Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/24/19970 The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Bell. Roll Call: Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Chapman, Colton, Bell. Members Byrne and Davidson were absent Staff Present: Olt, Shepard, Ludwig, Lawrie, Blandford, Wamhoff, Herzig, Stanford, Bracke, Jones, Schlueter, Duvall, Blanchard and Dairies. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. Those agendas consisted of: 1, Minutes of the May 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. (Continued) 2. #5-97 Sterling House PUD - Preliminary and Final 3. #6-97 Doerr PUD and Subdivision - Preliminary and Final 4. #42-89F Harmony School Shops PUD, 1st Filing - Final 5. #40-94D Lincoln East PUD, Diamond Shamrock Convenience Store - Preliminary 6. #22-94A Dellenbach Auto Storage PUD - Amended Final 7. #47-95A Shenandoah PUD, First Filing - Final 8. Resolution PZ97-5 Easement Vacation (Continued) 9. Resolution PZ97-6 Easement Vacation 10. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 11. #9-97 Burlington Northern at Mcclelland Drive - Enclave Annexation & Zoning 12. 949-87F Link N Greens, 4th, Enclave Annexation and Zoning 13. #5-87B West Drake Road, 2nd, Enclave Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 14. #36-96 Mulberry Lemay Crossing - Overall Development Plan 15. #32-95C Amendment to the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan • 16. #32-95B Registry Ridge PUD, Phase I - Final 17. #41-95B Dry Creek, Phase I - Referral of a Minor Subdivision Plat Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 2 18. #54-87AL Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan 19. #54-87AM Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Miramont Self Storage Pud - Preliminary 20. #46-88G Park South PUD, Third Replat - Final 21. #40-91B Timberline Enclave Annexation and Zoning (To be heard April 14th) 22. #51-91B K-2 Enclave Annexation and Zoning (To be heard April 14th) 23. #29-96 Four Seasons Condominiums PUD - Preliminary (Continued) 24. #3-94H Willow Springs PUD, 5th Filing, Country Store - Preliminary 25. #3-94G Willow Springs North PUD - Preliminary Member Colton pulled for discussion agenda item #10, Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon noted the variances on items 3 and 5. Member Chapman seconded. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Gavaldon moved to move items 15, 16 and 20 to the Consent Agenda including approval of a variance on item 20. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Colton commented on Registry Ridge stating that the agreements worked out by the neighbors and the developer were a big improvement on this site. Member Colton asked about the completion of the bike trail and would like to see it completed with this project. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services replied he was not sure when that section would be done, but if they are working on it, they will try to keep the road open during the construction period. The motion was approved 5-0. te • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 3 Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council the approval of Consent Agenda items 11, 12, and 13. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Colton moved to approved consent items 15, 16 and 20, including the variance to item 20. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Discussion Agenda: Mulberry and Lemay Crossings (formedy Lemay Towne Center) Overall Development Plan. #36-96. • Ted Shepard, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval. Mark Goldberg, Goldberg Properties gave the applicant presentation. Mr. Goldberg spoke on the location of the project and the areas they hope to serve with this development. He stated that the majority of development has happened on the south side of the community, and would like to serve the market place in the north. Mr. Goldberg stated that Fort Collins has an outreach for affordable housing and they have an affordable housing component in their project. He stated that they will invite them in, but yet will buffer and provide a safe and comfortable haven for the residents. Mr. Goldberg stated he is aware of the traffic issues with the project and does have their traffic engineer there to speak. He stated that generally they find and concur with the staff that this is an appropriate location in the comprehensive plan for the style of development that they do. PUBLIC INPUT Cherylynn Morgan -Morrow, lives 2 miles east in Vista Bonita. She stated that their • neighborhood got together and had a meeting and not one person was against this development. She stated that this development was needed 10 years ago. She spoke Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 4 on the hours and expense it takes to drive to south Fort Collins to shop. She also spoke on the air pollution created by driving so many miles to shop. She felt this development would accommodate the people that were already here. She felt we have a chance to make this development attractive and has see Mr. Goldberg's developments in Denver and felt he does an outstanding job. She felt this would improve the mess now along Mulberry Street and would also help the downtown area. Louise Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, spoke on affordable housing. She applauded this development for mixing housing with business and felt it fit into the City Plan. She suggested that the developer make the units affordable for the area median income citizens. Laurie McGregor, lives in north Fort Collins. She stated that this was exciting to have something like this come to the north side of Fort Collins. She also has seen work done by Mr. Goldberg and felt he does a nice job. She felt this would be a great asset to the City of Fort Collins and would fill a niche for north Fort Collins. She spoke on the amount of trips per week she makes to south Fort Collins to shop and this development would be accessible and easy for not only north Fort Collins, but LaPorte, Wellington and Waverly. She referenced the recently opened Albertson's on North College and felt more development in north Fort Collins would help in the multi -model goals of the City. She encouraged the Planning and Zoning Board to approved this project. Sally Craig, resident of Fort Collins stated that this project is that it is the same size as a regional center on the Harmony Corridor that goes from Sam's Warehouse east past Steele's Market. The Harmony regional center already had a transportation infrastructure that would handle the enormous increase in traffic. Harmony is a State Highway that has four lanes, with a median both east and west extending miles beyond the site. The Mulberry Lemay regional center is being built where it's main access is off of Lemay, a two-lane road that is already below the standard needed to support the existing traffic. This is an example of putting development before the transportation infrastructure has been put into place. Ms. Craig stated that the applicant will not be responsible for all the improvements needed to bring Lemay up to the standard necessary to handle the 11,000 more cars a day. Ms. Craig questioned whether the City has the funds or intentions to have Lemay up to the standard needed to accommodate a development of this size by 1998? Will there be four lanes and a median? There will be no public transportation to this site, when will that be implemented? Lack of sidewalks and bike lanes along Lincoln beyond this site make access by other modes of transportation very limited. How will that be solved? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Craig went on to say that because this ODP was submitted before the new Land Use Code went into effect, the applicant is not required to meet the new transportation infrastructure guidelines. This leaves the people of Fort Collins paying the bill for any needed improvements beyond this development. The concept was to make shopping more convenient for people in the northeast, with opportunities of multi -model transportation; however, at this time the car will be the only mode of transportation making North Lemay a road to avoid. Ms. Craig asked the Board to please address these transportation problems and get guaranteed solutions before you let a development of this size continue through the process. Phil Teeter, lives north of town. He felt this site was an appropriate site for development and has been for some time. He does have a problem with a development of this size and scale. He felt that this development will have regional effects as far as Fort Collins is concerned. He felt it has become a common policy to subsidize a certain level of development when it is deemed to be desirable for the community. He felt that this was not a. necessary development in this community as • this size. He felt this developer should not be subsidized by the community and should pay his way. He simply did not think that it was possible to mitigate the traffic problems that will be associated with the project. Mr. Teeter spoke on the increased traffic and felt there was a problem with scale and thought that it would create problems. Mr. Teeter felt it was up to the Board and the Planning Department to be very sure that these things are dealt with in an adequate fashion. Kathleen Killkelly, resident of north Fort Collins spoke in opposition to the project. She and many of her neighbors do not feel that a shopping center or anything of this magnitude that will generate in the neighborhood of 18,000 auto trips per day is appropriate for this location. A regional shopping has regional implications and felt this development should be moved more to the east, closer to 1-25. Ms. Killkelly felt the infrastructure in the area could not support what will be going in there. She asked the Board to look at this development for this site specific location and find if it is appropriate. She stated that she and her neighbors were not overjoyed to have this type of a project coming in to north Fort Collins. She felt this is what we have already seen and suffering the repercussions from —is the type of development that went into south Fort Collins. • Cheryl White, resident of north Fort Collins, stated that his shopping center is needed in north Fort Collins. She spoke on driving from north Fort Collins to the south and the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 6 traffic congestion in south Fort Collins. She felt that the new Albertson's store in north Fort Collins is the best thing that has happened in the north. She felt the growth in north Fort Collins needs the shopping as well as people who live in the south. Ms. White spoke on the traffic issues broght up, and that they have ignored the fact that this could possible decrease traffic on the south side. She felt that Fort Collins itself is a regional shopping area bringing in people in from Wyoming and the mountain towns. She did not feel that the proposed development would change that except for maybe giving people more options. She also felt that it would not take away the charm of downtown, but would draw more people to it's uniqueness. She did not feel that one shopping center on the north will make a difference in supporting the other businesses in the area and that this development will be a benefit to all of Fort Collins and northern Larimer County. Dave Joyce, owner of Supermarket Liquors stated that they have been fortunate to be in their location for the past 20 years just east of this development. They anxiously look forward to a retail development and are excited that this prospect might come to do here. Mr. Goldberg is proposing an exciting retail project in this area and they are support of this project. They feel this development will be a great asset to Fort Collins. He resides in the north and can attest to the lack of services in retail and other area that we don't have in our area. He has found most people in the area to be supportive of this project and he thinks they will make an excellent neighbor for Supermarket Liquors. Mr. Joyce stated there are some concerns regarding the access from Mulberry, but they have talked to Mr. Goldberg and they feel confident that they can work out the problems. Mr. Joyce hoped the Board would approve the project. Margaret Phillips, lives in the northeast and stated that she had attended a meeting at the Streets Facility earlier this year and the concensus was that this area was appropriate for development. However, the concensus was also that the existing infrastructure was not that it could support a regional shopping center and a store with a 200,000 s.f. magnitude. She felt the residents that use Lemay as their main access to town will suffer from this development if it goes through and Lemay is not improved. She felt it was the infrastructure that should be looked at when planning a regional shopping center. Clair MacMillen, owner of the Comfort Inn spoke in favor of the project. Mr. MacMillan spoke on growth in the south. He stated that the comments made about subsidizing business —he contends that the north side of Fort Collins, north of Prospect Street has bank -rolled and subsidized all the growth south of Drake in the 25 years of his recall. He stated that this land is ripe for development and has long been that way. He felt that • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 7 the residents of north Fort Collins have earned this development and deserve it. He does not feel that the City has the right to deny them. Gil Wilson, lives 4 miles northwest of the proposed development. He stated that he remembers when Anheuser-Busch wanted to develop here and all the hoops and hurdles they were put through. He feels that after all the negative comments made about how they would destroy this community, they have been an excellent neighbor, and they contribute good money into the community. Mr. Wilson spoke on the transportation issues driving to south Fort Collins to shop. Mr. Wilson felt that it was unfair that someone wrote into the Coloradoan stating that all this was going to do was provide minimum wage jobs and take businesses away from downtown. He did not agree with either on of those comments. He does not think there is a store in this town that is paying minimum wage. He thinks that by providing jobs for young people, which these stores will, will keep them in school and off the streets and out of trouble. He also spoke on Wal-mart hiring senior citizens to work in their stores, and also the physically disadvantaged. Mr. Wilson felt it was time to put this regional center in here and increasing our tax base. • Howard Coopersmith, lives in northeast and has a business within 1 mile of the site. Mr. Coopersmith stated that he drives north Lemay everyday. He has two concerns, traffic, which he feels north Lemay as it exists now is inadequate for the current traffic levels that we have there presently. Mr. Coopersmith stated that it was not just this project, but several projects proposed in the north that will effect north Lemay. Mr. Coopersmith spoke about the delays on Lemay, and the effect the problems have on Andersonville and Alta Vista. Mr. Coopersmith stated that development is inevitable and he would welcome a neighborhood shopping center in that area. He did not think that we need a Super Wal-. Mart, it was not the kind of store we would like to see there. He felt this development will be a regional draw and would not benefit the local people. He felt the impacts really need to be considered. Robin Bashoulee, lives northeast of Fort Collins. Her husband and herself own and operate a business off of College Avenue. Supposedly there are 30,000 cars that pass by her window everyday. She fails to see how College Avenue adequetly supports the traffic flow to the Target's and the bigger stores in south Fort Collins. She thinks if anything, this will be a huge relief to the south and central part of town. Neighbors, friends are all very much in support of this project. She feels the good things that this • project will bring, far outweigh the infrastructure problems. She feels that the revenues in the end will help pay for the necessary infrastructure changes. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 8 Jean Laudick, lives north of Fort Collins spoke on growth in Fort Collins. She spoke on the trips she makes to south Fort Collins to shop. She spoke in favor of the development and the convenience of being able to shop in north Fort Collins. Ms. Laudick spoke on traffic and felt that this development might eliminate some of the traffic traveling to the south. She also spoke on the affordable housing proposed with this development and that more people who live and work in the area could find housing they can afford. She urged the Board to approve the project. Johnathan Upson, lives in Old Town spoke in opposition to the project. He felt this project will not generate the sales tax revenue that people are projecting. He felt this project would create unemployment in the downtown area. Mr. Upson felt we should get the money upfront from the developer to widen the roads. He felt the developers should pay their own way. They should not get any unfair advantages at all that the downtown "mom and pop" stores don't get. They should pay for the increased traffic mitigation upfront, and they should not get any tax breaks either. Mr. Upson also feels that Mr. Goldberg should not get any tax break for being in the enterprise zone either. John Coxen, lives in Fort Collins and is a business owner in Fort Collins. As a small business owner, their threat does not come from someone like Wal-Mart, it comes from the cost of doing business, by things that are required. Mr. Coxen felt that the major issue is traffic and congestion. He feel that the traffic issues brought up are very valid points. He felt that the other issue is affordable housing and having a jobs to be able to qualify for a loan to buy a home. This project provides job opportunities for people. Mr. Coxen stated that the traffic issues do fall back into the lap of the City itself in planning for the future. Growth is going to happen and people are going to come here whether we plan for it or not. He thinks it behooves us not to make it the responsibility of somebody that did not cause the problem to pickup the tab for it. The City itself needs to be pro -active and plan for the expansion. He felt this was an opportunity to follow-up on the Albertson's project and start getting some projects in the north. Richard Schneider, resident, spoke in favor of the development. He firmly believes that the north side of Fort Collins is ignored with development. He thinks the City is incomplete and the north side needs this. There are only so many retail dollars available and they are all going to the south side of Fort Collins. He would like to see the retail dollars from the north stay in the north. Mr. Schneider spoke on traffic and felt that it is a smoke screen. He felt there is no reason we should not have this development go forward. Bridgette Schmitt, northeast resident spoke on traffic issues. She believes that retail in the north part of town is a very good idea. She felt that having additional affordable • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 9 housing is also good idea. She felt the timing was the main issue and hoped the Board could use their creative ideas to come up with a way to address the issues. She stated that improvements to Lemay will not come up for Capital Improvements for another eight years for taxpayer assistance. Ms. Schmitt mentioned that Vine and Lemay is also a problem. She felt that for larger retail, there is better sites and suggested the activity center near Mountain Vista. Fred Shaw, lives directly east of the project, and will be the one it effects the most. He does have some concerns with traffic and congestion, but more importantly, he would like to be kept abreast of how this project develops. He mentioned the road coming out directly to the back of his house, that concerns him, but he felt that with adequate screening there would be things that would be beneficial to him. The project is in his backyard and he would like to be kept informed as to how this project will be developing. He felt that Lincoln and Lemay are inadequate already, but if this is good development, it means a good infrastructure to handle the traffic and the impact it has on people who live there, and he lives there. Joe Solomon, resident, felt that the overall project has a number of positive aspects • about it. One that has not been mentioned is it's proximity to the bike trail next to the Poudre River, either for employees of that shopping center or for people that live in the area. He was also concerned with the impacts to the Riverside Shopping Center and the College development area. He also would like to see what the expectations are further along Mulberry for development. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Chapman asked for clarification on the LUPP, and "that Community/Regional Shopping Centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the Center, but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City". Eric Bracke, Transportation Services replied that at this point, we believe that the future transportation system as shown in the Master Street Plan can handle all the proposed traffic from this Center as well as the build out of City Plan. Staff has not yet evaluated what those demands will be on the existing system. Staff has asked the developer to re-evaluate portions of the submitted traffic study, and staff will be giving the Board more information and have more detail on the existing system, and what improvements would be required at the preliminary stage. • Mr. Bracke spoke on the Lemay bypass. It was a project that made some of the initial lists of the Capital Improvements Projects that are being voted on in April, however, it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 10 did not make the final list. It will be probably eight years down the road before Lemay is relocated approximately 1,000 feet to the east. Member Chapman asked if the intersection improvements would handle the additional traffic. Mr. Bracke replied that staff knows that there will be additional street improvements that will be necessary as part of this project. Member Chapman asked about #68 in the Land Use Policies Plan, with regards to the flood plain and the southern portion of the property being located in the 100-year flood plain. He asked what mitigation steps are required and what is planned. Glenn Schlueter, Stormwater Utility responded that %: of this site is in the Poudre River Flood Plain. When Lemay was built, it was to act as a levy, but it does not meet the FEMA requirements for a levy. In reality, they have protection from the 100-year, but not within our requirements. Staff is heading into negotiations with the County to decide what to do --if this levy should be built and who will pay for it. Member Chapman asked about item #80 in the Land Use Policies Plan and that higher density residential uses should located within close proximity to Community or Neighborhood Park facilities. Member Chapman asked where the nearest Community or Neighborhood Park be. Mr. Shepard replied the nearest Community Park would be Edora Park, and the nearest Neighborhood Park would be Buckingham Park, just off of Linclon Avenue to the west. Member Chapman asked Mr. Shepard if those parks would meet the criteria for Policy #80. Mr. Shepard replied not exactly. Neighborhood parks have been generally located on a 1 per square mile basis. Out in the northeast, there is a deficiency. The Policy is not met to the highest quality of service we would like, but as things progress in the northeast, we can probably get more parkland. Member Weitkunat asked if this use would fit into the new zoning under City Plan. Mr. Shepard replied the new zoning is Commercial, which a shopping center is a permitted use in the Commercial Zone. Member Gavaldon asked if there was a more recent traffic study. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Bracke replied he was not sure when it would be delivered, but we will have it before we go to preliminary. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Bracke to highlight what improvements and changes will be made. Mr. Bracke replied that the developer has been asked to re-evaluate, for the long-range future, a different trip distribution with more traffic coming from the north and east. Member Gavaldon asked if there is any data that would show a net decrease of traffic traveling to the south due to this project. Mr. Bracke responded that he did not think we would be reducing any trips, what will be reduced is the trip length. Member Gavaldon asked what the decrease of trip length is. • Mr. Bracke replied staff does not have that anaylsis. Member Gavaldon asked if that would be available at preliminary. Mr. Bracke replied that we did not require that in the revised traffic study, but we can try to work something up. If this shopping center would go in tomorrow, we would not see free -flow speeds on College Avenue. But as we build toward the concepts of City Plan, in reducing those trip lengths, then we should see an improvement over time. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Goldberg what was his plans to accommodate the infrastructure needed for this project. Mr. Goldberg replied that in identifying this site, it was crucial to them to make sure that they were in a logical location, a commercial node. Mulberry and Lemay is that kind of a commercial node. Mulberry is a fairly improved, very important arterial. They will pay their own way, and more issues will be worked out at preliminary. It goes without saying that there will be improvements to Lemay and Lincoln. They are also looking at some internal roadways that will be dedicated to the City. In addition, there has been a lot of conversation about the phrase "multi -model", and it would be nice if the infrastructure was there, and the bus would stop. Connections to the Poudre Trail will be made a part of their project and there will be other things they will do. If all the infrastructure was there, then these would not be issues, but logically this is a • commercial node, and yes they will pay their fair share for improvements. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 12 Member Gavaldon asked about the dependency of approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for some of the improvements. If they don't get aprroved, what kind of contingencies will be in place to work around them. Mr. Bracke replied that was one of the issues that he has, and one of his greatest concerns is how that will operate. If it operates at a Level of Service F, then it will be congested. If it is congested, then the left -turn movement is either going to be transfered down to Lemay or to Link Lane. He felt it is important to have the recirculation, back from the frontage road, back into the shopping center because that left turn movement, he feels, will be a problem. Member Gavaldon asked if that will be defined and ready to go by preliminary. Mr. Bracke replied yes. Member Colton asked for clarification of public transportation. Mr. Bracke replied that Transfort works off of a Transit Development Program. The Lemay Corridor is a corridor that Transfort hopes to fund in the future as a new route. When that happens is a good question, there is no definitive answer for it. As part of the utility plan process, staff will be on, for a bus stop and a pull-out off of Lemay. At this time it is a future route. Member Colton asked about the traffic anaylsis and it shows the site traffic going to the north on Lemay. What are the alternative routes, assuming we get a lot of development in the northeast —what will be the future routes for people coming from the northeast. Mr. Bracke replied to get to the east, they will be using Lincoln and Vine. Both those roadways are shown as arterials in the Master Street Plan. Timberline will also carry to the north. Member Colton asked about future improvements to Vine Drive eastbound. Mr. Bracke replied that the southside is railroad right-of-way. The arterial width will be coming off of the developable land to the north. There would be no expansion to the south, all the expansion would come from the northside. Chairperson Bell asked about public comments made regarding the enterprise zone. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 13 Planner Shepard stated he did not know if it is an enterprise zone or not. Mr. Goldberg replied that they are in an enterprise zone. It has nothing to do with them picking this site as an appropriate location for the project. As far as he knows, they are not getting any subsidy from anywhere. As for the merchants going into this project, if they can avail themselves to the enterprise zone regulations, then he suspects that then the enterprise zone is appropriate. No one has brought it up. Chairperson Bell asked for another explanation regarding revenue sources and where do they come from for infrastructure improvements. What will the applicant's responsibility be for street improvements? Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department replied that any street improvements that are deem required by this development and the developer, would then be required to build. At this time, this project is eligible for street oversizing and would be eligible for reimbursement for those portions of the road other than the local street portions. If they build to arterial width they would be responsible for paying for their half of a 36 foot road • and 18 foot width along their side and be eligible for reimbursement for the rest of the money. That money comes from street oversizing fees which is assessed for any development that occurs within the City. That money is paid back, if we have the funds, and if the funds were not available, they would still be responsible for building those improvements. Ms. Wamhoff stated they would be required to improve all the streets along their frontage and any streets within the development. Off -site improvements are based on impacts, and so those impacts will be looked at for example and most of the traffic is going. Chairperson Bell asked for explanation of the public comment made regarding regional impacts. Planner Shepard there will be some side effects. This particular shopping center will be smaller than the Harmony Market Shopping Center. There will be some financial impact on the surrounding grocery stores. There will also be more attraction for people to come in from outlying Larimer County, Weld County, and southern Wyoming. He thinks that East Mulberry will become more attractive for some redevelopment potential. Chairperson Bell asked Mr. Goldberg if the South College Walmart would close. • Mr. Goldberg replied that in his discussions with Walmart thus far, it is there intent to keep it open. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 14 Member Colton asked Mr. Goldberg to give his thoughts on the development being too large for this site. Mr. Goldberg responded that according to the Comprehensive Plan —under the new City Plan that it does designate it as a large tract of land that will support a common definition of a regiional shopping center. It is not a neighborhood shopping center, nor is it a 7-11 store. It is a large piece of land therefore will support a large amount of retailers. Yes, the project he will propose will have approximately 25% of 42 acres in retailing. Not all those retailers will be a "large" retailer. They hope to have some of those, but they also hope to have retailers who are small. Member Colton asked if the square footage of this development compares to the Harmony Market Center. Planner Shepard responded Harmony Market is approximately 325,000 to 350,000 s.f. on 50 acres. This project will be approximately 350,000 to 360,000. Mr. Goldberg added that you can only support so many s.f. of retail based on how many parking spaces it takes to support that retail, how much open space and landscaping are needed. Member Colton stated that at preliminary, he would like a very detailed break-out, similar to what was done on the Harmony Towne Centre of all the improvements necessary, who is paying for what and what will be reimbursed. Mr. Bracke stated they will have that at preliminary. Chairperson Bell asked to see where the road to Mr. Shaw's property will be. Director Blanchard directed the Board on a visual map where Mr. Shaw's property is located. Planner Shepard added that the street connection that will go through will be Magnolia Street. Mr. Bracke explained the street circulation with Magnolia Street. Chairperson Bell asked that Mr. Shaw get some plans and be kept up on what is going on. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 15 Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Goldberg asked how long he projects this project to build out. Mr. Goldberg replied that based on where they are now in the marketing plan, they are not able to go to the retailers and say they have a project until they received city approval. This is very prospective in their view at this point. With the merchants they have spoken to, they could do at least 60% of the project in the initial phase. Mr. Goldberg estimates 3 to 4 years to build out. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Bracke if there were improvements made, and given that this project would take 3 to 4 years to build out, will our system be able to accommodate it. If not, what improvements could be made. Mr. Bracke replied it terms of projects the scale of relocating Lemay and building an overpass, that is not something that could be done easily. That is a major expensive project and would be a capital project that would be voted on by the people. Even if it was voted on in eight years, it would be several years before there would be enough revenue to build the improvements. • Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Overall Development Plan. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat commented that the testimony heard has to do with the inadequacy of many of the things that are occuring in northern Fort Collins. Not only in the street and sidewalk systems, but the railroad and floodplain problems. She felt we should be aware and thought the Board will encounter these same problems in the future Member Weitkunat stated that based on Policies 69 and 72 in the Land Use Policies Plan, she believes that this is an appropriate development. Member Chapman concurred with Member Weitkunat and that this is an Overall Development Plan and was this an appropriate land use for this property. This project does bring up a lot of issues that have yet to be resolved and will be looked at when the PUD comes in. Member Gavaldon also concurred with the land use and will be supporting the project. Member Colton stated that he also will supporting the project. He felt there will be a lot • of questions at preliminary and there will have to be answers, especially around the traffic impacts. He wants to see the complete traffic impact at the first phase of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 16 project, as opposed to a split study. Chairperson Bell commented that she would be supporting the project, however, she does have a lot of concerns about this project. She is very concerned about the drainage situation and wants to hear more about solutions. She also wondered if some things could be done on the general layout for this project to look more friendly to people passing by. The motion was approved 6-0. This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatium transcript is attached. Membe Gavaldon declared a conflict of interest on this item and will not be participating in the decision. C1 MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Held Monday, March 24, 1997 At Fort Collins City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Concerning Dry Creek, Phase 1, Referral of a minor subdivision . Members present: Gwen Bell, Chairman Glen Colton Jerry Gavaldon (recused) Karen Weitkunat Alex Chapman For the City: Bob Blanchard John Duval Steve Olt Ward Stanford 0 E 1 MS. BELL: Okay. As some folks are filing 2 out, we are going to be preparing to address item 3 number 17, the Dry Creek, Phase 1, referral of a minor 4 subdivision plat. Jerry? 5 MR. GAVALDON: I need to let the Board 6 know I do have a conflict of interest. One of my 7 family members was on the mailing list. g MS. BELL: Okay. I guess we'll see you 9 when we are done. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. 11 MS. BELL: John, so we are still doing 12 fine with people here to make a decision? 13 MR. DUVAL: Yes. 14 MS. BELL: Just barely. Okay. Let's go 15 ahead and begin then with a staff presentation, please. 16 MR. OLT: Good evening. This is the 17 referral of the Dry Creek minor subdivision plat, and I 18 would like to -- nomenclature wise, I would like to say 19 that actually Phase 1 is a misnomer to some degree in 20 terms of what you're actually looking at this evening. 21 The Dry Creek minor subdivision that is 22 being referred to the Board this evening is actually a 23 one -lot subdivision plat for a 52 acre piece of ground 24 that is located south of East Vine Drive which is in 25 this location. This is Lemay Avenue to the west, 3 i1 Summit View Drive -- Summit View Road to the east. 2 Mulberry is in this location, the downtown 3 Fort Collins Airport is right here. 4 This is an existing industrial park as 5 well as over here, is the International Industrial 6 Park. The property in its entirety is 52 acres in 7 size. It's our understanding that this would be 8 developed, conceivably, in two phases. 9 The reference to the first phase 10 show you as we get over to the subdivision plat, is 11 based on approximately 40 acres for Phase 1, housing a 12 certain number of mobile homes, and then Phase 2 would 13 be approximately 12 acres in size. As I get to the 14 plat, and we don't have a slide of that, so I'm going 15 to have to come over to the paper plat. 16 We do have the 52-acre parcel which you 17 see in red in this location. This point it probably 18 would be better to go to the larger -- larger location 19 map so you can better see how that relates to the 20 immediate surrounding area. The entire 52 acres is in 21 red. The entire property is being platted at this 22 time. 23 Again, it's a one -lot subdivision plat; 24 hence, it can be a minor subdivision. City Code states . 25 that six lots or less can be reviewed, evaluated, and 4 1 approved as such. This is a one -lot subdivision plat. 2 We are told that, typically, mobile home parks will 3 develop as a one -lot subdivision plat, and then parcels 4 of ground or plots are actually not sold but leased out 5 or rented to homeowners so it would move a home onto 6 the site. 7 This plat then accommodates approximately 8 40 acres of the property which is the easterly 9 two-thirds of the property, or three quarters of the 10 property actually is being shown to dedicate easements. 11 For things such as your access ways, be it public or 12 private streets, in this case conceivably private 13 streets, utility easements, drainage easements, 14 landscape easements, that type of thing. 15 The westerly 25 percent of property which 16 conceivably would be Phase 2 is shown as a tract, only 17 this time, it's not dedicating any easements; 18 therefore, that portion of the property would have to 19 be replatted. At such time that phase of the 20 development were to come in for review and actual 21 development of the property to dedicate proper 22 easements for whatever. 23 This property was annexed into the city 24 in 1995, and at that time, it was zoned MM, medium 25 density mobile home. • i 0 E 1 It has since -- the zoning of the 2 property has since been changed to LMN through the new 3 City Flan adoption that's not in effect yet. It won't 4 be until the 28th of March, but it was adopted on 5 second reading on the 18th of March; therefore, the new 6 zoning designation of the property is LMN. 7 Both of the zoning districts, the MM, 8 medium -density mobile home, and the LMN, which is 9 low -density mixed -use neighborhood, do allow mobile 10 home parks, so it is a permitted use in either zoning 11 district. This minor subdivision, however, was 12 submitted prior to the adoption of a new zoning code. 13 Therefore, it's being reviewed as a minor 14 subdivision against the MM, medium -density mobile home 15 park. Three conditions were placed on the zoning of 16 the property which occurred in November of 1995 by City 17 Council, and they dealt with the need for the developer 18 to submit to the City, for an administrative staff 19 review, a traffic study, wetlands study, a wetlands 20 report, and plan for determination of existing wetlands 21 on site, and landscape plan. 22 Between February of 1996 and August of 23 1996, the documentation was submitted to the City for 24 review. The ordinance also required in these three 25 conditions: That there be adequate notification to 3 1 property owners within a thousand feet of the -- excuse 2 me, of the submittal of the documentation for review 3 allowing the public to review that. 4 It also had then deadlines at which they 5 also had to have reviewed the plans and offer any 6 input. And it also had then attached to those 7 conditions a deadline for any appeals of the 8 determinations. In August of 1996 last year, the 9 sufficient documentation was submitted. It was 10 reviewed. 11 A determination was made and rendered on 12 the 9th of October. That notification was sent out 13 then to the developer of the property, and 14 notifications were sent out to the required property 15 owners of the determination; therefore, establishing an 16 appeal date. 17 There was an appeal made on the 18 determination of these studies on the 29th of October 19 by the four parties in interest for appellants. That 20 appeal has since been withdrawn; therefore, this 21 project, it was determined, that based on the 22 evaluation of those studies, the conditions of the 23 ordinance had been met. 24 The applicant could then submit the 25 subdivision, in this case, a minor subdivision plat. 7 . 1 That has been done. And that's before you now. What 2 is really for the Board to be reviewing tonight is the 3 minor subdivision plat. The one -lot subdivision plat, 4 and its compliance with Section 29644, the minor 5 subdivision section of the City Code. 6 We have requested with the minor 7 subdivision plat -- we did request that we have a final 8 site and landscape plan submitted which would then 9 actually convey more detailed information than the 10 plans we saw back in August, September, and October of 11 last year. 12 But these plans are supporting 13 documentation only for our review. At this time, as I 14 stated in the staff report, the director of planning 15 may require the submission of a separate site utility 16 plan for construction of any improvements, together 17 with traffic study, during these grading plans and 18 such. And that's what we had asked them to do further 19 in conjunction with the minor subdivision plat. 20 But what we are bringing to the Board is 21 a referral item because of the past controversy of the 22 project because the complexity, the potential 23 complexity of the project. We felt it was appropriate 24 to refer it to the Board, but what we are referring is 25 the subdivision plat itself. 1 I'd like to finalize my presentation 2 making you aware of a memo that I gave to you tonight. 3 In February of this year, the City Manager, the 4 director of our community, planning and environmental 5 service department, and the developer, Don Parsons, met 6 to resolve some questions about the development. 7 This had to do with setback -- 8 construction setback from the mitigation area which 9 would in fact be along the west property line. We have 10 Dry Creek which meanders, and the plat, of course, 11 doesn't show detail. The Dry Creek does meander along 12 the west, southwest portion of the property. 13 The subdivision plat is showing a project 14 construction setback from Dry Creek. It really affects 15 potentially Phase 2, but it's being shown on the plat 16 that's before you tonight, and therefore, there were 17 still some issues surrounding that, and I would like to 18 state, as I said, the memorandum, the results of the 19 meeting were that the City will accept the wetland 20 mitigation along the Dry Creek drainage with a setback 21 of less than a hundred feet to the Phase 2 portion of 22 the future development subject to two conditions: 23 One, that the developer would submit, for 24 CPES review, a revised lot layout. For Phase 2 which 25 would provide additional access to the mitigation area. 11 • E . 1 This may necessitate the loss of two lots in Phase 2. 2 The CEPAS review will be based on the advisability of 3 providing more human access to the area, and the likely 4 affects of the types of wildlife to be found there. 5 Second condition is, that the developer 6 will submit a detailed planning plan for the mitigation 7 area. Previous submittals have shown a grading plan 8 with existing significant trees. For the lesser 9 setbacks noted in the second paragraph of this memo, to 10 be acceptable there must be additional planting and 11 seeding of natural vegetation, in addition to 12 reapplication of the existing top soil and seed stock. 13 The director of CPES must review and 14 approve the plan. The reason I wanted to read these in 15 their entirety is because as we are saying, staff is 16 recommending to the approval of this Dry Creek minor 17 subdivision the entire property of 52 acres be 18 conditioned on items one and two that I just stated. 19 If the limit of construction that is 20 shown on the site -- or on the subdivision plat is to 21 remain on that plat. So for the record, we wanted -- 22 we are recommending that should Planning and Zoning 23 Board approve the minor subdivision request tonight, 24 staff is recommending that those two conditions, and 0 25 you do have copies of those in front of you, be placed 10 1 on the approval. 2 I will answer any questions the Board may 3 have. 4 MS. BELL: Are there any Board questions 5 at this point? Glen. 6 MR. COLTON: Just one. You covered a lot 7 of stuff. A lot of stuff that we didn't have the other 8 day, so I'm just kind of confused where Phase 1 and 9 Phase 2 is. I got a big map here, go over that again. 10 You may have already discussed it, but I was trying to 11 read a lot of this stuff at the same time. 12 MR. OLT: Actually, again you're looking 13 at the subdivision plat tonight, but I do have, 14 hopefully, a plan. This will give you a clearer idea 15 of what Phase 1 and Phase 2 are. Can you extinguish 16 that light, George. This again is the 52-acre parcel 17 land of ground outlined in the yellow -pink. Phase 1 18 conceivably is approximately 40 acres in this location 19 which would house in excess of 200 mobile homes. 20 Phase 2 would be this area to the west. 21 That's approximately 12 acres in size. This is the 22 alignment of Dry Creek, but we are looking at the minor 23 subdivision plat this evening only. There are utility 24 plans for the first portion of the development that are 25 being evaluated, but that is a separate issue that is 11 i1 being evaluated separately as a use by right. 2 The utility plans by a use by right -- 3 what we're looking at tonight, what we're reviewing 4 this before you for determination is the actual 5 subdivision of the land -- 6 MR. COLTON: Steve, could you help me 7 understand a little bit more about what the next step 8 is in this process? What the next document that this 9 Board will be reviewing? 10 MR. OLT: The next document that the 11 Board would be reviewing after determination tonight 12 would actually be the second phase of the development . 13 that has been submitted to us already. The 12-acre 14 portion of the site for additional mobile homes is 15 before us. 16 It is being reviewed right now as a 17 standard subdivision. The reason for that is, city 18 code states under the minor subdivision section of the 19 code, that no portion of a piece of property that has 20 been subdivided as a minor subdivision as this is being 21 done, the entire 52 acres, no portion of that can be 22 subdivided as a minor subdivision within a 12-month 23 period of time. 24 Well obviously, you wouldn't be making a 25 determination tonight on the 52 acres, and the only 12 1 thing that then can move ahead in terms of utility 2 plans and development agreement would be the 40 acres 3 to the east that is showing on the subdivision plat 4 behind me, the adequate easements for access utilities 5 and drainage. 6 The west portion would have to come 7 through a replat dedicating proper easements for that, 8 and that replat would have to be done a standard 9 subdivision plat because the city code would not allow 10 it to come in as a minor subdivision within a 12-month 11 period of time; therefore, as a standard subdivision it 12 will come back to the Board. 13 Now it's scheduled for May -- March, 14 April. Yes, it would be the May Planning and Zoning 15 Board hearing, but you won't see -- you would not see 16 anymore of this portion of the 40 acre portion of the 17 entire 52 acres that is a use by right that is a 18 permitted use, the MM zoning district. 19 What you're looking at tonight is the 20 subdivision of the land and utility plans and 21 subsequent development agreement are done as a 22 permitted use through the -- essentially the building 23 inspection department, and the engineering department 24 evaluating the utility plans for the appropriateness 25 compared to design standards of the code. E UJ C1 13 1 MR. COLTON: Steve, for the benefit of 2 the audience, probably, as well as the Board, can you 3 go through some of our discussions the other day on 4 what we're really evaluating this against. This is not 5 a PUD -- 6 MR. OLT: This is not a PUD. This is a 7 sub -- a MR. COLTON: We do not go through the 9 LDGS. Can you just explain to people kind of how we're 10 evaluating this? 11 MR. OLT: Uh-huh. This is a subdivision. 12 In this case the initial fifty-two acre portion before 13 you, is a -- classified as a minor subdivision. It is 14 less than six lots. It's not a PUD. It's not being 15 evaluated against a Land Development Guidance System. 16 It's effectively evaluated against our subdivision 17 code, and in that there is a section of the code that 18 sets forth all the rules, regulations, requirements, 19 for a standard subdivision based on the appropriate 20 outside boundary, the lotting of the property. 21 You get into the design standards of the 22 portion of the subdivision ordinance, and it talks 23 about the design standard, the lotting, the streets, 24 floodplain requirements, that type of thing. 25 MR. COLTON: Okay. And again for the 14 1 benefit of the audience, my understanding, there were 2 three conditions when this was annexed? One had to do 3 with wetlands, one had to do with transportation -- 4 MR. OLT: Traffic study -- 5 MR. COLTON: And what's the third one? 6 MR. OLT: The site and landscape plan. 7 MR. COLTON: And those issues have been 8 addressed already and are really not at issue tonight? 9 MR. OLT: That's correct. We feel 10 they've been addressed. They came before staff as an 11 administrative review as Counsel directed, they were 12 evaluated. There was the opportunity for the public to 13 review those plans. There was a cutoff date. They 14 were notified when they were submitted. They were 15 notified of when we made the determination. 16 They had a certain amount of time beyond 17 that to input us, and then an appeal period time which 18 has really all expired. So yes, we feel like those 19 studies were adequate, and then beyond that the 20 conditions said that after those determinations had 21 been made, that the traffic study, wetland study, site 22 and landscape plans are acceptable, then they could 23 submit the subdivision plat, which in fact they've 24 done. That's what your looking at tonight. 25 MR. COLTON: So if people raise traffic 15 1 issues tonight, be we really wouldn't able to say, 2 yeah, we agree with you, I mean that's, that's kind of 3 already been -- other than does meet the subdivision 4 requirements for street width and so forth? 5 MR. OLT: That's correct. 6 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you 7 MS. WEITKUNAT: I have a question about 8 the wetland mitigation. You know, we have run into 9 some problems before regarding wetlands and distances, 10 tanks, and setbacks. Could you explain to me the 11 thinking of allowing less than a hundred feet? 12 MR. OLT: I'm sorry. I wasn't involved 13 in that end, and unfortunately, Rob Wilkinson is sick 14 today, and Tom Shoemaker couldn't make it. I wasn't 15 involved in the valuation of that, and why they feel 16 like -- 17 MS. WEITKUNAT: Is that something that's 18 up for discussion or -- 19 MR. OLT: No. 20 MS. WEITKUNAT: -- or that's set in stone 21 too? 22 MR. OLT: It's the determination of 23 Natural Resources and City staff. That is not up for 24 discussion that the less than 100 feet is acceptable. • 25 Our determination has been made. The appeal period was PIN I clearly stated, and that's since been passed. 2 MS. WEITKUNAT: Okay. I thought we had 3 some discussions on that previously with other 4 developments that a hundred foot was bare minimum, and 5 I guess I was surprised to see that it was smaller. 6 MR. OLT: Well, and it was -- again it is 7 smaller. Why they made that determination, I really 8 cannot relate to tonight. This is unique in this sense 9 in that the conditions that were set forth on the 10 zoning of the property by Council are very specific, in 11 terms of the valuations that staff was to make based on 12 certain criteria out of Land Development Guidance 13 System. Because we had to some criteria but that all 14 was done administratively by direction of Council. 15 Any appeals would have gone directly to 16 Council. The Planning and Zoning Board would not have 17 been involved in those, even if the appeals had gone 18 through. 19 MS. WEITKUNAT: Along the same line do I 20 not see that the floodplain runs right through the 21 middle of this park? Is that the line in the middle? 22 MR. OLT: The floodplain does in fact run 23 through here. The flood way -- no, pardon me, the 24 flood way is this line right here which divides Phase 1 25 and Phase 2. The floodplain is in this location, and 17 • 1 I'll let Glen Schlueter actually address that further, 2 but the floodplain can be elevated, and you can build 3 in a floodplain, you cannot build in a flood way. 4 MS. WEITKUNAT: Okay. But that one plain 5 _s a hundred -year floodplain; correct? In the middle; 6 correct? 7 MR. OLT: This is the hundred -year 8 floodplain line as it exists today, that's correct. 9 MS. WEITKUNAT: So then we will have an 10 elevated area here? Considerably elevated. 11 MR. OLT: I would like to have Glen 12 address that. 13 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, all they have 14 to do is make sure the finished floor is 18 inches 15 above the hundred -year water surface, plus they have to 16 anchor them, which means anchored with cables. And 17 we've worked out a process with the building department 18 because there won't be building permits issued on this. 19 But there is a permit that is issued, and 20 they won't be issuing those until they have met the 21 floodplain regulations. 22 MS. WEITKUNAT: And the last thing. I 23 didn't see where the 30,000 square foot park was. I 24 believe that was one of the conditions. • 25 MR. OLT: That's one of the conditions, m 1 and again, that's something not for review tonight by 2 the Board. That was part of the determination made -- 3 MS. WEITKUNAT: It was a question. Where 4 is it? 5 MR. OLT: Okay. 6 MS. WEITKUNAT: I'm not determining 7 whether or not. I just wondered where it was -- 8 MR. OLT: Okay. You've got a clubhouse 9 location down here, and again if -- this is based on 10 the site plans that we have reviewed, the supporting 11 documentation we asked for with the minor subdivision. 12 We have a clubhouse with a park area here. And we have 13 six mini parks distributed throughout the site, each in 14 excess of 5,000 square feet. 15 The total of those six mini parks and the 16 park land associated with the clubhouse -office area is 17 thirty-seven thousand square feet, so it exceeds the 18 minimum thirty -thousand square foot requirement as set 19 forth in the ordinance. 20 MS. WEITKUNAT: Okay. So it was added 21 together? It was not one area? 22 MR. OLT: Yes. Yeah, the condition 23 doesn't state that it has to be one 30,000 square -foot 24 park site. It has to be a total of. 25 MR. CHAPMAN: I'm reading from section 19 1 29656, site considerations, Item C. "If any part of a 2 residential subdivision borders a railroad right of 3 way, either a parallel street adjacent to said railway 4 or a landscape 50-foot bumper strip adjacent to such 5 railway, shall be required, or the lots adjacent to 6 such right of way shall have a minimum depth of 150 7 feet." 8 Does that apply to this piece of property 9 and is it addressed? 10 MR. OLT: I'll have to look at that. The 11 language isn't familiar to me right off the top of my 12 head. 13 MR. CHAPMAN: Is that a railroad right of 14 way on the north side? I think maybe the northeast 15 corner? 16 MR. OLT: The railroad owns this property 17 up here, that's correct. How much of that is right of 18 way, and how much of that is just adjacent property 19 that they own, is really something I don't have an 20 answer for you tonight because they do own property 21 outside of the right of way along that railway in some 22 locations. 23 MS. BELL: I think we can go ahead and 24 move on to the applicant's presentation at this point 25 because I'm sure were going to continue to have some 20 1 questions. Is the applicant present and ready for a 2 presentation? 3 MS. LILEY: Chairman Bell, members of the 4 Board, my name is Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak. I 5 represent Parsons and Associates who is the owner and 6 developer of Dry Creek. I think Steve did a good job 7 of describing the project history because this is a S unique process, probably one that you have not seen 9 before. 10 Our interest was in making sure that it 11 was clear to the Board and to the public what the 12 process had been to this point, and I won't repeat a 13 lot of what Steve has said because I think the Board 14 is fairly clear at this point what's in front of it. 15 Let me just make a couple of comments 16 that I think Steve didn't touch on, and then I'm going 17 to turn it over to Don to answer -- to go through the 18 plat and answer any specific questions that you might 19 have about it. I think it's important to understand 20 that this has had a long history. 21 The annexation and zoning process was 22 quite a lengthy process. Some of you remember because 23 you were here when it was heard. The reason that the 24 MM zoning was done in this fashion is that there was a 25 lot of interest in trying to get a mobile home park 21 • 1 in project approved the city because one has not been 2 approved in over 20 years. 3 And the city had articulated a need 4 supported by all of the affordable housing entities 5 that we need this kind of product within the city 6 limits. So the approach was made to the City to see if 7 we could get a MM zoning which would allow a standard 8 subdivision, and decide at the outset with the 9 annexation and zoning, that with this was an 10 appropriate use before a lot of time and energy was 11 extended in trying to go get through a mobile home park 12 project. . 13 When it went to the Board -- to this 14 Board, on the annexation zoning issue, there was a lot 15 of neighborhood opposition. Much of it from the 16 industrial business park to the east, but from others 17 as well. I think many people objected to the land use. 18 And many objected to the construction and 19 maintenance issue surrounding International Boulevard. 20 This Board recommended denial between that hearing, and 21 the time it went to City Council. A lot of work was 22 done with the staff to try to identify the issues that 23 most concerned the city and the neighborhood, and try 24 to figure out how we could keep the standard 25 subdivision, but impose conditions that dealt with the 22 1 major issues that were of concern in a way that still 2 allowed the project to be developed as a mobile home 3 park, affordable housing, but offered some protection. 4 That's why we have this unique process 5 that's a hybrid process in front of you tonight. 6 Because as Steve said, what the Council 7 did is that they approved the MM zoning. They said 8 this is an appropriate land use for that site. That 9 decision is past, like it or not, but what they then 10 went on to do is say we need additional information 11 that the subdivision code does not require on wetlands, 12 on traffic, on landscaping. 13 You need to submit that. It needs to go 14 through a process of review. The neighbors have a 15 right to comment, then the staff approves it or doesn't 16 approve it, and there's an appeal to Council. And as 17 Steve advised you, that's all been done. 18 And there was an appeal filed, and there 19 was about a four -month period while we worked with the 20 appellants who had filed the appeal to try to resolve 21 the issues. And in fact, on February 18th, I think it 22 was, we finally concluded the negotiations of that 23 agreement. We dealt with those issues, and the appeal 24 was withdrawn. 25 So at this point, all of these issues 23 . 1 have been put to bed in terms of the process that the 2 City Council articulated. And as Steve said, the only 3 issue in front of you tonight is really the plat and 4 its conformance with the technical requirements of the 5 subdivision code. 6 I just wanted to pass out a couple of 7 documents, one of them just sets out the chronology of 8 the project because I think it's important to 9 understand, although this is a different process, it is 10 a process that has had substantial discussion and 11 review. Albeit in a different form than you're use to 12 seeing. • 13 Also, there is a summary of the 14 improvements that will be done by the developer under 15 the agreement with the appellants. There's a letter of 16 no objection by the appellants, and there are a number 17 of letters written by the affordable housing entities 18 in the city supporting and endorsing this project, so I 19 would like to pass a copy of this out to each board 20 member. 21 With that, I'm going to introduce 22 Don Parsons, who will talk to you about the plat 23 itself. 24 MR. PARSONS: Thanks, Lucia. My name is • 25 Don Parsons, 432 Link Lane, Fort Collins. I'll be real 24 1 brief, but I do want to tell you a little bit about the 2 plat and a little bit about the process, as far as 3 where we are now, with regard to reviews and so forth. 4 Steve very admirably covered the details 5 of the plat itself. The first phase, the 40 acres is 6 proposed to include 240 units or about six units to the 7 acre which is within the allowable eight units to the 8 acre for the mobile home zoning. 9 Phase 2, which is the 12 acres, will have 10 hopefully 53 units on it. I guess now, which is less 11 than -- it's about four and a half or four point six 12 units to the acre. In terms of the details of the 13 project, the road and utilities will all come in from 14 International Boulevard, and those improvements have 15 been reviewed by other agencies for the most part; 16 although, the city has reviewed them as well. 17 The water is served by Elco Water 18 District, the sewer by Box Elder Sanitation District, 19 and the county has reviewed and approved the road plans 20 for International Boulevard which is about 1600 feet 21 from the end of International Boulevard, where it 22 presently lies, to the southeast entrance to the 23 project. 24 So as you can tell, there's been a number 25 of agencies involved in the review, and those agencies, 25 • 1 as well as the Poudre Fire Authority, the Corps of 2 Engineers, and all the city departments have all been 3 through several literations of review, and have all 4 either given verbal approval or signed off on the 5 plans, and hopefully tonight we can get your approval 6 and proceed from there. 7 Along with me tonight, there are several 8 people here, consultants who have worked on the 9 project, John Barnett and Matt Delich, Robin Eldrich is 10 here. I'll introduce him in a minute. He's with 11 Uniprop, who will be actually doing the construction of 12 the project, but I would like to say a couple of things • 13 about two or three of the items that were brought up 14 during your discussion with Steve Olt. 15 First of all, the setback. I can add a 16 little bit to the history of how we got to the setback 17 that we're talking about. There was quite a bit of 18 concern on the part of a number of people. The 19 Affordable Housing people, myself, and the City, that 20 we'd be able to develop the entire 52 acres. 21 And if we had too large a setback, and 22 that's of course a judgment, but the second phase was 23 in jeopardy and so we had -- the way we had the lots 24 laid out on the second phase resulted in about a 70 to . 25 80 foot setback from the creek. And we wanted to make 26 1 sure that we wouldn't end up, with say, a hundred feet 2 or more that might eliminate that entire phase. 3 And so the compromise was to take out a 4 couple of the lots that are in the second phase and 5 provide more open space along the creek and increase 6 the setback from that 70 to 80 feet. I haven't 7 calculated it, but I imagine we have between 80 to 100 8 feet of setback as an average. So that's about what 9 that line amounts to. 10 Another item that came up was the 11 floodplain. I wanted you to know that both within the 12 flood way and the flood fringe, the flood way is not 13 part of the first phase but the entire flood way, with 14 the exception of creek channel itself has flood flow 15 elevations of from zero to 12 inches. It's basically 16 standing water, and it's real easy to deal with as 17 compared with most flood ways. 18 Additionally, there is a plan in a few 19 years to divert Dry Creek upstream of College Avenue 20 which would entirely eliminate the flood way -- the 21 floodplain altogether, so at that point it's no longer 22 a issue at all, and even now, it's really pretty easy 23 to deal with in terms of most flood ways -- 24 floodplains. 25 The other point that came up was the 27 0 1 railroad property and the required setbacks or buffers 2 or lot sizes from railroad property, and that's been 3 pretty thoroughly researched. And county records 4 indicate that the railroad right-of-way is 80 feet in 5 width from Vine Drive and their ownership, in addition 6 to that, is 420 feet which would be used for other 7 purposes other than through tracts and so forth. 8 So we're not adjacent to a railroad 9 right-of-way, but we are adjacent to railroad property. 10 With that I would like to introduce Robin Eldrich, to 11 tell you a little about Uniprop, the company who will 12 build the project and the housing types that they're . 13 proposing. Thank you very much. 14 MS. BELL: Bob, how much time do they 15 have left, or Jim? I just wanted to be able to let 16 them know about how much time they have left. I'm 17 guessing there's about 10 minutes. 18 MR. ELDRICH: I'm Robin Eldrich, and I'm 19 from Evergreen, Colorado, and I'm with Dry Creek 20 Associates, L.L.C., which would be the managers, 21 developers, and operators of the manufactured home 22 community. My role in it is, as a development and 23 organizational manager, and my partner is Paul Zlatev, 24 he is the owner and operator of Uniprop, which is no 0 25 stranger here to Fort Collins. m 1 Uniprop currently is about the fifth 2 largest owner/operator of mobile home parks throughout 3 the country, with regional offices here in Colorado, 4 with fourteen hundred homesites, with projects in the 5 City and County of -- or I'm sorry, within the city 6 limits of Boulder, 660 sites, 400 sites in Northglenn, 7 200 sites in Summit County, and just under 200 sites S here in Fort Collins in the Skyline Project, which we 9 feel is one of the more premier manufacturing housing 10 communities in Colorado and in Fort Collins. 11 The product that -- our intent is to go 12 into this project with the majority of the product 13 being new, single, and multi -section manufactured 14 homes, and any additional homes that would come in, 15 that are not new, would be scrutinized as to age and as 16 far as appearance and as far as livability to blend in 17 with the community. 18 We would be working a program on -site -- 19 a marketing program on -site and through the local 20 dealers and brokers within Fort Collins. And we have 21 some very strict community covenants, and I think if 22 you ever take a ride through the Skyline project, you 23 would see that we maintain our projects well. 24 we allow, for example, no on -street 25 parking. We allow no RVs parked in the driveways. We • 29 • 1 provide -- that's why we're providing a storage up in 2 the northwest corner free of charge to those residents 3 that have RV -type vehicles or large trucks. We allow 4 no fencing on the site themselves, so you won't see a 5 lot of fencing. 6 And we also have, in addition to the 7 city's site plan review -- or building permit -- site 8 placement permit, we have our own site plan permit 9 process within the project itself, that everyone who 10 puts a home down, whether that's new or used that's 11 being moved in, has to submit a site plan that shows 12 landscaping, shows location, shows decks, shows any . 13 type of carports, garages, et cetera. 14 And before -- and then we approve that, 15 and then we send them on down to the city for the 16 permitting process. Our intent is to build -- this is 17 a one -phase project we have -- is to do 240 sites in 18 one phase within, hopefully, within a six-month period 19 from the start of construction which we hope would 20 start probably somewhere in the three to four month 21 range. 22 And so that it won't be a constant 23 phase -type development, where there's a lot of 24 construction constantly going on, and there is a . 25 tremendous pent-up demand here in Fort Collins. We 30 1 have already got a list of folks who are interested in 2 moving in, and we have a waiting list -- we always had 3 a waiting list in our Skyline project. 4 So with that, because we are running out 5 of time, if you have any questions of me, I'll be more 6 than happy to answer them. 7 MS. BELL: Does that conclude the 8 presentation by the applicant, then? All right. Thank 9 you. Does the Board have any questions of the 10 applicant, or could we go ahead and move on to -- let's 11 move on to the public participation portion. How many 12 folks are here to speak to us tonight on this topic? 13 Two. Okay. 14 You represent neighborhoods or just 15 yourselves? In an informal neighborhood? Why don't we 16 go ahead and allow six minutes then to speak for Jan 17 since she's informally a neighborhood, and the other 18 woman, I cannot see your face -- oh, hi. Okay. Let's 19 go with a little shorter time then for you. 20 Let's go ahead and begin then. Just come 21 forward and introduce yourselves. 22 MS. COTTIER: I guess, for starters, 23 first I'll say, I'm Jan Cottier. I'm a resident of the 24 north end of Fort Collins, and I've been involved in 25 this project -- in opposition to this project from the 31 • 1 time it first came to P and Z. I have rather lengthy 2 comments and information that the Board needs to know 3 if they're going to make an informed decision. 4 And I would claim to be formally a 5 representative of the Northeast Community Coalition, if 6 that will get me more time. 7 MS. BELL: You can have -- how much time 8 do you think you need? 9 MS. COTTIER: Fifteen, anyway. 10 MS. BELL: Okay. That would be fine. 11 MS. COTTIER: For starters, let me start 12 by saying I believe that you have not been given . 13 adequate background information, and I have reviewed 14 the staff presentation. Obviously, I have not seen the 15 memo Steve gave you tonight, but you were not given 16 copies of the ordinance or copies of the subdivision 17 requirements. 18 I will start with the subdivision 19 requirements, and ask that you look at the copy that I 20 distributed to you, and I did take the liberty of 21 highlighting some things that I want to specifically 22 address. The staff report cites compliance with the 23 subdivision code as a reason for approving this 24 subdivision plat. • 25 The subdivision requirements with respect 32 1 to minor subs state -- this is on page 2031 of the 2 handout I gave you. The planning director can bump a 3 minor sub to PP, and see if it involves factors which 4 should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. 5 The staff memo has stated that because of 6 the complexity of this project, they have bumped it to 7 the Board, and because of past controversy on it, if 8 it's bumped to the P and Z Board, he shall treat the 9 application as a standard submission and refer the 10 subdivision to P and Z unless the applicant withdraws 11 the application. 12 The applicant has the opportunity to 13 withdraw or agree that it will be treated as a standard 14 subdivision. Okay. This is very clearly stated here. 15 Further the only specific item in the standard 16 subdivision requirements that I would like to draw your 17 attention to is on page 2027. 18 In taking action on a preliminary plat, 19 P and Z Board shall consider any comments received from 20 agencies or offices receiving copies of the preliminary 21 plat. What that says is, that you, in considering this 22 subdivision plat, can consider department review 23 comments that were made with respect to this. 24 Now, since it is to be considered as a 25 standard subdivision, a couple of questions. I 0 0 0C3 1 question whether or not it followed the submittal 2 requirements for a standard sub, and whether it paid 3 the required fees, that's minor stuff. 4 Further on in the subdivision 5 requirements, on page 2031, design standards and 6 improvements. Design standards and construction 7 requirements of this chapter shall apply to all minor 8 subdivisions, and they also apply to all standard subs. 9 Okay. Now we get to the design 10 standards, and here is where we have the requirement 11 about bordering a railroad right-of-way; that there be 12 a 50-foot setback or a road along the railroad 13 sight -of -way. In this particular subdivision, there's 14 a 30-foot setback around the north side. 15 I would point out to you, that at the 16 time this was annexed, that the railroad property was 17 called railroad right-of-way, and that was how the 18 property gained its contiguity. That was the only 19 grounds for claiming contiguity for annexation, so if 20 it was a railroad right-of-way, then I suggest it 21 probably still is a railroad right-of-way, or perhaps 22 the project doesn't have contiguity, and shouldn't have 23 been annexed. 24 Further, in the design standards, street 25 right-of-way widths, and these are design standards 34 1 that are to be met by minor subs or standard subs. I'm 2 going to end up needing water again. Street 3 right-of-way widths shall meet the following standards, 4 and for details, refer to city standards. 5 Collector streets should have a minimum 6 right-of-way width of 68 feet. International Boulevard 7 is a collector as proposed -- I mean as functions. 8 It's not proposed to meet city standards. None of the 9 streets in the proposed mobile home park meet city 10 standards. International Boulevard does not meet city 11 standards. 12 Lastly, the design standard that I would 13 call your attention to is dealing with solar 14 orientation. Saying that in a residential subdivision, 15 65 percent of -- you can tell I'm getting really dry, 16 thanks -- Okay. 65 percent of the lots are to meet 17 solar orientation. 18 Now this requirement says it doesn't 19 apply to minor subs, but this is to be -- have been 20 considered as a standard sub, and solar orientation 21 should have been considered. It has never been 22 addressed. 23 And when we're dealing with an open piece 24 of land that you're designing from ground up, solar 25 orientation should have been considered. Okay. Now 0 0 35 1 those are issues -- technicalities in the subdivision 2 code that this project does not meet. 3 Now, with respect to the staff review 4 comments that this says, you are allowed to consider -- 5 let me read you some of the staff review comments, and 6 first of all I will summarize by saying that advance 7 planning, transportation planning, and parks planning, 8 cited the need for sidewalks and bike lanes. There are 9 none. 10 Fire department said, per new street 11 standards, signs must be provided. Parking one side 12 only on the 24-foot wide streets. These are all the 13 internal streets that do not meet city standards. 14 Natural Resources said the mitigation plan does not 15 adequately address all of the wetlands. The small dot 16 on the north end of the property was identified after 17 the appeal had been filed. It has not been addressed 18 in mitigation plans. 19 The off -site wetlands that are going to 20 be impacted by the construction of International 21 Boulevard were not addressed in the mitigation plan. 22 Natural Resources comments, "In reviewing the 23 subdivision, the said mitigation plans have not been 24 addressed." 25 They also said that there should be a M 1 hundred foot buffer and took issue with the proposal 2 for less than a hundred foot buffer. They also said 3 that the line that defines the construction area close 4 to the creek on Phase 2, they had a problem with that. 5 Now these are the issues that Steve told 6 you had been resolved by Mr. Parsons, Mr. Fischbach, 7 and Greg Byrne. This is contrary to what Natural 8 Resources wanted in this project and contrary to 9 Natural Resources policies. 10 This area is part of the Dry Creek 11 Resource area which was defined in 1992 Natural Areas 12 Plan. It is one of nine resource areas in the entire 13 city that were identified as being significant natural 14 areas for the Dry Creek Resource area specifically, the 15 1992 resources plan. 16 Natural Areas Plan said what was needed 17 was setbacks and a significant buffer area along the 18 stream. Obviously, what we are seeing is a subverted 19 process with people going around staff requirements and 20 staff recommendations, and this has happened in many 21 instances. There -- I have -- wait one second here. 22 Let me read you some direct quotes from staff 23 correspondence on this. 24 Well dating back to March of 196, Gary 25 Diede, in a letter to Mr. Parsons said, "Acceptable 9 • • 37 1 bicycle and pedestrian connections will need to be 2 included as part of your project." That deals with 3 transportation. At the first City Council meeting on 4 November 7th, Greg Byrnes said -- and this is in the 5 meeting minutes -- excuse me, Greg Byrne clarified that 6 the streets would be developed to city standards. 7 Mike Hertzig clarified that the single 8 aoint of access would need to meet the Poudre Fire 9 Authority guidelines. PFA has reviewed the proposal 10 and found that if International Boulevard is improved 11 to acceptable street widths and separated by a wider 12 median, it would suffice for two points of access. 13 Neither of those are being proposed, acceptable street 14 widths or a wider median. 15 Other staff comments that you can 16 consider, in evaluating this from storm water utility. 17 They had problems with the way the basins were defined, 18 and I don't fully understand that, so I won't really 19 get into that. 20 But they said water quality treatment is 21 needed for this site. Please provide treatment for the 22 undetained basins A and B before discharging into 23 Dry Creek. PFA talked about the streets needing to be 24 signed. Natural Resources -- I read their stuff. 25 Advance Planning said that all of the W. 1 places that there is enough development to justify a 2 sidewalk, this is it. These streets should conform to 3 the new standard, meaning the new street standards. 4 MS. BELL: You just got over five 5 minutes. 6 MS. COTTIER: Okay. Those are staff 7 comments that you can consider in evaluating this. As 8 for whether or not you can look at the ordinance, I 9 think that's a very debatable point. The ordinance, 10 and whether this project meets the condition of the 11 ordinance, are cited in your staff memo as grounds for 12 approving the subdivision plat. 13 The appeal of the administrative 14 determination was withdrawn for reasons having only to 15 do with expenses and construction of International 16 Boulevard. The substantive issues were not dealt with, 17 and those did include transportation -related things, 18 primarily sidewalks and bike lanes and wetlands 19 mitigation. 20 I guess since you don't want to hear much 21 more, I won't go into all the things about the 22 conditions that were not met, but I think that the 23 wetlands supposed resolution that Steve Olt handed you 24 tonight, that even says you still have to do further 25 work on the mitigation details. �� 9&01 1 That clearly tells you that mitigation 2 was not addressed adequately. One specific thing -- 3 condition, that's in the ordinance, that has not been 4 met is that there was supposed to be a perimeter fence 5 on the north, east, and south sides. 6 There are little stretches of fence shown 7 on the landscape plan, not a perimeter fence. So that 8 is a clear example on how those conditions weren't met, 9 and I don't think any of them were met, but that's my 10 interpretation versus theirs. I don't know if you 11 think you can consider that or not. If you decide you 12 would like to, I would very much like to give you more • 13 information on that. 14 So I think there is a basic information 15 on the right-of-way and the railroad requirement in the 16 subdivision. The subdivision regulations -- one second 17 here -- I wanted to respond to a couple -- I have way 18 too much information on this that I have collected 19 since this first came to P and Z since October 195, so 20 that's a year and a half. 21 Ms. Liley presented reasons and good 22 history on this and just in you're thinking of whether 23 or not you want to consider the ordinance -- the 24 reasons those ordinance conditions were put in, were • 25 because the PUD process was not being followed here. 40 1 And so Council said -- this is the reason 2 council people justified voting for this project, that 3 since we aren't doing a PUD, let's at least meet some 4 of the LDGS criteria. They have not been met. And one 5 last comment Mr. Parsons made about Dry Creek and not 6 having to worry about the floodplain or flood fringe 7 because Dry Creek is going to be diverted in a few 8 years. 9 Well that's been going to be a few years 10 for 20 years now, and there are no plans and no funding 11 to carry that through in the near foreseeable future. 12 Lastly I'd like to say, the reason that I 13 am involved in this is the principle of it. I opposed 14 this at P and Z. And P and Z voted seven - zero that 15 mobile home was not the appropriate land use here; that 16 industrial was appropriate, and they recommended IO 17 with a PUD condition. On principle this is not the 18 right land use. 19 It is not where relatively high -density 20 residential belongs. There is no possibility for 21 alternative transportation here. There are no 22 sidewalks and bike lanes being done with this project. 23 The nearest sidewalk is two and a half miles away. 24 The nearest sidewalk to this site is on 25 Lemay in front of the transportation facilities 41 . 1 huilding. The same is true with the nearest bike lane. 2 Jbviously, LDGS conditions regarding bikes and 3 pedestrians, have not been met. It is not appropriate 4 place to put high -density affordable housing where 5 there are no affordable alternative modes available. 6 I have lots of information, and if you 7 have questions, I really would appreciate being able to 8 respond. 9 MS. BELL: Thank you. 10 MS. STITZEL: My name is still Lou 11 Stitzel, and I'm still for affordable housing, and I'm 12 not going to make a long presentation, but only that • 13 the new City Plan and also for the needs of the city, 14 we have to sometimes look at what is the greatest good 15 for the greatest number. 16 And it may be true that there are some 17 minor details; that if you're going to play strictly by 18 tie book and by the page number, that maybe that 19 doesn't quite mesh. But in the long run, it was 20 decided by the City Council, the ultimate 21 decision -maker, that there was such an ongoing need for 22 diversity of housing types, for diversity of income, 23 that it was very important that this unique piece of 24 property be developed. . 25 And because it does meet an area, a niche 42 1 of housing that is not planned in any other place or in 2 any other way, and it is a quality kind of housing, 3 that it also then would place housing within walking 4 distances and also biking distances. 5 Plus the way that it is planned, if 6 you're all familiar with Skyline, that the private 7 streets because of the control of property and the 8 amount of cars and so forth that are involved in it, do 9 present opportunities that are actually as safe as any 10 of our streets with bike lanes in order for people to 11 find and use alternate transportation. 12 So therefore, I as a person supporting 13 affordable housing and a variety of affordable housing, 14 wholeheartedly support this minor subdivision process. 15 MS. BELL: Thank you. Is there anyone 16 else here this evening that would like to discuss this 17 proposal with the Board? Okay. I think I need to give 18 the applicant an opportunity to do a rebuttal because 19 this is quite a bit of new information. How much time 20 do you think you need? 21 MS. LILEY: I hope five minutes. 22 MS. BELL: Okay. 23 MS. LILEY: I would ask the Board to 24 consider that a lot of the information that Ms. Cottier 25 presented to you, talking about things that came up to M 1 the Council during the annexation and zoning earlier. 2 Staff memos are just that. 3 The point that is salient here, and I 4 think the only point with regard to those three 5 categories of things, the wetlands, the traffic study, 6 and site landscape plan is this: Your staff has said 7 to you, and that's the fact, that at this point in 8 time, all of those categories of items that have been 9 identified by Council, are items that needed to be 10 ruled on administratively before we got to this 11 process, have been ruled on. 12 And that the staff has supported each and . 13 every one, and that the staff members who are involved 14 in this through the planning department have said that 15 all of those requirements have been met. 16 And that as a staff, they are satisfied 17 that all of those criteria that the Council imposed 18 have in fact, at this point in time, been satisfied. 19 We didn't come tonight, and I'm not going to now 20 present evidence in the record because it's simply not 21 appropriate. 22 It's not at issue here procedurally 23 tonight, that's because I think there is a fundamental 24 misunderstanding between what's going on here, what are • 25 we talking about in the subdivision process versus the Goa 1 PUD. It's been suggested that all of the information 2 that was presented to the staff on wetlands and on the 3 landscaping and on traffic, ought to be subject to the 4 board review tonight. 5 But that standing the Council process on 6 its head; that's taking the zoning ordinance and 7 twisting it. Because if you look at the subdivision 8 code, you will not find any requirements that talk 9 about wetlands. You won't find anything that talks 10 about buffering. You won't find anything that talks 11 about what you need to do in terms of the traffic 12 study, any landscape requirements or site plan. 13 The only reason that those were required 14 by the staff is because those were the elements 15 identified by the Council at the time the zoning was 16 approved. And the Council said because we don't have 17 specific subdivision requirements, we are going to ask 18 that you submit those things, and the staff will review 19 them. 20 And it's going to be subject to a special 21 process, not a subdivision process that comes back to 22 this Board, but a process whereby, before it ever gets 23 to this Board they're submitted to the staff, they're 24 available for neighborhood review. If the neighborhood 25 is unhappy about what's gone on, their entitled to 45 1 appeal it. 2 We have got an appeal from several 3 neighbors. we worked out all our issues with those 4 neighbors, and that appeal was withdrawn. The process 5 ends there, and it's final, like it or not. Because 6 that's the process that was identified by the Council 7 at the time of the zoning. 8 Also, I want to add that in the agreement 9 we worked out the neighbors, it dealt with wetlands 10 delineation and mitigation, and we do, by the way, have 11 approval from Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and 12 Wildlife. . 13 It dealt with sidewalks, and we agreed, 14 voluntarily, even though there is no requirement for 15 off -site sidewalks or bike lanes in the subdivision 16 code, we agreed with this project to put in a bike lane 17 all the way on the north side of International 18 Boulevard to Summit View. And then the developer will 19 be repaid as lots and International Industrial Park are 20 developed. 21 With regard to the railroad right-of-way, 22 I want to talk about that a minute, of course the 23 contiguity was established for the annexation, for the 24 property has long since past. There was a 60-day • 25 period you could challenge, it wasn't. It's set. 46 1 But let me distinguish what we were 2 talking about there. What we defined as contiguity is 3 a transportation corridor, which the City Attorney's 4 office, working with us, had determined and advised 5 this Board and the Council could encompass both actual 6 rail yards and storage areas, things that were not used 7 as a right-of-way. 8 It was a larger concept. What we are 9 talking about now, with the regulation that was pointed 10 out, is limited strictly to the railroad right-of-way 11 have that here. We have property owned in fee by the 12 railroad not used as a right-of-way for storage and for 13 other things. 14 so I don't think that's again applicable. 15 With regard to solar orientation, I guess we could talk 16 about that. The fact is, we have one lot. We don't 17 have separate lots. This is a one -lot PUD. It really 18 doesn't apply in any context that I could think of that 19 would make sense. The perimeter fencing is the last 20 thing I want to talk about. 21 I guess you can portray any issue in the 22 way that you want, but I would like to offer a 23 different prospective. The zoning ordinance had a 24 condition that said on three sides you need to have 25 fencing, wooden fencing. When the developer met with 47 . 1 the staff they didn't like the notion of just a big 2 solid wooden fence, which was really all that was 3 required. 4 So working with them, what was done is to 5 put wooden fencing with shorter landscaping in front of 6 it, and then intersperse it with very mature 7 landscaping adjacent to it, and then wooden fencing 8 with a shorter landscaping because it broke it up and 9 provided a better visual barrier. You know, if the 10 neighbors want, we can do a solid six-foot wooden 11 fence. That's not going to be very attractive. 12 It doesn't meet what the city standards 13 Typically are. That's why it's done that way and 14 presented. we think we fulfilled the intent of what 15 was asked for by the Council at the time of that zoning 16 ordinance. So with those comments, again we think, 17 that given the process identified by the City Council, 18 we have met the requirements for the items that are in 19 front of this Board tonight. Thank you. 20 MS. BELL: Thank you. Does that pretty 21 much work that out, John, or do I need to give any 22 counter -rebuttals? 23 MR. DUVAL: I think that's really at this 24 point with your discretion to make that decision one • 25 way or another. m 1 MS. BELL: I think what I like to do at 2 this point then, is bring it back to the Board for some 3 discussion. In fact, I would like to start out with a 4 couple of questions for you, John. I'll start on page 5 2029 section 29 dash 644. It clearly says minor 6 subdivisions, and then we see all the provisions that 7 are listed under minor subdivisions. 8 And you read through any number of pages 9 and you do get to page 2031 that clearly Item E there 10 says, design standards and improvements. The design 11 standards and construction requirements of this chapter 12 shall apply to all minor subdivisions. And what I do 13 understand are charged to be, you know, we are not 14 deciding whether this is an okay land use, that's 15 already been decided. 16 I think the Board clearly understands 17 that, and I felt like at the work session, what we also 18 clearly understood is this, you know -- and we did have 19 copies by the way. We have this wonderful book here 20 that Jan was so good to make an excerpt out of, but I 21 guess what I'm trying to reclarify is at least the 22 deliberations tonight we're not getting into some of 23 these questions. But we are trying decide whether 24 under minor subdivisions this is meeting the 25 requirements. 0 • • 49 1 And clearly the design standards and 2 improvement are a part of that; correct? 3 MR. DUVAL: That's correct. 4 MS. BELL: So therefore, we would go to 5 division three which says design standards, and there 6 are clearly quite a number of design standards here, so 7 the one that's the most intriguing to me, of course 8 that was brought up tonight, was this street 9 right-of-way issue. 10 So I guess I need to hear from staff, so 11 am I on the right track in terms of the direction of 12 the Board? 13 MR. DUVAL: Yes. 14 MS. BELL: We can consider this 15 information and this portion and whether this project 16 is actually meeting that? 17 MR. DUVAL: That's right. The project 18 still has to satisfy the design criteria, design 19 standards, improvement standards, that are set forth in 20 the subdivision portions of the code. 21 MS. BELL: Okay. Well then, let's start 22 with the street -- meeting the city street standards. 23 Who's present to talk to us about that? 24 MR. STANFORD: Hello, my name is Ward 25 Stanford, I'm with the Engineering Department. 50 1 International Boulevard is a county street or road. It 2 does not have to meet our city standards. It does meet 3 the fire code standards for passability of a fire 4 service. 5 It's proposed to be 17-foot lanes 6 separated by about a 40-foot median, each lane being 17 7 feet wide. That will incorporate a five-foot bike lane 8 on each side. That's going to be -- I hear, that there 9 recently was an agreement made between the developer 10 and the existing developments out there to upgrade that 11 whole street as far as surface conditions and stuff 12 which was one of our concerns. 13 But again, it's not a city street. We 14 cannot impose our wants and desires on it. If it ever 15 wants to annex in the city, that does not mean we have 16 to take over maintenance of it until it's brought up to 17 city standards. But right now, it sounds like it's 18 going to be brought up to county standards. 19 As far as the internal streets on the 20 subdivision, those are also private streets. We, 21 again, do not have our right to put those -- our city 22 standards on that. If the landowner choses to do that, 23 we can try and encourage him to go with our standards, 24 but we cannot make him. 25 As far as engineering -wise, we cannot. 51 . 1 His 24-foot wide streets do provide fire passage, 2 adequate fire passage by the fire needs. And again, 3 they will not be maintained by the city until they're 4 brought up to city standards. 5 MS. BELL: Just as a reminder to the 6 Board, quite a -- several of us -- neither of you were 7 on the Board when we did this. Were you? Okay. Maybe 8 it would be helpful just to remind the Board then. 9 This property, was it in the city when we took up this 10 whole question? It had to be annexed, that's right. 11 MR. OLT: The property was annexed and 12 zoned initially, yes. 13 MS. BELL: So surrounding this property 14 is city or county? Can you orient us a little bit on 15 that since we are talking about International 16 Boulevard? 17 MR. OLT: The property that you see in 18 red and the dash line around it is the city limits. 19 It's completely surrounded by the county except in this 20 case. There is city limits here, and between that city 21 limit line and this north property line is a 22 combination of the railroad right-of-way and 23 railroad -owned property that is developable property. 24 That's not part of the right-of-way, and 25 the State's statute would state that. Unfortunately, I 52 1 wasn't prepared for that question tonight realizing 2 that that would be introduced into record, but as part 3 of the annexation and zoning that was defined as such. 4 Therefore, you know, the contiguity is to 5 the north along this property line. We have county, 6 which this is undeveloped property here. There's a 7 mobile home park in this location. This is the 8 existing developing industrial park. The airport and 9 industrial park here, I'm not sure, I think that's 10 undeveloped property, but that is all in Larimer County 11 at this time. 12 MS. BELL: So it's pretty well surrounded 13 by county? 14 MR. OLT: With the exception of the north 15 boundary line, that is correct. 16 MS. BELL: So the opportunity for 17 improving this roadway isn't very high at this point, 18 probably? 19 MR. STANFORD: No. And one issue that 20 Don just brought up to me, or reminded me of, is that 21 the right-of-way existing out there on International is 22 a hundred feet wide which is larger than the city 23 standard for a street of this size. So future 24 upgrades, if ever necessary, the road room is there to 25 do it. 53 1 So in many ways, it does meet city 2 standards as far as right-of-way issues. 3 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. I want to 4 go ahead and continue with some more of this but, I do 5 want to bring to the attention of the Board that it's 6 10:15, and we do have other items on our plate tonight. 7 And it is our custom we need to let the audience know 8 whether we will be getting to those or not. 9 So I would just like to take a brief 10 moment to consult with my fellow board members about 11 that. Anybody have any -- okay. So I'm hearing that 12 we're doing pretty good. Okay. Bear with us, • 13 audience. We're planning on getting through the rest 14 of the agenda, so back to our line of thinking here or 15 my line of questioning. 16 I guess we heard -- could we have the 17 staff's comments on the solar ordinance? 18 MR. OLT: Yes. Solar ordinance relates 19 to both subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments; it 20 however, specifically relates to lot orientation, and 21 it requires that a minimum of 65 percent of the lots 22 that are less than single family lots, less than 15,000 23 square feet, meet the solar ordinance definition. 24 And there's three definitions in this 25 case. This is a one -lot subdivision. Yes, it will 54 1 have 240 units. They are on plots. They are not 2 subdivided lots; therefore, by definition by ordinance, 3 this meets the solar orientation ordinance. It is a 4 one -lot subdivision in excess of 15,000 square feet. 5 MS. BELL: Okay. Also a little bit 6 earlier you were asked about Item C under design 7 standards, and you didn't exactly have an answer then, 8 but perhaps you have been able to come up with one 9 since about the 50-foot buffer strip adjacent to the 10 railway right-of-way. 11 MR. OLT: Yeah, that was expressed by the 12 applicant, but as I stated, and when that question 13 arose earlier, and I wasn't able to answer it. I was 14 trying to recall. I truly believe that the statement 15 made is correct. The definition in the State's statute 16 says to gain contiguity, you can leap, so to speak, 17 transportation wise. 18 The right-of-way property owned by a 19 transportation entity, in this case, the right-of-way 20 is, I believe, it's just 80-feet wide. There was a 21 significant portion of ground in excess of several 22 hundred feet between the actual railroad right-of-way 23 and the north boundary line of this property. 24 So that's owned by the Burlington 25 Northern Railroad, but it is not considered to be their 55 • 1 right-of-way. It's just a transportation corridor 2 owned by the railway; therefore, by definition that can 3 be leaped as well, but by this definition under design 4 standards, it relates to the railroad right-of-way, and 5 requiring a 50-foot buffer strip adjacent to that. 6 This isn't adjacent to the right-of-way. 7 It obviously has several hundred feet of developable 8 property that could be something other than a railroad 9 land use, and therefore, we feel that that definition 10 or that section of the Code is not relevant in this 11 case. This development -- proposed development would 12 meet that criteria. . 13 MR. DUVAL: Madam Chair, may I suggest 14 another interpretation of that Code section. I think 15 you have to look at it. It begins: If any part of the 16 residential subdivision borders on the railroad 17 right-of-way. So if we assume for the moment that it 18 does in this case border on a railroad right-of-way, 19 then it provides that either -- it begins -- and it 20 gives actually three different choices: 21 Either a parallel street adjacent to said 22 railway, there is a parallel adjacent to said railway. 23 That's not true in this case. Or two, a landscape 24 50-foot buffer strip adjacent to such railway, shall be . 25 required, that's the second one. You might require a 1 50-foot buffer -- landscape buffer, or lots adjacent to 2 such right-of-way shall have a minimum depth of 150 3 feet. 4 Well, in this case, we are talking about 5 one lot, and it does have a minimum depth, I've been 6 told, of at least 100. Far in excess of 150 feet. So 7 my interpretation is, that if it meets -- if you have 8 any of those three circumstances, even if it is 9 adjacent to railroad right-of-way, it's not in 10 violation of this Code section. 11 MS. BELL: So you're saying that because 12 this is one lot there's plenty of -- 13 MR. DUVAL: It's a strange result, but 14 because it is just one lot, and you're looking at plats 15 that show all these, I guess these leased areas 16 eventually but technically -- 17 MS. BELL: I guess what I might be 18 concerned about, and I certainly was when we first 19 heard this project was, you know, providing a really, 20 you know, nice area for folks -- for people to put 21 their mobile homes. And some of our original 22 discussions, we were a bit concerned about the 23 railroad, we were concerned about the airport runway 24 and things like that. 25 And I guess I would feel that even though 57 1 it's one lot, there's many affected folks along that. 2 I guess that's the northern border there, and that it 3 would probably be within our purview to make sure that 4 those folks, you know, do have protection from a 5 railroad storage facility or right-of-way or whatever 6 we want to identify that as so -- I don't know. 7 MR. OLT: If I might offer then to extend 8 that. As you can see on the proposed landscape plan 9 there is within this development from the north 10 property line to the closest rear portion of any mobile 11 home parcel, not a specific lot. It's not a lotted 12 piece of ground, but it's a parcel that the home would . 13 be on. 14 There is a 30-foot landscape buffer strip 15 then from the north property line of Dry Creek, there 16 is a full 300 feet to the right-of-way line, and any 17 subsequent railroad usage. So there is a significant 18 separation, not only the identified landscape strip 19 within this development, but a separation of an 20 undeveloped piece of ground that may or may not develop 21 in some fashion as a railroad usage -- land usage. 22 MS. BELL: I don't mean to be dominating 23 this discussion. Are there other board members -- but 24 I'm trying to get at the heart here. Glen? • 25 MR. COLTON: What does railroad m 1 right-of-way infer? Is that the area in which they 2 could put in more rails or any -- the issue is, I think 3 is there enough room between where there's trains and 4 where people are going to be. And I don't -- I mean 5 they got the storage area. 6 well, I guess that's some sort of a 7 buffer, but is the right-of-way -- is that the distance 8 to which they could put in more side tracks or 9 something, that is versus -- 10 MR. OLT: The railroad right-of-way would 11 be the same as the street right-of-way. It's the 12 right-of-way they purchased to allow them to complete 13 improvements for that use and that right-of-way. In 14 this case, I believe, I heard, and I think that's true, 15 and my recollection of my staff reports, to the 16 Planning and Zoning Board, and Council, a year and a 17 half ago, that right-of-way is from Vine Drive down 80 18 feet wide. 19 That leaves a significant undeveloped 20 piece of ground. That is, yes, in fact, owned by the 21 railroad, but they have no intention of ever using, and 22 that's even based on my personal conversations with a 23 railroad representative. They own the property. They 24 have no desire. That land is even for sale if someone 25 wanted to buy it. • 59 • 1 They have no intent to develop any 2 further railroad yards or implement any tracks. 3 MR. COLTON: And if they were, would they 4 need to provide some sort of buffering between the 5 development on that current open space and the mobile 6 home park either within the city or within the county? 7 MR. OLT: I suspect not. They have to 8 dedicate to themselves additional right-of-way to do 9 additional railroad improvements. I suspect -- I'm 10 seeing John shaking his head, no. 11 MR. DUVAL: They own the property, so 12 they don't have to dedicate anything to themselves, so . 13 they could use it for whatever purposes the law would 14 permit. They may have some regulatory federal laws 15 that may apply. 16 They may have to get some permits from 17 the federal government, or they may have to come 18 through us. I'm not sure, but they own the property, 19 so they can and do what they can with it under the law. 20 MR. COLTON: Okay. If it was within the 21 city though, in the future they would have to come 22 through with some sort of a plan. I don't know. I'm 23 just guessing. I assume if its been in the county, 24 they would have to do some county development 25 regulations; is that not true? M 1 MR. DUVAL: I guess the question is 2 whether or not they need a building permit or anything 3 from us in order to put in a railroad. It may not be 4 considered a development, maybe Bob can -- 5 MR. COLTON: I'm not talking about a 6 railroad, I'm talking about if they were to develop 7 some sort of a storage unit or something else. g MR. DUVAL: Sure. If they were going to 9 build, yes. If they were going to build any buildings 10 on the property, they're going to have to come through 11 the usual process. 12 MR. COLTON: I have a question for 13 Ms. Cottier. Were you aware of the process that this 14 whole thing was going through with the three 15 conditions, and the facts that was going to be staff 16 review, and that the citizens would have a chance to 17 review it? 18 And if so, did you raise some of those 19 concerns at that point in time to the staff? Or -- I'm 20 just wondering of your involvement or knowledge of that 21 process? 22 MS. COTTIER: Late -- I raised my 23 concerns late. I was prepared to address them at the 24 appeal hearing. I did not get to review the documents 25 until about -- well, until I was notified that the 61 1 administrative determination had been made. 2 I think at which point there was a couple 3 of weeks to appeal. So, yes. I mean -- I have 20 4 pages of objections, but I never got to raise at an 5 appeal hearing because the appeal was withdrawn, and 6 the issues raised in the appeal itself were never dealt 7 with. 8 MR. COLTON: I guess I'm interested in, 9 if you would -- could you have appealed it? 10 MS. COTTIER: No, I couldn't. If this 11 was a normal thing, I would be considered a party of 12 interest because I spoke on the project. The ordinance . 13 was specifically defined that it had to be somebody who 14 lived within fifteen hundred feet, and I didn't. There 15 were other -- could I raise another thing about the 16 ordinance that clearly was not complied with? 17 And if we're going to get into 18 technicalities of not being able to look at that, the 19 ordinance said that no subdivision documents should be 20 submitted until any appeal was resolved. Subdivision 21 documents were submitted in November and were processed 22 in December and January. And the appeal was withdrawn 23 in the middle of February. 24 So you know, let's -- I mean if we're • 25 going to stick to the letter in one place, let's look 62 1 at where it was violated, too. 2 MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you. 3 MS. BELL: I guess I would like to follow 4 up a little more on that on page -- I guess this would 5 be for you again, John, so another issue that was 6 brought up here under public comment is taken up on 7 page 2027, Item 4 there. This is a preliminary plat 8 review then; is that right? 9 MR. DUVAL: No. I think this is probably 10 a final plat review. 11 MS. BELL: This is a final? 12 MR. DUVAL: Right. 13 MS. BELL: It's my understanding that the 14 process we have for minor subdivisions is that it's 15 really a one-step process, and then if it's referred to 16 you then you process it essentially as a final plat 17 that you're approving. It's a one -lot that we are 18 dealing with here. 19 MS. BELL: So does that make Item number 20 4 then, in taking an action on a preliminary plat? 21 Since you're saying that you believe that this isn't, 22 that we are not to consider comments? That was a 23 pretty prominent argument up for the discussion. 24 MR. DUVAL: Let me review this a second 25 in terms for final PUDs. There may be similar language 63 1 to that for finals as well. 2 MS. BELL: Glen, did you want to make a 3 comment while he is reviewing that? 4 MR. COLTON: I guess my comment is, if 5 what Ms. Cottier just said is true, that she could not 6 be a party to this and the appeal, I'm very concerned 7 about this whole process. I guess in that it seems 8 there was an administrative hearing but only people 9 within fifteen hundred feet could review the 10 information. I really have concerns for appeal, and if 11 that's true, I don't think this is a very good process. 12 MR. OLT: Well, you're referring to • 13 section 4 of the ordinance, and again, these were the 14 conditions, and then the ordinance that City Council 15 handed down with the zoning, and it does state that the 16 director of CPES shall no less than 10 working days, 17 prior to the date of making determinations required to 18 section 3, mail notices of the existance of -- 19 City's specific studies which will form 20 the basis of such determinations to the owners of all 21 property within a thousand foot radius of the property 22 lines of the subject property, and that's clearly 23 stated in the ordinance that was directed by City 24 Council. • 25 MS. BELL: When you're having 64 1 notification is it true that you're supposed to send 2 notification for appeals to parties of interest -- 3 those who were originally involved in? I'm just 4 curious. 5 MR. OLT: I didn't understand that 6 question. 7 MS. BELL: If you were a party of 8 interest originally in a process, shouldn't you be on a 9 list for notification? 10 MR. OLT: I -- typically, yes. But in 11 this case what we're saying is, when the documents were 12 submitted, we were required, as directed by Council to 13 notify property owners within a thousand feet of the 14 property of the existence of these documents, and then 15 these people were given a certain time to review the 16 documents. 17 And if they felt it was necessary to 18 appeal the determination because we not only gave them 19 the notification of the existence of documents and time 20 to review those documents, then we sent a letter to the 21 same people within a thousand feet of the determination 22 made by staff. 23 And then they had a certain time to 24 appeal that determination. 25 MS. BELL: I understand that part of the 65 • 1 process, but maybe I'm not being very clear in my 2 question. But -- and maybe because it's a different 3 process. I don't know, but if you're a party of 4 interest in something, even if you're not within a 5 thousand -foot distance, you should receive notification 6 of hearings and what not; is that true? 7 MR. OLT: Well, in this case I would have 8 to say, and unfortunately, I don't have the mailing 9 list, but I would have to say that we added a number of 10 names including Ms. Cottier's name to these mailings, 11 and I believe she did get notification of the documents 12 in a timely fashion. 13 But again, we were required, by Council's 14 direction, to notify people only within a thousand feet 15 of all sides of this property. 16 MS. LILEY: Could I clarify just one 17 point because there was an incorrect comment made about 18 the zoning. That was no descent beyond the thousand 19 foot. There was a minimum requirement, but in addition 20 to that, if you look at the ordinance, it doesn't limit 21 comments to just people within a thousand feet. 22 It says that comments shall be received 23 by the staff from such parties, and/or other members of 24 the public prior to the date; that the determinations • 25 are to be made, and in fact, the staff did receive a [ F1 1 number of comments from people who were not within that 2 thousand feet and were not proper appellants to this 3 appeal and considered those. 4 So it ought to be clarified for the 5 record, it wasn't the process as described. 6 MR. OLT: And I would like to add that in 7 some cases, and I actually have a slide of the 8 notification area which I'll show you. In some cases, 9 we sent notifications to people within 2500 feet. So 10 we in all cases went a minimum of 1500 feet and some 11 cases went up to 2500 feet for all the documentation 12 that was subject to the ordinance. 13 MS. BELL: Okay. Good. Thank you for 14 getting that cleared up. John, are you able to come up 15 with some suggestions? 16 MR. DUVAL: Well there is the preliminary 17 plat language that we're referring to in Code section 18 29-642, doesn't have similar language for consideration 19 of final plats, and after discussing this a little bit 20 more with Bob, the custom has always been at the City 21 considering this minor subdivision applications when 22 they get referred to the Planning and Zoning Board, 23 they've always considered to be a final action by the 24 Board. 25 I think -- I imagine because the smaller r.A 1 nature of application that your considering as opposed 2 to a full-blown subdivision which would require 3 preliminary plat then the final plat. So I guess it's 4 my interpretation, what you're doing now is considering 5 a final plat of a subdivision, and therefore the 6 provisions in the Code that apply to the final plats 7 are those that you should use in making your 8 determination tonight. 9 MS. BELL: Okay. So that should jump us 10 to section 29 dash 643 the final plat review? 11 MR. DUVAL: Correct. 12 MS. BELL: And so the assumption, if you . 13 were to make an analogy to deeds is, that just like in 14 a preliminary there it's already been looked at in the 15 staff notes. The conditions have been met, so to 16 speak, and so we are just -- we are just looking to 17 make sure that conditions of the preliminary plat have 18 been met to give final approval. 19 MR. BLANCHARD: If you want to do an 20 analogy, analogize to a combined preliminary and final 21 in which case you're going at a final, in which case 22 you're looking at a final. There has been no 23 preliminary review because you're doing one hearing. 24 MS. BELL: But if it's a combined 25 preliminary and final, then that opens up the question M 1 again. 2 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, they're final 3 submittals. The minor subdivision is a one-step 4 process, and in any referral, it's always been under 5 the assumption that it remains a one-step process; 6 therefore, you're reviewing it as a final approval. 7 It's a final action just as if it would have been a 8 final action if I were to have held the administrative 9 hearing. 10 MS. BELL: Okay. Well are there any 11 other questions? Did I cover most of them, or any 12 comments? Are we ready for a motion? 13 MR. COLTON: I guess I have one last 14 question for Ms. Cottier. So I understand what 15 happened is, you did get a notice. You had some 16 comments, maybe you didn't get them in because you 17 thought there was going to be an appeal. 18 The appeal was dropped so you did not get 19 your comments in to the administrative hearing, and 20 then you could not appeal yourself; is that correct? 21 MS. COTTIER: Yes. Also I did not have 22 time to respond within the time frame because I work, 23 and I have kids. 24 MR. COLTON: Okay. 25 MS. COTTIER: And it was a lot of C1 i • 9P 1 information. I mean, you saw the detailed stuff that 2 we're talking about tonight. I mean, looking at 3 mitigation plans, drainage studies -- no, I guess 4 drainage wasn't until now. 5 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. 6 MS. COTTIER: If you would consider, I 7 would like to have a chance to make just a few 8 comments. There's been two rebuttals on the other side 9 and very briefly -- 10 MS. BELL: Okay. Go ahead, Jan. Limit 11 it to less than five minutes, please. 12 MS. COTTIER: The ordinance clearly says, 13 if a minor sub is bumped to P and Z, it should be 14 considered as a standard sub; therefore, I think it 15 should have been considered on a preliminary -- 16 submitted as a preliminary and final. Those are the 17 requirements for a standard sub. 18 Even if it -- your saying it is only 19 submitted as a final plat. The requirements for a 20 final plat say such offices and agencies shall advise 21 the director of any objection. This is all the 22 different staff that are to comment on it, and they had 23 objections that weren't dealt with. 24 I read you those objections. I wasn't 25 referring to -- I was citing staff comments that were 70 1 in review of the subdivision that were not met. And 2 clearly there's problems with the language. This 3 points out one example that the intent of the railroad 4 has not been met, the intent of solar orientation has 5 not been met. 6 With any other subdivision of 240 single 7 family residential units, obviously, solar would apply, 8 and, obviously, the railroad requirement would apply, 9 and the intent is, you don't want houses close to the 10 railroad. There isn't even a solid fence along the 11 north side, and the solid fence was specifically what 12 that condition was. Thank you. 13 MS. BELL: Okay. I forgot to ask about 14 the fence. It makes some sense, I guess not to have 15 some big solid thing, but we were also, I guess, could 16 you show us a little more where all the fences are, and 17 how they work? 18 MR. OLT: As the ordinance states, 19 condition three of the ordinance, there would be a 20 wooden fence provided along the north and east and the 21 south property line. And what has been shown on the 22 landscape plan that you have a copy of, is there is a 23 six-foot high solid cedar fence that's intermittent 24 fence that's shown on the plan, that's before us right 25 now. 71 1 Along all three of these lines with 2 landscaping, and then intermittently, so there would 3 not be a solid barricade -type of fence around three 4 sides of a very large piece of property. There is 5 significant landscaping shown in terms of trees and 6 shrubs, very dense landscaping. 7 It will be quite large. It will fill in, 8 and yes, you know, from staff standpoint, there has 9 been a comment that probably would be more desirable 10 than a solid stockade fence around three sides of the 11 property. But as Ms. Liley said a while ago, if there 12 is a concern, if the intent of the ordinance has to be • 13 met, a solid six-foot fence will be provided around the 14 entire three property lines. 15 MS. BELL: Well, my question is, is the 16 fence itself solid? It's just that the height of it is 17 varying. 18 MR. OLT: No. There are breaks in the 19 fence as shown. It's six feet high, it's solid cedar, 20 but there are breaks in the fence. 21 MS. BELL: I guess why this was an issue 22 as I recall, it's kind of a double -edge sword. As I 23 remember, it's like we wanted there to be a fencing 24 because of safety issues because of all of the problems . 25 in the area, but then again, we didn't want people to 72 1 feel like they were barricaded into this little area. 2 And so I wonder if there would be a way, 3 you know, we heard testimony other times about, you 4 know, kids and the traffic nuisances and pretty easy to 5 -- I wonder if a compromise, solution -- I don't like 6 the idea of a solid six-foot fence, but maybe to keep 7 the fence itself more solid but to break it up in 8 heights and different places. 9 I don't know what other board members 10 think about that. I know the safety was the primary 11 concern when we initially talked about it. But 12 visually I can see where it's a problem too. I don't 13 know. Do other board members have comments about the 14 fence thing? 15 MR. CHAPMAN: I would comment that a 16 six-foot fence looks secure, but if you have teenager 17 kids as I have had, a six-foot fence doesn't keep them 18 from doing anything they're going to do. 19 MS. BELL: I guess I was more worried 20 about the younger ones, you know, running through the 21 areas that are open and going and playing in the 22 storage yard. Well, any other questions, or any other 23 comments, or can we move towards a motion? 24 MR. CHAPMAN: I would comment that I 25 wasn't involved in the Planning and Zoning Board at the • 73 1 time this issue was hot, and I think that's the right 2 word for it. I was following as best I could in the 3 paper, and with some contacts, with some people that I 4 knew around town, and my recollection was that as the 5 Pioneer Mobile Home was shutting down, evictions were 6 beginning. 7 There was a very heated emotional search 8 made for places to locate mobile homes. I know at 9 least one other very high -probability site was 10 rejected. This then became an alternative site for 11 that, and I think the City Council made a political 12 decision that as Lou said, for the greater good of more 13 people, we need to take some action on this item, and 14 so they chose the route that we are working with 15 tonight. 16 And I don't think we are to sit here and 17 judge whether or not that was a correct route to take. 18 It appears that it was a -- perhaps abbreviated public 19 input opportunity, but it was there. There was a 20 process defined by City Council and apparently 21 followed, obviously, not to the satisfaction of 22 everyone, but that's not surprising either. I guess. 23 And so I think in view of the greater 24 good for the greater number of the people, I'll make 25 the motion that we approve this plat -- final plat of 74 1 Dry Creek minor subdivision number 4195B. 2 MS. BELL: Do we have a second? We have 3 no second? I guess I would like to make a comment in 4 between here then. I guess I do agree with a lot that 5 you just said, Alex, that a lot of this action has been 6 set forth prior to our deliberations tonight. I guess 7 there's raised a bit of a specter of doubt around, you 8 know, some of this. 9 I feel a little uncomfortable about some 10 of these staff comments, and what our role is in being 11 able to evaluate some of them. That's kind of the 12 point that's holding me up a little bit. I certainly 13 am not in any way interested in saying, no, we couldn't 14 do this here because that's already been decided. 15 I'm just trying to make sure in my role 16 as a Planning and Zoning Board person, since this has 17 been brought back before us that, you know, we truly 18 are looking out for the best needs of the people who 19 are going to be living in this area. And so, you know, 20 I don't -- I guess, John, I'm still a little bit 21 confused about this. 22 If the analogy is that it's a preliminary 23 and a final all in one, why that begs the question 24 that, you know, if it's a preliminary and a final, then 25 we can look at this Item Number 4 because that's what 75 . 1 we do when we look at preliminary and finals. You're 2 looking at the whole thing, and the whole thing would 3 mean that comments should be considered, I guess. 4 I guess we're being asked to take a leap 5 of faith. That, in fact, the staff has taken a look at 6 all these things, and it's more or less to the 7 satisfaction of the staff or they wouldn't be 8 recommending approval. But still it clearly seems 9 within our purview to be able to at least see what's 10 going on, and if we see that, and we feel comfortable 11 with it, why the project moves forward and there's no 12 problem. 13 MR. DUVAL: Can I make a comment on that? 14 I think, obviously, you can take into consideration 15 whatever evidence is presented to you that's relevant 16 to the issues of whether this particular application 17 satisfies the Code requirements for approving this 18 subdivision. 19 If you find that that evidence isn't 20 sufficient to support that decision, then you can so 21 find, and I don't think you're really limited by the 22 fact that this was a preliminary or final, that your 23 necessarily limited about what information you can 24 consider. 0 25 I think you can consider whatever 76 1 relevant evidence is before you, so I don't want you to 2 feel like you cannot consider those other comments. I 3 think you can. It's just that this -- the Code had a 4 particular provision that said when you're considering 5 a preliminary plat, you shall consider these things. 6 That doesn't mean you couldn't do it at 7 this point either, so I think that's a good point, and 8 I guess I revise my advice in this way contrary to what 9 I said before. I think you can consider this 10 information. I hope -- I don't want to leave you with it that impression. 12 MS. WEITKUNAT: I guess I'll just comment 13 and piggyback on what you're saying because those were 14 the thoughts that I was having. I think this is 15 questionable what we were doing. I'm asked to make a 16 decision or to give a stamp of approval on something I 17 have not had the information given to me and been able 18 to question. 19 I think in an attempt to create a mobile 20 home park and meet to the needs of affordable housing, 21 we're overlooking some of the critical areas that are 22 important to the people living there or who will be 23 living there. And that falls under the issues that the 24 Planning and Zoning Board should be considering. 25 And I'm not sure that the conditions of 77 • 1 City Council have been met, and I think you're asking 2 us to say they have by approving this, and yet we were 3 not able to scrutinize them. For example, I do 4 question the natural resources and the wetlands. 5 I'm wondering about the pedestrian 6 movement and the security, the streets, the density 7 issues that are here, and I'm not sure that we are 8 getting the best in planning that we were promised, and 9 on that basis, I just can't give a stamp of approval 10 to recommending this as it is. 11 MR. DUVAL: Can I make another comment? 12 I think whatever decision you make tonight, you need to • 13 look to the Code -- to the sub -- to the provisions 14 dealing with subdivisions and see, particularly the 15 design criteria and the improvement issues dealing with 16 improvements there in the Code. 17 And I think you have to look to those to 18 see if the application that is before you tonight, 19 either satisfies or doesn't satisfy any particular 20 provision in here. And when making your decision, if 21 you are going to deny the application, then I think you 22 need to tie it to a specific provision of the Code or 23 specific standard that's tied into the Code that's not 24 being satisfied by this application. 25 or if you decide to approve it with z� 1 conditions, for example, you would point again to the 2 specific provision in Code that is not being satisfied 3 without the satisfaction of that condition or without 4 meeting that condition. That would be another way to 5 approach it. 6 But I think whatever you decide, don't 7 get sidetracked by what happened before City Council. 8 Because your role tonight is to look at the subdivision 9 provisions of the Code and apply those to this 10 particular application. And if those deal with 11 wetlands, which I don't mostly -- I don't think they 12 do, but you can look at other issues such as streets. 13 You talked about earlier this buffer zone 14 and that sort of thing, and that's within your purview 15 to apply the facts that have been presented to you 16 tonight to the provisions, and apply the provisions of 17 the Code to those facts. 18 MS. BELL: So just to restate in lay 19 terms what you just said. A lot of the discussion 20 around the ordinance then -- we are really not 21 involved in the ordinance per se where a lot of 22 comments are coming from that Jan was perhaps 23 questioning? Is that what you're trying to tell us, 24 you know, traffic, wetlands, and landscaping? 25 We are really not being asked to decide 79 . 1 whether the three parts of the zoning ordinance have 2 been met because Council didn't ask us to do that, they 3 asked staff to do that; is that correct? 4 MR. DUVAL: Right. They set up a 5 separate process to accomplish or to review those 6 issues, and what's before you tonight is just a 7 standard minor subdivision, and you're to apply the 8 provisions of the Code that are applicable to any 9 application for a minor subdivision. 10 And so whatever those might be under the 11 facts of the circumstances, those are what you will -- 12 that's what you should address tonight and not other • 13 issues necessarily; although, there maybe some overlap 14 at times. 15 But whatever you do, make your decision 16 tieing it in to a specific provision of the Code to 17 support that decision of why you're deciding which way 18 you are. 19 MS. BELL: So the question perhaps still 20 exists that perhaps there are comments relating to the 21 minor subdivision that we haven't seen or we don't have 22 enough information about to finalize our decision 23 tonight, perhaps? 24 MR. DUVAL: Perhaps. • 25 MR. COLTON: I was just going to throw in M 1 a thought. I guess I heard that there were some 2 comments made by the staff regarding the subdivision 3 plat, but that they really address bike lanes, street 4 connections, pedestrian connections, wetlands. 5 The street one, I heard that there was 6 going to be a bike lane going out to Summit View, so to 7 me it sounds like maybe that one has been met as best 8 as possible given the fact that this is county road 9 that doesn't have to be to city standards anyway. So 10 seems like that's outside the purview of really what is 11 in the subdivisions standards. 12 Secondly the wetlands, one may have been 13 more related to the three conditions than they are to 14 the subdivisions requirements as well, and as much as I 15 would like to reopen that. Sounds like there was an 16 appeal period, and the appeal was not filed or 17 Ms. Cottier did not get her information in the required 18 time frame. 19 And the appeal expired, and the train -- 20 the railroad right-of-way one, to me, seems to be 21 resolved because to me, there is this whole buffer that 22 the land -- that the railroad owns, but it's not 23 right-of-way in between this park and the railroad. 24 And that would be taken care of at the time if and when 25 the railroad decides to build something on that buffer 81 1 area. 2 So I guess as much as I don't really like 3 this whole process the way the City set up, I'm 4 starting to get to the conclusion in my head that it 5 meets the subdivision requirements, and we probably 6 ought to approve it. 7 But again, I do not like the process as 8 it was set up in the ordinance, but our City Council 9 decided to do it that way, so I guess I should go 10 ahead -- 11 MS. BELL: Well, we do have a motion on 12 the floor. Were you thinking of seconding it? 13 MR. COLTON: I guess I would second it at 14 this point in time. 15 MS. BELL: Okay. We now have a motion 16 with the second. Are there other comments? 17 MR. CHAPMAN: I, for the third or fourth 18 time, have gone through these design standards, and my 19 first comments still stand. I think, and that is if we 20 don't have a problem with the flooding issue that is in 21 the wetlands, in the hundred -area floodplain -- gosh, 22 it's 11:00 o'clock, isn't it? 23 And if we are not adjacent to a railroad 24 right-of-way, that's the only items that I could find • 25 in here that would say that this does not comply with m 1 those site considerations and design standards. And so 2 again, I would support the motion. 3 MR. COLTON: I guess a couple of other 4 concerns that were raised were the street widths. And 5 those are private streets, and I guess I would expect 6 streets to be less wide than the normal ones in a 7 mobile home park as well as -- let's see, what was the 8 other issue? I don't know. It just escaped me. 9 MR. STANFORD: I need to clarify that 10 street width issue. Back originally when I had this 11 project, the streets were looked at on International 12 Boulevard of being 17 feet wide at certain locations. 13 Part of the discussion was to increase them since 14 another developer -- or another engineer in our 15 department had taken the project over when I left the 16 department. 17 The subsequent discussions had come 18 about that the developer is going to make both lanes of 19 International Boulevard 20 feet wide. That does meet 20 city standards for that type of street. So it does 21 meet city standards in width. It does not meet city 22 standards in structural depth, that's minor. 23 The county standards, which they will be 24 meeting, are very close to the city standards, just not 25 100 percent. 83 1 MR. COLTON: Another thing just came to 2 mind is that this is considered one lot; therefore, 3 certain things which I think are common sense, all of a 4 sudden irrelevant, like solar orientation and lot 5 setback and railroad right-of-way. Seems to be that 6 this Code does not meet what you really need to 7 evaluate mobile homes on. 8 And maybe our new City Plan Code does a 9 better job of that, if not, we should make note of it 10 and have that be one of our changes in the future. 11 MS. BELL: Just relating to the 12 sidewalks, since they're local streets, they don't . 13 really have to have sidewalks or -- 14 MR. STANFORD: I don't believe the county 15 standards require it. That would be one other aspect 16 of the city standard that would be improved, but the 17 right-of-way is there to put that in if they ever do -- 18 MS. BELL: On International Boulevard? 19 MR. STANFORD: Yes. Attempt to meet 20 that. 21 MR. COLTON: My final comment is that I 22 guess that this just points out why the Planning and 23 Zoning Board denied this thing in the first place; 24 although the City Council decided for the better good 25 we should do this, there were lots of problems. m 1 MR. STANFORD: The applicant also just 2 stated they are putting in a sidewalk on the north side 3 of International. 4 MS. BELL: I think that's pretty 5 important. Karen, did you have any comments at this 6 point? Well, let's go ahead. Anybody else have 7 anything to say? Let's go ahead and take a vote. g THE CLERK: Chapman? 9 MR. CHAPMAN- Yes. 10 THE CLERK: Colton? 11 MR. COLTON: Yes. 12 THE CLERK: Weitkunat? 13 MS. WEITKUNAT: No. 14 THE CLERK: Bell? 15 MS. BELL: Yes. This project does pass 16 three to one. And do I take it we don't see this 17 again? Ever, ever, never? is UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Phase 2. 19 MS. BELL: Okay. We do see Phase 2. 20 Okay. I think probably -- who's all here for the next 21 project? Okay. I think we need to take a really short 22 five-minute recess, and then we will come back and move 23 on to the next item. 24 (Matter concluded.) 25 85 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF BOULDER ) 3 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 I, Leslie G. Arnold, do hereby state that 5 I am a Court Reporter and Notary Public within and for 6 the State of Colorado, hereby certify that the 7 foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Dry Creek, 8 referral of a minor subdivision, was held on Monday, 9 March 24, 1997, at 300 West Laporte Avenue,.Colorado; 10 that said proceedings were transcribed by me from 11 videotape to the foregoing 84 pages; that said 12 transcript is, to the best of my ability to transcribe • 13 same, an accurate and complete record of the 14 proceedings so taken. 15 I further state that I am not related to, 16 employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or 17 attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the 18 outcome of the case. 19 Attested to by me this 25th day of April, 20 1997. 21 22 e lie G. Arnold 23 43 2 Westbrooke Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 24 My commission expires September 6, 2000 25 No Text • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 17 Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommendeing denial based on the Findings of Fact/Conclusion of the staff report. Member Chapman asked about the property immediately north of this site, and what was the zoning. Planner Ludwig replied that on Parcel V on the existing Overall Development Plan is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. Parcel U, which is north and to the west also calls for RL zoning. Parcel T, allows uses in the RM, Medium Density Residential Zoning District. Member Weitkunat asked Planner Ludwig to define Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses. • Planner Ludwig replied that it was a point chart in the LDGS that has uses identified under that, which storage falls under. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward spoke of the staff recommendation. He stated that this proposal meets all of the criteria. Staff did not have a problem with city standards, the point charts and all the criteria except staffs intrepetation of meeting the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ward stated that in 1992, the Board determined that Auto Related and Roadside Commercial uses are inappropriate in this area. He stated that mini -storage was never disucssed at the 1992 meeting and Parcel V was not discussed. Mr. Ward referred the Board to the minutes of that meeting that were provided in their packet. He stated that the issues raised at that meeting dealt with underground storage, traffic, proximity to the church and groundwater concerns related to underground fuel storage. He felt that this project should not be disqualified on the basis of a prior review for a convenience store and that this use is not comparable to the review that took place in 1992 on a different parcel. He felt that it is very misleading to say that the Board's decision on Parcel S in 1992 automatically pre -determines the Board's decision on Parcel V in 1997. Mr. Ward felt that the list of specific items in the Goals and Objectives, Land Use Policies Plan and Harmony Corridor Plan are also difficult to support. He felt that the • proposed use did not have a significant negative impact upon the residential area. He stated that the neighbors have stuck with this process and attended a series of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 18 neighbohood meetings and the neighbors that asked for the buffer of transition in the first place have decided that this is not intrusive and it is a buffer, and the impacts are not significant. He felt they meet Goal #4. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding "guiding growth" in the Goals and Objectives. He stated that that goal specifically says to "encourage urban development in areas immediately adjacent to existing development". He stated that they meet that goal. He stated that the Harmony Corridor Plan overrides any previously approved ODP, and that the Harmony Corridor Plan designates 100% of the area colored in the graphic as a Mixed -Use Activity Center and also as an existing Regional Shopping Center. He stated that the Harmony Corridor "demands" that this ODP be amended, and that Parcel V is part of this Mixed -Use Activity Center. It was not deleted to be single family development. There have been a number of city actions since this ODP, that have superceeded the RL designation on this site. Mr. Ward feels that he can show that this development would not be intrusive or disruptive. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding Land Use Policy #3a. He displayed a context diagram showing the proposed site and the existing residential neighborhoods. He showed that this site is easily accessible and where the pedestrian linkages would be. He stated that this project does make good utilization of the land and does it in an appropriate manner. He would be hard pressed to try to find a way to defend that they don't meet that policy. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding Land Use Policy #74. He stated that this site was designed as a transitional land use and includes a linear greenbelt and it does block the impacts of the surrounding area. It enhances the concept of mixed -use development. Mr. Ward commented on staffs contention that they violate Land Use Policy #4 of the Harmony Corridor Plan. He stated that the Harmony Corridor states that this project is a part of a Regional Shopping Center. Mr. Ward felt that given all the findings that staff made, they do infact meet the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Fort Collins and the reasons staff gave for denial are not valid. Mr. Ward stated that the neighborhood feels that this is an appropriate buffer to their residential area. He stated that part of the neighborhood has worked on the architectural details, the landscaping, the entry deisgn, and the streetscape design. Alan Westfall, Vice President of SecurCare Self Storage gave a background of self storage units and why they chose this site. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 19 PUBLIC INPUT: Harold Swope, President of the Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association spoke on behalf of the neighborhood. He stated that they were in support of this proposal. Mr. Swope stated he has a legal document that was signed by the City, by the property owner, GT Land, and by the Board of Director's of Fairway Estates that places restrictive covenants on parcels of land that are west of Harmony Market. The intent was to buffer Fairway Estates (at that time they were the only residential area in the immediate vicinity) from the heavy commercial use to the east. Mr. Swope reported that the covenants very clearly state that the uses in these parcels in this development does cover a portion of one of these parcels, that the uses were limited to RL density uses or other uses to be approved by the property owner and by the Board of Director's of Fairway Estates. They have met that condition by meeting with the developers and they very much approved of this alternate use that does not fit into the RL density. Mr. Swope stated that they approved of this auto un-related use on this parcel and felt • that this use was not intrusive or disruptive to the neighborhood. They felt this use would be a good buffer from intrusiveness of the Harmony Market area. Gus Winfield, lives in Fairway Estates supported the project. He stated it did not seem to be an auto -related use, was aesthetically pleasing and has low traffic and lights. Mark Thomas, lives in Fairway Estates stated that it was important to note that they did meet with the developers on numerous occassions and they do support this transitional use. Mr. Thomas stated this project was not intrusive and supports this project. Vic Burnhardt, homeowner in Miramont close to the proposed site stated that this developer has in the past produced a very quality project, although he questions whether this is the appropriate place for a mini -warehouse. He did not feel that this was the norm to put mini -storage next to residential homes over $200,000. He stated that he would like to see residential homes there. He felt the homes next to the stoarage units would decrease. Mr. Burnhardt stated for the record that he was opposed to this project. Christina White, resident of the Miramont Subdivision stated that their neighborhood has had several meeting regarding the proposed site. At their yearly Association meeting it was decided that we needed to have an additional meeting to determine • what the facts were about the proposed mini storage units. She stated not all the residents were excited about that and they invisioned a very industrial type looking Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 20 facility. Their neighborhood developed a task force to investigate what types of things they could do to the mini -storage area to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible and make it fit into their community. They came up with some ideas and the developer was willing to accommodate their suggestions. She felt it would be a quiet development with good buffering to their neighborhood. Ms. White supported the project and felt this was the best option for them at this time. Charlie Lanter, lives approximately 1 block and a half from the proposed mini -storage site. He stated his main concern was the effect on the property values. He stated that in reviewing the project site plan and landscape plan he felt that with all the buffering it would be hard to tell it is a mini -storage area. He felt that property values will not be affected at all. Raz Stewart, lives accross the street from the proposed project felt this project was not going to effect property values and would be an asset to their neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Gavaldon asked if a change was made to this parcel, would it not create a domino effect on the remaining parcels. Planner Ludwig replied that they could propose changes, just as they are on this parcel. Member Gavaldon asked if the surrounding neighborhoods had input on what the current zoning is on the property. Planner Ludwig replied they did. Member Gavaldon asked about the agreement that Mr. Swope was in possession of and asked if that document was a binding document. Assistant City Attorney Duvall replied he has not reviewed the document. He stated that the document is probably covenants that are recorded against the property. He stated that it is not involved in this planning process, it is an agreement that is binding on the property owner in relationship to the Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association. That is a civil matter between the two of them in terms of enforcability in those kinds of isses. It does not effect the Board in making their decision tonight. Member Gavaldon asked Planner Ludwig to comment on what uses can be used on Parcel U. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 21 Planner Ludwig replied that uses allowed in the RL Zoning District could be used. Member Chapman asked if the Church be able to put a church school on Parcel U. Planner Ludwig replied they would subject to a review by the Planning Board. Member Colton asked what the church felt about this use. Mr. Ward replied they had been to some meetings and the church has been heavily involved in the planning for this area. He stated that their specific plans for Parcel U is playfields for the schoold (currently located in the church) and a detention ponds. Member Gavaldon asked about a walkway north of Parcel V and would it be able to be accessed by the neighbors to the west still. Planner Ludwig replied that it runs along the west of W and V from Boardwalk into the existing vacated right-of-way. It would still be used by the neighborhood. • Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the Oak/Cottonwood Faun Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat stated that the reason for recommending approval is because of Policy #74 and she thinks it is a compatibility and transition issue. She thinks this is an appropriate transition. She was impressed with the developers desire to work with the neighbors and provide buffers that are appealing to both. Member Chapman felt the applicant has done an outstanding job of trying to make the storage units more compatible with the neighborhood. He would be supporting the project. Member Colton stated he also would be supporting the project. He felt it was not intrusive to the neighborhood. The motion was approved ". • Planner Ludwig gave the staff presentation on the proposed storage units recommending denial for failure to satisfy All -Development Criteria A-1.2 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 22 "Comprehensive Plan" of the LDGS. He stated that with the previous approval this criteria does not matter since the Board had determined differently. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design gave the applicant's presentation. He reviewed the site line from second story windows,raising the berm, placement of landscaping and the relative height of the units. Mr. Ward spoke on building materials and architecture. PUBLIC INPUT Harold Swope, Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association reiterated their position stating that they think the design is beautiful and they are very much in support of the project. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Gavaldon asked about the distance to the trail on the north property line. Mr. Ward replied he did not recall the exact distance. Alan Westfall reported that it is 15 feet to the property line. They have purposedly presented the architecture with relationship of brick and other elements to break it up along there. He reviewed a graphic representation of the north side of the property. Chairperson Bell asked abouth the length of the buildings. Mr. Westfall reported combined about 300 feet. Member Chapman asked about the buildings on the souhside and the westside and what was going on with what looks like a notch in the rooflines. Mr. Westfall replied that some would be a change in elevations. Member Chapman asked about the 340 foot building on the northside and that it did not fill any of the architectural detail and what was the rationale for that. Mr. Westfall replied there were relief elements in the buildings as well as the step downs. They did not pop the roofline up because of the neighbors to the south's view plain. Chairperson Bell asked how high the berm was. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Ward replied 6 to 7 feet. Chairperson Bell asked about the north side of the site and also the side buffering Fariway, it does not seem to have quite as much landscaping. Mr. Ward replied that the properties involved are so much larger on the Fairway side. On the Fairway side there is a great deal of existing landscaping and the set back is larger. On the north, again with the distance to the church — it seemed to make sense to shift the setback and the dollars for landscaping to where the neighboring uses were the closest. Member Gavaldon agreed that the landscaping seemed skimpy on the north side. Member Colton moved for approval of Miramont Self Storage Preliminary with the condition that more buffering be looked at on the north side of the property. • Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Chairperson Bell commented on the dialogue of the developer with the surrounding affected neighborhoods. The motion was approved ". Member Colton stated that he pulled this item because over time he has found that there are items on the list that are inactive or have been on the list for a number of years. He felt that we need to review those projects in more detail and the appropriateness of continuing to approve these projects. Member Colton stated that he would like to have discussions regarding the three inactive projects, Hugh M. Woods, CAT, 17th Filing and Christ Fellowship Church, as well as any active ones over two years old, Bank One PUD, Waterglen PUD and Wintrail PUD. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department stated that Windtrail Park had been completed since the Board's packets were delivered. Member Colton moved for approval of the Modifications of Conditions of final approval. • Member Chapman seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 24 The motion was approved 5-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.