Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/26/1987• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 1987 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colo- rado. Board members present included Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Board members not present were Don Crews and Linda Lang. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Debbie DeBesche, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, and Renee Joseph. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Chairperson O'Dell began the meeting by welcoming the Colorado State Uni- versity students who were present in the audience. Planning Director, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Consent Agenda noting staff was requesting Item 8, #56-87,A Front Range Farms II Annexation and Zoning to be deferred until the December. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda included: Item 1, Minutes of the September 28, 1987 meeting; Item 2, #44-79E The Mallards at the Landings PUD - Preliminary; Item 3, #55-87 Ara- pahoe/Mountainridge Farm PUD - Master Plan; Item 4, #35-86C Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 2nd Filing, - Preliminary and Final; Item 5, #6-87C The Square PUD - Amended Master Plan; Item 6, #6-87D The Square, Rocky Rococo PUD -Preliminary; Item 7, #54-87 Oak/Cottonwood Farm PUD - Master Plan; Item 9, #63-87 City of Fort Collins Water Tank Storage - County Referral; and Item 10, #64-87 Fort Collins Disposal, Inc. - County Referral. Member Edwards noted a perceived conflict and abstained from voting on Item 2, #44-79E The Mallards at the Landings PUD - Preliminary. Member Kern moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 through 10, excluding items 2 and 8. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Brown moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 2, The Mallards at the Landings PUD - Preliminary. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. PROVINCETOWNE PUD - MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PROVINCETOWNE PUD - AMENDED MASTER PLAN OF TRACT M PROVINCETOWNE PUD - PRELIMINARY (Combined discussion, separate motions) Ted Shepard gave the description of the three items. Ken Dueck stated there had been some concerns raised by the neighbors. He commented Jim Gefroh would be addressing these issues. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 26, 1987 page 2 Jim Gefroh indicated the differences between the old and new master plan. He stated the existing master plan had been approved in 1982 and is still active. He commented the new master plan is an amendment to the original plan. He wanted the Board to review the proposed amendment relative to the improvements over the original master plan. He stated all of the 426 acres included in the project are within City limits. He indicated the specific sections on the map of the 1982 master plan, which included: Tract A -Mo- bile Homes, Tract B, C, E, H, and J - Apartment and Condos units. He com- mented the existing master plan reduced Fairport Reservoir from approxi- mately 35 acres to 20 acres. He noted the differences in the new plan rela- tive to the old master plan. These changes included: the use of Murr Annexation increased the acres available from 410 to 426, (land by Tract G), all commercial, business and industrial uses moved away from Victoria Estates area, overall density has been decreased to 1081 units, only 6.5 acres would be used for condos, (94% decrease from the old plan), 102 acres for commercial business, (32% decrease from the old plan), Tract 0 is now a single family detached lots, open space along 287, four water features, (increased water area from approximately 35 acres to 70 acres), wildlife enhancement and shoreline improvements, and centralized open space which would include a pool area and facility and an active open space. He also stated the original plan was not compatible with Victoria Estates, whereas the new plan has transformed Tract 0, K, and P into the single family lot areas, making the area compatible. He mentioned the Superblock and Preli- minary PUD, which had been approved three years ago but has since expired, should be reinstated. Ken Dueck commented on the water rights and reservoir concerns. He stated the Fairport Reservoir (#17) was established in 1880. He discussed the irrigation of the reservoir. He stated in spring the reservoir if filled with river run water and maintained throughout the growing season. At the end of the season the lake is drawn down; the basin holds about 240 acres of water, contributing 42 acre-feet per year to the reservoir. The water rights are for 572 acre-feet per year. He emphasized there has been 100 years of private water rights for the reservoir. The second issue dis- cussed was the condition of the dam. He submitted a copy of the letter, to Paul Eckman, from the Colorado State Engineer, dated June 1987, which stated the status of the dam. He read directly from the letter to the Board. He also submitted to Paul Eckman, the Colorado State Engineer Dam Inspection Report, September 1987; Geotechnical Report, September 1983 from Chen and Associates; and Colorado Wildlife Workshop, Species of Special Concern, September 1985. The third issue was the wildlife. He stated the project would stabilize the lake level, develop the fish population, create a vegetative barrier, and a green belt would be constructed to enhance the adjacent properties. He submitted, to Paul Eckman, the Yield of Water Rights: 1939 - 1974. He then addressed the fourth issue of the wet lands. He stated Terry McKee of the Army Corps of Engineers had toured the prop- erty. He submitted a letter from Army Corps of Engineers, September 8, 1987 to Paul Eckman. Ken Dueck continued by stating Terry McKee, the indi- vidual who had written the letter, declined to take any jurisdiction around the existing reservoir. Planning and Zo Board Minutes • October 26, 198* page 3 Ken Dueck continued by commenting staff had been informed that Mr. McKee of the Army Corps of Engineers would like to tour the property again to review the wet lands. He stated he intended to take mitigation measures and to enhance the wildlife. He indicated the plans were based on the Division of Wildlife recommendations and the proposal was made. Dr. Allen Crockett talked about the wildlife issues. He stated five major Points. The first: the new plan includes four new water areas to the east of Fairport Reservoir. These areas double the number of acres of water and more than double the shoreline area. The second point dealt with Fairport Reservoir. He indicated mitigation had enhanced the plan by the future construction of islands on the western end of the reservoir which would Provided for habitat away from the shoreline. It would also enable for a variety of vegetation and increase the total shoreline. The third point concerned the plantings along the edge of the lake. He stated berm, walls and fences would provide screening for the residents on either side of the project. It would also provide screening for the water foul and other species. The fourth point included the wet land protection. He stated at present cattails and milkweeds dominate the ditch at the south end of the project. The northwest corner is undisturbed shoreline. The fifth point involved the fish present in the lake. He indicated studies showed carp dominated the lake by 84%. The two largest species were the 15" carp and the 10" carp. He indicated there were some bass, green, and sunfish also. He suggested the lake probably had been previously been stocked. He stated the project would enhance the lake as a fishery by getting rid of the carp and adding grass carp, bass, and sunfish. The lake would then have a bet- ter diversity than currently. He then submitted to Paul Eckman the 1987 Status Report of Fairport Reservoir. Ken Dueck referred to the project plans on the screen. He stated the rights of the reservoir had been purchased to preserve the lake. He added the open space of the project was over 105 acres, approximately 25% of the project. Ted Shepard reviewed staff's report of the items. He stated the Province- towne PUD - Amended Master Plan of Tract M and the Provincetowne PUD - Pre- liminary are recommended by staff as approval. He mentioned these items are identical to what was approved in prior years and since then have expired, are being resubmitted. He stated the Provincetowne PUD - Master Plan Amendment staff is recommending approval subject to a couple of note changes that appear on the master plan document. The changes would include: Note 5 be clarified as stated in the October 23, 1987 staff memo, and; Note 10, the developer had indicated that he needs to do work on the dam prior to Preliminary PUD approval or Final PUD approval on portions of the master plan. The work on the dam is under the supervision of the State Engineer of Colorado and staff feels this work would be permitted. The rewording of Note 10 is also presented in the October 23, 1987 staff memo. Robert Blases stated the Planning and Zoning Department referred to the carp as "killer carp", which was untrue. He commented the new dam was a big safety issue. He stated Mr. Peterson said to forget about the legal rights of the dam because it was a minor issue that would be taken care of Planning and Zoning-Roard Minutes October 26, 1987 page 4 later on. He commented the project was a legal rats nest. He feels mis- trust and the economic self-interest puts the citizen's interest in jeop- ardy. He concluded by stating, "Save Benson Reservoir!" Tom Shoemaker indicated he has been a Fort Collins resident for the past 10 years. He stated he is the President of the Audobon's Society in Fort Col- lins. He indicated the Audobon Society of Fort Collins unanimously voted opposing the project with the current plan. He stated some key points which the Board was to consider. First, the issue of mitigation. He stated the reservoir is an important area and needs to be considered as to the effects on its habitat. He said the problem is that the plan is only conceptual. He felt the wildlife enhancement is hard to develop in a PUD. For an overall approach he suggested four recommendations to be added on the master plan. One, that the areas discussed as wildlife enhancement be shown on the master plan (Tract R); two, all wet land areas at the west end of the lake be shown; three, note #11 be added to the master plan; and, four, the areas on or adjacent to Fairport Reservoir not be specified on the master plan. He continued by asking that the criterion concerning the fishery and wildlife habitat be specified on the master plan. L. A. Dykstra stated the lake which the developer refers to as being 20 acres is in actuality 56 acres, with the exception of July and August when the lake is 40 acres. He stated Dueck owns 95% of the water rights on the property. Currently, the lake has been drained to enhance the presentation of the master plan of the area. He commented on his concerns about the large number of people who would cause the bird habitats to stay away. He felt the recreational water sports and boats would also effect the wild- life. He commented on the intergovernmental agreement, Part B, page 12, section B, C, and D. He stated the new development was 50% greater in den- sity from the housing across Tract 0. He indicated the Victoria Estate housing was on 7/8 to 5 acre lots. He commented on the south shoreline. He said there is only 200 feet between the water line and the property line of the proposed units. He stated the north side of the Victoria Estates was leach fields. Ken Dueck commented on the history of the size of the lake. He stated the lake registered 3.6 feet on the gauge for the present year. He indicated the 1981 photo of the lake was close to the same measurements. Jack Watson stated he was representing the Victoria Estates residents. He indicated he had a number of concerns. He asked Mr. Peterson about the review process. He indicated he had been informed the neighbors had an impact on the project. He said he did not receive a letter about the neighborhood meeting and he had later heard the City of Fort Collins urges citizens to participate at these meetings. He stated he was unhappy con- cerning this matter. He commented Ted Shepard had stated the first input on this issue was at last weeks meeting. He indicated Ted Shepard had indicated a neighborhood meeting was held after the master plan had been submitted. He stated there is a significant wildlife concern. He stated he felt the purpose and intent which thread down through the Goals and Objectives and policies under which this particular master plan resides; the environmental intent is clear. He indicated everyone should ask them- selves if this particular master plan meets the criteria as listed in the Planning and Zoni Board Minutes • October 26, 1987 page 5 Goals and Objectives. He stated Robert Benson Lake has unique birds that come to the area. Over 93 species are present. He indicated some of the birds are on the Species of Special Concern List. For example, the white pelicans are number three on this list. Mr. Watson then submitted a pic- ture, to Paul Eckman, taken on September 25, 1987, of the white pelicans on the shoreline of the lake. He informed the lake is a migratory and nesting spot for water fowl. He indicated the fish study referred to by Ken Dueck was inaccurate. He stated other methods of sampling besides gill netting were necessary for an accurate study. He felt gill nets can not be placed in the middle of the lake because "free swimmers" (carp) are mainly selected. He said it is unsuccessful to sample bass with gill nets since bass are associated with the shoreline. He stated there is no relationship between the figures and biomass in the Fairport Reservoir. He suggested the entire project associated with the lake should be put on hold. He stated the recommendation of the project should be conditionally accepted until further studies could be conducted as to the wildlife in the area. Brad Edwards stated he is a member of the Siera Club. He mentioned he was only representing himself. He felt a decision on this project should be deferred and was requesting the Conservation Committee supported the denial of the project. He stated at the Monday night meeting the recommendation was presented to a local group of approximately 750 to 800 members. He referred to the Land Development Guidance System regarding Resource Protec- tion Criteria #13 on page 7. He commented he did not understand what this criteria meant. He stated he interpreted the statement as meaning "requir- ing preservation of the existing vegetation such that it conforms to the practice of not conflicting with any other planning criteria." Also crite- ria #14, which he read to the Board, is an issue that needs to be addressed. He added Bill Olmstead, of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated more work needs to be done before reviewing the issue of the signif- icance of the wildlife. Bill Olmstead was concerned about the site design. Mr. Edwards complimented Mr. Dueck for attempting to meet most of the criteria in the development process, but criticized the site chosen. He felt the development could be placed on the underdeveloped plats closer to the City. Sherry Kordes had several concerns she discussed. She stated at the neigh- borhood meeting on Wednesday, October 21, 1987, a point was brought up about whether or not the areas at the west end of the property were consid- ered wet lands or not. She informed Terry McKee went out to the location in question. He stated there are two circumstances which jurisdiction could be taken, first, if the wet lands were caused by natural causes; and second, if the wet lands were caused by seepage by the irrigation canal. She inquired if she could ask questions of Tom Peterson and Ted Shepard regarding the purpose of Tract 0 changing from open space to a residential area. Ken Dueck stated he could commented on the question asked by Sherry Kordes. He indicated the decrease in density would make the area more compatible with the Victoria Estates property. Sherry Kordes suggested to recoup the capitalization costs for the recon- struction of the embankment of the dam instead of placing houses on Tract Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 26, 1987 page 6 0. She asked Ted Shepard if he had received the information from the developer regarding the cost for reconstructing the dam structure. Ted Shepard referred to the letter from the State Engineer dated June 1987, regarding the mitigation measures needed before increasing the water level. Sherry stated there are two alternatives concerning the dam issue. The first, invest the $400,000 or second, She stated she wanted to understand the alternatives and if there were possibly any more. She discussed the current water level and the water level as seen on the master plan. She informed Brian Airands, a State Engineer with the State Safety Branch, had reviewed the site in 1985. She mentioned no one had contacted Brian Air - ands for further alternatives concerning the matter. She stated after talking with Brian Airands he felt there was another alternative which con- sisted of limiting the water level to 10 feet, just below the crest of the dam, and doing a partial breach of the spillway. She commented further investigation needs to be conducted to attain more alternatives. The bene- fit of more alternatives could be reducing the capital expenditures and expanding the surface water area to a normal operating level. She con- cluded by stating the Board should reject the master plan. Also, at the neighborhood meeting the developer stated the road would be constructed on the south side of the reservoir she felt the placement of the road should be stopped until further investigation. Ann Watson informed she is a resident of Victoria Estates. She presented the petitions opposing the master plan. She stated 360 diversified signa- tures were on the petition. She said she was concerned about the master plan adoption with the development on the west side of the lake and the auto/commercial related areas. She commented she is concerned about the possible pornographic use of the land as included in the auto/commercial related usage. Gordan Woelfle stated he was representing 16,000 people of the Wildlife Federation. He indicated the local residents in the area are appalled about the 287 partial development. He felt the development would be taking away from the view. His main concern regards the mitigation of the loss of farm land. He felt there is no way to determine the loss of this land. He stated the problem was the increased population and increase of cats and dogs in the area, therefore decreasing the wildlife. He recommended the Board table the master plan until these issues are resolved. Dennis Donnelly, a Victoria Estates resident, gave credit to the City of Fort Collins. He stated other alternatives have not been reviewed. He wants to see the lake remaining as a unique attraction. He feels by doing this the project can be marketed as a unique development. He suggested the Board review other alternatives. Pat Reed stated he was speaking as a private citizen as well as a member of the Fort Collins Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated the amended plan marginally meets the objectives. He commented criteria #14 in the Land Development Guidance System was not met. He suggested conditioning approval with the following: first, areas G, H, N, 0, R, and S be desig- nated as conversation areas as described in the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan as proposed by the City's Natural Resources Department; and second, undesignate these area and have their status as wet lands. The effect of Planning and Zo Board Minutes • October 26, 198 page 7 this recommendation would be as follows: one, to insure the City's Goals and Objectives as stated in the past ten years are met; two, the developer is free to build on over 80% of the property and not totally deprived of their purpose of building; three, preserve the options both environmentally and legally until all options are known; fourth, it would not interfere with forthcoming investigations or studies that are likely to follow, for example, the study by the Army Corps of Engineers; and five, it would pro- tect the City against possible future liability and litigation from prema- ture City approval. Kent Payton stated he has been a resident of Victoria Estates since 1973. He described the Big Thompson flood. He commented he was concerned about flooding factors of the reservoir. He stated Tract 0 does not meet the criteria for a flood zone. He suggested the Board table the master plan at this time. Ken Dueck stated the general concern of the public is to deal with the uncertain areas of the master plan. He commented the development documents are in accordance with the Goals and Objectives. He stated the developer has done significantly more to the master plan than legally required. He stated in regards to the wet land issue he has no problem with the Army Corps visiting the site to determine jurisdiction. He commented the road would be a cat track to smooth over the area for development. He assured pornographic stores would not be allow on the project site. As far as flood and storm drainage, he indicated it would take a 10,000 year event for a flood to take place. He stated there would be no value for the Board to defer the master plan since at the present everything legally possible has been done. He wanted the Board to focus on the changes of the old plan and the new, which is the superior plan. Member Kern inquired about the drainage issue. He asked if the lake is stable in size and if normal rain would create a severe problem. Ken Dueck stated the lake could accommodate up to a 10,000 year event. Member Kern asked if the master plan is designed to handle a 10,000 year event. Ken Dueck commented the structure would remain intact and the dam would be preserved. Member Kern inquired if the area around Benson Lake or the whole region would be affected. Ken Dueck indicated 240 acres of the region would be affected, but the engineer could change this. Member Edwards stated after reviewing the amendment to the existing the master plan he inquired what exactly differentiates between the two. Paul Eckman referred to page 32 in the Land Development Guidance System and stated the master plan would not be reviewed on the basis of the City's comprehensive plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 26, 1987 page 8 Member Edwards mentioned statements had been made regarding the process of the master plan. He noted it is important to know where in the process the project is presently. Member Strom asked Mr. Dueck to respond to the Audobon's Society conditions as to not specifying to a specific land use. Ken Dueck stated he can not see asking for more than what has already been done since the plan at present fully meets with the standards in respect to the wildlife. Chairperson O'Dell reviewed the options the Board could choose. First, approve as recommended by staff; second, deny the new master plan and keep the old in place; third, approve with conditions; and fourth, condition that the State conduct specific studies concerning the mitigation issues of the wildlife. Member Kern stated the major concerns of the project. First, the issue of drainage, and second; the habitat, environment, and various protections. He commented it appears the conditions placed on the master plan should be more open-ended as to the undesignated areas. He stated the master plan should be passed as is with specific conditions, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers review. He suggested an alternative of placing some conditions on leaving the areas undesignated or as is with conditions. Member Strom stated he would prefer to leave the area around the lake unde- signated at the present. He commented the importance of the wildlife habi- tat is great enough to see the results of the City before acting on the master plan. Member Brown agreed with Member Strom. She wants to see all the area around the lake as undesignated. She stated the new master plan is an improvement over the old one because it shows sensitivity for the unique area of the project. She felt there are too many unanswered questions as to the impact of any development around the lake. She felt a level of expectation should be placed on the master plan even though it was not a normal procedure. Member Edwards asked why go through the master plan process when the design use of the land around the reservoir is not being achieved. He stated the process should not be changed for the project. Member Strom stated he did not want to table or turn down the master plan since he approved of the developers intentions. He commented he sees the reservoir as a real unique resource and requires extra attention. Member Kern stated he agrees with Member Strom. He feels it would not serve anyone to table the whole master plan. He said there are improve- ments on the new master plan over the old. Member Brown commented she felt there was a problem of approval with condi- tions since expectations would be set. She stated by saying Tract 0 is an Planning and Zoninard Minutes October 26, 1987 • page 9 appropriate land use, with so many unanswered questions, how would anyone know if this is true? Paul Eckman stated the areas around the lake should be designated for some use. He commented the purpose of a master plan is to designate areas. He pointed out Note 9 on the master plan stated no level of expectation should be created at this time. He commented it is a standard note on all preli- minary master plans. Member Edwards moved to approve the Provincetowne PUD - Master Plan Amend- ment with the notes as outlined by Council and a condition which would read something to the effect of to the extent required by law with the submittal of a preliminary plan for Tracts 0, G, S, R, and H, encompassing the lake, the applicant should prepare a wildlife and fishery management report for Fairport Reservoir and the four proposed water bodies in the master plan. This report should be distributed for comment and feedback by all concerned parties including the neighborhood and environmental groups. These reports should be made public. Also, any wet lands designated by the Army Corps of Engineers be placed on the master plan. Member Brown asked Mr. Edwards if the developer would be required to pre- pare a wildlife and fish report rather than an official. Member Edwards stated his intent was to ask the developer to complete the report along with a government agency, since there was controversy from the previous reports generated. Member Brown inquired if the Division of Wildlife was used as the source for determining environmental impact of wildlife. Paul Eckman referred to page 7, Criteria 14 in the Guidance System. He stated the Board would be required to analyze at the preliminary plan stage. He stated the Division of Wildlife would be responsible. Member Edwards stated since there had been no second to his motion, he com- mented that incorporated in the additional conditions as stated by himself earlier, are all the elements as outlined by Mr. Shoemaker representing the Audobon's Society. Member Kern seconded the motion. He asked Paul Eckman if areas on the master plan are left undesignated would the plan be legal? Paul Eckman stated he was concerned about the master plan being approved with undesignated uses of land. Member Kern inquired how the Board would indicated temporary designations of land uses. Member Brown stated there was a disclaimer on the master plan. She com- mented if there is no level of expectation then there is no master plan. She wondered about the future expectations associated with long range plans. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes - October 26, 1987 page 10 Member Edwards stated there is a level of expectation at the present. He felt things should be taken step-by-step. Member Brown indicated she would be willing to put a time schedule on the wildlife study when the Preliminary comes in. She stated she is concerned how the public would be involved. Member Edwards stated he was not prepared to put artificial time limits on the master plan. Member Strom stated he agreed with Member Edwards. He commented it is hard enough to be concerned about the densities surrounding the most sensitive areas of the project. Member Kern stated the densities on the west end of the reservoir should be increased as a protected region. Member Brown commented she had heard a solution to the possible environmen- tal problems but she had not heard the best solution to retain the unique wildlife habitat. Paul Eckman wished the Guidance System was more clear on what can be taken out of a master plan. He again stated if the land has not be designated then the purpose of the master plan has not be achieved. Member Edwards recaptured his previous motion. He stated the motion included the incorporation of the condition as stated by the Audobon's Society regarding the wildlife and fish study. The second part of the motion dealt with addressing the concerns of the citizens. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 4-2. Members Strom and Brown voted no. Member Brown stated she voted no based on the density and intensity of use in an environmentally important area. Member Edwards moved to approve the Provincetowne PUD - Amended Master Plan of Tract M. Member Brown seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Brown moved to approve the Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. COLLINDALE, 1ST TEE PUD - PRELIMINARY Ted described the project. Bill Brenner, the developer, reviewed the map of the project showing spe- cific areas. He stated the important issues of the project include: pro- viding smaller lots, private yards (minimum of 25 feet in depth), two car garages, and 3 bedroom units. He discussed the circulation system of the collectors and local streets connecting together.: He indicated a loop street would be provided for internal circulation. He stated lots would be placed on one side of the loop street, but there would be two lots facing each other. He commented he had asked for a variance for these two lots. He continued by stating the development was single family units on smaller Planning and Zoningard Minutes October 26, 1987 page 11 each other. He commented he had asked for a variance for these two lots. He continued by stating the development was single family units on smaller lots. Mr. Brenner continued by stating he had held more than one neighborhood meeting to discuss the project. He added the product available would com- pliment a broad range of densities. He stated storm drainage and the landscaping were issues of his own concern. He indicated he opposed the drip pans down the middle of a specific block for storm drainage. Member Kern inquired about the green belt area between the single family dwellings. Bill Brenner stated he recommended to Mr. Bartran to leave out the green belt. He informed the first conceptual plan was created without the green belt. He commented he took the plans to the neighborhood meeting and pro- mised the neighbors he would include the green belt area after their posi- tive comments. Member Kern inquired what was to prevent the homeowners from building 6 foot fences and creating a tunnel effect. Bill Brenner stated he could not prevent this from happening. He commented he agreed there were better ways to employ the green areas. Ted Shepard stated staff is recommending the variance request for the street standard be approved. He commented the six off-street parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site, along the location of the curb and driveway cuts, meet the purpose and intent of the 28ft. street to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles. He indicated this is the only area this would apply, where the five lots face each other. He stated staff also recommends approval of the request with the condition that larger than minimum calliper trees be planted along Horsetooth Road. Member Brown stated it is up to the City to set a good example. She com- mented the City golf course should be landscaped as well as Mr. Bartran's property. Tom Peterson stated the landscape on in the area was reviewed to accommo- date Mr. Bartran's landscaping. Bill Bartran stated he was not aware of the larger tree requirement until this meeting. He did not feel it is necessary for the customers to pay for the larger trees. He stated he could not determine the need for this requirement because he does not have something unsightly to hide. He emphasized the neighborhood wanted the green belt area even though he felt it was not good planning. He indicated the street light issue was dis- cussed at the neighborhood meeting. Member Brown inquired if the five additional parking spaces would act as a cut through for the convenience store. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 26, 1987 page 12 Bill Bartran stated the additional spaces were intended for employee use. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the fences were requested by staff. Bill Bartran stated the fences were required when the usage of the land changes. inquired if the neighborhood really wanted the fenced area since it would be dangerous at night. Bill Bartran stated the neighbors wanted additional separation between the units. Member Kern moved to approve Collindale, 1st Tee PUB - Preliminary. Member Edwards seconded with the following conditions: first, at the developer's option, eliminate the green belt area (no functional purpose); second, look at a variance for fence between the convenience shop and the PUD; and third, remove the condition regarding the larger tree requirement. Member Kern stated he agreed with condition one and two as stated by Member Edwards. The third condition had been requested by staff. He felt it was unnecessary for the condition since it was worked out with staff and was not required. Bill Bartran stated he agreed with the first condition. He indicated the fence, as mentioned in the second condition, was wanted by the individuals adjacent to the green belt. The third condition was also agreeable. Member Kern commented the green belt area was costly and few would benefit. Chairperson O'Dell asked if staff would review the condition regarding the larger tree requirement. Ted Shepard stated the larger trees were being required to create a "street tree" effect. Member Kern asked how long this had been in effect. Ted Shepard stated the requirement had been adopted at the staff level. Member Kern moved to approve Collindale, 1st Tee PUB - Preliminary. Member Edwards seconded. Motion passed 6-0. SAN CRISTO PUB - PRELIMINARY Ted gave the description of the project. Vern Sunset, the developer of the project, stated the plan was unique in nature. Jerry Mayham reviewed the project by showing locations and elevation draw- ings of the units. Planning and Zoninoard Minutes October 26, 1987 page 13 Ted Shepard referred to the staff report with the two conditions recom- mended for approval. first, a report be made of the noise generated from the train tracks; and second, that a traffic impact analysis be conducted. Member Kern stated he had some concerns that were addressed to the devel- oper. He commented the project would be on an arterial and across from a light industrial area which would be developed as an industrial park. He inquired if a noise analysis was conducted for more than just the train. He stated there is a lot of light pollution as well as traffic. Mr. Sunset stated a 6 ft. berm and a 6 ft. fence was required by H.U.D. Member Kern inquired how the tests were conducted on the site. Mr. Sunset stated the studies were done with the windows open. He stated the impact of the studies would be known before the final. Member Brown asked where the project was in relation to the proposed bypass. Mr. Sunset showed the Board and audience where he thought the bypass might be. Rick Ensdorff showed more precisely where the bypass would be, stating it would not impact the development. Member Brown stated the information in the packet the Board received the elevation of the homes having a southern exposure was difficult to imagine. Mr. Sunset stated the homes were mostly ranch styles. He commented the developer would employee expansions of glass on the south side. He showed the plans of the homes. Member Brown stated she liked the idea of solar energy being used. Mr. Sunset indicated the homeowners would be saving money due to the con- structions of the homes. The homes would have the possibility of passive solar energy. Member Kern inquired if the units would be two or three bedrooms. Mr. Sunset stated there would be two and three bedroom ranch units avail- able as well as a two-story and tri-level model. Member Brown inquired about the price range of the units. Mr. Sunset stated some would be under $50,000 and some over. He stated his wife is a broker so it would keep the costs down. Member Edwards asked if the project was stick built. He wondered if the homes would be built south to north as demand occurred. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes _ October 26, 1987 page 14 Mr. Sunset informed the homes would be built in this manner since the elec- tric, sewer and water utilities are located at the south end. Member Kern added to recommendation #1, as stated by staff, for consider- ation to be given to the noise and light pollution. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if H.U.D. enforces or requires the 55 LDN. Ted Shepard with FHA financing H.U.D. requires the 55 LDN standard to be adhered to. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the sidewalks. She asked if the devel- oper was required to have the sidewalks on both sides of the street. Ted Shepard stated yes. Member Brown commented about condition #2. She inquired if the traffic impact analysis would include Vine Street. Ted Shepard stated the analysis would include Vine Street and Lemay Avenue. Member Kern moved to approve San Cristo PUD - Preliminary with the two conditions as recommended by staff and an additional condition be added to the extent a study should be completed as to light pollution. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Chairperson O'Dell informed items #57-87, North Lemay Plaza PUD - Prelimi- nary; Item #69-84E, Fort Ram Village 1st Filing PUD - Amended Final, and Item #113-80F, Amendment to the City Zoning Code - Group Homes be continued to November 2, 1987. Meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m.