Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/15/1993! 0 . PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 15, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The November 15, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene` Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Members Jim Klataske and Bernie Strom were absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark in Planning Director Tom Peterson's absence, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Kate Malers, Ken Waido and Carolyn Worden. 11 AGENDA REVIEW Planner Clark reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes oI 'September 27, October 25 and November 1, 1993; Item 2 Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD - Overall Development Plan, #66-93A; Item 3 - Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #66-93; Item 4 - Miramont PUD, Tennis & Fitness Center - Preliminary, #54-87K; Item 5 - Save-Mor Self Storage PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final; Item 6 - Raintree . Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A; Item 8 601-603 Mathews Street POD., Preliminary and Final, #68-93; Item 9 - A Big A Storage PUD, Final, #57-93A; Item 10 - Resolution PZ93-14 Access Easement Vacation; Item 11- Resolution PZ93-15 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 12 - Resolution PZ93-16 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 13 - Modification of Conditions of Approval. Planner Clark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 15 - Summer -hill PUD . Final, #41-93A; Item 17 - Brookside Village at Rock Creek PUD - Preliminary, #16-89E; Item 19 - Spring Creek Farms Third (English Ranch ODP) - Amended Overall Development Plan, #75-86K; Item 20 English Ranch Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary, #75-86L; Item 21 - Harmony Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #65-93; Item 22 - Harmony Crossing PUD - Preliminary, #65-93A; Recommendation to Council Item 23 - Amendment to the N-C-M Zone, #37-90. Planner Clark stated there were requests for the N-C-M Zone to be moved up earlier in the Discussion Agenda by several residents. Chair Clements asked Attorney Eckman if it would be appropriate for the Board to change the agenda. Attorney Eckman replied if it was the pleasure of the Board, however, it would take a vote of the Board. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 2 Item 6 was requested from the audience to be pulled from the consent agenda, The Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final l/42-93A. Chair Clements indicated to staff that copies of October 25 and November 5, 1993, minutes were not included in Board packets. Planner Clark said to remove those two meeting minutes from the motion to be accepted at the December meeting. Member Fontane moved to approve the Consent Agenda without the October 25 and November 5, 1993, minutes and without Item 6 - Raintree Townhomes PUD Final - k42- 93A. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Chair Clements entertained a motion of the Board to change the Discussion Agenda of the N-C- M Zone to the beginning with the understanding that Item 6 from Consent would be addressed first. Member Winfree had a concern there may be members from the neighborhood who thought the item was going to be last who may not be present. She asked if there were any in the audience who knew. Steven Swartz - 627 Whedbee - He commented that there were a number of residents present unaware the item was positioned last and had arranged babysitters and probably would have to leave before it came up if it were kept last. Chair Clements asked for a show of hands (over a dozen from the audience). She commented that those viewing the meeting at home would need to consider coming now if they wanted to personally attend to comment on the N-C-M. She asked for more concerns. Member Winfree said staff had informed her that several people had called the planning office and were told it was last. Chair Clements indicated that the Board usually takes a break at 8:30 p.m. to allow citizens who were told it was the last item time to arrive. Member Cottier moved that the N-C-M zone be moved to fast part of the Discussion Agenda but after Item 6 - Raintree. . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 3 Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. RAINTREE TOWNHOMEPUD FINA #42 9 A Margaret Fillmore - 2337 S. Shields - Mrs. Fillmore owns the residential property closest to this location. She has spoken to Steve White and also Kirsten Whetstone about the sewer lines for the project. She understands the sewer connection will be run down the street from Raintree and Shields and that Mark Taylor had recommended that it not be placed under mature landscaping and this is our property. We would like to go on record as stating this project, or ones that might occur, we would object to any sewer or utility lines being run over our property thus destroying our mature landscaping, blue spruce and septic systems. Planner Whetstone said her understanding was that the sewer line needed to serve this property will be brought down through the Shields Street right-of-way and that the other properties that are not developed in the area will have access to that sewer line. Therefore, there should be no . need for sewer easements to come across that property. Don Toronto commented the service line would not be a potential disruption and the properties would tie from the west. Member Fontane moved to approve Item 6 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, Member Walker seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. AMENDMENT TO THE N- —M ZONE - #37-90 Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff report and presented applicable slides. After the report was given he stated that the P & Z Board has received a memo from the Affordable Housing Board to have a further opportunity to discuss the amendment to zoning voted to delay decision until December 1993, and will at that time give a report to the Board. Planner Waido has received only 20 phone calls concerning this project, 9 in favor, 7 in opposition and 4 asking information. The staff has received several letters and they are fairly split, some in favor and some in opposition to the increase. Planning and Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 4 Member Walker asked for clarification with the issue of design guidelines, are they part of the package. Mr. Waido said they are included in the Neighborhood Plans and some type of design guidelines would be appropriate for these areas given the historical nature of some of the area. Even if some of the areas are not appropriate for historic preservation, the design characteristics of architecture in existing structures are required to be similar to the neighborhood in the proposed new developments. Member Cottier asked for clarification of secondary structures, all or just residential. Mr. Waido said the only uses allowed in the N-C-M zone are residential. A PUD process would have to be used to get a non-residential use. Member Cottier asked if a garage be considered a secondary structure that would no longer be allowed. Mr. Waido said no, a garage is an "accessory use" to the principal structure. CITIZEN INPUT Steven Swartz - 627 Whedbee - He is a nine-year resident and lives a few houses down from 651 Whedbee where the structure was built. He read a short statement to the Board from a petition that had been circulating among the neighbors. "In 1991, our properties have been rezoned from RM, medium residential to N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. As a result of this change, residents were supposed to be able to add small mother-in-law units to their homes without applying for variances. What has, in fact, happened is that landlords are starting to build large rental units in back yards. Now that the minimum lot size needed for construction is only 4,500 square feet instead of 6,000 square feet as a result of the zoning change, structures up to 3,000 square feet can be erected depending upon the size of the existing home on the lot. Duplexes are permissible also. The building currently going up at 651 Whedbee Street, which takes up the entire backyard of the house on that corner is the result of this zoning change. We, as residents of this neighborhood, request that the City Council and Planning Department reverse this zoning change so that such structures be prohibited in the future. We consider our backyards just that, yards, not open space for development. The historic character of the neighborhood will be fundamentally changed if such development is allowed to be continue and amenities of the area and older homes, established vegetation, and yards for play and relaxation will vanish unless the zoning code is immediately amended." Mr. Swartz further stated that: (1) I do not believe what happened at 651 Whedbee is the intent of the Eastside Plan. One shoe of the plan has been dropped which was to lower the minimum i Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 5 square footage to 4,500 square, but have not dropped the other shoe which was to have to have a review process and guidelines for which structures are erected. The structure that went up at 651 Whedbee was modeled on a 5-car ambulance garage, it is an "eyesore" that does not belong nor fit into the neighborhood; (2) There are finite resources for the Old Town area of the City of Fort Collins and our request is not about keeping rental units out of the neighborhood. He stated he lives on a block with 24 homes, 5 are fully rental units, 6-10 basements are rental units. That is a high percentage of rentals in one block and it is attractive. This block percentage of rentals is probably a higher percentage than the new structure at 651 Whedbee. This structure does not fit into the neighborhood and exists because the zoning change was made to 4,500 square feet. Kevin Colby - 715 Smith Street - Mr. Colby had the following questions for Planner Waido: (1) What is the approximate percentage of lot sizes of 9,500 square feet in the N-C-M zone? (2) Was there any architectural input in the process that led to the construction of the structure at 651 Whedbee. • He stated that he appreciated the efforts done on the Eastside/ Westside neighborhood plans and the Comprehensive Plans and would like to preserve the character of the residential neighborhood that he resides. In brief, he would support the recommendation that the minimum lot size be increased to 6,000 square feet as an interim measure, contingent on the architectural design guidelines being developed, if the density limitation is appropriate. Sandy Hewlett- 645 Whedbee - Neighbor to the 651 Whedbee structure and a resident for 20 years. She is very saddened over the cutting of 60-85 foot pine trees to build this structure and over the loss of wildlife refuge. A one-story structure would be more preferable. She has investigated moving from the neighborhood and has had consultation that the value of her home has gone down as a single residence and probably has gone up in value as a rental. Her desire would to not increase density use for her home and supports the area's historic preservation. As she understands, the existing structure was to an addition to an existing garage, which now serves as the living room. She stated that there is only one wall left of that structure to make it acceptable to code, it is within the five-foot allowance from the property line, approximately 30 feet high, with a 3-car garage on the bottom along with living room and kitchen, and there are two bedrooms and a bath upstairs. She is not acquainted with the process of planning review, but felt this structure is inappropriate in location and appearance. The location of this structure has changed the habitation and environment of her yard. David Shill - 605 Whedbee - He is a resident of 7 years and rents his basement as an apartment. He is concerned about: (1) Increased density in the neighborhood. He believed would increase • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 6 student population and associated problems. He has disagreement that increasing density would have a positive impact in regard to air, traffic, and noise pollution issues, the opposite would occur; (2) The water and sewer systems. He wanted to know about the plans for water and sewer since the existing could not service more density; (3) Police protection. He was concerned about a loss of personal protection to the residents as well as increase in crime; (4) Loss of Neighborhood Compatibility. .The architectural appearance of the existing neighborhood needs to be considered when new structures are created. (He used Boulder as a community model that has failed in planning.) What do we want for Fort Collins 20 years from now?; (5) He felt there would be a reversal of the Gentrification effect that we have in the neighborhood. A lot of us have spent a lot of effort and money in bring these houses; (6) He requested a repeal of the plan. His closing comments were concerning the changing of the zoning in this area to prevent further encroachment of structures. Delphine Lopez - 229 N. Sherwood St. - She has been a resident of this address over 40 years and has lived in Fort Collins all of her life. She was impartial in her views about the future development but her concerns were: (1) Is there a limit of the types of larger structures going in, (2) Is there adequate services and utilities for these developments, and (3) Are more children coming in and concern about more crime. Karyl Ting - 720 Peterson St. - She has owned this house since 1980 and there are a few points to make. She appreciated Mr. Waido's efforts and has had previous discussion with him. She had concerns of impact of Eastside and Westside plans. While the lot size was reduced, the design plan for the structures was not implemented. She was concerned about the Laurel School District which is the only nationally registered site in Fort Collins at this time. She is currently undergoing a lot of remodeling and has dealt with the Landmark Committee here and Carol Tunner, as well as the State Historical Society. She found it a great irony that the State was much more concerned about the design plans for neighborhoods than the local committee was. The real estate market in Fort Collins currently is experiencing an increase in value of property and rental pressure which leaves us open to exploitation. She stated she would like to see the historical neighborhood preserved. She further stated the entire plan needed review. Arvin Loavas - 304 E. Myrtle St. - He has resided at this address for 34 years. He has seen a lot of growth over the years. He had believed the eastside and westside zoning was to protect residential values. Sandy Hendrickson - 1636 W. Stuart - She is a 6-year resident from Dubuque, Iowa, where 40- 50 percent of the town is on historic preservation list. The people work very hard to preserve Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 7 every historic home in that town and she was expecting the same thing in Fort Collins. She believed the Board should listen to the residents and protect the "old town". When it is gone and turned into college apartments, you cannot reclaim it or turn it back. Ernie McQuiddy - 421 E. Laurel - He resides across from 651 Whedbee for 11 years and worked on the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. He believed the intent of the plan has not be realized with conforming structures to the neighborhood (mother-in-law apartments). He moved into the neighborhood because of its character. Because the design guidelines are to be developed, the neighborhood is changed in character by structures such as 651 Whedbee allowed in zoning. He appreciated Mr. Waido's willingness to put on hold any more development such as this so a comprehensive look the design guidelines. He restated this structure does not represent the intent of the plan. R. D. Lakin - 405 Scott St. - He had concerns over the construction at 651 Whedbee. He had concerns over the implementation of the plan and the intent for its design. He felt had a member been on the P & Z Board that lived in the neighborhood, there were be more concern for the residents. He made a request of the Board to respond in writing. ' Kate Malers - 518 Peterson St. - She indicated she was not against multi -family zoning, but wanted the Board to look at other alternatives to increase density in the neighborhood in an attractive manner. When structures such as 651 Whedbee are allowed, there is permanent damage to the historic character of the neighborhood and further damage needs to be avoided. She supported the change to a lower lot size. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements asked what is the percentage of lots of 9,500 feet in the N-C-M Zone? Mr. Waido replied he didn't have the exact figure but would estimate more than 50 percent, but less than 75 percent, of the lots in the older neighborhood. Chair Clements asked if Staff had a picture of 651 Whedbee and was there any architectural input for design. Mr. Waido replied no. The Planning Department was not involved in reviewing the building permit, though an architectural rendering had to be submitted, for the building permit, reviewed only for zoning characteristics, height, setback and so forth. The angles and the character of the building were not within the preview of the Zoning Departments review. Chair Clements asked if Staff was concern about load on the utility system. Planning and Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Waido said representatives of the utility departments were involved in the plan on the Eastside. At no time during the development of the plan or the processing of the plan through various departments, and ultimate recommendations to the Board and onto Council, was there indication that the systems did not have the capacity to serve the types of land uses that were being proposed. Chair Clements asked if there was a density limit in this area? Mr. Waido yes there is a density limit in the N-C-M zone. The largest multi -unit structure is a 4-plex and that needs a minimum 6,000 square foot lot, but in all cases the lot has to be twice the floor area of the structure. There is a two -square feet of lot area for every one -square foot of floor area, floor to lot size ratio which is in the current N-C-M zone. Chair Clements had a concern about "pop-up" houses between two homes. She asked if this was addressed in the plan. Mr. Waido replied the review processes allowed in the N-C-M zone indicated that a 2-family dwelling in an existing structure can be converted to a duplex providing no structural additions or alterations are made to that structure. It is a "use by right" that only needs to obtain a building permit in order to proceed under the minimum lot size that is 4,500 square feet. It was put into the zoning as a strong encouragement to use existing structures for increasing residential density. New duplexes require P & Z Board review with a 4,500 square foot lot size. Member Cottier asked if the restrictions as they exist now, the lot must be two times the square footage floor area? Mr. Waido said yes with an absolute minimum, using an example of a 1,000 square foot homes needing a 4,500 square foot lot. Member Cottier asked if a 4,500 square foot lot could have a structure that was 2,250 square feet? Mr. Waido said yes.. Member Cottier felt that the Board should look at definitions for these structures. Member Fontane asked for further information on the details of the existing garage that was changed to a residence. Mr. Waido said the building permit was issued in conformance to the UBC for the City of Fort Collins and had to address all the criteria, including the fire code, within that code, whether they 0 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 9 use an existing wall or not. The City Council has put on their policy agenda an item to look at the concept of differing requirements for redevelopment, it has not gone through process and analysis, but it is planned in the next two years. Member Walker asked if Mr. Waido's recommendation was to raise the lot size to 5,000 square feet as a moratorium until design guidelines can be established? Mr. Waido said if the Board would like to make the recommendation for a moratorium they could, it was an option that was not considered in the staff report. Presently, the plan does not prohibit secondary structures to be built on back lots. Member Cottier asked how many instances in the past 12 months are you aware of adding secondary structures? Mr. Waido said he knew of two. Member Cottier asked if there were 10,000 square foot lots on the eastside or westside of the N-C-M zone? Mr. Waido said he was sure there were, but did not know how many or where they were located. Member Winfree asked about the design guidelines for the neighborhood plans in regard to completion. Mr. Waido said it was in the work program for 1994, slated to start March 1994 to be completed by the end of the year. Chair Clements commented on the Mathews Street project came to the Board as a PUD. The 651 Whedbee came in under zoning and that is why it isn't as architecturally compatible as the Mathews Street Project. Chair Clements asked if the design guidelines had been accepted for the N-C-M zone, would it have solved the problem? Mr. Waido said had the design guidelines been in place, it would not have prohibited the structure, but the characteristics would more resemble the homes within the neighborhood. Chair Clements said that the Affordable Housing Board asked if the Board would postpone our decision until next month. Is that because they have not had a chance to review it? Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Waido said it has been briefly discussed at their last meeting and is on their discussion agenda November 29. Their concern stems from a recommendation which was made to the Council by the Land Planning Mini -Task Force which was reviewing ways to implement the City's new Affordable Housing Policy. That recommendation is to change the zoning code to allow two detached dwellings with reduced lot size requirements on a single lot in certain districts. They feel this is a key component to helping implement affordable housing policy and the change in zoning of the N-C-M looks contrary to the recommendation on the surface and they would like an opportunity to review the implications of the lot size reduction. Member Walker commented that the Board is making only a recommendation to City Council regarding N-C-M. He was distressed about the process and said there was tremendous failure in neighborhood planning. Our LDGS was not referred and perhaps the destruction of the trees and the design of the building would have been impacted. His concern was not to have further structures permitted as at 651 Whedbee. Member Walker moved that there should be a moratorium on secondary residential structures in the N-C-M zones on the east and west sides until such time design guidelines are implemented for such considerations. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Collier said she did not know how easy it was to implement or what justification is needed. She thought a rezoning is not technically appropriate. It does not meet all our criteria when we do a rezoning and when it is legitimate, it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. She agreed that the rezoning has not worked because the design guidelines were not implemented. She hoped that when a moratorium is in effect, the design guidelines would be addressed as soon as possible. She said a message should be sent to the Affordable Housing Board that this should be moved up on their priorities and not wait until 1994 to deal with if if there is concern. Chair Clements questioned if a time frame be set in place because the motion contained a moratorium. Mr. Eckman said a moratorium is justifiable when the City Council perceives there is a clear and present threat to the welfare of the neighborhood or the city generally and that matters have to be ceased until Council can address these issues through some new legislation. The length of time of a moratorium should really depend upon the resources of the City and the complications the staff receives in solving the problem. However, there is a limit that a moratorium can exist before it becomes unreasonable. There have been cases that support a 6- month moratorium, a year -moratorium, beyond that he would need to research further. This time frame is legitimate. He wasn't sure if the Board or staff have sufficient information • . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 11 available to advise the Board as to how long it would take for these design guidelines to be developed in a complete format to be presented to the Council. Perhaps it should be left for the Council to decide after staff has had a chance to give Council input. Member Cottier asked if the Board is recommending to Council they adopt a moratorium and Council could adopt this re -zoning change. Mr. Eckman said that the Board is making a recommendation to Council only. Member Walker commented his sense of a time line is performance based, when the design guidelines are implemented, then the moratorium would come off. The original plan was set up with two criteria, one of which is not implemented. This has caused failure to our neighborhoods and needs to be corrected at this time. The motion passed 5-0. SUMMERHILL PUD - FINAL - #41-93A • Planner Steve Olt gave the staff report and recommendation to the Board. Applicant Eldon Ward gave a presentation and reported the discussion among neighbors of the area. He believed there were no new issues raised that were not part of the staff review and P & Z Board original review when the preliminary was approved in August. We would, therefore, request that the Board approve the reduction in density to allow a transition between the higher density to the east and west rather than the existing Underhill plan. Member Walker asked how "The Bridges," a higher density plan area, would be characterized. Mr. Ward recalled it was in the 14 units per acre range. The Summerhill is 9-1/2 units per acre. There are tandem parking spaces available in this new plan. CITIZEN INPUT Sandy Hendrickson - 1636 W. Stuart - She is a resident of the Prospect -Shields neighborhood. She is not totally opposed to the development, but there are a few concerns: (1) the impact of 68 condominiums squeezed into so small an area, (2) the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins, as amended in 1990: "protection of open and green spaces important in neighborhoods and protection and maintenance of environment and restriction of growth encroaching upon open space areas," and (3) as discussed at the June 30 meeting, wildlife • open space area south of the New Mercer Ditch. One presenter indicated that the use of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 12 open space as overflow condo resident activities was valid." She said this kind of thinking undermines the value of the struggle for the past 3 years where hundreds of residents campaigned to establish this area as a wetlands and wildlife habitat. This attitude does not well represent the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan to protect wetlands open space and wildlife refuge areas within the city limits from encroachment. It is time for developers to be more responsible for the planning of internal open space areas for their residents, instead of expecting local parks and natural open spaces to be available for unsupervised babysitting and dog runs. The Summerhill PUD project would be compatible to the area if its density level of 68 units would be reduced to 4 or 8 units to allow for internal open spaces which the residents can use for routine outdoor activities, instead of negatively impacting the natural open space south. The other concern is the future make-up of the entire Prospect -Shields area. Project planners are looking at this area as individual parcels rather than seeing it as a whole. At this time it seems that the plan is to turn all remaining parcels of open land into high -density condo projects which will greatly impact the value and make-up of present single-family residential neighborhoods in this area, it will tax existing facilities like the Rolland Moore Park and the Spring Creek bike trail, increase traffic congestion at the convergence of these two streets. Although I would like to see a veto of all projects in this area, it would be unrealistic. It is not unrealistic to hope developers would practice civic virtue and work with us for the common good of the area by reducing the density of the units in proposals and helping preserve the open residential characteristics of the neighborhoods. Hugh Hammond - 1505 Skyline Dr. - He appreciated the opportunity to be heard. He has lived in the area for 20 years and believes the project will increase the rental population and generate a burden on our streets, schools, etc. The 68-units are planned to be family units, but he believed that they would be occupied by students, increasing the population of drivers and traffic. He stated that there were more open areas along Prospect and would like to see planning for low -density structures. Marjorie Clyma - 1405 Skyline Dr. - She agreed with previous comments regarding high density. She had some concerns regarding landscaping planted on the land joining Prospect to cut down on the noise that will be generated. She questioned what the builders have done in the last two years in the area of building on this property. Greg McMaster - 1409 Skyline Dr. - He indicated he had met with Mr. Ward at a neighborhood meeting and wanted to address some of the ideas from that meeting. (1) Preliminary Approval was rendered invalid by the Board because of improper notification. He sensed there was no movement directed to alleviating concerns that have been expressed. He stressed the number of existing multi -family buildings and their impact in regard to the character of the neighborhood. (2) He agreed that the proposed project is better than what had previously been planned. He felt the density proposed is still too high. (3) He believed that this project would have an obvious impact on the traffic in the area. (4) Parking was also believed to be Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 13 insufficient for the number of units. The sentiment in the area is that the development of the neighborhood is still too high in density for the existing area. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements addressed the concerns of the citizens with regard to open space and natural areas and how this project will impact these areas. Has Natural Resources been working with planning staff on this project and have their concerns been addressed? Planner Olt stated Natural Resources was involved in the review process from the outset. They had no concerns other than maintaining a public access to the area. There are unknowns as to how the residents will use this access to the open space until it is in place. Because of its natural undeveloped state, it will not be utilized in the same manner as planned and developed open spaces. Natural Resources did not feel this open space area would be impacted adversely. Chair Clements further asked about the planned landscaping on Prospect to buffer homes across the street. Mr. Ward replied the approach that is being taken rather than a solid fence or wall, there will be small walled -in patio areas behind the units, then berming and landscaping beyond that. What is proposed is more intense than what was done at the Bridges, for example. The noise concern is from Prospect, rather, than noisy residents. The planning staff and City Forester have reviewed these plans with satisfaction. Member Winfree asked what the setback was from the sidewalk to the buildings. Mr. Ward stated that it was increased from the old PUD and is between 25 and 30 feet from the back of the walk to the buildings. Mr. Ward wanted to clear up a technical question regarding the statement that the Preliminary Approval was rendered invalid. It was his understanding that the notification which had been provided had some errors and the developer agreed to have another neighborhood meeting to have questions reopened that are restricted to a preliminary plan. Does that make the preliminary approval invalid? Attorney Eckman recalled there was much discussion of inadequacy of notification and Mr. Ward, on behalf of his client, agreed to waive any rights that might have arisen in regard to layout and density of the plan. The residents concerned would not have issue with regard to notice but that other issues pertaining to this plan were available for discussion of substantive issues, including layout and density. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 14 Chair Clements said there has been a proposal to put together a proposal for a neighborhood plan for the planning department, if so when will that begin? Planner Clark answered that there is a neighborhood plan and background work for development of an attitude survey underway. She addressed Mr. McMasters that the study area includes his neighborhood, issues with respect to density in the Prospect -Shields area will be addressed and opportunities for citizen input. The anticipated time -frame for that project is for the survey to go out early December to return in two weeks, prior to students leaving the community because there is need to get input from students living in the area. After the first of the year, the data analysis and public participation efforts would be started. Chair Clements said Mr. Hammond had concerns regarding plans for areas that are vacant parcels of land, indicating there will be an overall plan for the area including his neighborhood for public input. Member Walker commented on the density of the project and future project plans. He noted the project was an anchor point for multi -family density, because on the east side of Shields, it remains mainly residential, with some vacant lots. The open space areas along the importation canal serve as a buffer, will have other multi -family projects planned for development. He believes it is important to plan well for the mitigation with citizens and developers in future proposals. He felt a positive attribute of the project is the plan to use the open space adjacent to the site. He mentioned 204 bedrooms added to this part of town, and is germane to how they are rented. The project is in compliance and provides transition in its location, but careful planning is needed for future development locations along South Shields. Member Cottier moved for approval of Summerhill Final and will make further comments if the motion is seconded. Member Fontane seconded the motion and stated she agreed that it is in a location highly taxed for use, but pointed out that multi -family exists on two sides and an arterial on the north side. It has open space on the south side, these are all important to have for this type use, it is a good design and merits approval. Member Cottier commented the plan is consistent with preliminary plan as an infrll project and city policies direct the Board that it is appropriate to have higher densities, specifically it is important to have higher densities in these areas because of the proximity to CSU and because proximity to employment centers and its location on an arterial. This is not likely an appropriate location for single family with the multi -family on both sides. It is an improvement over the existing approval, and is a reasonable plan with open space accessed for the entire neighborhood and residents of Fort Collins. These are reasons for approval on final. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 15 Member Winfree commented that because the Board moves for approval of this project does not mean that citizen input is not heard or there is no care about the concerns. As a member of the Board, each development is judged by the LDGS. As a guide, LDGS states that this is a project appropriate for the area, therefore, she supported the motion. Chair Clements asked for point of clarification if the motion included the condition. Member Colder stated that it did. Chair Clements also restated that city policies are given through the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) that requires the Board to measure these proposals. No where in the LDGS does it (a) say we can look at populations, such as students, and (b) say that the. Board can arbitrarily determine that there is enough density in the area and that this project cannot go through, that power is not the Board's. The LDGS approved by City Council is used to help the Board members guide decisions. She supported the motion. Motion. carried 5-0. 0 BROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK ELMNARY #16-89 Planner Shepard read the staff report and recommended approval. He stated that a neighborhood planning information meeting had been held and the minutes of that meeting were in the Board's packets. As a result of that meeting, the staff has added two more conditions to the plan, the first that the rezoning be passed by Council. The other two conditions are in regard to fencing and discharge of flows to a detention area. There will be a slide presentation. Mr. Eldon Ward gave a presentation of the plans and changes, since the neighborhood meeting. He mentioned that the T-transition zoning will be considered by Council in December. Within the ODP, the only issue needing further discussion is the relationship along the south property line. He described in detail the characteristic of the adjoining border to the south of the development and showed related slides, stated that most existing homes are over 1,000 feet away from the proposed new development. Some revisions to the plan have been made: (1) a redesign of a cul-de-sac, (2) one less home, to realign to Timberline, (3) there is no conflict with staff's conditions stated in their report to the Board. He described the creation of a swale along the rear lot line to collect the new development drainage and overflow to convey it the east. The proposal is to offset it to the fence. To put the concern of drainage overflow to rest, the developer agrees to convey the flows and a fence that will allow that to happen and to allow access from the south to the swale. He demonstrated other successful plans for drainage in other 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 16 developments in the community. The question of moving the drainage was not an acceptable alternative because of costs and the loss of density to the plan. The use and density, three units to the acre, is in compliance with LDGS and felt the neighbors concerns were addressed. CITIZEN INPUT Bill Slimak - 2522 E. County Road 36 - His property backs up to the south side of the development. He thanked the staff and developer for the meeting to have neighborhood input. He used slides to convey his concerns for drainage and adequacy of the detention. He spoke for Gary Putnam with regard to relocation of the ditch, the grade and the relocation angle the ditch would require. He stated his stand was that it could be relocated, would be better for the City storm drainage and felt it should be explored as a viable option for relocation. Shawn Hoff - 2224 E. County Road 36, Lot 1 of County Subdivision of Blehm - He stated he was neighbor to Gary Putnam. He showed slides of the property and drainage ditch. The irrigation pattern has been established for over 100 years. He mentioned the Blehm Water Association is aware of all the water uses and process of recycling water within the subdivision. He expressed his desire not to lose the water rights on this subdivision for agricultural irrigation uses. Also he was concerned for possible liability of flooding new resident's basements from irrigation runoff. He illustrated a sample of a swale where urban and agricultural uses interfaced. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements restated concern about road improvements and what the time line would be. Mike Herzig, City Engineer, stated there are group designs by developers being made who are working with the City and one consultant producing the design. The development will proceed ahead of the design for the road. The City's concerned with what can be built within the developments without having Timberline Road completed: (1) make sure the impact will not tear up the existing road which is less than standard and (2) make sure the developer's obligation is taken care of making the improvements that they. are obligated along Timberline. As the development plans are completed, there will be a lag of the Timberline plans, they will be separate. Chair Clements asked about storm drainage issues. Are they addressed in the development agreement. Mr. Herzig said yes, but he couldn't be specific. Before the development can proceed, the design for the storm drainage has to be complete, any off side easements that are necessary to be secured must be secured by the developer and turn into the City. 0 . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 17 Chair Clements wanted further discussion about the possibility of moving the ditch south. Kate Malers, Storm Water Utility Department - She stated she was at the neighborhood meeting and felt that the present location of the McClelland's Channel at Timberline Road was constrained and difficult to move it to the south at that point. This is largely because of the development west of Timberline Road also uses the channel and needs to carry 630 cfs through this stretch. It needs to be deepened to have a wider bottom section and plans are to make it a trapezoidal channel with 4:1 side slope. In the master plan there is a conceptual idea for this channel not to take any serious turns in direction, because the 630 cfs would create a maintenance erosion, stability problem. The alignment of the channel west of Timberline as it is proposed, lies along the property line which is further to the north of the property line separating the Brookside from the Blehm and Sheller Subdivisions. She speculated the property owners would probably not be desiring to have it relocated onto their property. The alignment should remain as it exists. She said anything is possible, but the cost would be prohibitive and the mass of the structure required (concrete) may not be desirable, stability and maintenance are major criteria. She was not certain what the Natural Resources opinion would be on the idea. Chair Clements brought up the issue of liability of irrigation and possible runoff into basements. Who is responsible and how might that be addressed? Deputy City Attorney Eckman mentioned that comment had been made to place a notation on the plat to potential urban purchasers of this subdivision that there could be a water table problem. Mr. Hoff, he noted, was concerned about liability from the standpoint of irrigation. He asked if staff could address a possible water table problem from the irrigation of the land. Because the irrigation has existed for many years, the irrigation could continue and felt the liability issue may not be as severe as feared. Chair Clements restated that a note could be put on the plat as condition #4 regarding potential for high water table. Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought that would be helpful. Member Fontane asked if this situation would be categorized as coming into "nuisance." She asked if the statement would put responsibility to the new owners for any adverse outcomes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it was not thought in terms of "nuisance" but it is true that a note on the plat would be helpful to give notice in writing that this condition of historic irrigation to adjacent property is something they should be made aware of and drain their homes accordingly. In his judgment it is not a typical nuisance but is something that is a pre-existing condition, unless there is negligence. In the absence of negligence he didn't see there was 40 liability. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15,1993 Page 18 Stan Myers - RBD Engineering - Mr. Myers made the statement that he was the engineer of the project and their firm is designing a sub -drain system, runs in tandem with the sanitary sewer system and draws down the ground water with the intent to keep it away from the basements and foundations. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that in the Lindimer Subdivision, this was done with success. Member Walker cited the two issues of fencing and discharge of irrigation flows. He wanted more clarity of the interface of the two land uses and what that would look like on the southern border. Mr. Gary Hoover - Geneva Homes - He stated that there is a meeting scheduled at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow with the neighbors and Stan Myers of RBD with the purpose of looking at the fence design alternatives and the ditch, with a mutually agreeable alignment for it. Determination of the details of a design that works for everyone is intended. Member Walker asked if this meant reshaping the ditch. Mr. Hoover said yes. Member Fontane asked for the destination of the swale and any water right issue for a downstream user. Mr. Ward stated it goes into the detention pond by the existing storm drainage system. The irrigation overflow will continue to do what it has done historically with the proposed solution. Member Fontane asked if the downstream residents would be affected by runoff from streets and yards. Kate Malers, Storm Water Utility Department, said as far as she knew there are no adjudicated water rights for the water that flows into the McClelland's Drainage Way, they are essentially irrigation return flows, which is also what is being talked about from these properties. The irrigation water is delivered from the laterals and the irrigation ditches from the actual stream. This has not been thoroughly researched but it isn't an ephemeral stream and doesn't carry water continually. Member Walker asked Planner Shepard a question about fencing and asked if this issue has yet to be resolved. • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 19 Planner Shepard said that is correct, subject to the resolution of the irrigation ditch for accepting the return flows. Member Walker made a motion for approval of Brookside village at Rock Creek PUD - Preliminary with the three conditions in the staff report, the rezoning, the fencing but leaving the sentence off dealing with specifics regarding fencing (there needs to be some appropriate fencing between the urban and agricultural uses), discharge of irrigation flows, liability. Chair Clements asked if there was a way to state a note on the plat regarding irrigation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it could be included as a part of the third condition, a note be included on the plat giving warning to the homeowners of potential problems with underground water, or something to that effect. Member Walker agreed with that specific as part of his motion. Member Fontane asked about uses of agriculture (fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides) being • nuisance to urban users. Should there be a record of some of the uses stated on the plat. Deputy City Attorney Eckman recalled this was done with the Lindimer Subdivision, a unique situation, it is up to the Board to decide if there are differences in land uses. If it gets to be a health hazard, the County Health Department regulates health hazards both in the City and county. The Board needs to decide how much detail you need to go into on these plats. Member Fontane stated her concern was not whether it is hazardous but a record which would show what is taking place for their awareness. This notation would serve to protect the agricultural residents of the area. Member Walker said because this land has an agricultural zone, he believed that would allow certain activities, should answer questions of future residents. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that concerns of the existing residents in the agricultural zone have been addressed concerning drainage and fencing and being dealt with in a compromised fashion. She stated her disappointment that the storm water channel could not be moved, which would seem to be the ideal solution with everyone. She stated the land use for this development is within the City limits and meets City projects of this nature and has the minimum level of density approved. She would be supporting the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 20 Member Walker further commented that the differences in the land uses are mitigated in regard to drainage and fencing, the continued communication between the developer and the property owners to the south was encouraged. Motion carried 5-0. SPRING CREEK FARMS THIRD (ENGLISH RANCH ODP) - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - #75-86K. Planner Whetstone read the staff report and recommends approval. Member Cottier asked for clarification if there was any commercial use in the amended ODP. Planner Whetstone said that was correct. Mr. Bill Bartran, developer, reported that this plan follows the plan originally submitted in 1986 with a decrease in density and elimination of the small commercial site. The neighborhood expressed these desires to the east and the neighborhood they are building for. He reported that contours of the ground and the detention pond dictate the configuration of the street layouts. CITIZEN INPUT Dick Chin - 3131 E. Horsetooth - He stated he supported the changes Mr. Bartran is proposing to comply with homeowners' desires. He indicated the proposed density is preferable and the commercial changes acceptable considering surrounding commercial uses. Bob Noller - 3712 Bromley Drive - He stated his property abuts the 4th filing of the English Ranch, he said he concurred with the last comments made. He agreed with the proposal made and said it was a nice transition for uses. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Member Walker stated that the land uses meet our City policies and mix of housing types and densities. He said this lowering of density and changing uses are not meeting the original policies. He questioned if this is congruent with city policy in changing the ODP. Member Fontane said that she had less of a problem with losing the commercial in this particular case because of the surrounding commercial uses. She felt the lowering of density was not as desirable. . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 21 Member Winfree stated her concern about the current ODP trend of lowering densities on the periphery where public transportation will not go because the density is not high enough. She felt these are serious questions and the Board needs to address them as such. Member Cottier restated the frustration of the Board and unfortunately the City policies have not kept up enough the growth that is occurring to protect against too low a level of development. When the policies were written they were to guard against too high, too dense development and now the minimum has become the maximum. We do not have policies yet to direct the Board in dealing with lower and lower densities on the fringes and we will address that in the future. She will support the amendment to the master plan. Member Cottier moved to approve Spring Creek Farms Third (English Ranch ODP). Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Fontane further commented that the Congestion Management Plan Committee is looking where to locate density and future goals to 2015 and trying to identify where are the best places . for higher densities and what will happen. On future preliminaries, the information gathered by the committee should be helpful in planning. She stated her support of the motion. Motion carried 5-0. ENGLISH RANCH SUBDIVISION, 4TH FH IN PRELIMINARY 075-86r Chair Clements had a procedural question, if citizen input needed to be opened again or can the Board proceed with discussion. Attorney Eckman stated to be on the safe side, citizen input could be open at this time. Chair Clements asked for citizen participation. There was none. Member Walker commented that the issue is the solar ordinance variance and is basically accommodation. He would like staffs view of rationale to allow alignment of streets and, therefore, not meet the solar ordinance. He wanted to know if this would cause future problems on location of sewers or drainage. Planner Whetstone addressed the surface drainage could be handled a different way. Kerrie Ashbeck, engineer, indicated that the information given by Kate Malers and Mr. Bartran . would have to be relied upon. Other site designs may be more costly. Planning and. Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 22 Member Fontane mentioned that was a work session discussion regarding this preliminary to have the drainage run to the street. Mr. Bartran said there will be rear -lot swales in the configuration as is seen now; if they were turned and run parallel to the contours, there is no gradient to work from, it is too flat. Therefore, grade requirements of the City of Fort Collins cannot be met. The issue of cost is a big consideration in planning these designs. Member Fontane moved to approve the English Ranch Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary, with the solar variance. Member Walker seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. HARMONY VILLAGE PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #65-93 Steve Olt read the staff report and noted he would present slides later. Member Walker asked about the Neighborhood Convenience Center next to the Community Regional Shopping Center and asked for the rationale behind the plan. Planner Olt indicated that they are separate uses and asked the applicant to answer specifics. They are detached uses. Member Walker asked about the detention areas shown and asked when they would be built. Planner Olt said the 2.8 acre detention area at the southeast corner of the ODP will be built with the single-family residential, the next project. He referred this question to the applicant. Planner Olt gave a slide presentation of the Harmony Village ODP and the Preliminary for Harmony Crossing PUD. Member Collier asked if the McClellend Channel is along the southern edge further south. Planner Olt said yes. Mr. Frank Vaught - Vaught -Frye Architects - He said he was representing two parties, one for Mr. Les Kaplan with Kaplan Companies for Harmony Village and one for Harmony Crossing, Richland Homes. Mr. Vaught gave a site slide presentation on traffic issues, and other specifics • . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 23 of the commercial area and preliminary plans. He commented on the quality of the low-cost housing offered and some of the design features and landscaping offered. The development will be in 4 phases. He stated this proposal would not only be compatible but offer a nice transition using 6-units to the acre. He was in agreement with staff recommendations and recommended approval. Member Cottier asked if the detention area would be completed with the first phase. Mr. Vaught said the detention area is intended to be for the commercial use. Member Cottier asked if there are ultimate plans to fence along Timberline. Mr. Vaught said yes, and it would be a consistent fence design and had submitted some plans to staff. Member Cottier asked if fences are planned for detention areas. Mr. Vaught said no and would like it to appear as a nice open space. • Mr. Walker asked what are the lot space sizes. Mr. Vaught said a typical lot is 45 by 100 feet. Corner lots are larger and pie shaped lots are even larger. Member Winfree asked regarding Area D, on the ODP drawing stated multi -family and small writing says "or single family." Mr. Vaught said he thought this was a change that had occurred since the color plan was done. The intent would be, after adoption of the ODP, to submit a final development plan on the entire parcel and at that time show more detail with the multi -family layout. They are not intending to show it as multi -family and come back and say we changed our minds, we are in favor of the land use as a transition to the commercial site. A paired housing concept is the intended development. Member Walker asked about the detention pond amenities and is this in harmony with the Storm Drainage Utility Department. Mr. Vaught further explained there are proposed grass courts for volleyball and no structures are planned with the exception of picnic shelters. The pond is 2.8 acres with proposed steeper grades. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 24 Member Fontane asked concerning how the commercial will view the multi -family use. Mr. Vaught referred to a slide to show the 80 foot buffer between uses. Secondary access and other accesses were discussed, pedestrian connections and bicycle tie-ins with a collector street are encouraged. Chair Clements asked point of clarification that the inference that Phase 4 could develop into single family could be removed from the ODP. Mr. Vaught said no problem. Chair Clements asked specific questions regarding Phase 4 of the railroad tracks and warehouses and backyards of Phase 3. Mr. Vaught said these are deeper lots. The railroad can be viewed as an amenity as open space, citing 2 times a day the trains would be running, and did not consider it a nuisance. The tracks are high and allow a bicycle crossing. Chair Clements asked if there was consideration given to Phase 4 for possibly paired housing and duplexes and Phase 1 a multi -family component to add what she considered a mix of housing types. Mr. Vaught said not in the standpoint of apartment multi -family, no. He felt that (1) Richland Homes as applicant desired to build in a certain market place, (2) achieving twice what single- family residential 3 units per acre with this plan at 6 units per acre. There is opportunity to come in at 10-12 units in the multi -family plans and felt this was good mix of different housing types. CITIZEN INPUT Rick Soja - resident in Oak Ridge Village, adjacent to the development - His concerns were of wildlife values of the ODP. He felt the comments of City Planning staff and the proposal did not show these concerns were addressed: (1) water fowl interests, (2) birds of prey and (3) endangered species. He said these values will be destroyed by development. He also cited the value change with resident species. He felt more attention could be paid to increasing a buffer with railroad areas. Encouraged the Board to take a larger view of wildlife habitat loss and stated it is a prime value being lost and an issue to be addressed. Irvine Christy - 1627 River Oak Drive - He had questions concerning (1) the types of businesses being proposed in the park and its impact on traffic or chemicals, he saw no restrictions; (2) he was concerned with the new junior high school, the safety of the children walking along 0 0 . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 25 0 Harmony and through this commercial area; (3) the increase in traffic on Timberline and with other developments on either side of this arterial and safety issues. Tom Goding - 1618 Redberry Ct. - He lives adjacent to the proposed development and has three concerns: (1) the density, (2) amount and level of open spaces and (3) consideration of compatibility of surrounding residential areas. Jerry Dusbabek - owner of property to the south - He reported the problem of low-income housing in Fort Collins and felt this project is excellent in the southern portion of our City. They are of high quality and felt the Planning Board has an obligation to the City of Fort Collins to get this type of housing to the south. He supported the approval of the plan. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements asked about the concern of water fowl, birds of prey and potential endangered species in the area and has staff reviewed these concerns. Planner Olt stated that Natural Resources has looked at the plan from the outset on the ODP and PUD. The comments from this department concern bicycling connections and no concern from the wildlife standpoint has been raised to date. Chair Clements asked about the types of businesses that can locate in both shopping areas. Planner Olt read directly from the point charts as guidelines for proposed uses and commented the level of detail on a preliminary is not as specified as in the final. He first read from the LDGS for Community Regional Shopping Centers and stated that industrial uses would not be considered. The Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center is a little more complicated, and read from the LDGS the definition. Chair Clements restated that anything that is proposed for this area will be presented to the Board for final review and a time for public input. Chair Clements asked about the safety concerns for the children from the junior high school. Planner Clark stated the School District indicated the majority of the students will be bussed to the school, boundaries for attendance extend north to Harmony Road, the walk-in students would be limited to the mobile home park to the north side of Harmony Road. Chair Clements asked about traffic concerns. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 26 Planner Olt stated he knew a traffic study had been done but was not aware of the results. Because there will be improvements to both Timberline and Harmony at some future time, there would be concerns regarding the volume of traffic generated. Mr. Vaught said that Matt Delich conducted a traffic study for all of the proposed plans on Timberline and Harmony viewing it in context of everything proposed as well as existing areas. Chair Clements asked specifically regarding level of service for these traffic plans. Mr. Vaught said it has been reviewed by the Transportation Department for compliance. Chair Clements commented that traffic is becoming more and more an issue as Fort Collins grows there are different levels of service and has to be D or better before it can get to the Board. Planner Olt read from the Executive Summary of the South Timberline Access Study and the project's feasibility. Chair Clements stated there were questions concerned about density and compatibility and asked if this has been measured against the LDGS. Planner Olt said that was correct. Chair Clements asked how the density relates to the adjacent properties. Planner Olt said there are 5.8 units per acre proposed and more detailed information could be researched. Member Winfree had a question regarding the railroad area width from this subdivision to Oak Ridge. Planner Olt stated that generally a railroad right-of-way is 100 feet. Member Fontane commented on the wildlife and endangered species and asked if this area was feeding ground or nesting ground. Attorney Eckman said he didn't think there was any criteria about endangered species in the LDGS. He stated it does address habitat specifically and says "if the site contains an area which serves as a habitat, natural food source, nesting place, wintering place or source of watering place identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as significant and particular need of 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes • November 15, 1993 Page 27 attention, then special precautions have been implemented into the plan to prevent the creation of environmental influences adverse to the preservation of these areas." Planner Clark added the City's Natural Resources Division is one of the referral agencies and staff works closely with them on proposals. When Natural Resources staff reviews a project with concerns from a wildlife standpoint, the plans are referred on to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and would give written concerns. At this point, staff relies on the fact that concerns were not raised by the Natural Resources Department staff. Staff will revisit the proposal with Natural Resources and Colorado Division of Wildlife prior to being submitted to the Board. Member Walker commented the ODP meets many of requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for development on Harmony. The elements are appropriate and useful and compatibility is good. The housing mix is favorable for the area and affordable housing is good for Fort Collins' need. It was his judgment with regard to wildlife winter feeding grounds and there will always be some change in the wildlife habitat. The wildlife concerned tend to be opportunistic in their feeding habits and he would guess the detention area would be a resting area for the birds. Member Walker moved to approve the Harmony Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, • including the condition of removing the single-family statement on the ODP. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. HARMONY CROSSING PUD - PRELI51INARY - N65-93A Member Fontane moved for approval of the Harmony Crossing PUD - Preliminary with the condition stated in the staff report. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Cottier echoed Member Walker's comments concerning the importance of adding this type of housing to housing options as a whole not just to the south. It is also interesting to note what can be done with just 4,500 feet relative to the east side and west side. Maybe some TDRs could start. Member Walker commented on the detention area treatment and it has been done very well. He commended the developer for making creative use of it as a multi -use area. As a Board member would like to encourage the Storm Drainage staff to view this as an asset during closer review. It is an excellent model for other proposed detention areas. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned 11:47 p.m.