HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/07/1994•
r
PLANNING & ZONING BOARn
MEETING MINUTED
March 7, 1994
Gerry Morak, Council Liaison
Ron Phillips, Staff support Liaison
The March 7, 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, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker
and Sharon Winfree. Chair Clements and Member Klataske were
absent.
Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron
Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Karen
Manci, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, Leslie Bryson
and Carolyn Worden.
AGENDA REVIEW
Item 22. Waterglen PUD -Overall Development Plan, #71-93; Item 23.
Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, #71-93A; Item 24. Annexation and
development Review Scheduling. Other Business: 1. Recommendation
to City Council - Parkland Fee Structure (2 options). 2.
Recommendation to City Council - Ordinances for Development Review
Planning Fees.
Mr. Ron Phillips read the discussion agenda items.
Item 22, - Wateralen - Overall Development Plan
Item 23. - Waterglen PUD - Preliminary
Mr. Steve Olt read the staff report for the Waterglen Overall
Development Plan and PUD Preliminary and requested that they be
reviewed at the same time. He recommended approval with 8
conditions. He read and discussed the reasoning.
Member Walker said that on a number of the conditions the
residential portions seem to be adequately defined. He felt more
detail was needed for the shopping center and mini -storage.
Mr. Olt stated much more information is required at preliminary.
It was staff's recommendation that these two components be deleted
from the preliminary plan and remain on the Overall Development
Plan. They are appropriate uses in the locations, but do not have
the information required at a preliminary level, supported by point
charts.
Member Walker also asked about Items 7 & 8, drainage report,
wildlife habitat and water issues. Are you saying we don't have
adequate information but we will approve the preliminary and be
updated on the final?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 2
Mr. Olt reported the preliminary drainage plan was submitted
initially in October. It is being reviewed by Storm Water Utility.
Basil Hamdan was present at the meeting to answer questions. There
has been a plan received that is acceptable for ODP but not the
preliminary level. Therefore, the reason for the condition
requiring an acceptable preliminary report. Natural Resource and
Colorado Division of Wildlife have also been in on the review
procedure with staff and develop concerning affects on Cooper
Slough. The December plan has been reviewed and perceived to not
have adequate information to evaluate the preliminary plan. Karen
Manci of the Natural Resources Department was present to answer
questions.
Member Walker commented that placed the Board in a rather difficult
position if staff does not have adequate plans to review. Perhaps
it will be resolved.
Member Strom asked Mr. Olt if the Cooper Slough area was on the
City's Open Space acquisition plan.
Mr. Olt asked Karen Manci to answer the question.
Ms. Manci of Natural Resources said it is a high priority
acquisition site.
The applicant was represented by Libby Glass of W. W. Reynolds
Company and has lived in Fort Collins for 13 years. She has
managed this company for the last 5 years and is Project Manager
for Waterglen. Mr. Gerald P. Lee, Vice -President and Chief
Executive Officer of W. W. Reynolds was present to answer
questions. This company has owned and developed properties in Fort
Collins for 25 years and always has been associated with projects
of excellence, including the award wining Prospect East Business
Park. Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design will be the presenter
for this project and will address recommended staff conditions.
She continued with a brief overview of the project stating the main
purpose was to present a project that is affordable to persons at
low and moderate income levels (as identified in the City of Fort
Collins Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) with
opportunities for upward mobility within the Waterglen
neighborhood.
1. Quality of Life. Quality, this plans offers a city parks
adjacent to each development, a wildlife habitat, expensive
additional landscaping, including pool and club house. Their
vision is to create amenities affordable that are usually only
in higher priced housing projects.
2. Comprehensive. Physical elements included a laundry
facility, convenience store, day care center, and on -site
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 3
professional management. Economic consideraeions have been a
major focus to make it affordable.
3. Neighborhood. The idea of a true neighborhood where
persons can improve their housing situation without moving out
of the neighborhood. This project offers diversity of housing
that is usually excluded from most housing projects. The
housing offered is from $78,500 to $100,000 (subject to a
possible increase of $7,500 because of extra required City
costs).
She concluded this project should be considered right away because
of rising costs and present low interest rates for loans.
Mr. Eldon Ward made his presentation of the detailed plans for the
project at Waterglen showing the ODP and Master Plan. The Board
was provided with a detailed plan. He pointed out many of the fine
qualities of the site development along with compliance to city
regulations. He emphasized this will be the first development in
a much greater residential neighborhood. The plans began in August
1993. He believed that there were enough points received to
approve the project as proposed.
Mr. Ward supported his project by submitting to the Board letters
of recommendation from various organizations within Fort Collins to
support affordable housing and Waterglen Project. After review of
the Comprehensive Plan, there were over 75 adopted goals,
objectives and affordable housing strategies that have been adopted
to date consistent with Waterglen. He said one of the most
emphatically stated and least realized goals of our community is to
realize a balanced pattern of growth. The overall thrust in the
southeast section of our community has produced inefficiencies in
providing service and driving time. There was a study submitted
documenting driving times to various employment centers, shopping
centers and schools with developments throughout Fort Collins to
Waterglen. The site location is located where there are fewer
barriers to existing utilities. He supported the location of
Watc-glen with the study of driving time, distances and
destinations (averages to be 7.5 minutes to 4.4 miles to all the
renters) while other studies were close or higher. He did say
schools and shopping were further than other developments. He
addressed public transportation and stated that Waterglen will not
generate the population base needed for Transfort to provide
service but it is a start. Because of the management design on -
site, there will be opportunity for carpools, etc. The trail
system, identified in the Northeast Area Transportation Plan,
exists and when the Enterprize zone and other city action start to
bear fruit in this area, disadvantages will continue to diminish.
. Plans show pedestrian circulation within the neighborhood. There
will typically be 100 homes on smaller lots with manufactured
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 4
housing structures (cutting costs) in each neighborhood. Within
neighborhoods there are clusters of developments around more
private open space, that ties into the more open neighborhood park,
Cooper Slough Nature Area, Larimer-Weld Canal, existing utility
corridors that cut east to west within the site, providing an open
space framework within the neighborhood. The plan offers front
yard maintenance as well as common open space area maintenance.
The varying price range of homes offers upward mobility in housing
unique to Waterglen in Fort Collins. He used some examples of the
manufactured housing of Grand Junction developments that is similar
to what Waterglen will be like. There will be structures that
provide management offices, convenience store, laundry, day care,
etc.
Mr. Ward addressed conditions of approval and indicated that he did
not hear these at the meetings with staff previous to this Board
meeting. Conditions 1 and 2 are not a problem with the developers
and they are willing to work with staff for a satisfactory
solution.
Mr. Ward said that Condition 3 suggested modifications to the
normal landscape standards in the PUD ordinance. He summarized
those modifications to 3.3 million square feet of common open
space, 1.5 million square feet of private open space the applicant
is desirous to provide landscaping within; so with cost savings
aside, the developer would like the Board to consider if there
isn't a trade-off here. With the same budget as a normal PUD,
providing less open space and landscaping, Waterglen intends to do
more landscaping but without the instant gratification of a
standard PUD. For example, purchasing 1.5 inch diameter trees as
opposed to the 2 inch standard will impact the development $300 per
dwelling unit. He proposed park -grade for perimeter areas, rather
than AA standard, something that you would see in landscaping in
the rough areas of golf courses.
Mr. Ward addressed Condition 4 regarding the issue of setback to I-
25. The Waterglen plans show 150 feet of setback to lot lines with
7-9 toot berming heights --all single story units, which is the most
effective noise mitigation rather, than walls to separate the homes
to I-25. The developer is willing to work with this condition.
Mr. Ward addressed Condition 5 regarding street widths showing 24-
28 feet for mobile home residential streets, providing only 1-2 off
street parking. The standard that the developer is proposing is
not new to Fort Collins (28-foot street width), using Warren Shores
and the Landings, and others, as examples. The Neighborhood
Compatibility shows 28-foot width streets with parking on one side
conforming to fire codes. Turning radius for fire and garbage
trucks will work in the planned intersections. The design
standards in the City of Fort Collins allows 28-foot width streets
0 •
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 5
for cul-de-sacs or 750 average daily trips and not accessed from an
arterial street and should not be used in areas where homes face
each other. The developer meets all those criteria. Variances for
street widths have been granted for larger lots with 3-car garages.
The developer would like the Board to grant the variance based on
the plan for 4 off street parking uses (2 within a garage and 2 on
the driveways). He pointed out the argument that parking will not
be controlled and there will be parking on both sides of the
street. The developer said there will be signage and striping for
on -street parking stalls and with the authorization of the Police
Department, strict enforcement of towing improperly parked cars.
This has proven successful in other developments.
Mr. Ward said Condition 6 will provide no flexibility in the
standard for off -site street improvements (from Vine drive to LeMay
Avenue to I-25). The developer's studies show the two lanes on
Vine to be adequate for width. The City staff has told them that
Vine is structurally inferior and needs to be improved regardless
of Waterglen. The need is not pronounced, but the developer
questions whether it shouldn't be a higher priority on the Capital
Improvements Program. He referred to LDGS Section 21.526K which
states that the variances can be granted with substantial benefit
to the community such as affordable housing or historic
preservation in the northeast area of the City. The developer
believed Waterglen met this criteria. He quoted other documents
supporting affordable housing. He also said that Waterglen
accesses traffic systems that meet city codes referring to existing
arterials. He quoted a Transportation study that reveals that 20
percent of trips are likely to be out of town destinations.
Waterglen will access I-25 and the frontage road system. He quoted
statistics of the use of Vine drive and Summitview Road. His
concern was that Waterglen pay no more than its fair share of off -
site improvement costs.
Mr. Ward said that Condition 7 was approved by the Storm Drainage
Department the day before the work session. Storm Drainage and
Natural Resources had met with developers in January and, under the
circumstances, said there could be delay completing drainage plans
and extensive detail drainage calculations until after approval of
the preliminary PUD. The developers agree to have these plans
before submitting the final. The ODP requirements were met, but it
did not include additional information requested by staff. He
indicated the condition submitted by the contractor for this
meeting was acceptable to Storm Drainage.
Mr. Ward said that Condition 8 was concerning the Cooper Slough
Nature Area. The Natural Areas Plan was consulted from the start
of planning. Only the wetland'(7 acres) were considered specific
value (10 acres were preserved). In November, the Natural
Resources and Division of Wildlife were interested in increasing
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 6
that area. The developer tried to accommodate the goals and keep
the Waterglen plan feasible. Somehow, the Natural Resources
Department received the developers report a month later; and then
in February, there was a letter from the City Manager's office that
indicated general concurrence with the natural area and everything
seemed favorable. Therefore, again at the last minute, the
developer finds there needs to be more work in these areas and have
agreed to work with staff prior to submitting plans before final.
He discussed some ideas for mitigation. He stated that the
developer will provide the information necessary to meet the
condition.
Mr. Ward concluded that the Planning and Zoning Board reaffirm the
City's adopted goals and objectives and land -use policies plan and
support Waterglen as a well planned neighborhood, taking a step
toward a more balanced pattern of growth in the City of Fort
Collins. He requested that conditions of approval be modified to
reflect land use policies to encourage growth in the northeast, to
make it more equitable situation for all involved. He requested
approval of the Waterglen ODP and PUD Preliminary with variances.
Lucia Liley clarified some legal aspects:
1. If the requested variances are to be approved by the Board
that it be done under two sections of the code: The
Subdivision (29-627) and the LDGS (29-526, subsection K).
She specified that the approval be made under both because the
reading is similar and it would prevent an overturn of the
decision if the correct code provision were not made.
2. The procedural approval procedure of the Board when there
is a variance request with a project request, sometimes the
procedure gets complex. She requested two separate actions:
(a) consider the project on its own merits without regard to
requested variances and without regard to any potential points
that could be a bonus for providing low-income dwelling units.
(L; then approve the project request with the variance request
and approve the project with each of the variances. That will
make it clear for the record that if it were appealed or
disagreement whether or not variances ought to be approved,
the Board would still have approved the project without the
variances.
Member e7alker asked Mr. Ward regarding the loop street traffic
circulation.
Mr. Ward explained that these short private drives (accessing 6
units in each case), while meeting all storm drainage criteria,
were a creative solution to limit how long the row of houses would
be and obscure garage doors along the street. The design is a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 7
"pinwheel" effect where some units are turned broadside to the
street to get sides of garages angled and to help create enclosed
open spaces to break up the street scape.
Member Walker asked about cul-de-sac requirements?
Mr. Ward said this met fire regulations.
Member Walker asked about the size of lots?
Mr. Ward said typical lot sizes are at minimum, 50 x 80 square feet
and there are about 25% that are 50 x 100 square foot unit lots.
Member Walker asked about who would be managing the interior
courtyards and frontyards? And also, the issue of landscaping
variance.
Mr. Ward replied it is equivalent to a homeowners association,
ownership and rental housing in this case, owner of the site (W. W.
Reynolds Company). There will be a consistent maintenance.
Mr. Ward explained that it is not only the smaller diameter trees
but also some of the natural areas that is called "park -grade"
landscaping. These are the two substantial ones. The City
standard requires 5-gallon shrubs in all cases. Some grow very
swiftly and would save money in this area.
Member Fontane asked about the street striping and who is
responsible for the maintenance?
Mr. Ward indicated typically the City is, if it is a public street.
He believed that it was not a great expense but the developer would,
be willing, if the 28-foot width of the street were approved.
Member Strom asked if the Vine Drive variance does or does not have
an affect on the viability of the project. What about the street
widths? Would this project layout work if this 28-foot street
layout is not approved?
Mr. Ward said the project would (1) if the streets are widened the
greenbelts would be reduced and lot depth would decrease 2 feet
Staff is recommending reduction in right-of-way widths or the cost
of the housing will increase typically $750 per unit in this
layout; and (2) if there is a "all or nothing" situation with
respect to off -site improvements on Vine Drive it will cost $5,000
per unit. He stated that it was realistic for the developer to
have some responsibility on Vine Drive. He did not believe for the
developer to carry the entire financial burden was equitable.
Member Strom asked if Breakwater was a 28-foot street?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 8
Mr. Ward said that the long street that parallels Warren Lake is a
28-foot width.
Member Strom asked for further detail of the manufactured housing
units. His biggest concern was those adjacent to I-25. He asked
about some technical information about these homes.
Mr. Ward indicated that Mr. Roger Walker, a manufactured housing
expert, was present to can reply to these questions.
Mr. Roger Walker, President of PCI Development Services Group,
Denver, Colorado, said that depending on the model, the structures
are either 2 by 4 or 2 by 6 exterior wall and to code for
insulation, and R-11 or R-19 for sheeting and siding.
Mr. Strom asked if it were essentially the same as a "stick built"
house?
Mr. Walker replied that it would be identical.
Member Fontane asked Mr. Ward about concerns of the flood plain
areas and how it would impact the multi -family and the neighborhood
commercial area.
Mr. Ward explained the Box Elder Creek Flood Plain, when there is
a major storm,does not follow the Box Elder Creek Channel. Larimer
County and Bureau of Reclamation conducted a study indicates last
year and found there is an artificial diversion upstream that
pushes the channel up against I-25. There are two places where the
study indicates that it would overtop I-25 and come onto the site.
Without any change in the existing grade, that flood would actually
extend. It is a very wide and shallow flood plain. It is also a
temporary situation. The City Storm Drainage Utility had said that
the artificial restriction upstream will be relieved, and that will
put the Box Elder Creek Flood Plan back where it should be, but the
developer does not know when that will happen. Their drainage
consultants have suggested the artificial berm along I-25, not only
to buffer noise, but to form a channel diverting the water to
"sheet flow" across Vine Drive, if the 100-year storm happened
today. He gave more technical information supporting their plan to
divert the water.
Member Strom asked more about noise. The cross -sections at I-25,
southbound lanes are elevated above the site level of the housing
and his question is: Is the developer willing to comply with
further study of this noise concern in greater detail before final?
Mr. Ward replied yes. The 7-foot berm should be adequate
protection for noise and water. The developer remains flexible to
create higher berming.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 9
Mr. Strom said if the developer was willing and able to study that
further for the final P.U.D. he would be in agreement. His concern
is not to set up a situation where housing units are next to an
interstate highway and have future complaints five years down the
road or having to build an unattractive wall to adequately buffer.
Mr. Ward agreed and will study it further.
Member Storm asked for clarification regarding Vine Drive
improvements. He believed it was an extremely expensive
proposition to impose a single development and would like more
discussion on how that process works. Is Vine Drive going to be
reconstructed anyway?
Mr. Mike Herzig of the Planning Department stated that the street
has not been improved up to an accepted arterial standard. If the
development is going to "leapfrog" out away from improved arterial
street systems, then the developer must upgrade that arterial
street to connect the development and mitigate the traffic for the
traffic increase they are creating. The street is 2.5 miles long,
with an intersection at Lemay/Vine. It is over $1 million of
improvements to upgrade the street to standard arterial
• requirements. The condition of Vine Drive is poor, but with the
amount of traffic it now carries it could last several year. Of
course, additional traffic will make the road inadequate. The
purpose of the code section that requires the developer to make
these improvements is so that the City is not burdened with the
cost of sudden improvements.
Member Strom asked what street improvements did Anheuser-Busch
make?
Mr. Herzig said Anheuser-Busch entered the City with improvements
not for off -site street. Their study indicated that the primary
access would be I-25 and constructed an interchange to provide the
needed access. There was also an agreement that they would improve
all the perimeter roads around the square mile and were upgraded to
City standards at the time. However, there is a traffic vine that
uses Summit View and County Road 50; but the agreement was that the
I-25 access was the primary access. This Waterglen Development, in
contrast to Anheuser-Bush, does not have an interchange for Vine
drive to access the I-25, but will have to use the frontage road
system to Mulberry or Highway 14 (1 mile).
Vice -Chair Cottier asked if $1 million to improve Vine would be
paid back as other developments went in?
Mr. Herzig said yes and explained Waterglen would be responsible to
develop the middle of the street. As properties develop, Waterglen
would receive re -payment, but they have a major money expense
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 10
upfront. Parts of Vine Drive are in the County and some in the
City. What is the assessment of a fair impact. There is a
variance process that will be done at final for bearing the cost of
the road construction or portion thereof.
Member Walker said there is a unique situation here. The City
encourages development in the northeast area, and affordable
housing. Couldn't there be a trade off with respect to street
improvements?
Mr. Herzig responded that this is true and he was stating policies
that addresses the street systems in the community.
Mr. Phillips said it was a difficult question. If it is looked at
somewhat systematically as to what stated policies are as opposed
to policies that have been enacted to enforce other policies
(referring to development in the northeast, as a stated policy and
affordable housing is a stated policy), the exact quantifying of
the project has yet to be determined. The off -site street
oversizing is adopted in the code as a means of discouraging "leap-
frog" development. Here is a policy that has actually been
codified in the City system to discourage "leapfrog" development.
Then you have a stated policy that development is encouraged in the
northeast part of the City.
Member Winfree had several questions regarding the sizing of the
streets from the Poudre Fire Authority, and that the 36-foot street
width be maintained with the exception of Waterglen Drive. It
appears that is the only one that is 36-foot width, because it is
the main collector street?
Mr. Olt said that was correct.
Member Winfree asked for the staffs thoughts for the downsizing of
that street two 28-foot street width, since there are no residences
that face on that street, even though it is the main collector?
Mr. Oit said it was not something that has been considered in this
way; but the fact that it is a collector street means that it will
continue north and connect with other roads. The possibility has
not been discussed; but as a collector, it is not within the policy
to view it in those terms.
Mr. Ward clarified that Waterglen Drive is a full width -collector
and Waterglen Place is the street that has lots on one side and
goes over to the park. It is Waterglen Place that Poudre Fire
Authority was addressing. The developer is not proposing a 28-foot
collector.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 11
Member Winfree said it was her understanding that it was not to be
an affordable housing PUD, but 44 of the 100 proposed apartments
would be considered as affordable housing (44 units out of 573
dwelling units). She needed clarification.
Mr. Ward responded by stating that the affordable housing was
separated from the land use issues for this project. The most
favorable interpretation of the standard for the project would fall
under the category low- and moderate -income housing. The majority
of the housing will at least be in the moderate -income level, and
as much as possible low-income housing offered.
Member Winfree asked for a breakdown on the number of units that
will be maintained as rental units and the number that will be
sold.
Mr. Ward indicated multi -family areas are seen as rentals. The
other 56-units tend to be rentals, but there is a possibility of
condominium ownership. The intent is to have 200 each.
Homeownership is key in people improving themselves. There will be
100 rental, 300 ownership in the manufactured structures. In the
more conventional 6,000 square foot area that is being seen as
ownership.
Member Winfree asked if they would be mixed, rental with the
homeownership?
Mr. Ward said now, because of management areas, rentals will
separated. He explained the maintenance policies of the yards, and
rentals will have more extensive maintenance.
Member Winfree asked for clarification of the points earned for the
project.
Mr. Ward said the typed portion in the report dated December 16,
1991 and in the staff meeting before the work session, there are
staff comments regarding the points given. He went on to explain
some different interpretations of the points with reference to
location to services and urban contiguity.
Member Walker made some comments regarding the Cooper Slough area
and raw water retention ponds.
Mr. Ward said there would be storage ponds. There are three deep
wells on the storage site. There will not be irrigation channels.
Member Walker said there was some concern of the flow through
Cooper Slough, given that it is an underground spring.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 12
Mr. Ward said the storage pond will, be moved to alleviate the
conflict, if present. There is a 100-year flood drainage area from
the north that will require the storage pond to be removed if
necessary.
Member Walker mentioned the landscaping near the Cooper Slough,
also, closeness of building sites near it, as well as wildlife.
Mr. Ward said the setbacks may need to be redefined. The
protection of children to the area with fencing, etc., needed to be
explored. The developer is flexible to all landscaping issues,
desiring a positive effect in the environmental concerns. The
general approach is less fencing as not to create a "fortress"
along open space areas, regarding Cooper Slough as an amenity to
the area. He was sure there were physical issues that could help.
It needs more work and study. Private outdoor areas could be open,
with fencing to sideyard areas.
Member Walker asked about clarification of detention ponds planned.
Mr. Ward said they are to serve as long linear wetlands.
Member Fontane asked about the park grade landscaping for areas
accessible to natural wildlife. What would be the replacement
provision for young trees possibly damaged by the wildlife. Whose
responsibility would it be.
Mr. Ward said landscape covenants for PUDs puts up an insulation
and gives the city, in the long term, a lien so the City has the
power to replace it then back charge the owner or manager. It is
the same as all PUDs.
Member Fontane asked staff about cost -sharing regarding the
improvement of Vine Drive.
Mr. Herzig answered, by the streets facility that bordered Vine
Drive, that the developers weren't then obligated to pay for the
needed improvements. There is a plan to upgrade Vine Drive. He
said there usually isn't specific money budgeted by the City for
the improvements. It is evaluated and various avenues can be
combined to mitigate costs. The Council may make appropriations.
No plans have been formulated or studied at this time. Right now
there is a section of the code that says the developer is
responsible. There is a need for the improvement because of the
additional traffic of the development. Right now, it is not a
need. It can be maintained and patched and be adequate for the
current traffic flow.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 13
CITIZEN INPUT
Rachel Stevens - Executive Director of Fort Collins Housing
Authority - She read the mission of the organization to offer
housing opportunities for the low- and very low-income families in
the Fort Collins, as well as the handicapped. Assisted rental
opportunities are offered with Federal, state and local granting,
funding and financing. She stated this was the first time
opportunity for responsible working families to opt for home equity
through homeownership. The rental units occupier can move up to
homeownership in this planned development. This development
concept proposed by W. W. Reynolds is supported by her
organization.
Elizabeth Maloney - 1309 City Park Avenue - Larimer County
Affordable Housing Task Force - Their organization has become
familiar with this project and supports it as affordable housing.
She surveyed the rental sections of The Coloradoan recently there
were only 5 houses under $100,000. Under new construction, there
were 68 but nothing under $139,000. Under existing homes for sale,
there were 133 listed, 15 were listed under $100,000 while 9 of
those were in the $90,000, and 2 each in the $60-80,000. This
demonstrates Fort Collins housing market. For a more diversified
community, there needs to be more affordable housing.
Julie Duran - native of Fort Collins - Mountain Prairie Girl Scout
Council and recent CSU graduate, husband is a contractor in the
community. She said it is very difficult to purchase a home in
Fort Collins because of their earning capacity. She believed the
W. W. Reynolds project is very much needed in the community. She
said there are not HUD homes in this community. There are waiting
lists for affordable housing in Fort Collins. Rental housing is
very high and limited to parking and pet restrictions. She has
found people are locating outside the community and commuting to
work. This project would allow families to stay in the community.
Linda Norton - Certified Residential Specialist - graduate from the
Realtor Institute - Master Associate with Realty World - President
of Board of Realtors. She has been selling since 1988 primarily to
first-time buyers. The average sale price last year was $116,000,
her average sale price was $67,000. The banking community in Fort
Collins has offered community reinvestment programs and CHAFA
money, bond money through the State available. The highest margin
for use of these monies is $85,000. They simply do not exist in
the market today. In 1993 there were only 36 newly constructed
homes under $100,000. Currently, only 23 are available under
$100,000, 9 newly constructed, the remainder are out of town. In
many cases, her clients are paying more to rent than to purchase a
home. This type of project does not exist in Fort Collins and she
asked the board supported the plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 14
Mark Gavart - 2nd and Wellington - He shared a personal experience
trying to locate in Fort Collins, with a bachelor of science degree
and master in art, education and theology. He is employed in Fort
Collins but must reside outside the city because there is no
housing available commensurate to his salary. He said the value of
the home he purchased in Wellington is less than the asking price
he bid on at that price. He encouraged the acceptance of this
project.
Mike Buderus - 2813 Adobe Drive - He is a native of the area and
grew up near the proposed project site. He is President of the
Northeast Business Association, but is not speaking on their
behalf. Aesthetically, it would be beneficial and the economic
base and the offering of affordable housing.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy - Director of Care Housing - She works for
the working poor but is an advocate for a wide variety of housing
needs. There is a continuum of housing needs. Unless our
community wants to become an elitist town that only affluent people
to live here, housing should have this low- to moderate -income
housing available and upward mobility. She encouraged the Board to
seriously consider this project favorably.
Lou Stetzel - 521 East Laurel - She has lived in affordable housing
for 25 years. She is on the Larimer County Affordable Housing Task
Force. She made comment regarding the change -shock situation that
requires difficult decisions, sometimes to make changes in our
community. The City is working very hard to address affordable
housing issues. There are 2,000 units needed in this area (only
850 units have been completed), leaving the community in a
continuous state of need. She mentioned the various amenities of
the project as an asset to the community. She strongly supported
the approval of Waterglen. The City needs to encourage quality,
comprehensive neighborhood development. She restated the need for
housing in this area.
rITIZ?H INPUT CLOSED.
Member Walker requested further information regarding street
widths. He commented that the 28-foot width streets seem to work
in other parts of the community. What is the City policy?
Mr. Herzig commented that the standard for a street is 36 feet
which provides for two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides.
There are standards that allow 28-foot streets, with parking on one
side of the street. The variances have been granted in other
sections of the community for the 28-foot streets in areas where
there are larger lots (the guideline has be an 8,000 square feet).
The Poudre Fire District set the standard for safety (20 feet) in
order to allow properly functioning areas for emergencies. Mr.
Herzig said there is a guideline to provide parking for every
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 15
street facing house in the community. Just because
for stripping has been offered, the staff said that
enforcing; therefore, the staff doesn't accept this
because of the ability to violate the restriction.
the proposal
is not self -
as a variance
Member Walker asked what the right-of-way was on a 36-foot street
width?
Mr. Herzig said that there is a 54 foot right-of-way with a 36-foot
street. On one that is narrowed to 28 feet, we allow 46 feet.
That standard has been in existence for many years. It allows 9
feet of right-of-way space from the flow line of the gutter on the
outside of each street. What is found in the studies, right-of-way
is not so much a consideration as utilities. As long as the
street, curb, sidewalk and gutter are contained within the right-
of-way, that is sufficient for right-of-way. There is a
recommendation to Council to narrow the right-of-way from 54 feet
to 48-feet.
Member Walker asked Natural Resources staff to answer questions
regarding Cooper Slough. He asked for the view of staff on the
project as proposed and what issues were needing to be resolved for
approval.
Karen Manci of Natural Resources said there was not enough
information at this time to give a proper evaluation for the Cooper
Slough. Impacts need to be studied for north and south of the
project --looking for water quality and temperature impacts. The
Division of Wildlife is also concerned about the water fowl and the
use of the site. The proposed detention ponds need to be studied
for negative impacts.
Member Walker asked staff if the Board were to approve this
proposal with as little information as is available presently, what
would the conditions be?
Mr. Olt replied this has been discussed with the applicant and had
initially set a condition to allow the City the ability to reserve
changes of layout and density of the project based on information
from Storm Drainage and Natural Resource standpoint. Density and
layout is normally approved with preliminary and is not an issue
that is dealt with at final. For this project impacts need further
study, all -development criteria evaluated, utilities, natural
features, considered, etc. The all -development criteria gives the
mechanism to evaluate density and layout of the complex impacts on
the project.
Mr. Eckman said to refer to Chart A2.3 Natural Features that is
applicable to this project. He thought it helpful to add on
Condition 8, a clause stating "that such mitigation plans must be
found acceptable to the Board and prior to final approval." There
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 16
is an element of control on the part of the Board when it comes
back for final approval.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the purchase of this site as a
natural area. Would that hold true regardless of whether the
housing development is constructed surrounding the area?
Ms. Mancy said she couldn't answer for all of Natural Resources,
but it would depend on impacts to the site. One of the reasons for
interest in purchasing the Cooper Slough site was because the
Colorado Division of Wildlife had identified it as a sensitive
wetland and warm water slough, being unusual and more complicated
in the hydrology of the site. The interest in the purchase is to
protect the unique resource. She would like to see the impacts of
the development on the slough and work with the developers to
protect the water quality aspect.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the neighborhood park and its
purchase by the City.
Mr. Olt said that was correct.
Vice -Chair Cottier also asked how that fit with the City guidelines
about park location and collector accesses. She noted that it is
in within the square -mile section but it is cut off from three-
quarters of the section.
Mr. Ward said the proposal has been discussed at length with the
Parks Department and has been received positively, and other
criteria have been met. The review agencies were asked to review
this project with the idea in mind to have the highest quality yet
conscious of cost. When there is a street frontage along a park,
they have to pay for the improvements. The target was to have the
parkland fees developed on -site, some shared maintenance
responsibilities. The compensating factors for not having the
street frontage is the pedestrian -oriented system with open spaces,
the park is accessible by Waterglen Place and parking lot for the
park completes the circulation loop. There were other options, but
the Parks Department was satisfied for the plans $450,000 parkland
fees generated at Waterglen.
Ms. Leslie Bryson, Park Planner City of Fort Collins, stated that
the street frontage is adequate because of the street frontage of
the two cul-de-sacs that are connected to parking. The location
was appropriate because if there is development to the north or
west (the canal cuts off any possible street connections), there
might oe pedestrian bridges to parts of this section. This section
is east of the railroad tracts and another park will serve the
section to the west. This park is still in negotiation stages and
the final acquisition will be made by City Council.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 17
Vice -Chair Cottier commented on the affordable housing aspect of
the project. If the City does not purchase the park, or the Cooper
Slought, will the developer be required to do all the off -site
street improvements?
Mr. Ward referred to the handout of the average summary to the
building styles manufacture housing vs. conventional building
($55/sq. ft. to $95/sq. ft.) for construction costs. He discussed
the written report and said there has not been a positive response
from the various approving agencies. The impact would be over
$1,200/unit if these requests were not approved. The $7,500/unit
is basically the off -site streets, street widths, landscape
standards, and on -site drainage crossings.
Vice -Chair Cottier reasoned if the average price of the homes is
$82,600 and $7,500 is added with paying for off -site street
improvement and without City purchase of Cooper Slough or the
neighborhood park, you still would have your average price under
$100,000. Is that correct?
Mr. Ward said if the park and Cooper Slough were taken out, the
price would be in the mid-$90,000. It would be under $100,000, but
the wide spectrum of income groups would not be served. The manner
in which the project is proposed is a serious effort for an
exemplitory neighborhood offering affordable housing with upward
mobility. It is a matter of trade-offs. The developers are
looking for mutually beneficial affects for all agencies.
Vice -Chair Cottier expressed her frustration that the Board is
asked to accept this project based on the affordable housing issue'
when there are so many unknowns that affect the final price. The
citizen comments are right on for the affordable housing needs in
Fort Collins, but she questioned the reliance on only one aspect of
the project, affordable housing. The intent and quality are fine.
She had more questions regarding the point charts. Why do neither
multi -family and single family charts show no points for a major
employment center as far as the City was concerned and the
developer's did?
Mr. Olt replied that the developer took points for the Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., where really the plant is located further than 3,000
feet (it is a full mile to the north). There are users to the east
and south, but no information was provided on the number of
employers in that area (100 employees on a major shift).
Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the points for the parks, the Cooper
Slough and natural areas for this project. If the City purchases
these lands, should points be awarded for the parks?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 18
Mr. Ward said the park and natural area are not included in the
calculation. He described the points for the different areas for
multi -family and single family units, so it appears high on the
multi -family area isolated point chart.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the potential significance of
historical sites and what was the reasoning behind them?
Mr. Ward replied there that two of the structures were built by a
State Senator and some preliminary information has been gathered
from Carol Tunner of Historic Preservation. One of the structures
has some historic value, but it has not been classified by City
staff. The developer is proposing adaptive re -use. If the points
are taken away because they do not support the historic
preservation, the developer has enough to support the project. Mr.
Joe Frank said including the points for historic preservation helps
integrate the historical sites into the project rather than having
them be demolished.
Vice -Chair Cottier had a question regarding low-income families.
Because the cost of the homes is floating so much, she didn't see
how 30 points could be awarded for that. If it is taken out of the
multi -family portion, your density points are no longer justified.
Mr. Ward said it comes back to the drainage area. It is part of
the multi -family 6 units per acre. By the most conservative
possible interpretation, even without the low-income points, there
is still 65 points on the point chart. The charts submitted to the
Board are all based on the manufactured housing. What is proposed
for low-income housing is the 44 units. If the development costs
prove to be more than the developer is willing to accept, then that
would have to be addressed at the final. Given the other criteria,
it is clear that the density chart can be met even if the low-
income percentage points are not there at the time of final.
Member Winfree on the impact of cost -savings at Waterglen, on off -
site streets, is that a net figure that includes a pay -back of any
potential development?
Mr. Ward said no that would be a gross figure.
Member Winfree noted that the average price of the home is $82,650.
When the presentation was given, the target sales price was $71,500
to $100,000. If the developer was not granted the concessions that
is being asked, that it would add an additional $7,500 to each
home. That would leave the range at $79,000 to $107,500?
Mr. Ward said yes, but there is not necessarily exactly the same
increase for each project house. What the average means is that if
there are 500 houses and the total cost of creating the project is
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 19
$50,000,000, you have $100,000 per home.
Member Winfree asked staff if there was any way to project what
kind of money might come back to the developer as their fees for
their off -site street improvements?
Mr. Olt said that at this point in time, he did not know what that
would be. They would be re -paid as subsequent development occurred
on East Vine Drive. No numbers have been put together at this
time. A $1 to $1.5 million has been mentioned that would bring
East Vine Drive up to arterial standards to LeMay Avenue. How that
breaks down to various property owners, perhaps Mr. Herzig could
shed more light.
Mr. Herzig stated that there is no way to predict because it
depends on how development occurs along that route.
Member Winfree asked if there was a time limit?
Mr. Herzig said for that purpose there is a 10-year time limit like
other pay -backs. Other projects have 10-year reimbursement
agreements, so up to 20 years.
10 Member Strom asked about the level of payback for on -site street
improvements. Is the developer not getting a fair share back?
Mr. Herzig stated that it isn't written in the code but it is a
policy for procedures for street over -sizing and that those
policies were adopted by Council. It does state that a project has
to meet certain criteria, which he was uncertain what that was for
street oversizing for the collector streets, as well as Vine Drive
to the site. The developer does not meet this criteria, which is
to discourage "leap-frog"development.
Mr. Strom asked Mr. Ward if he knew what that criteria was?
Mr. Ward said he tried to get that from Matt Baker, but the only
one that came to mind was similar to the point chart regarding
urban contiguity, improving streets as opposed to city
subdivisions. The subdivision codes says that the City shall
reimburse for oversizing on -site.
Mr. Ward said the term "leap -frog" keeps coming up. He believed
that originally occurred when Anheuser-Busch was developed.
Everything from their location to downtown now become infill
because the classic problems caused by "leap -frog" are only solved
as development occurs in that intermediate area. The other item
was asked about was where there has been sharing of payment for
street oversizing. Again, Anheuser-Busch comes to mind. The
public infra -structure was upfronted by City -State and was re -paid
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 20
through taxes generated by Anheuser-Busch, essentially tax -
increment financing, which is exactly what City policy says needs
to be done here. He hoped something between the two extremes could
be worked out on the off -site street improvements. There are
financing systems of tax credits for the enterprise zone. Whatever
the level of traffic is that uses Vine Drive, it drops
substantially at Summitview. Perhaps it would be more appropriate
to ask the developer to improve to Summitview instead of all the
way to Lemay Avenue. Another suggestion is maybe an increased
street over -sizing fee as a means of paying our fair share, instead
of one individual. The City discusses bonds or tax -increment
financing. There is a matter of timing and degree of improvement
that has to be done. This should not be reduced to an all or
nothing situation. The traffic study stated that Vine doesn't need
the other width, but staff says structurally Vine Drive is in
trouble. Sooner or later it needs to be re -built. If no
additional development comes, there will be no disbursement of
costs. Part of the reason City policies have been so ineffective
is that there are these kinds of issues in this quadrant. To
accomplish development in this area, property owners are going to
need some help. This needs to be factored into the thinking.
Mr. Eckman said a point of clarification on the reimbursement. The
Code provides for the reimbursement of off -site street improvements
for ten years and also provides that the City Council may provide
"extensions" for the reimbursement agreement for additional 1.0-year
periods. What was alluded to before was a maximum of 10 years.
That would not necessarily have to be the case, but multiples of 10
years.
Vice -Chair Cottier made comment regarding the quality project for
affordable housing and appreciated comments from the community
supporting it. Her concern is the location and believes it doesn't
meet the City policies where residential projects should locate.
The land was zoned industrial next to the interstate and she was
curious why residential wasn't discouraged more. By stretching the
interpretation, some of the City policies are met. For low density
residential there should be access to existing or planned regional
community shopping, easy access to major employment, walking
distance to an elementary school. For higher density near the core
area, easy access to major employment, access to mass transit and
areas --a major deficiency, and areas for provisions of alternatives
modes of transportation. She said this type of project is needed
in Fort Collins, it is an excellent project in the way it is
designed with open space areas, but the location and "leap -frog"
consideration. She has struggled with the justification of this
project because of it being in the northeast part of the c.�,mmunity
and the encouragement of development. These policies were
developed in 1979 before Busch was annexed. Before urban growth
came out this far, the policies were specifically developed for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 21
areas close to North College, close to existing development. It
was not the intent of the policy and she has problems with the
interpretation of the policy.
Member Strom responded with some concern about the location, but
his main concern was for locations for affordable housing closer
into the community. In response to her specific issues, the
density chart is set up to answer these questions. It does meet
the chart points, it meets enough to qualify, according to our
system.
Member Walker observed that the location is workable in this part
of town. He believed it was a difficult site because there are
extraordinary circumstances to be dealt with, proximity to I-25,
Cooper Slough needing to be looked at very carefully, the noise
impacts from 1-25, design elements may change, street widths with
safety considerations. He commented that it was an excellent
design concept with the smaller lots joining open space areas;
however, if the street widths were changed, there would be a major
design shift. The natural area mitigation where staff has asked
for documentation. He felt uncomfortable making a condition and
decision on these issues without knowing the real impacts to the
project. He doesn't want to be in the position to re -design the
project. He was comfortable with the ODP, but the preliminary,
with the shopping center and mini -storage issues, would be getting
far ahead of ourselves and perhaps could be put into another phase.
The landscaping issue should follow the normal standards. The off -
site street improvements need more study. There are contradictions
coming into play to get some special consideration for the fact
that it is affordable housing. It is something that is needed in
our community, but the off -site street improvement would make
changes in the proposal by increasing the costs. The City needs to
look at conflicting policies and make judgments on those. He would
support the ODP but perhaps table the preliminary to clear up
concerns.
Member Fontane had similar thoughts about the location of the
property and it seemed to her that a situation is being forced to
have an auto dependent community and was concerned about the
resulting air quality problems. There would be more of a parking
crunch within the site. Storm Drainage has the opportunity to deny
this proposal if they are not satisfied with studies.
Mr. Olt said they are indicating they don't have adequate
information at this time to evaluate the preliminary plan that
could affect the layout of the project.
Member Fontane said that on recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 there is
concurrence with but she had concern about landscape reduction if
the City is setting a precedent in the future for other
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 22
developments. She believed that it is important for staff to come
up with a landscape guidelines aimed at affordable housing, with
their own set of give and take. The noise impact on No. 4, she
thought there was concurrence; the street width, she referred to
her comments about being auto -dependent; the off-street
improvements, the developer needs to have some responsibility with
the City being flexible to consider it is an affordable housing
project; with Nos. 7 and 8, she had concurrence. She noted that
Nos. 3, 7 and 8 all have to be approved by the City. The staff
recommendations "unless the City after consultation with the
applicant agrees to allowing", so it is not saying things are going
to happen but more discussion needs to be made for it to go.
Mr. Phillips wanted to refocus on the staff recommendation and he
referenced a letter from Steve Burkett, City Manager, to Bill
Reynolds dated February 14 that discussed affordable housing issues
versus land -use issues. The last bullet on page 2 says "if you are
still committed to taking the project to the February 28 Planning
and Zoning Board meeting, at which Waterglen is scheduled for
preliminary discussion as a standard type PUD development, we will
need to meet, work out the specific land use issues." Then the
letter refers to Appendix A as a status check of the options that
were proposed to the developer for development. The staff
recommendation is on the basis of considering this a standard
planned unit development without regard to its affordable housing
nature, or lack thereof, because it could not be dealt with in a
timely manner. The decision was made to proceed with it as a land
use issue on the part of the staff and the applicant has decided to
raise other issues of variance or concessions based on
affordability, which we are not making recommendations. The
applicant states in their presentation for you to consider, the PUD
as a land use and the request for variance or concession. The
staff recommendation is dealing with the first issue, not the
second. The recommendation of approval with conditions is really
dealing with.the first issue.
Mr. Eckman said he would like to address some of Ms. Liley's
comments. The first was the procedure. The first vote will be for
the ODP, then Ms. Liley's recommendation was to take up the
question of the PUD itself, then finally the variances. To avoid
the possibility that the question of the PUD itself might hinge on
the variances or stand on its own. He agreed that these would be
acceptable approaches. Regarding the variance, her request was to
consider both the variance provisions in the LDGS and the
provisions provided in the code. He agreed with that. He said the
code variances is the better argument on the LDGS but an argument
can be made either way. He thought it best to take the cautious
approach and consider the variance under the both the LDGS as well
as the rest of the code, Chapter 29 (the LDGS is part of Chapter
29). There is a difference in the two provisions. The affordable
0 •
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 23
housing issue is present. The LDGS has four reasons to grant a
variance: 1) topographical conditions which may create a hardship,
2) solar variance, 3) equal to or better than if the variance had
not been granted and 4) that the granting of a variance from the
strict application of any provision would result in substantial
benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would help satisfy and define community needs (such as affordable
housing). This last variance is in the LDGS, but not in the Code.
It is important to consider the variances. The code does control
over the comprehensive plan in the sense that there may be some
policies in the city regarding affordable housing, but the code
provisions regarding the off -site streets being a part of the code
of ordinances controls over the comprehensive plan, which is
advisory in nature. Under the LDGS the granting of variance in
Item 4 is the difference from the Code requirements.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked why should we use the subdivision variance
for a PUD that has its own variance criteria? She thought it was
a suggestion to address the street improvements, but does that
apply to PUDs?
Mr. Eckman said the reason for focusing on LDGS Section 29-627 was
. because it authorizes variances under the article, being the
subdivisions. Section 29-678, also part of the article, says all
subdivisions must have access to an arterial street or a street
funded for improvements. He sees a direct connection between the
section that there needs to be access to an improved street and the
variance provisions in Chapter 29. The LDGS requires that there is
conformance to the subdivision code, plat in the utility drawings,
a more indirect connection to arterial streets.
Member Strom said he did not understand the comment that the
recommendation by the Board did not address the variance issues.
Mr. Phillips stated the recommendation addresses a land use issue,
not a variance requested as stated in Steve Burkett's letter. It
is an affordable housing issue which the City has not developed
firm policies.
Member Strom restated your recommendations on the variances are not
based upon the affordable housing issue, but strictly on LDGS land
use criteria?
Mr. Phillips said yes.
Member Walker moved to approve the
Development Plan.
. Member Strom seconded the motion.
Waterglen PUD Overall
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 24
Vice -Chair Cottier reiterated the comments she made before
concerning the land use for residential, low and moderate density
to high density, and will not support the motion. Her reasoning is
supported by goals and objectives which state that growth should
occur to contiguous development, housing development should occur
within the city and immediately adjacent to the city, but she
interpreted it not just to city limits but urban development. Two
other big issues being the proximity of housing near the interstate
and the location of the railroad. This development is cut off from
the rest of Fort Collins. The impact of railroad tracks on North
College have been negative with regard to development. She thought
the project was excellent but he location was not--Lemay and Vine
would be better a more desirable location.
Member Strom responded commented the I-25 noise level and the
developer has agreed to study the noise issue. The housing units
located near I-25 are not an issue to him, citing other
developments having located close to travel lanes. It is not ideal
but, in his opinion, it was not a project killer. In terms of the
railroad issue, he didn't think it was a valid consideration. He
wished the project was three miles closer to downtown but there is
not the option of moving it. He felt the Board should do what it
could to get some lower to mid -level housing in the City of Fort
Collins.
Mr. Eckman said that any motion that is made contain findings,
supporting the motion.
Member Winfree stated that in approving an ODP it needs to be in
substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan?
Mr. Eckman said yes.
Member Walker stated the motion was supported by compliance to the
comprehensive Plan and it does meet certain goals of the city in
terms of development in this part of the community. He said the
decisions are a trade-off. He believed the city standards override
other considerations expressed not to approve the project because
of the location. He thought it would be a nucleus to start
development on this part of town.
Member Strom seconded the findings for the motion.
Motion carried 4-1, with vice -chair Cottier voting in the negative.
Member Strom stated that there was a suggestion of tabling the
preliminary and working out some of these standing issues more
effectively. He wanted a response from Mr. Ward.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 25
Mr. Ward said that part of this is the reason there was a request
for a work session prior to this Board meeting because of the
complicated issues associated with the project. He would like to
avoid having a very extended review process and five of eight of
the conditions does not give opportunity to avoid problems. The
developer was flexible in tabling the preliminary but would like to
ask get some kind of consensus on direction regarding street widths
and street improvements. They requested not to redesign the street
widths if there was consensus of the Board, and realizing the all -
or -nothing approach to street improvements, the developer hopes for
some kind of middle ground approach from the Board.
Member Walker asked how this could be best handled?
Mr. Eckman said that personal opinions should be expressed. To try
to reach a consensus on what off -site street improvements would be
with two Board members missing, might make the outcome different.
He suggested just giving personal views and allow staff to work
with the applicant.
Member Strom said that the key issues are the street widths and
off -site improvements. He stated the 28-foot width was difficult
but not impossible for fire safety equipment and suggested parking
bubbles. He said there was generally too much asphalt in
neighborhoods and, generally speaking, the applicant was not too
far out of line to request this 28-foot street width variance. In
terms of off -site improvements, he hoped some middle ground could
be reached with the City and the developer.
Member Winfree said with regard to street downsizing, she would not
be supporting the attempt. Concerning off -site street improvements
discussed with staff, the applicant may find some middle ground.
As far as a work session with the Board, it is not needed, but
rather with the various departments involved with the project.
Member Strom said his experience on Breakwater was that there is
plenty of room for a street that wide.
Member Winfree countered that passing fire trucks is sometimes
required by fire emergencies and that would not be possible. She
did not want there to be a problem for the neighborhood.
Member Fontane stated that if this project is to be looked at as a
strict PUD not having the affordable housing issue in it, then how
can the Board suggest some "deal" with the off -site street
improvements. More information on that needs to be gathered. As
far as the 36-foot street width is difficult for her because
generally downsizing is acceptable. .With respect to the Indian
Hills development, what made it work well is the location. It is
infill and had access to bikeways and other alternative modes were
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 26
greater than at Waterglen. The landscape reduction does not apply
if it is viewed as a strict PUD.
Member Walker reiterated that with respect to the 36-foot street
width, he would accept what the Poudre Fire Authority suggested as
a need. If this is looked as a strict PUD, the area is being
developed in an area that needs it and by it alone the Board can
justify mitigation for off -site street improvements and would leave
that to the staff and applicant. The affordable housing issue is
trying to be kept separate, but it needs to be worked in the
equation. He supports the City policy of mixed housing types that
this affordable housing project offers without the question of
affordability. There are unresolved issues with Storm Drainage and
the Natural Resources departments. He would like these plans
resolved, stating it particularly important with regard to Cooper
Slough. He felt uncomfortable approving the project concerning
these unknowns. The LDGS criteria ought to be followed. He had
concern about the noise impact and desired more study because of
its complexity.
Member Fontane asked if the Board should identify the need so we
are willing to make concessions, such as affordable housing, and
should it override our good judgment to allow leniency in order for
the project .to pass if there was not such a need? What are the
long-range goals for this area? Is it all industrial?
Mr. Frank answered that urban development will occur on the
property, the property is zoned industrial. The kinds of land uses
the applicant is proposing is consistent with City policies. It is
the recommendation on the Master Plan that it be approved because
of mixed use.
Member Fontane asked if this project would be a model for other
areas?
Mr. Frank said it is a matter of timing, not land use
appropriateness. The area is dominated by industrial and some
residential use in the long term would be providing a need to the
neighborhood.
vice -Chair Cottier said this is a Catch-22 where the Board is told
to not think of this as an affordable housing project, but it is
the basis for rationalizing the location and concessions. If in
fact, it is a legitimate affordable housing project to justify
that, then the City policies need to make concessions for meeting
a need with off -site street improvements, landscaping and street
widths. She thinks the goal of affordable housing is more
important than landscaping. She would like to see more
documentation on exactly what price ranges with respect to
affordable housing is low- to medium- income housing.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 27
Member Fontane said if there were a City guideline to be more
lenient on these issues and it could be provided to the applicant
as an option for defining what is affordable and what is not, that
would be helpful in mitigation.
Mr. Phillips requested that the project be tabled to the April 25,
1994 meeting of the Board. There are too many issues to be studied
for the 7-week period. It could be post-poned to May if the
applicant cannot make the required information in a timely manner.
The City must give specific dates to meet that time line.
Mr. Eckman stated that the motion will be made to table the project
until April 25, 1994, meeting of the Board unless, in the judgment
of the Planning Director the information is still not complete and
would bring it back to the Board when it is complete.
Member Walker stated the Board is being asked to step beyond the
normal sphere of influence because of how these specific issues are
not judged. He would like to see the other issues resolved.
Member Walker moved to table Aaterglen PDD Preliminary to the April
25, 1994, meeting of the Board unless in the judgment of the
Planning Director, the information is still not complete and would
bring it back to the Board when it is complete.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS - Parkland Fee
Leslie Bryson of the Parks and Recreation Department said a memo
was sent to the Board and had an agenda and background material
that will cancel on March 15 at the City Council meeting. The
background for the parkland fee began with the year 1968 and is
charged on each new residential development in the community, there
has been a flat fee since its inception. It was increased to $779
in August 1993. At that time, Council asked staff to come back to
changing the options to the fee structure. The interest and intent
was to look at a more equitable way of charging it. There was a
work session in January this year with five different options for
a fee structure and has been narrowed down to two fee options.
Normally the Planning and Zoning Board does not hear changes
regarding the parkland fee, they now have some relationship to land
use issues especially Option B. So it is before the Board for
recommendation to Council. She described in detail the various
options to the Board.
Member Strom was concerned about process on this item. Was this
advertised?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 28
Ms. Bryson stated there have been numerous community meetings
regarding this, the Parks and Recreation Board, and the Council
work sessions.
Member Strom said when there are fee issues, there are usually many
people present with respect to the topic. It concerned him that
this was not a regular item on the agenda so people know it is
coming up.
Mr. Phillips said at the Parks and Recreation Board meeting it was
not anticipated that it would come to the Board, because it is
going to Council on March 15, so it was short notice because of the
timing. He felt it was at least good to bring it before the Board
for discussion. Had there been more time for notice would have
been preferable.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the computations that were based on
1,300 units in neighborhood park service area over the passed 10
years.
Ms. Bryson said no, that the 1,378 units was information given by
the Planning Department in specific areas where plans for parks are
going on. Information for the for the past 10 years was in
relation to the 70%/30i split with regard to multi-family/single
family.
Vice -Chair Cottier said both of the assumptions might be subject to
change if Council changes the density minimum to five units per
acre. It definitely affects the mix. why is there such a rush?
Ms. Bryson said because Council had requested it now to take
advantage of the development senecio that is occurring. If
different growth management policies are adopted, then the fee will
need to be changed. Until there is change, the fee will remain the
same. Growth management policies were discussed, but it was
decided to go ahead with the fee change now.
Vice -Chair Cottier stated that the memo indicated that the parkland
fee for new units would not always cover the costs to bring parks
to standard in certain areas. Which areas does this occur?
Ms. Bryson stated that it is relating more to some of the policies
regarding problem areas. For example, Clarendon Hills is a good
example of a neighborhood that is built at lower densities. The
rest of the development was built in the County before the urban
growth agreement, therefore, they did not pay parkland fees. There
are a total of 325 units proposed in Clarendon Hills with a total
of 1,378, you can see that is not going to generate enough fees.
There is a policy that there is to be a park in each square mile --
so there are some inequity issues needing to be studied.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 29
Vice -Chair Cottier asked if there has been any consideration given
to adjusting the parkland fee for developments that provide a park
that is not purchased by the City and is not a neighborhood park.
There have been developments that have privately developed parks.
She didn't know how much public access was to these parks. There
should be some adjustment for fees in these cases.
Ms. Bryson stated that there is an option for the developer to
donate land or build a park and dedicate it for public use in which
case we can waive fees. If it is strictly a private park, they
still pay the fees.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked what dedicated to the public mean?
Ms. Bryson said it would be under City ownership and open to the
public and public use, available to program for public activities.
Vice -Chair Cottier said if a developer builds a park and gives it
to the City, the fees are returned to the developer?
Ms. Bryson said yes.
Member Walker stated the general approach is useful way to view
problems, such as Clarendon Hills with less than 3 units per acre,
and also with different mixes, there will be contradictions, yet
the fees are not generated. He believed that Options A and B are
two important ways to administer the fees.
Member Fontane stated Option B because it makes it more equitable
and it discourages low -density development.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked if the Board needs to make a
recommendation to Council?
Mr. Phillips said a recommendation to Council would be helpful but
it is not required.
Member Walker asked if it were an either or situation? He liked
both options. Option B expresses well the density issue. In a
small way it encourages multi -family density, because of the lesser
fee with rationale behind the fee. He was in favor of both.
Ms. Bryson said if the Board did not feel comfortable recommending
one over the other, if you could recommend these are appropriate
steps to take, of going either the multi -family or single-family or
low -density variable, it would be a helpful recommendation.
Member Winfree stated she supported Option B, it discourages lower
• density development but yet it has a mechanism where money comes in
to provide parks for those areas where the development does occur.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 30
Vice -Chair Cottier stated her support of the administrative policy
changes and the idea that parkland fees will no longer be used in
maintaining old parks. There has been community feedback about
where has the money gone for a new park? For the money to be held
in reserve for new parkland, is good management.
Member Foutane recommended Option B.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Eckman made a brief presentation to the Board making
clarification of some areas of confusion in regard to appeals and
the latitude the City has to review decisions of the Planning and
Zoning Board decisions. There are three options to make it more
clear, making it easier for the appellant to word the appeal.
Option A. Explains the Council's different roles and makes it
more clear to the appellants as to the roles of the Council so
they can phrase their appeals in such a way as to better serve
the purposes in filing an appeal.
Option B. This would eliminate the abuse ofdiscretion
grounds so that the Council would regularly be called upon to
substitute its judgment for that of the Board.
Option C. This would eliminates the failure to properly
interpret and apply a ground so that the Council's role
would be limited to deciding there was competent evidence
in the record.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board had in their packet a memo that
discusses the pros and cons of these options. Option A is one of
the "pros", leaving both grounds available for an appellant, it may
still turn out to be confusing to some of the appellants. Option
B affords the Council opportunity to substitute its judgment for
the Board, but it could invite a number of appeals to the City
Council that are presently are not filed, even so it would still be
an appeal on the record, rather than a new hearing to the City
Council (information cannot be withheld from the Board). Option C
would reduce the number of Council appeals but would preclude the
Council from substituting its judgment for the Board. Some other
minor changes were made that are explained in the memo. He noted
a change in the requirement that a verbatim transcript be produced
by the City for every Council appeal at the cost of the City.
Another change of note would be if the Council decided that the
1]
9
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 31
Board had denied the appellant a fair hearing, the Council may
refer it back to the Board for re -hearing would change to must
refer it back to the Board for re -hearing.
Member Strom asked if Option B were selected, eliminating the
abusive discretion grounds, what would someone do if they feel we
have abused our discretion?
Mr. Eckman said they would have to file their appeal on the basis
that you failed to properly interpret the code.
Member Strom commented that appeals will come forth and ground
seemed not to be an issue.
Mr. Eckman said there is always a ground to have "failure to
conduct a fair hearing" with four parts (exceeding jurisdiction,
ignored previously established procedure, considered evidence that
was substantially false and improperly failed to receive all
evidence offered) are available in terms of the denial of a "fair
hearing." It is true if an appellant believed that you have failed
to properly interpret the code, with no competent evidence in the
record, they would have no ground --they would have to rely upon the
other ground.
Mr. Phillips stated the Planning Department is recommending Option
A which leaves alternative grounds for appeals that now exist, but
explains more thoroughly how the Council's role differs from the
Board or Commission from which the decision is being appeal. It
clarifies the situation for those seeking to appeal decisions of
the Boards and Commissions. He stated that the staff recommend the
Board recommend to Council that there be a review of the current
fee structure related to appeals. The fees now required do not
approach the cost of processing the appeals. He had the
recommendation of two other boards. The Landmark Preservation
Commission and voted unanimously to accept Option A and review fees
if they did not restrict ordinary citizens from exercising the
right to appeal. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended on a vote
of 4-1 the adoption of Option C including the recommendation that
Section 253 left as is, "thereby requiring any party and interest
to continue to pay for the cost of the transcript" rather than the
City paying for all of them.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked what the typical cost of a transcript?
Are they usually requested with appeals?
Ms. Lucia Liley said they have a wide range, referring to one that
was $600-$700--typically they are provided by one side or the other
for whomever wants a verbatim transcript, rather than relying on
the summary minutes provided.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 32
CITIZEN INPUT
Ms. Lucia Liley made three points:
1. There reference in the proposal to changing the cost of
the appeals, which remains at $100.00. Given the Planning and
Zoning Boards direction for development fees, it ought to go
with a recommendation to amend the ordinance which contains
that fee requirement. It should be the same cost recovery
principal that is being applied to other fees that the Council
is approve. No mention has been made to Council regarding
this fee structure, particularly referring to the fee
transcript. This would apply to any appellant across the
board.
2. Two appeals are permitted both on preliminary and on final
and the language used to be in the appeal procedure to better
define what could be appeal on a final has been deleted. She
requested consideration of the Board if it were necessary to
have two appeals, then what it is on the final. She supported
her request based on land use issues, then after that point
there ought to be some certainty about basic issue before you
go to the great deal of expense and cost of all of the final
engineering and design, etc., required for a final. Right
now, an applicant can go through all of that, get to your
final and have it overturned and things as subjective as
building mass, bulk design, etc. What is being approved on a
preliminary needs to be defined and what rights there are to
overturn it, once the process has been gone through and the
applicant is at the final stage.
3. The scope of the appeal should be evaluated. She stated
there is little difference between A and B, virtually none.
Appellants are being actively advise that when they file an
appeal, it should be filed under "a failure to properly
interpret". If the Board thinks about that, the reason is
apparent. It allows the Council unfettered discretion to
substitute its judgment over the boards, without regard to
whether or not there is competent evidence in the records. No
one is going to use any other grounds other than "a failure to
property interpret". Option A and B are essentially the same
in practice. The only difference is between that notion of an
expanded review of Council or limiting the Council review to
use of discretion of the Board. Procedural problems that have
happened in the process or substantive problems. If you have
abused either one of those, under Option C, the Council would
have the ability to overturn it, but would not be able to just
substitute their opinion for yours without the record and
without regard to competent evidence in the record.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 33
Ms. Liley requested that the Board consider these three points.
Ms. Melange Heir - 225 S. Meldrum - Vice President Fort Collins
Chamber of Commerce - She stated their position was to recommend
to City Council Option A, leaving both alternatives in place, both
discretionary and failure to properly interpret and apply.
Although it is not real clear in the proposed ordinance what the
proposed changes are in the scope of review and role of the grounds
for appeal, and failure to apply and interpret grounds, misused and
overused, their position is that both grounds be left in. They
recommend the issues addressed at preliminary, in terms of layout
and design should only be able to be appealed after preliminary and
there should be some defined point at which those grounds for
appeal; and that issues addressed at final review, can be appealed
after final review.
John Roehrig - 1800 Wallenberg Dr. - Vice President of the Prospect
Shields Neighborhood Association - He thanked the City for
addressing this issue, having gone through the process, it was
found to be confusing. They would support Option A or B and would
not support Option C. Option A is appropriate because it makes
more clear the interpretation that "any competent evidence in the
record" will serve to justify the decision made. Option B is
probably the most relevant approach to this procedure since Option
A is so difficult to win an appeal if you are a neighborhood or
developer. Option C isn't acceptable because it does away with
some of the "due process" required in this form of government.
Option C removed City Council's obligation to substitute Board's
decisions, and feel the City Council has a responsibility to do
that.
Mr. Roehrig stated his own option with three grounds to appeal:
1. The code wasn't interpreted correctly.
2. Maybe a Board didn't follow the established rules.
3. Maybe the decision wasn't a good one in consideration of
all the weight of evidence presented.
Mr. Roehrig focused
"majority" or "bulk"
particular proposal <
support for this is
decisions in trying
subjective decisions
with criterion worked
what it is presently.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
0
>n the wording "any" with a substitute of
of the evidence presented for against a
id not support the Board's decision. The
many times Boards are making subjective
to interpret codes and rules. Sometimes
ire just wrong. Option A could be accepted
on to make it a more substantive appeal than
Again, Option A or B is recommended.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 34
Vice -Chair Cottier asked Mr. Eckman if he believed there should be
grounds for appealing a final? Why hasn't this ordinance proposed
different grounds for a preliminary and a final?
Mr. Eckman referred to the LDGS for the provisions for requirement
of approval for finals with substantial compliance to approval of
the preliminary. "The final plans shall comply with all other
applicable criteria of the Land Development Guidance System, accept
for layout and densities." People need to be able to appeal the
finals as well as the preliminaries because the Planning and Zoning
Board has looked at all of the issues and criteria under LDGS on
final and it is not just a "rubber stamp" of the plan if it matches
up with the preliminary. He believed there should be the ability
to appeal finals. The question of layout and density cannot be
appealed, unless the board, by condition, reserves the right to
even change that on final.
Ms. Liley made a comment at this point stating density is easy to
understand, but what does general layout mean. This issue came up
with The Preserve was appealed, and no one was prepared or could
offer, during that Council appeal, any definition of what it meant
to have an approved preliminary with a right to layout and design.
In fact, that project on final was overturned because of building
mass, scale, bulk and design. What does that mean, if not general
layout? It seems somewhat meaningless if you can overturn it for
those grounds in terms of general layout. She agreed to do what
Mr. Eckman had suggested, at the minimum, provide a better
definition of what it is when there is an approved preliminary and
what exactly is appealable and not appealable within the
definition.
Mr. Eckman said he agreed. When he worked on the Neighborhood
Compatibility and changes to the LDGS with Sherry Albertson -Clark,
both felt it would be best not to make changes in connection to the
ordinance because it might cause it to fall through. There is a
need to take a look at definition of layout and density.
Member Strom urged staff to do that. There seems to be double
jeopardy as it stands now and is serving as a delaying tactic in
some cases rather non -substance if there is disagreement with what
the Board has done. That should be refined so that once a
Preliminary has been appealed and settled, whatever the results are
there, should be set, unless modified in some way at the final
stage. There is enough flexibility in the process that sometimes
things change. It would make sense to try.
Member Winfree questioned the use of the word "any" about why it is
used rather than preponderance of evidence, as brought out by Mr.
Roehrig?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 35
Mr. Eckman stated when a reviewing court considers a matter of
administrative decision, that is the standard which the court looks
Rule 106, Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure, looking for competent
evidence in the record. `Behind the rule, there has to be a reason.
The reason is to do it any other way, there has to be some latitude
in your judgment. When competence evidence is brought before you,
you need to be able to measure your evidence and make your
decisions upon the content of the evidence and not the poundage of
it. You need to be able to look at just the evidence presented,
not hours on either side of the topic or physical weight, but how
much it weighs in your own mind. That is why the reviewing body,
the Council or the Court should have the duty to decide if there is
any competence evidence within the record. If it is competent and
it is in the record, it shouldn't have to pass a physical weight
test, of time spent, but just of which argument did you decide to
believe, no matter how long it took to make the argument.
Mr. Phillips stated this will be going to Council April 5.
There was discussion about defining what is appealable on
preliminary and what is appealable on final. Mr. Eckman stated
that the code needs to be studied to find the purpose of
preliminaries and finals. That will take planning staff time to
review. If the final plan is simply to be an examination by the
Board as to whether it complies with the preliminary, that is
something that needs to be explored. Council is not approaching
this way at present. If it is the approach, it would be easy to
decide the appeals of the final are limited to the decisions that
are made on final, which is whether it complies to the preliminary.
That is not what the Code says and he didn't know how long it would
take the staff to decide and bring it to the Board another Code
change for the recommendation to Council.
Vice Chair Cottier asked what was an amended appeal and for what
grounds?
Mr. Eckman said the code provides and he reviews appeals within 5
working days of filing for obvious defects in form or substance
that he can identify and then notifies the City Clerk, who notifies
the appellant. Then the appellants have 15 days to file an amended
appeal (or prior to the time of mailing notices) to all interested
parties. They can correct the obvious defects and the appeals
Chapter is not real specific as to what they can do. Section 2-51
has a proposed change to clarify if an amended notice of an appeal
is filed, the amendments need not limited to those defects that the
City Attorney's office identifies. They could also include any
additional grounds for appeal for anything else they might want to
add.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 36
Vice -Chair Cottier asked if your response to the initial review of
an appeal is that it not legitimate grounds, they may have 10-15
days for different grounds? Can this, in effect, be used as a
tactic just to get an appeal on the record within the time
restriction?
Mr. Eckman said he hadn't thought of that but it could be correct,
it is possible.
Vice -Chair Cottier asked what could be done about that?
Mr. Eckman stated the code could be changed to make it very clear
the amended appeal can only address the defects identified in the
first appeal. To leave the code as it is, would still be vague and
subject to varying interpretations. It ought to be one way or the
other.
Vice -Chair Cottier said there were too many things that the Board
still wants to address with this. It may be semantics and no
matter what we say, would not disallow an appeal. Is it not
correct to assume that any appeal is allowed?
Mr. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, commented that this was
a request of Council to make the change to allow flexibility for
appellants and a time for them to get clear exactly what the
purpose for the appeal was. This will allow them to make it more
clear for review by Council.
Member Winfree sited an example of the process questioning how many
times the reviewing agency can send it back for changes?
Mr. Eckman said he only looks at it the first time, when it comes
back again, the Code does not instruct him to check it again for
defects in, form or substance --that could go on endlessly, I would
suspect. The amended appeal then goes to Council. Just one
amended appeal with a confidential memorandum is sent to the City
Council before they hear the appeal with any defects called to the
attention to the Council. He recalled several appeal that were
still week and gave their opinion to Council.
Member Winfree asked about Council being able to take a vote on the
merits of the appeal or do they just accept the statements from the
City Attorney's Office?
Mr. Eckman replied said that is correct, that is a change in
Section 265 because there has never been an appeal without at least
one legitimate ground alleged. It is an extra step the City
Council was taking that was unnecessary, because there is always at
least one ground to consider.
0
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
March 7, 1994
Page 37
Member Fontane reflected about recent appeals and wondered what
City Council's role is and needs to understand better what that is.
Her view was for Option C because of the review process time and
investment of all concerned.
Member Walker felt that the appeal process is not serving its
function and if it is appeal, it is a "stretch of the policy". It
gets to Council because of policy implications. He was satisfied
with Option A or even B would be acceptable. He believed the issue
of appeal was to raise the issue beyond the Board.
Member Strom moved approval of Option A with the addition of
consideration of the fee structure.
Member Strom said it is not always necessary, in his opinion, for
a verbatim transcript, but there have been enough cases where the
minutes produced are too cryptic to what has been said or taken out
of context. He believed a transcript to be an advantage in an
appeals situation. He said if the City is paying for those
transcripts, the fee structure needs to be reviewed as other
development fees. Under Option A Council is the one who face the
voters and are ultimately answerable in terms of what is happening
in development and implementation of City policies. On that basis,
it ultimately is their responsibility and believed there should be
a broad opportunity for appeal, it is how it is implemented.
Member Winfree seconded the motion.
Member Winfree said she supported Option A because it is a process
that works for the neighborhoods and developers. for whoever the
appellant is. There is language that more clearly defines what the
otherwise confusing issue are.
Vice -Chair Cottier stated she would support the motion and
requested a more clear definition of what is allowed in preliminary
and final at some point in the future. She disagreed with some of
the conclusions of the appeals and wished that Council would put
more credence to what the Planning and Zoning Board does say on
some issues and agree with Mr. Roehrig's comment at some of these
are political decisions no matter what and she had no problem that
they go to Council.
Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 P.M.
No Text