Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/14/1994PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1994 STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Strom, Walker. Staff Present: Ludwig, Olt, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Blanchard, Eckman, Shepard, Herzig, Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas, which included the following items: 1. Minutes of the September 26 and October 24, 1994 Planning Zoning Board Minutes. (Continued) 2. Shepardson Elementary School - Advisory Site Plan Review, #46- 94. 3. Beattie Elementary School - Advisory Site Plan Review, #47-94. 4. Wuerker Residential Addition - NCM Site Plan Review, #48-94. 5. Market ® Horsetooth, Seven Oaks PUD - Final, #96-81P. 6. English Ranch Subdivision, 5th Filing - Preliminary & Final, #75-86P. . 7. The Arena PUD, JFK Office - Preliminary and Final, #9-80J. S. Linden Grove PUD - Preliminary, #49-94. 9. Windtrail Park PUD - Final, #66-93E. 10. Dakota Ridge PUD, Third Filing - Final, #60-91L (Continued). 11. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 12. Resolution PZ94-17 Easement Vacation. 13. Resolution PZ94-18 Easement Vacation, (Withdrawn). Discussion Agenda: 14. Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary, #18-94B. 15. Willow -Springs PUD, First Filing - Final, #3-94B (Continued). 16. Hugh M. Woods PUD - Preliminary, #26-88D. 17. Bridgefield PUD - Preliminary, #45-94. (Continued). 18. Spring Creek Farms - Amended Overall Development Plan, #75- 860. 19. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Design Guidelines, #29-90. (Continued until November 21). 20. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Design Guidelines for Large Scale Retail Developments, #54-94. (Continued until November 21). Member Strom moved to hear Spring Creek Farms second on discussion. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 2 The motion was approved 7-0. Member Bell pulled #8, Linden Grove P.U.D. Chairman Clements abstained from voting on item #7 due to a conflict of interest. Member Strom moved for approval of consent agenda items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. The meeting was turned over to Vice Chairman Cottier for a vote on item V. Member Fontane moved for approval of item V . Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with Chairman Clements not voting. Linden Grove P.U.D. - Preliminary_— #49-94. Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: 1. That Lots 44 through 71 are being shown for Preliminary P.U.D. approval only. A plan for these lots cannot be submitted to the City for final P.U.D. review and approval, nor can building permits be issued, until the Dry Creek channel realignment is completed, there by taking this area out of the floodway. Member Walker asked if Chancellor Drive had to be dead -ended for Lot 77 to be built on and was the fire protection adequate if Chancellor Drive could not be connected. Planner Olt replied that the Fire Authority had stated that if the portion of Chancellor Drive that could not be completed at this time, and the street dead -ended, the lots would have to be evaluated as to which lots could be built on. Stormwater would be the one that would tell whether it could be done. Chairman Clements asked if they were looking at a part of this plan that in the future may not develop if the realignment of the channel does not occur. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 3 Planner Olt replied yes. Chairman Clements asked how that would affect the density. Planner Olt replied he would calculate that and get back to them after the applicants presentation. Eldon. Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward spoke on the density of the project and the issue with the floodplain. Mr. Ward asked for the board to consider, because preliminary approval has been given in the past, as well as final, with a condition that no building permits could be issued until the flood plain was amended. Also, other structures in the Alta -Vista area have been built by the Housing Authority in the flood plain. He did not see any compelling reasons they should be restricted with this development plan based on past actions by the City. They have made it clear that this would be preliminary only and no final plans would be submitted until the floodplain amendment was done. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION • Joan Cusack, 615 Alta Vista, the north end of her property boarders what is now the drainage area. She asked what effect moving the drainage area would have on her property. Ms. Cusack was also concerned with the fact that the street is a dead-end and everyone uses her drive -way for a turnaround. She was under the impression that when development occurred, the street would be extended or arrangements would be made for a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. Alice Rogers, Martinez Street, Alta Vista Subdivision, also thought that the existing streets would be joining together. She has now been told that would not happen and would like that clarified. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Chairman Clements asked Planner Olt for the density information Planner Olt replied 166 dwelling units on 50 acres, 3.7 dwelling units per acre, if the 10 acres and 27 dwelling units were taken out of the floodway. The plan currently has 3.6 units per acre, so there would be no charge in the overall density. Chairman Clements asked about Ms. Cusacks question regarding the effects on her property when the drainageway is moved. Also the • street she lives on, and would that become a cul-de-sac. How would the street system tie into this area and effect their subdivision? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Ward replied that the affect of the drainage channel on the lots in question, really all of Alta Vista, will be helped, and upon completion of the floodplain, all of Alta Vista will be out of the floodplain. Mr. Ward also replied that the streets in Alta Vista should not connect into this subdivision, the drainage channel is enough of a barrier, and with the future alignment of Lemay, Lemay would become a local street and will provide a local connection between the existing and proposed neighborhoods. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department, added that they met with Cityscape to discuss alternative street connection issues. Transportation was concerned that the existing streets in Alta Vista should be extended to connect into the new development, however, there are concerns regarding the structure of the existing streets and the current street standards. In addition, they have heard from neighborhood residents and their concern with people cutting through their neighborhood; and, that integrating more streets would increase that problem. The solution discussed was that the streets need not be integrated if at least one street connection is provided into the adjoining vacant parcel. That when the vacant parcel develops it would be a system of streets that shuts traffic back to Vine Drive, sheltering and relieving the temptation of cutting through Alta Vista. Main Street in Alta Vista would also be a choice for a future connection. Chairman Clements asked if that needed to be a condition. Mr. Vosburg replied that was the agreement at the end of the meeting and that it would have to be on the plan, therefore not needing a condition. Planner Olt -pointed out the note on the revised plan. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department went over the cul-de-sacs, Martinez and Alta Vista Drives should be cul-de-sacs or connected back into Lemay Avenue. He confirmed that the streets should either be connected or cul-de-sacked. Chairman Clements asked if he could address the issue of the alley. Mr. Herzig replied they have not seen anything on it, the idea of another street similar to what is out there is a possibility. He would not call it an alley, he would call it a street that is similar to what is out there. It may be an option, if they want to provide something like that. Chairman Clements asked for staff's comments on that. 0 i Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 5 Planner Olt replied that in the discussions with the applicant, they did not discuss that at all. It is a concept that he just became aware of this evening. Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition that that should be addressed before final approval. Mr. Herzig replied that should be something that should be conditioned that the issue be resolved at final. Chairman Clements asked about the ability to build Chancellor Drive, to make it a complete loop and how will it affect the lots along that drive if it cannot be built. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility replied that the floodway does extend up onto Chancellor Drive, and if they could build the street so there is no fill and the street at existing ground or lower, it could be in the floodway. They would have to go through an analysis to prove they have caused no rise in the floodway. Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition. . Mr. Schlueter replied it could be put on the plan, or cover it when the final review comes around. Member Cottier asked when the Dry Creek improvements will be finally designed and when they might occur. Mr. Schlueter replied there would be an answer by the end of the year on what alternative they are going to use. It is looking like the original alternative that was in the 1980 Dry Creek Study. If they stay with that, by the time a bond issue is done, probably 5 years. Member Strom asked how certain it was that the Dry Creek would be channelized, and if not, what effect would it have on properties existing to the south if we allow construction in the floodplain on the south 1/3 of this proposal. Mr. Schlueter replied that when a study is done, a floodway and a floodfringe are defined which break up the floodplain. The assumption is that the floodfringe is filled out to the floodway line. It would have no effect on what they physically put on the map today even if they built out all the way to the floodway line. The homes in the floodfringe would have to elevate 1 1/2 feet above the projected 100-year elevation, and FEMA would require flood insurance. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 6 Member Bell asked if this project is built in the next year, but the improvements wouldn't be complete for five, what is the outcome of that. Mr. Schlueter replied that the units shown in the floodway, the multi -family, cannot be built until the improvements are done to Dry Creek. Member Bell asked about the density and why was the 10 acres removed out of the total. Was it not still part of the 59 acre development. Planner Olt replied it was. If we still had a 60 acre development with 186 dwelling units, it would be just barely over 3 dwelling units der acre. Member Strom asked for clarification for the record of the changirt of the Findings of Fact with regards to Engineering design criteria, and water hazards and utility capacity all have to do with the floodplain issue. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Member Bell asked if they are eliminating the lots in the southern portion, was there still some duplex and patio homes remaining. Planner Olt replied yes, there would still be three types of units. Member Walker made a motion to approve Linden Grove P.U.D., Preliminary with the condition that the staff has stated and also with the condition that in the Chancellor Drive area in the floodway be evaluated to determine its feasibility to be built. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. WOODLAND STATION PUD PRELIMINARY #18-94B. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, stated that this project was postponed from last months Planning and Zoning Board Meeting to be considered this evening. The request is for 98 single family lots on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road 9, north of the Hewlett Packard Plant approximately 1.2 mile south of Horsetooth Road. The property is zoned RLP with a PUD condition. Mr. Shepard stated that the applicant was here to make an announcement and staff could answer any questions after that. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 7 Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant stated that this item was tabled last month so they could try tc work out a plan that would be more acceptable to both the applicant and the neighborhood. They had a meeting last Thursday with the neighborhood and at that time, the applicant agreed to look at a plan that reduced the density to the point that was acceptable to the representatives of the neighborhoods that were present. He agreed to go back and evaluate the plan and see if it made sense, and if it did, they could proceed with a mutually acceptable plan. They reviewed the information, and it did not make economic sense for the applicant. The applicant felt that the best thing to do would be to continue the hearing until the December meeting. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the applicant could request a postponement without board action. Chairman Clements stated that Woodland Station would be continued until the December hearing. #75-860 SPRING CREEK FARMS - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner, gave the Staff report, stating that this was a request to amend the Spring Creek Farms Overall Development Plan. The site is a 101 acre site that is located at the southwest corner of Horsetooth Road and County Road 9. The proposed change is a request to replace a little under 10 acres of property, which is designated for paired housing on the ODP, which is a multi -family designation, to detached patio homes, which is a single-family designation. Chief Planner Blanchard gave a background of the Overall Development Plan. It was approved in April of 1987. The Board has a map of the original approval included in their packet. That approval designated 72 acres of single-family lots. It designated 24 acres of multi -family units, and approximately 2.5 acres of convenience/commercial. The Overall Development Plan was amended in November of 1993. That amendment eliminated the convenience/commercial designation. It reduced the multi -family area from 24 acres to 10 acres. It also increased the single- family area. A prior amendment also reduced the single-family area for the area that's currently on the ODP as the neighborhood park site, 5.9 acre neighborhood park site, he did not have the date. The reduction of the residential units as requested, would result in a change of 18 residential units. The request represents a change in the overall density from 3.8 units per acres to approximately 3.3 dwelling units per acre. The 3.8 unit per acre figure was a change from the staff report. it had originally been Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 8 calculated at 3.5. The actual overall density is 3.7 to 3.8. the actual density change for the amended area would be from the approved 5.8 units per acre to around 4 units per acre. The Land Development Guidance System requires that an Overall Development Plan be reviewed against the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan rather than the specific criteria in the LDGS. The staff report lists the elements that this request is in compliance with. The request does not comply with Policy No. 75 from the Land Use Policies Plan which states "residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities". With the exception of Stoneridge PUD to the north, which consists of approximately 11 acres, at a density of 8 dwelling units per acre, there are no other higher density residential areas in this immediate area. The current request would eliminate the remaining higher -density area from the Spring Creek ODP and would result in a range of single-family density, which would include the detached patio homes that the request is for, of only 3.7 units per acre to 4 units per acre. It was staff's interpretation that this does not represent a mix of housing densities as anticipated by Policy 75 in the Land Use Policies Plan; and, therefore, staff was recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board deny this request. Chairman Clements asked to hear from the applicant. Lucia Liley, representing Bartran & Company. Mr. Bartran has asked her to address the specific findings of the staff memo recommending denial, based on the Land Use Policies Plan. Ms. Liley stated that the staff analysis demonstrated the difficulty in having something approved under existing rules, which seemed to contradict current thinking about density; and the temptation to try to implement a policy change, which at this time, is not adopted by the City. Overall Development Plans, in 1987 when this was approved, were very flexible documents. They embodied concept, intentions, and estimates. They did not set fixed densities. They were contemplated to change, particularly with large PUD's, where over the course of several years of developing phases, market conditions would change and, specific neighborhood issues would change about a particular phase of the project. • • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 9 This is evidenced in the notes that were required to be put on CDP's, and that the Board would find this on the ODP for this development, emphasizing that the land use and the densities are not fixed, that these were intentions and estimates only. In 1987, when this OPD was approved, Mr. Bartran had an option on the property. He was not certain of what the market conditions would be. He put in maximum densities that he believed were feasible based upon his knowledge that the City system would permit changes reducing density, to be able to get higher densities than shown on the Master Plan, knowing it was difficult to reduce density. Those assumptions about density were based not only on what the City's consistent practice was with regard to density shown on a Master Plan, but also based on a specific provision of the LDGS, Section F(3) and then subsections (d) through (f), relating to amendments of ODP's. Those sections provide, that OPD's can be amended; and, secondly, they differentiate between major and minor changes to an OPD. Minor changes are not defined, but one can assume that anything which does not fall under the definition of a major change would constitute a minor change; and, there are four things which are found to be major changes. None of them appear to be particularly relevant to this request for amendment to this ODP. The project continues to remain residential in character and use. The only reference to density says that only if you are increasing density is it a major change. That was the rule in 1987, and it continues to be the rule today. Maximum densities have become minimum densities, and there is a real desire not to approve amendments to ODP's if they result in reductions to residential densities. The problem is that we still have the same policies that we had in place before 1987 and after 1987; and there are only two, the LDGS section mentioned previously, which permits changes to the ODP and emphasizes the point that really only increases are what are considered to be significant, not decreases. The second one then would be the Land Use Policies Plan. The staff has made a finding that this proposal does not meet Policy 75; although it is recognized that it does meet many other policies found in the Comprehensive Plan; and, it is recommended to the Board that this OPD amendment should be denied because it is not wholly consistent with the Land use Policies Plan. It is important . to look at those assertions. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 10 The staff concludes that it meets seven applicable policies, including three resulted specifically to the location of low - density residential uses. The staff's recommendation for denial rests solely on Policy 75, not withstanding, that it meets the seven other equally -important policies, and, most importantly, at least three of the specific locational criteria for low -density residential. The staff memo says that this requested amendment, because it results in single-family density ranging from 3-something dwelling units per acre, to 4.02 dwelling units per acre does not represent a mix of housing densities as anticipated by Policy 75. The assumption behind that statement is that a project, any project, any CDP, must have some multi -family uses, in addition to the single-family uses, to achieve that, mjx of housing densities. That is not what the language of Policy 75 says. It says, "Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities." You can make one conclusion just having that language alone and no explanation and no commentary, and the conclusion is that it does not require a mix of residential uses. The work that it uses is "residential densities". The word "uses" is the word used traditionally and typically in the City's Zoning Code to talk about single-family versus multi -family. The word "density" simply means numbers of dwelling units per acre. That is what it means. It has nothing to do with uses. It has to do with numbers of dwelling units per acre. That is the definition of density. That is what Policy 75 refers to. So, you are talking about providing areas which have different numbers of dwelling units per acre. Given that usage of the word "density", she would submit and would ask the Board to seriously consider whether a more reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this Policy 75 is that a residential development must have a range of densities, or dwelling units per acre within it, which can be achieved in a variety of ways, only one of which is by having different uses. It is certainly true that if you have multi -family in addition to single-family, you will achieve a mix of residential densities. But the point is, that is not the only way to achieve it. You can keep single-family uses, but vary the dwelling units per acre within given areas of the Planned Unit Development and still meet the language of Policy 75. She thought support for this position in this conclusion is also found in the recently adopted chart A.1 to the LDGS which establishes community -wide criteria for residential density. S-he . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 11 referred to this section not because that is the standard we need to look at. The only standard here is the Land Use Policies Plan, and she thought the language was clear, but thought it was important to look at that because it sheds light on what the City's current view is about how to achieve variety and what it defines as a mix of housing densities. Ms Liley passed out copies of Chart A.1. She stated that the first page was just a copy of the Land Use Policies Plan showing the language of Policy 75. The second page was Chart A.1. Under the heading "Purpose", it reads, "The overall average residential density requirement allows flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. A mix of housing types may be used to achieve this criteria in some high -density and some low - density, provided the overall average density is met. For example, a residential area may include a mix of large -lot single-family, traditional -lot single-family, small -lot single-family, townhouses and apartments combined to meet an average density requirement of 3 dwelling units per acre." • These are specific examples of various ways to provide a mix of densities. It does not say you have to have all of these housing densities. In other words, density can be achieved by keeping the same use, in this case, single-family, but varying the lot sizes, which, in turn, changes the models and prices within an area. That kind of mix of housing densities has already been achieved in this development. The developed areas of this ODP contain two distinct mixes of housing densities already. There is one area with single-family large -lot averaging 8,500 square feet with different models and clearly different price ranges. There is a second area of more traditional single-family lots on smaller, 6,000 to 7,0_00 square foot lots, different models, again, different price ranges; and they are now proposing a third type of residential density with yet a different type of housing model, in this case, a detached patio home, on yet smaller lots, averaging between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, to achieve a density in the amended area of 4.02 dwelling units per acre. Each area looks different; it targets a different market; and it has different housing densities, different dwelling units per acre. The amendment that is being proposed tonight meets both the language of the Land Use Policies Plan and appears to meet the only stated intent one can find in the City standards about what is appropriate to look at to achieve this mix of housing densities. It would not warrant being turned down on the basis that the staff has recommended to the Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 12 Now as we move beyond the ODP to the preliminary plan, clearly that has to meet additional residential density criteria of the LDGS, but that is not the issue in front of the board tonight. It is simply whether the plan, itself, is consistent with the Land Use Policies Plan of the City. In the staff memo, there is a statement that there is only one multi -family area in the vicinity, and that is true. That is Stoneridge, as has been pointed out. She would note though that, although Stoneridge does have a multi -family component, it's overall residential density is much lower, achieving barely a 3- dwelling unit per acre kind of ratio versus the 3.74 that would be achieved even with this amendment. The second point is that although it is true that this is the only multi -family component in this area right now, there is a large, undeveloped parcel to the south which may very appropriately develop as a higher -density area. The adjacent property to the NCR property and to the Hewlett-Packard property could logically better serve as a transition of uses in the area between those two industrial properties and the existing single-family areas. It does not seem to be that good a transition to go from large -lot single-family on this site to more traditional single-family to multi -family; and then, all of a sudden, from multi -family to the large, rural lots. It would seem a better transition to go from industrial to a higher -density residential and then to the single- family residential. In summary, the applicant would ask that the Board consider carefully the consistency of this requested amendment with the only two regulations that they are aware of that apply here, one being the LDGS criteria permitting ODP amendments and the second one being the Land Use Policies Plan. She thought, a fair and reasonable reading of the language would dictate that this plan be approved as being consistent with both of those regulations. Mr. Bill Bartran, developer of this property stated that the foundation of everything that he does when it comes to building in a subdivision is dictated by the market. They very carefully planned the English Ranch. They have studied the market that they hit. They have done two different product lines. Both of them were researched very well, and both of them very successful, and that same research they did on those product lines have been done for what they felt was necessary to complete the last phase of this development. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 13 They have done market research. They have targeted people. They have hired special consultants to do this for them. They think they do know the market, and that is why they went to this point. Throughout the process, he has consulted the neighborhoods. He has consulted the neighborhood to the east in the county, which is a vital part of it; and he thought that was something that any and all developers should always do. He felt it was important that it be compatible to both areas, and this was a solution to something he thought would work for all parties. He conducted a neighborhood meeting just last week with the neighborhoods. He sent out the notices as he would normally send them out through the normal planning process. He used the same mailing list, and felt he had a pretty good turnout of about 40- some people at a neighborhood meeting. He also made his neighborhood aware of that, and he as asked them if they would support him. He has a petition signed by over 140 people in the neighborhood, not just in the English Ranch, but the neighborhood to the east in • the county. He presented that to the Board. He thought it was a good solution, and good for what Fort Collins has told him they want. He has a list of customers in excess of about 35 to 40 who have specifically requested this product. Those were not customers from Chicago or Atlanta or Denver. They were all residents of Fort Collins right now. They were existing citizens within the city limits right now. They are telling him what they would like. He thought that was pretty evident, and they tell him they do not want a duplex. They do not want to be attached. They do want a very small lot, but they want to be separated, and they do want to do a PUD. They want full maintenance on their snow removal, their lawns, their paint, everything else. He has complied with their full requirement, and also the City requirements in that PUD. The reduction in density in this total 101 acres, when you take out the 5.5 or 6 acre park, from 358 to 340, is very insignificant, and he urged the Board to support it. Member Fontane asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to comment on Ms. Liley's comments about Policy No. 75. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied he saw the point that she made, that an argument might be made that densities can be drawn just from a mix of lot sizes all within the single-family context. He thought he saw the logic of the argument, but he disagrees with it because he believes in the Zoning Code, that the zoning districts . talk about different densities. The low -density zones refer to single family dwellings and authorize those as permitted uses. He did not see that the zoning districts talk about uses. They talk Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 14 about densities in an area, and then they list the uses that can be built to satisfy those densities. You find the RF zone, the RL zone refer to low density. They you go into the RM zone that authorizes both low -density construction as well as medium density, if you go to the listed uses, you will find that multi -family dwellings are authorized in the RM zone. They you go to the RH and the high -density zones, and you can find hotels and uses like that authorized. He thought that density meant a different type of dwelling from single-family to multi -family and on up into higher density. CITIZEN INPUT Susan Whooley, 2601 Appleton Court. She was here to ask that the Board grant Mr. Bartran's request for his amendment. She asked this on the basis of her belief that he is, in hiring marketing people who are telling him that when someone is looking for a home, they would prefer a detached single dwelling to a duplex or a paired house, that he is really just trying to provide the community with what they would prefer to have. If he still meets the requirements for number of units per acre with the reduction or the change from duplexes or paired houses to single-family patio homes, that the Board consider that as a reasonable request. His request seems to attempt to maximize the compatibility of the already -existing houses and homes that are in the neighborhood. Herbert Ervin, 2649 Bison Road. He is a resident of English Ranch. He was here to support the amendment to the ODP. He has been a mortgage lender in Fort Collins for 10 years. He thought it all comes down to markets. When talking about densities versus the use of properties, you have to also look at it from a market appeal and what the market will support. He has been lending long enough to know that multi -family dwellings were in high demand in the mid 801s; and yet in 1991, you couldn't give a condominium away here in Fort Collins. When the market turned and interest rates went up, there were high foreclosure rates in a lot of attached housing developments; and the foreclosures being what they were, lenders backed off from lending on those type of properties. It has since come back, but it is been amended so much. You don't see the developments of 8 and 10 unit condominium units like Cherry Hills or Peach Tree or Heatheridge or Mission Hills, any of those type of condominium projects, because there is not market appeal for that. There is no market support for that, and the lending community backs away from that. Only in the last year have private mortgage insurance companies for lending purposes come back in to insuring condominiums. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 15 In essence, what that meant prior to about a year ago, is that you had to have 20 percent down prior to being able to purchase a condominium. That drove away a lot of buyers, unless you were in an FHA price range. Again, we are not talking of a price range for attached housing in the English Ranch that is going to fall within $116,750, for lending purposes for FHA. So, prior to the last year of not being able to look forward, but any turn in the market, you are also going to see lenders back off from that type of housing. You won't be able to make loans on it, and you get a higher foreclosure rate. The market, as he sees it now, supports detached, not multi -family, but detached patio home type units. They have them in Stoneridge. The appeal is very high. They have sold out almost immediately. They have had the same experience in Oakridge. The way a lender looks at that is the same as if an attached, detached. You are still getting the same appeal to the marketplace, but you are able to offer more of a variety of product, and you lend on them differently. Anytime you have a condominium association, you have to go through a series of warrants to get secondary market approval for projects. there is even existing condominium projects that, from curb appeal, you would say are very appealing. They should have no problem lending in these projects; but once owner -occupancy falls below 60 percent, which is the case even in Cherry Hills, you have to get special approval or make certain warrants to the secondary market in order to do loans on those properties. He did not know that density for the sake of just meeting density to meet some nebulous number is the way to go. He thought when you are talking in terms of density versus use, if a density is achieved within the English Ranch as a whole, three and three- quarter units per acre for the whole 100 acre parcel, and this 10- acre parcel you are going to achieve 4 units per acre, you are in excess of what the City's requiring. You are meeting density requirements, regardless of the use that is put in place to achieve those densities. He thought it was compatible with the surrounding area to the east, to the north, which is Stoneridge. North of Stoneridge, there is no more room to go. CSU owns that land. To the north of the property east of County Road 9, you have the cement and mining operations and environmental center. To the south, you have HP. Hopefully we have NCR as a neighbor to the south on the west side of County Road 9. But the periphery, is being stressed. Everything past that is I-25. That gets into Timnath and other things. So the compatibility and the continuity and how this ties Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 16 into the rest of the neighborhood is well supported in the type of housing that there is a high market appeal for. He urged the Board's support. Cherlynn Marlow, resident of the English Ranch, asked the Board to approve Mr. Bartran's request. She felt that duplexes just won't be compatible with their neighborhood. She was also concerned that if they do put in duplexes and the market drops and they are not able to sell them, it is going to directly affect their property values; whereas patio homes, there seems to be a large demand for them right now. She knew over at Stoneridge, they were sold rather quickly, and the same with Clarendon Hills. They were sold rather rapidly, and that brings up their property values; whereas, if they end up with duplexes, they could end up with empty units; and that is going to affect the rest of the neighborhood. She urged the Board to go along with Mr. Bartrans request. Sandra Thomas, speaking on behalf of all the neighborhood who is grateful that Mr. Bartran is looking at something of compatibility issues, and they strongly support his request and hope that the Board would too. Marilyn Pullin, 3712 Rockdale Drive. The reason her family chose to move to this neighborhood is that Mr. Bartran has an uncanny knack, a planned knack, for creating a neighborhood. She would suggest or implore the Board to support this application. The plan that he has put forth is definitely more compatible with what my family chose to purchase and become a part of this community. She did not support multi -family dwelling, and she thought this was more compatible with the surrounding area. He has had a proven track record here. She hoped the Board would support him and their neighborhood. Bill Warren., lives in the neighborhood immediately to the east of the English Ranch off of County Road 9. He has lived in his home for 11 years and certainly knew that development was contemplated across the street. In fact, he was in attendance when Mr. Bartran first had his master plan presented. He felt like he is one of the more affected adjacent property owners. He has a rather large home on a rather large lot immediately across the street from what will be very close to the entrance of the newly expanded English Ranch area. He has been in Fort Collins for a little over 20 years. He has been in the building inspection and construction business for 19 of those. He felt like based on the client profile that they have developed and the complexion of the community, the down -zoning that Mr. Bartran has proposed is much more consistent with what they see to be in demand at the moment. He was very much in support of Mr. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 17 Bartran's application. He felt it was an excellent opportunity to create the buffer that they have all been looking for between the rural and urban districts, particularly along County Road 9, and felt like it is an ideal opportunity to help preserve the complexion of this transition area. He urged the Board's support to down -zone this neighborhood. Greg Chastain, 4470 South Lemay, stated he lives in an apartment, and is a future resident of the English Ranch. He was there in support of Mr. Bartran's method of doing things. He has known Mr. Bartran for a very small amount of time, but has in that time, come to respect him for his way of setting up the community, for his way of setting up the neighborhood, and it was great. It was absolutely wonderful. The man goes out of his way to help his people that are buying houses from him, and he thought he was trying to meet the City half way. He thought the City could come down and meet him the rest of the way. He felt that when you go to start cramming a whole lot of people into a particular area, you raise you chances for crime; and, as Herb Ervin said earlier, with the turnaround in people all the . time, with the places not selling, you are going to have renters in and out. You would be having people turning over all the time. He thought it would be better if the Council went ahead and supported Mr. Bartran. Les Skeen, resident of English Ranch. He would like to thank Mr. Bartran for having the neighborhood meeting, for getting the input from all of them and listening to all of them. English Ranch has a really nice character to it. He did not know if the Board has ever been there, but it is quite a nice neighborhood. It is one of the nicest places he has ever lived, and he was just a little concerned about having one end of it having a totally different character. Currently kids are free to play in the streets and not worry too much about getting run over. He was worried about trying to cram so many people in there and what would happen to traffic patterns. They were going to have a lot more cars on the road, and he thought Mr. Bartran had a reasonable compromise. H encouraged the Board to listen to him. Larry Vail, Rockdale Drive in English Ranch. He would just reiterate what some of these other people have said. This is the third Bartran home that he has owned. He has always had real good • luck with the neighborhoods, he was encouraged by what he was trying to do in terms of making this congruous with what is around there, eliminate any unsightly areas that would not be in keeping Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 18 with the neighborhood, and he encouraged the Board's support of this request. Bob McKee, lives on Antelope Road in English Ranch. He agreed with what everybody's said here tonight. He hoped the Board would grant Mr. Bartran his proposal. In talking with some of his immediate neighbors, he felt like they really felt they have been thrown a curve ball if multi -family attached units go in their neighborhood. He felt that property values cold go down, and thought that with the difference in density is insignificant compared to the benefits that they might gain if they can keep things unattached. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Member Walker commented on the history, stating he thought there was some misunderstanding of how the City works its policies. Policy 75, which they were dealing with, says "provide a mix of housing densities". The intention of that is to provide housing opportunities for a variety of people, and, when the Board saw the original ODP, there was multi -family on this site. In fact, there was a larger multi -family on this site. What they have seen in the two changes that have come about is a continuing reduction in densities. He could understand why this would appeal to people who are living in this area, however, from a City perspective, the goal is to provide opportunities to a variety of citizens in housing. He believed that is one of the reasons that Policy 75 exists. We want to provide mixes of housing opportunities throughout the City rather than having a very homogeneous area without that variety. It has been determined in the best interest of the City that a variety of housing is a good policy. From the very start, this project has had this high -density component in it. Perhaps those people that are living in English Ranch are not aware of that; but the point is that from 1987, when we saw this, until 1993, there was multi -family housing planned in that area. In 1993, that was reduced to what is now there, which is the paired housing. At the present time, what has been approved is paired housing, and that is the existing plan. He thought whatever the Board does here, he did not feel like the neighborhood should feel like they are being let down or misled or somehow the Board is going against public sentiment; because, as expressed by this plan as it was put forth, there always has been some higher density component in this area. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 19 Chairman Clements stated that in November of 1993, this original parcel was 26 acres of multi -family, and the Board reduced that to approximately 10 acres of multi -family, which is what they were dealing with tonight. When talking about multi -family, you are not talking necessarily about high-rise apartments. There are a lot of different housing types that can be categorized as multi -family, and they were talking about duplexes, four-plexes, perhaps apartments do fit in there. About 100 percent of the time when multi -family is mentioned, when neighborhoods hear "multi -family", they run the other direction. They envision bicycles out on porches and towels hanging off of railings and loud music. She lives in a multi -family unit. She thought she would be a very good neighbor. She thinks she is a good citizen, and just wanted to make it clear that you can not categorize people that live in multi -family neighborhoods as not taking care of their property and bringing other people's property values down. There are a variety of people with a variety of incomes much higher and/or lower than our own, and they can be good • neighbors, as well. Member Bell commented on the sentiment from the neighbors that the Board was letting them down. It bothered her that someone does not take responsibility to inform people when they buy their homes what the overall plans look like; and she thought either the home buyer or the developer needs to speak up at the table when the contracts are signed so that people clearly understand what the character of their neighborhood is truly going to look like. This has been on the book since 1987. Everyone has known for a long time that there was going to be some sort of multi -family development in this spot. She thought that was a problem in this community, and did not know what the solution to it was, but it is really troublesome to her that people are so uninformed about what the character of their neighborhoods are going to look like. Member Walker thought the other thing to consider was the urbanizing fringe of town. There is a lot of open space out there. It has been suggested that Stoneridge has some multi -family plan; however, it is very hard to envision at the moment; but just on the north side of Horsetooth, there could be multi -family housing. The representative of the developer who spoke suggested that perhaps to the south there might be multi -family housing because of the fact that further south, we have Hewlett-Packard. We have a . potential industrial site just west of Hewlett-Packard. The reality is that the City's policy clearly states that wherever Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 20 there are higher activity zones, and employment centers being one of those high -activity zones, there is going to be some gradation of housing to more intense uses near those activity zones to make for a better overall city plan. Our planning process tries to bring people closer to those activity centers so that we can reduce traffic, reduce air pollution that goes with that. That was a lot of what the Board was considering. He thought they were seeing, with the proposed grocery store further west on Harmony, where we have a lot of single-family houses and there is an open space; and all of the sudden, something of more intense use is coming in; and people act shocked that this is going to occur. He thought it behooves the citizen to recognize that any place where there are these higher activity centers, there is going to be more intensity of land use. We attempt to make a plan here where they try to blend this in through some sort of gradation of intensity of uses, but he would encourage them to think about what those empty spaces around you are going to look like. As the Board is trying to interpret the City policy here, they are attempting to provide meeting the City guidelines, one of which is this Policy 75, which they were struggling with at this hearing. Some of those other open spaces will be filling in with other things, and, the character of this part of town is evolving. It is definitely not static at this point because of the nature of being on the urbanizing fringe. Chairman Clements commented that with good design, good architecture, good landscaping, you can take attached units, you can take duplexes and make them very livable, very desirable, very compatible with neighborhoods. She envisioned that a lot of times citizens think of duplexes and they automatically think low-income, that is not the case. Just as we _ were talking earlier in this session, talking about creativity and getting creative. She thought that you could make a marketable multi -family product, whether it is a duplex or four- plex or paired housing, whatever that category under that multi- family housing. She knows it can be done. She has seen it done. Member Cottier commented that they were looking at two apples. There was very little difference between 58 units and 40 units. She thought that if they were concerned about the objective of the range of housing types, they were very similar, and the types of people that would live in either one of those duplexes or patio homes are similar. She did not think that that argument is the right argument to use here. She agreed with the comments that Board Members have made about multi -family being planned in this ODP. It has existed for 10 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 21 years, and did not think that that necessarily means that that was the best use at this site. She thought that in the past couple of months, they have definitely started talking more about the need for treating the fringes a little differently and, perhaps, lower density. She could go either way on this. She would be hard pressed to deny the request if they were still looking at all the policies that this does meet for where low density should locate, and they were still looking at a density above their minimum of 3, which they did not very often see. She thought in retrospect, they were looking at this ODP again, it would be apparent that perhaps the multi -family area should be away from the fringe and closer to where the high school is and the commercial. But to be consistent with the way the Board has been talking in the past couple of months about lower densities on fringes, better transitions. She supported the request. • Member Fontane agreed with Member Cottier that the changes in density and the changes in numbers of units were very small. She was also concerned about neighborhoods who think that having a different housing type in their neighborhood would reduce their quality of life or their property values. That concerned her, and she did not like that. She listened to what Ms. Liley had to say about the difference between density and a variety in housing types, and weighing all the different things and the change in density from 5.8 to 4.02. She thought she could support recommending approval of this. Member Fontane moved for approval of the Spring Creek Farm PUD Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion was denied 4-3 with Members Walker, Bell, Strom and Clements voting in the negative. Members Carnes, Fontane, Cottier voting for the amendment. HUGH M. WOODS P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY #26-88D Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: . 1. That necessary improvements to the Skyway Drive and South College Avenue intersection include a realignment of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page.22 existing frontage road on the north side of Skyway Drive and west of South College. The realignment of the frontage road will physically impact two existing restaurants, being the Hickory House South and the Deli -Works. Signed agreements between Hugh M. Woods, the Hickory House South, and the Deli - Works, outlining the scope of and obligation for the improvements, must be part of the Final P.U.D. plan submittal to the City. 2. That off -site drainage easements for the Hugh M. Woods development may be necessary to allow release of their stormwater onto and across other properties. Off -site easement dedications for storm drainage, to Hugh M. Woods from affected property owners, must be part of the Final P.U.D. plan submittal to the City. 3. That a design and mitigation plan which is acceptable to the Natural Resources Division be part of the Final P.U.D. plan submittal to the City. The submittal documentation must fully describe the extent of wetland impacts from site development, including both construction and stormwater discharge. The submittal must define the area of construction disturbance for both on -site and off -site wetland areas, and must set forth acceptable strategies, techniques, and costs for the avoidance, alleviation, or mitigation of those impacts. Planner Olt pointed out that prior to the meeting tonight there were changes to the staff recommendation relating to the Findings of Fact for the recommendation. He indicated that it stated that the All Development Criteria in the LDGS have been met except for: 1. A2.1, Vehicular/Pedestrian/Bicycle transportation criteria. 2. A3.1, Utility capacity. 3. A3.2, Design Standards. Based on the fact that there are three critical elements of this plan that had to be conditioned. Member Bell asked about the South College Access Control Plan. She asked for clarification of where it is stated regarding the right- in/right-out part of the plan. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department replied in the section of the Access Control Plan that lists the west side of College Avenue, 1,000 feet south of Skyway Drive. Member Walker asked about the changes to the frontage road north of the site, and should the road from the parking lot be relocated further west to prevent congestion that might occur. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 23 Mr. Vosburg replied that he concurred with his opinion. The Skyway intersection has a lot of complex issues related to it and the majority of staff time has been focused on the issues presented there. It would be advisable for the intersection of the recirculation road to be further back from the access to College Avenue and that was a relatively minor revision that could be easily accommodated at final without significantly affecting the layout or functionality of the project. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing the applicant showed slides of the site and surrounding areas. Mr. Sell discussed access, parking, structures, pedestrian access, wetlands, colors, and materials of the site. Mr. Sell showed a perspective in relation to the Weberg building showing the scale and mass of the building, height, width, square footage, canopies, setbacks, and the visual mitigation between Skyway and the commodity display area showing fencing, berming, lighting, and landscaping of the 80 foot buffer. Mr. Sell stated that there will be no loud speakers, they communicate with walkie-talkie communicators. They also do not do any mill work, they will cut wood for people but that would be only . 1/2 to 1 hour per day and their saws are located in the building and is located away from the residential development. Mr. Sell discussed drainage and drainage easements. The pattern has been there forever, and it is an existing drainageway on the USGS map. Mr. Sell also discussed the wetlands, where the retaining wall would be located, the two areas that would release into the wetland, and where the runoff from the parking lot would be processed and released. Mr. Sell discussed access to the site. They have met with the property owners to the north, and until an hour ago, thought they would be rerouting traffic between Hickory House and Deli -Works. Currently, the access they have mutually is on an easement through private land in the form of the frontage road. They have three property owners, and in order to access in and out of this property you either have to go through the frontage easement, or traverse across each others property. Earlier this evening they were informed that Deli -Works was no longer interested in an access that would reroute traffic through their property. There would need to be other alternatives looked at to deal with this in a safe way. Member Carnes asked how much cut and fill they would be proposing? Mr. Sell responded a total of about 110,000 square yards. Mr. Sell • showed the overall area slide and stated that any warehouse use on this site would have a lot of visual impact. What it will do is buffer the surrounding residential from the activity that occurs. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 24 Member Carnes stated the reason for the question was a neighborhood compatibility criteria which is A2.3, "does the site plan adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the disturbance of topography, water bodies, streams, wetlands and wildlife habitats". Mr. Sell responded he thought they were meeting some of those. Member Strom asked for an overview of where they would be cutting and filling? Mr. Sell responded by showing on the site plan, discussing where the cut and fill would be. Member Strom asked if a masonry wall would be put up above the grade. Mr. Sell replied 6 foot high. Member Fontane asked what they would be doing up against the west wall, the drainage swale runs up against it? Mr. Sell pointed out the drainage system for the west wall. Member Bell asked about lighting both on the site and along College Avenue. Mr. Sell pointed out the lighting on the site stating the lights would be attached to the building and shine on the pavement. Parking would be a high box type fixture. Along College Avenue there would be no lighting. Planner Olt added that the lighting along College would be a combination- of the City and State, there are standard lighting packages that will be implemented along collector/arterial streets. He was not sure how it works along State Highways. He did not believe it would be Hugh M. Woods. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department added that the level of lighting on streets is a standard in the City's Street Standards and the Light and Power Department of the City is who uses those standards to determine what lighting has to go in. Also, it is the Light and Power Department who installs lights. Member Carnes asked where the stormwater would go after it goes under the highway. Mr. Sell pointed out the direction in which the stormwater would flow. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 25 Member Walker asked what the signage on College Avenue would be on this project. Mr. Sell replied they have not addressed that yet. Member Walker asked about the plan calling for a double left turn with a median and would the frontage road stay where it is in front of Hickory House? He thought that not having the frontage road redirected would cause some complications of what is happening at Skyway Drive. Mr. Sell commented that in order to make if safer, a median is required. To make it a more convenient situation, if will require the cooperation of the property owners to the north and at this point there will have to be additional discussions with them. Tom Vosburg replied he was correct in his assessment of the median solution and the median does create an awkward movement. That would not be the case if the frontage road were realigned. That is why they have encouraged the applicant to work with the property owners to the north to try to achieve a really good solution. Regarding the functional operation of the median, that could be made so it is both safe and legal, but it clearly would be less convenient for the users of the properties to the north. Mr. Vosburg discussed two other alternatives that might be used for access. Member Walker asked if the improvement to Skyway was a result of what this project is bringing to the intersection as far as traffic. Mr. Vosburg replied that was correct. Member Fontane thought that ideally you could circulate through the southern portion of the Hickory House parking lot to get to where the exit is now. Mr. Vosburg pointed out the current exit and stated that if the median was extended you could not recirculate out across from that exit either. Staff has not looked in detail at the median solutions because they were not the one on the table, and there might be a chance to look at some other creative designs with the medians that will make the situations better. Up until a few hours ago, it seemed that the alignment would be what is indicated on the site plan. • Member Fontane asked about traffic volume going west on Skyway and onto Constellation to go south. Did he have an idea when the connection between the whole project area would connect over to Trilby Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 26 Mr. Vosburg replied he did not have the exact numbers from the traffic study. He has spent sometime with representatives from the neighborhood specifically looking at that issue. Staff does not expect a lot of traffic to head west from here because there is not very much housing out there. Staff was not concerned with the cut through volumes on Constellation being a major issue related to this project. Member Fontane asked if there were concerns raised once this project is built and neighborhoods were concerned volumes had changed, what could be done at that point. They are County street standards and the streets are the responsibility of the homeowners to maintain. Mr. Vosburg replied that was true. The streets were built to County standards and he understands they are in very poor condition and were never accepted by the County for maintenance. The maintenance and upkeep of the streets are the responsibility of the homeowners association. If volumes increased, additional traffic would increase the rate of deterioration. The question would be how much additional traffic in relation to what is currently going on there. Currently the streets are carrying well below the levels we set as urban standards for collector streets. Staff does not expect a substantial increase in traffic associated with this project on those streets. Chairman Clements asked if that had to do with some kind of appropriate upgrade in the intersection, specifically as it surrounds the frontage road? Mr. Vosburg replied that was correct. Chairman Clements thought that this was a major issue concerning this intersection and without a solution to this problem, it will create havoc back to the neighborhood, so it has to be resolved. She was envisioning that without a solution to this problem, people would be cutting through the neighborhood. Mr. Vosburg replied that was correct. Member Carnes asked what staff would see for the frontage road as it comes out from the Hickory House. Mr. Vosburg replied there may be some other alternatives that could be identified. He thought it may still be possible to realign the frontage road through the Hickory House parking lot without utilizing the other lot. There still may be some realignment options. Without the realignment, there would have to be a median and a pork chop island installed on the frontage road to require Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 27 vehicles coming out to head right and dissuade them from attempting to left out of the west bound lane. Member Carnes asked about the safety of the people exiting the frontage road turning right with regard to cars turning off of College onto Skyway Drive. Mr. Vosburg replied that they would be concerned with leaving the frontage free and uncontrolled without a median. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Sue Ellen Alicehouse, 6408 Solar Ct., President of Skyview South Subdivision, stated they do have a number of issue about the traffic in Skyview South. As stated, the City does not maintain their streets, but their development will greatly impact their streets. Their primary concern is cut through traffic on Constellation with resulting safety issues, speed issues for people who do not live in the neighborhood and street deterioration. The neighborhood has conducted their own traffic count, and was • sorry to say that there was not enormous amounts of cut through, but will continue to try to prove it. They would like to restrict construction traffic to Skyway and College. They would like to restrict delivery trucks from driving on neighborhood streets, that includes Saturn Drive, and Skyview north. They do think Hugh M. Woods will be a good neighbor, but are concerned with traffic. She offered a right -out only as a possible solution to help reduce traffic. The neighborhood was also concerned with waiting for Trilby to develop until the Del Webb property develops. The neighborhood also has concerns with the slope on Skyway when it is icy. She felt this is a real safety concern and would like something to guarantee safety. She also questioned whether there would be sidewalks and would like a response. Heather Holeman, lives in Huntington Hills and wondered why Skyway was closed on the east side of College. Her question was when would Skyway be developed. Dave Preston, lives in Skyview South. He thinks that Hugh M. Woods has done an excellent job on the aesthetics of the building. His concern was also traffic. Al Bascillia, lives in Skyview. His concern was also the slope of the hill on Skyway. He was also concerned with the large truck traffic and did not think the trucks could turn onto Skyway without interfering with traffic. Mr. Bascillia was also concerned with the access on Skyway and thought it should be through the Hickory Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 28 House and if not would cause a lot of accidents. He spoke about cut through traffic on Constellation. He urged the board to reject this application and felt it was dangerous and out of order. Curt Nemeyer, speaking for Deli Works. Their biggest concern is access to the property. He felt they did not consider the access on the frontage road and address it to Deli -works until about 10 days ago. He pointed out the alternative accesses they have a choice of. They did not believe the developer and the City's choice of a solution to the problem was the correct one, but the easiest one. They did not want to give up the property to grant an easement for traffic. He spoke his concerns with traffic on the frontage road and the flow patterns. He thought there should be a better solution looked at. David Osborn, representing MSP Companies, which is Huntington Hills. Their concerns are with the Skyway intersection and the alignment, which might compound the problems they have already on trying to work out a satisfactory access agreement for the Huntington Hills development. They are concerned that the intersection has not been given enough study and that the Skyway East problem solution should be an intrical part of this development. Chris Hartman, lives on Constellation, stressed previous points on traffic on and around Trilby with developments going in. She also has concerns with the slope on Skyway Drive and ice being a safety factor. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Chairman Clements asked if sidewalks would be provided with this development and also asked the issue of Skyway East development be addressed by Transportation. Tom Vosburg replied that College Avenue was a major arterial and standards require 7 foot detached walks and they will be required along the frontage of this development. Regarding Skyway to the east and why it is closed off. Hugh M. Woods does not own that parcel and it is currently unclear who owns the property where the road is barricaded off. The developer of Huntington Hills states an interest and actually did the closure. There are also other parties that also have an interest and claim access rights to that. There are efforts being initiated to try to reopen it. The City is not in a position to require an order that the barricades be removed, but there are efforts underway to examine the whole issue. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 29 Chairman Clements asked if that was because it is owned privately. Mr. Vosburg replied, yes, it is private property. Regarding when it will go through, further development of Huntington Hills has been conditioned on that connection being made. They are working with adjoining property owners, as well as the developer of Huntington Hills to resolve issues that need to be resolved in order to put the road through. Staff is concerned that the design of the road on the east side of College be consistent and coordinated with the design of the road on the west, so they are working with those parties to resolve the design issues. He would expect that the road would be completed soon, but it will depend on when an agreement is reached with all the parties here concerned. The construction of the road will be the responsibility of the developer of Huntington Hills to complete as part of their next phase of development. Chairman Clements asked about the amount of trailers that will be entering and exiting Hugh M. Woods per day and where will they be entering and exiting. Barry Hilton, Hugh M. Woods, stated there are distribution trucks that come once a week, and then 3 or 4 vendor trucks a day. They would be coming from the south and would turn in at the south entrance, across the front and into the yard area. If they would be coming from the north, they would be coming from Skyway, into their entrance, and then into the yard area. The receiving and loading dock area is located in the back of the store. Chairman Clements asked about the weight of the trucks and would the road in the condition it is in be able to withstand the weight of the trucks. Mr. Hilton replied that the trucks would be the standard over the road trucks which are about 70,000 pounds. Part of the improvements to Skyway would be to bring them up to City standards and would take truck traffic. Member Fontane asked if the access on College would be a right- in/right-out and would they not be able to access that from the south. Mr. Hilton replied that it was right-in/right-out and would enter on Skyway where there is a left turn pocket. The trucks coming from the north could turn either way. Member Cottier asked about the loading facility being at the front . of the building so no more access on Skyway is required, and was he saying that was not correct? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 30 Mr. Hilton replied that that comment was directed to the fact that the trucks would leave Skyway and enter their facility and the loading dock is located in the compound and not to the back and exposed. Member Bell asked to see a slide of the overall area. She asked about the South College Access Control Plan and that Skyway and Trilby Road were the only two signalized intersections in the quadrant and she thought the ODP showed another signal somewhere south of Skyway. Mr. Vosburg replied that in the South College Access Plan, that location was identified as a possible future signalized intersection. It is planned to be full movement with the possibility of being signalized. The applicant in their traffic study, made the case for signalization of that intersection. Whether or not that intersection will be signalized will depend on when it meets signal warrants. Member Bell asked what the traffic count was for the entire OPD? What would it be when it is totally built out? Matt Delich, prepared the traffic study for this development, as well as the Timan PUD. He stated that the Hugh M. Woods site will generate 1,700 to 1,800 vehicle trip ends per day. Parcel A is assumed to be retail/office and service uses and will generate about 5,200 vehicle trip ends per day. Parcel B, the northwest corner of Trilby and 287 is assumed to be retail and will generate about 7,000 trip ends per day. Parcel C, the west end of the site is assumed to be office/retail and will generate about 2,700 trip ends per day. Totalling up to 16,800 trip ends per day on this site. The intersections will meet the design criteria for the City of Fort Collins. Member Bell asked if down the road, would there be additional improvements to Skyway. Mr. Delich replied that Skyway Drive from College west approximately 300 feet will be improved significantly from what it is now. In the east bound direction, at a minimum, will have three lanes approaching College Avenue and one lane west bound. At the intersection into the site on Skyway, it will have two lanes west bound, one to the neighborhood to the west and the left turnlane into this site and at the same location, two east bound lanes. It will be a four lane cross-section. Member Fontane asked about the safety and the slope of the hill and traffic coming out and what is going on with the frontage road. She wondered if the road could be signed into the neighborhood with signs stating no truck traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 31 Mr. Delich replied that it will not be ideal for trucks to be going that way. A solution would be to sign it, and it is not uncommon for locations that go into residential areas. Also understand that the traffic to and from Hugh M. Woods will have very convenient access both from and to College. He agrees that very little of the Hugh M. Woods traffic will use the neighborhood streets. He felt that the ideal solution to this situation is to reroute the frontage road around the Hickory House. Member Fontane asked about the safety on the hill. Mr. Delich replied that he calculated the contour at 5.8% That is within Fort Collins standards and it is steep. He felt that the site distance was adequate and it would operate as it does today. Member Strom asked about a suggestion in regard to the curb cut out of Hugh M. Woods being a right -out only and would like a reaction to that. Mr. Delich replied that denying that movement for automobile traffic was not reasonable and that was telling the neighborhood they can't shop at Hugh M. Woods and get back to their neighborhood. Mr. Vosburg added that he also did not think that trying to control the exit from Hugh M. Woods to being a right -out only. This is only the first pad of a major shopping center. It would not be unrealistic to expect there to be a grocery store or other retail in this center as well. Member Strom asked about semi -trailers making turns at this intersection. Mr. Vosburg replied that the intersection would be designed and built according to City standards and those City standards incorporate and support semi movements. Member Strom asked for information about the brick wall surrounding the site and wanted information about what the wall will look like. Mr. Sell replied that in the areas of residential development, there would be more effort to create a potential detailing on the wall. It will be a concrete block wall that would have some sort of attractive cap on it and may have vertical columns. Member Strom asked about the rendering of the building and the . golden canopy color, but photographs from some other location was bright yellow. He would like more detail about the color on the building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 32 Mr. Hilton, Hugh M. Woods, responded the main building itself is split -rib type block. There is a red band that raps the building at the 12 foot elevation that is painted onto the building, a red color. Around the front entry is a common brick in a brown color. The canopies on the front entrance and at the garden center are yellow. Member Strom asked if that was the color in the photographs. Mr. Hilton replied yes. Member Strom asked about existing trees on the site and would they continue to be irrigated. Mr. Sell replied those trees would be removed. There is a cluster of trees in the wetland area that are being supplied with natural runoff and underground water. They have to do a wetland mitigation plan for both on the site and off the site and would be addressing those. Member Carnes asked about the canopies being occupied by people and wondered about that square footage and how it related to the big box criteria. Mr. Sell replied they were 73,500 and expected to be within the 80,000 s.f. even if the canopy is included. Member Fontane asked about the road system that goes to the east side of the parking lot and would it have to be moved so there is not the same situation as to the north on the frontage road. Mr. Sell replied that the difference was that it was a right- in/right-out only. It was not a big deal to move it back. Member Cottier asked about a proposed alley to take up less of Skyway. Is there an alley and what is the function of it? Mr. Vosburg thought that it was a typo in the transcription of the neighborhood meeting notes. It should read "opposite" the alley. Member Cottier asked if the wall on the north side would be 14 feet? Mr. Sell replied yes, the height of the structure from grade is 14 feet. Member Cottier asked what the minimum of any one point in the wall was? Mr. Sell replied 6 feet. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 33 Member Cottier asked about the point chart for Auto Related/Roadside Commercial. She asked why the second criteria regarding outside storage was checked no. Mr. Olt interpreted the meaning of the criteria as being related to auto parts and repair. All of the storage of lumber will take place in an enclosed wall area, not a structure itself. Member Cottier asked about them getting the maximum points for energy conservation and wondered what happens if they don't come through with all the energy conservation measures? Mr. Olt replied they are making a commitment to do that since the point charts are evaluated at preliminary, they have to assume based on the absolute criteria they have outlined to gain the points, the use of method 2 requires that the final approved PUD plan and construction plans submitted to the Building Department must specify all of the Energy Conservation measures which points have been awarded. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that if it is an after the fact occurrence where all the plans show and it is approved on final and they don't actually don't do it on the ground, then under the LDGS, they would be subject to criminal liability or suit for injunctive relief, because they have failed to comply with the term, condition, or limitations contained on the plan. Member Cottier asked about the plan presented at the second neighborhood meeting reflecting revisions in response to neighborhood concerns. She would like to know what those revisions were. Mr. Sell replied that the most significant were setbacks from 30 feet to 80-feet for buffering. Also, the entry shifted 45 feet to the west. Member Carnes asked about the project meeting All Development Criteria A2.1 regarding bicycle transportation, could that be explained. Also, A2.4 which has to do with the safe, efficient, convenient and attractive for all modes of transportation, he would like an opinion of whether it is feasible for this project as proposed to meet A2.4. Mr. Vosburg replied both criteria are Land Development Guidance System criteria and the LDGS establishes a higher standard to measure transportation and circulation issues against than . traditional traffic engineering and the adopted street standards. When evaluating the safety of vehicular movements and standard functionality test, there are clearly a variety of solutions that can meet that standard. He felt it was a grey area and a hard call Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 34 regarding efficiency and convenience. He felt that it was the board's call of what is the appropriate level of convenience and efficiency the board feels it needs to meet to be consistent with the boards interpretation and application of the LDGS. In his professional opinion he believes there are design solutions that can be articulated for this project that can get cars in and out of this site safety. Member Carnes asked about criteria A2.1 not being met. Mr. Vosburg replied that in order to answer yes to both of those All Development Criteria, the issues of the design of the College/Skyway intersection need to be resolved. Chairman Clements asked about criteria A2.7 and her concern was the mass of the building. She also has a concern with the color, and she would like to see something more in earthtones. Mr. Hilton responded this was a building they use everywhere in the country. The colors do match their corporate logo. He stated they could consider other colors if they had to. Also the mass of the building could be broken up. Member Walker suggested breaking up the mass, stepping the toll booths back, changing of some of the colors, and the right- in/right-out access at the south end be relocated. Member Strom asked about the project getting 0 points for contiguity. Could he explain why they did not get any points for contiguity when they only need 1/6. Planner Olt replied that in the LDGS it states that it must be contiguous to urban development. By definition in the LDGS existing development shall mean any subdivision in the City which has been approved and recorded. This site is totally surrounded by County approved and developed residential and commercial. Member Strom moved for approval of Hugh M. Woods citing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the staff report as revised with the three conditions as indicated in the staff report plus a condition that the driveway design at the southeast corner of the parking lot be revised prior to final. Condition 5, that staff investigate weight restrictions west bound from the site or other means to restrict truck traffic through the neighborhood to the west. Six, that architectural detailing for the masonry walls be provided to the board for review at final, also, that additional relief on the east wall be provided, and the colors be toned down, the colors are too intense for the standard they would like to see, and that an example pallet be presented at final. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 35 Member Fontane seconded the motion. Chief Planner Blanchard offered a modification to condition one that would instead of relating directly to the realignment design of the frontage road that instead it say "that the final plan shall show such improvements to Skyway Drive and College Avenue intersections as will render the intersection safe and in conformance with the LDGS Criteria A2.1, A2.4, and A3.2 as applicable. Member Strom accepted with an additional stipulation that the board believes the best solution is to revise the intersection of the frontage road further to the west and would like to strongly encouraged trying to work that possibility if at all feasible. Member Fontane accepted as the second. Chairman Clements added that it would be nice if the frontage road that is vacated could go away and landscaping be provided. Member Cottier stated that she would be supporting the motion because of all the design conditions. She thought that the landscaping shown does help to make this project workable. She is also still concerned with the way the wall will look. She also was concerned that there was no buffer to the south and hoped that it does not become a problem when the property to the south is developed. Member Carnes stated he would not be supporting this motion. In his judgement he has heard nothing that convinced him that the situation will be safe, efficient and convenient for all modes of transportation, Criteria A2.4. Member Bell stated she was concerned that this project does not meet the spirit and intent of the superstore moratorium. She did feel uncomfortable with slipping and going around that issue. She also felt that people in that area want a South College Area Plan that would help address some of these issues on development. She will not be supporting this motion citing criteria A2.7, A2.1, A2.3, and A3.1. Chairman Clements major concern was the traffic problems at this site. She believed that no matter what goes on this site, there would be problems until the traffic is worked out, because of the contour of the land and because of the hill on Skyway. She will be supporting the project because of the motion being amended and at final if she does not feel that the traffic and issues stated by • Member Strom specifically cited from the LDGS are not met to make her feel that this is a safe, convenient, and effective way for traffic to get around, she would not approve the final. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 36 The motion passed 4-2 with Members Carnes and Bell voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. • 0 ®0 ATTACHMENT "A" CHARDAI COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA" A�T1 Residential Density I On a gross. acreage basis, is the overall average residential density at least three (3) dwelling un,lts per acre? (du/ac)' PURPOSE: . The overall average residential density requirement is The overall average residential density requirement intended to set a baseline density standard. for. all allows flexibility to respond to changing market con - residential developments, as well as encourage vari- ditions. A mix ofhousing types may be used to achieve cty. The criterion is also intended to ensure that the this criterion, some high dcnsity.andsome low density, City meet its housing affordability objectives,cneour- provided the overall average. density is met. For age transit ridership, thc'ordcrly, economic; provision example, a residential area may include a mix of large of public facilities and services, improve air quality, lot single family (2 du/acre), traditional lot single minimize urban sprawl, reduce traffic congestion, and family (3.5 du/ac), small lot single family (5.5 du/ac), enhance the social aspect of neighborhoods. ',` townhouses (8 du/ac), and apartments (12 du/ac) combined to meet an average density requirement of 3 du/ac.. Maximum densities shall be set by neighbor- hood plans and/or by the capacity of the site and neighborhood to absorb the additional dwelling units. �cz� v`5�'+) 4_4 ;. Small -Lot Single -Family _ :. Townhouses (:� .. Ti. :y^ - iT<.: 71a •: _ .fQj'O ' .Nail , iriaf!+ym�a! :i:im 'J I�;ix.,l.;�m EN'll� w Q,�1�, Wu i WI]%il(L'18_I-?"!S�ii:iNf,' ..���:i'i�uo. A '' Duplexes ....... ... ......" :. .... _: . ' 1 :- Aparonenu & Condominiums POLICY between residential neigh- borhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses. 75. Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities. 76. Density bonuses should be provided to developers who provide low and moderate income housing. 77. The City should adopt prograns to reinforce and stabilize existing low income residential areas so they can remain in the housing market as low income units. 78. Residential development should be directed into areas which reinforce the Phasing plan in the urban growth area. 79. Low density residential uses should locate in areas: a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and regional/community shopping centers; EXPLANATION/DISCUSSION 75. From a land use policy 76. direction, the only method available to promote the reduction in cost of housing is for the City to grant density bonuses to developers for a certain provision of low -moderate income housing units. There are also additional code changes within build- ing regulations which can promote a lower cost in housino units without a decrease in quality. 77. This policy calls for the reinforcement of existing low-income residential areas so they will remain in the housing market, rather than being converted to non-residential uses. 78. This policy would require the development of addi- tional phasing policies. 79. This policy attempts to establish the locational criteria for low density residential development in the city. an 0 PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. NAME ADDRESS DATE ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- • PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. /V COU-/ / S ----------------- -&Uz L--------- �_Lg_`_�Li�,� --------------- ----------- PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD we the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. 0 PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. NAKlff') ADDRESS DATE (' srTh"a Scar/�in 375N $ yy i/g 9 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- •---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. 3'7ay �c�lda(c --------------------------- .Q? 17 &MfL-C------- 0 PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. NAME ADDRESS DATE7,13 (y/ - - - ' - --=--- - -- -�-✓--`fir 7----r -- E PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. /1-1 a'a_2X_ - ----- Ilia_- ------►--_-► _ti- -------__ -------- // �� -9 ------ ---------?�`'-�--------- -���� s� �--- _ Z i --- - - -- - ----- - " �' zl� ��oo -----�--- -----_--�-------------- ---- ---------- n LJ PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. _ --- --- R ------ -�619 t3es�o - CI----------- -�i . ----- ------------- PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. 0 PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. ---------�P�------------- 4 L] riles f L] -LL= If-v I,c PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. ----- ----------------- �1�6 btiMl Dn 1736 4cc�r�a�o �9j__���—�----------- d1601 ---------- 40 PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. -1 -- QitnD _ 3 5 i_'�_ + _ w _ �TG ------ ------ --------- .-- ------ �`- C��u _ ----------- - ---- - 1nL�-----z��_a; � 2�=---------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD We the undersigned are hereby petitioning to the Planning and Zoning Board to request that the overall Development Plan for the Spring Creek Farms Third Master Plan be amended to allow a reduction in density from the originally proposed 64 paired housing units to 40 detached patio homes. ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- No Text