HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/28/1994PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 1994
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison
The March 28, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, James Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Lloyd
Walker. Chair Clements and Member Winfrec were absent.
Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Dcputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman, Tom Vosberg, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Ken Waido, Kirsten
Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden.
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items
CONSENT AGENDA:
Item 1. Minutes for January 24 and 31 of the Planning and Zoning Board Meetings; Item 2.Oak
Hill Apartments, PUD Preliminary #54-87L; Item 3. Marketplace PUD (Taco Bell) -
Preliminary & Final, #32-89F; Item 4. Nokomis Subdivision - Preliminary, #8-94; Item 5. Fox
Hills, 2nd Filing - Foothills Site Plan Review, 036-93C; Item 6. Resolution PZ94-1 - Easement
Vacation; Item 7. Resolution PZ94-2 - Easement Vacation; Item 8. Segul N-C-M Site Plan
Review, #85-93; Item 9. Lemay Plaza P.U.D. - Extension Request, #57-87;
Item 10. Modifications of conditions of Final Approval; Item 11. Miramont PUD, Phase 3 -
Preliminary; Item 12. Recommendation to City Council for Proposed Reduction of Right -of -
Way Width Street Standards. Item 19. Miramont PUD, Phase 3 - Preliminary.
Member Foutane moved to accept consent agenda items as stated above.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
Item 15, Overland Trail Annexation and Zonine. #9-94A.
Chair Clements indicated that she and Member Klataske had a conflict of interest regarding
this item and would not be present during the meeting, with Vice -Chair Cottier presiding.
Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, read the staff report and recommendations and requesting
approval.
Member Walker asked clarification of the zoning boundaries.
Mr. Waido said the boundary would extend as an extension of the RF for the Maxwell Open
Space area, through the property, locating the canal and to the cast would be RLP.
Planninz and Xaninn Bond rdinats
Member Walker said he knew there was a plan where no building would take place above a
certain elevation, is that being considered?
Mr. Waido said the RF zone prohibits development above 5,250 feet (the irrigation canal to the
west) and would be open space.
Mr. John Spillane - Attorney representing the Applicant, Wally Knoll and Fort
Collins/Loveland Water District - 7730 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 206, Englewood, CO 80111 - and
he represented the prospective purchaser of this property limited liability company of Richland
Homes, Mike Macina, who is the developer.
Mr. Spillane said there will be dedication of grounds west of the ditch, which is not a
requirement. He said the land use is being developed by Vaught -Frye Architects, Frank
Vaught.
Mr. Frank Vaught - Vaught -Frye Architects - Briefly reviewed the development boundaries and
the intent of the development. There will be 112 acres preserved west of the Dixon Lateral into
open space on the site with a 25 acre transitional area near the canal. There is an area for
regional detention, along the southerly eastern boundary. This area will be open and natural
with a connecting bike trail to surrounding development. The applicant believed the RLP zone
with a PUD requirement would be consistent with City plans, providing for mixed use
development and worked well with surrounding development.
Vicc-Cottier asked if it was 3-5 units per acre for density?
Mr. Vaught said the RLP zone would allow 6 units per acre, the average over the property.
Mr. Waido said the RLP has no maximum density.
Mr. Vaught clarified maximum density for the development would be 6 units per acre (6 x 170
or less).
Vice -Chair Cottier said although the Board is not reviewing the plans for the area, it would be
relevant to know the density proposed.
CITIZEN INPUT.
Mr. Galen Meirosc - 3224 Spruce - Will Prospect continue behind the homes? When will this '
take place? How much dust pollution will there be?
Bob Davidson - 1203 Cascade Ct. - He indicated he would like to see more specifics than is
given at this time. What is mixed use? Does "no maximum density" mean the plans can change
in the future? What arc the designs for the homes, styles, square footage, price range, etc.?
How does the developer plan to address Overland Trail with a lot of construction? Will there
be 4-lanes for Overland Trail in the near future? Does this plot have possible plan for
commercial properties? What does "open space" mean and what plans for development arc there
with the bike trail? The aesthetics aspect as it intersects Overland Trail along the frontage
trail?
Pi- mior WA Zontor Bond lfmnw
March Sa. t9M
Pogo
Vice -Chair Cottier explained that the design elements of the proposal would not be considered
at this particular meeting but that these questions would be answered as the plan develops and
he would have ample opportunity to have the questions answered and be able to participate in
the ultimate design of the project and register complaints, etc. The annexation and zoning
requests are all that is considered at this meeting. There is no specific project to respond to.
Mr. Davidson questioned the logic to that. You annex the property and then you decide how
to develop it? It seemed to him, you should decide how you arc going to development it before
it is annexed, otherwise it is already out of control.
Vice -Chair Cottier said she tended to agree with him, but this is the Policy the Board is
operating under presently ordered by Council when considering Annexation and Zoning, there
can be no proposed development to consider or evaluate. The questions asked are premature
but will be answered in due time.
Mr. Davidson said he would like this statement for the record, when you annex a property and
you don't have plans or just abstract plans, what you arc doing is allowing the developer change
the plans in any way, and that seemed illogical for the City to be pursuing it in that direction.
Maybe they ought to work on that.
Vicc-Chair Cottier said his comments were heard.
Kirk Fuller - 1202 Cascade Court - He believed the questions he had were pre -mature as well
and concurred with Mr. Davidson's comments and questions. He wanted to know what "mixed
use" meant? What will happen to Overland Trail, will there be improvements in this area?
t
Vice -Chair Cottier asked Mr. Vaught some of the questions of the citizens. What are the plans
for Prospect being extended and what will happen to Overland Trail? What is "mix use" as a
developer and what might go on that project, even though the Board is not considering
anything specific?
Mr. Vaught thought the questions were excellent and agreed that in terms of timing, it would
be helpful to have an overall development plan before the Board to show more detail, however
the process does not allow this. As soon as those plans are developed, the citizens will be
notified and put into the process for review.
Mr. Vaught said that "mix use" means the developer will be offering different styles and price
ranges of housing. This property is not anticipated to have any commercial development.
There will be no commercial development; it will all be residential use. There are a variety of
uses surrounding the site and development will be respectful of those uses and make all
attempts to be compatible, with existing densities and styles and price ranges.
Mr. Vaught said the Overland Trail improvements will be an issue to be designed and
overvicwed by the Engineering Department as the process goes forward. It should be brought
up to a major arterial design standard. He did not believe it would be a 4-lane western by-pass,
but more of a street similar to Prospect, which is not anticipated to be extended through this
site. There will be a main entrance and secondary access point to the site.
Mr. Vaught said the type of open space is to leave untouched the existing open space beyond ,
the Dixon Lateral, with no improvements to allow pedestrians to hike through to Horsetooth
Reservoir.
Member Walker asked about the regional detention pond --what is the need for that?
Mr. Vaught said he was not sure. It has been identified on the Storm Water Utility map that
there is a requirement up to 18-acre detention facility. The study has not taken place to answer
the question at this point.
Member Fontane asked about how the negotiations with Natural Resources is going?
Mr. Vaught said that there has been a lot of discussion at this point but no formal proposal.
Tom Shoemaker and several Council members have met with regard to the project for ideas,
25 to 30 acres and remains unidentified because the boundary is unknown. The development
will determine its incorporation, fingers of open space and tic into the pedestrian east -west
spine.
Vicc-Chair Collier asked would that 25-30 acres be RF or RLP?
Mr. Vaught said at this point the ditch was a natural break for RF and somewhat coincided to
the 5,250 line. It seemed to be the easiest way to identify the boundary between the two, but
if the Park site happens, obviously go into undevelopable areas.
Vice -Chair Cottier said when this area was studied in 1989, it was the recommendation that the
parcel be zoned RF; what has changed to make half RLP?
Mr. Waido said the staff recommendation has not changed. In 1987-1989, staff looked at the
applicant's request for a mixed zoning pattern, including RF and RLP. The Council did not
follow that recommendation, chose to pass the entire property for RF zoning.
Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation was the same.
Vice -Chair Cottier stated that even an earlier plan was to include 140 acres for dedicated open
space. Considerable negotiations were made to justify RLP density. The same dedication of
open space is not being discussed today. Should we be negotiating that? What is your staff
position?
Mr. Waido said there is no comment in the recommendation today because it is being evaluated
as a separate item going through it's own individual process. The Comprehensive Plan states
to include preservation along the foothills with concern that development take into account the
natural features and climate of the area, etc. All the land uses in the surrounding areas have
been weighed and evaluated by staff to give the recommendation to Board as reported. The
zoning pattern proposed will afford a good land use mix while preserve open space and afford
mixed housing uses under RLP with appropriate design.
Vicc-Chair Cottier asked about other properties zoned RF in relation to 5,200 elevation south?
Mr. Waido said several properties have come into the City on the consent agenda, for example
Fox Acres. The City has used as a practice to zone everything west of Overland Trail, south
of Drake Road in an RF zone. Most of the properties south of Drake Road were placed in the
RF zone, he cited split zoning RF and to the east RLP zones on various examples of properties.
This property is all west of Overland Trail and a large parcel, 220 acres and a mile across. In
consideration of this, staff feels the property's size justifies the zoning request.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked if there were any street connections west of Overland Trail and
increase circulation?
Mr. Waido said no. The City's Master Street Plan is currently in effect and the City needs to
make decisions accordingly. The plan designates Overland Trail as a major arterial with 6-lane
facility, 120-foot right-of-way. The overall transportation system no longer needs this 6-lane
facility, and a planning process will develop a new Master Street Plan, Overland Trail will most
likely be designated as a major arterial road and its size limited to 4-lanes, with other streets
as collector standard within one-half mile.
Member Walker asked how the area south of the site is characterized? What are the housing
types and densities in those areas?
Mr. Waido explained the RF zoning under City ownership and private ownerships, the CSU
Football Stadium, multi -family units south of the property, CSU Equine Center to the north,
single-family along Lake Street and Prospect and Overland Park (3 1/2 to 4 units per acre).
is Member Fontane asked how densities of the proposed area impact the Overland Park? Would
there be another park?
Mr. Waido said the City's Master Plan does not show another park west of Overland Trail. A
mile away, 160 acres has been acquired for a Community park. Overland Park is the closest
and Southwest Community Park. Properties would contribute $779 per unit into the parkland
fund.
Member Strom asked for a description for the topography on the site.
Mr. Waido summarized the property is relatively flat, no major features in change of elevation
until the Dixon Canal at the 5,200 footline, there is an 80-Coot drop to Overland Trail. West
of the property there is the foothills rise with no major elevation changes otherwise.
Member Fontane said she felt this was an appropriate use for this location and property and
is suitable for RF and RLP.
Member Fontane moved for approval of Overland Trail annexation and zoning.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Walker said he could not support the motion because he believed the zoning to be
inappropriate but the annexation to the City would be acceptable. There is an RF zone in an
area that is basically unbuiidablc. The RLP bumps up against it and it doesn't follow the
Foothills Plan in terms of preservation. South of the site, is urban zoning RM multi -family.
He believed it would be more appropriate to have an RF Zone just to the west RM boundary
that exists to the south. To have the RLP go to the ditch with an urban density, he believed
it inappropriate. A restriction to single-family to the west of the boundary would provide a
better transition to the unbuildable zone. He requested the motion modified to that extent.
Mr. Vaught showed where the canal was located, and the location of the 25-30 acres ►and to be
purchased. He asked for a more specific direction for the ODP, a cap of restriction and the
expectations of the Board.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked for specific definition of the RLP zone and ►egitimate expectations
of that type of zone.
Mr. Waido said the low density planned residential zone (this developer indicating 6-units per
acre) before the LDGS was in place, had a 6-dwelling unit per acre maximum. The RLP was
derived from the RL zone to allow neighborhoods to have a mix of units (single- and multi-
family) but stilt maintain a low -density character. The staff thinks that is consistent with City
policies and recommending a PUD option for any development plan within the ODP for single -
or multi -family and will come back to the Board to be reviewed.
Mr. Waido commented on Member Walker's suggestion to the location of the western boundary.
It would leave approximately 52 acres in RLP zoning at 3-units per acre (minimum allowed)
LDGS, a minimum of 156 units. Mr. Walker is correct in stating the developer cannot build on
the RF zone, therefore, they cannot transfer units into the RLP area. But if the line begins to
move east, then the potential does exist for the applicant to utilize some of the density that is
generated in an RF zone and begin to transfer that to the east. Using the RLP line match to
the RM line to the south, again rough calculation would be that 230 acres would allow in theory
230 units, all of which would have to be located below 5,250 foot line, which means the
applicant could come in and attempt a design for approval, placing 230 units on the property
on the RF zone between the eastern boundary and the 5,250 foot line. The RLP zone has a
minimum density and the RF has a maximum --but 230 and 156 would generate 386 units, and
RLP through the PUD process could go up. He reminded the Board that any RF site plan and
any PUD proposal under the zoning plan would need to have the Board approval.
Member Walker stated under the Foothills Plan, a unique character is trying to be created.
There is no problem to have the property developed under RF standards, single-family clusters
to 230 units for transition to the foothills. Overland Trail has served for a foothills boundary
and with the multi -family to the south, it seems a natural place to extend the boundary for the
proposed annexation with mixed uses.
Member Strom commented in regard to not seeing the proposed ODP plan for the property to
be annexed and zoned making it difficult for the Board to make appropriate recommendations.
He agreed there needs to be a low -density transition to the foothills to occur. He asked Mr.
Waido what kinds of different expectations that are expected with this new request? Is there
an easier way under RLP? And to Mr. Eckman can we establish the RLP zone and give
guidance with what the Board's expectations are for the PUD that will come?
Mr. Waido commented on the division of the zoning RF and RLP, staff would recommend not
dividing it, because the development rules would change at that boundary. The RF zone does
not allow a PUD, but a cluster development with certain criteria which the City needs to
evaluate that plan with the Board making the final decision. If the applicant can fulfill the
"subdivision" requirements in the RF, then the City will find it more difficult to rule in the
L�477�W=774=1 a
design layouts. The RLP zone gives the City more flexibility and input into the design; we
would hamper the City's decision -making process by putting a zoning district boundary in the
middle of this property. The rules would be different as to how the development plan is
evaluated on either side of the boundary.
Member Strom stated that was one of his concerns because RF plans are not submitted very
often. He restated his understanding to be that there is a better review process under a PUD
than just RF zoning.
Mr. Eckman stated Section 29.45 of the code authorizes conditions on zoning. Actually it
authorizes City Council, upon recommendation of Planning and Zoning Board, to impose
conditions. You could recommend the eastern portion RLP zoning with the condition that the
residential development not exceed a certain cap or any other condition, you might be able to
fashion that is reasonable, and promotes the public welfare. The only prohibition on that is
"conditional zoning shall not be utilized to authorized uses, not authorized on the recommended
imposed conditions of the zoning."
Member Walker restated there is a Foothills Residential Zone here and the conditions that are
of concern as the development transitions to the west, the Board would like to see low -density,
low-rise, cluster development and that is what the RF zone proposes. Why beat around the
bushes; the RF zone was well thought out and he believed with the intention of the uniqueness
of the Foothills and should do something with it. He stayed with his position.
Vice -Chair Cottier said she was struggling with this one because she remembered when it was
before the Board years ago but not why we thought it should be RF. She believed there was
validity that there should not all necessarily be RF because of the distance from the foothills
which is much different further south on Overland Trail. She did not have a problem with
part of the property being RLP and would want to convey some maximum density idea. In the
past density for RF was discussed which was the 285 units. Something higher than that could
be workable. There needs to be a plan to react appropriately. The motion needs to be
addressed.
Member Strom asked if the western three-quarters is RF and eastern
one -quarter is RLP and the proponents come back with a plan that needs some adjustments with
those lines. Let's say they come back and indicated they need to adjust the boundaries and it
is agreed by the Board that the proposal makes sense, how much of a processing problem is
added by having the line there?
Mr. Waido said it would require rezoning and the rezoning would require this Board to make
a recommendation to Council. The Council would have to have two readings of ordinances on
the zoning. The Council would have to approve the rezoning prior to the Board approval or the
Board could approve the development plan on the condition that the Council approve the
rezoning. There is added, in terms of processing, 6 to 8 week to the development plan approval
if that case should arise.
Member Strom said that ordinarily there would be a time ►ag between ODP and final
development plan approval?
0
Mr. Waido said with a PUD condition, an ODP would be required. Depending on the size of
the phase, in theory, Phase I could be submitted as a preliminary/final if it was a small piece
of property, not inc►uding a lot of units and not having any development related problems, the
Board could look at an ODP and a preliminary/fina► at the same time. The normal process
would be ODP with a preliminary and then a final plan at some subsequent time.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked the staff and applicant if some portion of the RLP proposal RF, the
western half of that, are there peculiar conditions out there that would prohibit a density in
the neighborhood of 3-5 units per acre, that is what would be allowed under the RF cluster?
Mr. Waido from his perspective and knowledge of the property there are no inherent geographic
features of the property which would tend to limit density. The density limitation would be
in the site plan design of the project.
Member Strom said he was more inclined to agree with Member Walker and proposed an
amendment to it that the zoning portion of it be changed to reflect RLP on the easterly quarter
and the RF be brought down to cover the westerly three-quarters of the project. The westerly
boundary of the RM zone south of the project site, he believed it to be a reasonable point for
the line.
Member Fontane asked clarification of 70 acres for each quarter?
Member Strom said that it seems a reasonable delineation at that RM zone boundary, he didn't
consider acreages at this point.
Member Fontane had concern because of the already existing densities surrounding the site and
the proximity to town. It is a viable place to have even more RLP. She asked for clarification
of the units per acre being 3-5 units in the RF zone and 6 units in the RLP?
Mr. Waido said the RF zone allows a maximum of an overall gross density of one unit per acre
in a cluster development plan. The cluster of the houses have to be in a 3-5 unit per acre range.
Overall gross density is one unit per acre.
Member Fontane approved the amendment.
Mr. Vaught said he would feel comfortable with the proposal, but would prefer it be tied to an
acreage in an approximate eastern one -quarter or the eastern 70 acres of the property be RLP.
That would give the developer from a legal boundary to be able to divide the frontage of
Overland into 70 acres and define where that line occurs, that would achieve their intent to
lower densities as the foothills are approached.
Member Strom asked for guidance in terms of acreages.
Mr. Waido said since the property is essentially rectangular, the length and width can be
calculated along Overland Trail to determine 70 acres. Roughly the RM boundary is 50 acres,
so if the Board is comfortable with 70, the RLP boundary would be only slightly further to the
west.
Member Foutane agreed to the 70 acres for the boundary.
Member Strom also agreed with the amendment.
Member Strom commented to the benefit of the citizens that the Board used to operated under
development plan information at the time of annexation, but there is a different direction
from Council at this point. The Board is interested in the comments of the development plan,
but there will be an opportunity to participate in that process as the development is submitted
and a neighborhood meeting and public hearings for addressing specific questions at a later
time.
Vice -Chair Cottier stated that even though part of the project would be zoned RLP, and
theoretically there is no limit to the density that could occur, the Board is not suggesting that
high density should be located there and will be keeping in mind the sensitivity of the foothills
area.
Motion carried 4-0, with Chair Clements and Member Klataske abstaining because of conflict
of interest.
[ ]y=,T� I „ t-M, ITdrFmaljolffl !
. Mr. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, read the staff report and recommended approval of the
project with conditions. He gave the Planning and Zoning Board an addendum to the staff
report are two conditions of approval that staff has recommended.
I. No building permit shall be issued in this development until the vacation of the stub
end of Hilburn Drive is completed, which vacation shall include the retention by the
City of an casement of 10 feet in width for a sidewalk connecting this development
with the Regency Park PUD. Unless otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by the owners
of the two properties abutting said portion of Hilburn Drive, the sidewalk reservation
shall be located in the middle of the land to be vacated. Said vacation shall also include
a utility easement for the existing waterline.
The second condition of approval has to do with some of the neighborhood input in this
project that has occurred after the staff report was printed. It reads as follows:
2. Approval of this PUD is conditioned upon final plans containing the modifications
pertaining to deleting four parking spaces next to Building G. Changing evergreen
species from Austrian pines to Blue Spruce. Expanding the notes regarding construction
debris and temporary fencing and specifying the roofing materials on the architectural
sheet.
These were things that were agreed upon by both the applicant and the affected property
owners in a recent neighborhood meeting.
Staff is recommending approval of this final. The final is in substantial conformance with the
preliminary PUD, heard in December 1993. There were six conditions of approval at
preliminary that were satisfied.
Member Strom asked if this was a late breaking development and is that why the Board doesn't
have these done?
Mr. Shepard said it is the language that we have in the standard condition of final approval,
as Condition 1, regarding timely filing of utility plans and development agreement. That
standard language does not contain language regarding vacation of a public street. We want
to make sure that regarding the vacation, it has to go to Council for two readings does not fall
into a bureaucratic black hole. Staff wants to make sure that it gets done. He commented that
staff wants to tie in the issuance of the building permit with the legalistic follow-through of
vacating the public right-of-way. We don't want to have a PUD out there that shows a right-of-
way being vacated, when in fact it takes two readings by Council to vacate it.
Mr. Shepard stated the second condition is to alert the Board to the fact the plans reviewed at
work session did not contain these "punch list" items. Yes, they are late breaking and staff
wants you aware of them as is the neighborhood group and such items are to be part of the
final mylars.
Member Cottier asked if the 4 parking spaces near Building G will be turned into green space?
Mr. Shepard said that was correct.
Mr. Eldon Ward - Cityscape representing the applicant James Company - This is a final PUD
and is in substantial conformance to the preliminary and conditions were addressed through
the normal process. The two additional conditions are housekeeping items that came up at a
meeting held with representatives of a neighborhood on Thursday evening, the night before
the Board's work session. The applicant thought the vacation would be covered in the normal
language of the development agreement, the other items are straight forward. He stated minor
clarifications such as not all of the Austrian Pines will not be changed to Blue Spruce, just in
certain areas that were requested by specific neighbors and the 4 parking spaces to be deleted
for the driveway could be shortened, to create more berming and landscaping.
CITIZEN INPUT.
Mr. Steve Gottschalk - resident of the Hilburn Court area on the abutted street. He stated he
was part of a very active homeowners group. They have learned a lot through the process. One
of the concerns was the process itself throughout the community.
1. Rezoning. Rezoning to the single-family dwelling homes to the multi -family homes
in the Arapahoe Town Farm which will allow the townhome project to be built. Most
of the homeowners built in Regency Park, The Gates and The Overlook recently, came
with the understanding this would all be single-family potential patio homes. He
discussed at length rezoning in the area where inadequate notice was given.
2. Compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Study was extensive and is good.
There are concerns with regard to materials that are common to the neighborhood
surroundings, over population of the schools which would create busing situations, and
berming and buffering.
Plum= and Zoning Bond aro..w
Marth 78. 1904
Pace 11
Kevin Walker - 4413 Hilburn Ct. - One of the conditions for approval at the preliminary was
for the builder to meet with the residents to talk about:
1. Exterior/brick and shingles. He reported at a neighborhood meeting that brick usage
was discussed but no change, roofing material with an increase of the weight of the
asphalt shingles to 300 lbs per square feet. That in essence was the end of the meeting.
The neighborhood has shake shingles. One neighbor had researched this issue
thoroughly with costs and data and wasn't allow to present his report. At last
Thursday's meeting there was an example of asphalt shingles with a shadow line. The
neighbors viewed this application in another neighborhood; he maintained his position
for wood shake shingles. Perma-tek material was presented as an alternative from the
neighborhood with a 50 year warranty which costs 10% more. The issues concerning the
brick has been dropped, yet the builder contends the value of the units he is building
will be more in value than our own units. If asphalt is not compatible with wood
shakes, what is not?
2. Size. The height of these units will be 28 feet. There is a grading and elevation plans
are vague at this time with a possible height to these buildings being 8 feet taller. He
stated their desire for patio homes than townhomes for transition change from single
family. The neighbors proposed that the units be reduced on the boundary line and the
builder answered no. There are last minute mitigations of the parking lot and
buffering. They requested that more time to evaluate the changes.
He summarized that there are elements that do not fit and collectively the residents have a lot
at risk as well. There arc homes that are not selling because of the property project site and
concerns over the proposed development. He contended the real compatibility issues have not
been worked out and referred to the LDGS to support his position of incompatibility and
transition issues.
Den Hoag - 4517 Hilburn Ct. - Greenbelt. One of the conditions in the preliminary was to
increase the greenbelt. The builders dropped one unit to gain only nine more feet of buffer.
There is concern that it is not sufficient. Most natural buffers between projects is a street with
front yards providing buffer. In this case there is a minimum of 55 feet. The neighbors have
asked the developer to drop one more unit to gain additional nine feet as a compromise but the
Developer is against it. The neighbors feel there needs to be more transition. He believed the
berming and landscaping insufficient for the height and mass of the buildings. They requested
the landscaping at Hilburn Drive be accomplished at the beginning of the project. He brought
photos of a trash problem and requested containers with lids and a temporary fence constructed
to control trash from blowing. The greenbelt is the main issue to bring compatibility to the
project site/neighborhood for a smooth transition.
Tom Wilberton - 4419 Hilburn Ct. - He is a resident for 5 years. After four months of
residence, the sidewalk was removed. The Hilburn street was made deadend with no warning,
notice or follow up. After much research, Home Federal the property owner, agreed to some
restoration in the form of a landscape timber wall on the southside of the property. There was
an additional investment over $1,000 individually for trees, shrubs and landscaping material.
He was told at a neighborhood meeting that he is now responsible for the sidewalk (remember
his was removed without notice). At the Planning and Zoning Board Preliminary hearing there
was a condition that the street be made compatible with the neighborhood. To date this
condition has not been met. There needs to be a permanent barrier as a fence and landscaping.
Are the neighbors having to assume the costs because the City of Fort Collins changes policy
about what to do about this partial street. He referred to the LDGS which reads "privacy
control is an essential important consideration in or adjacent to residential projects." With the
property line 50 feet on westside and public right-of-way dissecting the area on the south side,
it seems the neighborhood has lost privacy. He requested the project be delayed to work out
solutions.
Steve Gottschalk said many people are not attending these hearings because there is a feeling
that it does not do any good. The neighborhoods he represents are the Regency Park, the Gates,
The Overlook, Westbrooke, Wagonwheel, Imperial Estates, Rossborough and Chaperal. Evidence
of the interest is a petition submitted to the Board containing more than 246 signatures. There
is a genuine interest from the neighborhood. He concluded with the submittal of letter from
Nan McClurg to the Board concerning issues of inadequate traffic study, further compounding
of the population to existing schools, construction traffic, public notification, believed the
process has failed. There has been inadequate time to negotiate the vacant land and
responsibilities concerning that issue near Hilburn stub. The building permit will not be issued
to the developer until the vacation is completed, but negotiation of the problems has not
occurred. He also has fence problems. There is 55 feet from the property to the first building
in the neighborhood. He requested details for final approval, if the developer answers a Board
question in a way that is not agreeable to the neighborhood, he would like to be able to speak
at that time.
Chair Clements asked staff about rezoning of the property from patio homes to townhomes, the
definition and history?
Mr. Shepard said the "rezoning" has gone from patio homes to townhomes. The patio home is
considered a single-family home on a lot less than 6,000 square feet, minimum lot size, typically
the homes are smaller. The zone change being referred is not technically a zone change, no
zoning was changed, the ODP was amended and that particular parcel was designated as patio
homes. When the Woodridge project came in, the master plan was amended, a tot of the parcels
changed configuration, this particular parcel was given the designation of patio home and/or
multi -family (a townhome being multi -family). The location of the convenience center was
debated at that time on the south and west side of Harmony and Seneca and requested to be
placed on this site as an alternative use because it was closer to the school and the children
wouldn't have to cross an arterial street. This was done in 1991 as an ODP change, a shifting
of land use parcels.
Chair Clements reflected citizen's interest in why the city encourages a variety of housing
types and what arc the philosophies behind the approach?
Mr. Shepard stated that within each square mile section throughout the community it is
desirable to have a mix of density and housing opportunities for a variety of levels of ages, and
income. Housing types and densities should not be relegated to certain portions of the City.
ODPs for a Housing mix may not be popular in a given market at the time. The City tries to
hold to the mix with the intent over a period of time. Master plans get amended, designations
are change and the mix is altered while providing the opportunity for a range of housing types
in all portions of the City of Fort Collins.
Chair Clements asked about the concern for schools and overcrowding and future busing?
Mr. Shepard said he couldn't address the specific school policies, but the school district has had
a copy of the Arapahoe Farm and the Mountain Ridge Master Plan since 1987. Since that time,
there has been a reduction in density, a reduction in the units shown on the master plan. It is
his understanding that the Johnson school is undergoing expansion but can't explain the policy
of the School District as to which children get bused. He noticed an article by Carol Agee who
does the demographic projections for the School District and Mr. Agee is projecting a rather
even growth rate in terms of kindergarten classes coming up. New schools are planned and
built which causes a redistribution of boundary areas. The School District plans for what they
foresee to be the growth in each area of Fort Collins. When they planned for the Johnson
School, they were very concerned that they have a three -track school and they not exceed 575
students --we are starting to see a change in that philosophy with the school expansions. The
School District has always been in the throes of boundary adjustments, bringing new schools
on line and redistributing the school population so as not to have overcrowding.
Chair Clements stated that is what planners and board members have to base decisions on. When
the School District says yes we can accommodate this housing type with the potential families
moving into this area and it can be accommodated, we have to go on what they say.
Mr. Shepard said yes.
Chair Clements asked about the asphalt shingle vs. wood shake shingle and is still a concern.
Please address the process of working out this issue and Poudre Fire Authority has concerns
about wood shake shingles.
Mr. Shepard said the Poudre Fire Authority took to their Board a resolution requesting an
action trying to discourage wood shake shingle roofs because of fire hazard. At this point, it
is merely a resolution, it is not an ordinance or fire code. The comments from the Fire
Marshall is that they not be cedar shake.
Mr. Ward presented the background information for not using cedar shakes. The Poudre Fire
Authority states that cedar shakes are a non-renewable resource, and that there are additional
issues with cost and compatibility. He referred to the LDGS states that similar materials does
not mean identical materials, similar housing scale does not mean identical housing scale, we
don't have to be totally homogenized to be compatible. He showed slide examples of single-
family with wood shingles and townhomes with asphalt shingles in the Landings. The
difference is subtle and if the colors are sensitively chosen there is similarity. The project will
use an upgraded shingle with a shadow line. He noted the buffer between the two projects
(Harmony Cove Condos and Creekside at the Landings Single Family) is substantially smaller
than his proposal as an example. Their maximum is 55 feet which in his project is the
minimum distance. He believed the buffering has been well thought out. He showed an
example from Paragon Point and is the exact material that will be used in the project. He made
a report regarding the brick and felt he has addressed the material compatibility issue.
Chair Clements said perhaps the berming changed from the preliminary from the last plan they
had seen?
0
Mr. Shepard said the berms have increased in length and reduced in number with the net effect
there is more berming. He supported this view with slides of the landscape plan.
Mr. Ward explained in detail of the berming. He believed the berming had not been reduced.
The grading plan has reshaped some of the berms for positive drainage, there is another
meeting with the engineer to go over final plans. The change in the parking lot will pick up
more land.
Chair Clements asked for comments on the trash problem and the neighbor's assurance that the
construction trash will not be in their backyards.
Mr. Ward said a dumpster with a lid will be provided by the builder at each building site and
a laborer is assigned at each area to put trash and debris there with policing of the area. The
topic of a fence has come up and any debris that blows over the fence will not be picked up by
his laborer. The builders suggestion was to proceed with this plan as stated and if there are
complaints that this is not effective, a fence can be temporarily be erected along the areas that
don't have fences.
Member Klataske asked about the vacation of the easement for the Hilburn Ct. Has the
developer addressed that at all as far as the landscaping, fencing, sidewalk?
Mr. Ward said there was a meeting 5 weeks ago at the site with city staff members and, prior
to that, there had been proposed 3 or 4 alternative solutions. These included retaining the hard
surface with a basketball court, to proposing that this deadend street be retained. There are
issues with the erosion and temporary barricade at the end of the street. This area needs a
more permanent solution at the end of the street with more of permanent retaining wall and
some landscaping. Other optons include vacation of the street and perhaps a home being built
there. The City Attorney and City Engineering offices state that vacation and demolition is
the standard and this is what the City wants the Developer to do. The builder wanted to avoid
costs of demolishing the street; and if the neighbors do want it, there are responsibilities in
maintaining it. The developer accepts the City's proposed solution, leaving the sidewalk in
place and making grading changes.
Member Fontane asked about building heights in comparison from the project to the existing
neighborhood.
Mr. Ward said there are three building types with the same maximum height of 26 feet above
the finished floor level of the house. The 28-foot number comes from the finished floor level
to finished grade outside the building. Typically there is a higher number placed on the plans
because of the topography. The FHA grading plan designates finished floor elevations on the
lots, that is not the case with the grading plans that are filed with the City. Therefore, for
Regency Park I and II filings we were not able to get the elevation differences. It appears that
in the field seem to have a floor elevation of 5117.5 feet to 5121 feet for existing structures.
Mr. Shepard commented to the Board to consider what Mr. Gottschalk referred to in his
discussion, regarding clarification, and that he would be able to do so.
Mr. Gottschalk said he only requests normal considerations for this project. Some of the
concerns about the deadend at Hilburn Court. Negotiations have not occurred between the
r AN
developer and the residents now that we want to split the property. Thursday night is the first
night it was discussed and warrants more final detail and approval. We do think there should
be a negotiation. Without the direction of the Planning and Zoning Board directly to the
developer to make condition requirements, he believed the negotiations would fall through.
He requested a delay because the vacation would occur in the second phase and some projects
never get that far into the development. He didn't want to go through the same process or over
the same issue with another application and developer.
Chair Clements directed staff to address the Hilburn Ct. concern, what phase it will occur, who
will be involve and the effect?
Mr. Ward said it was his understanding that it would occur in Phase I. This was the City's final
position. The grading would be matched to the existing and approved grades at the corners of
the property and the City standard slopes which means no steeper than a 4:1 slope and not
steeper than 15:1 for the sidewalk ramp. The only thing to work out he guessed is whether or
not it is appropriate to saddle this developer with any additional landscaping or irrigation
requirements on the adjacent lots. He believed that was not appropriate.
Mr. Shepard said that was correct. The process had been outlined and the vision was to replace
the proper grading and fill dirt to the east and re -seeding for erosion control. It was beyond
the ability of the City to ask for irrigation systems. There was a discrepancy with Phase I and
. what has been shown on one of the drafts of the utility plans in which the consulting engineer
called for the removal to be done in Phase II. There is that discrepancy. The Board has the
ability to specify the physical removal of the Hilburn project be done with Phase I and be done
to code. If more details are needed, Mike Herzig can answer questions and is coordinating the
project. The preference is to have the work done rather than replacement value.
Member Fontane asked a landscaping question along the east could be in Phase I, when is that
to happen?
Mr. Ward said that Phase I is to occur around the horseshoe street in the center of the project
and then other phases around that. The materials to berm are generated from the excavation
of buildings on the site. The developer has proposed to put money in escrow for all of this
landscape buffer with Phase I and install it with Phase II, there will be some disruption with
the landscaping in Phase III. That is the proposal and staff has found it acceptable for the
hauling of ground and extra costs.
Member Strom asked if the escrow was with the City.
Mr. Ward said yes, it would be a condition of the development agreement.
Member Cottier with Phase II, the four buildings on the north, that is when you will landscape
the entire eastern boundary?
Mr. Ward said yes.
Member Cotticr asked what length of time was anticipated between Phase I and II?
Mr. Ward said the developer hopes within a year under the current market conditions. The idea
is to continue with each phase after one is completed. Something can cause the schedule to
change, but his plan is for continual building.
Member Collier said after excavating Phase I basements, you would just be making piles of dirt
along the eastern boundary until completed?
Mr. Ward said the berms would be started. He explained grading and the difficulty inputting
the landscaping before the buildings and additional utility hookups.
Member Fontane asked for the criteria for phasing? Why not go from the east to the west?
Mr. Ward said the west is where the utility connections come in. Utilities for the site are
located at the circle street, (water and sewer) and typically it makes sense to phase the project
based on sequential extensions of underground utilities. This is the phasing schedule the
developer has chosen. The realignment of Harmony Road will happen in the third phase, but
not Phase I.
Member Strom moved to approve the Arapahoe Farm Townhouses with three conditions and
specify along with that the landscaping, phasing and escrow accounting included In the
development agreement, and that Hilburn Ct. project be completed in Phase I.
Member Walker seconded the motion. He mentioned that the biggest issue is compatibility. In
his judgment through the use of landscaping and treatment of the eastern boundary, the
requirements have been satisfied and the issues of Hilburn Ct. will be resolved.
Member Strom stated that part of the justification of his motion the three points made in the
staff report that the PUD is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary and the six
conditions of preliminary approval were satisfied. The All Development Criteria of the LDGS
are satisfied as well.
Member Walker further commented that ODP directs mixed uses and in his judgment this
project with the element of adding different types of housing is one of the objectives the City
land use policy encourages. He believed this meets this City policy of providing a mix of
housing opportunities.
Chair Clements said she would be supporting the motion. She responded to an earlier citizen
comment that citizens do not want to attend Planning and Zoning Board meetings because it
is a waste of time. She did not agree with that. Everything is heard. We compliment this
neighborhood group and Mr. Gottschalk for early involvement that many of the changes were
made for the better. It does make a difference to be involved. This project is among others
that have set precedence but it did go further with working with the neighborhood early and
researching materials, reducing the size of buildings, trading off landscaping items. The
project will work well and commend the neighbors for being involved early.
Motion carried 6-0.
Phminx nod Zooine Boyd lfmaf�
UWth 79. 1904
Phi
jfI'T7fi1F 1
Mr. Steve Olt, project planner, read the staff report with recommendation regarding access on
Wheaton Drive and signalization that would require approval of an amendment to the Harmony
Road Access Plan. That would involve the City and the Colorado Department of
Transportation. He read the recommendation stated in the staff report and gave supporting
documents for denial of access at this time.
Chair Clements asked for a point of clarification. The reason for the denial is because the
access issue has not been resolved.
Mr. Olt said yes.
Mr. Strom requested more specific indication of exactly how the criteria are not met.
Mr. Olt read the criterion from the LDGS concerning this issue, being All Development Criteria
2.1. The location of the access as proposed will not function in a safe operational manner
should the time arise when the left turn lanes are required.
Mr. Walker said there is 275 feet, to his understanding, from Harmony to the entrance. He
would like an interpretation from the traffic engineer what specifically is the problem?
Mr. Olt said he would like to introduce Tom Vosberg, from the Transportation Department of
the City of Fort Collins.
Mr. Vosberg introduced himself and stated he has not been directly involved with this
specifically. If a signal is required at the intersection of Wheaton and Harmony Road as a
result of development in the area, there will be the need for adequate storage for vehicles
turning left. The 275 feet does not provide adequate distance to provide that storage if a single
►efthand turn lane is utilized, which is the standard for this situation. The applicant's engineer
will be discussing alternatives as to how that will be handled. It is the City Traffic Engineer's
opinion that situation is to utilize the single lefthand turn lane which requires additional space
for adequate storage of cars.
Mr. Walker asked if a double lefthand turn lane provides adequate stacking within the 275
feet?
Mr. Vosberg said he wasn't in a position to make a recommendation, but it would be adequate
storage, operationally feasible in a very narrow prescribed sense. Staff has concerns about
appropriate mix using a double turn lane and is it not standard practice that the City would
require good design practice.
Mr. Walker asked for the appropriate standard for this situation?
Mr. Vosberg said there is a general impression is that there is development activity that is likely
to occur in the area. It is likely that intersection is a candidate for signalization.
Mr. Walker asked how much footage is needed to provide adequate left turn lane?
Mr. Vosberg did not have the statistic need but the issue for alignment to Monte Carlo would
be adequate. A basic design criteria states that it is desirable to line up access points for a
traffic circulation design perspective.
Mr. Phillips said that Rick Ensdorf has been involved with this project in regard to all the
transportation issues but was not present at the meeting because there was an emergency in the
family. As the entrance to Stonebridge moves further from Harmony to Monte Carlo, it very
soon reaches a point where it is not a matter what the minimum distance but a matter of how
close it is to Monte Carlo to align the intersection. The lefthand turn lanes are for both access
onto Harmony and ingress into Stonebridge on Wheaton. He apologized for not having the
answer specifically.
Chair Clements was disappointed and frustrated over inadequate representation from
Transportation. It is critical for the credibility of decision makers to have adequate
information to base decisions upon.
Mr. Phillips stated that conversations with Rick Ensdorf and Steve Olt before the work session
Friday was adamant that the Transportation Departments position was the access should with
Monte Carlo. He desired to work with the developers as a group and was very strong on the
position he stated.
Member Fontane asked if there is data supporting the need for signalization of Harmony?
Mr. Phillips said Mr. Ensdorf stated it need further traffic analysis and the recommendation
be done on a broader basis for the area by the developer and are in the process to accomplish
that. The main focus is getting approval of the left turn lanes from the Department of
Transportation.
Member Cottier said if the access to this project is moved to coincide with Monte Carlo, where
would the access to the parcel to the east be moved?
Mr. Olt stated that is being considered independently.
Member Cottier asked if those access should align, or have no alignment and what is the logic
to that?
Mr. Phillips said that doesn't require a lefthand motion onto Wheaton, so there may be the
possibility of an access without it aligning with an intersection because you don't have as much
distance, perhaps.
Mr. Jim Junge, the planner for the development - 9630 E. Powers Place in Greenwood Village.
He stated that it is not land use issues in question for the project. Have staff support on those
issues. He had staff in attendance to answer questions of the Board. He gave a short
presentation about the corridor plan and criteria. He maintained the position that the access
would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to have it in the location submitted. .
At the neighborhood meeting (1) they did not want multiple vehicular access to our site, (2)
they did not want it aligned with Monte Carlo at Wheaton Drive and (3) could we do anything
to minimize the impact of apartment buildings visually as it encountered their neighborhood.
The realignment to their specifications was the popular solution. He worked with staff around
the design. It was suggested very late that it should be relocated, the City's process is flawed
in that conclusion. There will no driveway accesses to Monte Carlo from the commercial site
to the east, so it will be located on Wheaton. His point was that 275 feet, he believed to be
about a block, is too short a distance for left turn move, not because of our driveway but the
commercial site. The traffic from the site is being kept from Monte Carlo for a positive reason.
He made a statement of traffic peak times being different for the commercial use to his
proposed development. He disagreed with Mr. Ensdorf's recommendation, with the
neighborhood also in disagreement. He has gone through the process with good faith and
worked diligently with staff only to have this issue unresolved. He did not want further delay.
Matt Delich, traffic engineer - 3413 Banyon Avenue - Loveland - He did the traffic study for
the development and made several comments. He discussed the issues surrounding the left
turns and access points to Wheaton. He showed a solution with omission of bike lanes and a
double left lane turn, referencing the double left turn lane at Harmony and College, 430 feet
long combined --a major arterial. So he had did not have a problem with the distance from the
access to Harmony. His proposal will handle anticipated volumes for this area.
Mr. Strom asked if there was a need for left turn lanes at Monte Carlo?
Mr. Delich said it should be striped as he showed in his rendering of Wheaton, with three lanes,
two travel lanes, with bike lanes. He mentioned green time on Harmony Road (the time which
vehicles can pass). With a single left turn lane there needs to be more green time, and with
double you turn it in half and reduce it significantly, allowing additional green time for the
through movement.
Chair Clements asked about signalization at Harmony and Wheaton?
Mr. Olt said that was not correct. There is talk about it and is being looked into. It is not part
of the Harmony Corridor Plan to be signalized. One of the conditions, submitted by
Transportation for the preliminary, was to have an area wide study of transportation but it did
not occur because it was not accepted by the board as a condition.
Chair Clements pointed out the study was really for the commercial site and not for the
Stonebridge development.
Tim Dolan - Golden Meadows Homeowners Association - Enclave Homeowners Association -
People like to complain but there is something you can do to make a difference. He fully
supported the project. His major concerns were as follows. Connecting Monte Carlo to the
access of Stonebridge would create too much traffic. The group favored a light at Wheaton to
divide the through traffic. He was told at a neighborhood meeting for King Soopers that there
would be a light there. They are frustrated with not including the commercial site as part of
the impact in the neighborhood to make decisions where it should be addressed as a whole and
not piecemeal. As an association, participating in the process with the developer, arriving at
agreement, but now the City states they do not approve of access location. There is frustration
with the process. There is willingness to work with developers but there needs to be decisions
made.
Jack O'Neill - 1307 Brittany Ct. - He lives in Golden Meadows and supports the project. He
walks along Wheaton at Lemay every and wondered why the intersection hasn't been considered
for a light? He had concern for the children and their safety.
Sheri Chandler - 4470 S. Lemay #906 - Had concerns about the bikeway proposed to be paid on
the property she manages at Courtney Park Apartments. She questioned who would be
maintaining this bikeway?
Les Kaplan - 1060 Sailor's Reef - He believed it was a well designed project. His concern was
about the name "Stonebridge" and the implications that could confuse it with "Stoneridge" that
already exists nearby in Fort Collins. Consider emergency situations and the delay it could
cause if not identified properly. This is an opportunity for the Board to prevent an
unnecessary form of confusion. He submitted a letter from the Poudre Valley Fire Authority
that supported his position. A name change would eliminate confusion with respect to safety.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED,
Chair Clements asked the question regarding the traffic light at Wheaton and Lemay?
Mr. Olt said it needs further study and is not considered at this time.
Chair Clements asked about the sidewalks and bike lane that would affect Courtney Park.
Mr. Olt said Stonebridge has offered to build the sidewalk and bike lane as under the Harmony
Corridor Plan from the west portion of the development to Lemay. It is an amenity that should
be done and the developer is offering to pay for it. He was uncertain what information was
given to Ms. Chandler.
Mr. Jim Loftus - 2350 Willowcreek Drive - Boulder - He met with Sheri today and she asked if
they did not chose to do the maintenance of these sidewalks even if we put it in.
Mr. Mike Herzig said this was new information. It is a standard requirement that developments
along large corridors need to put these improvements in. If a project is a PUD, the maintenance
is left with the developer, snow removal, etc. He would need to research Courtney Park
development approval for installation of the sidewalk within public right of way.
Mr. Eckman said in regard to the sidewalk, the Code provides that any sidewalk within the City
must be maintained by the owner of the real property adjacent to the sidewalk. The same is
with snow removal, it is the owner's obligation to keep it clear of snow, but not necessarily the
liability rests with the property owner because there is case law to the contrary.
Member Strom said if the staff sees we need a public sidewalk there and this developer is
willing to pay for it, the City should take this opportunity. Maintenance would then be under
the Code.
Chair Clements said the "name" issue is a legitimate concern.
Mr. Phillips reported that there is a E911 system in Fort Collins which, when an emergency is
called to the dispatch center, the address automatically goes up on the screen of the computer.
That will be investigated further but the reason for the system is for the understanding that
they may be flustered, out of control, etc. It can be identified correctly and be given to the
emergency team.
Mr. Junge said that they would work on all these issues but was looking for approval before
these were all worked out. The concerns with the name and sidewalk will be addressed.
Member Walker commented that it is a hypothetical traffic engineering situation. Wheaton
Drive is fairly short and connects easily to Lemay. It appears to be other opportunities to go
to other signalized intersections. He believed the access to Monte Carlo will change the
character there. There are critical compatibility issues that need resolution. The school,
proposed retail center and multi -family complex make up the complex and need to be
considered as a compatibility issue. He believed it important to maintain the character of
Monte Carlo as a local street. The transportation standard has to be weighed against the
compatibility standard. He believed that not all options for traffic engineering are not being
closed by keeping the access in place. There other ways to solve the geometry problems that
are being presented.
Member Walker moved to approve the Stonebridge Garden Apartments PUD Final.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Chair Clements asked if an amendment to the motion was needed for the sidewalk bike lane
issue needs that to be resolved.
Member Walker agreed with Member Strom's comments regarding the sidewalk and bikeway
and didn't see it as an issue.
Mr. Olt said the plan indicates the desire to build the sidewalk and didn't think it needed to
be a condition for approval because it is part of the plan.
Member Cottier said she would support the motion and commented that she was sorry to focus
so much on the traffic issue and haven't said too much what a nice project this is. She was glad
the neighborhood liked the project. It is a good trade off that Monte Carlo traffic will not be
increased with the access connection. She disagreed that All Development Criteria would not
be met with the access point where it is proposed.
Member Klataske said the name change would be more clear for emergency calls to people
driving through Fort Collins and thought it worthwhile to justify a name change to eliminate
the confusion.
Mr. Eckman addressed the sidewalk issue. If it is to be constructed on a public right-of-way
and this developer is in agreement to install it and it is part of the plan, he was not at all
convinced that it would take Courtney Park's consent to put it in. If it were installed, it would
be Courtney Park's obligation to remove the snow seasonally.
Motion passed 6-0.
Fairbrooke PUD - Preliminar
Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, project planner, read the staff report with recommendations. The
configuration showed an access point onto Prospect with a rear lot configuration to be greater.
The units are high efficiency units and score well on the city's "Energy Score". The attached
patio homes provide an alternative housing type and meet land use policies and goals for the
City of Fort Collins.
Chair Clements stated that it is important to have a variety of housing types. What are the
housing types surrounding this land?
Ms. Whetstone said currently Fairbrooke has developed out with single family lots. There are
a few duplexes and, a tri-plex, but for the most part the area is single family. The proposal is
for paired patio homes 4,000 square foot lots with a density of 6,the density in the area is
developed out at 3 units per acre.
Member Walker questioned the Prospect Road access. The desired traffic design is to minimize
curb cuts on arterial. He questioned the wisdom of this access when access to a collector street
is available.
Ms. Whetstone said from a planning perspective, it is definitely more desirable for residential
development, to access a collector street, which Hampshire is, and then feed onto an arterial
street or another collector street. That is the standard practice. The transportation staff had
discussions with the neighborhood and noted potential conflicts between vehicles and school
children in the area. There are trade-offs with the Prospect Street access. Residents may not
be able to make a left turn easily. From a transportation standpoint, it would work because
there is nothing between Taft Hill and Hampshire Road, but it is not the most desirable
solution. This is a preliminary plan and more discussion needs to occur concerning the access
point. In the traffic study, in your packet, the access point onto Hampshire Road was depicted.
Mr. Dick Rutherford from Stuart and Associates, the engineer for the project, presented details
of the plan. The first plat, which up until a week ago, showed access onto Hampshire (at this
point). The traffic department suggested changing the access to mitigate perceived problems
on Hampshire with children going to school. There are two proposals completed. They have
no preference and think both would work. Matt Delich did the traffic study and said the
collector street access was better.
Mr. Rutherford said a Solar Orientation variance is needed. Patio homes at this density meet
city objectives. The ODP on Fairbrooke has been changed over and over. Higher densities
never happened in the area. The plan is for 6 units per acre and won't have an adverse affect
on the existing single family area. The distance between the existing homes and the patio
homes have been increased since the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors stated that the
density was too great and four units were removed. They were concerned about the safety of
students at Hampshire and Coventry. The school yard is completely fenced along Hampshire,
with access being from a walkway between 2 lots on the western Coventry Ct.
Mr. Gary Macky, President of Nebarado Construction and the builder, 6804 Aaron Dr. - He
explained that he is the builder of Victorian Gables at the Silverplume. They are sold out and
they propose similar units here. The average sales price will be $135,000 base price, with
basements, $165,000. They are 95% brick except the gable ends. His company had the highest
energy rating, a score of 86, in Fort Collins at the last Parade of Homes by Public Service.
Building height is 18 feet. The average age of residents for these patio homes is 60 years old.
There are 39 out of 40 owner -occupied residences in his other project. These are not low-
income units.
Member Walker asked about pedestrian access links on the project.
Mr. Rutherford located the walkways into the site, the existing plan didn't show the walkways
onto the street. They would add a walkway to Hampshire at Final if access goes to Prospect.
Otherwise access would be along sidewalks along the entry road.
Member Walker asked how drainage easements were going to be treated.
Mr. Rutherford stated that right now there is an open ditch but it will be piped (36 inch) into
a detention pond with a slight swale over the top of the ground. The existing runoff piping
for the streets will continue to be in place for drainage to the pond. Surface water is whatever
comes off the backyards.
Robert Clay - 2313 Cedarwood Dr. - He is a spokesperson for the Fairbrooke neighborhood
committee and represents most of the residents in the area. He proposed some enhancements
to the current plan. The building envelop shows a 5 foot buffer building to property line on
the rear and would like to see it changed to 15 feet --not only for buildings on the southside but
throughout the PUD. The project entrance and the walkway is utilized by children going to
Bauder. There is a tight corner with a blind intersection at Coventry. He has observed at the
Silverplume unit, all the garage doors that were opened have two vehicles. In today's market,
there are more vehicles per unit and this increase will affect the traffic. There are also junior
high school kids walking along these areas. Entrance on Prospect is a 1,000 feet from Taft and
400 feet back to Hampshire and would give ample room for excelleration and deceleration time.
The residents fully endorse the Prospect entrance and feet it a safety point with the children
as well the congestion along Hampshire.
Mr. Clay addressed the drainage concerns. There is standing water in homes and in crawl
spaces along Coventry in the spring, and there are other related problems with standing water.
There are warm springs running through the area; therefore the need for the detention pond
and water traveling through, from north at Prospect to south at Coventry. The concrete pan
is proposed on the surface, and a 60-foot buffer would be advantageous for us.
Mr. Clay stated there were privacy fences proposed on Prospect and would like there to be at
the top of the swale as well. The swale could be used as a recreational area and walkway and
connection to the detention pond that has a bike path. There is existing pedestrian traf fie in
this very area currently. A fence limit access to private property as well as would be a nice
addition to the project. There is a walkway proposed by the residents between lots 19 and 20,
designed where the original entrance was on Hampshire. He submitted letters from the PTO
and Principal of Bauder Elementary of putting more vehicles onto Hampshire. We endorse the
project. It meets requirements the City has for additional housing and are not opposed to the
project. The entrance on Hampshire could be a real concern for children going to school.
Mr. Jim Newton - 2225 Coventry Court - He said Mr. Clay did a good job expressing concerns
and wanted to reiterate about the entrance onto Prospect is a necessity for all of the children
in the neighborhood, not for just the grade school but the junior high on Hampshire. He
pointed out the blind spot and if the traffic is directed to Prospect, he thought it could
potentially save some lives. Mr. Macky has done very well on the design of the project but
consideration of the entrance to Prospect.
Mr. Bruce Haflich - 2318 Coventry Court - He has two children that walk to Bauder School.
He addressed the concern of people turning left onto Prospect. He pointed out that Taft Hill
has a light, so there is time for people to turn left if that were the entrance. This is the
entrance we request for approval. He addressed the water flow issue and stated there may need
to be more room having investigated this with homeowners near similar areas. Eventually the
building envelop gets changed and was concerned about the setback. A 40-60 foot buffer zone
would be adequate.
CITIZEN INPUT CLUIBU,
Chair Clements asked for clarification of drainage onto Coventry and how that affects the
issue before the Board.
Mr. Rutherford thought it was about water standing in crawl space from runoff. A pipe will
be continued underground, down through this 20-foot wide drainage easement on the rear of
the patio home lots. There is a concrete pan in the swale to collect surface water from the back
of the houses on Coventry. The storm water that is coming off from Cedarwood to the west
goes into the inlets and will be piped. He stated that this will enhance the neighbors backyard
drainage. He was not sure what the neighbor was talking about. He stated that a soils study
was done by foundation engineering and the ground water is not a problem.
Chair Clements asked for clarification that the soils testing showed that there is not a problem
and there is not a high water table that you will have issues with.
Mr. Rutherford said that is correct.
Chair Clements asked if there were school lights or flashing lights on Hampshire? She
wondered why the school district hasn't been involved in getting some type of crossing.
Ms. Whetstone said the City's "Safe Route to School" people have been working on this area. She
was aware of a study referenced at a previous neighborhood meeting in the area. She said that
there are not that many children walking on this portion of Hampshire because that would take
them to the arterial and that is not where they wanted the kids to be. The school wants them
to access the school yard which is totally fenced, at the path.
Chair Clements asked if Bauder has their school yard totally fenced, and do the kids go up to
Prospect?
A citizen answered from the audience that there is a sidewalk that goes to the back of the
school on the south side, from Coventry Ct.
Chair Clements asked Ms. Whetstone if she had talked with representatives from the School
District who are working on this, trying to re-evaluate how the children are entering the school
yard and safety factors and if there should be lights in the area?
Ms. Whetstone said "not with the School District", but with the City Transportation Department.
Rita Davis of City Transportation does get involved in these issues.
Chair Clements asked what did she learn? When might a decision be made?
Ms. Whetstone said they are studying it and have been for some time. Rita is involved in an
on -going study but there has been no decision. The moving of the pathway access to the school
from Hampshire to the rear of the school on Coventry was done to keep children off of
Prospect.
Chair Clements said the neighborhood is concerned about a larger buffer zone and would it be
workable to add additional footage to the buffer zone.
Ms. Whetstone said, as a result of comments from the neighborhood, the lots along the south
boundary were made deeper so that the position of the patio homes would be no closer to the
single family houses than single family houses would be. She agreed with the neighbors that
there needed to be a 15-foot rear setback, although internal lots could be closer. The rest of the
houses would have at least a 15-foot setback. This was a concern by staff along Hampshire, and
they were not so concerned about the setback to the open space on the cast, it can be 5 feet.
There is not a great desire for these people to have large yards, but for common maintenance
on them and private patios.
Chair Clements asked if the current plan reflects a 15-foot setback to Hampshire?
Ms. Whetstone said it does.
Ms. Cottier asked about the detention pond east, will it be open?
Ms. Whetstone said it is owned and maintained by the City, and access from this property is
provided.
Ms. Cottier asked if there would not be any situation where the City would try to develop that
and have an access onto Prospect?
Ms. Whetstone said that was correct, it is a regional detention pond.
Chair Clements asked what the fencing would be for the development. Will it be fenced all
around? She believed it should be integrated into the neighborhood.
Mr. Rutherford said there was a new fence along Hampshire with brick pillars, with openings
and varying heights. There are existing fences behind neighboring homes and some not. So it
has not been decided if another fence is to be built, or what the enhancement would be for
these areas. There is no fencing along the detention pond.
•
Chair Clements stated that properties need to be transitioned into the neighborhood so it flows
together and she stated her concerns for the degree of fencing.
Mr. Rutherford stated that a fence along the south would really create an enclave, other than
the walkway access to the detention pond. He agreed with her.
Mr. Walker stated that his observations of the access issue stem from the nature of what schools
are to do, schools are at least located on collectors for the reason there is a great deal of traffic
and collectors are more highly maintained than local streets. So we are at cross purposes, on
one hand we talk about safety of children walking to school, on the other hand schools are
located at least next to collectors for the variety of reasons that they have to have good access
and good snow removal. There are always cross purposes. What has been done at this particular
site at Hampshire is that with a little break right at Prospect, it is closed fencing on either side,
so the children are really encouraged to go through that pedestrian walkway off of Coventry
in order to access the school site. He believed the issue at Hampshire has been addressed by the
school to minimize the potential safety problems. On the other hand, collector streets, built as
the name implies, are to collect traffic from an internal area and funnel it out onto an arterial.
By adding this local street traffic directly onto an arterial, it creates some traffic issues. From
a city-wide perspective one of the ways of solving that is to minimize curb cuts on arterial in
order to provide a smoother, quicker flow of traffic. He believed this project with access on
Prospect Road goes against that desire of the City to keep the arterial traffic moving freely.
He could see turning off of Prospect could create some traffic issues there and it seems moving
the traffic onto Hampshire eliminates that issue. As far as integrating the project into the
neighborhood is another issue of integration into the neighborhood. An enclave is being
encouraged with access to Prospect. He was not convinced that the layout is the best
alternative for access.
Member Fontane agreed that this is not her preference for street layout and would prefer
access on Hampshire for all the same reasons. Development along Prospect will continue and
to have accesses on a collector street is a more favorable goal.
Member Walker moved for approval of the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD -
Preliminary with the access change to Hampshire.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Member Collier asked if that was a condition approval with access on Hampshire?
Member Walker said yes.
Member Walker stated that the motion would grant the reasons for the solar variance.
Member Cottier said she was trying to be consistent and didn't want to let optimum traffic
considerations drive our decision on Stonebridge. She couldn't see much difference if you were
turning out of the project, either left on Hampshire or left out of the project internal street.
She could see where there would be additional traffic delays by turning left onto Hampshire.
There is no difference from where it is. She would be inclined to support the access on
Prospect from the prospective to be more compatible with the neighborhood. She had the
concern that access on Prospect is not integrating the project into the neighborhood. She was
3=1=1_I1_'.L'
torn but would hold off the access on Prospect. Other concerns were buffering which she
believed were adequate given the one story, attached single family development. She will not
support the motion with the access on Hampshire.
Member Walker said the Board is always weighing what is best for neighborhoods and what are
the larger City goals and he based his decision on weighing those alternatives because the issues
are: Access to Prospect, which is not compatible to the City goal of putting traffic on collectors
and the alternative is the safety issue of children. He weighed those two things and is
convinced the existing situation with the fencing, the nature of what collector streets are for,
and the fact that traffic issues will be further studied, makes this an acceptable alternative.
Collector streets are designed for functions, schools are built on collector streets, mitigation is
provided for safety of the children and these issues, at this point, are resolved and will be
further studied, for street zones and lights flashing at certain times, and slower speeds. He sees
alternatives. He believed the trade off is workable and it would enhance compatibility by
creating a better movement to integrate the area into the existing neighborhood with autos and
pedestrians.
Member Fontane commented on creating an enclave and believed it was a poor result of
compatibility out of fear. Fear often drives people to say I don't want to have anything to do
with this project or the people in this project because they don't know who they are. The way
it looks now the access to the surrounding community is much less feasible. She believed the
bikepath through the project is just a small way to get the two neighborhoods together. That
is why she thought that turning it and having it access on Hampshire opens it up and integrates
it better.
Member Cottier commented that in terms of how this physically appears to be separated, the
solid brick fence needs to be studied on the western side and would definitely discourage a
solid fence along the southern border also.
Chair Clements said she concurred with that statement.
Member Strom stated he would support the motion and if he thought there was really a safety
issue with the children, obviously that would be his first priority, but it seems that children
are dealing with a number of streets on Hampshire and have an alternative to avoid the site
completely, so he didn't see it as a key factor in the decision. With that put aside there are
overriding advantages of putting access out on Hampshire instead of Prospect.
Member Klataske mirrored what had been said by other Board members that he supported the
motion and access onto Prospect makes it an enclave, with access onto Hampshire opens it up
a lot more. As a minor point, the solar orientation. Twelve out of 42 would be solar
orientation, and out of Hampshire would be 15 out of 42. He thought there could be the
elimination of fencing off Hampshire Road to further open this up as well to the south. The
buffer zone needs to consider the set back between the improved properties. It shouldn't be all
on the subject property. From structure to structure the setback to houses on Coventry Court
is similar to the proposed houses on Northbrook. There is close to 50 foot separation.
Chair Clements asked for a point of clarification concerning the fencing, do we need to put
fencing as a condition to be evaluated.
Ms. Whetstone said she thought it appropriate, although the only fencing being proposed is
along Prospect Road and Hampshire, as there are patios of these units backing up to the arterial
and collector streets.
Chair Clements asked about an amendment to evaluate the fencing so it is not so obtrusive,
perhaps 4 feet high?
Ms. Whetstone said some of it is to provide privacy but we can take a look at itfor final. If the
access is onto Hampshire, that opens the projet up.
Motion passed 5-1, with Member Colder voting in the negative.
Item 19 Boston Chicken (d Lemav and Pennock PUD - Final
Ms. Kirsten Whetstone, project planner, gave a summary of the project. Three conditions of
preliminary were met. The staff recommends approval.
Mr. Ed Zdenek - ZTI Group - The three conditions of 1) more landscaping, 2) less asphalt and
3) more clarity of internal circulation have been accomplished. The project meets with
requirements of the LDGS.
Member Strom asked for clarification of the connection between Godfather's Pizza and the lot
to the south.
Member Klataske asked if the connection off of Lemay still exists for the pizza restaurant?
Mr. Zdenek replied affirmatively.
Member Strom moved for approval of the Boston Chicken PUD - Final with the one condition
staff attached, recognizing the project addressed conformance with the LDGS, compatibility
and meeting conditions of approval. He commented that this was an improvement from the
first application.
Member Cottier seconded the motion. She commented that the areas previously shown as
potential access points to the east and south she would hope would be landscaped.
Motion passed 6-0.
Metting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
No Text