Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/25/1993• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 25, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The October 25, 1993, 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 Rene` Clements -Cooney, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree and Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Joe Frank, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Carolyn Worden and Heidi Phelps. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of August 2, August 23, August 30, (September 27 minutes pulled, incomplete), and October 4, 1993, P & Z Meetings. Item 2 - East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Preliminary, #58-93; Item 3 - A Big A Storage PUD - Preliminary, #57-93; Item 4 - Poudre High School • Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review, #59-93; Item 5 Provincetowne PUD, 1st Filing, Phases 1-4 - Final, #73-82R; Item 6 - Fossil Creek Meter Station PUD - Preliminary & Final, #60-93; Item 7 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #19-93E, Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #19-93 (postponed until November 15 meeting), Item 9 - Victorian Gables at Silverplume PUD - Replat, #62-89E, Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A (postponed until November 15 meeting); Item 11 - Wildwood Farm PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #90-85I; Item 12 - Hampshire Pond PUD - Final, #44-93A; Item 13 - PZ93-9 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 14 - PZ93-10 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 15 - PZ93-11 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 16 - PZ93-13 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 17 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 18 - Amendment to South College Avenue Access Control Plan, #69-93; Item 19 REA Annexation and Zoning, #64-93A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20 - PZ93-12 Historic Resources Preservation Program; Item 21 - Planning Fees, #62-92; Item 22 - Summerhill PUD - Final, #41-93A; and Item 23 - The Preserve Apartments PUD - Final, #146-79P. Staff pulled Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing and Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final. Chair Clements -Cooney requested Item 19 be pulled. Item 12 was pulled by an audience member. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 2 Member Strom moved that Items 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-18 be approved. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Chair Clements -Cooney asked point of clarification on minutes for September 27 meeting. Mr. Peterson declared that they had been pulled. Motion passed 7-0. POUDRE HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW #59-93 Chair Clements -Cooney stated that Member Winfree had left the room because of a "conflict of interest." Member Fontane moved to recommend approval of the Poudre High School Expansion. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. PROVINCETOWNE PUD 1ST FILING PHASES 1 -4 - FINAL W73-82R Member Cottier moved to approve of Provincetowne PUD. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Strom indicated he would be voting "no" on this PUD mainly for reasons he explained in last month's discussion regarding density. Motion passed 6-1 with Member Strom in the negative. HAMPSHIRE POND PUD - FINAL 1144-93A Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report with staff recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 3 P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (December 13, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Richard Storck, Storck Development, stated they had made adjustments as requested by Dr. Kieft, which he believed showed reasonable response on their part. He stated Dr. Kieft's property was within 500 feet of the neighborhood shopping center. He believed that he has cooperated in a positive way and that, without this plan, "hop -scotch" development would be encouraged versus taking care of infill parcels. He said there was half the density that could optimally be on this property. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 4 LI Dr. Larry Kieft, 2333 W. Drake, stated he had forwarded a letter to the Board which requested that the project be considered as a whole. He stated some adjustments have been made, but felt more creative things could be done with the property to enhance the neighborhood, to provide more buffering for his property. He was concerned with the homes backing to his property line, the location of sheds, and felt these concerns have a significant impact on him. �40lmf l` ' Member Walker questioned the issue of sheds being built next to the fence. He questioned if the height of sheds and distance to the fence may be in conflict with zoning codes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that if sheds exceed 8 feet in height, they have to meet the setback requirements. If they are 8 feet or less, they can be "zero" lot line. Member Cottier asked Dr. Kieft if the landscape plantings by the developer were satisfactory. Dr. Kieft replied that a new plan had not been submitted but he had talked with the landscape developer and was assured that they would make adjustments for the planting of trees. Member Cottier asked Mr. Storck if he had planned a homeowners association. Mr. Storck replied that care would be taken of the landscape along Drake and other outlots. Member Colder inquired about the location of the sheds. Mr. Storck said that had been approved in the past and if there needed to be a restriction for Dr. Kieft's cul-de-sac area, he had no problem with that. He did not feel the entire community should be restricted. Member Strom moved to approve Hampshire Pond PUD Final with the staff condition and limiting the sheds on the west boundary of the rust three lots. Cottier seconded the motion. Member Strom said that the developer had responded to the concerns that the Board made and that the minor adjustment provided depth. This would allow people to deal effectively with their relationships with lots on their own properties. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Eckman asked if the motion specified that there be no sheds on the first three lots. Member Strom clarified, as part of his motion, that there are to be no sheds on the back property line of the three lots adjacent to Dr. Kieft's property, that setbacks would be met whatever their size. Motion passed 7-0. REA ANNEXATION AND ZONING, M64-93A Chair Clements -Cooney stated that she had received phone calls regarding this item and wanted to pull it for discussion. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff report with staff recommending approval. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the request for the HB zone came from the City or the property owner. • Mr. Waido replied that it came from the applicant. Chair Clements -Cooney asked what can be proposed under the HB designation. Mr. Waido stated the HB designation and the HB designation with a PUD condition were two different things. He stated the PUD condition would require any development proposal to be submitted as a PUD and essentially, through the guidance system, any land use could be proposed. He stated the proposal would then be reviewed for overall development criteria, applicable to all applications, and then the point chart depending on land use proposed. He stated, in terms of annexation and zoning, the HB zone with a PUD condition did not predict what type of land use could go on there; the PUD condition would protect the City in that any development proposal would need to go through the guidance system. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the property to the east of the site was annexed to the city. Mr. Waido replied that it was annexed and zoned B-L, Limited Business, with no PUD condition. He stated a number of retail and office uses were allowed by -right in that zone, in fact, most of those uses east of this site did occur through just the straight zoning. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that the highway business zone has been typically applied in this area on South College with few exceptions. He stated that the zoning in the county is C, Commercial, and B, Business, that allowed similar uses -by -right. He stated that Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 6 the County would be more restrictive and, in some cases, the H-B, Highway Business, Zone would be more restrictive with the PUD condition. He pointed out that this proposal was in regard to annexation and zoning rather than specific proposals that may come forth. PUBLIC INPUT Calla Pott, 4675 Venture Lane, stated that annexation was inevitable and the main concern was that the Poudre Valley Electric Association has the opportunity to literally move forward with this business. She stated that part of this was that their property being annexed into the city. She raised the issue of growth vs. non -growth and stated that it should be managed growth. She emphasized the importance of the aesthetic appeal of new developments being considered. She stated that in light of Amendment 1, the proposal provided a sales tax base for the city, which would be fiscally responsible. She said if annexed, the Board was requested to have a sub -area plan as to what the site areas will look like and a positive vision for the designated south entrance into the city. She pointed out that currently there was a large green area at Poudre Valley Electric Association, hopefully this could stay intact through zoning other than H-B, Highway Business. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements -Cooney stated her concern was not the annexation, but the designation of H-B, highway business, given the surrounding developments without the HB designation, other than Arbor Plaza which should not set the standard for the area. Member Strom added that the underlining zoning does not have much effect if a PUD condition is placed on it, and requested staff clarification. Mr. Waido replied that a Highway Business Zone with a PUD condition, a Limited Business Zone with a PUD condition, a planned business zone with a PUD condition and all would have the same essential effect on the property. He said any development proposal would be needed to be submitted to the City through the LDGS and that the point charts will guide decision - making of the City based on the use that is proposed, not the underlining zoning. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the underlining zoning dictated the kind of proposals that will come before the P&Z Board. Mr. Waido replied no. Member Strom asked Mr. Eckman if there were any situations where the PUD condition would not rule. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Eckman stated only with respect to non -conforming uses would you find the property owner being able to ignore the PUD condition. He said the zoning that was imposed upon the property, any property, in a case where you are faced with a PUD condition, the State law required all property be zoned. He stated that Staff was attempting to find a zoning designation that best suited the situation. He said the zoning didn't dictate any particular kind of use. He said it may, in some ancillary way, set an expectation. He said it could be zoned low -density residential, with a PUD condition, and then come up with the same kinds of uses that would exist with the HB zone. Mr. Waido stated that the change to the non -conforming use process required a public hearing and a decision by the Board. Mr. Peterson said that PUD requirements, when placed on zoning, gave a higher level of review and detail. He said in a use -by -right designation, there would be limited review that would not get full focus of public attention. He said what was being proposed was at a higher level of review. Member Fontane recommended approval of the REA Annexation and Zoning. Member • Winfree seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that the H-B zoning with the PUD condition says nothing about the green space that was there. She stated that the Board would be more apt to do something with the PUD condition than without. Whether it was designated H-B made no difference. Motion passed 7-0. PZ93-12 HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROGRAM Jennifer Carpenter, Landmark Preservation Commission, stated that the Commission had been working on this project for three years. She stated the LPC Commission was directed by the City Council to work on a plan to avoid crisis, and provide implementation and protection measures for our city's important and unique historic resources. She believed the commission has succeeded in that task. She said the draft represents the labors of many people, the LPC, City staff and many members of the community. She said the commission assembled a technical team which was made up of people with background in history, government, real estate, development, the University, and they all studied the plan and gave valuable input. She said there were numerous public meetings held. She said there were many great ideas and when able to, incorporated into the final draft. Again, she stated the plan is established to avoid crisis whenever possible, strive for a management plan to provide predictability, objectivity and realistic protection measures for our city's historic resources. She said she was available for questions. Planning and Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 8 Member Walker asked Staff about the issue of the process and procedure when a historic resource is in a PUD. Mr. Frank replied that currently, under the LDGS, only sites or structures which have received local landmark designation would be considered. He said under the proposed Neighborhood Compatibility Study, there is a much improved criteria that deals with landmark structures, which not only recognizes landmark structures, but also structures that are determined to be eligible for local landmark designation. He said there is an informal process between the Development Review Center and the Landmark Preservation Commission that provide those structures over 50 years old come to the LPC for informal comment. Member Walker asked if the informal process will be a formalized review process in the future. Mr. Frank said they are not proposing that it be formalized. He said the Planning Director has the ability to seek the input of the Landmark Preservation Commission. He said staff and LPC is comfortable with the informal process. Member Strom commended the proactive position of this Plan. He said the plan will allow the Planning and Zoning Board a process to review buildings worth preserving within our community. Member Walker indicated it is an important process that looks ahead and allows the Board to know what our resource base is to effectively deal with these situations. He complemented the Landmark Preservation Commission on their work. Chair Clements -Cooney commended the document. She believed it will be useful to the Board or anyone who is interested in the preservation program or anyone who would like to get involved in the Landmark Preservation Commission as an active member. She said the document is a positive way to be prepared as these issues come before other boards and commissions in the City of Fort Collins. Member Strom moved approval of the PZ93-12 - Historic Resources Preservation Program for the City of Fort Collins as proposed and recommending its inclusion as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. PLANNING FEES Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, made a presentation of the changes in the Planning Fees proposal. She stated there had been a fairly lengthy study placed into all planning -related • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 9 applications, such as annexations, zonings, PUD, subdivisions and site -plan reviews. She said the various departments have been surveyed in the development review process throughout the City, which includes many of the departments in the Community Planning and Environmental Services area, and others such as Light and Power, Water and Sewer, Storm Water Utility, Police, City Attorney's office, etc. She stated six options had been given on page 9 of the staff report. She said staff is recommending Option #3, which is a 50% cost recovery on the basis of those departmental costs in the Community Planning and Environmental Services area with the exception of the Zoning Department. She pointed out that this would include the Planning, Engineering, Transportation and Natural Resources departments. She said the recommendation is a shared benefit for the type of work the review process is accomplishing. She stated there is a certain benefit that goes to the community -at -large and a benefit to the developer. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that suggestions were made at the previous meeting and are addressed in the staff report. She mentioned there is a flat fee versus a sliding scale option. Staff is recommending a flat fee system, which means there is no allocation or consideration based on the size of the development, units or acres. She stated that it is easier to administer and Staff's experience has been that the complexity of a project is not linked to the size of the development. She offered, if the Board is interested in sliding -scale fees, some type of waiver process or mechanism to reduce fees that could be suggested and passed on to Council for consideration. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that in the area of affordable housing, Staff is not proposing any specific formula or waiver at this point. She stated that Staff has been informed that the newly created Affordable Housing Board will be considering this issue, as well as others such as City regulations affecting these projects. Ms. Albertson -Clark concluded that Staff s recommendation of the Planning and Development Review Fee Schedule be based on 50 percent of the cost incurred by the Community Planning and Environmental Services departments and divisions and that this fee schedule be reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted for inflation. She stated that pending the Board's recommendation, this will be presented to Council at a later date. Staff will request that Council give them options they may wish to pursue before it is taken to a public hearing. Member Strom asked what other types of fees are considered user fees and non -development user fees. Ms. Albertson -Clark cited building permit, plan check and plan review fees. She said Engineering has a minor fee for right-of-way encroachment and that utility fees are considered impact fees and are not categorized as user fees. She indicated, in regard to non -development user fees, that all fees paid, for example, to the Parks and Recreation Department for various • classes, would be considered user fees as well. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 10 PUBLIC INPUT Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview, stated that a letter had been submitted to the Board listing her views. Specifically, she addressed the unequal application of the cost recovery principles. She had concerns about a policy established for cost recovery. She recommended the appeal fee be recommended for this type of recovery as well. She discussed some technicalities of where this fee is paid, presently at the City Clerk's Office. She believed that there is self-interest, both on the developer's side as well as the residential neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements -Cooney asked why the appeals fees were not addressed in the planning fees. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that it was not one of the fees that Staff currently regulates or administers. She pointed out that data is being collected on how much time the Planning Department is spending on appeals. She believed the data should also be collected from the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Office as well when involved with appeals. Member Strom asked the Deputy City Attorney if there is anything fundamentally different from appeals fees as compared to development review fee; from the standpoint of the law and access to the system. Mr. Eckman replied nothing is fundamentally different. The analysis is who is collecting the fee. It has not been classified as a planning fee. He stated sometimes appeals are filed by developers and sometimes neighborhoods. Where the appeal fee should go and how it should be handled is really outside the scope of this fee study. Member Strom asked why Light and Power was excluded from the study and what is unique about their department for legal or administrative differences. Ms. Albertson -Clark was uncertain how different they were in terms of how their funds are allocated. She reported they did not participate in the study because Light and Power has a very highly identifiable fee percentage allocated to cover administrative costs. She stated the department did not want to be perceived to be charging twice for the same service. They did not give any survey data, as she had mistakenly alluded to previously in her staff presentation. She said staff did, however, get data from the Storm Water Utility and Water and Waste Water Utility. She remarked that if Options #5 or #6 were considered, you would be dealing with all costs and would have to factor out their costs of the equation or adjust the fee schedules because they are collecting monies to cover administrative costs. Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 11 Member Strom asked what level of recovery they are obtaining from their fees. He asked for the broad range around a typical example fee. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied she did not know the level of recovery. She said the definition of typical was arrived when all the planners involved were surveyed performing development review, to get a sense of each of the types of items we have. All of the other departments were canvassed and observed planning hours, the amount of time spent on various applications, and compared and contrasted those with the other departments to get a sense that we were on track. She stated staff is in the process of tracking an additional series of projects in the department, beyond an appeal and newly submitted items, on an hour -for -hour basis to see how much time we are spending. She said in terms of how broad that range is, it is fairly broad. Specifically, she said appeals often take a tremendous amount of time on the upper end of the spectrum; and on the lower end, there would be routine and probably not need much time to review. She cited some specific non -controversial projects studied, including planning technician and clerical time. She said the true average or typical time is difficult to determine. She said additional data is being collected on a variety of current applications. Mr. Eckman wanted to address the distinction of the appeal fee and the planning fees and . whether or not they are "confiscatory." He said this would apply to a planning fee where the fee was so high that, as a practical matter, the applicant couldn't apply for the PUD approval because the fee was so high. He illustrated that if there was a $10,000 PUD fee, for example, that might be "confiscatory" to anybody who would want to have access to this process for PUD approval before the Planning and Zoning Board and would, therefore, be seen to deny them the ability to use their property. He thought that same analysis could translate into the appeal fees, because of the height of the fee would deny access to the appeal procedure and the ability to exhaust their administrative remedy so they could proceed to court, it would be a "Catch 22" for them. He said that is the only rule that should govern the analysis of how fees are determined and that they cannot go to the point that they are "confiscatory." Member Strom questioned that Water and Sewer, Parks and Recreation and Storm Water Utility to be left out because a fee is currently being collected and there would be a duplication of the collection of the fee. He asked how difficult it would be to separate out their fees from planning review fees and other aspects they are charging. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated there were two options: (1) to exclude those costs out of what we are proposing in terms of whose costs we base our fees on, the simpler of the two; (2) to recoup some level of all department costs through planning and development review fees, we would have to adjust how they are calculating their other utility fees now, which is a larger project. She said how the time is spent by each department is broken out in the staff report, personal and non -personal services, it would be fairly simple to factor out those overall costs. She said the • different department Staffs had the most difficult time with the concept of "typical." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 12 Member Strom asked if these departments could take those fees out and the difficulty of the process. Mr. Albertson -Clark stated that this probably would not be too difficult, based on the information given. Member Strom commented that it was important that the City not double charge, but there's a case to be made to attaching a fee where it is most appropriate. In the case of development review, it seemed the most direct and understandable place to charge this fee with the development review and not through some less apparent method. Chair Clements -Cooney indicated a letter was received from Stan Everitt regarding his concern that "dollars collected from new construction through use tax should be factored into the equation" of the cost of development. Mr. Everitt requested that the Board discuss and clarify this issue which has not been addressed by staff. Chair Clements -Cooney asked staff to give her input on Mr. Everitt's concerns. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this is a question that has been raised to staff and indicated that Staff believed it was a philosophical issue that is appropriate to be addressed at Council. She interpreted what Mr. Everitt was saying in that the City should look at the amount of revenue that is coming into the City relative to the projects that are paying those fees, specifically the sales tax generated. She said his concern is that there is a certain amount of money being spent on these development items once they are through our process and under construction that is not accounted for in a sense. Mr. Everitt believed that should be factored in to offset the fees. She said Council would need to determine if they desired to resolve this issue. Member Strom asked if there was a distinct difference between a fee and a tax. He asked if the philosophical question really was that the planning review service a service we charge a fee for or was it a general service of the City that we pay for with taxes. Mr. Eckman answered that a "tax" is a general revenue raising measure and a "fee" is a charge to cover specific costs. The fees that are earmarked, not co -mingled, are somehow set aside to cover the purpose for which they were collected. Other than that, with respect to taxes, they can be put into the general fund and be used for general purposes. He did not believe that just because taxes had supported functions of government in the past, that it means fees cannot now support those functions, if the functions can be calculated, analyzed to see what the cost is, then fees can be generated and not co -mingled, used only for specific costs. Member Cottier said she still had the same concerns about how much the fees have been increased and we have to be careful they are justified. She does not believe the Council policy justifies an increase of this nature in the planning fees. She noted there is a cost recovery policy • 0 . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 13 in areas of where services are more of a general community benefit and there should be a lower cost recovery. She said she believed that planning review services are primarily a benefit to the community, therefore, she did not believe a 50-50 split is appropriate. She stated there needs to be clarification and specificity of the Council policy with regard to fees of this nature. She thinks it is necessary to have a variable sliding scale to address smaller projects and didn't think a waiver situation is appropriate. Member Cottier believed that it is not appropriate to propose an increase this significant now. She suggested that if Council believed this was appropriate, it could be considered that the fees be phased in over an extended period of time. She thought there were other issues occurring and a broader look for fees and fee policies, such as affordable housing, growth management issues, etc. She felt that some of these fees would be so high that they would be "confiscatory," preventing some applicants from following the PUD process. She was opposed to the proposed fee schedule. Member Walker believed the issue was: What is an appropriate level of fees to charge and what is the rationale of something less than 100% recovery with some benefit both to the community as well as principals involved in a review of a plan? He observed that the Board endorses more . pro -active planning, such as corridor and neighborhood plans, the citizenry favors this as part of the planning process. He noted that the question of why more of this planning could not be done is limited resources. He said that the staff is involved in the planning review process, a more reactive form of planning, which restricts the opportunity for proactive planning to take place. He favored the fee proposals by staff for needed revenue to cover costs that are not now being covered. Member Strom commented that a fee for development review purposes consider the "all -cost" category, for staff time other than planning, with the philosophy of what level is appropriate in terms of recovery, 70-85 % community benefit, 20-25 % developer benefit, and was concerned about the broad range for staff time on each project. Member Strom moved to approve the development review fee based on the "all -cost" category and the fee recovery level be set at 20%, including: (1) a means to waive or reduce fees for small projects to encourage use of the PUD review process, (2) a review of the fee schedule on a regular annual basis for adjusting for inflation and changing conditions in costs, (3) a data collection of the cost for time spent by staff on review projects in the interest of being specific for cost of future projects, (4) an appeals fee philosophy, for the future, to recommend to Council, and (5) the Parks and Recreation, Light and Power, Water and Waste Water departments' user fees be pulled. Member Winfree seconded the motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 14 Member Cottier said she was still not in favor of the proposal but agreed on the concept of "all cost" and agreed that the appeal fees should be viewed. In addition, she would like to see a study of benefits of development when considering appropriate fees. She believed it was a missing part of the equation. She stated that she would not support the proposed recommendation for increasing the fees as much as proposed at this time. Member Strom affirmed that benefits from development needed to be reviewed, as well as costs from a community standpoint. He believed that development review fees was a separate consideration. The motion passed 4-3, with Members Klataske, Fontane and Cottier in the negative. SUMMERHILL PUD - FINAL #41-93A Steve Olt gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final, utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (December 13, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of he extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board of resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 15 If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted form the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated he represented Mel Price, the applicant. He stated that in addition to the preliminary presentation, this was the site previously approved as Underhill PUD, 220 units, including a portion purchased by the City as open space and the older plan had 85 units in the area where the new plan proposed 68. He noted this was a lower density plan transition from developments to the north and west. He reported there was some . question about the mailing list and notification to the neighborhood and that Roger Search was prepared to address this issue. He said APO of Colorado generated a new list including expanded boundaries for the mailing list. Member Winfree inquired about the mailing list. Mr. Ward replied that the City procedure was that the applicant provide a mailing list in the form of labels to the Planning Department who in turn, does the mailing. He assumed the Planning Department followed through with the mailing for tonight's meeting. Mr. Olt stated that was correct and that a notification letter was mailed a week ago last Friday. Chair Clements -Cooney asked what forms of notification were used for preliminary and final. Mr. Peterson replied that there were two standard forms of notification used for preliminary and final projects: (1) publication in the newspaper, in this case the Triangle Review, 7 days prior to the public hearing with the date, time and information of the application in question; and (2) post the property with a sign with the proposed development and the phone number of the Planning Department to call for further information. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 16 PUBLIC INPUT Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Dr., stated he was a neighbor involved with the Summerhill PUD project. He referred to a letter he had written to the Board listing his concerns. He specifically addressed two major concerns: (1) The issue of notification and believed that was inadequate, not all residents within 500 feet of the project were notified nor were some house addresses correct and (2) The posting of notification on Prospect Road, which was closed for construction during most of the summer, was inadequate. He stated that he could not justify acceptance of final approval of this project since appropriate community notification criteria had not been met. He stated that Planning Staff had been helpful and cooperative and commended them. Mr. McMaster also pointed out the property in question was listed as low -density residential but higher density developments had gone in and proposed higher density developments were planned in the surrounding area which was changing the original character of the neighborhood dramatically, having impact on traffic, density of people, loss of open space, etc. He stated his disapproval of the project. Clifford McCaffrey, 1720 West Prospect, stated that he lived across the street from the proposed site and never saw any notification other than the real estate sign designating the property for sale. He cited a project east of the proposed site with many residents per unit creating a parking overflow problem and was concerned about this relative to the proposed plan. He knew 128 parking spaces were allocated to the proposed 68 units. He objected to the notification process and was not informed of the neighborhood meeting except through a neighbor. He was not in favor of the plan. Mr. Ward discussed easements and the driveway easement on Lot 2. Chair Clements -Cooney questioned the final plat or a diagonal easement line that was no longer germane and would have been eliminated on the final. Mr. Ward stated that he was not sure and questioned if it was part of the driveway easement. He said he would double check and remove it unless there was a third party involved who was granted an easement. He stated that when this was a 220 unit project, both roads were to extend over the Mercer Canal and loop down through the city open space. He questioned whether they could legally vacate the easement by deleting it from the subdivision plat. Mr. Eckman replied that easements can be vacated on replats, so he believed that an easement vacation could be done. He also stated that after talking with Mr. Herzig, a well easement was a private easement for the benefit of the Thayers, not public, so that would be able to be corrected on the plat. He stated that the plat just contemplated the dedication of easements to • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 17 the City, not private individuals, and suggested that it be done through a separate deed between the applicant and the Thayers. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider a condition to allow the Thayers time to review the plat before it is filed. Chair Clements -Cooney asked for confirmation of the condition on the plat to be reviewed before it filing. Mr. Peterson replied yes, there were enough public questions that need to be resolved. Member Winfree asked Mr. Ward to address the questions of the preparation of the mailing list. Mr. Ward replied that Mr. Roger Search, the real estate agent involved in this project, prepared the first list and then APO Colorado prepared the second list. Mr. Ward said he was not directly involved with either mailing. Mr. Roger Search, Wheeler Realty, stated that he was not familiar with the list for the second . mailing other than he made arrangements to have it done with APO of Colorado. Member Winfree asked if he was aware of how many differences there may have been between the two lists. Mr. Search replied that he was unaware of this. He said the only thing he was aware of was the original map given to him to prepare the first list and the revised map to prepare the second list. Member Winfree asked what was the difference between the two. Mr. Search said there were about 100 names not included in the first mailing. Member Winfree asked if there was a difference in the perimeter of the two maps. Mr. Olt said that there was a difference. He presented both maps and stated the first map submitted for the neighborhood meetings had an unknown origin and that it was not typical of a city generated map. He said he prepared the second map for the second mailing for notification. Member Winfree asked about the difference of 100 names and if it included the misaddressed notices. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 18 Mr. Olt replied that it did include the misaddressed notices. Member Collier asked Mr. McMaster if his letter asked for clarification of his concern for the site plan accuracy. Mr. McMaster replied there were several issues concerning this. The northwest comer of the Underhill project was being developed as part of the 220 units allowed, with 68 units for Summerhill added and would give a clearer view of the overall density. He noted that among other comments on the impact of this proposed density to the public schools and didn't see it discussed in the planning. Mr. Peterson addressed the school projections and said they are projected by the applicant based on bedrooms. He stated that the information was given to the school district. He stated that the school district has an elaborate tracking system for ages coming in. He said that the school district determines the boundaries for schools and willingly accepts any new data concerning planning for areas within the city. He said the school district maintains its own operation that carefully analyzes where students are coming from and where they would fit into the system. Mr. Olt addressed Mr. McMaster's concern of the location of the building. He said the proposed building, with consideration of the newly widened road and curb line to the south, is 105 feet and 8 inches. Mr. Ward clarified that there were 85 units originally proposed for Summerhill and the new project has 68 units. All projects collectively have been considered and there was no deception in the total number of units proposed. Member Winfree asked for further clarification on the mailing list for this evening's meeting. Mr. Peterson addressed the issues of notification by stating that the map used for the first notification had indistinct lot lines and the map used for the second mailing had more clarification. He apologized for the first errant mailing and believed it was corrected for the second mailing which was the notice of the final hearing. Mr. Olt stated that there were approximately 252 names on the most current property owners list. The letter sent out for the August 12, 1993, public hearing for the Summerhill project going before the Board did include Mr. McCaffrey's address and all other owners in the cul-de- sac. Mr. McCaffrey asked if, as a Board, they would let Fort Collins know that they were looking out for the citizen's interest in what they have to say. 0 • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 19 Member Winfree asked for a legal opinion with regard to the error in the first public notification and how the Board should respond to that situation. Mr. Eckman replied it was correct that this evening's meeting was adequate. He said the only notice that was really required was the vested rights notice publication in the newspaper, seven days prior to tonight's meeting. He said tonight's meeting notification was perfectly adequate. He said the preliminary hearing was no doubt inadequate. He said, however, the appeal time has passed for the preliminary hearing and no appeal was filed, although this issue may come up later in some other context in the form of appeal or court hearing. He said that this problem cannot be cured without some creative thinking on the part of the developer and stated he had spoken to Mr. Ward about exploring possibilities in that regard. He stated that the Board has the following choices: (1) to proceed with the final this evening; (2) to reject the plan on the basis that there wasn't a proper preliminary meeting that would cause the developer to start over; or (3) to develop some compromise with the neighborhood members, the developer and the Board to address issues they would have posed in the preliminary meeting. Member Winfree stated she was interested in creative solutions. • Mr. Ward stated that if there was any cloud on the preliminary approval, the Board could consider both preliminary and final this evening, opening it up for full review to the public. He stated that, as discussed with Mr. Eckman, when a valid preliminary approval and the final comes back before the Board, the Board technically cannot reopen discussion on site layout and densities. He said the applicant's intent was to be open and to discuss these areas fully with the public tonight. Member Winfree asked if the Board had denied the neighborhood the input that would have been accomplished at a neighborhood meeting and discuss the project .with the developer. Mr. Ward said the neighborhood meeting was a discretionary meeting set by the Planning Staff and no one knew where the original map originated. He stated that the intent of the applicant was to clearly notify all residents in the appropriate area and perhaps met the letter of the law but not the intended area, given some incomplete address and an incomplete area of notification. Member Fontane requested that this entire project be postponed for review on November 15, 1993, with another neighborhood meeting to be held in the meantime. Attorney Eckman said there would be no harm in postponing the project, with a neighborhood meeting scheduled with appropriate notification, perhaps with the developer's consent to layout and density so that every issue that would have been before the Board at a preliminary PUD hearing would be before the Board again, providing that the residents affected would feel they 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 20 did have a fair hearing and resolve differences that way. He said another solution would be to open this up for discussion this evening which might be satisfactory for the neighbors. Member Strom asked if there was a neighborhood meeting held. Mr. Olt replied that there was a meeting held on June 30 with six people in attendance. Member Fontane moved to postpone the Summerhill PUD Final until the November 15, 1993, P&Z Board meeting with a neighborhood meeting to be held between now and then. Member Winfree seconded the motion with the condition that the developer would be open to discussion of density and layout. Member Winfree further added her concern for the inadequate notification of surrounding residents for the preliminary hearing, the question of the sign placement on the property that was not highly visible because of construction on Prospect with alternate routes and if the Triangle Review notice was properly published. She stated not enough people were notified to take part in the PUD process. Member Strom asked for clarification of the notification area and if it was expanded for the list or simply that it was corrected. Mr. Olt stated it was expanded well in excess of 500 feet. Member Strom asked why it was expanded. Mr. Olt said it was expanded after receiving a call after the preliminary hearing from Mrs. McMaster saying they had not been notified and expressed concerns for future notification. He was uncertain of the 100 people not notified and that he would estimate 30 or so more, regardless of the number of people missed. He stated that the map was updated. Mr. Peterson stated that yes, there were people that were missed in the normal area considered for mailing in this preliminary hearing for the Summerhill project. Member Klataske asked if the neighborhood list was the same as for the preliminary hearing. Mr. Olt replied that it was the same list for both meetings. Chair Clements -Cooney said she had mixed feelings about the motion because (a) the City Council appointed this Board based on their knowledge of planning and that they were competent individuals to address concerns that were in the best interest of the community, and (b) she believed that the process by which the public can work with the developer and the Planning and 0 • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 21 Zoning Board has not happened in this process. She said she believed the city loses credibility if this is not accomplished and she has genuine concerns about this project. Mr. Eckman restated the motion to postpone the Summerhill Final until next month, to hold a neighborhood meeting based on a good APO list and to insure that at the next month's continued meeting, the Board will have the latitude to address layouts and densities which it would not otherwise have the opportunity to do. He asked Mr. Ward if that was correct for next month's meeting as well. Mr. Ward stated that, after conferring with Mr. Search, this would be acceptable. Mr. Eckman asked if this would be an acceptable procedure for Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. McMaster as a compromise for lack of notice for the original preliminary hearing. Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. McMaster stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Eckman said there would be an appeal right from that hearing. • Mr. McMaster commented that this was a creative attempt to deal with this problem and had no objections. He still believed there was a lack of empowerment by the neighbors and that when this project comes up for final approval, it was a "done deal." He said that several people believed that because they had missed the initial hearing, so why should they show up for the hearing. He said it was hard to get people's inertia to express their concerns, noting there were members of the neighborhood present tonight but choosing not to speak. Mr. Eckman asked if this was a fair compromise and provides due process to come back before the Board and have an appeal right on the substantive issues of the plan and to dispose of this notice matter. Mr. McMaster agreed that was acceptable. Member Fontane asked if the review of the Thayer plat would be addressed on November 15. Mr. Peterson replied yes. Mr. Eckman pointed out that even though there was an agreement between the three parties, and that there won't be other issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, there is no guarantee. Motion passed 7-0. is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 22 THE PRESERVE APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL #146-79P Kirsten Whetstone gave a slide presentation and the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD; plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (December 13, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made). If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that the dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of the time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. • 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 23 Steven Hegge, Cumberland Development and developer, stated that the company has been in business over 25 years and develop luxury, high -end communities. He stated that most of their properties are for sale, although they have completed a number of ventures in the multi - community as well. He stated that he desires to bring to Fort Collins developments that would be an asset to the community. He introduced Bruce Hendee, landscape architect from BHA Design; Doug Wagner and Jim Miles Lambert, of Miles -Lambert, architectural team; and representatives from TST, Steve Human and Matt Delich, traffic consultant. Mr. Hegge stated they would like to incorporate the information by staff and the developer, in each of the previous meetings by way of incorporation into tonight's record. He wanted the previous meetings not to duplicate all of the information already presented. He gave a brief background history of the project by stating that there was a pre -application meeting held December 7, 1992; a neighborhood meeting March 27, 1993; preliminary hearing by the P&Z Board May 3, 1993, which was approved 6-0 and recommended for final session; P & Z Board final approval 5-2 was given June 28, 1993 with a height variance. He stated that there was an appeal of that final decision by two homeowners that boarder the park on the west side on July 19, 1993. He stated that City Council heard the appeal August 3, 1993 and the decision was to overturn the P&Z findings by resolution (reasons stated in staff report). He stated that August • 19, 1993 a mailing was sent to an expanded list of nearly 350 individuals to parties of interest and adjacent neighborhoods. He said this mailing was done on behalf of the development team to have as much input as possible from the community -at -large because of the broad input this development has. He said the August 30 homeowner meeting was attended by 29 people. He submitted the homeowner letter to the Board for the record and said homeowner meetings were held before hearings and this meeting was in addition to them. He hoped to address the issues that came up during that meeting tonight. He stated that changes have been made, footprints were not changed, building locations were not changed but the building elevations were, and some of the mass issues, such as the landscaping and a number of other things, were discussed with the assumption that they were working with an approved PUD in place and were trying to address issues relative to perspective of the buildings in relation to the part or viewed from Drake. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, reviewed the overall plan with a slide presentation and discussed the specific issues relating to the Council resolution. Mr. Hendee explained how the landscaping surrounding the building sides would be a visual buffer to soften the view of the buildings and would be very tall to low lying shrubs, trees, and bushes. He pointed out that the ditch restricted the developer on the location of the building sites. He said, with respect to the buildings located on Drake, the garages would be grouped together and would create a large greenbelt, more space between the garages and the back of the sidewalk to allow for more planting and additional plantings next to the buildings to soften the buildings. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 24 Mr. Hendee addressed architectural compatibility. He stated that in addition to the architectural considerations through orientation, material, color, scale and prominence of buildings, adjacent land uses can be coordinated so there would be a gradual transition from one land use to another, rather than a sharp and displeasing contrast. He cited the Worthington development that has been approved and accepted by the City, citing distances (38 feet in height, 90% is at that height, 3-stories). He stated that there was no buffering between the property and the ditch. He said there was a 100-foot buffer between the Ross Open Space at the Preserve, the depth of the building cited is twice on the proposed Preserve, and bulk is less. He presented the various building type elevation plans and stated the building heights have been reduced to 38 feet. He compared the Worthington development to Building Type 4 at the Preserve which provides landscaping for buffer of the mass. He stated that the building height was 39 feet 10 inches at one point taking 37 percent of the. Building Type 4 elevation of the Preserve. He said another portion of the building was at 36 feet representing another 37 percent, and 26 percent is less than 36 feet in height. He referred to Type 1 Building where 15 percent is 39 feet 10 inches, 85 percent is 37 or less; Type 2 Building -is 16 percent 39 feet 9 inches 84 percent of it is less than 37 feet; Type 3 Building is 16 percent, 39 feet 9 inches and 84 percent is less than 37 feet in height. Mr. Hendee said the overall site would be an asset to the community. He said that he conferred with the architects working on the senior center and color coordinating with the senior center on the materials that are used, using brick and roofing similar in content. He presented an architectural rendering to the Board that gave the appearance of the buildings proposed. He said that some of the garages will be delayed in construction to allow the plants growth time to create a buffer. Mr. Hendee addressed transportation by stating that the Preserve is in compliance with the Transportation Department, planning $250,000 in fees and road improvements for this particular project. He commented that the Drake -Shields intersection level of service is "C", meaning there is a 16.9 second wait. He said no signal would be proposed at Drake and the Preserve egress. Member Winfree asked for renderings of the garage structures. Member Cottier asked about the garage structures, the two larger ones located near the Ross Open Space, and about the maturing of the landscape and how tall were the buildings. Mr. Hendee replied that they are single story garages,12-15 feet with the shrubs 6-8 foot height. He described the garages as single -story structures, with hipped roofs, hard board siding, and the backs will appear solid along Drake with landscaping 10-15 feet and low evergreens. . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 25 PUBLIC INPUT Chair Clements -Cooney announced to the audience that this has been a sensitive and emotional proposal and would like to hear from anyone who would like to address the Preserve, but in return show us the same respect and listen to us as Board members as to what we have to share with you. Dave Sawyer, 2436 Newport Court, stated that when this issue was before Council regarding the height variance, the third vote was stated as "I move to make a motion that if the final comes back to Planning and Zoning again on this project, they consider the height, mass, bulk and size of the project and how it fits into the surrounding area." He said that this motion passed unanimously 6-0. He stated that the Mayor gave the additional statement "If the people decide to pursue this further, let's hope that we get one of the most important projects that have come before us right." He believed that the developer has not come back with any significant changes, thus the developer is showing contempt both to the citizens as well as to our duly elected representatives on the City Council. He urged the Planning & Zoning Board not to show the same contempt, but to not accept the proposal. • Lora Tell, 925 Columbia Road, believed it was important to improve the apartment homes in Fort Collins, stating that three years ago she had no selection other than two available apartments. She sighted the growth of the community and the need for this type of development, believing The Preserve is a suitable project. She stated that she was not an employee of The Preserve and has resided in southeast Fort Collins for 20 years. Amy Grubs, 1442 Glen Haven, stated she was a one-time Chairman of the Larimer County Planning Commission, and now a resident to the south of the site. She strongly urged the approval of the project, a quality she would like to see in Fort Collins. She said that time is money and the developers had spent a great deal pending approval; if more changes are required, it would lessen the quality of the proposed site. Margaret Fillmore, 2337 S. Shields, had concerns with the traffic, specifically Raintree and Shields, which is a very small intersection, particularly left. She recommended a traffic light be installed at this time on Drake and Raintree with the development of this project. Gerald Taylor, 1619 Scarborough Dr., commented on the traffic flow problem. He stated there will be more traffic problems moving west on Drake, making it more difficult to exit the Lexington Green neighborhood at Constitution. She requested that a light be installed there as well. He also stated the building height was still unacceptable which change the attractiveness of the Rolland Moore Park which he believed to be one of the most beautiful in the nation. He believed that the developer's modifications were a disappointment. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 26 Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Court, stated that the developers had not addressed the changes directed by Council. She said the size, bulk and mass cannot be addressed by landscaping and painting. She believed the landscaping might soften the bulk, size and mass in 20 years, but the size of the buildings needs to be reduced. She said the traffic problem, citing four lanes proposed, with the suggestion that the City and developer widen Drake all the way to Taft Hill. She pointed out that The Preserve is the most dense square mile in town. She said there already exists 4,000 bedrooms in that square mile. She stated that the Summerhill proposal within that square mile is being proposed, as well as another at Stuart and Shields, multi -family housing project; Mulvaney, at the comer of Prospect and Shields, will probably be requesting multi- family housing, totaling an additional 1,000 bedrooms. She said the Board should consider this potential traffic congestion. Bob Vinton, 1513 Teakwood Ct., stated he was involved with the Air Quality Task Force and Congestion Management Advisory Committee. He urged approval of this project for the following reasons: (1) density targets of the City's comprehensive plan, efficient use of City services, revenues generated, and air quality (mass transit), and (2) the site is well suited, people will be able to bike and walk to work, the developer meets LDGS criteria, and that it is right for Fort Collins. Ronn Frank, Partner in Raintree Associates, owner of the land the developers are proposing, expressed gratitude for the extension of the current Raintree PUD of 290 units. He supported The Preserve plan, with many outstanding qualities and asked for approval. Tom Smith, 1212 S. College, stated he was associated with Housing Helpers to help people find apartments to rent. He stated The Preserve is in the top 5 of over 1,000 apartment communities he has surveyed along the front range. He stated one of the goals of the City was to increase affordable housing in Fort Collins as a stated need. He urged approval of this much needed development. Jim Piper, 2424 Newport Court, referred to the LDGS in regard to compatibility --new projects should be compatible with the existing neighborhood, aesthetically pleasing, blending in, etc. He pointed out two objectives of the appeal: (1) the compatibility of the height, and (2) mass and bulk be modified to the existing neighborhood. He said not only the height was incompatible, but also the 210 foot length of the buildings. He also brought up the traffic issue as well as the neighborhood not being opposed to the development of the property, saying 2- story townhomes would be more compatible. Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport Court, said she was one of the people who filed the appeal to the City Council on the overall project. She said the density, building mass, etc., was too much and the developers have not reduced it enough. She commended the landscaping, but believed the 3-story buildings were too high. She also commented that she was unaware of the appeal • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 27 filing process and would have done so after the first meeting. She asked if the Board would provide citizens with written information regarding appeals. Carolyn Taylor, 1619 Scarborough Dr., said her concerns were against the project as others have previously stated. She particularly pointed out the closeness of the buildings to Drake and the height of the buildings on a very high point of the property, stating it was out of character with the neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements -Cooney asked about the concern of the traffic patterns in regards to the project. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, replied that a number of warrants need to be met before a light could be installed. He added that currently the volume is minimal, at best 30-40 vehicles at Drake and Raintree. He said this traffic flow will continue to be studied. Member Cottier asked if a signal could be put is even if unwarranted. Mr. Bracke said that there is a liability involved in placing unwarranted signals, that it was fairly expensive and other locations throughout the community need signals first, and that they look very carefully at those allocations and place those where they are warranted. Member Walker asked if improvement along Drake is in the City's Choices 1995 and when will that be accomplished. Mr. Bracke replied yes, he believed it would take place in 1995 but would have to check further with Engineering. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineer, answered that the Choices 1995 is scheduled for Canterbury to Taft Hill on Drake for design in 1994 and construction in 1995. Member Winfree asked about the business approved at this location, specifically the 1,200-seat theater, as well as other businesses considered when planning projections for the intersection of Drake and Shields. Mr. Bracke replied yes, other businesses are considered to the year 2010. Member Fontane asked what the level of service was for the intersection of Shields and Raintree? 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 28 Mr. Bracke stated it operates at Level A and B throughout the day, operating well within the City standards. Member Strom pointed out that there is an existing signal but asked where the traffic load generates from. Mr. Bracke replied that the traffic load generates from the shopping center and cut -through, eastbound traffic. Chair Clements -Cooney shared with the audience the appeal process, utilizing the planning process in general. She stated that the Neighborhood Compatibility Team has studied and recommended an informational card to citizens about the appeal process, the LDGS plans, deal with the specific project at hand and there is proposed an individual ambassador from the community to mediate and educate neighbors and encourage involvement. She stated that concerned citizens might tune into the November 1 meeting that will address this issue. Member Walker restated the purpose of the meeting for this project was to examine for Council the height variance and the issue of mass and bulk of the buildings. He said that is what he has to evaluate if the developer has met those concerns, as well as the aesthetic view of the development from Ross Open Space. He noted that four of the buildings are Type 4 buildings, the largest height. He felt these issues have not been solved. Member Winfree questioned the definition of Building Types 1-4. Mr. Hegge stated he would like to answer the question by where the unit mix originates. He stated the history of the site buildings with the highest at Drake Road. He stated that the neighbors were concerned about the location of those types of buildings. They were relocated on the bluff on the west side. The garages at single level were place to buffer the larger buildings along Drake. He showed where the units that would house the families (centrally located within the complex to provide protection for the children, away from the ditch and provide open space for them to play). He said that 98 bedrooms are single which is 35.6 percent of the overall mix; the I- and 2- bedroom units are more luxury for adult occupancy, offering a view of the park and mountains, the high end of the complex and located by the ditch. He said there are 24 3-bedroom units (12 of 3-bedrooms have a den and 2 baths), stating a shortage in Fort Collins of this type. He said these units will rent at $1,000+ and are designed for families with children; there are 48 2-bedroom units that are at 969 square feet; 56 at 1,123 square feet; 52 (2-bedroom/den units) at 1,240 square feet. He said consumer demand is for more space as a life-style, consequently, larger buildings. Any other design would not offer affordable rent. He stated this was the premiere site in Fort Collins for this density development of high -end luxury quality although they had to omit the high vaulted ceilings. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 29 Member Winfree asked for the types of buildings and the number of bedrooms. Mr. Hegge replied that the types of buildings and number of bedrooms for each type are as follows: Type 1 - 10 - 2-bedroom 4 - 3-bedroom 4 - 3 bedroom/den (largest units) Type 2 - 2 - largest 2-bedrooms (no small 1- or 2-bedrooms) Type 3 - 10 - 1-bedroom 8 - 2-bedroom Type 4 - 12 - 1-bedroom 12 - 2-bedroom Mr. Hegge stated there has been requests, earlier in the planning stages, to locate buildings because of height in different areas and the developer has complied and was noticing a change in neighborhood direction at this meeting. Member Fontane referred to Council minutes when they requested changes regarding this issue. She noted there are two different ways that bulk and scale are being addressed: (1) bulk and scale of the buildings and (2) bulk and scale of the project, density. She said she believed Council was directing consideration of buildings as to bulk and scale because it is more subjective. She said Council addressed traffic issue, which is not a problem. She quoted Councilmember Janett as stating "The developer has done a good job with the compatibility of the project and landscaping issues, but stated the height issues were not appropriate." She stated that Councilmember Kneeland supported the project, but stated additional information needed to be provided to Planning and Zoning Board. Member Fontane said the builder has cut down the height of the building and has made substantial effort to mitigate the density of what you see, and change the appearance and have met some of the things the Council has asked them to do. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the developer as to his indication that there is no other building design, other than Building Design No. 4, that can be used to accommodate the number of units that he has have. Mr. Hegge said there are other plans, but it would all have to be redesigned. Member Cottier commented that despite the fact that Council votes were unanimous, she believed that there were some real differences in opinions expressed that weren't clear. She said Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 30 that Council Members Apt and Janett believed that the developers did a good job with compatibility. All the issues that were being discussed were very subjective through interpretation and that Council may interpret it one way and the Board in another way. She summarized that the developers have met changes in height, landscaping plantings, building design with relief and colors which addressed Council's request for density, height, bulk and mass plans. The Board was asked to meet Criteria #2, in the LDGS, which states "Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment." This is the most subjective criteria, and a number of the Council believed that it was. The buildings in the plan attempt in their design to look "residential." She believed that they are big buildings, but the overall bulk and mass have been mitigated. Member Cottier moved to approve The Preserve - Final with the condition as stated in the staff memo. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Walker stated that he would not support the motion for the reason stated earlier with regard to height and mass of the buildings and the northside not meeting Criteria #2. He is generally satisfied with other parts of the project, more stepped roof lines of the other building type and their locations, but, because the buildings that front on the open space and park area are Type 4, he believed Type 2 or 3 were more inappropriate for this location. Member Winfree stated she would not be supporting the motion. She believed the Council acted on two things: (1) the height variance and (2) the mass and bulk of the project, meaning buildings. She said density was not a question at this point. She said although the height had been brought down, the Type 4 Building is the most obtrusive in length and most imposing of building types. She did not think these requests had been met, and therefore would not support the motion. Member Strom commented on compatibility and conflicts issues. He said that in terms of Conflicts in the LDGS, noise, odor, light, shadow, aesthetics, privacy and safety were listed. He said in the context of this site, these are not considerations because the project is not even close to a "sensitive receptor," privacy doesn't seem to be an issue, access question was raised and a consideration. He stated that along with that is the safety question. He stated that the Board was down to "aesthetics," the most subject issue dealt by the Board. He pointed out that in this situation, with relationship to other residences and other neighborhoods, the units on the park side of the project are at least 500 feet from the nearest residential use on the north edge. He said this distance extends to approximately 1,500 feet between the units and the residences in the neighborhood. He couldn't think of any other site in Fort Collins where there would be that much open space buffer between uses. The remaining question is what kind of effect is this going to have on the Park and the uses within it. He said realistically, most of the people using Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 31 the park are still at major distances. He said while the Board would prefer some design be done differently, particularly the building types, he felt within the context how the project relates to its surroundings, it appears, in his judgment, acceptable. Member Cottier commented that she recalled at the meeting where the preliminary plan had been approved by this Board, the neighborhood expressed the sentiment they wanted the bigger buildings along the northern edge along the open space and the lower, smaller buildings along Drake. Chair Clements -Cooney reiterated the City policy as it particularly relates to Land Use Policy Plan, the Air Quality Plan. She commented about some of the issues that were eloquently stated by Mr. Vinton earlier. She said each Board member had a chance to go to a growth management workshop and invited people from the region, planners, commissioners, citizens. She said there was discussion concerning growth management, sprawl, land use as it relates to air quality and tonight is a project that relates to those issues. The Board wants higher density projects in the urban area and infill projects. She stated that when there is building away from the city, it costs greatly, and as taxpayers, in infra -structure for sewer, road and in schools, air transportation, etc. She said as densities are increased and infill projects on vacant lots increase, • it reduces the infra -structure because most of it is already in place. She mentioned in the larger scope of things, it will encourage people to use public transit because the density is there to provide public transit and people will walk. She concluded that all of these concepts which the City has based their land use policy plans on, has been brought tonight before the Board in this project. She defined the meaning of high -density in Fort Collins is different than in eastern or urban cities, and, in our community, it may seem obtrusive, yet she sees it representing the policies that City Council has set forth to guide the future of Fort Collins, to stop the sprawl, to stop eating up our land which is limited, to reduce the cost to the taxpayer and not subsidize the infra -structure. She said there could be debate all night, but wanted to affirm that the developer has tried to meet all criteria and she would be supporting the motion. The motion to approve passed 5 to 2 with Members Walker and Winfree in the negative. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. 9