Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/24/1995Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairman: Rene Clements Phone: 221-0406 (w) Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone: 221-3953 (h) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rene Clements at 6:30 p.m. Committee members present included Gary Carnes, Gwen Bell, Jennifer Fontane, Rene Clements, Jan Cottier, and Bernie Strom. Member Walker was absent. Staff Present included Shepard, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Olt, Eckman, Blanchard, Vosburg, Hamdan, Herzig, and Deines. AGENDA REVIEW: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, reviewed the various handouts given to the Board and the evening's agenda. Consent: 1. Minutes of the December 12, 1994 and March 27, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #9-95 Sunshine House PUD - Preliminary and Final. 3. #10-95 Landings Office Park PUD - Preliminary. 4. #81-936 Indian hills Village PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary and Final (Continued). 5. #44-84 Resolution pz95-10 lots 3&4 of Prospect Park PUD - Vacation of a Portion of the PUD. 6. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 7. Resolution PZ95-7 Easement Vacation. 8. Resolution PZ95-8 Easement Vacation. 9. Resolution PZ95-9 Easement Vacation. 10. #13-95 Novovesky Garden Shop - Rezoning. 11. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Consolidation of Trash Companies in New Developments (Withdrawn). Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 12. #9-94 The Ponds at Overland Trail - RF Cluster Development Plan Review. 13. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Eastside/Westside Design Guidelines. 14. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Adoption of the Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Management Plan (Continued). 15. #1-936 Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final. 16. #45-94A Bridgefield PUD, Phase I - Final. 17. #8-95 Glenmoor Property Rezoning (Continued). 18. #11-95 Milan PUD -Preliminary and Final. Director Blanchard noted that on Item 13, issues had arisen that warranted a continuance until May for final recommendation and action by the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted that a presentation would still be made and public testimony would be taken. Item No. 3 was pulled by Member Carnes from the consent agenda to the discussion agenda. The March minutes were pulled off of the consent agenda for a brief correction by Member Cottier. Chairman Clements noted that Item No. 9 would require a separate vote due to a conflict on her part. CONSENT AGENDA: Due to the changes noted above, the consent agenda consisted of Item No. 1, approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 1994 meeting, and Item Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Member Strom moved for approval of the consent agenda as stated. Motion seconded by Member Cottier. The Motion was approved 6-0. Member Fontane moved for approval of Item No. 9 on the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Member Strom. The Motion was approved 5-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA: Planning and • April 24, 1995 Page 3 Zoning Board Minutes MINUTES OF MARCH 27. 1995 MEETING: A correction was noted by Member Cottier on Page 21, third paragraph from the bottom, deleting the "not" in the middle line. Member Cottier moved that the Board approve the March 27th Minutes as amended. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Landings Office Park PUD - Preliminary. #10-95. Member Carnes had concerns with the intersection at Landings and Boardwalk and any impact this development would have on the traffic congestion at that intersection. Tom Vosberg, Transportation Planner stated that staff was aware of the congestion at that intersection and that the current work plan is expected to complete JFK Parkway from Horsetooth down to Boardwalk this summer or early fall. It was anticipated that the intersection of JFK and Boardwalk would be signalized, decreasing traffic volume and breaking up the flow of traffic. Staff expects to continue to work with the post office on traffic issues related to their facility. The traffic study indicated that level of service policies were met and the intersection was appropriate with the volume of traffic there. Staff will continue to monitor the intersection once JFK Parkway is complete and reevaluate if they don't see the kind of redistribution of traffic they are expecting. However, staff is confident that the present situation meets the appropriate standards. Member Carnes asked for accident statistics for that intersection. Mr. Vosberg stated that he had that information at the office but could not address that tonight. Member Carnes asked about access onto Landings Drive from Boardwalk and JFK. Mr. Vosberg responded that staff believed it was important to have that access in part because both of the other accesses will be limited to right in/right out only and any traffic heading south will have only that one option. Member Carnes also asked about the visual impact of Building No. 3, in particular, to the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Mr. Olt responded that the building would be set back about 30 to 40 feet from flowline to the building. The building would have a finished floor elevation to two to three feet, which is down relatively close to the grade of the street. The buildings are 25 feet in height, which is not exceptionally tall. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 4 Mr. John Prouty, applicant, responded that there would be a considerable dirt export from the site in order to make the grades work. There will be a four- to six-foot reduction in elevation in the ground level and no pronounced hill as you enter the project or view the project from Landings, nor will there be one as significant as now is the case as you view or enter the project from JFK Parkway. Member Carnes asked about the Landings Drive entrance and whether it will be sloped or at same grade as Landings Drive. Mr. Prouty stated that there will be a slight transition as you rise, but nowhere near the steep slope that exists now. Member Carnes asked about the paperwork received from the Applicant tonight stating a ratio of 3.7 parking spaces per thousand square feet, which was different from the 4.4 spaces per thousand square feet that staff had previously stated. Mr. Prouty responded that the buildings were being offered in the same square footage and that each unit can include a main floor, loft, and a basement. Mr. Prouty anticipates that the main tenants would be on the main floor and use the basements for storage or possible office space. Mr. Olt explained that the difference between the staffs numbers and the Applicant's numbers was because the square footage had changed. Staffs numbers were based upon 28,600 square feet and Applicant's numbers were based upon 34,500 square feet. Member Bell asked about the project consisting of six buildings versus eight. Mr. Prouty responded that they originally only had control of the middle two lots of site and eventually were able to acquire the two outside lots and incorporate the entire site into the project. Mr. Olt clarified that the project was now a four -acre project with eight buildings, where originally it was a two -acre project with six buildings. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. There was none. Mr. Prouty stated they are requesting that the Board approve the 1280 square feet on the main floor, 480 square feet in the loft, and a potential of 1280 square feet in the basement, finished or unfinished. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Olt added that the parking guidelines for general office space state a range of 3 to 5 parking spaces per thousand square feet. The initial plan submitted was 4.4 spaces per thousand square feet and the plan was now 3.7 spaces per thousand square feet, which would be within the guidelines for general office space. If the use of the offices was, for example, medical or retail, that would change the equation substantially. He stated that staff has no problem with the 3.7 parking spaces per thousand and that conditions could be imposed on the nature of uses with those kinds of parking ratios. Mr. Olt stated that Staff was recommending that the Board do one of two things: (1) Make a motion that would approve the larger number, the 34,000 square feet, without absolute vesting of rights for layout and density and square footage until the city has had a chance to evaluate the nature of uses; or (2) limit uses so that the nature of uses in this complex would fit within the context of type of uses that would fall within the parking ratios represented. Member Cottier asked if there was room to add additional parking anywhere? is Mr. Olt replied that there was no room to add parking anywhere. Member Fontana moved to approve the preliminary of the Landings Office Park PUD based on 3.7 parking spaces per thousand and 34,560 square foot total, including the condition by staff. Member Strom asked if this would prohibit basements in all buildings. Member Fontane replied no, she was suggesting they approve it with the full amount of footage that is noted in the handout versus what was in the staff report. Member Strom would be more comfortable if it was more specific. The motion was amended to limit the Applicant to building out only 34,560 square feet in office space. Member Cottier seconded motion, adding two further conditions: (1) that a minimum parking ratio of 3.7 per thousand square feet (finished) be maintained and that the Applicant work with staff to make sure that parking ratio is maintained in some combination; and (2) that Building 3 be restricted to be just a • single story, not a loft building, and with a limit of 36,000 square feet unless a new traffic study is completed. It was noted that the traffic study was done based on 36,000 square feet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 6 Upon request of the Board, the motion was read back as being for approval with the following conditions: (1) A condition as staff has in its staff report; (2) that a minimum parking ratio of 3.7 per one thousand finished square feet be maintained; (3) that Building No. 3 remain single story, not with a loft; and (4), that the square footage be limited to 36,000 square feet occupied office space, with more space allowed for storage, unless a new traffic study is done. Mr. Prouty suggested that the Board not condition the project that Building No. 3 remain single story due to the elevation and aesthetics of the project changing. Member Cottier replied she suggested that condition on the project because of lack of information on elevations and contours. Mr. Prouty replied that with or without the loft, it would not change the elevations. They are equally low. Member Bell suggested eliminating Building 3. Member Cottier withdrew the condition that Building 3 be only one story if, in fact, both building types are at the same elevation. Ms. Fontane allowed the amendment to eliminate Condition 3. Member Strom questioned if there was any way to enforce the conditions regarding the total square feet. Mr. Olt stated there was no realistic way to enforce the condition regarding total occupied square feet without revisiting the site periodically. Mr. Vosberg suggested disallowing basements in some buildings to make the total amount of square footage add up to 36,000 as in the traffic studies or approve all basements but mandate that additional traffic work be done before final approval. Member Strom moved that the motion be amended to limit the square footage to 36,000 square feet and that if the Applicant wanted to go beyond, that they would have to come back before the Board. Member Cottier accepted the amendment with the caveat that if the Applicant came back at final with additional traffic work that showed that 48,000 square feet wouldn't make any difference in traffic impact, that 48,000 could be acceptable. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 7 Member Fontane accepted the amendment. The motion was read back to stated the conditions of approval were for (1) A condition as stated in the staff report; (2) that a minimum parking ratio of 3.7 per one thousand finished square feet be maintained; (3) and that the square footage be limited to 36,000 square feet. The motion was approved 6-0. The Ponds at Overland Trail - RF Cluster Development Plan Review, #9-94B Member Clements did not participate in the hearing of this item due to a conflict and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Cottier. Ted Shepard, City Planner, gave a brief staff presentation on this matter and numerous • slides were viewed. Mr. John Spillane, attorney for the applicant made brief comments on behalf of the Applicant regarding Criteria 6 and how this development has complied with that criteria. Mr. Frank Vaught of Vaught -Frye Architects made a presentation on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Vaught went over the RF, Foothills Residential Designation as stated in the code. Mr. Vaught stated the specific reason they were back before the Board tonight was to address Criterion 6. Mr. Vaught read Criterion 6 from the code, and stated that they would be presenting evidence tonight that they had accomplished that criterion with this project. Mr. Vaught also commented on the following: That there would be a 600-foot setback from all acreage on the east side of the ditch preserved as open space. That the Applicant would be dedicating 195 acres of open space to the city, 122 acres of which was above the lateral. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 8 3. That the Applicant would be providing public access to the open space via a trail system. 4. That they would be preserving existing wetlands. 5. That they would be saving the historic Maxwell house. 6. That a density of 3.14 units per acre would be maintained. 7. That they would establish design guidelines providing a comprehensive approach to development. 8. That the following changes would be made in Cluster E: That the property lines would only be allowed low, three -pole fencing. That a maximum of 15,000 square feet of the lot area would be allowed to be fenced in for children or animals. That 10 percent of the lot area would be irrigated lawn with natural land transitions into open space. - Reducing the allowable height from 5250 to 5235. - Increasing the minimum side yard setbacks from five feet to 15 feet to improve view corridors. Adding design guidelines regarding solar orientation, energy conservation, minimum of grading and disturbance, protecting the windward side of the house with evergreen plantings, using plant material requiring low or moderate irrigation and to complement the natural character of the foothills. That finish materials on the exterior of residences would be required to be earth tones. Vice Chairman Cottier asked for clarification in that the staff report states that the middle pine tree being at 5200 and that the applicant is saying that it is at 5235. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Shepard replied that the base of the foremose lower pine tree at 5220, which was about 5 feet above the countour line for the ditch. Mr. Vaught replied that there information was obtained from City and County aerial topography. The base of the tree they are referring to was clearly shown at 5235. Mr. Vaught felt confident that the line they have represented makes the 5250. Mr. Vaught explained how they reached the 5235. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Dennis Stinson and Bob Davidson with the Fort Collins Foothills Alliance made a presentation, including a video. Mr. Stinson stated they would be presenting evidence regarding impacts on the aesthetic views of the foothills and from the foothills. Mr. Stinson read the last two sentences of the Council's Resolutions 95-44, "based on its review of this evidence, the Board is to determine whether any changes in the project are necessary in order to • satisfy the necessary requirements of subsection 6. Such changes may include, but need not be limited to building heights, numbers of units, east/west view corridors and the relocation of Cluster E from the location presently shown on the site plan for the project. Mr. Stinson felt that everything on the existing plan was open to change based on the requirements stipulated in criterion 6. Mr. Stinson spoke on the number of units and the impacts on the views of the foothills once 284 units of housing is on the property, and the meaning of the word "aesthetic". Mr. Stinson spoke on the Natural Resource Department's Natural Areas Policy Plan being an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the property was defined as a Foothills Resource Area, and he read quotes from page 436 of the plan. Mr. Stinson felt it would be a great loss of one of the last farming fields on the west side of Fort Collins. Mr. Stinson spoke on air pollution and traffic congestion generated by the suggested 2,800 extra car trips per day. Mr. Stinson spoke about the wildlife in the area and the prairie dog colonies that would be exterminated by this project. He spoke of City policies on wildlife and preservation of prairie dog colonies for the raptures in the area and along the foothills. Mr. Stinson Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 10 was upset that the findings of fact in the staff report did not have any reference to a mitigation plan for the wildlife in the area. Bob Davidson showed a video and presented photographs of Quail Hollow and Quail Ridge Subdivisions as examples of the proposed density and estate homes that have been built at the same elevation of 5250. They also presented pictures of wildlife in the area they had taken. Mr. Davidson commented on building above the 5200 foot elevation, the RF zoning district, the Urban Growth Area Agreement, the open view corridor from Overland Trail, and the overall aesthetic impacts of this development. Leon Heatherington, lives just south of the property. He asked the board to consider three requests. The first was to reduce the density to aesthetically open up the development. Second, to eliminate three or four of the lots at the west end of the development where they show a pond; he felt that would open up a wildlife corridor. Third, in the same area, insist that the center trail that they show on their development, connect with the open space across the ditch. Mr. Heatherington read from the IGA in reference to the wildlife corridor, explained the wildlife in the area of his residence, and how much a wildlife corridor is needed with this project. Mr. Heatherington feels the density is too high for this area and feels the board should reconsider the density on this project. Brad Edwards, lives in the northwest area of town, stated that cluster developments were to be designed to minimize the aesthetic impact on views of the foothills from Overland Trail and Overland Trail from the foothills. He was concerned with the view from Overland Trail to the foothills and felt that Mr. Vaughts pictures were not realistic given most people would be driving in their cars down Overland Trail. Mr. Edwards was also concerned with the trees that would be planted along Overland Trail and how that would impact the views of the foothills. Marci Landruth, 2819 Virginia Dale Drive spoke at previous hearings and has presented petitions. She feels that some progress has been made, but not enough. She felt that the developer has totally ignored City Council's recommendations to open up more corridors to allow people to see more'of the foothills and to do away with the larger houses at the top of the development, Cluster E. Ms. Landruth spoke about wildlife in the area and that it would take a 10-year study to understand how this development might affect them. Ms. Landruth presented pictures of wildlife in the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 11 John Gascoyne, 718 W. Mountain, spoke about the aesthetic impacts and the projected 2,800 vehicle trips per day that this development would bring to what is already there. He felt there was a view problem from Overland Trail. Mr. Gascoyne commented on the potential of construction above the 5250 foot limit, if the property were to be de - annexed, and that the maximum number o f units that could be built under County zoning would be three units. He felt that no one would know what the full impacts were until the development is built, and if we as a community are making a mistake it will be too late for us and for people who come after us. Moby Wile, lives in Bellevue, spoke about the area being special and different. He feels that no one ever meant this property to be developed at urban density from the foothills. He spoke about other front range cities that are building in the foothills and how unpleasing it is. He felt that developments like these that have been designated as a receiving area for transferrable development rights are not the proper way to preserve our foothills and to create density in the urban growth area. • David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, stated that the thing that made him decide on Fort Collins as his home was the foothills. He spoke about the gradual chipping away, by people with money, at the foothills over the last three or four years. He felt that the rights of the people of Fort Collins should be looked at. Adrian Carter, citizen of Fort Collins, spoke about aesthetics, open spaces, and quality of life in Fort Collins. Mr. Carter asked the Board to consider the quality of life of future generations of Fort Collins by lowering the density of this project. He would like to see this property preserved as open space permanently. Richard Katkowski, 2821 Garrett Drive, spoke about the views from his subdivision, Quail Hollow, disappearing; and, felt that since he bought a home in Quail Hollow he contributed to the loss of views of the foothills. He talked of minimization of the intrusion of the natural resources on the foothills. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Vice Chairman Cottier asked whether Council was directing the Board to provide for view corridors. Mr. Shepard stated that the language of Council was suggested language, not mandated, and he felt that Council was offering ways to consider the impact on views in • the area. He stated that if the Board felt that the development blocks the view of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 12 foothills, then a view corridor is needed. However, if the Board agreed that the development being below the 5250 line and complying with 29-114 regarding the maximum topographical height, a view corridor is not needed. Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the density at Quail Hollow and the amount of open space for comparison purposes. Mr. Shepard stated he had no information on Quail Hollow specifically, but that it was in the area of three units per acre, that it had ample natural swails and meandering greenbelts, and that it is an urban subdivision. Vice Chairman Cottier questioned the property being classified as a natural resource area defined by the City and whether the Natural Resources Department had identified any priority for acquisition of the area. Mr. Rob Wilkinson of the Natural Resources Department stated that the City did look at acquisition of this property early on and decided to focus its efforts further south of the property. In looking at what was proposed by the developer, they felt that the property above the ditch was the most important to consistently keep open space along the foothills. There is valuable bird of prey and prairie dog habitat, but the City would have had to acquire the whole site and the price was too high. Vice Chairman Cotter asked about wildlife considerations. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the open space being shown with the plan was a balanced approach, that they were doing a lot to keep a certain amount of open space available for wildlife use. He acknowledged that there are deer that move into the site, but that there is no destination to the east that they are required to connect them into at this location. He stated that there may be deer eating shrubs in the future and that with planting trees and shrubs, the deer habitat may improve in some ways. Regarding birds of prey nesting in the area, Mr. Wilkinson stated that they had no information from the Division of Wildlife or otherwise of any eagle nesting in the Ft. Collins area. He stated that there are eagles using perch sites around the community and feeding on prairie dogs, but that the site was not identified as being heavily used by bald eagles for prairie dog feeding. The City is trying to block together large parcels further to the south along the Fossil Creek drainage for bird of prey habitat areas. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April24, 1995 Page 13 Vice Chairman Cottier asked what it would take for this property to be moved up on the City's acquisition plan? Mr. Wilkinson stated that the City would have to reevaluate the site and hear other arguments for prioritization, that their policy has been to move towards acquisition in a willing buyer/willing seller type of situation, and it depends upon what is considered appropriate in terms of price from both sides. Member Carnes made an observation that this is the point along Overland Trail where you get closest to the foothills and is uninterrupted, and that that is part of the significance of this area. Member Carnes thought that the trees that were planted at the CSU Equine Center blocked the view of the foothills. He spoke about previous development in the area and view corridors; and, agreed that wildlife, natural vegetation, and land forms all are part of the beauty of the area. Member Carnes stated that the traffic that would be generated by the development will • have an effect on the aesthetics of the area and that the area is susceptible to air pollution. Mr. Carnes noted that the Board had much more information than they did at preliminary regarding the aesthetic impact of this development and that the Applicant had gone to great lengths to address concerns. He stated that there has been an attempt to balance the various considerations, and that if the development is approved that additional measures must be taken to further minimize the impacts on the aesthetics of the area. Member Bell asked whether the Board could now vote that they did not want the development. Mr. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that he believed that if the Board felt that Criteria No. 6 had not been met, they could vote to not allow the development. However, he did not believe that Council was allowing the Board to go back and address any of the other criterion. Member Fontane commented that everyone has their own definition of "aesthetics" and that the Board appreciates the amount of effort put forth by the parties involved, including the Applicant. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 14 Vice Chairman Cottier asked whether, on the roof materials and colors, were they also talking about exterior colors of wall finishes. Mr. Vaugut replied that was correct. Vice Chairman Cottier asked the applicant to respond to the suggestion of deleting some of the houses on the top level to open up access to the pond and connecting the trail with open space across the ditch. Mr. Vaught responded that the open space that was left there is in response to a drainage swail that comes down as the area that drains naturally from the ditch into the pond. He stated that the Applicant has preserved that space and that it is 150 feet wide at its widest opening. He stated that if there were reasons to encourage wildlife to migrate into the area, that area is large enough to allow that to occur. Mr. Vaught stated that connecting the bike trail, at this point that would have a negative effect on the natural space and that's why the Applicant chose not to do so. The Applicant felt that the trails were adequate, but that those kinds of fine tuning issues were certainly available for consideration. Vice Chairman Cottier asked the applicant to respond to street trees along Overland Trail, and the fact that the plan shows trees along Overland Trail and how that would impact the view from Overland Trail. Mr. Vaught stated that the trees shown were trying to follow the pattern of trees that exists along the ditch and that they had intentionally left out trees in the area where they have the 250 feet of setback. He stated that if the trees were in question, the Applicant would be happy to consider taking them out, but that one of staffs conditions is that the Applicant meet with the city arborist and look at any existing trees and come up with a forestry plan. He noted that concerns voiced by the neighborhood could also be integrated into the plan. Vice Chairman Cottier commented on the perspective of the foothills being the scenic backdrop of the city and that the people who view the foothills from Overland Trail are in the minority of people who view foothills in the city. Member Fontane stated that she did not see the development as impacting the foothills as scenic backdrop. u Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 15 Member Fontane commented that the lots that are the largest and farthest to the west were meant to be largest because they're designed to provide views between homes, with more of the density being moved down to the lower area. It was noted that a substantial amount of effort had been put into designing the development to the flow of open space through the property, that respect had been paid to the open space above and the documents that guide to move the density and transfer it down from above. Member Strom acknowledged that the aesthetics of this development was an emotional issue and that he had tried to break it down to bring objectivity to it. Some of the points that he looked at were the view shed, the viewing perspectives of the general public, the quality of the landscape, and, in balancing that, how is the developer addressing those issues. He stated that this is a sensitive landscape and that there was clearly a distinctive break in the landscape above the ditch. He felt that most people were not viewing the foothills from Overland Trail and that from many perspectives away from Overland Trail, the views below the breakline at the ditch were already obscured. • Mr. Strom stated that in looking at how the developer was dealing with changes to the site, that the setbacks are clearly in excess of anything seen anywhere else along the developed portions of the foothills. To a large extent, he felt that people would be looking over the top of the development at the most sensitive parts of the iandscape. He stated that the open space that was being preserved is exceptional and that the entire portion of the development is on less than 32% of site. Member Strom made a motion to approve the development with the conditions and findings as recommended by staff. Member Fontane seconded. Member Cottier suggested a friendly amendment with another condition that no portion of any structure be allowed to exceed above 5235. Member Strom accepted the amendment. Member Carnes offered an amendment that the grassland character of site should be maintained if at all possible. He suggested that the Applicant open up some corridors through the development to minimize the change in character of vegetation and of views of area as evidenced by what has been seen to date, but he questioned the mechanics of accomplishing that. Member Carnes suggested that the Applicant should minimize the amount of shrubs and trees planted in the development and nonnative grasses, as well, which would • detract from aesthetics of area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 16- Member Strom stated that he felt that the open grassland will be gone if the site is developed and that if he felt that that was a key portion of the foothills' aesthetic, he wouldn't have made the motion to approve the development. He stated that the essence of his motion is that the area should be preserved and will be preserved with the development in the area above the breakline, that the intent of his motion was not to preserve grassland. He doesn't believe that the grassland can be preserved and the site developed effectively. He stated that he would consider a stronger statement about the use of xeriscape-type and natural materials. Member Carnes stated that to the extent that people put in fences, plant shrubs and trees, and have irrigated turf, that it will further diminish the aesthetics of the area and he believes the grasslands are a part of it. Whether you do it through xeriscaping, minimization or elimination of fencing, etc., he was not sure, but he does feel that a major east/west corridor through the site would help considerably. Member Strom stated that he believes that the corridor is over the top of the rooftops in this location and that he doesn't see the need for straight lines through the development that would be less aesthetic than what's proposed. In terms of minimizing trees and shrubs and so forth, he stated that he believes that if you're going to put a development in there with rooftops, that most people looking at it, looking over it, and living there would prefer to have some landscaping, tree cover, or canopy trees to soften the sense of the rooftops over a period of years. Member Strom did not choose to accept the amendment. Member Fontane pointed out that the plan does address some of Member Carnes' concerns. Member Bell commented that the language of Subsection 6 does not limit the Board to only considering the perspective of what portion of town we live in, that the Board was also talking about what it would look like from Overland Trail, up above, and all around. From the development plans, she imagines a sea of houses and thinks it's going to be aesthetically very unattractive. She stated that she would not support the motion as she was not convinced that the project protects aesthetic values. She stated that she might be persuaded if they were to do something different with densities, but she does not believe that the aesthetic impact has been minimized appropriately with development as it currently stands. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 17 Member Carnes stated that he also would not be supporting the motion and he felt that there was a need to open up the area, not in a linear fashion, to truly maintain some of aesthetics of the area from Overland Trail on up. He did not believe that had been done. He suggested that the density should be lowered, and stated that he does not see a minimization of the aesthetic impacts and that, at this density, we aren't going to see much further reduction in aesthetic impacts. Member Strom responded that density is not in question. He compares this development to what is going on south of Horsetooth Road where the density is much lower, and he believes that that area is an abomination compared to what he thinks this development is going to end up being. In terms of the minimization of visual/aesthetic effect, he stated that he felt the most sensitive visual area was the upper area and that the development preserves the upper area for public use, which is a very strong benefit. Member Bell added that in watching City Council deliberations, they were clearly very concerned about the aesthetic impact of the project and doesn't think they would have • worded the motion as they did if they didn't want the Board to take a stronger approach. She still felt that density could be looked at in order to make this a more aesthetically pleasing project. She felt that Council was trying to encourage the Board in a subtle kind of way to try to do something different so that it could be clustered in a different way. She felt the Applicant had done absolutely nothing to enhance the project this evening. Vice Chairman Cottier stated that Council direction was clear that the Board is supposed to consider additional evidence in reevaluating whether Criterion 6 was met, but she believes that Criterion 6 is met. She felt that the amount of open space, overall open character of the development, the extensive setbacks, height of buildings, and natural colors being used really impacted the overall aesthetic impact. She stated she would like the Applicant to look at the fencing issue and the trees along Overland Trail, which both have potential better uses. She would be concerned about six-foot tall solid fences anywhere in the development. Motion passed 3-2. Ms. Clements stated that due to the time, the Board will hear the East Side/West Side matter and that the rest of the agenda will be heard on May 8th. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 18 It was clarified that the Board was only taking public input on this matter and that they will make their recommendations at a meeting at a future date. Staff Presentation: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, stated that because this matter has been continued for a month, staff would like a statement of support by the Board for extending the interim minimum lot size, which is due to expire at the end of May, as staff will be going to Council and asking for a one -month extension to complete this project. Mr. Blanchard made a staff presentation on this matter. Chairman Clements clarified that these guidelines came into being due to concerns that neighbors had and were not initiated by the City. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney stated that the guidelines due out in May will contain changes suggested by the Board and staff. Member Carnes stated that he was the Board liaison to this committee and his impression was that the people involved were very concerned about the neighborhoods. He stated there were a lot of community values and concerned citizen representatives in these areas and that these guidelines were an outgrowth of concerns of citizens living in the areas. Representatives of Winter & Company went over the process implemented in coming up with the guidelines and reviewed the guidelines in detail. For the information of the public and for the record, Member Carnes asked about the number of locally -designated historic districts and historic landmarks. Mr. Nore Winter stated that there was one local landmark district, the Old Towne commercial area, and a scattering of individual landmark structures, but not many. Member Carnes questioned how many historically significant structures Mr. Winter felt there were outside of these areas. Mr. Winter stated that Page 1-7 provides a list that was drawn from the Historic Preservation Plan and that they took the highlighted items that are in these neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April24, 1995 Page 19 Mr. Carnes questioned whether there was a list of historic structures or potential candidates. Mr. Winter stated that there are some survey materials that exist and that the City has continued to survey areas to identify historic properties, but that these neighborhoods had not been given the priority they need in terms of detailed surrey work. Chairman Clements expressed the fact that the University is growing and that they are required to house only one-third of their students on campus and the rest are required to find housing within the community. As more students move in and around the University, the Board hears complaints regarding maintenance of houses. She questioned whether that issue was looked at and addressed. Mr. Winter noted that design guidelines cannot regulate land use. If a certain use is allowed through other city ordinances and review processes, these guidelines address how it shall look and what its appearance will be. They don't say you cannot have • rental housing in these neighborhoods. He stated that design guidelines cannot address things such as the "couch on the front porch" problem, but that they can address certain use allocations on the lot that can affect or be related to maintenance, such as parking. It was noted by Mr. Winter that properties that today do not comply with the design standards are exempt from the standards. The design review process is only triggered by a property initiating an application for a city permit. If a property presently has a four-plex with couches on the porch, parking in the front yard, and the property violates the design standards, that property can continue violating design standards and there is no amortization provision. Chairman Clements questioned what the current avenue is for dealing with these issues? Mr. Blanchard stated it was the elected officials and that there are some minimum maintenance regulations already on the books. Member Carnes stated that Page 1-7 does list historic resources that are contained in the plan adopted in 1994 and questioned why they did not choose to recommend all these for a conservation district or an interim designation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 20 Mr. Winter stated that there was enough information to know that these are going to prove out to be legitimate historic districts and that the boundaries will be close to what they're talking about. CITIZEN INPUT Ann Turnquist, 509 E. Olive Street, member of the Old Town Neighbors Association, also a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. She supported the guidelines and preserving the character of the neighborhoods. The architectural styles, the porches, the setbacks, and the rooflines add up to making their neighborhoods unique, special, and irreplaceable in the community; and, should be worked at to preserve. She felt that the guidelines were not meant to make it impossible financially to comply with the guidelines. She felt that this was not an intrusion of government into their lives, but an acknowledgment that when people live close together, there should be standards to live by. She felt that some of the new developments had more rigorous guidelines that the ones proposed here. She urged the Board to recommend to City Council to adopt these guidelines and standards. Lou Stitzel, member of the Advisory Committee, concurred with Ms. Turnquists comments. She believed there was a good balance of preserving individual rights as well as protecting what we feel is irreplaceable. This has been done through a citizen process, this was not laid upon the citizens, but something that citizens worked hard to produce. Karla Oceanik, Advisory Committee Member, and representative of the Centennial Neighborhood and its preservation and planning team. Ms. Oceanik voiced her support for the guidelines and felt they would protect the character and integrity of the Eastside and Westside areas. They would prevent inappropriate new construction and unsympathetic additions, and instead preserve the qualities that we as residents and as a City find so charming in our older neighborhoods. She supported the guidelines for historic properties because they would protect Fort Collins' few remaining historic properties. She felt interim conservation districting would offer protection for historic homes and homeowners until landmark districts could be designated. She felt conservation districting was necessary as a companion to the design guidelines. Jean Kullman, Member of the Landmark Preservation Commission, and liaison to the Eastside/Westside Design Guidelines Committee. She stated that the LPC supported the guidelines. The guidelines were an important element of the implementation of the Eastside and Westside Plans; and, are critical to the preservation of Fort Collins' Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 21 historic areas and the character of the core neighborhood. She felt that designation of the local landmark districts should continue that would provide greater protection for the historic districts. They felt the process has been a good one and hoped the Board would support the guidelines. Don Richmond, 120 S. Sherwood felt that the Eastside and Westside Plans do not advocate the use of design guidelines for single family residential areas in the neighborhoods. Mr. Richmond was not disputing that the Plans advocate guidelines, but the guidelines were supposed to be developed and used for specific types of land uses or changes in the neighborhoods, and were not to be applied to somebody's single family residence if they plan to do any modifications. Mr. Richmond read statements from the Eastside and Westside Plans referring to design guidelines. He stated that the design guidelines should only be used when doing a PUD through the LDGS and should not apply to all housing in the neighborhood. The design guidelines should only apply to new construction. • Nancy Eason, lives on Remington Street, felt that this was a covenant being imposed on the people living in these areas that did not willingly choose. She felt that the guidelines and standards should not be any stricter than necessary. She commented on the historic designation and felt that the guidelines for historic homes were incredibly restrictive. Eva Hiller, resides just off of Cherry Street concurred with the statements made by Ms. Eason. She reiterated that they already live there and she felt that this was something that was being imposed upon them. Ms. Hiller agreed with the maintenance of the integrity of the neighborhoods; but also feel that there has been some beautiful renovations done without the guidelines. Ms. Hiller questioned the guideline with regards to the planting strip and has yet to come across one that is not beautiful. She felt it was off base and did not understand why it was included. She likes the idea of guidelines, but is against anything that is mandated. She also felt that the standards should not apply to everyone. Ms. Hiller urged the Board to consider the individual homeowner and the preservation of rights of a private property owner. Dan George, lives on Mountain Avenue, opposes the guidelines and standards. Mr. George spoke on alterations to landmark buildings and contributing buildings. He spoke on lighting, xeriscaping, treatment of historic features, windows, architectural features, painting of houses and colors, and additions. Mr. George felt some of these were contradicting and felt they would add additional expenses to do any alterations to • a structure. He felt that voluntary guidelines were an educational tool for someone to use, but to mandate the guidelines was something he was against. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 22 David Lipp, 626 Remington Street, also opposed mandatory rules on the guidelines. He would like also would like to preserve the neighborhoods. He did not care to have people dictate what kind of door to have. He thought that was beyond the pale of the city government. He agreed with the 5,500 s.f. lot size, but if someone has a smaller lot with a garage on the back and wants to convert it to a guest house, he did not see any reason why that should not be allowed. He did not want too many of these things mandatory and push the citizen down with the power of government. Jerry Wuerker, 407 S. Grant Street, stated they made application of a building permit in September of last year and was denied because they have an existing apartment in their house to date. They were told they have to go through a PUD. There property is presently and was zoned multi -family. Mr. Wuerker went over the process, requirements and the cost of the application for their PUD. Mr. Wuerker felt that this process has gone too far. Mr. Wuerker felt that their rights were being taken away to do reasonable improvements on their property. He did not feel it was the City's right to solely control the improvements. Craig Carslile, 1030 West Oak, was concerned with "legislative creep". He feel that this has gotten out of control when someone can tell him what color to paint his house. He encouraged the Board to minimize the interference that is being placed on homeowners. He feels that these guidelines will do long term damage to the area. Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, explained the area of his neighborhood, Centennial. He stated that 22% of the area is students and 25% is senior citizens. A large portion of their neighborhood has lived there for 20 to 25 years. Mr. Bridges spoke about the process, the neighborhood meetings held. Mr. Bridges felt that the guidelines were a fundamental piece of the foundation for maintaining the older neighborhoods in the community. They provide a clear and well organized summary of the elements that the residents have stated at meetings that they feel are important to preserve. Mr. Bridges felt this was a good document and should be implemented, applicable, and that properties should be protected. Angela Danzlick, lives on the corner of Smith and Laurel, opposes the guidelines. Her and her husband own a home built in 1903 and are trying to sensitively restore it. She felt that the mandatory standards were light years from what the citizen group was trying to achieve. They wanted incentives and spoke of tax cuts so you can attend to your property. She felt that the mandatory guidelines would make it out of reach financially for them to continue to restore their home. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 23 Chairman Clements asked about the question about incentives, whether there were presently in place incentives encouraging persons to voluntarily upgrade and upkeep their historic homes. Mr. Blanchard stated that there were some financial incentives and tax breaks administered locally through the Landmark Preservation Commission, but that he was not familiar with the entire program. Mr. Winter stated that there are a set of incentives available for landmark properties. There are state and federal income tax credits for rehabilitation of certified historic buildings and grants are available. There is also some code relief available for historic properties. Mr. Winter also spoke about other incentives that could be considered are design assistance, whereby someone receives a credit for having a design professional assist • them with their plans, or facilitating purchasing of specialized materials or skills. Chairman Clements requested comments from staff on how staff would be assisting people regarding the design guidelines. Mr. Blanchard stated that part of process of adoption of guidelines is to train staff on the guidelines in whatever form they're finally adopted. As individuals come in through review process, staff would be there to help interpret what the guidelines mean and explain the difference between standards and guidelines. He stated that the Office of Historic Preservation on occasion will deal with individual issues. He was hopeful that the City would have adequate staff to support the process. Chairman Clements asked whether staff sees this process as adding layers to current process. Mr. Blanchard stated that he did not feel that it does and that he sees the guidelines as being additional criteria that aren't available now. Chairman Clements asked what additional costs the guidelines might create for citizens needing to utilize guidelines. Mr. Blanchard stated that there is going to be some cost involved in some of the • guidelines. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 24, 1995 Page 24 Mr. Winter stated that, generally speaking, the guidelines encourage people to build less, which usually means spending less. He noted that the guidelines do not mandate particular materials or architectural details and styles. He felt that they were fairly broad standards and does not believe that they increase costs of construction. With regard to historic standards, Mr. Winter felt the guidelines encourage appropriate techniques but they have attempted to acknowledge where alternative methods would be considered. He has also seen that the market has been responding to demand regarding specialized materials and/or skills. In some cases it may cost more, but the available incentives help soften that. Regarding the concern that a reference to design guidelines regarding all housing types is not found in East SideMest Side plan, Mr. Blanchard stated that are some additional policies that weren't brought up in that testimony. The "Urban Design" chapter, Policy No. UD-1 on Page 7-3, specifically relates to residential design standards that should be developed and maintained in the future. Staff feels that the absence of any reference to design standards under "single family" is not interpreted as meaning the City is not to have design standards. Vice Chairman Cottier commented that there are different understandings on the standards versus guidelines issue. She suggested a user-friendly brochure that could explain the difference between standards and guidelines, outline the process, explore the implications of historic designation, etc. so that people can see that they have something to gain by adhering to the guidelines. Chairman Clements commented that City Council had mandated that these design guidelines be put together in record time. She felt that an overall plan of how information will be disseminated would be helpful and that if citizens had an easy matrix to read regarding standards versus guidelines it would be helpful. Regarding extending the minimum interim lot size for 30 days, Mr. Blanchard asked for a statement of support by the Board on this issue in order to give them the extra month to complete the project. Member Carnes felt it was important to take the issues and do an executive summary and amplification of overall what the guidelines are. Member Carnes made a motion to recommend to Council that they extend the moratorium or continue the 5500-square foot minimum lot size. Member Bell seconded. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • April 24, 1995 Page 25 Member Bell commented that the idea of an architectural control committee should be looked at further. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Blanchard stated that Tom Shoemaker had continued the corridor plan tonight and was asking to include it on the second work session as a third item so he could get input from each member of the Board. Mr. Blanchard stated that he will include that for a half hour, along with the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and the North College rezoning and design guidelines. Meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 a.m.