The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/31/1994• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 31, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 31, 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 Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rob Wilkinson, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: • Approval of December 16, 1993, minutes. Member Cottier moved the December 16, 1993 minutes be approved. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. o ► ►! Item 16. Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93; Recommendation to City Council: Item 19. Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning, k50-92E; Item 20. Annexation and Development Review Scheduling. Item 16, Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary. #80-93, Planner Ted Shepard read the staff report and recommendations to the Board. Mr. Jim Sell, of Jim Sell Design, representing Jim McCory of Colorado Land Source and also J. R. Engineering, Dick Keilog, Steve Jenkins and Matt Delich, traffic engineer. He made his presentation with the recommendation to approve the proposal. He showed with slides the • boundaries and setting of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to pay what would be the City's share of improvements to Harmony Road and Crest Road. Numerous Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 2 meetings were held with residents of Brookwood. As a result, lots are twice the minimum requirement to make them more compatible with existing acreage. Crest road will be widened to City standards with a left turn, curb gutter and sidewalk. There is a drainage channel that comes through the wetland area, under the road and property at Harmony and Crest. He discussed landscaping, setbacks, berming, masonry wall, evergreens, street trees and ornamental trees with scrubs. The plan reflects one to two dwelling units per acre with a RLP zoning. He requested approval of the Board for this proposal. He referred to Policy 12 and 13 in the LDGS which encourages this development in the urban growth area. Chair Clements stated that density seems to be an issue with the neighborhood, there also is a concern for traffic in the area. How is signalization to be handled? Mr. Matt Delich, transportation engineer, responded stating the current traffic flows onto Harmony Road are at Level E, but with delay criteria imposed, it is probably more at Level C or D. A typical delay during peak hours are typically 15-30 seconds per approach vehicle. A signal would not be warranted at Hinsdale although a signal would work and not impede the traffic flow. The development will have little or no impact at the Crest/Harmony intersection. Member Winfree asked further clarification from the rating from Level E to C. Mr. Delich explained technically this question is based on 1985 Highway Capacity Manual uses a technique developed in Germany. Therefore, at a stop sign controlled intersection it would be greater, without consideration of "delay criteria". The State of Colorado recognizes acceptability at Level D or better. The Transportation Research Board is re -writing this year the Highway Capacity Manual and are changing the technique and taking into consideration delay, as was used in this study. Chair Clements asked further what "delay criteria" meant. Mr. Delich said the "delay criteria" is per approach vehicle, or how long the vehicle has to wait to enter the traffic stream to make a given movement. The morning peak hour at Hinsdale is reported to be 19-29 seconds, in the manual is Level service E, which means level C or D; the work in Germany is not translatable in the United States. Member Winfree asked if we are applying these changes to all of the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Delich said yes. CITIZEN INPUT, Bruce Heath - 4920 Crest Road, President of the Brookwood Homeowners Association (10 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 3 family units). He thanked the efforts of Ted Shepard and also of Glen Schlueter of Stormwater Utility. He opened his comments understanding the need for the City tax base and density calculations. Overall, they are concerned about 3 dwelling units per acre density compatibility. He addressed road, school, and park access. Mr. Heath stated that Brookwood Estates, although small in number, represents 82 acres and all of the residents use Crest Road. There is an architectural control committee. He was concerned about the narrow side yard setbacks along Crest Road which would preclude the use of the backyards for storage. Many traffic problems of great concern. He is aware that Harmony is planned for 6-lanes outerbelt corridor, is choked to two lanes. There is no safe left turns presently and right turns are very tight. He termed the corner of Crest and Harmony dangerous. Mr. Heath said that the park is only accessible in the proposed development by the new homes or school parking lot. There is no room in the plans for expansion of the park. Mr. Heath proposed a possible neighborhood connector street between Crest and Hinsdale that would allow for future planning and access to the school, and fire ingress and egress. • Member Cottier asked if the association has a proposed preferable location connection between Crest and Hinsdale? Mr. Heath said no specifically, there is a possibly several. Member Cottier asked if they were more interested in a connection at the south side of the school. Mr. Heath said that was acceptable. Mr. Bob Underhill - He acknowledged the fine job the developer and the planning staff have done as it relates to Clarendon. He believed the transition, however, was too abrupt between developments. He backed up his point by presentation of slides. He had objections to the density, 12 houses on 3.3 acres is unacceptable. This would increase the traffic patterns. The 82 acres adjacent to the development needs to be considered, the big picture, unique area, one service access, compatibility, transition, safety, drainage and access. He suggested a park boundary to Crest Road for access, homeowners should have been involved in the planning, make wider lots to accommodate on -street parking. Ron Erbes - 4825 Crest Road - At some point in the future Brookwood Estates will become part of the City. But presently it is not, and the 82 acres needs to be addressed by the Board for • neighborhood compatibility. It is a walk-in pedestrian community; adding 133% increase in Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 4 development of living units and probably a greater increase in traffic, due to the life style differences for these homes. The total square footage of the proposed homes will restrict the use of the land for storage and/or parking. They requested not more than 7 homes sites (12 homes sites proposed), with a City planning condition of 33-foot setback and a 15-foot side yard setback, with a minimum of 30 feet between houses. He referred to the MiraMont development as a good example for development, which was approved by the Board with a lower density, and it matches more closely to the needs for neighborhood compatibility for this area. They requested that a visit to the area during peak hours as well as other quieter hours of the day to visualize the neighborhood as they know it today, only then will the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council will appreciate their appeal to preserve what is Fort Collins and admired for quality. Jim Brewer - 742 Rochelle Circle - He was appreciative of the efforts in planning and was in support of the project. He is a neighbor adjacent to the development. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked if their would be neighborhood covenants for parking restrictions? Mr. Sell said yes there would be covenants. They will be greater or more severe than Clarendon Hills. There will not be RVs parked on the streets or in the driveways. Chair Clements referred to the traffic study that stated there would be no more traffic on Crest Road, yet the neighborhood believes because of the increase in houses, this cannot be true. Mr. Delich stated that the short range projection, there would be no increase in traffic at the Crest/Harmony intersection. The traffic does, however, change on Harmony Road and it is indicated in the study. Chair Clements asked about pedestrian park access? Mr. Sell pointed out the access and is available to all citizens of Fort Collins from Crest Road. There will be a 36-foot wide street, parking on both sides. Chair Clements also question why the Parks Department did not purchase the land where these 12 lots are proposed. Mr. Shepard stated that the history of acquiring a park site in this area goes back to 1986. The Parks Department is concerned that this park is not located more interior to the Clarendon Hills Subdivision. Park locations are preferable away from arterial streets, because of the traffic. Parks and Rec chose not to buy the sliver of land along Crest because, they didn't want Crest 9 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 5 Road to be seen as the primary access to the park. They don't want to build a parking lot nor do they want Crest Road to be come a parking area for the park, rather they are encouraged to park near the elementary school. They don't want to deplete funds available for parkland development. Chair Clements asked what the lot sizes on the 12 houses on Crest Road? Mr. Shepard responded that the proposed lots are 12,500 feet. Member Winfree asked what the anticipated setbacks for the houses along Crest Road would be? Mr. Sell said they increased the minimum setback of 20 feet to 25-30 feet. The side setback is 5 feet. Member Strom asked for the explanation of the connection between Crest Road and Hinsdale and if it is necessary and appropriate at this time. Mr. Shepard indicated that the proposal to connect Crest Road to East Bentlet Place is designed • to help alleviate the situation at the Crest/Harmony intersection with the hope that the Hinsdale/Harmony intersection would be signalized and provide a better outlet. There has to be more extensive planning in terms of capacity and shape of the storm water detention pond. Before this proposal can be seriously considered, the Parks and Recreation Department want to construct a raw water irrigation pond in a nearby area, to use as irrigation water and it has not yet been designed, the wetlands need to be preserved. Also, there is a need to plan side slopes and maintain erosion control. When more information is obtained regarding these design issues, the status of this connection will be detained. Member Strom asked if this would be resolved prior to finalization of the subdivision? Mr. Shepard said yes, this was their intention. Member Strom asked about the RLP zoning on the land. As he understood it, this zoning doesn't mandate a PUD development, so this is a straight subdivision. If he understood correctly, we do not have jurisdiction over the density of this property as long as district code requirements are met? Mr. Eckman said that is correct. Member Cottier asked about the status of dedicating the Wetlands in the northeast area as part of the site? Punning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Shepard said that it was not a park site yet. It is still owned by the developer under contract to the developer; the proposal is he would give the land to the city. Member Cottier asked who would pay for the improvements on Harmony along that stretch? Mr. Shepard said the developer has agreed by his donation to the City that he still retains the obligation to do Harmony and Crest Road improvements. Member Cottier asked if the Parks Department pay for improvements along Hinsdale along the west side? Mr. Shepard said they do have some frontage on Hinsdale and they may have to pay back the school district for their portion of the frontage, but that needs to be checked. Member Cottier said she was interested in what the Parks Department has done to date and what their obligations are. Is there any room for further negotiations on this? Mr. Herzig said as far as Hinsdale, he was not sure they paid any fund there. The School District has entered into a repay agreement with the City to receive repayment. The Parks Department has done nothing at this time because it is an undeveloped park. A sidewalk will need to be constructed on Hinsdale, the obligation would be to pay back the School District. Member Cottier asked if there has been any input from the Parks Department as to their preference for park sites? Is this the way they like parks hidden? Mr. Shepard said yes, they like to have as little frontage on streets as possible. What they really like about this park is there is no need to build a parking lot, the access is there, it is shared by the School District. The joint playground that the school district has put in can also complement the tot lot that normally would go into a neighborhood park. The challenge was finding a park site period. Because it is next to a school is an advantage. A proposal has been made by the Brookwood Homeowners Association to take the land along Crest Road back, but Parks and Rec has not expressed an interest to do that. Member Cottier said that Mr. Heath's letter mentioned that if Crest were left it is today, that Brookwood would be responsible for maintaining it. Was that considered as an option to the Parks Department so that they wouldn't have an obligation for improving Crest? Mr. Shepard said the Parks Department has indicated that if there were a buffer strip of 150 feet along Crest that didn't belong to the Parks Department, but remained undeveloped and belonged to Brookwood that it would be difficult for the lay person, the citizen, the average park user to see that separation in the field. That open space would become "defacto" park space, people • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 7 would park along Crest, Crest would become a primary access point to the park. The Parks Department did not want to build a fence to protect Brookwood open space from the park. The best solution the Parks Department came up with, to administer over the long term, would be to have the park surrounded by the houses and the school. Member Collier asked if there were any options with respect to Crest being 36 feet or less? Mr. Shepard believed that options have not been discussed. It is considered to be RLP zoning a city subdivision, and appropriate a 36-foot street from flow line to flow line. Member Cottier said that the City allows 28-foot wide streets frequently. Who has to request that? Mr. Shepard said it is a variance request from a developer's consulting engineer that is reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Transportation Department and that it has to meet the criteria that it not be double loaded, not take primary access off an arterial, that it not have a certain amount of average daily trips. The Board reviewed one last week. In this particular case, the developer did not submit a variance request for 28-foot street. 40 Mr. Eckman said that the code says that a local street has to have a right-of-way of 54 feet is that correct. Mr. Herzig said that is correct, that is the right-of-way, not the street. Member Winfree said that Crest will be developed at 36-feet width only to the end of the 12th lot, is that correct? Mr. Shepard replied it was correct. Member Winfree asked for clarification on the maintenance the length of the of the Crest Road? Mr. Shepard said from the southerly lot to the north to Harmony that is dedicated as public and his guess would be the City of Fort Collins would be responsible for the pavement sections and long-term maintenance. There is no snow plowing on local street. Mr. Herzig offered that it is his understanding Crest is a county road. The City requires the developer to approve it because of the agreement of the county when a city development impacts a county road. As I understand it may still end up being that the homeowners maintain it, but it is still possible that the County would maintain that portion since it is being brought up to standards that fulfill the intergovernmental agreement. He said he couldn't speak for the . County. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 8 Member Klataske referred to the issue of traffic connections in this section, and asked what connections to the south would be planned. If it were to develop, how would the traffic be handled? Mr. Shepard said there hasn't been a real serious look at local street connections into what. would have to be the north part of Applewood Estates or a subdivision filing which is called Orchard which is part of Clarendon. It is probably boxed in. It would probably be very difficult for there to be a second point of access to the southerly area of Brookwood Estates. Hinsdale functions as a circular street in a good network of streets. Crest will probably be a dead-end for some time. Mr. Klataske indicated that he felt it was important for there to be a link in the street network further south. It is incumbent upon us to look at other streets and their linkage as far as future developments. The overall density on 28 acres and the neighborhood is asking to reduce the 12-units to 7-units, which would still be at a density of greater than 3-units per acre. He wondered if this was considered. Mr. Shepard said the developer has been aware that the Brookwood residents have requested fewer lots on Crest. Perhaps he could respond to the Board, but it has been communicated to the Planning Department, he is not interested in reducing the number of lots on Crest. Mr. Shepard has researched the code and found nothing that can legally require reduction of the density of units. That is why there are street trees and front setbacks and another suggestion from Mr. Underhill regarding 15-foot minimum yard setbacks, so you get 30-feet between structures. Mr. Klataske asked the developer to respond. Mr. Sell replied as part of the economics of donating to the City, at no cost, 3.2 acres, with a survey, paying for the widening of Harmony, the widening of Crest, paying for the paving of Crest which is larger than is a typical road, curb and gutter on both sides is a mathematical problem. It is a matter of economics. Member Cottier asked if there was power to make conditions regarding that? Mr. Shepard said he thought that would require the cooperation of the developer. In some areas we have gotten the cooperation and in others we have not. Where the developer would refuse, he would defer to Deputy City Attorney. He felt it appropriate to ask the developer to cooperate to widening the side setback. If he agrees, those restrictions can be attached to the plat and accompanying documents. Member Cottier asked why the developer is required to put curb and gutter on the east side of the street? Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Herzig said is partly the City and County codes, inter- governmental agreement standards. The City of Fort Collins requires the street be built complete with curb and gutter on both sides and he was unsure of the negotiations. In some situations there is allowance to leave off the other side's sidewalk. This is still in preliminary stages and the County is reviewing the plans. Member Winfree asked the developer if he would be agreeable to a minimum side setback of 15 feet? Mr. Sell said for good reason he does not want to do that. He wants to maintain some flexibility. Perhaps a more appropriate question would be a building to building setback. Some of the homes that would build out on the lots will be of varying designs. The lots are 72-foot to 82-foot lots. They do not want to amend the agreement. Member Klataske asked staff regarding page 3 of the staff report, paragraph A regarding lot size and width. Mr. Shepard said 8 of the 12 lots are 82-foot lot widths and 2 are at 72-feet and 1 at 77-feet and 1 at 105-feet. • Member Klataske summarized that at a minimum, the 2 at 72-foot lot widths are 12 feet over the minimum 60 foot width. Mr. Shepard said that was correct. Member Strom said that to a large extent the path is laid out by the code, and moved to approve the Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary with the condition of staff for street connection 1. Staff is interested in keeping the option open of connecting Crest Road to east Bentley Place. It is recognized, however, that final plans for stormwater detention, erosion control, wetland protection, and a raw water irrigation pond have not been designed. If the need for adequate stormwater detention, wetland buffer, and irrigation preclude connecting Crest Road to East Bentley Place, then such connection will not be pursued. 2. The Board recommends the developer to explore wider sideyard setbacks in terms of building to building relationships. 3. The Board recommends and encourages the developer to engage in the process of negotiating with the Parks Department and other City departments regarding the is3.2 acre parcel. That the developer consider the possibility of modifying the rear yard property line between the existing park site and this development site to allow more creative use of the frontage. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 10 4. The Board recommends and encourages the developer and staff to look at alternatives on the cross-section development of Crest Road. There is an opportunity to do something creative given a fairly limited surface area of the street, perhaps to reduce the width of the road. Member Strom said his reasoning is from the neighbors suggestions for more creative plans with respect to the street so make it is more compatible with the larger lots, though densities may not change. Member Cottier seconded the motion. She indicated she would like to add to the last condition that a sidewalk not be required on the east side. Member Strom said he would like to leave that as a negotiation for the street cross-section and development and base it as the Board's view that sidewalks are not necessary on both sides. Member Cottier agreed. It is a clear case where a 28-foot street is more appropriate than a 36- foot wide street. She hoped that if the negotiations were successful, the developer would consider the cost savings and reduce one or two lots along Crest Road. Member Klataske commented that possibly reduction of 12 lots to 7 would be appropriate, the reduction in the street width will reduce parking, and he would be supporting the motion. Member Strom stated he appreciated the approach. that the neighborhood came in with suggestions, not just objections. All too often there is just a "no" and he appreciated they wanted to make the project better. Member Winfree said she also commended the neighbors for offering a variety of suggestions and she was somewhat disappointed that the developer wasn't really agreeable to some of the ideas, even just minimal changes. She would be supporting the motion hoping the developer would be more agreeable to work in some compatibility for Crest Road neighbors. Member Cottier said this is not a PUD and there is limitation to what the Board can decide, which is frustrating. The neighbor's suggestions would make this a more compatible project and fit in better with the neighborhood. She also commented she thought it a lack of foresight that City policies tend to discourage parks from fronting on streets. Because parks are locked in between homes, this cuts down on the benefit of the open space to a broader range of people. She thought the Parks Department bookkeeping procedure values seemed to override citizen benefit. Chair Clements agreed with Member Cottier's comments and she recalled that there was suggestion that the development process at MiraMont could be done here. The differences is that MiraMont is a PUD and Coventry this is a straight subdivision. The Board has regulations that must be to, precluding compatibility and density. She appreciated the neighbors who gave L U • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 11 a fine presentation with solutions, and complimented the applicant who had a good attitude in the process. The Board will continue to see issues like this where the City meets the County. She said hopefully the process will go as smoothly as this. She will support the motion. Mr. Phillips stated that we have made a commitment to Council for "Findings of Fact" and requested to make reference to the recommendation to page 8. That would be helpful to be included in the minutes. Member Strom read the recommendation on page 8 and moved that it was acceptable to add this to the motion. Mr. Phillips suggested if there were some that the Board did not agree to, that they be eliminated. Member Strom said that the only question he had was the suggestion compatibility". Because it is a straight subdivision under the code, and in the code, that the Board is not addressing the compatibility issue. Mr. Phillips agreed. Member Strom moved to eliminate No. 2. Member Cottier said she agreed. Motion passed 5-0. of the "criterion of the zoning provisions Item 18 - Fossil Creek Estates Rezonine - N50-92E. Ms. Whetstone, Planner, read the staff report and recommended approval. Ms. Lucia Liley, representing the petitioner, Fossil Creek Partners. commented on the petition. She said it was unusual to have been placed in, and then have to petition out of, the T-transition zone, as the petitioner had previously petitioned for an RLP zone. It is important to point out that the Council has not made a decision on the ultimate zone for this property. It is not rezoning in the traditional sense, since the T-transition zone is, as Ms. Whetstone indicated, a holding zone for properties in the transitional stage and have no real development plans. (She explained the how and why she was present.) Ms. Liley stated in August a petition was submitted to annex and zone the property RLP, and went to Council in October. It was, in fact, annexed and proposed to be zoned RLP, with a . PUD condition. In November, it was placed on the consent agenda and pulled off and on second reading, was zoned T-transition, which it is for properties that have not identified a use. That clearly was not the case here where a PUD was pending. In fact, under review, we asked Planning & Zoning Hoard Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 12 Council to reconsider the zoning of this property into T-transition. The Council did vote to reconsider that, but instead of putting it on the November as requested, it was placed on a December 21 Council agenda. At that meeting, then, it was placed again back into the T- transition zone. We found ourselves in a rather ironic position of having requested a procedure to save time, having in effect that procedure creating additional delays. Really, the only effect that had to put it into a T-transition was to delay it for an additional 60-day period, because a petitioner has an absolute right to petition out of this zone, and to receive, in 60 days after Planning and Zoning Board makes a recommendation, some development zone. Ms. Liley said we are back full circle of where we need to be in terms of the zoning for this property. From a zoning standpoint, it is hard to understand what other zone might be appropriate. As Ms. Whetstone indicated, RLP is one of the most restrictive zones in the City with even more control with a PUD. This zoning would be compatible with the zoning of the property immediately to the east, which is going to be combined with this property for one development in three phases. The Board could consider an RE Zone, an estate lot zone, which would give larger lots, or RLP, RL zone, and condition density. You could say it cannot have more than 3 units per acre. It is difficult to understand what the Council would accomplish, if that is the recommendation, it seems to be inconsistent with City's adopted policies and regulations, and inconsistent with a number of planning efforts underway, air quality and congestion management, which seems to suggest a higher utilization of land within the city rather than lower densities. The only other consideration with regard to zoning and density has to do with the Cathy Fromme area to the north of this property. It has been suggested that a different zone or a lower density condition within a zone would be appropriate to protect that property from adverse environmental impacts. Ms. Liley asked for consideration of the impact of this density of three units per acre in this area. The Natural Resources staff advised the Council at the December 21 reconsideration of the zoning of T-transition, that the Natural Resources Advisory Board at its December meeting discussed density and how it impacted the natural area. While in some areas density is a factor, that's not the case of this particular site and development. In fact, they suggested thought be given to whether the density should be increased so that the land within the city is not consumed at such a rapid rate. The staff also advised the Council that at the time the matter was brought to the Council and recommended Natural Resources Advisory Board purchase of the natural area, they recognized, in fact, it was an urban area and it would be adjacent to urban level development and they had contemplated the buffering necessary. This property was not considered as needing additional required buffering for the natural area. This is not to presuppose any design, they will come back on final and will address the natural areas and environmental impacts. In terms of the appropriate zoning, density as it relates to the natural area, ought not to be a factor. We would ask that you would recommend what staff has asked the Board to recommended to Council and that is the RLP zone with the PUD condition, that remains satisfactory with the petitioner. . Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 13 Chair Clements asked the audience to keep comments to the rezoning only. Phase I has been appealed and if the audience would like to address the P.U.D. Plan issue, it will be heard February 1, 1994 at the Council meeting at 6:15 p.m. CITIZEN INPUT, Jim Robbins - individual and an agricultural landowner, President of Trilby Lateral Ditch Company. His property joins the development on the south side. He does not oppose development if it is within keeping of the environment, eco-systems, wildlife habitat, conservation, water quality of irrigation water, and compatibility of the land with the surroundings. The proposed Seven Springs PUD, in the county to the west of the proposal, is a plan that the residents like very much. It has 80 acres with 54 lots, it will try to give natural area to coincide with the Fromme Natural Area. The developer has communicated with the Trilby Lateral Ditch, wildlife habitat, agricultural transitions and other concerns. This county development appears to be very compatible with our neighborhood. We are concerned about the compatibility and the transition between agricultural lands and the Fromme Natural Area. The proposed connection of the Fossil Creek Estates PUD, Phase III, and the Seven Springs Ranch is on my property. He saw this in a drawing in September and December meetings. He • said he has not been approached to sell the land and quite frankly plans on keeping their farm in its entirety, to hand down to his children, preserving it as an agricultural land and as a wildlife habitat. We have been involved in planting many trees for raptures to roost. There are no transitional lands at all in the Fossil Creek proposal. He pointed out a potential problem of irrigation run-off that may be addressed in the final. He wondered about what new residents in this development thought about dogs barking, and about horses, cattle, and sheep being dangerous and smelly. Where will people go? He suggested they would go to the Fromme Natural Area and his property. He did not want this to happen. The Trilby Lateral Company sets up its irrigation plans for the season and discussed several ideas for drainage. He said that plans will need to be brought before the stockholders. Trilby Lateral has been in existence since 1897 and one with history. His concerns included: grass clippings, commercial fertilizers, filling up the wetlands and the drainage system. The natural environment needs to be conserved. The density was an issue of concern with regard to the ditch. Chair Clements said she understood and emphasized with the concerns he had, but what she needed was his input on the RLP zone or another recommendation. Mr. Robbins is opposed to 3-units per acre. • Mr. Robert Musselman - Fromme Prairie Neighborhood Association - He indicated they are a new association with a number of neighborhoods and individuals from around the Fromme Prairie. He recommended at this time that the T-transition zone be maintained and not changed Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 14 to RLP. His concerns were density. Because of the uniqueness of the area no other city has, we need to be careful about the development around it. It needs to be studied and examined. We need in place, a management plan for the Fromme Prairie before any land from the T- transition. There is also a Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor study examining the entire area of Fort Collins and Loveland and how it is to be developed. He felt this study needed to be complete before developing in the area. Mr. Musselman differed with the Natural Resources statement that density should possibly be higher. All his resources indicate and the staff report states there will be a negative effect on the Fromme Prairie area. Air quality is an issue along the drainage area and 3-units per acre is high density in his view, in this unique area. There needs to be a transition from the existing 1-acre units. Sandra Robbins - a neighbor in the area and Frame Prairie neighborhood Association - She was in opposition to the proposed RLP zone. There needs to be a transition to the area. She showed many slides of the natural roosting sites of eagles which could only be photographed on horseback or tractor because of the birds being frightened by pedestrians walling through the area. The purpose of the Frame Prairie Area is for the public, for their enjoyment and education about the fast disappearing of the short grass prairie habitat which is a part of our community's natural history. She went into great detail in her presentation about the habits of the raptures and endangered species in the area. Mrs. Robbins referred to the Fromme Prairie Management Issues Report dated November 18, 1993, draft, regarding endangered species and pointed out the intent of preserving this area for shelter and preservation. She believed 3-5 units per acre was encroaching upon this shelter. She referred to the Natural Resources staff stated that adjacent areas may have some impact, but did not state how many units per acre compared to no development. What kind of responsible planning can approve densities such as proposed by rezoning, when no complete studies are available? What if the impact should proved to be negative after the fact of development at the level of this density when it is too late to do anything about it and our valuable resource is lost to future generations? What would make better sense than to provide the least amount of disturbance of development? Bob Kulovaney - President of the Ridge Homeowners Association, referred to Ms. Liley's comments that the area is compatible with zoning immediately to the east. He pointed out that this is under appeal and will be before City Council tomorrow. He made the following comments in regard to inappropriateness of the zoning based on city codes, ordinances and resolutions. He stated that he will demonstrate that the Planning and Natural Resources staff has ignored their own policies. He said the core issues are: 1. Understanding the uniqueness of the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and its direct relationship to zoning. • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page is 2. Understanding the intent of the natural area preservation. 3. Determining aspects of city ordinances, standards, etc. which are applicable, but if applied preclude this type of what will be come a development. 4. Is the 3 dwelling units mandate paramount to all other consideration including disregarding existing code and important elements of the LDGS. Mr. Kulovaney referred to a memorandum from Sherry Albertson -Clark who was chief planner at the time (he did not indicate a date). Community wide criteria in the LDGS--the first ten —are all community -wide criteria, if one is violated, it is not an appropriate development. It states: If the site contains an area which serves as a habitat, natural food source, nesting place, wintering place, or source of water for wildlife, identified by the Colorado Division Wildlife, as significant and in particular need of attention, special precautions have been implemented into the Plan to prevent the creation of environmental influences adverse to the preservation of these areas. The other community -wide criteria relating to ecologically sensitive areas and he requested that be fully explored. Mr. Kulovaney said regarding Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria states: Do the physical elements of the site plan adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the disturbance of the topography, water body, streams, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation and other natural features. He referred to the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan, which has been finalized by City Council: ...to review and revise existing City goals and objectives in policies to guide future programs' for the protection, conservation, enhancement, and management of natural areas within Fort Collins... to insure that the impacts of development so that future development will be accomplished so as to create the least degradation to the environment. Direct growth away from environmental unique lands which can be shown to have special value to people; i.e., Natural Resources. Investigate the Open Space Plan to include appropriate, newly acquired natural areas where such open space will provide relief from the adverse affects of urban intensities (referring to population densities). The City should prepare and utilize an environmental management plan, which will include the following measures: Identification of environmentally scarce and valuable . land, such as wildlife habitats, requiring development to mitigate negative impacts and environmentally scarce and valuable lands. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Kulovaney referred to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 1988 which identifies natural areas of significant recreation resources and wildlife habitat for passive recreation uses. It clearly states open space acquisition criteria were modified to place greater emphasis on ecological factors, values of natural area and natural area protection. Mr. Kulovaney referred to the Technical Memorandum #1 to the Natural Areas Policy Plan. It is not included in the plan for general public perusal; however, it is a part of the Natural Areas Policy Plan: Encourage City and County officials to consider environmental impacts on new development as a significate factor in project evaluation as land use decisions are made. Restrict growth which will encroach on designated open space area and will interfere with access to these areas. Development in the urban growth area should be consistent with development policies set forth in this plan. Require development to mitigate negative impacts on environmentally scarce and valuable lands. Mr. Kulovaney referred to a resolution in 1988 of the Planning and Zoning Board: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins has worked with the Natural Resource Advisory Board of the City to identify and categorize wetlands and wildlife habitats within the urban growth area (utilizing a map)... It is the goal and objective of the City to insure the development will have minimum impact on said wetlands and wildlife area. Set plan should identify environmentally scarce and valuable lands, develop mitigation measures to limit actions that negatively impact on such lands and promote preservation of environmentally valuable lands. Mr. Kulovaney had other references: 1992 Resolution 9253 of City Council, Purchase and Protect Open Space Natural Areas; Parks and Boards, a statement of preserving open space. He went on to say that he heard Mr. Wilkinson state before the Board the negative impacts of RLP. He referred to a document from Karen Manci who works with Mr. Wilkinson "Restoration, Creation and Management of Wetland and Repairing Ecosystems in the American West" compiled by the Rocky Mountain Chapter of society of Wetland Scientists. He read from the report which supported his position on drainage and did not know what development impacts would be on wetlands. He referred to Technical Memorandum #2 Natural Areas Policy Plan which discussed natural wildlife, trees and relationship to human activities. There will be a report out regarding Bald Eagles, an endangered species since 1976, which supports this specific wetland area complex. These, he stated, are a core issue. Mr. Kulovaney said that the Board may not see that as a core issue as it relates to zoning, but he was confidant that you will at a later point in time. He referenced the Cathy Fromme Prairie Management Issues Report and read supporting material for his presentation for endangered species. He referenced a memorandum from Steve Burkett, which relates to the Natural Area Sales Tax Initiative... used for preservation of wildlife habitat and expanding the trail system. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 17 Mr. Kulovaney differed from the staff support of RLP. He said that he has spoke to Jerry Craig, Division of Wildlife expert; Judy Sherpulse, Head of the Regional Rapture Society; and Andre Duvall and used their expertise to support his position regarding bird population. (He indicated he would be happy to have a written support to submit to the Board.) In conclusion, Natural Areas Design Guidelines and Mitigation Manual, was due June 1993 but has yet to be finalized to date which recommends a minimum of 300 buffer feet to protect high quality wild habitat. In Mr. Kulovaney's closing comments addressed to the Board, he asked if they valued the Cathy Fromme Prairie and the citizens who support with taxes the protection of these areas, that RLP zoning is not at this time in order. At some point in time, if an agreement can be made with the developer to include a variance that is compatible with the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and when the final management plan is out in June, the Board will be able to effectively make a decision. To decide tonight would be in error. Need to look at the greater good in this area, and is aware of increased density needs of the community, but this is a unique 600-acre site, the only one in or around Fort Collins 20 years from now for short grass prairie. Mr. Mark Schultheiss - 5419 Paradise Lane in Applewood Estates representing the Fromme IsPrairie Neighborhood Association. His comments were regarding the pattern of development of the area. It is not too late to preserve lower densities around the Cathy Fromme Area and preserve the surrounding area. The RLP zoning will stand out like a "sore thumb" and will damage the area. It is a significant site. He described the uniqueness of the area topography and scenic value and cited various developments that are from 2.3 to 4.6 acres up to 5-10 acre parcels. He cited the mitigation of density along the surrounding areas adjoining Clarendon Hills, are one-third acre lots. He said it was a left -over of the UGA. Without the Cathy Fromme, there is a remnant on the south side; with future county developments with much lower density. He urged to defer a decision until further studies can be done, so impacts are known, or a creative way to zone for lower density and mitigate from there. Sue Bodoh - 816 Hilldale Drive - She stated she is opposed to the RLP zoning. Her main objection, as well as all the ones to preserve the wildlife, is the traffic on Shields. She believed after the development, it would be impossible for her to continue to ride her bike to work in Loveland. She finds left turns onto Shields take up to 5 minutes and feels it is a dangerous situation. The development will only increase the traffic onto Shields. In the winter, the road is steep and icy causing many accidents, the proposed location is right at the bottom of the hill. Signalization at the bottom of the hill will prevent easy traction for motorists up the hill. She recommended to the Board not to approve RLP Zoning and let the T-transition zoning remain in effect. Ann Young - resident of Applewood - She has lived there for three years. In addition to the • concerns presented tonight and opposition to RLP zoning, she said, in her four minute talk, there was inadequate notification and communication regarding this zoning request. She believed not all residents of the surrounding areas near the Cathy Fromme Natural Area were notified, and Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 18 the signage on the property was difficult to read. She noted that because of its location, people could read it. Only last week was it moved, when the hearing had already been held in December. Because of inadequate notification and communication, she asked that the RLP zoning be denied. Mr. Raymond S. H. Youngee - resident of Applewood Estates - He is a professor and chairman of the Department of Environmental Health at Colorado State University. A year ago, he was appointed by Governor Romer to serve as a science advisory board member to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, and serves as an expert witness and scientific advisor to the Denver Hearing on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Pollution issues. For the record, he said he was against the RLP zoning. He is not against development. There are two points he wanted to emphasize: 1. The Development Impact - Rural area is beautiful and undeveloped. His concern was the use of fertilizers and herbicides for lawns and damage to the eco-system, and water purification. He mentioned research of dogs with cancer and the relationship to herbicides. Before his career at CSU, he was with the National Toxicology Program, Natural Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park. In his own study, verifies his colleagues research. 2. Lower Density - He lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and served on the Board of Adjustment, similar to the Planning and Zoning Board. He observed tonight that the Board appeals to the applicant to do certain things that would mitigate development. He would like to see some changes in policy and wanted to know how to go about that process. Mr. Youngee in closing, sought wisdom of the Board in the decision -making process and the need for innovative ideas to be able to leave a legacy for the next generation, respecting the unique gift in natural environment Fort Collins has in this area. Mr. Fred Nittman - 1000 Scenic Drive, located across the street from the proposed development. He reflected on his children's comments about the increase of housing density. The children have concerns about crossing Shields to play with their friends and how they are going to get to school safely, because there is no sidewalk or crossing. There is not enough information to warrant RLP zoning. He said he wrote a letter to the editor and received calls from the public regarding location and density, documenting them. Before a decision is made, voter's opinion needs to be polled as to what their opinion is. He proposed that the decision be delayed for RLP and allow the City Council to essentially take the issue before the voters, create a task force of a broad range of individuals, within a short period of time --get the voters involved in the process. He was opposed to the RLP zoning. Mr. Fred Oldham - 1109 Hepplewhite Ct. in The Ridge - He opposed the RLP zoning. He was concerned about traffic generation to a dangerous intersection and a blind spot to the south, and 0 • • Planing & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 19 difficult hill and winter conditions to the north. He argued with all of the issues of preservation presented tonight and suggested that there will be a remand on the decision. He was not opposed to there being a development if it is done properly with great care and planning for impacts. Chair Clements addressed the question of inadequate notification to staff. She was aware of the City redesigning the signs. Ms. Whetstone said changes have been implemented from the Neighborhood Compatibility Study and LDGS, PUDs, and zonings with specific requirements for notification. Those requirements were met. The code requires the "old sign" for the rezoning. There was also concern about notification. The requirement for rezoning is the adjacent property owner is to be notified. In this case, everyone (within 500 feet) on the mailing list for the PUD were notified, which is more than required by code. Member Cottier said a number of neighbors have mentioned management plans for the Cathy • Fromme Natural Area. When will that occur? Mr. Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resource Division, stated that the plan is being looked at and currently being discussed. Karen Manci is also working on it. The plan should be done by this summer. A lot of issues need to be addressed. Member Cottier asked Ms. Whetstone if the surrounding neighborhood zoning is RLP9 Planner Whetstone said that is correct. She described in detail the surrounding zoning which is primarily RLP with PUD conditions. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the T-transition zone. Mr. Eckman said in the T-transition District, Section 329.423 of the Code: The owner of any property in the T-District may, at any time, petition the City to remove the property from this zoning district and place it in another zoning district. Any such petition shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered at the next regular meeting of such Board which is scheduled at least 15 days from the date the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Within 60 days from the date. The matter is considered by the Board, the City Council shall change the zoning for the property in question to another zoning district authorized under this chapter. is Mr. Eckman said the City Council has no option but to change the zoning under this code within 60 days of this meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 20 Member Strom made the motion to approve the RLP Zoning with a PUD condition. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Strom commented on the specific findings noted in the staff report on page 4, as key points. The Board does not have an option to delay. We don't have to zone it RLP necessarily, but have to provide some other zone. The key is the PUD condition on the motion. In response to Mr. Kulovaney's comments about the policies and criteria that the Board is directed to operate under, as well as the rest of the City, this is unique to the LDGS, i.e., the PUD condition. Without the PUD condition, there is no option to apply these regulations and criteria to deal with mandating conditions. Environmental issues will be addressed under this condition with 3-units per acre. If there is evidence presented in the context of reviewing a particular PUD, lower or, for that matter, higher densities would be considered on this particular piece of ground. He agreed with the comment that everything is not "on the table" at this time. The reality is the Board will deal with the development proposal. Member Strom further stated in response to Mr. Young's comments he felt frankly in sympathy over the concern of dealing with the land that is developed and use of herbicides. There are real hazards but not necessarily germane to the question of density. This is an issue needing a different approach. In terms of the Cathy Fromme area and the runoff, hazards associated with runoff. Raises questions and those issues will be looked at in the preliminary and will continue to do so as the development goes through the review process. Member Strom made a particular point with regard to the staff report from the Natural Resources Department and backed up by the Resource Advisory Board. Basically they have negotiated the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and have related to the Board it was purchased at sufficient size to provide sufficient buffering to the urban development. Whether that is agreed by the audience, this advisory board made the boundary decisions. If there is not enough space, then perhaps the City should look at buying a larger area. Member Winfree said she supported the things that Mr. Strom has said and would like to thank the people who took the time and energy to attend tonight's meeting that the motion for RLP does not mean that we have not heard your comments, but I never heard a comment for a suggestion for another type of zoning to place this property in. It cannot be placed in T- transition. The RLP is the most protective one for the neighbors in the surrounding area for input when the PUD comes before the Board. Member Cottier said she would be supporting the motion as well. The applicant has the right to get a zoning designation placed on the property and the RLP zone is consistent with other zoning in the area. She could understand the audience may feel frustrated because the Board is not addressing each issue tonight. But these comments need to be directed in response to a specific development proposal and we will be hearing those again from you. Some of the information may be new that was not presented at the earlier stages. Your objections to density • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 21 have to be in relation to a specific development proposal and that is not the decision made tonight. Member Strom also stated two additional things to the five findings in the staff report, one is Land Use Policy Plan #12; urban density residential development which usually encourages 3- units to the acre in the urban growth area. And the other is Land Use Policy #13; lesser densities should not be allowed in the urban growth area. The Board and staff know that I am a strong proponent for citizen involvement in these processes. He objects to issues raised about notification. If a person who has not been notified is present, they do have the opportunity to speak before the Board. Motion passed 5-0. Item 20 Annexation and Development Review Scheduling. Mr. Phillips read the staff report and recommendations to City Council. The order in which the City has accepted for property has been discussed at December 7 and December 21, where clear direction was given to staff that the majority of Council did not want future development • proposals reviewed or considered until the annexation and zoning process for the property under consideration is complete. The administrative policy was issued by the Planning Department and implemented. It is staff's opinion and City Attorney's Office it is appropriate for the City Council for formalizing the policy by amending the City Code. Member Cottier asked regarding land zoned T that "no development applications will be accepted until final Council approval is given." Is that consistent with the existing code which says if someone wants to do something in T if it is an extension of the existing use, they have to submit a development plan? Mr. Eckman said if they want to do something in T, they have to submit an application to get it out of T. Member Colder clarified point IA, under T, Uses Permit, it says "the owner of a property prior to meeting at which the zoning or rezoning is to be heard, shall submit a site plan showing, in reasonable detail, a site plan of the existing or proposed use of such property." She thought that was talking about the allowable things that could be done in a T. It is in the context of permitting an expansion of an existing use in a T. Mr. Eckman read from the Uses Permit section and made comment that it refers to expansion and that the Board is talking about actual development. If the Board is approving an actual PUD, or some development beyond just expanding the use beyond the use that was in the district . when it first came in, the Board would need to change the zoning to another district. Member Colder asked if an expansion would be considered for development? Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31. 1994 Page 22 Mr. Eckman said no. Chair Clements asked, "What does City Council see as current problems that the Board needs to change the way we do annexations and development review scheduling. Mr. Phillips said he believed the item you just finished and acted upon was the one that prompted this discussion on December 21, if he was not mistaken, where the Council took action which was different from the recommendation on zoning and put this property into T-transition rather than RLP zoning at this point in time and the PUD had already been given preliminary approval. There seemed to be some discomfort with the fact that in the opinion of some Council they felt the "Cart was somewhat before the horse." Chair Clements asked if this concern was just over one proposal? Mr. Phillips said he thought there were others as well, the REA annexation that came up December 7, which prompted similar discussion and he used the one tonight because it was most current. He didn't think that was the only one that prompted this issue. Member Cottier asked if there was any Council discussion about the benefits or lack of having an idea about what someone might be thinking about for their property at the time of request for zoning? We saw tonight that "everything was not out on the table" because we were not discussing the development proposal along with the zoning. In the Board's attempts to be open about what is going on in possible development proposal, do you think we might be taking a step backward with this sequence? Mr. Phillips said that was a very direct question and he wasn't sure he could give a direct answer to it. There has not been discussion, at least to this point that he has heard, of not allowing someone to discuss what proposed use might be applied on a property under consideration under consideration in order to justify zoning. He thought what he heard raises a concern at this point has been having a development plan in the process which may end up getting an approval at the Planning and Zoning Board level before the planning and zoning is completed. At the Council level, it seems to be the issue. Whether that is really the issue, he could not comment. Mr. Eckman stated that the process, he believed, ought to move from the general to the specific. If the zoning is general, then the PUDs are specific. To have a PUD in the process for the Board to approve before the zoning is in place, puts the Council in an unusual situation to have to rule on the development before they have even decided on the zoning. Member Cottier asked, "Why not do it after first reading then instead of final approval? Because Council, at that point, would have already made some recommendation with respect to suggesting a zoning for the property, typically." . Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 23 Mr. Phillips replied it is difficult to put himself in the position of answering for the Council. He believed he tried to respond to the direction they gave in drafting the ordinance, and instituting this policy. To this point we have heard no objection to the way it is being done so he is assuming what is proposed is in line with what was requested. Member Strom said what is the situation if someone, at the time of annexation, requests a different zone than T? Are we then the position of 60 days of the request, where the Council has to zone it something other than 17 The T designation is when the City or landowner is not sure of the designation of zoning. It doesn't allow any development. Mr. Eckman said that if the land owner request, lets say as in the Fossil Creek project, some zone other than T, then the Council can still put the property in something other than T zone, just as was done in the Fossil Creek property. The Council has that legislative ability because zoning is considered to be a legislative matter because they can decide what zone to put it in irrespective of what the applicant requests. The code then says, "The owner of any property in the T-District may at anytime may petition to remove it from the district, so that presupposes that it first got put in. It serves then to cause a delay to get it out, because this process goes into • play, the 15 days to hear from the Planning and Zoning Board and 60 days from the their decision to get it out of that zone. Member Strom said what he was trying to get a handle on was the time -frame. He asked since it takes two readings of an ordinance for annexation and zoning, once the requests is on the Council agenda, is it generally a month and then 75 days after before the zoning must be change? Mr. Eckman said it is difficult to pinpoint the days because the annexation and the zoning don't have to happen at the same time, the annexation, of course, has to happen before the zoning. But then the Annexation Act for the State of Colorado affords local governments 90 days to place it in any zoning district at all. Their is a possibility of a 90-day time frame there, in Fort Collins in our practice, we usually do those at the same time, or at least shortly thereafter and don't take the full 90 days. Assuming it is done contemporaneously, so you have the annexation, then the zoning ordinance, done at the same time. By the time you go through two readings and 10-day waiting period, you have roughly a month consumed. You have also the preliminary and first resolutions that the Council have to pass before the ordinance is even considered, add two more weeks. So there is at least 90 days there in addition to the 90 days that the State Statute allows for the Council to delay in the first instance. Member Collier asked about conceptual? Can someone come and talk about conceptual review about a project before the zoning is final. 0 Mr. Phillips said yes. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 24 CITIZEN INPUT, Mr. Eldon Ward with Cityscape Urban Design. He wrote a letter to the Board with his comments and highlighted planning considerations before this policy is changed. Mr. Ward stated the basis of the LDGS which is built upon the fact that land use decision can be better made to the review of the projected impacts of the specific development proposal. This is superior to the traditional method of considering zoning districts in the abstract without even being able to refer to specific impacts of a specific development. It leads routinely to the kind of hearing that was just concluded, where everybody really wants to talk about the development and what the impacts are. It has to be in the abstract and people what is the worst thing that can happen in this zone instead of a real proposal. That has been one of the best proposals of the LDGS and he stated that this proposal is headed in the wrong direction. He stated there is more planning required with annexations than less. He cited Longmont as an example that combine the process, and in Greeley and Denver. There are many properties around Fort Collins that are waiting to be annexed have and land use designation in the County. Once annexed, they have lost clear uses by right in the County. In the overlapping process, the developers have tried to schedule it so the Planning and Zoning Board sees the development plan between the first and second reading by City Council. That eliminates the awkward situation for City Council and still allows land use decisions to be made intended by the guidelines. He believed the delay counter -productive. He questioned whether we should be administratively enforcing an ordinance that hasn't even been presented yet and making it retro-active. In the past, when there has been changes in policy, it wasn't done in midstream with a sudden rule change. He urged the Board to look toward long-term planning as its focus and using the LDGS. Chair Clements asked if the letters submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board, be submitted to City Council with our decision this evening? Mr. Phillips said yes. Mr. Frank Vaught said he wanted to point out a specific case and looked at a lot of annexations recently that a single-family in nature, in large tracts because that is what is occurring today. As time begins to evolve and they come in as mixed -use areas, it is very difficult to determine any zoning lines when you are dealing with different types of zones within a single parcel without having some kind of overall development plan at a minimum to be looking at to define those boundaries. Those boundaries usually relate to circulation, traffic, access into a parcel, at a minimum consider a ODP at the time you are considering a annexation and zoning. Carl Glassier, Glassier Associates Architects - He read a brief statement in opposition to the ordinance. He stated agreement of comments of Mr. Vaught and Mr. Ward. There is a liberal annexation policy in place within the urban growth area, consequently, the annexation or property does little to inform the potential developer or the concerned citizen what the development potential is for the property. If there is not an acceptable match, the developer can • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 25 refrain from the annexation and the matter will simply die. This process avoids the annexation of property only to find the intended development is unacceptable to the concerned citizen and/or the City. The two processes, annexation and development plans are compatible and should not be required to be separated. Lucia Lily - Since most of the comments have already been stated. She recommended two changes to the ordinance as it is presently drafted. Most significantly, the Board needs to consider, perhaps requiring the first reading of the annexation and zoning be completed before the application comes back before the Board as a preliminary plan. Again, if you look at the delays that are potentially there in the system, for Fossil Creek, that is at least a six month zoning delay and if you add this on top of it, you are talking delays that truly make a difference in terms of dictating what people do in a development. Ms. Lily said her second issue was for the Board to get through the preliminary plan before the annexation and zoning. It does give developers some assurance of some hope of being approved and they are not clear off base. That is really crucial in regard to some developments coming in from the county. Some developments already have the existing developments on them; for example, the RA annexation in this Spradley-Barr proposal, where there are some valuable . alternatives in the county, a building permit can be pulled, various things can be done with an existing plan. The Board will need to make a decision based on that preliminary plan, as to whether you let the zoning and annexation go to a final approval. If you let the preliminary be approved without requiring that final, again you give some assurances both to the neighborhood and to the developer that they are on the right track. The Board needs to ask, what the risk is in doing that? If for some reason it isn't approved on final, the annexation and zoning, then you never get to the final PUD, it becomes a moot point. It seems to me the worst risk you take is that maybe you have wasted a little bit of review time, but there is another way to handle that without such a drastic step as this ordinance. She said the Board needs to make it real clear that when the first reading of annexation and zoning is complete, it is a real hearing because all the issues are on the table. There should be no surprises. That is a clear process and if the Council undertakes to analyze on first reading and everybody understands that is when you bring your issues in and bring them on the table. Ms. Lily thought it a rare occurrence upon a second reading. If you do, it is a moot point, the final will never happen --back to the drawing board. It seemed there was little risk but a lot of benefit in limiting this requirement to just a preliminary approval. Ms. Lily said that the State Statute permits that today. If you were a statutory city and you were going under State statutes, you would be allowed, once your annexation resolution is approved by the Council to immediately begin through the Council subdivision process. That is expressly permitted under State law. Ms. Lily final point was that making a change in this ordinance in expressly providing that it be applied prospectively and not retroactively. That is really a key thing and she is not arguing • if that is legally permissible to do that or not. This discussion has occurred with Deputy City Attorney Eckman and she agreed that the City can do whatever the law allows in that regard. She said she was arguing the equities of doing that. There are applicants that were ready to Planning & Zoning Hoard Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 26 come to the Board when suddenly the edict comes down that the process that you were advised was legal and appropriate by both the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office, riding them concurrently, is now not going to be allowed. The applicant is not even placed on the Planning and Zoning Board agenda, even though they have gone through their review. She believed that was not fair. She suggested that the Board recommend to the Council if this policy be put in place, those applicants that are already in the system and ready for your review be allowed to continue and that they set a cut off date for future applicants. Mr. Dick Jeffries - speaking for Associated Contractors for Northern Colorado and spoke in opposition to this ordinance. He wanted to address a process, the ordinance is a change in public policy. Historically the City of Fort Collins has been determined by a public process. While this may be this may have been given the definition of a public process, it has been somewhat of an abridged and shortened one. He believed if Council members or City staff have a problem with the way the planning system works, perhaps what we should do is sit down and work with the affected parties and find the process that works better and resolves some potential problems. He stated for the Associated Contractors that has not taken place in this case. There is concern about potential delays and perhaps those delays can be mitigated through more of an open public process to resolving this issue. The second concern is that the Planning and Zoning Board does a good job of doing what they are supposed to do. He said there was concern was that you have entered in with proposals that have qualifications. We see scenarios where annexations are approved with conditions and then the limits of what you are allowed to deal with would operate under those conditions. We see a lot of questions from the ordinance change than the issues they are trying to solve. He agreed with the previous comments on this issue. Hopefully your recommendation to City Council will have Council move forward with addressing this issue and a public process. What Associated Contracts would like to see is more of a Master Plan for the community which is based on neighborhood plans for the community — the comprehensive plan needs to be set first. Then from that if policy needs to be changed, that it will work in concert with the comprehensive plan. What we don't want you to do, is start changing policies now in a bunch of different directions and still not have what the community really needs and that is the comprehensive plan. Melanie Heim - Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce and Local Legislative Affairs Committee - Her comments did not intend to support or not support the proposal. What kind of public process has been implemented in terms of this policy change. She understood a letter has been sent to the PAI since some of the initial discussion in December. Is that correct, is that all that has been done? If so, in the spirit of open and fair government we do recommend a more formal process be implemented in terms of community forum or focus group. She appreciated that these processes take a longer time, but do believe they have shown effectiveness in terms of quality policy and in terms of cost of development study, planning fees, parkland fees. She thanked the city staff for taking time to work through public process. She asked the • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 27 Board to recommend to City Council that a public process be implemented prior to any formal decisions being made. More sufficient information is needed before decisions are made. She would appreciate being contacted if there will be a public forum on this issue. Chair Clements asked Ms. Heim what was PAI? Ms. Heim Potential Affected Interest. Member Strom asked if there was some form of notification sent out on this? Mr. Phillips said there was no notification of consideration by the Board tonight, other than the standard required notification of the meeting and the agenda. There was a memorandum mailed to all parties of interest in December pertaining to the administrative change in policy that took place at that time. Member Strom questioned if the memo was basically the Council's action and this is the ordinance that follows to put it into Statute? • Mr. Phillips said that is correct. Chair Clements said what effect do we have as Planning and Zoning Board in this process? Mr. Phillips said the Board is asked to make a recommendation to City Council pertaining to this ordinance. That recommendation can range along a continuum of approving or recommending approval of the ordinance the way it is drafted to recommending denial of the ordinance altogether or anything in between in the way of modifications that you would want to recommend. Chair Clements said she was concerned that when she sees something like this that our City Council is functioning as we do on the Planning and Zoning Board. If there is a problem perceived by staff, City Council that it needs to be addressed appropriately. She did not feel it has been addressed appropriate. The process seems to be backwards. The Board's input has not been asked for until now. Relatively few persons have been able to give input into the process. She was still uncertain as to what City Council perceives the problem is and what it is they are trying to accomplish by the ordinance. She said, as Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board, it is her responsibility to deal with issues such as this and that responsibility is being taken out of her hands and out of the Board's hands. She was puzzled as to what effect, if any, as a Board will be able to have on this ordinance. Member Strom was concerned from a different standpoint. He really thought there were some • good points made in terms of the planning advantages to having a plan for a piece of ground, Planning & Zoning Hoard Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 28 and not every zoning nor annexation will have that, but when they do and have something in mind for a piece of ground, it seems to make no sense at all to him to keep them from entering that into the discussion process. He thought it was the policy for the City for years to get the people involved and get information out on the table to see if it makes sense. What this approach does is to cut off information that could be and is very useful to the process. He thought it was a mistake. He further commented that there were articulate spokes people from the development side who need to sit down and discuss with homeowners if this really does make sense before it is implemented. If this is an attempt to slow down the process, if it is, he preferred to go about it directly. This is the time it takes to go through the process to completion. Chair Clements said if there were problems with annexations and review scheduling, the Board wishes to address them. If they are to be addressed, allow everyone the opportunity to come to the "table" so that we can ascertain a more effective way to do our review scheduling. Does the process need to be longer or shorter. There are a lot of unanswered questions to jump into changing the ordinance. She agreed with Member Strom and Ms. Heim for public process to address this issue. Member Cottier stated her appreciation of Mr. ward's comments made regarding the planning reasons for keeping our process essentially the way it is now. She thought the City would lose a lot if it were changed this way. She also agreed with the idea if it were enacted, it should not be enacted retro-actively. She believed it was a real departure from the policies that have been normally followed and did not think it fair. She believed it was a specific reaction of Council to two proposals the Fossil Creek and REA; and it was interesting a council persons' view in an editorial today as to not having a crisis approach in dealing with these. She believed this stop -gap thinking exhibits little forethought, this is a crisis decision that will not accomplish much. She hoped that if Council does go ahead with this that they would consider letting a development proposal proceed such that preliminary can be heard after the initial zoning consideration, rather than waiting after final zoning. Member Klataske commented that this was a "knee-jerk" reaction to a few things coming before the Board, Fossil Creek and Spradley-Ban proposals. These are politically sensitive issues for City Council, this request show they want to have more control. He felt it was an inappropriate reaction to the proposals before the Board. what has been found effective is the LDGS, it has worked, he has been on the Board for eight years, and after comments may not be much longer, but this has worked. There have been numerous proposals that were controversial and the public has had adequate opportunity to speak before and there have been numerous changes that have made a much better community. He would hate to see the public process circumvented to the point it becomes a real political thing instead of having the Planning and Zoning Board that knows the process, knows the procedure, knows what the citizens want as has been documented by all the different neighborhood plans and LDGS, etc. He thought this particular ordinance would circumvent a lot of input from the public. • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 29 Member Winfree state that the proposal will cause the Board to make land use decisions and recommendations for annexation to Council without having all the information available without all the information available to base those decisions. For that reason, primarily, she was not willing to support this as it reads now. Member Strom said that the Board has to do something. To a certain extent, it is within the Council's purview if they want to be a "super planning and zoning board". He made a motion to propose a resolution to the effect that the Board thinks that there is some real value to the process as it has gone on before and see danger in the approach that has been taken in cutting off information that is valuable to the process in early stages of the discussion. As a consequence, we would recommend the Council initiate a discussion process to reevaluate this policy,bringing together from the development community and from homeowner's associations and whoever else might be interested, to open up discussion and "hash out" the issue. Then they should come back to the Board and Council with a recommendation on how best to do this. Member Klataske seconded the motion with the condition to review it to see if it is even necessary. • Member Strom had intended that as part of his motion that the community be brought together to review the issue and come up with a recommendation how best to approach it. What he understands that is currently before us is a revised administrative policy that has been imposed by the Council. N we do nothing, we have that policy in effect as he understood it. He recommended bringing folks together to evaluate the policy if it is the way we want to go for the planning process in Fort Collins. Member Klataske seconded this segment to the motion. Member Cottier asked if there should be a clear statement as to whether or not this should be applied before there is a firm decision on what the process should be. Member Strom said he would be more than happy to have the motion amended. Member Cottier said then, the Board recommends the existing administrative policy be rescinded. Member Strom said or at least held in abeyance until there has been some public process. Member Klataske said that is acceptable. • Chair Clements said that there is a concern and a good concern that we tend to "study things to death" and that we get this going and there is a two-year study period and nothing gets done. The City Council could certainly put a time constraint on that this group of people get to get Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 30 together for a 3-6 month period of time then come back. It is not an issue that will be that controversial that we will need two years to study it. For the record state that City Council can put a time constraint on it that they feel would be an effective amount of time for this proposed group to get together and discuss this issue. Member Strom said to go a step further and asked staff their thoughts for the length of time need to get this accomplished. Mr. Phillips said it is hard to say, he hoped it could be done in 90-120 days, depending on how often the group is willing to meet. If they are willing to meet twice a month, it could be less than that perhaps. He thought three meetings should be able to pin things down pretty well, so it could happen in 60 days if the group is willing to meet that often. There is a lot of issues on the plate as well. Member Strom said something of this nature he had hoped would take a great deal of staff time. It is mainly a matter of discussion and negotiation of what is at risk and what is to be gained. He amended the motion with the approval of the second, that 90 days be targeted. If that can't be done and the Council thinks otherwise, it is up to them to change it. Member Klataske said that is acceptable. Motion passed 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. No Text