking racks.
. Mr. Wagner went on to say that the applicant was working with the City and various agencies
involved with the handicapped, to provide handicapped units for the project. Mr. Wagner
explained that some units would be totally built for handicapped tenancy at the onset, and that
some would be adaptable. He noted that the pad for the bus stop was now designed to be
handicapped accessible; Mr. Wagner explained some of the project's walkway design and tie-ins
to other pedestrian routes.
Matt Delich, 3413 Banyon - Loveland, Traffic Engineer for the project, said he prepared a site
access study for the development in March, 1993. He stated that the project is estimated to
generate 2100 vehicle trips per week day.
Mr. Delich shared that the current operation of the key intersections (Raintree and Shields;
Raintree and Drake; Shields and Drake) was determined acceptable, and would continue
acceptable through the short range future (1995-96). He noted that one intersection was being
added to the scheme of things -- an intersection west of Raintree Drive. He stated that that
intersection, as well as the Raintree and Drake intersection would be stop sign -controlled until,
or if, signal warrants are met.
Mr. Delich said that there would be a widened cross-section adjacent to the development, which
would run from Raintree Drive west to the property line. He added that eventually, a full
arterial width would be built along Drake Road. Mr. Delich said that for the short- term, a two-
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 10
lane cross-section would be all that would be needed in that area, containing a right turn
deceleration lane.
Mr. Delich shared details on the width and traffic flow pattern for Raintree Drive. He
concluded by saying that City staff had accepted the traffic study and had agreed with the
conclusions of it.
Mr. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, Landscape Architects for the project, gave an update on the
landscape changes.
Mr. Hendee addressed some of the concerns raised at preliminary regarding xeriscaping. He
noted that all seven steps to xeriscaping were being provided : 1) Plan the design; 2) Improve
soil; 3) Limit turf areas by "zoning" the landscape (high, medium and low -- to match "people
use"); 4) Select low water -use plants; 5) Irrigate efficiently; 6) Use mulches; and 7) Practice
maintenance.
Mr. Hendee explained the specifications of each step as applied to the site; he noted the
developer's history of practicing good maintenance. Mr. Hendee stated that xeriscaping --
contrary to some misconceptions in the community -- was not "zero"-scaping, and went on to
describe the project.
Mr. Hendee shared that one of the items which had come up in preliminary was the proximity
to Rolland Moore park; he explained that Ross Open Space separated the park from the project.
Mr. Hendee said that landscaping along that border was designed to provide a transition. He
stated that 29 trees (cottonwood and willow), as well as additional shrubbery, had been added
to the Ross Open Space and the project's open space tract; additional trees had also been added
along the north border.
Mr. Hendee stated that changes were made in dealing with the "barricade" or "long row" effect
along Drake Road that had been a concern at the preliminary stage. He said that trees were
moved closer to the street and that there was additional shrubbery in front of the garages.
Steve Human, TST Consulting Engineers, stated that the water and sewer facilities for the
project would be tying in to existing facilities. He said there would be no surface drainage
leaving the site. Mr. Human said that drainage would be collected on -site or routed off -site
through a drainage pipe. Mr. Human stated that an agreement had been reached with the New
Mercer Ditch Company regarding maintenance and access.
Mr. Human stated that Drake Road would be widened and asphalted to current standards. He
added that the concerns about existing utilities had been worked out with the utility company.
David Bailey, one of the speakers for the applicant, shared that 20 units of the project had been
r�
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 11
designed to accommodate disabled persons. He added that the applicant had gone so far as to
explore possible tenant relationships and was working with Bethphage Mission, Inc. in doing so.
Doug Wagner returned to the podium to speak to the concerns raised at preliminary regarding
building height. He stated that the variance request was for 45 feet, but that the actual building
heights ranged from 41 feet to 43 feet in portions of the buildings.
Mr. Wagner said that in response to concerns about the view of the project from the Ross Open
Space, that a step effect had been added to the building layouts, that window groupings had been
changed and that additional landscaping had been added.
Mr. Wagner returned to the height limit concern by stating that the applicant had elected to slope
the ends of the buildings in all cases, eliminating much of the possible mass. He stated that a
straight 40-foot roof height would cover up a lot more sky and would not be as attractive.
Mr. Wagner went on to say that one way to resolve the height regulation issue would be to
lower the roof pitches to a 5/12. He said that the roofs are currently at a 6/12 pitch, which is
typical for residential development. Mr. Wagner added that a 5/12 pitch would lower the size
of the windows on the second story, would lessen volume in some areas and would detract from
the appearance. Mr. Wagner stated that although there were some problems with the building
• aspects of a 5/12 roof, that it was actually less expensive to build.
Mr. Wagner stated that it was going to cost the developer more money to build the 6/12 roof
pitches. He said the overall roof design was more costly due to problems and complications
with trusses, etc.; he noted that a 6/12 roof added to the quality appearance and residential
"feel".
Mr. Wagner showed sketches of the various roof designs for the buildings. He stated that the
portions of the roofs which exceed the regulations ranged from about 15 feet to 40 feet in length.
Mr. Wagner added that he believed that the impact was not very dramatic in term of overall roof
bulk, and that the height impact would have been greater had the applicant gone with straight
gabled roof ends at the 40-foot height.
Mr. Wagner provided information regarding the City's request for a shadow impact study of the
buildings. He stated that a 6/12 roof had an angle of 26-1/2 degrees. Mr. Wagner said that at
noon on December 21st, the sun shines at an angle of 27 degrees. He showed representative
sketches and said that only the eaves cast a building shadow; he added that the roof ridges did
not cast a shadow to the ground, but onto the roofs themselves. He continued by saying that
most of the shadows were cast on -site; he said there was a slight amount of building shadow
along Raintree Drive and Ross Open Space. Mr. Wagner said that there was good spacing
between the buildings and a generous amount of open space provided with this design.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Wagner explained that the applicant was requesting a 45-foot variance but the actual height
of the building would be two to three additional feet to the top of sheathing. He said he believed
the trade-offs from doing more expensive roofing were worth going to the 45-foot height.
Mr. Wagner reviewed the existing topography and showed sketches of how the applicant had
taken advantage of the natural grade to achieve a "tiered" effect with some of the buildings. He
stated that some of the buildings that were fully three stories were at the lower elevation.
Mr. Wagner stated that he had past experience in trying to build 2-1/2-story buildings. He
continued by saying that although a 2-1/2-story building was one way to meet the height
requirement and have less stringent building code requirements, past projects had met with
resistance. He shared that he experienced trouble in renting the lower -story units, since
basement apartments did not offer a desirable living arrangement for many people. Mr. Wagner
added that it was also difficult to design those basement units for handicapped accessibility.
Mr. Wagner shared that the sketch elevations were somewhat misleading, since they did not
show a perspective view, i.e., the sketches are flat, whereas in reality, the roof pitch would
slope back from the front of the building. Mr. Wagner reiterated the advantages of -- and
applicants preference for -- the roof design and 6/12 pitch.
Member Carroll stated that Mr. Wagner had shared information on the building roof design and
height stating that it would be "better than or equal to" a plan meeting the 40-foot height
requirement. Member Carroll asked if the applicant had alternate building pictures to show
"better than &[", should the height variance not be approved.
Mr. Wagner stated that he did not. He said that he did not have pictures of the buildings with
a 5/12 roof pitch, which would meet the height requirement.
Member Carroll asked for clarification on the perspective drawings.
Mr. Wagner said that the perspective regarding roof pitches was a horizontal one, and that in
reality, the roof sloped away -- which could not be shown on flat paper.
Member Carroll asked for clarification on the applicant's reference to full gabled roofs at the
40-foot height.
Mr. Wagner explained that it was not the applicant's intent to do the full gabled roof at any
height, but rather that the ordinance allowed for that bulk, as long as the 40-foot limitation was
not exceeded.
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 13
PUBLIC INPUT.
Dave Sawyer, 2436 Newport Court, stated that he had been one of the neighbors to express his
concerns about the project at the May 3rd preliminary review. Mr. Sawyer shared that those
in attendance had expressed concerns about building height, overcrowding and traffic impacts.
Mr. Sawyer cited what he believed to be a lack of professionalism on the part of Board members
at the preliminary review, noting specific examples on the part of Board members. He
commended Mr. Walker for attempting to run that meeting in an appropriate manner.
Mr. Sawyer noted that the developer had said at the May meeting that he would not build above
40 feet, and had now come in at the final review with a 45-foot height variance request.
Mr. Sawyer urged the Board to reduce the height and density of the project.
Chair Walker reminded those present that it was a project which was being discussed and noted
that many of Mr. Sawyer's personal comments may have been more appropriate at a City
Council hearing.
Mary Ellen Keane, neighborhood resident, stated that the applicant's reference to a possible 404
isdwelling units which could have been proposed was misleading, since that number was no longer
feasible for any project due to the addition of the Senior Center.
Ms. Keane said that she had followed the suggestion to drive by Courtney Park apartments at
Harmony and Lemay. Ms. Keane stated that she failed to see the similarity, since Courtney
Park contained garden level units and since Courtney Park had no vacancies. Ms. Keane added
that she did not understand why all 276 units had to be built at grade, if only 20 units were
going to be handicapped accessible.
Ms. Keane mentioned that the Preserve complex would be on the same rise as the Worthington
apartment building, which had been referenced as having a towering perspective even though
it still met the 40-foot height requirement. Ms. Keane said that with the 16-foot lift in elevation,
that when looking at the Preserve complex from Rolland Moore Park, it would seem like the
buildings were 61 feet tall, which she noted was over five stories.
Ms. Keane asked Ms. Whetstone what the height on the Collins West building was across the
street from the proposal.
Chair Walker noted that it would be appropriate for Ms. Keane to ask all of her questions first,
and that the Board would then try to address them.
Ms. Keane clarified that contrary to the applicant's assertion, the issue was not one of
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 14
neighborhood compatibility, but rather of the applicant wanting cathedral ceilings in his
apartment complex. She said she did not believe the proposal was similar to other buildings in
the area in terms of roof height and pitch.
Ms. Keane also asked about accountability for financing the project and what role the City had
in being able to enforce development of the project as it was submitted.
Chair Walker noted that the project had to be developed according to the approved plans or it
could not be developed.
Member Carroll noted that the architect had said that the additional height and roof pitch would
contribute to a more pleasing appearance for the buildings. He asked Ms. Keane if she had a
comment on that.
Ms. Keane stated that she did not care about the pitch of the roofs; she said she just cared about
the mass of the buildings. Ms. Keane added that it was hard for her to imagine what the
compromise was in the architect's mind regarding attractiveness when he did not provide any
comparative sketches.
She also said that as a homeowner in the area, she did not see it as. an issue -- she just saw it
as five more feet.
Member Carroll asked Ms. Keane if she would prefer to see the lower building heights.
Ms. Keane replied in the affirmative.
Tom Smith, manager for Housing Helpers, stated that he was in full support of the project. Mr.
Smith stated that there was a need for high -end rental units. Mr. Smith added that the lack of
that type of housing forced a downward shift on the whole rental market, and even impacted
those looking for mid -range and lower cost apartment units.
Rosalyn Hilbert, homeowner on Sioux Boulevard, stated that she was in support of the proposal
and that she drove by the site every day. She added that she believed it was a quality project
and that there was a need for it.
Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Court, said her property line backed up to Ross Open Space. She
said she was concerned about the height and grade/drop of the buildings and what that would
do to visual perspective. She urged the Board to go with the lower building height.
Charles Williams, 26-year resident of Fort Collins, said he was a prospective tenant for the
project and spoke in favor of it.
• i
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 15
Speaker, who did not provide his name, speaking as another prospective tenant for the project,
noted the lack of high -end rental housing and expressed his support for the project. He provided
some figures on what a project like the Preserve would do for long-term income to the
community.
Ron Frank, 3008 Phoenix Drive, partner of Raintree Associates, spoke as an owner of the
project site land. Mr. Frank said that Raintree Associates had bought the land in 1979, when
it was zoned RM and RH. He shared that in 1990 [actual - 19801, the owners had taken the
land through the PUD process and had gotten approval [for this density and for three-story
buildings]. Mr. Frank gave a brief history of the site, spoke supporting the project and urged
the Board to vote in favor of it.
Gary Turner, Newport Court, shared his concerns about building heights and asked the Board
not to approve the height variance.
Diana Phillips, ex -manager for Parkwood East apartments, stated that the Parkwood East
complex borders Edora Park and the EPIC center. She added that all the buildings were three
stories, and that the complex was 259 units on 20 acres. Ms. Phillips said she believed the two
properties co -existed quite well, with the apartment complex having little impact on the park.
Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification on the apartment complex as it related to ADA
regulations.
Mr. Wagner clarified that ADA regulations applied to public spaces and not residential units.
He stated that residential units were subject to guidelines under the Fair Housing Act, the
Uniform Building Code and the State Handicapped Code. Mr. Wagner added that the clubhouse
was the project's only public building and would meet all ADA requirements.
Mr. Wagner provided some more detailed information on compliance with regulations. He
reiterated that all units which were grade accessible would be handicapped accessible. Mr.
Wagner said that the number of units which would actually be built for handicapped use was still
under negotiation with the building permit department.
Mr. Wagner said that parking spaces and ramps were being provided on the site plan for those
units which were accessible and adaptable.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification on grade level accessibility and handicapped accessibility.
Mr. Wagner explained that all grade accessible (i.e., not a lot of extraneous work outside) units
had to be handicapped accessible.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 16
Ms. Whetstone added that the City had an extra requirement that one in seven units [for the
entire project] be accessible, which had to be considered as well.
Chair Walker asked if it was possible to build some number of garden level units.
Mr. Wagner replied in the affirmative.
Member Strom said he wanted to explore the height issue a little more. He asked to see some
of the sketches again, and asked if only those elevated middle roof portions would be exceeding
the height limitation.
Mr. Wagner answered in the affirmative.
Chair Walker emphasized that the Board, in its review, needed to be concerned solely with
planning issues. He stated that the basis for a variance had to be an identified hardship to the
developer and added that he had seen no indication of that presented.
Member Clements -Cooney said she had carefully reviewed the minutes from the preliminary
hearing, at which she believed the developer had said he would stay within the 40-foot limit.
Member Clements -Cooney expressed concern about the new request for the 45-foot height
variance and the precedent which might be set for future development.
Mr. Eckman asked if he might review the legal grounds for variances. He corrected the earlier
references to "hardship", stating that it was not a part of the request for this particular variance.
Mr. Eckman stated that his reference was the Land Development Guidance System, which
contained procedures for variances on pages 60 and 61. He said that the procedures authorized
the Board to grant variances in two circumstances: 1) the applicant demonstrates that the plan
submitted is equal to or better than the plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is
requested; or 2) hardship [as stated in the LDGS]. Mr. Eckman emphasized that it was an
either/or situation, and that the applicant had chosen the "equal to or better than" case as the
basis for a variance request.
Mr. Eckman said that while he had the floor, he wanted to address the prior confusion over
whether public input was closed or not. He stated that he wanted to be sure that any person so
desiring was given the opportunity to speak, or it might be grounds for generating an appeal.
No one expressed a desire to address the Board.
Chair Walker and Member Clements -Cooney both cited the point in the agenda where public
input had been formally closed.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 17
Chair Walker thanked Mr. Eckman for the clarification, and stated that if it was the "equal to
or better than" clause on the variance request that was being considered, that there might still
be questions.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not agree with staff's recommendation to approve
the variance request on the "equal to or better than" basis.
Member Carroll stated that the burden was on the applicant to show that the variance request
was a plan which was better to or equal than one which was in compliance with the height
requirements. He said that he was not convinced that the applicant had done so.
Member Carroll also noted the minutes from the preliminary review, where the applicant
promised to come in with a plan adhering to the 40-foot limit. Mr. Carroll added that it was
important to consider the total plan as submitted, and weigh the neighborhood concerns
rcgarding building height and mass.
Member O'Dell said she agreed about the need to really consider the neighborhood concerns
regarding building heights. Member O'Dell suggested that a compromise situation might be an
option -- with the buildings of most concern to neighboring residents complying with the height
. restriction -- and with a variance request being granted for the interior buildings of the complex.
Member O'Dell said she was most concerned about the buildings adjacent to the Ross Open
Space. She asked Mr. Wagner to clarify if the height measurement was from street level or
from the step-down grade level.
Mr. Wagner said he was unsure and would have to check the Zoning Ordinance.
Member O'Dell asked if the step-down building unit heights were more than 40 feet.
Mr. Wagner said that he really couldn't answer that question, and with the changes made in the
past week, that his focus had been on the buildings higher up on the hill.
Member O'Dell stated that there could be quite a difference in building height, depending on
the basis for measurement, and emphasized the need to consider the neighbors' concerns,
especially for the buildings adjacent to the Ross Open Space.
Member O'Dell asked for the basis of measurement.
Mr. Peterson replied that the Code stated that building height is measured from the average of
the finished floor elevation to the top of building, excluding stove pipes, etc.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 18
Member O'Dell stated that even without the variance request, it was conceivable that some of
the building heights could be more than 40 feet.
Mr. Wagner stated that the maximum height would probably be the same with the offset into the
hill, because the grade would be averaged.
Mr. Wagner reiterated that the variance request for height was being offset by a decrease in
mass of the roofline, because much of the building would be less than 40 feet in height, due to
the hipped roofs at the building ends.
Member O'Dell asserted that that statement was not correct, since the buildings with greater
mass were never part of the applicant's proposal in the first place.
Mr. Wagner stated that with the overall design, the applicant had decreased the mass.
Member O'Dell reiterated that that statement was misleading, since the applicant had never
proposed it any other way.
Member O'Dell stated that without knowing the actual height of the building closest to the park,
she could not support any variance request for height.
Mr. Wagner stated that the building still probably exceeded the 40-foot limit by at least two feet
or so.
Member Strom said that he wanted to comment on several of the points made regarding height.
He said that it was not a question of what the applicant proposed, but one of what the applicant
was permitted to do. Member Strom stated that the applicant chose to step down the ends of
the buildings. He stated that that did affect the mass and look of the buildings, as compared to
what they might have done, had the applicant gone with full gabled roofs at 40 feet.
Member Strom said that he was inclined to think that the 6/12 roof pitch was as good or better
than a 5/12 pitch. He added that he did not think that it was a good idea to compromise on the
variance request by saying that some of the buildings could be higher and some could be lower.
He stated that the resulting varying roof pitch might impact the overall visual look of the project.
Member Strom stated that he was inclined to think that the 6/12 roof pitch with the additional
two to four feet of height for a fairly small percentage of the building was acceptable and was
as good or better than what might have been done at forty feet.
Member Collier said she largely agreed with Member Strom, and believed that the "equal to or
better than" argument was valid. Member Collier shared that one of the Board's considerations
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 19
in reviewing a proposal was the visual/overall aesthetic impact. She stated that she thought the
6/12 pitch would look better.
Chair Walker addressed the height issue, stating that one way to mitigate that consideration was
with landscaping. He stated that he was satisfied that the proposed landscaping, including the
additional trees near Ross Open Space, would soften the impact over time.
Chair Walker asked a procedural question. He inquired whether the Board needed to approve
a variance for the height and then proceed with the motion.
Mr. Eckman said he thought the best procedure would be to take the variance first as a separate
vote.
Member O'Dell stated that she really liked the project. She added that the project complied with
all the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System.
Member O'Dell shared, however, that she could not vote in favor of the variance without
knowing the heights of the buildings next to Ross Open Space.
Chair Walker advised that the Board needed to address the issue of the variance before
• proceeding with any motion regarding the project in its entirety.
Member Strom moved to approve the variance to 45 feet, according to the plan as
presented to the Board, on the basis that it was equal to or better than the plan limited to
40 feet.
Ms. Whetstone asked Member Strom if he wanted to add that the variance would be just for
those portions of the buildings as shown on the architectural drawings.
Member Strom explained that that condition was what he meant by wording the motion:
"according to the plan as presented to the Board".
Ms. Whetstone said that the note on the plan stated that the buildings could be 45 feet, and that
the note would be changed if the variance were approved.
Member Strom inquired if there was some confusion there.
Ms. Whetstone clarified that the note on the plans stated that the buildings would be a maximum
of 45 feet, and what staff was intending with its recommendations was that the variance be
allowed for just the middle portions of the buildings.
Planning & Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 20
Member Strom said that that was what his motion was specific to -- the portions of the buildings
which were highest, as discussed.
Chair Walker asked if there was a second to the motion.
Jan Cottier seconded the motion.
Chair Walker asked if there was any discussion.
Member Klataske asked if there was a maximum percentage of any building for the variance.
Mr. Wagner asked if that percentage was as measured against the overall length of the building.
Member Klataske nodded in the affirmative.
Mr. Wagner stated that it would definitely be less that 50 percent. He said he hadn't determined
the actual length of the ridge in each case. He said that the elevations shown were being
submitted with the PUD, and that the developer would agree that those were the limits of the
portions of the roofs that would exceed the 40-foot height limit.
Member Klataske asked if there was an elevation which showed the maximum amount of the
three-story section and an architectural scale where the percentage could be determined within
ten percent. Member Klataske noted that there was a vast difference between 25 percent and
50 percent of the mass of a building being at 45 feet.
Mr. Wagner used an available scale to measure out the maximum percentage on the
corresponding architectural drawing.
Mr. Wagner said that the applicant could guarantee that the height variance would,not exceed
40 percent of the length of the building, and that all the other sides would be hipped as shown
in the drawing submitted.
Chair Walker asked if he might summarize what everyone was talking about. He said that it
seemed like the issue was: "Is this plan equal to or better than something else?". He said that
the argument had been heard that this plan meets that criterium, relative to other plans which
might have been submitted containing different roof pitches and yet meeting the 40-foot height
limit.
Chair Walker noted that the Board was dealing with plans as shown, rather than granting some
variance dealing with 45 feet across the board.
Chair Walker asked for other comments before voting on the issue. There were no comments.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 21
The motion passed 4-3, with Members Clements -Cooney, Carroll and O'Dell voting in the
negative.
Chair Walker directed the Board to move on to discussion regarding the entire project. He
asked Ms. Whetstone if there were any other conditions apart from the usual procedural ones.
Ms. Whetstone indicated that there were none.
Chair Walker stated that the criteria used for review were embodied in the LDGS and Land Use
Policies Plan. He said he believed that this project met a lot of the criteria. He added that the
criteria pertaining to broader issues (air quality, traffic, etc.) seemed well addressed.
Chair Walker said that there were also various considerations for impacts such as visual impact.
He stated that he believed that those issues were ones which could be mitigated. Chair Walker
shared that he believed that the visual impact was being successfully addressed through
landscaping, buffers and building layout changes.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Eckman if she needed to be consistent in her vote, i.e., if she voted
against the variance, did she need to vote against the project.
• Mr. Eckman told her that she needed to bear in mind that the project she was voting on was one
containing the variance. Mr. Eckman added that she could vote any way she wanted.
Member Clements -Cooney made some comments regarding the breakdown of "process" during
this particular project. She voiced concerns that neighborhood residents misunderstood the
Board's intent. Member Clements -Cooney cited some current projects, such as revising the
Neighborhood Compatibility components of the Land Development Guidance System, as attempts
at making the process better.
Member Carroll added to the comments regarding "the process". He provided some more
detailed explanation of the roles and responsibilities of Board members.
Member Carroll commended the other Board members for their professionalism. He stated that
the members attempted to do their homework, and strived to attend all meetings: He added that
the Board had made mistakes in decisions from time to time, some of which were appealed to
City Council and some of which were not.
Member Carroll stated that the Board's professionalism was the one thing which should not be
questioned, and added that Mr. Sawyer's earlier personal attack on Board members was totally
out of line. He said that he had never seen anyone on the Board belittle anyone, or be impolite
or condescending.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 22
Member Carroll stated that the Board listened to public input, and sought to make well-informed
choices with the best interests of the City in mind. He also said that the Board had recently
turned down a very similar project, College Park.
Member Carroll continued by saying how important public input was. He added that sometimes
projects were approved over protest, but that the Board worked to incorporate changes from
comments received in order to make the projects better.
Member Carroll reiterated that Mr. Sawyer's comments were totally out of line, and noted for
the record that Mr. Sawyer left the meeting immediately after making his statements, and that
he did not remain to hear what other neighbors had to say or what the ultimate resolution was.
Member Carroll reminded those present that the appeal process was an available remedy. He
added that the decision on the preliminary plan could have been appealed and was not.
Member O'Dell noted that she had some advice for Mr. Wagner: 1) Please try to listen to what
the neighbors say; and 2) Include more specific information, especially related to any variance
requests. Member O'Dell said to not do so bred distrust and fostered misconceptions about the
Board.
Member O'Dell said she was in a real struggle over the proposal, because she liked the project,
but not the process. She said that since she felt the process was just as important as the final
project, she believed that she would not support it.
Member Strom moved to approve the Preserve at Fort Collins, PUD — Final.
Member Strom said that he believed the positive features of the project outweighed some of the
concerns over height and mass, and that the developer had come back with substantially
improved landscaping. He added that he believed that the project met the standards of the
LDGS on a site that was very well suited for high-density/medium-density residential
development. Member Strom said he would support it.
Mr. Eckman asked Mr. Strom if the motion included the condition that staff had recommended
and the variance which was approved.
Member Strom answered in the affirmative.
Chair Walker stated that there was a motion for approval of the project with noted conditions,
and asked if there was a second.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 23
Member Cottier noted the positive features mentioned by Member Strom. She added that she
believed that the additional landscaping in the Ross Open Area -- as well as the significant
distance between Newport Court and the project -- provided an adequate buffer in terms of
protecting the single-family residential area from an area of higher density.
The motion passed 5-2, with Members O'Dell and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative.
LINDIMER PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. #26-93
Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval of the Preliminary
Subdivision, to include a granting of the Solar Orientation variance request as follows:
The request for Lindimer Preliminary Subdivision includes a variance request from the
requirement that 65% of the single family lots meet the specifications of the Solar
Orientation Ordinance. Because of exceptional conditions in terms of parcel configuration,
parcel size, and pre -determined street access, it is found that hardship would be caused to
the subdivider. It is further found that the granting of such variance would not be
detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the Solar Orientation
• Ordinance.
Mr. Shepard noted that the project was being submitted for review as a straight subdivision, and
not a PUD. Therefore, it was subject to the Zoning Code and not the Land Development
Guidance System.
Mark Linder, co -applicant with Brett Larimer, spoke regarding the proposal. He began by
sharing his own and Mr. Larimer's background and qualifications.
Mr. Linder gave an overview of the infill project, stating that it was proposed as 15 lots on 4.3
acres (3.5 DU/acre), and was located at the present dead end of Birmingham Drive. The site
is bordered by the Rossborough Subdivision, the Wagonwheel Subdivision, the Pleasant Valley
and Lake Canal, and by Horsetooth Stables.
The applicant described the development site as challenging, and said that meetings with City
staff had already taken place in working toward resolving any development issues. Mr. Linder
shared that the property was irregularly shaped and had one access point; he added that the plan
included extending Birmingham Drive down to the southern property line.
Mr. Linder stated that the plan incorporated an attempt at buffering between the site and
Horsetooth Stables. He said that the applicant was proposing to build a six-foot high cedar fence
the entire length of the southern border at the commencement of site work. Mr. Linder
explained that the fence would be in place before any earth moving equipment would be present,
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 24
and that it would be built two feet inside the property line. He went on to say that the covenants
would include language that required the fence to remain in place as long as the stable was in
operation.
Mr. Linder stated that a neighborhood meeting was held. He said Rossborough residents had
expressed concern over increased traffic, and that the applicant offered to place signage in* the
subdivision and advise truck traffic to proceed slowly. He added that there would be greater
control over construction traffic, since the applicants themselves were planning on building all
of the homes.
Mr. Linder shared that most of the opposition to the project had come from the owners of
Horsetooth Stables. He went on to say that the applicants had met with the owners many times
in attempting to work through the issues. He added that at the last meeting, which included City
staff person Ted Shepard, two major issues were raised by the stable owners: 1) objection to the
road extension all the way to their property line; and 2) a request for a 150-foot buffer between
the properties.
Mr. Linder stated that the full road extension was required by the Fire Marshal and the Planning
Department. In regard to the buffer, he explained that the subtraction of the 1.57 acres which
that would require, as well as additional requirements (.86 acres - street right-of-way; .66 acres -
Pleasant Lake and Canal and land dedication to City of Fort Collins), would only leave 1.21
acres for developable lots. That lower acreage would result in not meeting the City's minimum
density per acre requirements.
Mr. Linder said that the buffer also included landscaping (twelve, 2" caliper trees), and that the
layout of the subdivision had been modified to eliminate a cul-de-sac and position the largest,
deepest lots at the south end of the property.
Mr. Linder stated it was not the applicants' intent to threaten the stable owners' livelihood, and
that he believed that the two land uses could peacefully co -exist. Mr. Linder shared that the
current owners had purchased the stable property in 1987 and 1988 and had experienced a
thriving business despite increased area activity and development.
Mr. Linder provided some traffic counts for roads and intersections in the area, and added that
the Rossborough subdivision had also been built out in the last few years. He said that the
Kingston Woods subdivision east of the stables had also been started.
Mr. Linder shared that he believed the applicants were trying to be good neighbors and had
already made concessions to legitimate concerns. He summarized that he didn't believe that the
Lindimer proposal would contribute any significant impacts that weren't already there.
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 25
Chair Walker asked the Board if there were any questions at that time of the applicant. There
were none.
Mr. Walker opened the floor for public input.
Suzanne Bassinger, 1506 Horsetooth Road (also known as Horsetooth Stables), stated that her
husband, Charlie Tidd, has owned and operated Horsetooth Stable for five years.
Ms. Bassinger said that she and her husband were present to ask the Board to: 1) deny approval
of the proposed Lindimer subdivision as submitted; and 2) to require modifications that, at a
minimum, maintain the existing neighborhood compatibility and continued viability of their
livelihood.
Ms. Bassinger shared that the City Zoning Code specifically identified the need for a buffer
between residential and livestock use.. She added that while proposals submitted as PUDs
considered neighborhood compatibility and impact, proposals submitted as subdivisions were
only subject to review for bulk and area.
Ms. Bassinger spoke from the City's Development Manual regarding subdivisions (Section 5).
• She quoted from the passage which outlines how the subdivision regulations are meant for the
public's health, safety and welfare, and for promoting sound, economical development and stable
neighborhoods.
Ms. Bassinger said she believed that the incompatibility of two uses (noise, etc.) was an
endangerment to her husband, clients, and potential subdivision residents.
Ms. Bassinger added that putting future residents at the end of a 550-foot dead end water line
and a dual sewer system did not seem to be sound and economical construction and maintenance.
She went on to say that the extension of the roadway to the end of the property line was
potentially confusing and did not contribute to the stable neighborhood concept.
Ms. Bassinger showed slides which she believed demonstrated how other parties had handled
buffering between land uses in similar situations; she also showed slides of the Horsetooth
Stables property from various angles. She pointed out the use of night-time lighting for the
facility's arena and noted liability issues for both horses and clients.
Ms. Bassinger presented a slide showing how various requested setbacks would impact the
proposed development. She said that the originally -requested, 150-foot setback would impact
five lots and appeared not to be workable. Ms. Bassinger added that a 100-foot setback be the
minimum required; she asserted that it would only affect four lots.
Ms. Bassinger shared an alternative layout plan which she believed met minimum density
N
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 26
requirements and allowed for sound engineering design on the water and sewer needs. Ms.
Bassinger reiterated the request for the 100-foot setback in helping Horsetooth Stables to remain
good neighbors.
Ms. Bassinger stated that she also did not see the logic or need for dead -ending the street
extension at their property line. She went on to say that it was poor planning and communicated
a message that Horsetooth Stables would not be there for the long term.
Member Strom asked what the setback was from the Horsetooth Stables property to the
Rossborough subdivision.
Ms. Bassinger replied that they had fenced off the corner lot, and that it was 75 to 80 feet to the
house itself. She added that the Kingston Woods properties on the other side were separated by
a 60-foot canal and trail easement. Ms. Bassinger stated that with the addition of backyard
measurements, in many cases the 100-foot setback was being achieved.
Chair Walker asked about use of the property immediately next to the boundary.
Ms. Bassinger stated that it was used for pens, pasture and manure spreading.
Chair Walker asked for clarification of some of the locations previously shown that were
indicated as being "buffer" zones.
Ms. Bassinger replied that those areas had no livestock living in them and were not horseback
activity areas.
Charlie Tidd, owner of Horsetooth Stables, addressed the Board. He stated that half his income
was derived from boarding horses and that half was derived from training and buying/selling
horses. Mr. Tidd spoke about working to maintain a very safe operation.
Mr. Tidd expressed concerns not having an appropriate setback for two reasons in particular:
1) his safety while training horses at the back part of the property; and 2) clients' safety while
riding, due to differing degrees of ability. Mr. Tidd shared that he had recently increased his
liability insurance, due to greater non -horse -related activity around his back pasture.
Mr. Tidd stated that he had not yet had to file a liability claim and had worked to keep his
operation safe and functional for his clients. He said that he believed that the submitted plan
jeopardized those things.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED,
Chair Walker asked for clarification on the street design and cul-de-sac items.
• •
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 27
Mr. Shepard replied that the road was extended to the south property line to provide potential
future access to the property now occupied by Horsetooth Stables. He added that the City did
not want Birmingham to extend all the way to Horsetooth Road, where it might serve as a
defacto collector; Dunbar is to remain the collector street through that area.
Mr. Shepard spoke about not walling off neighborhoods, and preserving the ability to go South
for any possible future redevelopment of the Horsetooth Stables property. Mr. Shepard said that
it was also important to preserve the ability for possible future development to go North to
access such collector streets as Dunbar and Swallow; that access capability would minimize
impacts on the perimeter arterials such as Horsetooth and Shields. He went to say that the
proposed street extension could always be vacated at some point in time.
Chair Walker asked for elaboration on the sewer system question.
Mr. Shepard replied that the Water & Sewer Department had looked at the proposed system, had
deemed it workable and had approved it on a preliminary basis.
Member Cottier asked what the Fire Department had to say about access to the subdivision.
Mr. Shepard answered that the Lindimer Subdivision met all the fire access requirements.
is Member Cottier asked if it was a cul-de-sac or dead end more than 500 feet.
Mr. Shepard replied that it was not a dead end, since the "eyebrow" would serve as the Fire
Department turnaround.
Member Cottier stated that the subdivision currently had only one point of access.
Mr. Shepard said that it only had one point of access, but that it did not exceed the 660-foot
limitation.
Member Cottier asked if the measurement for the 500 feet was all the way out to Dunbar.
Mr. Shepard answered that the nearest intersection was another local street [Pembroke] just west
of the west property line, inside Rossborough subdivision.
Member Carroll stated that it was his understanding that this item was being submitted as a
subdivision rather than a PUD, and as such, that the items the Board was allowed to look at
were more limited than that of a PUD. He continued by saying that in looking at the staff
report, however, many of the comments were similar to those that would be made in reviewing
a PUD. Member Carroll asked for clarification.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 28
Mr. Shepard stated that the neighborhood compatibility section of the staff report was based on
input received at a neighborhood meeting. He continued by explaining that negotiations had
been held with the developer and the Horsetooth Stables owners, and that "good faith"
concessions had been made. Mr. Shepard said that he was not able to use the LDGS and the
neighborhood compatibility criteria to "enforce" any changes negotiated.
Mr. Shepard went on to say that his basis for reviewing the proposal was the bulk and area
requirements for the RLP Zone district of the Subdivision Code. He stated the Lindimer
subdivision was a use -by -right in that zone and that all the criteria were met.
Mr. Carroll expressed that it was important for the Board to follow legal guidelines in reviewing
proposals, no matter what personal opinions might be regarding neighborhood compatibility, etc.
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there were no compatibility requirements in the
standard Subdivision Code. Attorney Eckman addressed the Board by stating that in addition
to the bulk and area requirements, there were some preliminary hearing requirements which
could be addressed. He cited the example of review input solicited from various City
Departments and other entities. He shared that any negative comments received would have to
be part of the staff report (There were none.).
Mr. Eckman said that site considerations were a part of the Code's Section 29.656, but none
seemed germane to this proposal.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she had some real concerns regarding safety issues, and
requested some legal guidance in addressing those.
Mr. Eckman shared that the Subdivision Code, like all other codes, was adopted by City Council
for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. He explained that the Board's decision,
however, could not be based on that related introductory paragraph of the Development Manual,
but was limited to the items presented in the Code.
Member Clements -Cooney then asked about construction traffic.
Mr. Shepard replied that construction traffic would be coming in off of Birmingham Drive, the
sole vehicular access into the subdivision.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that one of Mr. Tidd's concerns was the safety issue presented
by construction traffic.
Mr. Shepard answered that the Development Agreement would include a provision that the
construction sequence would require a privacy fence to be built as soon as the initial grading was
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 29
finished for the Birmingham extension. He said it was his understanding that the privacy fence
was to be in place before any foundations were dug.
Member Cooney asked for clarification on the buffer zone between residential and agricultural
uses cited by Ms. Bassinger.
Mr. Shepard stated that there was a section regarding buffer zones for the RF Zone (Foothills
Residential Zone), but no such passage for the RLP Zone district, the category for the land areas
in question.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she continued to have safety issue concerns. She
suggested that under the Other Business Agenda section, that the Board consider drafting a letter
to City Council, suggesting that Council revise the Subdivision Regulations.
Member Strom asked for further clarification on the dual sewage system and related cost issues.
Mr. Shepard answered that the long term plan of the Water & Sewer Department is to extend
a large diameter sewer main extending out in a southeast direction from the Rossborough
subdivision. He stated that there was a problem with the sequencing of that main, however,
. since it needed to cross the Horsetooth Stables property. Mr. Shepard explained that the owners
of that property were not prepared to accept the large diameter sewer line through their property.
Mr. Shepard said that therefore, in working with the proposed Lindimer Subdivision, that not
only did a large diameter sewer main need to be installed (to comply with the Sewer Master
Plan), but that a temporary, smaller sewer line needed to be installed to make a connection with
the current system to the northwest.
Mr. Shepard said that there would be no cost to the public in installing the two lines in the same
trench. He stated that there would be costs to homeowners in installing taps into the new sewer
line. Mr. Shepard added that he believed that there was no real cost to the public, and that the
cost was being almost entirely borne by the developer at this time.
Member Strom asked about additional tap fees in the future.
Mr. Shepard answered that he believed the tap fees would only be paid once -- at the time of
building permit issuance. Mr. Shepard added that the future action would involve shifting the
taps to the larger main.
Member Strom inquired if it was a hidden cost to future purchasers.
Mr. Shepard replied that it was a cost, but whether it was hidden or not was between the
developer and the home buyer.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 30
Mr. Peterson added that it was the Planning Department's understanding that there would only
be one charge.
Member Strom asked for further clarification.
Dick Rutherford from Stewart and Associates, Engineers for the project, explained the sewer
system in more detail. He stated that there would be no need to dig up trenches in order to
switch over to the larger sewer main. Mr. Rutherford said there would be no future concern
and no additional maintenance cost to the City.
Chair Walker stated that he still had one question on the safety issue. He believed that the
visual impact of the new development was being addressed via the fence, but had concerns about
the noise impact. Chair Walker asked if the fence was considered enough to address the safety
issue.
Mr. Shepard replied that that was correct, based on past experience with the Kingston Woods
development.
Mr. Peterson reminded the Board that the request for the solar orientation variance needed to
be considered as part of any motion.
Chair Walker asked if there needed to be a separate vote on the variance, or if it could be rolled
into one motion.
Mr. Peterson answered that it could be part of the motion.
Member Collier asked if subdivision decisions were passed by Council and appealable.
Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative, and noted that any action by the Planning and Zoning
Board was appealable.
Member Strom moved to approve the Lindimer Subdivision, Preliminary, with the solar
orientation variance, based on the fact that it would result in a hardship and would result
in a very difficult situation to come up with 65% solar -oriented lots, given the fact that it
is a small infill parcel with limiting shape and access limitations.
Member Strom asked if that was the only condition being recommended.
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Peterson replied in the affirmative.
Chair Walker asked if there was a second on the motion.
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 31
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Member Cottier asked if the disclaimer note was part of the site plan.
Mr. Shepard answered that it was not. He stated that a straight subdivision does not require a
site plan, but rather a subdivision plat document. Mr. Shepard clarified that the disclosure note
would be in the covenants that would be forwarded to the potential home buyers.
Member Cottier surmised that therefore the disclaimer was something over which the Board had
no control
Mr. Shepard replied that technically, such a deduction was correct. He said, however, that as
a result of negotiations, it had been indicated by the applicant that the covenants would be made
available to all parties prior to the lots being sold. Mr. Shepard added that they would be filed
along with the subdivision plat.
Member Cottier asked what recourse homeowners would have if they were having a problem
with noise, lights, odors, etc.
• Mr. Shepard stated that those items had been discussed. He said that complaints about odor
would be handled by the County Health Department. Mr. Shepard said he didn't know who
would handle complaints about lights, since the lights are a part of the operation, which has legal
status under zoning. Mr. Shepard continued that the City did have a noise ordinance which put
limits on the level of noise, as measured from the property line. He said that it depended on
the nature of the complaint, as to what department or agency would handle it.
Member Cottier asked if there was any opportunity for agencies or departments to be aware of
the situation and the Horsetooth Stables owners' concerns.
Mr. Shepard said several City Departments were already aware of the situation as a result of
proceedings to -date, but that he could not speak for other agencies.
Member Cottier asked if it would allowable to strongly advise Mr. Linder and Mr. Larimer of
the possibility of future complaints and to re -think the idea of a setback.
Mr. Shepard answered that if the Board would like to so advise the applicants, that it was the
Board's prerogative.
Member Cottier stated that she would like the Board to so advise, believing it would be in the
developer's best interest to heed that advice.
Mr. Linder answered that the language of the covenants was very specific in addressing some
Planning & 7wming Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 32
of the particular issues which might form the basis for complaints, and that notification was to
be perpetual for all future homeowners. He added that he had some concerns about the covenant
language being so encompassing, believing that it would, in fact, act to have homeowners waive
rights to legitimate complaints in advance.
Mr. Linder continued by saying that in trying to consider a setback buffer, he realized that he
had a difficult site to work with. He said that as it was, the proposal was just meeting the
minimum density requirements of three dwelling units per [gross] acre.
Mr. Linder noted that had the proposal come in as a PUD under the Land Development
Guidance System, that the project would have supported 5 to 6 dwelling units per acre, creating
a greater impact. He stated that it was the developer's preference to make the lots compatible
with those in the Wagonwheel and Rossborough subdivisions. Mr. Linder said that he had
offered the Project Planner and the Tidds full review of the covenants. He emphasized that the
applicant was committed to resolving the compatibility issue.
Mr. Eckman asked Mr. Linder if he was willing to include that language in a development
agreement, so that the City would have a mechanism to ensure that the covenants would be
written as promised.
Mr. Linder replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Eckman shared some of the legal basis for such a request, saying it would help with any
possible future complaints about odor.
Chair Walker asked if that provision should be included in the motion.
Mr. Eckman replied yes.
Member Strom amended the motion to include the condition that the covenant language be
included in the development agreement.
Ms. Bassinger stated that the additional condition would be helpful.
Member Carroll said he would support the motion, because he was compelled to do so. He
added that the situation at hand pointed out an existing gap in the City's development system.
Member Carroll provided a discourse on aspects of the development process, and said he thought
that the same criteria might be applied to straight subdivisions as to PUDs.
Member Carroll complimented the applicant on making concessions that were not required. He
stated that his concerns surrounded not being able to review the project more closely from a
legal basis.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 33
Member Strom stated that in making the motion to support the project, he was not insensitive
to the compatibility issues. He expressed his frustration about some of the limitations of the
Subdivision and Zoning Codes. Member Strom encouraged the applicants and the Tidds to
continue to work together.
Member Cottier also voiced her frustration about the Board's review limitations.
The motion passed 6-1, with Member Clements -Cooney voting in the negative.
t" It 1 :; 1 .1'ul_�
Chair Walker clarified that the two items would be discussed together, but voted on separately.
Member Carroll asked, as a point of order, if Chair Walker would consider asking if anyone
wanted a presentation on the items, or wanted to speak to the items, or had any questions
concerning them. He said if that were so, then the items would have to be continued, due to
the lateness of the hour. Member Carroll added that if that were not the case, then he wanted
to make a motion to handle the items as Consent Items.
Mr. Peterson clarified Member Carroll's request for those present.
Chair Walker asked Mr. Eckman what the legal protocol was on the request.
Mr. Eckman replied that if there were no members of the public present who wanted to speak
to the Board about these items, then it was the same as if they were Consent Items in the first
place. He added that the criteria for staff placing items on the Consent Agenda, was that there
was no known controversy or need for public input.
Chair Walker asked staff if they wanted the items addressed in full, or if they were satisfied that
it could be a Consent Item.
Mr. Olt said that staff was satisfied at that point that the items could be considered as Consent
Items.
Chair Walker asked if there was anyone on the Board who wanted a fuller discussion of this
issue.
There was no response.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 34
Chair Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like a full discussion
of the issue vs. the Board voting on it in a consent manner.
There was no response.
Chair Walker placed both items on a Consent Agenda at that point.
Member Carroll moved for approval of Greenbriar Village PUD - Overall Development
Plan and Item #16, Greenbriar Village PUD, First ding - Preliminary & Final, as Consent
Items.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
The motion passed, 7-0
�111 I tI1
Drinking Water Quality Policy
Mr. Peterson stated that Mike Smith, Head of Water & Sewer Utility Services for the City, was
present to answer questions about the Drinking Water Quality Policy. Mr. Peterson explained
that Water & Sewer Utility Services was pursuing the Policy as part of an overall program to
improve how it does business.
Mr. Peterson said that if the Board had any comments on the Policy before it went to Council,
that this was an appropriate time to make recommendations on amendments or additions to the
Policy. He added that those changes could be made with a simple motion.
Chair Walker asked the Board if it had any recommendations regarding the policy.
Chair Walker had expressed some concerns at the Board's worksession, which he reiterated as
part of this discussion. Chair Walker suggested wording in appropriate sections which stated
a consideration for downstream users.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend that City Council approve the Drinking Water
Quality Policy with the recommendation as stated by Mr. Walker.
a
•
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 35
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion passed, 7-0.
II. Subdivision Regulations
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she believed the Subdivision Regulations needed to be
revised. She added that she understood that Planning staff currently had a full workload, and
that therefore planned revisions to the Regulations had been put on the.back burner.
Mr. Peterson said that the revisions were something that the Planning Department was wanting
to work on for quite some time. He stated that in his professional opinion, the current
regulations were quite archaic. Mr. Peterson shared that unfortunately, this project was not a
priority and was not on the City Council Policy Agenda.
Member Clements -Cooney, in light of the recent worksession the Board had with City Council,
asked if Mr. Peterson viewed it as a short-term or a long-term project.
Mr. Peterson replied that he generally viewed it as a long-term project, but that there were
possibilities to do short-term remedies.
Member Clements -Cooney strongly suggested that a letter be drafted to City Council
recommending action on Subdivision Regulation revisions.
Mr. Peterson advised that staff would be willing to help prepare the letter, but that it should
come from the Board and be signed by the Chairman.
Member Collier stated that specifically, subdivisions in infill parcels needed to be addressed.
Member O'Dell said she believed the Council would welcome periodic letters of this nature from
the Board.
Member Strom cautioned against doing this project in a "vacuum", and asked the Board to look
at it in terms of the rest of the Planning Department's work plan.
Chair Walker shared some concerns about the difficulty of the process in working with the
current regulation, and said he would support a letter to council.
Member O'Dell suggested framing the letter in terms of issues raised at the worksession.
Member Carroll suggested that one short-term solution might be to state that the Subdivision
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 1993
Page 36
Regulations shall be reviewed pursuant to the land Development Guidance System for Planned
Unit Developments. He mentioned that another solution might be to place a PUD condition on
subdivisions.
Member Clements -Cooney cautioned against a long and lengthy process for what might be
accomplished in the short-term.
Member Strom cautioned against thinking even short-term solutions might be easy. He stated
that any time people's land use rights were affected, there needed to be extensive public
hearings.
Chair Walker stated that he and Mr. Peterson would work on drafting a letter to Council, with
copies to go to Board members.
III. Neighborhood Meetine at CSU
Mr. Peterson told Board members that they were invited to a neighborhood meeting regarding
planned student housing, to be held at CSU on Wednesday evening, June 30th.
The meeting adjourned at 11:14`p.m.
0
0
N
WILLOO,
::....... ..:::::::: : :
... .....OOKE FEUD f
1 ...... ::::::: s : TOPANGA at HIL.... . PUD :::
:::: ......5.! 1. ......
�f CAT 15th, TRACT 3...:::::: 4
�r: ....:.. h, R....�
FOX CREEK PUD
+.
....... ......:: \
i
_� ....
.:.. ... .... ... ... .....: .. .. :....... ..... •......J \
. .. DAKOTA RIDc€ PUD, end
............ .
Ro3e <:COBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD
E:: ....... :....... o
- ' SUNSTONE VILLAr,E~'pUD 8th
;OUTHSIDE SERV31
I
F-.::
POINT PUD
City Limits: 1-31-93
)NNE PLID
R
GREENSTONE PUD, 3rd