Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/06/1995PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • CONTINUATION OF THE JANUARY 23, 1995 HEARING FEBRUARY 6, 1995 STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottiex, Strom, Walker. Staff Present: Blanchard, Olt, Shepard, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Mapes, and Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the discussion agenda for the items continued from the January 23, 1995 meeting: 11. #2-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. 12. #11-81M Huntington Hills PUD, Filing 5 - Preliminary. 13. #28-89D Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion PUD - Final. 14. #34-90A Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change. 15. #43-94A Horsetooth East Business Park PUD, Filing Two - Preliminary. 16. #18-94B Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary. Discussion Agenda: North College Avenue Corridor Plan: Staff Presentation: Clark Mapes gave Staff s presentation. Slides were shown of the area being studied. The plan has been in the making for approximately 2 1/2 years. There would be no decision on this item tonight, this hearing is for public comment only. The plan was done primarily in three phases: Phase 1, a thorough analysis of existing conditions; identification of issues and problems such as transportation; drainage; and the means of area development from past to present. Phase 2, further analysis of existing conditions; development of a vision for the area; workshop held for citizens and the committee; and a draft report issued in February of 1994. Phase 3, recommendations. The Dry Creek Drainage Way has posed the most significant problem for the corridor plan. This deals with the flood plain of Dry Creek and how to reroute the creek for storm flooding. The preferred alternative is to divert Dry Creek to the Poudre River thereby eliminating the flooding possibility. Storm water Utility has been studying the issue. The plan recommends that Storm Water Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 2 Utility continue to search for possible funding for the improvement. It appears the cost will be approximately $5 to 5.5 million. other key points are: stereoscope improvements; access control on North College; proposed street connection roads; identified park site; key pedestrian connections; and proposed new zoning districts, which are highway commercial zone, business center zone, and urban neighborhood zone. Public Comment: Dean Hoag, business owner on North College, has been involved with this project since its inception. He gives his support of the plan and feels it is a step in the right direction to encourage more growth. Karen Weitkenaut stated that she also has been on the committee since its inception. She wished to express her support of the project and feels it represents the ideas and the directions needed for the north area of Fort Collins. Jennifer Prine, resident of north area since 1972, wished to speak for all the citizens who have lost hope in trying to defeat this project. She stated that she likes the appearance of the area and would like to see it remain the same. Ms. Prine expressed her concern for the water use that is required to maintain the proposed new landscape in the area and questioned such as a possible future water problem. She would like to see a preservation of the natural areas which contain an abundance of wildlife. She would also like to see future growth limited in the area and feels this projects is growth for growth's sake. Board Discussion: Discussion was held addressing Ms. Prine's concern for the preservation of the natural. areas. Mr. Mapes stated that great emphasis has been placed on preserving natural areas in accordance with developing recreational park areas. Ms. Prine's concern for the use of too much water was also discussed. Explanation was given that; No. 1, water supply is not a limiting factor for the project; No. 2, the parks department is shifting towards more drought tolerant, less water requiring turf grass. Discussion was held on the difficult issue of growth. It was stated that this area has been a high -priority area for City Council to encourage environmentally sensitive and aesthetically pleasing development that would reduce travel to the south of Fort Collins. Mr. Mapes stated the goal is for planned development and redevelopment in a full range of uses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes .February 6, 1995 Page 3 An attempt is being made to create the possibility of more use -by - right processing of development. The intention of the plan is for the overall character of the district to be an extension of the downtown area. It was stated that this plan encourages growth of small businesses with perhaps one large discount -type store, but a similar development to the South College area is discouraged. Further explanation of the Dry Creek Drainage Basin was requested. The following points were mentioned: *The majority of the basin drainage is intercepted by the Eaton Ditch. *Major flooding has not occurred since 1904. However, the area is designated a flood plain and specific design standards must be followed. *The desire is for diversion of the flood plain around the proposed central business district into the Poudre River with local flows still being handled through the Eaton Ditch. More area development will result in less permeable surface available. Therefore, flooding probability will increase. Member Cottier stated that she liked the plan and believes it will be good for the area. She emphasized that she particularly liked the transportation components of encouraging biking and walking in the area and the concept of businesses downstairs and living quarters upstairs. She also expressed approval of the improved road connection system addressed in the plan. Discussion was held on the purpose of developing essentially raw ground rather than continued development down North College Avenue. Mr. Mapes replied that continued development down North College was prohibitive because it is a highway but added that the proposed development site was quite close to the existing downtown area. Chairman Clements expressed her desire for everyone involved to learn from the excessive amount of time that was taken before this project reached this stage and thanked the citizens, business owners, and neighborhoods that have worked on this project for so long. Huntington Hills PUD, Filing Five, Preliminary: Member Bell had a conflict of interest on this item and excused herself. Staff Presentation: Ted Shepard gave Staff's presentation. Details of the request were outlined in the Staff report given to • the Board. Staff believes that the plan complies with the amended overall development plan and recommends two conditions for approval: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 4 1) In conjunction with the submittal for Final P.U.D., for any Phase of this Preliminary P.U.D., the wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan shall be in final form and mutually acceptable to the applicant and the Department of Natural Resources by the time of the deadline for "revised plans" for such submittal review cycle. 2) Phases 6, 7, and 8 of Huntington Hills 5th Filing Preliminary P.U.D. are not granted an expression of approval of layout and density in order to adequately plan for options on extending Fossil Creek Parkway over Fossil Creek, accordingly, the Planning and Zoning Board may impose additional requirements or conditions pertaining to the general layout and density at the time of Final approval. Staff was also recommending a variance to the requirement that the density be at 3.00 dwelling units per acre. This project comes in at approximately 2.99 and staff was recommending approval based on compliance with the Overall Development Plan and that future phases of the development plan are designated for higher density multi -family residential. Staff is also recommending approval of a variance to the requirement that 65% of the lots be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east/west line. The project is approximately 12 lots short, resulting in a compliance rate of 59%. Staff is recommending approval based on the orientation of the site and topographical conditions. A slide show was presented by Staff The determination was made that the connection of Fossil Creek Parkway would not be resolved with this filing. It was questioned whether any future changes in the alignment would perhaps necessitate a change in the density of the project. Mr. Shepard stated that it was too early to tell. However, he thought a slight density change may occur. Applicant's Presentation: The following issues were presented by the applicant, Mark Palkowich, 650 S. Cherry Street, Denver, Colorado: The problems that have arisen with this project have been solved, with the exception of Fossil Creek Parkway and the wildlife mitigation issues. There was expressed frustration with the mitigation issue in that a great deal of time and money has been expended to resolve the issues, and there has yet to be a final resolution. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 5 The wetlands that have been provided and set aside within the project demonstrate a willingness to contribute to the development of the Fossil Creek community. A 20-acre lake will be funded by the applicant. This lake will eliminate the odor emitting from the existing lake. Plans call for the removal of the undesired Salt Cedar and Russian Olive existing in the area. The applicant estimates this undertaking to cost between $500,000 and $750,000. There is a tremendous cost burden placed upon the applicant, due to the issue of collector streets traveling through the property. The City has required these connections but will not be assisting in the cost burden. The applicant noted the connection provided by the street systems proposed in the project, which would provide direct access for school children to Werner Elementary from all surrounding areas. Dave Frick, with Resource Consultants, spoke for the applicant. He explained that 243 units have been proposed for the fifth filing of the project and stated that the ODP actually calls for 228 units. Therefore, the density of the project exceeds the ODP by 14 units. Mr. Frick addressed the solar orientation difficulty stating that Fossil Creek Parkway extends diagonally through the property causing the orientation of a number of the proposed lots to be more than 30 degrees off of the north/south line. As a result of those constraints, there is no way to adequately meet both the density and solar orientation requirements. Mr. Frick stated that the possible alignments of Fossil Creek Parkway have been examined, and the possibility of lost lots does exist depending on the outcome of the stability study currently underway by Storm Water Utility. Mr. Frick believes that in all the options examined, none would result in more than the 14 lots lost that are already over on the ODP requirements. Karen Shelnel McDonald presented slides of the project demonstrating very poor conditions of overgrazing and an excessive congregation of prairie dogs. She stated that the existing reservoir area is overgrown with undesirable species of plants. Ms. McDonald addressed the concern City Staff has with the prairie dog removal in the area because of the food source the prairie dogs possibly provide for birds of prey stating that this area is really not an appropriate habitat system to attempt to maintain because of the existing surrounding residential developments which discourages use by several wildlife species. Ms. McDonald said the Division of Wildlife has confirmed a minimum requirement of 100 acres of active prairie dog town for some of the rarer species of raptor use and pointed out that this project is smaller than that minimum. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 6 The habitat evaluation and mitigation plan proposed by the applicant focuses on: improving habitat to wildlife species at the proposed reservoir by removing undesirable vegetation; maximizing on the habitat available in the area for raptor species that are more tolerant to human disturbances; development of wildlife corridors which prevent isolated patches. Ms. McDonald believes that the City very much needs mitigation guidelines which would save time, effort, and money for the City as well as the developers and could help identify priorities and provide deadlines for City responses to proposed mitigation. She expressed frustration with the amount of time spent in attempting to reach mitigation. Dave Osborn, the applicant's attorney, stated that sufficient good - faith effort has been demonstrated by the applicant with respect to the project and the proposals on the issue of mitigation. He believes Phase 5 should be submitted without the mitigation condition and only with the condition of the alignment changes which have been discussed. Public Comment: Roger Marshall, representative of Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowner's Association, addressed three areas of concern: 1) Why Fossil Creek Parkway should dissect the natural area; 2) Why Fossil Creek Parkway must go through the natural area since Skyview already does so; 3) How the City will remedy the substandard quality of Fossil Creek Parkway in its connection with Fossil Creek Meadows. Jordan Honey, resident of Brittany Knolls, had two questions: 1) What the proposed fate will be for the prairie dogs living in the area; 2) What the intent is in terms of getting footpath coordination in the area to access the large reservoir areas. John Masido stated that he has done some wildlife management consulting and wished to relay that over 50,000 acres of prairie dog communities exist in the county and believes the loss of this prairie dog acreage will be minimal. Board Discussion and vote: Mr. Shepard addressed the concern with Fossil Creek Parkway extending through the natural area and stated that it has not yet been determined whether or not the extension of the parkway will take place. He explained that approval pertains to the alignment being placed in such a location so as to minimize the crossing of the flood plain. Mr. Shepard also addressed the importance of the extension of Fossil Creek Parkway stating that Fossil Creek Meadows is a one - outlet subdivision to many major locations. The extension would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 7 an attempt to have a collector street that serves most of the interior areas. Mr. Shepard addressed the frustration felt with the amount of time that has been taken on this project. He stated that the parkway discussions have been slow going because it was not desired to put this large, expensive capital improvement out in front of the growth. Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Department addressed the apparent delay with regard to the wildlife mitigation issue. He stated that the Natural Resources Department still feels the proposed mitigation is not sufficient to offset the impacts of the project. Mr. Wilkinson addressed the concern about the raptors in the area stating that several proposals have been set forth such as an acquisition package to set aside as a natural area and possible offsite development for the raptors. Ms. McDonald addressed the concern for the fate of the prairie dogs stating that this issue has not, at this point, been focused on and . such would not necessarily be part of the mitigation plan but would be a consideration later in the process. Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Director addressed the issue of Fossil Creek Parkway being a substandard street. He stated that no specific plan is in place at this time and further discussion will need to take place with the City, neighborhood, and County if possible. However, it would become the City's responsibility to raise the standard of the street, and the City would have some opportunities for funding. Mr. Shepard addressed the question of possible pedestrian access to the reservoir from the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that a community trail is proposed and exact alignment of the trail has not yet been determined. Discussion was held on the possibility of a Skyway extension being sufficient to alleviate the need for the extension of Fossil Creek Parkway. Mr. Shepard explained that Skyway is a beneficial portion of the collector system but does not benefit access for Fossil Creek Meadows to Lemay, does not benefit access to Werner School, and does not create an internal collector street network. Discussion was held on the applicant's request that the condition of the mitigation plan not be tied to preliminary for the first five phases because they did not impact the natural areas. Mr. Shepard replied that Condition No. 1 is an attempt to comply with the overall development plan which indicates that the wildlife Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 8 habitat mitigation plan shall be mutually acceptable. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the whole site is a wildlife habitat and all five phases should be covered because they do represent habitat that is being lost. In response to questioning, Mr. Shepard stated that an agreement would have to be reached on the mitigation plan by the revision date which is undetermined at this time. Discussion was held on whether or not any guidelines had been given to the applicant. Mr. Wilkinson stated that there is no strict formula to follow allowing them to make a list for the applicant. However, the Department is trying to use their own professional judgment and be somewhat liberal in their interpretations. Discussion was held on the negotiation of points allowing the Kelmar Strip to qualify as a major employment center. Concern was expressed for the difficult position the Board is being placed in when negotiation of points has taken place for an area that would not qualify without the negotiations. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney stated that the purchase agreement entered into between the City and Fossil Creek Meadows Development Group provides a provision that the City will grant the maximum points for being 3,000 feet from a major employment center. Mr. Shepard explained that different criteria has developed since the time of the sale agreement. Concern was expressed over the appearance that the various City departments involved with the complex issues of this project have not worked together on the project. Mr. Wilkinson stated that some types of information are not required early in the process. Therefore, there is potential for issues to arise in the end even if coordination attempts are made. Discussion was held on the inclusion of citizen input on the design of the reservoir. Mr. Shepard stated that his belief was the Parks and Recreation Department was working closely with citizens on the design of the reservoir. However, he believes this is a separate contractual undertaking from the fifth filing. Member Fontane moved, seconded by Member Cottier: To approve the Huntington Hills, Filing Five, Preliminary with Condition No. 2 and the solar variance but with modification to Condition No. 1 to say that at the time of the approval of the final plan, the mitigation plan has to be in final form and acceptable to the Board rather than to Staff. Member Cottier stated that she feels bound by the sale agreement made with respect to the purchase of the parkland and will live by that agreement. She also wanted to express her desire to see some guidelines for the mitigation process in the future. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 9 Member Strom stated that he will support the motion and is comfortable that the applicant has met the necessary points. However, he is uncomfortable with the idea of negotiating away points under the Land Development Guidance System and would, at some point in the future, like to have an inventory of how many projects are outstanding that have had points negotiated away prior to any Planning and Zoning hearing or citizen process. Member Carnes stated that he feels the City has a special responsibility in such a complex situation as this to help integrate all the concerns involved. He expressed his sympathy to the applicant in its valiant effort to try to meet all concerns. He also would like to see the City departments involved in these type of complex projects fully represented at the Planning and Zoning Board hearings and fully expressing all the considerations, alternatives, and recommendations to the projects. Mr. Carnes stated that he will also be supporting this motion. Mr. walker relayed that he felt comfortable with the Fossil Creek Parkway condition. However, he felt uncomfortable with the unresolved issue of the mitigation plan and would like to see more clarity in the future. He also wanted to express his disapproval of the negotiation of points in the Land Development Guidance System and feels this sort of action is completely inappropriate. The Motion approved unanimously 7-0. Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion PVD, Final: Staff Presentation: Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner summarized the project stating that this issue has come back to the Board after an appeal to the City Council on preliminary approval on the grounds that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code and charter. The appeal was denied by City Council. The final plan has minor changes including: provision of a bicycle rack and changes in some vegetation on the south side of the building. The expansion details were laid out in Staff's report. The Board also received four letters from people in opposition to the expansion as well as an addendum to the lease agreement outlining no additional expansions upon approval. In addition, if the expansion is approved tonight, any nonconformity existing between the Housing Authority and the zoning district will be removed. Staff is still recommending approval of the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 10 Applicant's Presentation: Shelly Stevens, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, believes the requirements of the Land Development Guidance System have been met. She pointed out that the Housing Authority has voluntarily entered into a lease provision that would prohibit future expansion beyond the current proposal. Ms. Stevens explained that the Housing Authority office was built as an administrative facility to attend to the HUD funded public housing units through the funds of CIAP, and CIAP moneys can only be used for improvements at the existing building. Relocation alternatives have been investigated and are cost prohibitive within the constraints of the administrative budget. Citizen Participation: Valerie Pedis, representative of the City Park Neighborhood Association, reiterated the concerns put forth in her letter which was given to the Board. She stated that if the expansion is approved, two additional changes to the lease are requested: 1) Existing space may only be expanded by converting the garage area into office space and relocating the maintenance facility; 2) Relocate all outside storage. Betty Maloney, Co-chair of the Affordable Housing Task Force of Larimer County, expressed her frustration with the roadblocks encountered when attempts are made to place affordable housing projects. She believes the opposition to this expansion is due to not wanting the Housing Authority in the area, not because the expansion doesn't fit within the guidelines. She also believes that the humanitarian use of the location is as important to the community as the recreational use of the nearby ball park. John Mansinio pointed out the addition is twice what the original lease was for, and the original lease was set out for office space, not storage and shop facilities. A survey was given to the Board showing residents' strong disapproval of the project. Mr. Mansinio showed slides of mature trees that would be removed if the expansion was approved, and he showed slides of the unsightly mess in the City Park storage facility. Nancy Grey explained that when the original lease was drawn up, the building was used to house one part-time employee of the Housing Authority and the rest of the building would be used as a community building or recreation facility. She stated that in 1992 an expansion was unanimously turned down based on improper land use. She also stated the Land Use Development Guidance System's underlying question is: What is good land use? She also believes the fencing at the facility blocks the visibility of the park. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 11 Nell VanDriel stated that no one who is opposing the expansion is doing so because they are against the Housing Authority. The opposition comes from the belief that the use of the facility does not belong in the neighborhood. Board Discussion and Vote: In response to questioning, the following points were made: Mitigation moneys will be set aside for the planting of two three- inch caliper trees to replace four trees ranging from 10 to 20 inches in diameter. This is a plan approved by the City Forester. Accumulation of debris varies in the outside storage facility. After a few turnarounds on units, accumulation builds, and approximately once a month the maintenance crews remove the buildup. All accumulation is within the confines of the fence and not in public view. Fencing will not be removed if expansion is not approved. The Housing Authority is no longer being served by Transfort. Member Cottier believes the Housing Authority has outgrown this facility and the facility is not in compliance with the West Side Neighborhood Plan. With regard to the LDGS, she believes that in evaluating this area for a PUD, it does not meet the All - Development Criteria. Also, Member Cottier pointed out the Housing Authority is supposed to be in a location accessible to the people it serves, and therefore, this location does not apply since it is no longer served by public transportation. Member Walker explained that the general procedure on nonconforming uses is to try to eliminate them over time. He believes this project is a misapplication of the PUD; believes more care should be taken in looking at how the trees are being removed; believes the terms of the lease have not been followed; and believes the Housing Authority, irrespective of their mission, should be held to the same standards as anyone else. Moved by Member Walker, seconded by Member Cottier: To deny the Fort Collins Housing Authority PUD, Final. Member Bell stated that she believes a stronger stance needs to be taken in listening to the collective memories and trying to honor the time and effort that citizens are putting forth in the discussions of various projects. She also hopes that if this decision is appealed again, the City Council members will take a very careful look at the lease agreement because it does not appear that certain areas are being withheld at the current time. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 12 Chairman Clements expressed her opinion that trust should be placed in Staff and believes the final PUD is in compliance with the preliminary PUD which was approved by the Board and upheld by City Council. Motion denied four to three, with Members Carnes, Fontane, Clements, and Strom voting in the negative. Moved by Member Fontane, seconded by Member Strom: To approve the Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion PUD, Final, with the condition for the standard development agreement. Motion approved four to three, with Members Bell, Cottier, and Walker voting in the negative. Saturn PUD, Referral of an Administrative chanae: Chairman Clements had a conflict of interest on this item and excused herself. Staff Presentation: Steve Olt presented a brief overview of the request for an addition to the existing Saturn building as well as a change in character to the site. Staff approved of the request for an addition but denied the change in exterior appearance. The applicant has therefore asked that the administrative change for the exterior appearance be referred to the Board for decision. AoblicantIs Presentation: Frank Vaught, from Vaught Frye Architects, explained that the current addition being requested will be on the east side of the existing building. He explained that the brick used on the original building is no longer manufactured. Therefore, it was felt that the new expansion would be a good time to perhaps give the building a fresh new look which can most reasonably be accomplished by building the new addition out of a different material. A synthetic stucco has been chosen for this purpose. In addition, the stucco material would be wrapped around the top of the existing building and the brick portion of the building would be painted. Mr. Vaught presented slides on the proposed new look. He stated that he feels the new image being requested is tasteful and well designed and, therefore, should not be compared with the existing building but should be judged on its own merits as if it were a new structure. Mr. Doug Markley and Mr. Gene Markley, owners of the Saturn dealership, also spoke to the Board and made their pleadings for approval. Mr. Doug Markley named several buildings within the area who have used stucco including: Foley's, Blockbuster Video, Boston Chicken, Lee's Cyclery, and Palmer House Florist. He relayed his Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 13 frustration with approval of these business appearances and denial of Saturn's request for a partial stucco exterior. The Markleys stated that they have been in the community for over 58 years and have always built or remodeled in good taste. Public Comment: No public comment was heard. Board Discussion and Vote: In response to questioning the following points were brought out: In review of the existing buildings in proximity to Saturn, Staff feels the existing brown brick of this facility was more in keeping with the surrounding character. The parapet height is being increased, but the overall height of the building is not being increased. Member Walker stated that he can appreciate the fact that an established character in the area exists, and he feels the Board must try to maintain the existing character. He has no objection to the stucco treatment but objects to painting the brick on the existing building. Member Cottier stated that she was bothered most by the height increase of the parapet for a building so close to College Avenue, Member Fontane said that she did not see harm in changing the appearance of a building if it was all in good taste. She questioned if there was a way to keep the brown brick and perhaps have the building be two-tone in color. Member Carnes and Member Bell reiterated their fellow board member's comments. Moved by Member Walker, seconded by Member Bell: To deny the Saturn PUD Referral of an Administrative Change, citing All Development Criteria A2.7. The Motion approved 5-1, with Member Fontane voting in the negative. Horsetooth Business Park PUD, Filing Two: Staff Presentation: Steve Olt presented a brief summary of the filing stating that this is a preliminary request for a 7-lot subdivision that is part of the approved Horsetooth East Business Park. This request is for seven buildings that would contain possibly retail, standard restaurant, fast-food restaurant, warehouse, industrial, office, financial, and convenience store Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 14 uses. These uses are in compliance with the approved Horsetooth East Business Park Master Plan. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Applicant's presentation: Eldon Ward, with Cityscape Urban Design, stated that he believes this is a good mix of uses and stated he was available for any questions from the Board. In response to Board questioning, Mr. Ward stated the following: one fast-food restaurant with a drive -though window is allowed. Two other free-standing restaurants and possibly a restaurant such as a deli or coffee shop within an office building would be allowed. Some potential users are anticipated, however, opening dates are uncertain. Public Comment: No public comment was heard. Board Discussion and Vote: Moved by Member Carnes, seconded by Member Strom: To approve the preliminary for Horsetooth East Business Park PDD, Filing Two. Motion approved unanimously 7-0. Woodland Station PUD, Preliminary: Staff Presentation: Ted Shepard gave Staffs presentation of this project and presented slides of the area. Details of the request were outlined in the Staff report. Mr. Shepard noted the revised point chart in the Staff report on Page 4. In response to questioning, Mr. Shepard stated that the acreages of the houses adjoining the property to the east are as follows: 15.5 acres, 2.29 acre minimums, and 14 acres. Applicant Presentation: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design stated that he would give his written presentation to the Board so copies could be made in an effort to expedite the proceedings. He believes a plan has been reached which contains changes made to address comments that had been received and an interpretation of the point chart. Elements were taken from the two -acre plan to leave the perimeter that interfaces with the neighbor's homes at the same lot size and introduce a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types behind the windbreak. Mr. Ward also noted the neighborhood facilities that have been added including: a clubhouse, pool, day-care center, and a playground. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Ward explained that the bonus section was utilized to meet the new 60-point minimum. Three bonus criteria were used: calculation for the amount of open space on the site, energy conservation, and provision of a number of neighborhood facilities. In response to questions, Mr. Ward explained that he could not be more specific in how each unit would be placed on the point chart concerning energy conservation due to the fact that lot sizes vary, multiple builders will be used, and the lots which meet that solar orientation requirement would be different in their requirements. He stated that builders will have opportunity to pursue different methods of achieving the necessary score on the point chart. Public Comment: Herb Murphy, from the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood Group, presented the group's concerns and handed them out in writing to the board. He stated that the proposed PUD is totally incompatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed density of three units per acre is approximately 20 times the average density of the neighborhood. This density being placed next to the established neighborhood with no buffering zone is inherently incompatible. Mr. Murphy explained that the group is seeking a variance to the current minimum density requirement of three units per acre because of the need for more compatibility. The group feels the plan presented by the developer lacks any true open space and feels the proposed neighborhood facilities are placed in poor locations that would raise questions of safety due to the need to cross County Road 9 and Harmony Road. The neighborhood also stated concerns with schools, solar lots, and environmental impacts. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the increased density means more pedestrian and bike traffic with no safe routes. Mr. Murphy relayed that the neighborhood group is still willing to discuss the issues and is open to suggestions that truly address their concerns. He also stated that the group is willing to propose a further compromise as follows: No objection will be raised to the higher density town homes or patio homes currently shown if the developer will enlarge the lots on the northeastern boundary to one acre sites and enlarge the lots across the street to 1/2 acre lots. By expanding these lots, a buffer zone would be created and the development will be more transitional. Board Discussion and Vote: In response to questioning, Mr. Ward stated that it was impossible to respond on the spur of the moment to the neighborhood group's proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 16 Chairman Clements explained that a City required 3 units per acre density policy was there because of infrastructure needs and for growth to pay its own way. There did not seem to be a comfort level with anyone with regards to this plan. Mr. ward responded that the proposal as outlined by the neighborhood was not workable, they can't do a plan that they simply cannot afford. The other thing that comes in is that they have provided a substantial amenities package to the tune of over $2,500 per unit. As the number of units goes down, the tag for the facilities goes up and they would have to provide less facilities. Mr. ward felt they have a legitimate preliminary P.U.D., that meets city standards, and is as compatible as a great many other projects. He suggested that the board give a positive vote with a recommendation that they consider seeing if they can enlarge the perimeter lots between preliminary and final. The Board members expressed their frustration in dealing with the issue of creating a transition between City and County properties. The determination was made that discussion of the Intergovernmental Agreement concerning transitioning needed to take place at a future work session of the Board. Member Bell expressed her concern with setting a possible precedent in raising points for issues including: decorative walls and landscaping, recreational use of thicket of trees, doubling points for solar access and energy efficiency. She believes all of these areas have been stretched in this project. Member Cottier expressed her concern with using energy conservation points and questioned the assurance that projects are actually built to a set standard in the future. Mr. Shepard replied that the Building Inspection Division monitors those situations by examining the PUD for requirements when a building permit comes in that is part of a platted lot. Member Cottier questioned drainage in the area. Mr. Shepard replied this property was determined by the Natural Resources Department to be located up and outside of the Poudre River flood plain. Basil Hamden, Stormwater Utility responded to drainage questions and stated that a drainage plan study is currently underway for this lot layout. However, no more drainage will be allowed to drain into the slough than the historical rate. Member Carnes had questions concerning the shading caused by the hedge of trees on the solar orientation lots. He cited Criteria A2.10. Mr. Shepard stated that these lots did meet the strict interpretation of the solar orientation ordinance, and the trees Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 6, 1995 Page 17 that exist are an important natural feature that provides a lot of windbreak. Moved by Member Fontane, seconded by Member Strom: To approve the Woodland Station PUD, Preliminary. Member Fontane also suggested reducing the density around the northeastern perimeter. Member Strom added that in cases such as this, the Board must follow the policies set forth and make their best judgment based on its view of the project. He believes that this project meets the policies in the LDGS and on that basis supports the motion. Member Walker stated that two primary considerations exist. The first consideration is set forth in the policy and requires three units per acre. The second consideration is set forth in the Land Development Guidance System and concerns compatibility. He believes the second consideration to be more of a judgment call on whether or not the lots are big enough to make an effective transition. is Member Cottier agreed with Mr. Walker's comments and stated that she did not feel the transition was adequate on the eastern boundary. In addition, she stated she will not be supporting the motion based on LDGS Criteria A2.2, A2.3, and A2.13. She also believes the location of the recreational complex is poor and not centrally located. Member Bell stated that she will not be supporting the motion for the same criteria cited by Member Cottier and Criterion A2.10. Chairman Clements stated that in the absence of an established transition policy, she believes the projects meets the findings of fact as stated in the Staff report. Member Carnes stated that he would be supporting the motion. However, he relayed that if the project does not come back at final with a better transition, it may not have his support at that time. Motion approved five to two, with Members Bell and Cottier voting in the negative. Other Business: The Board was reminded of the upcoming work session and Board retreat. There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 12:58 a.m. 9 r1 LANNY SCHLITT 6313 COMPTON ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 January 29, 1995 Ted Shepard, Senior Planner D Planning Department PO Box 580 J` Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 '\ RE: HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD 5th FILING Dear Ted, W I appreciate the opportunity to reply to this situation because it is of great concern to me, and many other Fort Collins residents. This application should be denied for several reasons: 1. As a planner you have obviously seen the signs that Fort Collins is on the verge of a glut of housing. Before the city gets greedy for future tax revenue, the powers that be must be visionary enough to stop allowing unbridled housing expansion before a crisis is upon us. 2. Many Realtors that I have spoken to over the last 3 to 6 months have reassured me that they are now out "beating the bushes" to try and find buyers for existing properties. A drought of buyers isn't a sign that 243 more houses (in only this one sub -division) are needed. 3. When this particular application is discussed, then it behooves you to get substantial guarantees in writing from the developer regarding previous promises such as filling up Fortner reservoir. If a deal is struck, then the developer should be required to honor any and all agreements up front BEFORE even the first house is erected. Thanks for your consideration. Please keep the future needs of the city in perspective as you evaluate this proposal. Sincerely, Lanlift 1501 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 25, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Members c/o Bob Blanchard Planning Department Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Board Members: I am writing to object to the proposed addition to the Housing Authority building located at 1715 West Mountain. As I'm sure you are aware, the Old Town Westside location of this building is one of two areas in the city of Fort Collins which is traditional and historic. Certainly most of us who live in these areas would like to maintain and preserve the authenticity and ambiance of these neighborhoods. As a resident of the Westside part of this area and a fifth generation Fort Collins resident with historical roots, I am greatly concerned that the proposed addition will not only sully, but will ruin the established atmosphere of this neighborhood for many blocks. As it now stands, the Housing Authority building is an example of egregiously inappropriate architecture. It is clearly out of sync with surrounding buildings, it is modern (not always a negative, but in this case certainly so) , its standard of construction is less than adamantine, and it is non-residential. To imagine that this building should increase in size is alarming, as it only serves to increase and exacerbate its incongruity and disagreement with its surroundings. I certainly understand the necessity of the Housing Authority to increase the size of its offices and do not object to their intentions. However, I suggest that they try to find a building more suitable to their needs in a area which has been created for or exists in a commercial setting. Obviously I do not know the financial costs of the proposed addition, nor do I know how much it would cost them to move to a more appropriate building. Nonetheless, I do question how deeply the people involved have looked at other options, and to what extent they have considered the appearance and interests of the neighborhood. It does appear that the option of spending the money appropriated for the addition on moving to and renting or buying another building is possible. It also seems pragmatic, because then the Housing Authority will no longer be creating ill will and objections to what is clearly an already (and proposed to be more so) inappropriate building. I realize that your job as Planning and an easy one. I also assume that there really have choices about the outcomes that this is one of them. I appreciate hope that you will seriously consider m although they neighbors feel matter with m home telephone Sincerely, Jane H. Abbott Zoning Board Members is not are times when you do not of planning. I no think your reading my letter and y suggestions, knowing that, say so, the majority of my just as I do. If you would like to discuss this e, my work telephone is 667-4611, ext. 315, and my is 493-6307. Thank you. may not have written to 4 ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT THIS ADDENDUM is made and entered into this day of A.D., 199_1 by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City", and THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a housing authority formed pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 29, C.R.S., as amended, hereinafter referred to as "the Authority." W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the City and the Authority entered into a Lease Agreement dated May 2, 1974, ("the 1974 Lease") concerning the City's lease to the Authority of land owned by the City and used by the Authority for the construction of its administrative headquarters; and WHEREAS, the City and the Authority entered into a Lease Agreement dated January 4, 1977, also concerning the City,s lease of real property to the Authority for the construction of the Authority's administrative headquarters ("the 1977 Lease"); and WHEREAS, the 1977 Lease superseded and replaced the 1974 Lease; and WHEREAS, the Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the leased property; and WHEREAS, the Authority intends to expand its administrative headquarters by the construction of new improvements on the property with said new improvements and the existing administrative headquarters shown on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to modify the 1977 Lease to preclude the construction of any improvements on the leased property, other than the improvements shown on Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to modify the 1977 Lease as follows: 1. The Authority agrees not to construct any improvements upon the leased property, except those improvements shown on Exhibit A to this Addendum to Lease Agreement. 2. The 1977 Lease shall remain in full force and effect as modified by this Addendum to Lease Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum to Lease Agreement to be signed the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By: Interim City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk f 2 • 0 THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY By: ATTEST: City Clerk 4 •� V 0 3 •_i <. :( 1 ' ' 1 1 _ i� Iii:F el�i fill aiieiE I -All =31iliis .insae a{_ i E �'l:i i sii i:e :llti{�ti'ill�l R x yi Dk it "A" Page 1 of 3 r7 L-j ;v Exh9bit "A" Page 2 of 3 4 J4, Act; - - - - - - - - - - - - A I asi i'3• i= l+iai=: in I� i • aaeaas@.'i���;i � � i j.t - f�f�Will- 51 3 j°4+aa�taFi=a sill; a i i a •�4'i1 Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 3 ;�:33a,=aa�ia z` 7 ' 0 more additions to a nonconforming use. Don't let the Ft. Collins Housing Authority increase the size of its building on park land. -------------- --------------- ---------------- Na[ne address Date ---- --------- --------------------------- tq _ Vv !� �l�ic,t.Luti� P�1e.J �5oy iLti� �'��95 %'�'-rt-t.q ./J � l � Jo lv. i�7 0..�..��`U-w cz.',`.• �- 7- 9,5 CIO, tAn c /VO more additions to a nonconforming use. Don't let the Ft. Collins Housing Authority increase the size of its building on park land. — ---------- - -- ------------------------------- Name address Date — -------------------- ----------------------------------- �� 1SC L� � ,ti•,,- - 7- �S L;��c� c,��° ��Gt;'2� lei 1 , (�i�•> (�("z 17<<, �c.�'�: J�.���_ I�ZV llJ (`'�'"'�'1•'�'�' IVY' (-� _1-' �I �j<� LI ' 66L ' �J • 0 Omore additions to a nonconforming use. Don't let the Ft. Collins Housing Authority increase the size of its building on park land. ----------------------- —--------- ------- ------- rame address Date 7 V— N/ U!E fj, . sal e. / LIOIVev1 CG,�P�{ I w Al? Lt144G? u -zZ - i s c" L 11 D F si&tJ aze F4, /it NO more additions to a nonconforming use. Don't let the Ft. Collins housing Authority increase the size of its building on park land. N--- am—e ------------ — ------- address— ---- — ------- Date ----- E 0 MEMORANDUM con@ o urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (303)226-4074 FAX (303) 226-4196 TO: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board ADD'L COPIES: Brad Bennett, Chateau Custom Builders, Paul Ross, ReMax Lucia Liley, March & Myatt FROM: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.T-- ! DATE: February 6, 1995 RE: Woodland Station - Preliminary PUD PROJECT #: 4630 (4630P&Z1) * The Woodland Station site lies between properties on the west and south that are clearly destined for intense urban development with major employment, and other urban uses - and the existing large homesites to the north and east of the subject property. The basic question is "Should this site be made to be more in character with the adjacent properties to the north and east (with large sprawling semi -rural single family lots); or should it be required to be more in character with the urban properties to the south and west (which would suggest higher density adjacent to major employers and likely future transit lines); or should it be a reasonable transition between the two (with single family development at the lower and of the urban density range)?" We feel the plan as proposed represents a reasonable transition. Note: The smaller lots and increased density required in combination with greater open space in a classic "clustering" plan would seem to be less desirable to the neighborhood (as well as the applicant) than the plan as currently proposed. * Density has been the central issue in the lengthy review of Woodland Station. For the past year, the applicant has tried to determine a workable density that would meet City policy, respond to neighborhood concerns, and result in a desirable neighborhood on the subject property. Those efforts are summarized below: Feb. 7, 1994: At Conceptual Review, the applicant presented options between 3.5 and 4.9 d.u./ac. on Strachan Farm (south half of the current plan) alone. City Staff indicated that Fort Collins was considering adopting a 5 d.u./ac minimum density at that time. May 31 st: At a second Conceptual Review meeting, applicants proposed 135 lots on the subject property for a density of 3.9 d.u./ac. June, 1994: At the City Council hearings on the annexation; Council declined to impose a density restriction of less than 3/ac. as requested by neighbors. June 30th: At the required Neighborhood Meeting, the applicant presented a plan with the number of lots reduced to 127 (3.6 d.u./ac.) urban design, inc. August 22: The Preliminary PUD was submitted to City with the number of lots reduced to 108 (3.1 d.u./ac.) October 5tht: Revised plans were submitted to City with the number of lots reduced to 105 (3/ac.) November 10th: At a Second Neighborhood Meeting we presented alternative plans with densities between 2.8/ac. t and 3.2/ac. The applicant agreed to evaluate the feasibility of a 2/ac. plan. November 14th: The applicant determined that - even if such a low density could be supported by the City and the neighborhood - the 2 d.u./ac. plan is not economically feasible under Fort Collins development standards. The applicant requested that the P&Z Board continue the plan to the December meeting to allow an additional meeting with the neighborhood. December 5th: Alternative revised plans were submitted to City with number of lots reduced to as low as 98 (2.8/ac.) The alternative favored by the applicant included 105 lots (3/ac.). December 9th: City Staff recommended approval of the proposed PUD to the P&Z Board at the regular work session; but changed the interpretation of the Residential Density Point Chart later that afternoon, forcing the applicant to request that the item be continued to the January 23, 1995 P&Z meeting. January 11th: Revised plans were submitted to City meeting current Point Chart interpretation, with a greater variety of land use and housing types, increased open space/neighborhood facilities, and the total number of units proposed at 110 (3.14/ac.) Note: Because the "contiguous" portion of the Hewlett Packard site is not developed, Woodland Station is required to utilize "Bonus Criteria" to achieve 60 or more points on the Residential Density Chart. Two criteria applied here that have rarely been used to gain credit in the past are 'k' (energy conservation) and 'p' (neighborhood facilities). For criteria 'k' the applicant has made the commitment that homes at Woodland Station will achieve a minimum Energy Score rating of "G-80" (vs. the code requirement of "G-70") or better. This can be achieved through a number of means including the provision of basement insulation, solar orientation reduced air leakage, increased wall insulation, and/or others. City Staff estimates that we could have taken three times the number of points (10) shown on the Point Chart; meaning that this criteria alone could have provided more than the 25 points needed in addition to the 35 achieved in the "Base" criteria. • urban design, inc. Neighborhood facilities proposed that are not otherwise required by City Code include a clubhouse, pool, playground, decorative walls & fences (along C.R. #9), and extensive landscaping. Of these items, only minimal landscaping in the arterial right-of-way is required by City Code; and the cost of that landscaping has not been included in the bonus calculation. A great many single family PUD's have been approved and constructed under the LOGS without providing these types of neighborhood facilities. Many others have voluntarily provided a more limited amenity package, but have - in the past - not needed to make a firm commitment on the point chart. " The changes that were seen as positive in the plans that achieved densities of less than 3/acre have been included in the current plan. Those - and other - changes include: Large (1 /3 acre t) lots have been located around the north and east perimeter of the subject property as a transition between the existing off -site lots, and the more typical urban density lots proposed in the center of the site. Access to Nite Court has been reduced to emphasize only pedestrian and emergency access. Street alignments are less rigid and include more cul-de-sacs than in earlier versions of the plan. The proposed variety in housing types should result in a more diverse neighborhood population. - Neighborhood recreational facilities have been added, and placed away from existing homesites (as requested), as a buffer to County Road 9, with easy community access to the Day Care, and to provide a "neighborhood identity" element as recommended in the Fort Collins Goals and Objectives. The applicant feels he has done all that he can to reconcile adopted City Policy with the input received from Staff, the Neighborhood, Board Members, the Growth Management Committee, and market indicators; and that the plan before the Board tonight is appropriate: " The level of density restriction favored by the neighbors would amount to a spontaneous re -delineation of the UGA line in the southeast portion of the City, and a change in adopted policy. There is nothing so unique about this location that should make us treat it differently than Mountain Ridge, Stetson Creek, Woodridge, or the other PUD's approved in the City adjacent to large lot County Subdivisions or MRD's. " Storm drainage, utility service, school impacts, and other elements considered with preliminary PUD's have reviewed, and found to be consistent with other development projects routinely approved by the City of Fort Collins. Gu0Odland 5-aho j To Planning and Zoning Board I have been asked by the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood to present our concerns and feelings about the Woodland Station PUD. We do this in order to effectively use the time allotted for neighborhood input. As you are aware, the proposed development east of County Rd. 9, referred to as the Woodland Station PUD has created great concern in our neighborhood. As early as last April we met to express our reservations about such a development. Those of us who attended the annexation hearings were told that once the area in question was in the city, that the neighborhood would have considerable input and say about what would be constructed in the designated area. We will admit that the city has provided and encouraged input from the neighborhood, and we thank your for that effort. It has yet however to be determined if all of our effort and input will bear fruit. We sincerely hoped that after all these months of work and effort by the neighborhood, the developer, and the planning and zoning staff, that a plan would have emerged that would have genuinely addressed the major concerns of all parties. It is unfortunate that I must report tonight that an agreement has not been reached and the neighborhood is far from satisfied and objects to the proposed Woodland Station PUD for the following reasons. 1. COMPATIBILITY We maintain that the proposed PUD is totally incompatible with the existing neighborhood. I wish to present a few slides to illustrate this point. This neighborhood has long been established in this area, and in the last three years four more large acreage lots '3 +�, g were dq.veioped in. ccordance with county land policies. The annexation of land into the aiVas sl b in the diagram does have a direct effect on our neighborhood. The proposed development with 110 units is inconsistent with the residential development already present. We view the BP plant as a compatible neighbor that has made every attempt to buffer and heavily landscape it's property to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. There is more open space on their property than many of our own homesites. Despite the possibility of further Hp expansion we fully expect HP to remain sensitive to our neighborhood and provide the high quality landscaping and buffering that is evident on their existing site. 2. DENSITY The second area of concern that is closely related to the first is the issue of density. The proposed density of over 3 units per acre is about 20 times the average density of the existing neighborhood. This is akin to slapping a 60 unit per acre development next to a 3 unit per acre development with no buffer zone between the two. The south, east and north lot lines need buffer areas, currently there are none. To allow a new development that is 20 times denser to bump up against the established neighborhood with no buffer zone is inherently incompatible. We realized that flexibility in our original proposal was needed, and we made a substantial concession in our Nov meeting with the developer and staff when we agreed to two units per acre as a possible compromise. As you can see from the slide, this was not an unreasonable suggestion to propose two units per acre. We are not asking for large ranch type acreages nor even acreage that approaches anything like our own. We simply want a development that is more transitional to the area than the one presented tonight. We are quite aware of the current minimum density requirement of 3 units per acre, but we seek a variance for any development on this site because of the need for compatibility. We applaud the efforts of the city and this board to provide various types of housing within the urban growth area. Surely no one on this board or for that matter the city council would want to discriminate against any particular group of people just because of their particular rural lifestyle or desire to live on large acreages. We hope that this Board would respect our established rural neighborhood and approve a development that is more compatible. 3.OPEN SPACE- Another area of concern is over open space. The plan presented by the developer lacks any true open space. The windbreak may meet the letter of the law but it lacks the spirit. Residents and children cannot play in this area nor even walk through it. Because the Poudre ridge drops to the floodplain, the existence of a neighborhood park east of County Rd. 9 is unlikely. The proposed day care center and pool will not meet the needs of children who wish to play soccer, baseball etc. In order to find true open space or a park, children will be forced to cross County Rd. 9 or Harmony Rd. How many parents will let their young children take that walk? Instead they will drive them to the parks. Is this helping to reduce the automobile traffic within the Urban Growth area? 4. SAFETY- The question of safety also arises. There are currently no parks, schools, or other services east of County Rd. 9. which are in close proximity to this development. Residents will be forced to cross busy highways to access these amenities. Fewer people in a lower density development will mean fewer crossings and trips. The east side of County Rd 9 lacks a good shoulder or sidewalk to walk or bike on. Woodland's Station's sidewalk will terminate at the acreages to the north and a complete pedestrian path along the length of the east side of County Rd. 9 may be a long time coming. More density means more pedestrian and bike traffic with no safe route. 5. SCHOOLS- Another area of concern is the school situation.In November of 1994, we had a long and detailed conversation with Mr. Carol Agee who is responsible for predicting growth patterns within the Poudre R-1 School District. He brought up some interesting points concerning school growth patterns and this development.. First, he mentioned that whatever is built there will be a development without a neighborhood school. The closest schools, Linton and Tinmath, will be full. Elementary students will } most likely attend Odea, Riffenburg or possibly Laurel. He went on to say that of even J greater concern to parents living in this development will be the feeder system into Junior High. In all likelihood students would attend Boltz or Lesher Jr.High and not Preston which is situated nearby. Mr. Agee also stated that before any development was to proceed, he felt it was important to wait for the final boundary committee recommendations which he hoped would come early next year. He also stated that a development of 70 units would have from 1/3 to 1/2 fewer elementary students than a 100 unit development. It is apparent that a development on this site will result in not only a bus trip across part of Fort Collins, but countless automobile trips that parents take to schools for various activities etc. Given this fact, doesn't it make sense to approve a lower density development rather than a higher density one in an area that will not have its own elementary nor Junior High school. There are three other issues worthy of mention. The first pertains to solar lots. All of the lots north of the windbreak are labeled as solar lots. These lots and the roofs will be in the shade all winter. How can they be labeled "solar lots"? The second issue regards environmental impact. Despite the finding from the city environmental dept., we still feel that our neighborhood provides a habitat to a variety of animals and it is very close to the wetlands. We also question the storm runoff into Fossil Creek Inlet and the potential for flooding and destruction of some of our property if a high density development is built here. Finally, the variances we ask from this board concerning density requirements are not without precedence. There have been a number of them granted when this Board has recognized the importance to granting variances when needed. By defeating this proposed development and encouraging a lower density development on this site you will send a message to the citizens of this community and the city council that there is room for all of its citizens within the Urban growth area, and that instead of molding it's citizens to fit a solution it will develop solutions to fit the way people choose to live. Over the months and countless meetings among ourselves, the -10 developer, and the city planning staff, we have tried to be responsible and be flexible in agreeing to compromise. We are still willing to discuss the issues and are open to suggestions that truly address our concerns, but we are also willing to continue to fight for our neighborhood and the lifestyles we chose for ourselves and our children. We are prepared tonight to propose a further compromise in hopes that this issue can be resolved, and the project can proceed. We will not object to the higher density townhomes or the patio homes currently shown on the developers plans, if the developer will enlarge the lots on the northern and eastern boundaries of the development to one acre in size and enlarge the lots across the street from these lots to 1/2 acre lots. By expanding these lots, a buffer zone will be created and the development will be more transitional to the area. If the developer cannot agree or needs more specifics at this time we would gladly meet with him soon to resolve this issue and get back to this Board as soon as possible. I thank you for your attention, and the time you have given me to address the issues that are of concern to our neighborhood. Lets put a development here that we can all be proud of for years to come.