HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/22/199011
. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell,
Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -
Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, Joe Frank,
Linda Ripley and Georgiana Taylor.
Board Members present at the October 19, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim Klataske,
Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Margaret Gorman and Lloyd Walker.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the September 24, and September 26 meetings; Item 2 -
Southridge Greens PUD - Amended Master Plan, #9-82AA; Item 3 - Center Greens at
Southridge Greens PUD - Preliminary, #9-82AB; Item 4 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 4th
Filing - Preliminary, #35-86H; Item 5 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 5th Filing - Preliminary,
#35-86I; Item 6 - PZ90-14 Vacation of Easement, #43-90; Item 7 - PZ90-15 Vacation of
Easement.
Director Peterson pulled items 4 and 5, Clarendon Hills Subdivision, Filings 4 and 5 for
discussion.
Member Cottier moved to approve consent agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. Member Strom
seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION FILINGS 4TH AND_5TH - PRELIMINARY. #35-86H
and 35-86I
Ted Shepard gave the staff reports recommending approval with conditions.
Eldon Ward, planning consultant for Clarendon Hills stated that he would rather wait for a
presentation until they hear what the concerns were and respond to those.
Member Walker asked if the density and the type of housing proposed changed from the
existing master plan.
Mr. Ward replied that the existing master plan approved in 1986 had a total of 83 units in the
same area where they were proposing 76. Area by area it varied slightly, for example, in the
fifth filing south of Hildale Drive the original master plan showed eleven units, their plan has
seventeen. There was an intermediate master plan that showed 20. They were not exact to the
number in each area, what was in the existing master plan but they are slightly less overall.
Jerry Krygier, 5325 Clarendon Hills Drive stated they had just moved in a couple of weeks ago
and it came to his attention last weekend that there was the two proposals and he had not heard
of it nor did the people who sold his house to him. They did some canvasing and found that
out of about 95 homes in the development that three people told them they received a letter
discussing these proposals. They also found a very small sign that was posted on Shields, it was
a very rusted sign and it was bent over and with the 90 mph winds we had last week it
probably got pushed over a little bit but they were concerned about the amount of notice that
was given. The fact that the letter was written on the 9th of October which was thirteen days
from today. They did not think it was enough time to help the people of Clarendon Hills,
especially with all the new people moving in, really understand what was happening with this
last filing.
To take the words of the consultant, there had been some changes in the density to go from 1 l
on the master plan to 17 in that one section (tract K in the original master plan south of
Hilldale). They think that was a big change in the density and when you talk about the density
of lots in general you have to.look at where those lots were residing.
He noted that the 4th filing map indicated the entire darkened area as being the area to be
developed and actually after talking with Ted Shepard today, there was a 6 acre tract in the
center which was owned by a church and he spoke with them today and they had not heard of
that as well. They are also concerned about what kind of environment they were going to have
in the last filing of Clarendon Hills. He stated these were some of the reasons they wanted the
proposals taken off the consent agenda.
Bob Slade, 5413 Saratoga Circle stated he wanted to address two concerns that he had. The first
concerned some assurances they were given when they purchased their lot in July of 1988 that
the density in the area west of their house, which is now called the fifth filing would be very
similar to the density on Saratoga Circle which was in filing 1-B on the original master plan.
Most of the lots on Saratoga Circle now are about 1 acre or so, some larger. He assumed the lots
in the fifth filing would be considerably smaller than that and again given the assurances that
they were given at the time, they were a bit concerned about the change from the original
master plan that was originally proposed.
The second concern was that as they could tell there had been no provision for open space for
a park area in the fourth and fifth filing as they are proposed at this time. They would like
that to be reconsidered or at least have the opportunity for some discussion around that issue.
In summary, they would like to ask for a continuance of this issue of the fourth and fifth
filings to further canvas the neighborhood and the other neighbors in Clarendon Hills which
were not notified and had not been contacted this weekend to find out their opinions on this
issue and also further discussions with the developer.
Chairman Klataske asked who the assurances were from.
Mr. Slate replied the agent who was representing the developer at the time.
Chairman Klataske asked if that was the present developer.
Mr. Slate replied yes.
Steve Web, 5501 Saratoga Circle, presented the board with a petition stating "We the
undersigned residents of Clarendon Hills Subdivision or adjacent areas express their concern
regarding proposed projects known as Clarendon Hills Subdivision Filings 4th and 5th filings.
Request the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins grant a 60 day continuance
on this matter. Our concerns involve one or more of the following issues:
11
1. Inadequate notification of area homeowners.
2. Significant deviations from the developer's original master plan.
3. Inadequate provisions for neighborhood parks, common areas for open space.
4. Impact on school enrollment and traffic flow.
5. Preservation of attractive southwest entry border to the City of Fort Collins.
Mr. Webb stated the petition had 116 signatures representing 94 homes in Clarendon Hills and
the adjacent areas. This was not a simple majority, this represents a 97% response rate from
the homes that he visited and four other families visited this weekend.
Chairman Klataske asked Assistant City Attorney Eckman for information on the notice
provision.
Mr. Eckman replied that this was a standard subdivision and not a Planned Unit Development.
The code, with respect to standard subdivisions, did not specify any particular radius of notice
that must be given by the City for these hearings. If this was a final hearing instead of a
preliminary, then there would be a requirement under the city's code under vested property
rights that would require publication at least 7 days prior to the hearing in the newspaper. The
minor subdivision code requires notice be given within a radius of a minimum of 500 feet.
That was also true with respect to P.U.D's, there was also a 500 foot rule there. Even if there
was no notice requirement specified in the code for standard subdivisions that were not minor
ones and not a Planned Unit Development, it was his recommendation that we should follow
the 500 foot rule.
Chairman Klataske asked if that was followed.
Mr. Peterson added to the remarks of the City Attorney. The notice was given to property
owners, certified from the Larimer County Assessors office, within 500 feet of the properties
in question. There were 51 notices in our files that indicated that they were sent out thirteen
days before the meeting. The meeting itself was advertised in the newspaper of general
circulation and the property posted in conformance with past practice.
Chairman Klataske asked if there was a homeowner's association that notice was sent to.
Mr. Shepard replied that the address for the homeowner's association was the same as the
developer which was Clarendon Hills Associates at 309 West Harmony Road.
Gary Steadly, 828 Scenic Drive, stated he was the president of the Scenic Knolls H.O.A. Scenic
Knolls was a subdivision directly south of the fifth filing. It was a subdivision of about 100
acres with approximately 30 homes in that area. They supported the petition from the
Clarendon Hills people and routed the petition around the neighborhood. They found 24 of
the 30 families at home and they all agreed that they did not like the increase in the density
in the fifth filing. One point was the area south of there, which was Scenic Knolls, sits up on
a sizeable hill. Whatever was done there would be visible from at least half of their subdivision
and it was also very visible from traffic traveling down Shields because there was a 50 to 80
foot verticle grade change there and any development that occurred there was visible from the
landowner's and from people driving down the Shields corridor. Their main point was they
were very concerned in where the density was proposed to be changed from 1 and 2 acre lots
and they were proposing a 1/4 to 1/3 acre lot in that area. They did not feel that was in
harmony with the neighborhood. They supported the Clarendon Hills petition.
toMember Walker asked that the developer's representative address some of these issues.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that just the fact that there were concerns out
there came as a surprise because they had been working on this for some time. As Paul
indicated, this was a subdivision and not a PUD and they felt they were doing everything to
meet the requirements thereof. As far as the church parcel goes, that parcel was acquired by
the church a couple years ago, in 1987. They met with the church in August and September and
asked them at the time if they were interested in having them plat their parcel as a tract as part
of the 4th filing, thinking it would be easier for them to be included in their plan rather than
go through the process later. They had not made a decision by the time they submitted. They
submitted the plans with the church included in the tract. They later decided that they did not
want to be subdivided at this time and so they deleted the church from the subdivision plat
during the public review process. He was not in a position to speak to any assurances that were
made by sales people. He did know that from the time they had been involved in this (since
1988) the master plan was displayed at the sales office. This plan was actually an updated
version of the 1986 plan. It had shown 91 units in the area that was previously planned for 83.
It showed 20 units in parcel K, up from 11 and there were some minor changes in the area. The
overall density was the same overall. They were talking about a 167 acre project with an
overall density of just under 2 per acre and that had not changed throughout.
In terms of open space and parks, there had been numerous discussions with the Parks and
Recreation Department and in short, there had not been alot of parkland fees generated in this
section, most of the ones that had were from Clarendon Hills. The only remaining parcels were
along Shields Street and the Parks Department was not too enthused about a parks site along
an arterial. There was for a straight subdivision, a good degree of land and open space
provided. They thought they were being quite sensitive to the view approaching from the south
and along Shields Street. Rather than the normal practice in single family subdivisions of
backing deep lots up to the arterial and running a continuous fence along the Shields Street
right-of-way, they provided landscaping tracts and along parcel K and in particular, there was
about 45 feet of landscaping from the curb to the rear lot lines and they provided a landscaped
tract along the bulk of the 4th filing.
The density overall was less than what was on the approved master plan and for the effected
area. In all fairness, he could not believe that the quality of anyone's life or the good of the
community was going to be drastically changed whether there were 11 lots or 17, or whether
there were 76 overall or 81. They were proud of what had been done out at Clarendon Hills
and they were very pleased with their plan. He thought there had not been any attempt to not
communicate with anyone. A memo he had that was sent to the homeowner's earlier in the
year, right after the Orchard area was approved, indicated what areas were planned for
development in 1990 and 1991. It responded to the questions of snow removal, playgrounds,
parks, mosquitos and organizing the summer picnic for the area. They had been under the
impression that the relations with the Clarendon Hills Homeowners were pretty good. They
were not expecting this to be a controversial subject and they felt they had done a good job and
this was still a very low density area, and in fact, was lower than the approved master plan.
Member O'Dell stated she remembered when they approved the master plan and they approved
the density to be lower than the minimum density that was required in the city, which was
three dwelling units per acre and the reason was that it was adjacent to an existing county sub-
division at a lower density area. She asked was the entire Clarendon Hills subdivision now
even lower than the approved densities on the master plan.
Mr. Ward replied slightly, the 1986 master plan had a total of 312 units on it and the current
plans which include slightly more units in the multiple family tract at the north end, the
project would build out at 316. If they did not change the density in the multiple family tract
they were at 308 out of 310 approved. So they were right at 2.20 units per acre. The lots
immediately to the west were all 30,000 feet plus. The lot sizes range from about 14,000 s.f, to
•
1/3 acre to 3/4 acre in the southerly area. The north part of the fourth filing were 8,000 s.f.
lots in an area that was master planned for patio homes. The only place they get down to 1/4
acre was in the northerly area.
Member O'Dell asked whether the church area was included in the original master plan as
housing.
Mr. Ward replied yes it was in the original master plan. It was about 6 acres and that would
make a difference of about 12 units.
Member Carroll asked if filings four and five had specific densities on the master plan.
Mr. Ward replied that the master plan he was familiar with when he first started was not
broken down exactly the way the fourth and fifth filings were. The September 1988 master
plan in area K, which was most of the fifth filing, showed 20 units. The previous one showed
I I and they had 17 all in the same area. In what was now the fourth filing, the area between
parcel F, on the 1986 master plan, had 56 units. The September 1988 master plan had 36 units,
The conceptual plan on display at the sales office had 46 units and they were proposing 41.
The 56 units did include the church, so if you discount 12 units there, they were proposing 41,
it was essentially the same.
Member Carroll stated the most recent approved master plan for what was the fifth filing
called for 20 units and they were proposing 17 and what was now called the fourth filing
originally had 56 units when the church was included.
Mr. Ward stated the fourth filing had 56 plus 16 for parcel F, so it would be 72. The original
master plan had 16 units there, the September 1988 master plan bumped that to 35 units and
they were back down 18.
Member Carroll asked if the 35 units were approved.
Mr. Ward stated that is what was on the September 1988 master plan.
Member Carroll asked if it was approved.
Mr. Ward replied that he and Ted Shepard were trying to find the records of that today and
he hesitated to say it was approved because he was not involved at the time and they could not
find minutes to that effect. They have a master plan dated September 1988 that they got a
copy from City Engineering.
Mr. Shepard stated they were basing everything on the 1986 master plan that was approved by
the Planning and Zoning board in June of 1986.
Member Carroll asked if the 1986 plan approved 16 units and they were at 18. Also, on the
portion of the fourth filing south of the church site, approved 56 and they were at 41 and if
what he said was the fifth filing was correct.
Mr. Ward stated that the 1986 master plan had 11 and they were at 17.
Member Carroll stated there was an increase in the fifth filing of 6 and a decrease of 15 in the
fourth filing south of the church and an increase of two in the area north of the church.
Mr. Ward stated the totals for the 1986 master plan were 83 and they had 76 total.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Shepard if it was a requirement to have neighborhood meetings on
subdivisions.
Mr. Shepard replied no. The neighborhood requirement was found in the LDGS, but they had
often had neighborhood meetings for straight subdivisions. The reason they did not have a
neighborhood meeting for this project wasn't because it was a subdivision versus a PUD. It was
because the Planning Department believed the project conformed to the master plan and the
two land uses were compatible in the area.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Shepard if he agreed with Mr. Ward's numbers that he just went
through.
Mr. Shepard replied if you tossed out the 1988 reference, the 1986 master plan was approved
for 83 units and the fourth and fifth filings showed 76 units distributed as Mr. Ward described.
Member Carroll asked that it had a kind of a shift from the fifth filing going up 6 and the
fourth going down 15 in the area south of the church and was it something he had looked at
in reviewing this.
Mr. Shepard replied that given the lot sizes and given the existing zoning that was on the
ground, the R-L-P zoning, the subdivision code requires that the lots be a minimum of 6,000
s.f. All of the lots in the fourth and fifth filings exceed that and that was a criteria they had
to look at.
Member Carroll stated there were three other concerns, the lack of parks planning, the lack of
concern for a school, children and traffic, and the last one was the entry from the south was
attractive.
Mr. Shepard commented on the neighborhood park. The Parks and Recreation Department
bases their parkland needs on a square mile section. That was the baseline territory in which
they try to get a neighborhood park of approximately 8 to 15 acres every square mile. In this
particular square mile section, at the extreme southwest fringe of the city, about half of the
square mile section had been developed in the county and the city will never be able to collect
parkland development fees on those units. That leaves a balance of about half the section. Vo-
Tech had already been developed. They would never get parkland development fees in that
area.
That did not leave a lot of area left, and at those kinds of densities, the Parks and Recreation
Department was struggling to generate sufficient parkland fees for a neighborhood park. The
parks master plan that did come out did identify an area out there. A neighborhood park and
the location was conceptual and it indicated the potential future need for a site somewhere in
that general vicinity. They had identified a need in the square mile section for a park, but the
logistics of getting the land and the fees were proving difficult.
Mr. Shepard replied that the entry features were attractive, especially along Shields. The cul-
de-sacs were open and there were breaks in the fenceline and there was not the monotonous
canyon effect. There would be landscaping along Shields. The school boundaries and the
school facilities and the school capacities were an issue that would have to be taken up by the
school board and they were meeting tonight about working more closely with the city.
He really could not address those issues.
Member Carroll asked if they could take that into account when approving or disapproving
preliminary subdivisions.
Mr. Shepard replied that what they could consider tonight was were there local streets of
adequate width, were there collector streets that serve the arterial, and were the arterial streets
going to be improved with this development. All of that would be happening with the fourth
and fifth filings.
Member Strom asked Mr. Shepard if the traffic impact assessment had been conducted based
on the densities of the master plan and the subdivisions that had come through to date, and if
he had determined what street improvements including off-street improvements were necessary
to accommodate development at these densities, and as far as the city's analysis was concerned,
did he see a problem with traffic.
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. Shields Street, the arterial, was scheduled to be improved
with these two filings.
Member Carroll asked if the board approved this on preliminary, what would they be looking
at or asked to approve or recommend on final.
Mr. Shepard replied they would be'looking for substantial compliance with the preliminary
because there were conditions attached to both of the filings that relate to the width of the
Burns Tributary and the Fossil Creek drainage areas. Those conditions need to be satisfied and
in substantial compliance with the preliminary.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Clarendon Hills Subdivision 4th and 5th filings, preliminary.
She believed that procedures to notify residents were followed and that according to the
Planning Director 51 letters were sent to area residents. The church was notified and involved
in this and was in conformance with the master plan.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Chairman Klataske asked Member O'Dell if she was motioning for both the 4th and 5th or
separate.
Member O'Dell replied both the 4th and 5th with the condition as recommended by staff
concerning the Burns Tributary.
Member Strom stated that was acceptable.
Member Walker stated it seemed to him that what was being proposed there was in substantial
conformance with the master plan. He did not see the concerns of the neighborhood. He was
not swayed because the plan that was proposed was essentially being met, and was not swayed
by their concerns about open space and a park. Those things would be a nice amenity and it
was well explained that was difficult because of the densities in that part of the city. It
seemed it was in conformance with what was approved all along.
Member Strom stated that it appeared to him that there was a communication problem rather
than a substantive problem in terms of the compatibility of this development with the existing
homes in the area. He thought that was unfortunate but it did not sway his judgement, and
they were clearly in compliance with the zoning for the area with this proposal, and they were
so close to the master plan that he did not think it could be argued at all that it was out of
compliance with the master plan. The issues brought up appeared to be all addressed along the
line with the possible exception of the parks question, and that was not something they were
in a position to correct tonight. Putting it off 60 days would not make any difference to that
quandary the city faces in terms of a park there and for those reasons he would be supporting
the motion.
Member Carroll stated he would be supporting the motion as well. He stated he was always
concerned when a number of people turn out. The whole system of planning in the city
through the LDGS involved public input and many times they have matters that come up and
no one shows up on and then the concerns are brought up later, so he was affected when people
take the time to come to one of these meetings. However, he agreed with Member Strom that
as far as inadequate notification, he did feel there were homeowners that had been notified.
The one issue he focused on was the significant deviation from the developers original master
plan. Their system of developing property does create predictability, both for adjoining land
owners and the developer himself takes it through the master plan, preliminary plan, final
plan, and had he thought it was a significant deviation from the master plan, he would vote
to table or oppose, but he did not believe that it did. The provisions for the parks, common
area and open space had been addressed by the master plan. The impact on school enrollment
and traffic flow as explained by Mr. Shepard that was not in their purview. They can't say
whether to disapprove a subdivision because there was no school there. That was not part of
the city's function. Traffic flow was adequate and the preservation of an attractive southwest
entry corridor and he thought the answer he received was satisfactory when he asked about it.
He did not believe there had been a significant deviation from the master plan, and it was
being followed, and the element of predictability for all parties was being followed by a
significant degree.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Shepard that if the current residents and the future residents of
Clarendon Hills wished to pursue investigating having a park in their area, what did they have
to do, and did this subdivision plan prohibit having a neighborhood park in that area.
Mr. Shepard replied, yes it did, with the exception of working with the church site. The Parks
and Recreation Department and the Parks Planning Staff had been aware for years of the need
for a location and the desire for a park out there and they had been negotiating in good faith
and trying to find a location. The Parks Department was aware of the need but that did not
mean the citizens could not become involved with the Parks Department and the Parks and
Recreation Board and get involved in that process.
Mr. Peterson echoed what Mr. Shepard said and he thought citizen involvement was important
in areas like this that were marginal for parks because of the densities. If the residents were
concerned about the lack of a park, it was very important to let the Parks and Recreation
Board know and let the Parks and Rec staff know about their concerns. Even though they had
been working over the past couple of years to unsuccessfully acquire a park in the area, there
was a lot more emphasis when coming from citizens rather than staff, and would encourage
them to keep trying.
Member Cottier stated she was going to support the motion also because the density was in
conformance, generally, with what had been approved initially. She would also like to
comment that with it being the same developer, that the quality of the existing development
would be maintained in the 4th and 5th filings.
Chairman Klataske thanked everyone that had showed up to speak to them about this matter,
which ever way the board votes. It was not very often they get this kind of turn out for an
item that originally was thought not controversial. They appreciated their involvement and
looked forward to hearing from them in the future.
Motion was approved 7-0.
GALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 36-90
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated this meeting was continued from the September 24th meeting.
In summary this was a request to annex and zone approximately 235 acres, located at the
northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The area was outlined in red on the
map behind him and the zoning request was different this evening than what was proposed and
discussed at the September meeting. The request was for 28 acres of Highway Business, 91.9
acres of Industrial Park, 64.5 acres of Planned Residential, and 51.1 acres of T-Transition.
Another unique feature of this particular annexation was that the current urban growth
boundary as established with the agreement with the City and the County divides the property,
essentially the eastern 78 acres is presently located outside of the urban growth area boundary.
Mr. Waido outlined these areas on a slide for the board stating the subject property was the
dark area outlined in red, the black line up through the mid section, out to County Road 5 and
up further north was the current urban growth area boundary. The dotted line was the current
City of Fort Collins incorporated boundary. Essentially the western half of the area to the west
of the Interstate 25 was currently annexed into the City.
Mr. Waido used a conceptual master plan to outline to areas that were being requested for the
various zones adding that the board in its discussion this evening would not be giving any
approval preliminary or another way to the master plan. The zoning districts would have a
legal description and meets and bounds description for those areas when those items go to
Council in ordinance form. 28 acres were being requested for Highway Business, they were the
southwestern portion of the areas labeled A,B,C, on the master plan. 91.1 acres were requested
for the IP- Industrial Park was the white areas moreless in the central and the northwestern
part labeled F,E,H,D, on the master plan. R-P for 64.5 acres was the light areas labeled L,M,N,
on.the master plan and essentially the zones were in the same areas the board looked at the
September meeting, the difference in the zoning request was the inclusion of a new T-
Transition zone for 51.1 acres approximately, the gold area located in the central portion of the
annexation on the master plan, areas g,k, and j. The T-Transition zone is a zone that was
placed into the City of Fort Collins Zoning Code several years ago specifically for the purpose
of allowing properties to annex into the City and meet the State requirement for zoning.
Properties upon annexation have to be zoned within 90 days of annexation. The T zone was
actually a holding zone, no development was allowed in the T zone. The property would have
to be rezoned out of the T-Transition zone into one of the other 23 other developable zones in
the community. He mentioned this as more of a holding zone than a T-Transition Zone because
the master plan or the zoning was not to be interpreted that the land uses may eventually end
up in the area would be a transition or need to be in transition between the varying uses, either
within the annexed property or the properties adjacent to the annexed property. He thought
it was very likely that those uses that would eventually end up there would be transitional in
nature but the zoning T-Transition was just the name of a zone.
Staff was going to recommend approval of the annexation and the zoning request as placed
before them, they find that the annexation was in conformance with the policies and
agreements contained in the intergovernmental agreement for the urban growth area between
the City and Latimer County. The area meets all the criteria and state statutes to qualify for
a voluntary annexation. On October 16th the City Council accepted the petition and
established a public hearing date to consider the ordinances annexing and zoning a property,
that date has been set for November 20th of this year. Staff had evaluated the highway
business, industrial park, and planned residential zoning districts and find that they were in
• conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Again, they did recommend
approval of the annexation and zoning as being placed before them this evening and he would
be happy to address any questions the board might have.
Member Carroll stated they needed to be very clear and the map in front of them was for
illustration purposes only. When this goes before City Council for approval or disapproval,
assuming its approved, those won't appear. L,M, and N would just be one piece. They would
not be approving or disapproving the roads and letters.
Mr. Waido replied that what they would be approving would be a meets and bounds boundary
description outlining the areas. The master plan was only up there to show the general
locational proximity of the zones.
Member Carroll stated they received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nichols that he had read several
times. One of the comments mentioned was the eastern area that was outside the UGA and
there was a comment and he quotes, "We could live with development of this section if it was
designated with a density of no more than one unit per 3/4 to 1 acre". Now, if this comes in
as R-L, and later comes back as a master plan, did they have flexibility on the density.
Mr. Waido stated that one minor correction, was the proposed zoning was R-P, Planned
Residential not R-L. One thing that he failed to mention was that they were recommending
a PUD condition be placed on all the zones except the T zone. That means that before the
property was developed it would have to come through the three processes, the master plan, the
preliminary plan and the final plan for each of them. At the boards purview of approving the
master plan for the R-P zoned area that would be the time that the board would be asked to
approve anticipated or proposed densities. The acreage figure of 64.5 would have a blob or a
series of blobs like was indicated on this master plan with a potential number of dwelling units
on that. Because this was a PUD or would have a PUD condition, all development would be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The subdivision on Clarendon Hills which they
just reviewed, that was a straight zoning district, R-L-P, and it sets certain minimums, and once
the developer satisfies all the zoning code and subdivision code requirements, the board has
very little flexibility or authority as to what can happen. But in this case, with a PUD
condition, they would be involved in establishing the density and the ultimate layout of the
property.
Member Carroll asked to exaggerate just for the purpose of this discussion, if the developer
brought before them a master plan that said had 2 units per acre and they determined that was
not compatible with the surrounding area and wished to have one unit per 2 acres, that was
something that would be in their discussion.
Mr. Waido replied that would be in their purview, but they would also have to be granting a
variance or looking at a variance to a criteria in the LDGS which indicates a minimum of 3
dwelling units per acre should be approved residentially in the city for service reasons,
economical provisions of services and facilities.
Member Carroll asked if they could grant the variance.
Mr. Waido replied they could.
Mr. Eldon Ward, representing the applicant, George Pavilakis, stated he would like to run
through a series of things. Since they began this process there had been some very basic
questions raised, should this area be annexed, particularly since part of it extends beyond the
existing urban growth area and if so, how would they arrive at the appropriate zoning.
Annexation of this area was consistent will the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement
which allows for the circumstance where a property is bi-sected by the urban growth area.
Mr. Ward explained a map of City and County zoning and annexations in the northeast area
along I-25. The city limits had grown out past I-25 in a couple of areas, typically, there had
been large blocks of industrial highway business granted. In Larimer County there were very
large blocks of C-Commercial zoning in those areas, virtually, the entire quarter section to the
south, several hundred acres to the north were in a very wide open county C-Commercial zone
and one of the aspects to consider in this annexation was that this property would help to
establish contiguity and help the eligibility of those properties to be annexed. A concern that
was raised was that annexation of this property would some how open the door for annexations
further to the east and further amendments to the urban growth area boundary. They did not
feel that was the case as they said the intergovernmental agreement had some specific
allowances for the unusual conditions here for other properties to added to the urban growth
area, other annexations to the east would pretty much require whole sale rethinking of the
intergovernmental agreement. This did not set a president, because it was split by the UGA
line. The property was under a single ownership and had been for at least the last 18 years.
The urban growth area line did go as far east as County Road 5 a short distance north of the
property. One of the considerations was the provision of urban services. The current plan for
urban services in this area do provide for service out to County Road 5. The master street plan
showed Prospect and County Road 5 both as arterial streets that would complete a loop back
into the City and up to Mulberry. Light and Power is currently planning to extend a major
trunk line out prospect and up County Road 5. The city's master plan for water runs a water
line through the center of the section where it would be able to provide service on both sides.
As Ken stated they only brought this at the last meeting, it was not particularly clear where
the zoning designations were and what their logic was in establishing them. They generally
feel there was an advantage to keep this property intact annex the whole thing and have the
owner retain the ability to do a unified master plan for the entire piece and he thought that
was consistent with the boards actions over the years. He thought that determining whether
the easterly 77 some acres should be annexed or not was more a question of jurisdiction that
of development. The slide illustrates that there are existing subdivisions to the north and south
of that area. That fact combined with the planned extension of urban services he thought it
was very likely that this area would develop.
The applicant was aware of the challenges posed by making development compatible with the
existing subdivisions to the north and across Prospect to the south. He thought the question
was, is that concern better addressed through the City's LDGS or through development as
another county subdivision. He thought that their feeling was that leaving it in the county or
putting a very restrictive zoning designation limiting numbers at this time. If you look at some
of the scattered low density subdivisions around the county, their conclusion was simply
limiting the number did not assure quality or compatibility and that the guidance system was
a better vehicle through which to address that. They will admit part of their concern with this
was that the future plans were uncertain. That was simply stating the facts, the applicant did
not know exactly what would be build there. Part of the philosophy of the LDGS was that
rather than artificially addressing exact density, lot sizes, prices of homes, architectural
character at the time of zoning you get into those things at the evolutionary process of master
plans, preliminary plans and very specific details with file plans. The four zoning districts
they were requesting, Planned Residential, although they did not know what type of residential
would go in there. They felt that it was appropriate to keep the door open to allow a variety
of housing types in the area. As they saw a few minutes ago, you could not always predict far
ahead of time the number of units that was appropriate. There were trade offs, the ability to
do more units did allow more buffering between adjacent uses. It may create the potential for
a city park in this case which wouldn't be there extremely low densities. They did not know
what the density ought to be but they think that would be best addressed at the master plan
stage. The industrial park zone, they were asking for was very consistent, in fact, he thought
the non-residential zoning that they were asking for was very modest compared to what had
been placed in other areas in the county and in the city with recent annexations out there.
They felt it was consistent and appropriate given the surrounding zoning and potential land
uses. The T-Transition area had been troublesome to both them and some of the area residents
because it leaves a greater level of uncertainty but at this point they did not have a better
suggestion. They had originally submitted this without a T-Transition zone, that was the area
they felt was the most critical. It was between the non-residential uses and the residential areas
to the east and again instead of taking a shot in the dark and putting a zoning designation on
there at this time they felt it would be more appropriate to come back when they were further
along and had a better idea of what might be appropriate at that time. That was his
presentation and he would be happy to answer any questions or if they like he could come back
later and respond after there had been more discussion.
Ms. Edie Stout, 1801 Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates south of the proposed Galatia
Annexation stated over the past few weeks several of them had been busy talking to many city
officials and city staff including people from the utilities, zoning and planning departments.
Their goal was to learn planning procedures, zoning possibilities, annexation policies and
general information about the Galatia Annexation. They wanted them to know that it was
their intention to approach this in a knowledgeable and reasonable way. They had achieved
a greater understanding of the issues and had put together a statement which she would like
to read to them this evening. They should have a copy of this in front of them. "Ladies and
Gentlemen: We are property owners in the areas adjacent to the proposed Galatia Annexation.
This letter is a statement of our concerns and recommendations for consideration by the
Planning and Zoning Board. In general we feel the developers revised zoning proposal has
failed to assuage our concerns about the density of the residential development and his
commitment to providing aesthetic transitions to the surrounding existing use. We have these
specific concerns and recommendations:
1. All the current residential development surrounding the proposed project consists of
estate acreage. We propose that a special zoning district be created for the residential
areas that designates the maximum density to be one unit per 3/4 acre. Insuring land
use compatibility in this area outside the urban growth area.
2. The problem of industrial park boarding on residences was addressed in the revised
proposal by using T-Transitional zoning. At the neighborhood developer meeting, we
learned that the designation of T-Transitional could ultimately allow virtually any use.
The developer gave office business parks and multi -family residential of example of
potential uses. This designation provides no assurance of use compatible of the
surrounding area. Therefore, they would like the developer to change the T-
Transitional zone to industrial park and to designate a large 200 to 300 foot landscaped
greenbelt area between the industrial park and these residences.
3. The potential for widening Prospect Road to a four to five lane highway presents a
threat to all residences that boarder Prospect on the south. A very large irrigation ditch
runs parallel to and just yards from Prospect along the eastern half of Galatia's
southern boundary. Which would not allow equal land from each side to expand the
road. We feel that a solution to this problem could be established prior to annexation
to insure the integrity of existing residences.
4. If the annexation occurs the city will assume the responsibility of police protection of
the area. With increased residential population as well as increased traffic to and
through the roadside business and industrial business. We are concerned about the
ability of the Fort Collins Police Department adequately serve this fringe area. We are
also concerned that the City's commitment of protecting our area which will be heavily
affected by city growth while remaining outside the city boundary.
0
5. City officials conceded the Boxelder Sanitation System is currently used to its maximum
capacity. At the Neighborhood -Developer meeting, the developer indicated his
intention to connect to that system. The use of the Boxelder System, its capacity and
expansion plans should be understood prior to annexation.
As you can see there are thirty four signatures and I thank you for your consideration of our
concerns".
Carol Dunn, who lives in the Kitchuawa Estates stated they were very concerned with the
transitional areas and what might be done there. They did agree they would like to see some
greenbelt area put in around their area.
Bill Jump, 1617 Carriage Road, Homestead Estates to the south stated that first of all he would
like to thank the Planning Board for letting them as a neighborhood have a chance to listen to
the developer and bring this matter over into continuance. He was glad to see that the
developer at least listened to somewhat to the area by trying to at least address the area that's
transition. He thought that as they heard the testimony tonight the big issue was going to be
what was the transition between the large residential acreages. He did not know what was the
best zoning to place this time, his concern was that whatever was agreed to by the Planning and
Zoning Board that they be large constraints or considerations given as this goes to a master plan
of what that transition would look like. We were not only talking low density in your terms
of residential acreage we were talking very low densities. He was glad to see the Galatia folks
at least try to address some of those concerns but would also hope that as they go through the
notification process the next time, the 500 foot radius be approved. He would like to thank
Ken personally for doing a better job the second time in notifying us of the meeting. He hoped
the names would be kept in a file most of them tend to be longer term residents. It seemed to
be a communication problem with the county and city as to who are the land owners out there.
His concern was that he hoped they would address the whole issue of transition zoning and not
in the sense of t-transition but to insure that there was a quality of life maintained and that
they do make the gradation between the very low density residential and the industrial that
was proposed.
Roger Anderson, 1709 Carriage Road, stated what no one had shown so far is what they
actually had. These were plotted as five acre plots, there were already two houses, custom
homes constructed. Down along the south side they had one acre and five acre lots and the last
home being built was $280,000. What they had in the planned residential was 450 house and
that did not correspond with the surrounding development. Across the road also they had the
large custom homes, going up the hill the furthest section, he was unfamiliar with what section
that was, but if you drive down 14 you would see all large custom homes in that area. So what
they were bringing in here as far as transitional, this could be apartment houses as far as they
know, no one can assure them of anything. That was why they were pushing for a greenbelt.
If they do change this over to industrial business park, definitely put a greenbelt in there. It
was like the last issue with the Clarendon, they had large lots also and they were getting
blocked in, so plan wisely.
Chuck Nacos, owner of the property that the annexation directly affects. His back yard would
border this. He bought five acre lot and he and his wife felt that the corridor to Timnath was
headed rural, theres large acreage, there was no sewer that could service this area now and they
envisioned it staying rural. He did not feel that any of the industrial business park annexation
was responsive to what this area had been headed for. He thought it was all out of line and the
developers use that yes it was common north and common south but those areas were rural farm
areas. This area already had a good residential estate thing going. They did not anticipate this
and he did not think that if in 1986 you could approve the Clarendon Subdivision with 2 to 3
homes per acre that they could allow a industrial park to even be close to what was taking place
out there now.
Sherry Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire Drive, Homestead Estates, stated at the last City Council
meeting last week as Mr. Ward was making the point that a city subdivision adjacent to county
rural acreages was compatible land use, he drew a comparison of their situation to the
Clarendon Hills Subdivision and the surrounding areas. Unfortunately, with the R-P zoning
they have no insurance that the development of the 64.5 acres planned residential area would
yield a one unit per acre density as was the average in Clarendon Hills so far. In fact the
developer has indicated there was a good chance that the density would be much higher than
this. Actually they would be quite satisfied with the residential area being developed with a
density of one unit per acre as in Clarendon Hills. That would in deed be compatible with the
existing acreages. She had also signed the letter that Mrs. Stout read.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Waido to address the issue of expanding the Urban Growth Area
boundary. Why was it appropriate and whether or not the City had any overall policies in
terms of what they might look to in the eastern and southern area or were they just going to
see individual little boundary change requests come in as people might be interested in
annexing.
Mr. Waido replied that first he wanted to define what the Urban Growth Area was. An area
that both the City and County agree was the appropriate area for urban density development
in terms of residential density's and urban types of commercial and business industrial uses.
The area that had been designated through an inter -governmental agreement. It was thought
that this area could be adequately provided with urban level services through the phasing or
expansion of existing facilities. That was both in terms of hard services such as utilities, water,
sewer, power, streets and other sort of non in the ground services, police and fire protection,
parks and recreation facilities, social services and so on. The Urban Growth Area boundary
was based primarily upon an urban service area study that the City and County and the Special
Purpose Utilities Districts did in the late 70's. When the boundary was established through the
formal agreement in 1980, it was extended out the Interstate corridor in recognition that this
corridor would become extremely important to the community Fort Collins in the future as a
business, commercial residential, industrial area because of the major transportation facility
that existed in the area and also existing utility lines. He had a map showing sewer district
lines, sewer being one of the primary or major utilities to determine urbanization. The black
line on this map represent the major trunk facilities of the Boxelder Sanitation District, the
blue and red indicate current city facilities and blue and red being proposed extensions. Black
lines in the southern part being the major mains of the South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
So as they could see basically the entire Urban Growth Area boundary which was the dark grey
area was currently or could be served with minor extensions of those major facilities.
When the boundary was established in 1980, quite frankly, they did not know at that time that
the boundary was dividing this property. The concern in 1980 was to insure that, and the
reason that it was the two quarter section north and south of Prospect, was to insure that when
development occurred that the City had influence over the Interstate interchange likewise
when the boundary was amended in 1984 to bring in the Anheuser Busch properties and a new
interchange built at County Road 50, they again amended the boundary to insure that both the
quarter sections on the eastside of the Interstate were brought in. The policy again, is that the
Urban Growth Area was the area that was appropriate for urban development. It was also the
policy for the city to annex this area within the Urban Growth Area as opportunities arise and
they do evaluate those on a case by case basis. It was possible that other incremental changes
would be made.
• 0
A major change and a significant change to the agreement was made in 1988 and that was to
allow the city the opportunity to consider the annexation of property outside the Urban
Growth Area boundary, so the city under the new agreement had the opportunity to evaluate
the property from its own perspective its own service potential perspective and make a
unilateral decision as to whether or not that property would be incorporated into the city limits
or not. Prior to 1988 an Urban Growth Area boundary amendment involved both the City
Council and the County Commissioners to amend a boundary and that took a process and then
the city had to go through a secondary process to deal with annexation. The County essentially
said, "That if the City feels that they want to annex the property and assume the responsibility
of servicing and so forth, then that was basically their decision". The County wanted to
notified of those annexations and wanted an opportunity to look at what might be the impact
of annexation of County facilities but essentially was saying "City that was your decision if
you want to annex that ground". He has a letter from the County that addressed the County's
perspective and the County was recommending approval of this annexation.
Other that the agreements and the policies within the intergovernmental agreement and within
the City's own comprehensive plan, there was no outer boundary that exists for the eastern
portion of the Urban Growth Area nor the northern portion of the Urban Growth Area similar
that exist to the west with the foothills region and on the southern boundary with the open
space corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. There had not been a detailed or a looking
at how far east that boundary may go, however, he thought through testimony this evening they
had heard that the boundary may have difficulty extending much further to the east due to
the existing or the potential of large lot County Subdivisions. First of all those would be
difficult to annex if they were under individual ownership and they would be difficult to
jump over Incorporation of such large lot areas into the city was a fiscal concern and it would
have to be evaluations (cost/benefit). The reason the guidance system was set at minimum of
three units per acre residential density was that the very lowest residential density could go
and begin to pay its own way in terms of taxes generated and services demanded by that type
of density. So as we get to get out toward these large lot subdivisions it was a major fiscal
consideration by the city upon annexation of those and are we going to absorb the service
responsibility for areas of that nature.
Member Cottier stated she was asking for this explanation for the benefit of everyone here as
to how we approach Urban Growth Area boundary questions and what might be expected in
the future to.
Mr. Waido replied in terms of a policy there was only one policy which begins to limit the city's
annexation in a certain direction and that was along the southern boundary. It did say that the
city should not annex below County Road 32 or below Fossil Creek Reservoir. In terms of a
policy, in terms of limitation of expansion of the Urban Growth Area, that was the only
written policy within the agreement. They did have a physical problem with the foothills area
but there were no there physical or policy problems with northern or eastern expansion of the
Urban Growth Area. Again they would evaluate them on a case by case basis.
Member Walker asked one of the concerns of some of the people that spoke to them was the
issue of the Boxelder Sanitation System being currently used to its maximum capacity. Could
he address the issues associated with this property using that sanitation system.
Mr. Waido replied that Boxelder for the past 15 years had been nearing its capacity within its
existing treatment facility. When you talk about capacity of the Boxelder Sanitation District
• that was what you were talking about was their existing treatment facility. We know that
treatment capability was nearing its maximum and they were in the process of planning for
expansions and were discussing with the city of a possible combination of the sanitation
district with the city system. Its a relatively simple engineering task since the sanitation
districts treatment facility was across the river from the city's treatment facility. A tie line
or a simple line to connect the existing Boxelder system with the City system which has excess
capacity could be handled. Again that takes some negotiation between the board of directors
of the Boxelder Sanitation District and the City of Fort Collins. He was also not aware in
detail what had been approved under the 208 Wastewater Management Planning process, what
expansions could occur within the Boxelder Sanitation Treatment Facility itself. We know that
the existing treatment facility was nearing capacity but he was not well enough versed to talk
about whether they had expansion plans that had been approved under the 208 law.
Member Walker asked about the concern of widening Prospect Road at some point down the
road and the irrigation ditch and could he address that.
Mr. Waido replied that there was no question that if Prospect Road was to be widened, it would
create problems either north of the road or south of the road. South of the road with existing
residences and north of the road with the irrigation ditch. Again the need and the timing for
Prospect Road to be widened was at the time of development and was normally not an issue at
the time of annexation because they did not have any detailed plans specifically before us
where we know how wide it has to be or those types of issues where intersections were going
to occur. It was a problem for the developer because he was going to have to deal with the
ditch and the development process that, there was a whole series of alternatives available. The
ditch could be rerouted, it could be covered over. There were a multitude of options that could
be used. The ditch could be combined with another irrigation system somewhere else to
transport water. We do not know those answers because we do not have a development plan
before them. There was no question that as the property develops the issue of the irrigation
canal would have to be addressed. Prospect Road would be subjected to any improvements that
would be demanded by the density and intensity of uses that eventually end up on the property.
Prospect Road was designated as an arterial street, that means that is will function as a major
transportation link in the city street network. Its function and engineering with our usually
go hand in hand and in order for a road to function as an arterial, improvements need to be
made. It could still function as an arterial with a two lane road or a four lane road with
minimum engineering widths but something will have to happen with the ditch in the long run
but he did not think anybody was ready to address it, neither himself or any transportation
engineer at this point in time.
Member O'Dell asked that if it were determined that this particular development warranted
an increase in the width of the road, where would the width come from, the north or the south
and was there already a dedicated right-of-way increase right-of-way on the southern part of
the road.
Mr. Waido replied there was a 60 foot right-of-way for Prospect Road. Thirty feet on either
side of the center line when a development comes in and they were not quite certain. The
engineering standard for an arterial was a 100 foot right-of-way with a 70 foot street. Given
existing development on either side of the street, the city has been known to offset the road
and right of way to accommodate existing development.
Member Klataske asked about the T-Transition zone and the map showed the other zones would
be with a PUD condition and was there such a thing as a PUD condition on the T-Transition
zone.
Mr. Waido replied it would be moot since the T zone did not allow any development, there was
no need to require any development in the T zone to go through the PUD process.
Member Klataske asked when it was zoned then would meet a condition that what ever zoned
proposed for it would have a PUD condition.
Mr. Waido replied they would make that recommendation at the time and hopefully the board
would follow that recommendation and the City Council to and place a PUD condition on what
ever zone it ends up into.
Member Klataske asked if the annexation if it were approved create any enclaves that then
would be then subject to annexation on a statutory period.
Mr. Waido replied no this annexation did not.
Member O'Dell asked if Mr. Waido what kind of uses were allowed in the H-B and I-P zones.
Mr. Waido replied with a PUD condition, no uses were allowed by right in those zones.
Everything would have to come to the board and be approved through them. Some of the uses
allowed in the highway business zone, the designation of the zone was for automobile oriented
businesses. The uses permitted were any use in the R-M district, a residential district which
allows up to a duplex on a minimum 6,000 square foot lot, and any use permitted in the B-L,
limited business zone, banks, savings and loans, standard and fast food restaurants, indoor
theaters, membership clubs, offices, clinics, personal service shops, retail stores, laundry and
dry cleaning outlets, primarily serving retail customers, limited indoor recreation uses, small
veterinary clinics, aquarium shops, public utility installation and accessory businesses. Even
though the highway business zone was designated for auto -related uses, there really not very
many auto related uses as typically come to mind as auto related uses, a drive thru restaurant,
automobile sales, gasoline stations those types of things, they are not listed as uses by right in
the Highway Business zone. Those have to be going through the PUD process. It was sort of
a double whammy by putting the PUD condition on the Highway Business zone in an attempt
to control highway or automobile related uses because they already have to go through the PUD
process whether or not there was a PUD condition on the property or not.
Member O'Dell asked about the I-P zone.
Mr. Waido replied that the I-P zone would refer back to the I-L zone. The I-P district, the
designation in the code was for light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses.
The I-P district was designed for industrial uses in proximity to areas zoned for residential use
and along arterial streets. Again it refers back to the I-L zone and the I-L zone list uses such
as automobile repair, automobile sales, builders supply yards and lumber yards, offices, parking
lots, personal service shops, veterinary hospitals, plumbing and electrical, carpenter shops,
printing and newspaper shops, warehouses, utility installations, assembly packaging,
installation of gauges, electric, or electronic instruments or similar equipment, recreational
uses. It also has the following light industrial uses, manufacturing of electronic instruments,
preparation of food product, pharmaceutical manufacturing, research, scientific laboratories.
Light industrial uses shall not include uses such as mining, extracting industries, petrochemical
industrial industries, rubber refining or primary metal or similar type of industries. The PUD
condition on all of these zones does not give any uses by right, all uses would have to be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Member O'Dell stated that designating a zone, designates expectation of that's how it would be
developed.
Mr. Waido replied that it did create some expectations for ultimate development of the
property. Again the first development related step would be approval by the board of a master
plan and at that time the types of uses, the density etc. would begin to be established, but those
again are a guarantee nor limitation, still an individual project would come through and would
have to stand on its own merits.
Chairman Klataske asked if the T-Transition zone would come to them in 60-90 days for a
zoning designation.
Mr. Waido replied the city code provides a process for removal of a T-Transition zone.
According to the code 60 days after the board hears that item the City Council was obligated
to remove the T-Transition zone and place a developable zone on the property. If the applicant
requested zone A, he did not have to get nor was the city obligated to zone it A, they could zone
it B, C, D or what ever they felt was appropriate for the area.
Chairman Klataske asked if that was through City Council or Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Waido replied the Council would place the both acting on a recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Chairman Klataske asked if there would be an opportunity for further public input on the T-
Transition zone at this board and wondered if there would be another neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Waido replied that there would notification of any rezoning effort on the property and
then there would be a minimum of two public hearings, one before the Planning and Zoning
Board to formulate a recommendation to the City Council and at least one public hearing if not
two in front of the City Council.
Chairman Klataske asked if there would be notification published in the paper.
Mr. Waido replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if there was a time limit with respect to how long a property could be
zoned T.
Mr. Waido replied no there was not.
Member Strom moved for approval of the proposed Galatia Annexation and Zoning having
agreed with the findings in the staff report regarding the consistency with policies and
agreements of the Intergovernmental Agreement and consistency with criteria of State laws
presented to them by the staff the resolution passed by the City Council on October 16th and
that the zoning proposed was in conformance with the adopted policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Member Walker Seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated he thought his sense of the sensitive areas had to do with relationships
of land uses between the existing large lot residential and possible uses on the large parcel of
land divided into several types of future uses. It was his belief that the city's Land
Development Guidance System and the policies that the city exercises in using that Guidance
System provide the residents and homeowners in this vicinity a great deal of protection and a
great deal of opportunity to participate in this process. He knew that some of them had become
much more informed about the city's Land Development Systems in the last weeks and
encouraged them to continue that process. At a minimum the property would come back to
them three additional times and as they got further into the process the issues they look at
become more and more detailed and more specific with regard to what would happen on the
property and how it would relate to their properties when development occurred. He very
•
strongly encouraged them to continue the process of learning the system and continue to
participate in it and by no means from the standpoint of approving this did he discount their
concerns, it was his judgement that this project proposal could go forward and still protect
their interest in the quality of life in the residential areas.
Member Walker stated that he thought that the way the property had been proposed to be
brought into the city as far as zoning met the city's needs as far as what the city considers
appropriate zoning for city property and the PUD process that was being proposed would
provide an opportunity for the board and local residents to be involved in the process. The
Planned Residential on the east side of the property with a PUD could be made to be
compatible with the existing land uses. The way the property has been zoned, Highway
Business and Industrial Park was appropriate given its proximity to the Interstate. The T-
Transition means there was a large area in effect had not been resolved but had to go through
the process again and he was comfortable with that level of uncertainty at this time and that
-it did make sure that an area of sensitive concern abutting other properties would be looked
at closer. For those reasons he believed the proposed annexation and zoning was compatible
with city policy.
Member O'Dell stated she appreciated the input the residents had given them and what they
had learned was helpful to them and to the board to. She thought that having the PUD
condition on the land and thus having it go through the Land Development Guidance System
was going to allow alot of flexibility on the board's part and on the developer's part. Rather
that having a straight subdivision which might be 3 dwelling units per acre or 5 dwelling units
per acre, just stack one on top of the other, there was the possibility for the board to ask for
a clustering of homes and open space and greenbelts and things like that which would help
them. She thought leaving the zones in T-Transitional was for now not knowing what was
• happening out there and not knowing what was going to happen on the other vacant county
land she thought that it was the best thing to do know. She asked that rather that just having
the property owners in question notified of the zoning change, the people that had been
involved in the whole process be notified of that pending zoning change when ever that should
happen.
Member Cottier stated she was going to support the motion and thought the proposed zoning
was appropriate for the area and she having the PUD condition would provide a fair amount
of protection to the neighbors. She thought their basic concerns about a transitional uses and
low density simply could not be responded to at this point because they did not have any
development proposal to react to. At such time when a development proposal did come in that
was when they could really listen to them if they agree and work to keep the density lower and
more compatible with the neighborhood. Now was not the time when they could begin to
address that issue and the residential zoning was not a guarantee for any density but hopefully
when a development proposal it would be sensitive to a very low density compatible with the
existing homes there.
Member Carroll stated he to would support the motion because in recommending annexation
to City Council, the only thing they were doing was recommending that the area to the east in
a residential manner and the areas to the west be developed into the two zones suggested and
again the area in the middle was being put in a holding pattern. Since this was a PUD
condition any development was going to have to come back in front of them. He heard a
comment that the developer may propose a large density on it, well he might, he could really
propose what ever he wishes but first it would go through staff and then neighborhood
meetings and back to them for final decisions. One of the elements they look at in evaluating
master plans was neighborhood compatibility. Again that was no guarantee that they were
going to approve the type of density that anybody wants and they have no development plans
in front of them. These seven members may not be there when it comes back before the board
but the point was that this board would be the final arbiters of the density and the way the
subdivision was laid out and everyone would have the chance to voice the comment and that's
when the issues which he had and the other members had reviewed that had been brought up
in the letters would be addressed. For instance utilities, the city would not permit a
development to develop when they did not have utilities. That was something that had to go
through the proper departments of the city as opposed to people hooking up to sewer lines and
finding out they have no service.
Chairman Klataske stated that even though they did not have a proposed development on this,
at least with everyone's involvement this early in the stage it had put the developer and owner
on notice of what your concerns were so that he could work with them more closely in the
future and hopefully through that negotiation everyone would come out with a better project
that would work for their needs for property owners in the area and also work for the
developer instead of waiting until down the road when they had a development proposal before
them and there had been no citizen input on it and all at once you were asked to react to
something you were not aware of at all.
Motion was approved 7-0.
VICTORIA GABLES AT SILVERPLUME PUD - FINAL. #62-89D
Kirsten Whetstone gave the staff report stating the conditions from the preliminary approval
had been met.
Dick Rutherford of Stewart and Associates handed out copies of the site plan and landscape
plan that would more clearly identify what they were talking about as far as tracts A, B, and
C. They were colored and thought it would help them visualize what he was talking about.
He stated they did meet with the homeowners and seemed to be making progress and as they
left the meeting they felt that everything had been agreed upon. The first thing they agreed
on was the common maintenance of the landscaped area along the common boundary. The
second thing agreed upon was, as they had shown at the last meeting in September, the
developers would grant to the homeowners the old tracts A, B, and C which were little parcels
that stuck up into their existing PUD. They would add to that a strip along the south line of
the area between the legal boundary and the lots that were in the patio homes PUD. They were
actually splitting that area so now the three parcels that they had originally agreed to give to
them had all become one tract. They had originally agreed upon at the meeting with the
homeowners association and said they had a quorum and they could represent the homeowners.
The homeowner's had asked the developer if he would sell lot 7. After some discussion he
agreed to sell lot 7 and there was a verbal agreement on the terms and they left thinking that
everything had been agreed upon. They went back this week and changed their plan to show
the area that was representing what was deeded to the homeowner's in the green area. They
also included lot 7 and then late Friday afternoon they were informed that they had changed
their minds or disagreed in purchasing lot 7, so they added lot 7 back into their proposal. They
agreed at that time that they would soften the architecture of the buildings to have more lap
siding, have wainscotting brick on the rear and the sides of the paired housing that face the
condominiums. This was at the suggestion of the homeowner's architect and the developer
agreed to that.
The developer really thought that they had given in to everything that was to be agreed on and
had bent over backward to come to an agreement that would be satisfactory to both the
homeowners and the developers. As far as going back to placing the one paired housing on lot
7 rather than trying to make a duplex out of it, they still think this was a very good idea and
it places this paired housing about double the distance from the existing condominium building.
• If they were to use the old plan of building the rest of the condominiums out, the two buildings
would have been within about eighteen feet of each other and instead of the existing building
looking out at a single story duplex, it would have been looking twice as close at a two and a
half story ten unit condominium. They thought this was still a legitimate building site on lot
7 and they were not encroaching with the building on lot 7. At the one corner, the boundary
line will not be fenced. It will be green area on both sides of the line. At the point where the
boundary line comes close to the building, they do not encroach on the corner. Its only a corner
that was not parallel to the building, so it really is just at a point that it was even close. In the
original request they were asking the homeowners to trade a small triangle for all the rest they
had given into, but they did not agree to do that at the meeting, but in turn asked them to sell
lot 7. They really thought they had an agreement and were surprised they didn't. They still
think that this project stood on its own and it met the criteria as a good PUD and it reduced
the density from 144 units to 40 units and really should be looked at on its merit and approved.
They still agreed to give the homeowner's the strips of land that were outlined on the plats and
felt that made sense.
He said there was some concern on having access to the park through the green area and down
the street and sidewalks all along the park. They were not cutting off any access to the park,
in fact they were enhancing the pedestrian access to the park.
Member Carroll asked as far as the property line, he had indicated that the developer wants
to simply give the area shaded in green on their map to the condominium group. Was that
satisfactory to them to take that property.
Mr. Rutherford replied that it was at the meeting and he still assumed that it was.
Member Carroll stated that there were also some discussions of softening the northern
elevations of the patio homes to blend and was an agreement reached on that as well.
Mr. Rutherford replied that was agreed to at the meeting and it was somewhat their suggestion
Member Carroll asked about the maintenance of the green area space between the two
subdivisions and had that been worked out.
Mr. Rutherford replied there was still a line along there that had to be maintained on either
side and that would be the southerly line of their green area. Mr. Martell came up with an
agreement that was generally satisfactory. On his exhibit A he still had the line that took out
lot 7 and that part would not be agreeable to them, but the rest of the agreement was basically
agreeable.
Member Carroll stated there were also some concerns that part of this area that now belongs
to the developer had already been landscaped and there were already sprinkler heads and
systems that went onto the developers property. Was that all taken care of.
Mr. Rutherford replied yes, the sprinkler heads were back to the north. They did sprinkle
south across the boundary line and by them adding onto it he thought that it made everything
they were sprinkling inside the new boundary line. There might be a few feet here or there
but by adding the 12 feet, that was corrected.
Member Carroll asked if it was his understanding that the one area left in disagreement was
that the developer wishes to construct unit 7 and the condominium association believes that
should not be constructed on.
Mr. Rutherford replied all he could say was that the homeowner's had declined to buy lot 7 and
so they want to go back and build a paired housing unit so they would have a duplex on lot 7
and 8.
Jim Martell, representing the Gables Condominium Association, stated he did not represent the
individual homeowners within that association. He stated that Ms. Whetstone had included
minutes in their packets of the meeting that, had been discussed at length, that occurred a week
ago last Friday. He thought Ms. Whetstone's minutes were accurate as to what was or was not
agreed upon at that meeting. As indicated by Ms. Whetstone and the developer, the developer
had moved the boundary line. He did prepare a common landscape maintenance agreement
which was generally acceptable to the developer. The developer has agreed to soften some of
the architecture on the back side of the units that face the Gables project. As the minutes
indicated, the principle concern to the homeowner's association was lot 7. In order to satisfy
that concern, the association suggested that the developer relinquish his right to develop on lot
7, essentially to give up one building site. That was not acceptable to the developer at that
meeting. As a compromise it was suggested that the homeowner's association might be
interested in purchasing lot 7. He thought that if they would review Ms. Whetstone's minutes
of the meeting they would see that -it was made quite clear that the Board of Directors had no
authority to agree to buy that lot. They may have had the authority to enter into the landscape
agreement and to accept property to be deeded to them, but they did not have the authority to
buy property. That would have to go back to the homeowner's association. A meeting of the
entire association was held and in fact they informed the developer before that meeting that
they did not anticipate being able to obtain the votes necessary to authorize the purchase of
the lot and that turned out to be true. Of the people who attended the meeting, a majority did
not favor purchasing this particular lot.
Mr. Martell added issue tonight was whether this final plat satisfied the condition that was
established when the preliminary plat was approved approximately a month ago. There seemed
to be four elements to the condition. One was the boundary problems be resolved, another was
that there be a common landscape maintenance agreement, another was that the grass and
sprinkler in the common area be resolved and although it was not clear to him whether the
property that was being deeded goes all the was out to where there was grass, this was resolved
with the common maintenance agreement because they went an additional ten feet on either
side. The other issue and was number one on the list of sub -conditions within the motion, was
that the setbacks of the buildings from the property line be resolved and that had not been
resolved. Building 7 was not set back from the property lines, it is on the property line. It was
their position that until that condition was satisfied, this plat did not comply with the motion
for approval at the last meeting, because that condition had not been satisfied. He thought the
reason that was significant was because without that he did not think that this proposal meets
the LOGS in several respects. If you look at the development criteria for all developments,
criteria 30, which applies to privacy and criteria 3, which discusses minimizing adverse impacts
and mitigating, he did not think either one of those criteria had been satisfied.
He understood that within the development they may have zero lot lines and maybe within the
development that was appropriate, but when you are going to a neighbor and saying you are
going to build on your property line, that was not necessarily appropriate and he thought that
was why it was one of the conditions of the motion last time. The real issue before them
tonight and everyone had alluded to it was to put it bluntly, the problem was who has to bear
the burden of building 7. Because they were unable to reach a compromise agreement, the
homeowner's position was that the developer should just give up the right to develop lot 7. The
developer said no, so it was suggested that the homeowners might consider buying it. Who
should withstand the burden of the fact that they could not reach an agreement. Do the
homeowners have to sustain that burden and allow this building to be built on their property
line or should it be the developer's burden to try to resolve the matter either by rearranging the
buildings so there was some setback there, or by eliminating building 7. It seemed to him it
should be the developers burden. The argument that Mr. Rutherford touched on briefly was
that this ought to be O.K. because it was better that what would have been developed. It was
better than having a ten Alex there. He was not sure that it was and he thought that the
homeowners that were there tonight would tell them that it was not. He thought that the
problem was that this one building was being taken out of context. They were saying lets
compare one duplex to one ten plex that might be close to the buildings. There were a number
of issues that would have been addressed had the old development been developed as planned.
For one, the architecture would have been exactly the same, the buildings would have all been
the same. You would have had a substantially higher number of people supporting the pool and
tennis court. This group would not participate in the pool and tennis court, so the 72 original
units have to support the pool and tennis courts themselves. They would have had the support
of all the other people, they would have had a common area that was common to everyone, not
just the small area that the 72 units now have. There were a number of issues that would have
made the 10-plex more compatible and more palletable to this development and it seemed to
him to take this out of context and compare one ten-plex to one duplex and say this was a
better deal, therefore it's your problem and we are going to build it that way.
The other issue he was not aware of until just now, that he thought was a problem, was access
to the park. He did not realize that was an issue until Mr. Rutherford mentioned it, but that
had not been resolved. Those are private streets and that was private common area. What they
did was an agreement to maintain ten feet on each side of the boundary. The people in the
Gables have no right to cross their property. There are no cross easements. There are no
easements of any kind to cross that property to get to the park. That was something that should
be addressed and that was aside from the issue of building 7. It seemed to him that building
7 was still a problem. The condition that was placed on the motion had not been addressed and
• had not been satisfied and the plat accordingly did not comply with the preliminary plan and
he requested the Board deny the request for approval.
Member Carroll stated that he realized the way this was set up and he realized the property line
came up and touched lot 7, but he also understood that this line was not going to be fenced.
He asked Mr. Martell about the particular corner and how he could see the burden for someone
who lives in unit 7 who theoretically could not walk around his house on the north side. He
was wondering how it really did affect the condominium owners, because it was greenbelt.
Mr. Martell replied the way it affected the condominium owners was the closeness of the
relationship of that building to the building adjacent to it (building 9) in the condominium
project and the way it juts out into the common area or what had been basically open space and
what would be open space under this plan. That was the problem with the building. If it were
set back it would minimize the impact and that was why they were trying to reach some kind
of agreement to eliminate that building to gain that additional setback from the property
boundary.
Member Carroll asked if the owners felt that building 7 was too close to the other buildings.
Mr. Martell replied that was right.
Member Walker asked Mr. Martell if it had been looked at or discussed about redrawing the
property line. Was that a possibility of redrawing the property line, straightening that out, just
as everything else had been straightened out. Had that been talked about or considered at any
. of these meetings.
Mr. Martell replied that it had been discussed at some length. The problem was that the
condominium declaration provides that in order to convey property, you would be talking
about cutting that corner. For the condominium association to convey that property to anyone
else they would have to have a written instrument signed by 75% of the owners and 100% of
the lenders. There had been some discussion as to whether or not there had to be 75% of the
owners and 100% of the lenders only in that filing or in all 72 units, but either way trying to
obtain that many signatures and that kind of agreement was extremely difficult and very time
consuming and that was why the idea was abandoned and unlikely that it could be
accomplished.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Martell if he had talked about the understanding of the motion last
meeting and there was a condition with respect to a building abutting the property line.
Mr. Martell replied that the condition was that there should be some resolution of the boundary
issue. Ms. O'Dell elaborated on that and said that the first one be that there be some resolution
of the setbacks of buildings from property lines, the second was that there be some resolution
of the irregular property boundary, the third was that there be some resolution of the problem
with the sprinkler system and the grass which had been put in by the developer but had been
cared for by these people. It was an elaboration of a general type motion and the first of those
items was the setback.
Member O'Dell replied that what she was concerned about was the limited set backs of the
existing condominium developments and that people were concerned that they only had two
feet right out side their door. She was not as concerned about this particular setback because
it was open space adjacent to it.
Member Cottier stated that her recollection of that issue was that it applied to the
condominium building right in the middle where they were shown a photograph and were told
that the property boundary was just one foot from that building (building 2).
Mr. Martell replied that if that was the issue, then to some extent that had been resolved
because that setback was now further back from the buildings on the condominium property,
no question about that.
James B. Tucker, distributed to the Board colored renderings of the buildings and a letter to
the Planning and Zoning Board and some building plans.
Mr. Tucker stated some of the things that had not been addressed were the construction
problems he had seen. With regards to building 7 and its property line, he did not know if Mr.
Rutherford could correct him if he was wrong, but here in Colorado we had a thing that we
commonly referred to as loan survey. In doing one of those one time, he came across a situation
where that particular home was encroaching on the next and adjoining lot. Not the building
itself but by the cave. The loan company refused the individual's loan based on that little piece
of cave. It was about a foot and a half long and about six inches at one end tapering off to 0.
Their reason being that should the snow from that structure fall on an individual walking
down under there and kill that individual, you got a law suit. As he remembered, the law in
Colorado says that the rain water may drip on the property line but it cannot drip across it.
The first set of handouts was a copy of the old PUD that shows the layouts of the buildings as
it was. There had been some mention with regards to the nearness of their buildings versus the
nearness of the preceding proposal and it was supposed to be approximately the same. If you
will notice building 18 and building 2 may be 18 to 20 feet apart, however, they did not
obstruct anybody's view. Not only that, building 2 faces to the north. Frontwise to the rear,
your view is of a greenbelt. The shaded areas were what the people bought into when they
purchased their individual units. Also, he would like them to remember that the dark line is
what Colrad pulled back from and as you could see, they made no resolve to straighten out the
• lot lines: As he understood it from a legal standpoint, when you plat something you plat it and
when you plat a PUD or a condominium, you record the footprint of that building. That is
what you were recording, but if you were to purchase that, you were purchasing a part of all
of the plat and common area.
The second page was the project as it stood today. The third was an overlay of the existing
units as platted, versus the proposed unit or PUD. According to that scale it would say we had
quite a bit of property here between the existing lot line and building 2 as well as to the cut -de -
sac. It turns out that was not really true. Notice how deep the cul-de-sac goes into the property
as opposed to what was originally intended. As you can see in the front of building 2, there
is a six car garage about 60 or 70 feet away. The next page is the existing lot line as it is and
it is true that the particular line as it exists, is approximately one foot out. That was between
stakes C and D or the one on the back, which is an overview. The following sheet is what he
thought everyone should be quite concerned with here. This is an asbuilt drawing of what is
existing based on the surveyor's own stakes and nails. The east end of building 2 is
approximately 8 foot from the 0 lot line however, that particular building also has several juts
out from fit that he did not bother to put on there. He took the maximum distance. The little
patio things that come out, that is where you have a one foot difference. The cul-de-sac, as you
will notice, has a manhole there and that manhole location is approximate however, there is
also a foundation nail in the center of the cul-de-sac, as well as a foundation nail at the north
end of the cul-de-sac. The problem that exists with the cul-de-sac was that from the/existing
ground, which is the hatched area which is also the area that they have been mainta(ning over
these years. It is five and a half feet on the level minimum. He learned tonight and Mr.
Rutherford might clarify this, but he was understanding that the north end of the cul-de-sac
would have a fill of some six and a half feet.
• Mr. Rutherford asked if he was asking if the way the ground in the cul-de-sac is now would
be raised six and a half feet.
Mr. Tucker replied would the fill at the north end of the cul-de-sac be approximately six to six
and one half feet.
Mr. Rutherford replied that was not correct. That was not existing ground there, and he did
not believe it was being raised above the existing ground at all. The existing ground in the cul-
de-sac was some what higher than the lawn to the north but it was not being raised higher than
that.
Mr. Tucker stated that the north end of the cul-de-sac encroaches into the existing ground.
That particular ground is five and one half feet below the top of the existing man hole. The
manhole is the controlling elevation here. You cannot go below it. If you were going to drain
the area, you would have to raise it from there to the north end of the cul-de-sac. Therefore,
that particular cul-de-sac was going to have to be higher, so you will have to have more fill.
Common sense dictates that you will add two feet of distance on that particular radius of the
cul-de-sac to maintain the curb and the pavement, so you are out 39 feet. At a slope of two to
one, you are looking at about 12 to 14 feet. Now you are talking about cutting off and land
locking the drainage to the west, which the lady last time they were there was concerned about,
because she had been flooded out twice. Now she is going to get flooded out twice. Not only
that, she was going to get flooded out when it rains. The fill in that cul-de-sac was going to
come up to the doors of those particular people. That damages the property. If you owned a
particular unit and some morning you came out and you had a cul-de-sac back there, and come
snow, you will have run off in there and he did not think the PUD land book says that a
project could encroach on a adjoiner and dump there garbage on them.
The land locks the drainage out, and the drainage in that area goes from east to west. It goes
toward building 9. It obstructs the view of building 2 at the lower units. The proposed
buildings themselves will further obstruct the view of those lower units and the next units up.
The next picture is a far view of the area looking back toward the cul-de-sac. You could see
the arrow pointing to about where the cul-de-sac was going to go. If you would notice to the
right of the tree line, there was a definite rise. Contrary to Mr. Rutherford's discussion here,
it is lower because the manhole cover is to the far right. That means you will have to have a
fill in that area. The next picture is an estimation of about where the fill would come to. That
is, granted, an estimation that pictures are some what distorted, but he tried to take the
minimal impact not the maximum, so if you're lucky you have enough room to ride a bicycle
down there. The property line is going to be somewhere around letter D in that picture. If it
goes to the max, that particular slope and fill area could reach the building. The remaining
pictures were somewhat informative. Maybe it would tell you what had happened in regards
to along building five. As he stated in the letter, if you approve this project, the impact of the
new project on the old project was going to be such that several other members of this group
were going to have to institute a law suit and he was not against the project, per cc provided
it did not impact their area. He was against that and he would just have to enjoin everyone.
Craig Jeffries, president of the Gables Homeowner's Association, stated as president of the
association, he thought what he would like to do was to explain that he was trying to represent
an association and a number of homeowners here. As the board of directors, they represent the
best interest of the collective whole and there obviously are individuals with varying degrees
of opinions on the development and the related development. He would like to refocus their
attention on the issues that Mr. Martell brought up. He did want to give them the perspective
of some of the homeowners and represent them to them.
First of all, as president of the association, he thought that in good faith that all of them had
been actively involved in trying to resolve this issue over the last month or so. He believed that
they had resolved all the issues that are related to the location and the maintenance of and
around the existing property lines. They had compromised and have agreed on a position that
was applicable to the homeowners association as a whole. The board of directions supported
the position that Mr. Martell outlined to the board and in fact, the developer agreed to soften
the architecture, to deed the tracts A,B,C, and D to the homeowner's association and abide by
a common maintenance agreement which Mr. Martell had drawn up in good faith to try and
represent the interest of both groups. The one issue of contention, and he did think this was
still a significant issue of contention was, that the developer at the time of the negotiations did
not agree to change their plans for building 7 unless the association agreed to purchase that
property. They did represent that position as an issue of compromise and they would attempt
to take that back to their homeowner's association for approval. Although they did represent
the board of directors and it was outlined in Ms. Whetstone's minutes of that meeting. They
made it clear that to finalize the agreement, they did need a broad approval of the homeowners
association to approve any financial liability on the individuals that would be involved and
they simply could not make that agreement without their approval.
The issue that he would really like to focus attention on is that none of the homeowners right
now feel that they should be forced to purchase building 7. He was speaking as a result of the
meeting they took back to their association on Friday and in talking to a number of members
over a period of time. They did not feel they should be forced to purchase building 7 or the
property underneath it to prevent its construction. There was a common concern and there is
a very vented anger of its location to the existing unit development, regardless of the prior
PUD zoning. This particular building was different, it has a different design. The drawings
that they had seen that were represented on these slides were not to scale. That particular
building, unit 7, protrudes into the common area between areas 5, 7 and 9 in that complex.
• There was quite a difference between the location of that building in its relationship to the
courtyard. The buildings adjacent to the cul-de-sac are on the backside of building 2 and did
not jut out into anyones front yard. There would be 30 unit owners that would be overlooking
this complex that was planned to be common area that could be shared by all of the
homeowners. Building 7 protrudes into that complex, it was the back end of the building, it
does not match the existing architecture. He did have to agree that the developer had agreed
to soften the architecture, but that was based on an agreement and compromise during their
negotiations based on pulling that building out and trying to suggest some kind of alternate
plan that would resolve all the remaining issues that they had with the developer. To refocus
on this, building 7 encroaches on the courtyard of buildings 5,7 and 9. The homeowners don't
feel they should have to pay for a piece of unusable property simply as a defensive position
to prevent this development from occurring. The buildings do not have the proper setbacks.
It protrudes into that complex and is too closely located to the end of building nine. He also
pointed out that they had made every effort in working with the developer and would like to
commend them in their efforts in working with them. But, he is representing 72 homeowners
and they did not have consensus among the homeowners as to being able to purchase this
property. The builder did have an alternative plan. That was simply to build a tri-plex further
removed from the existing structures. The homeowner's association feels that we could back
this plan, the board of directors endorses a plan to remove unit 7 and go with the prior plan
that they were going to present to you as an alternative this evening. He just simply had not
been able to represent all the constituents in the association to purchase that property. There
are school teachers, single parents, people struggling to make their homeowner's dues and are
having a tough time making ends meet right now and they were simply not able to bear the
burden of any financial impact to purchase this property. As part of this, they would like for
the Board to deny this project pending resolution of building 7. They think it encroaches on
the property line. They did not support that. They did think the board of directors and the
• association would endorse this project and would request that it is approved if in fact they
could resolve the issue of building 7 and recombine building 7 into a tri-plex as was proposed
as an alternative plan this evenings.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Jeffries if Mr. Tucker gave them a plan for the original development
that would have included condominiums in this area. She was really having a hard time seeing
what they were talking about. When she looks at building thirteen, which would have been 10
units. It goes so much farther north into that courtyard of 5,6,7, and 9 than the patio home 7
that was proposed did. The only place that it was any bit closer was in the one corner but every
other setback was so much more than the ten unit condo unit would be.
Mr. Jeffries replied that was a fair question to ask. He was not sure he could explain Mr.
Tucker's drawings, but he would try to represent the association and the human aspect again
of what was going on with building ten. It was somewhat of an emotional argument. It was
very easy when you look at density issues with the existing development to say that they were
better off because they were building seven and eight and it was not a ten plex and it was a
little further out into the complex. He thought what was being overlooked here was there were
quite a few homeowners that bought into this PUD plan, so initially their expectations were
set as to what was going to be enjoined and developed on that property south of the complex.
The building had the same architecture, they had the same look and feel, they had the same
design. As a matter of fact the other units were adjusted. Building 5, 7 and 9, the ends of the
buildings all butt up against one another. That prior plan was consistent with the general
outline and architecture of the development as it exists today. The angle of the patio home,
the architecture, everything is different about it. It encroaches in the existing courtyard there.
The other building was to protrude straight out from that complex so there was quite a bit of
difference there. He did really think it was presumptuous to overlook the effect of the other
areas involved than simply isolating units 7 and 8 and building 10 as it was initially proposed.
The overall look and feel of the complex differs quite a bit and the common area they thought
they would be able to share among all the homeowners was no longer available and
consequently there was a lot more sensitivity about the location of this building to the existing
development as would have been with the prior building. He would also like to point out that
thirty front yards extend into that complex there. Looking out on the buildings that were part
of the initial complex was quite a bit different and the number of units was not the issue. The
issue was the location of building 7 under the current design and architecture under the
current plan and it did encroach on the complex because it was different. The other building
did not encroach on the existing plan based on the homeowner's feelings on this thing. It did
not encroach because it was the same building and was consistent with the plan that everyone
bought into.
Jim Siefken, 1625 W. Swallow, also an owner at Silverplume, stated he shared many of the
concerns of the homeowner's association and Mr. Martell this evening and on the other hand
he certainly favored down zoning of the density of that area and continuing with the
development. He had to agree with Mr. Jeffries that it was an emotional issue. If you change
building 7 and 8 that it would drastically change the feeling of the people who look out the
front door and see something that was completely different than the existing architecture. He
was also concerned with the access to the park.
Beth Grimes, owner at the Gables, stated she supported not having building 7. Her condo was
right on the end of the cul-de-sac and really would like to know how far that is from her
building. She was the person that has the problem with the drainage and she did not want to
be flooded out again. She said she had been assured that the drainage problem was solved.
They use the park all the time and they would really drastically alter her life style if she could
not just trot over to the park.
Mary Ann Plude who lives in the Gables wanted to make a comment about the proposed
building 7. One of the things to note was that all the buildings were facing into the common
area and that was their front yard, their front door and this was the back side of a building,
which was not looking into that courtyard. The previous proposal was a front yard. It was if
you were living on a block and someone decided to build their house to the back side of yours
and that would seem odd to her and not logical. She was pleading for them to look at that
logical aspect as well as the appeal and have to look into someone's back yard or from your
front door where normally back yards go to back yards and are not intermixed. In general, the
overall proposal other than the park access was acceptable except for building 7, which should
not be a go. These are two very serious issues and it would be unfortunate if they were
ignored.
Jeffrey Whittaker, who lives in the Gables in building 6 stated he was prejudiced against
building 7. He did not feel that coming out of his front door and looking across the courtyard
and seeing the backside of someone else's building, that it was going to be inconsistent with the
rest of the development. If you look left or right at the other buildings, as had been said, they
are part of a unitary whole and building on lot 7 will not be. He thinks the drainage problem
with the cul-de-sac should be addressed and if there is a drainage problem into their
condominiums, who was going to pay to fix that. Otherwise, in general he did support
development back there of some sort, but the issues need to be resolved satisfactorily.
Rhonda Malday, who lives at the Gables, stated the board told them to go out and negotiate and
they tried very hard to do that. She was one of the people who went out with the spirit of
negotiation to try and see what they could do to solve the problems for both the developer and
themselves. Their conclusion was, if they would give them some breathing room, which they
never thought they would have to fight for so hard when they bought the property, that they
• would try to offset some of their costs and she thought that was what the board went into the
negotiations in which Kirsten Whetstone helped them with that negotiation. They came away
feeling that if they could help offset the loss of profit or the actual costs of developing the
complex for the developer, then they could come to a mutual agreement. Some of them were
willing to incur that cost and some were not. That should not be held against the association
because they as a group were not able to force everyone in there complex to incur the cost.
Some people feel that the cost should be incurred by the developer, because they are the new
development. In the PUD plans it says that new developments, when they begin to encroach,
were the one that had to deal with the problems. It did not say that the existing neighborhood
did. In the PUD guidance system, you say that the encroaching development must resolve those
problems. Many of the people feel that they should not purchase that property. They were not
able to come to a total agreement. One of the things concerning access to the park that they
needed to strongly consider was because originally the plan was to have all those buildings
alike and have all of that area part of their association. It was merely walking across your
-common area. Now it will be walking through someone else's neighborhood which is all
designated private. They asked the last time that the street not be made private that it be made
a public street. She had talked with someone at the Parks Development Department and they
assured her that there would be public walkways and she did not see any in the final plan.
She had not seen the drawings that Mr. Tucker did until this evening. When she looks at them,
she has a great level of concern for what is going to happen in that cul-de-sac area. They have
been assured that the drainage problems have been resolved but when she looks at the fill areas
and the pictures that he had drawn, if he is accurate, they were in serious trouble. They have
had insurance payments that have had to be paid out several times already for units that have
flooded because of improper drainage already. There is an elevation there, you can see it from
the pictures he had drawn. They asked the last time that this not be approved and it was
• approved on conditions that these problems be met and they were told to go out and negotiate
that. They did that in good faith and to the best of their ability. She personally was very
disappointed, she had spent hours on this project and was personally very disappointed that
they were not able for the sake of building 7 and resolution of drainage issues and private
access that they were not able to come to mutually agreeable negotiations. When they thought
they had everything agreed to, before Mr. Tucker showed the extent of the problem with the
cul-de-sac, when they thought we had everything agreed to, Kirsten Whetstone at the meeting
indicated that they should perhaps push this project back another month before they came to
the board again, so they had time to finalize everything and it was from their homeowners
association that they said no, let's go into the board and tell them they had the problems
worked out and be finished with it. However, as a result of going back she could not spend
some of these people's money without them telling her to go ahead. She could not incur $13,500
to be divided between six of them on the board. She has to have approval from the rest of the
people. When they found that they could not get that agreement, they were back in here again
saying please don't approve it. She still did not see on the final plan, all of those issues resolved
yet. They have to understand people that bought into Silverplume, bought into it because it
looks like when you drive into the mountains and you see Aspen and Silverplume in some of
those areas, it looks like that. It was that psychologically, if it does not look like the rest of the
complex, and it is looking right out your front door onto it, it has a psychological impact and
it will impact economically when any of them try to sell. It affects the equity of their
property. She wished they would consider all of these problems and maybe they need another
month to work again. She was asking them not to approve it, that they at least try one more
time. She did not know if that was agreeable with the developers, but they obviously have not
been able to, even with the best of working conditions, resolve everything. At this point they
• need to go back to the drawing board and start again and resolve some of those issues that they
asked for that were supposed to be in there that have not been put in and they were not able
to get all of their membership to agree to incur the financial burden to solve the problem with
building 7.
Bob Keller, owner of unit I-D in the existing complex, expressed his concern of ethics involved
in this situation. He had a copy of his deed that was signed by Colrad as a seller to him. The
selling agents use certain inducements to persuade people to purchase units. You will see that
it is very close to the cul-de-sac, in which they were all concerned. Also, one of the reasons he
bought that particular unit was the fact that it was abutted by rather extensive green area. He
felt that the proposed development was going to seriously and adversely affect him because he
will no longer have a substantial green area adjoining his property. He has a very modest green
area and a new cul-de-sac that was totally unanticipated, unexpected and he was very
vigorously opposed. Not only because of the aesthetics of the situation, but because of the fact
that it apparently is going to be several feet above his existing doorway. Instead of looking out
at a very pleasing and extensive green area, he was going to be looking out at a very modest
green area and probably a 6 foot fill area where the cul-de=sac will be built. He would like to
express his concern about this and suggest that a continuance be granted so they could resolve
that particular situation.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Rutherford to address them on the issues of the access of the
condominium area to the park through this proposed development and the elevation of the cul-
de-sac and the related drainage issues.
Mr. Rutherford replied that even though these were called private drives, what that means was
that they were going to be privately maintained and not maintained by the City. On the
subdivision plat they are also dedicated as access, which includes pedestrian vehicles,
emergency vehicles, and all kinds of access in these parts. All of the private drives were
already dedicated access ways. All of their green area was dedicated as utility, drainage,
detention and whatever type of easement. They could dedicate an access easement on the
sidewalk or maybe the whole green area, but at least at this point, he was not sure this would
be necessary but it would be agreeable if the City thinks so. Between the sidewalk and the
City's property line, there was a strip of green area that was a tract that goes the whole
distance and it could also be made as an access easement to allow walking up the berm into the
Rossbourogh park or maybe the whole strip, because it did not matter and would provide good
access to everyone, not just the condominium area, but anybody else that wanted to go to
Rossbourough Park.
The existing manhole that was here, the finished street will actually be lower than that
manhole so the ground that they were looking at was going to be cut some. The water drains
in the exact same pattern as it was going to be if it was all one Silverplume complex. The water
drains down the green area on their property and into the detention pond. Just the water from
the cul-de-sac which drains down in a concrete pan. The grading plan and the drainage plan
have been looked at very carefully by the City's Storm Drainage Department and they feel that
it is adequate and it was enhanced as far as drainage goes. There is a concrete pan now that
carries the water to the detention pond and before it was going to be only on the grass, so it is
working better than previously planned.
Member Carroll asked if he was telling them that at the end of the cul-de-sac, there will not
be a berm that is elevated in the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Rutherford replied that was correct.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Rutherford if the greenspace in the far lower right corner of this
project was a detention pond also.
Mr. Rutherford replied that it was and there were actually four sub -basins.
• Member Walker asked Ms. Whetstone what the City's position was with building 7 being on the
lot line.
Ms. Whetstone replied the way she reviewed this plan was against the All Development Criteria
of the LDGS and she thought the one criteria that came to mind was the privacy of the
development that you were reviewing. It did come to mind and she looked at it and did not just
check it off. She said to herself, if you were putting in this patio home next to a single family
house and that was private property right there, you were building right up to someone's
private property. In that case, it was the privacy of the person that you were building next to
you might be violating in some way. This was a patio home and the privacy areas were to the
rear of the building with their patios and the small areas around them. She thought because
that was common open space that this building was going next to, that did not pose an initial
privacy problem for building 7.
Member Walker asked about legal issues.
Mr. Rutherford replied that the garage was not encroaching on there and was not touching the
lot line. In effect, what they have is a 0 lot line right at the corner and in a PUD that happens
quite often, so the main thing in a PUD is if you have a 0 lot line, you need to make sure you
have a proper set back to another building because of fire code, etc. In this case we have 35
feet to another building. The garage is not touching the lot line and so they have a very small
lineal distance where they have 0 lot line. Once you go away from that corner you have greater
than that setback, so that was not illegal in a PUD.
Member Walker asked what about adjoining properties, not just in a PUD
• Mr. Eckman replied you could not build a building on someone else's property. The eave of a
building is part of a building, so if it overhangs the property line, it is considered a tresspass.
Member Walker stated they don't commonly build houses individually platted. There is always
a setback and besides the fire code, there are certainly legal considerations.
Mr. Martell stated that Mr. Rutherford stated there would be no berm at the end of the cul-de-
sac and it was his understanding at the last meeting that there would be a berm and substantial
plantings to prevent the lights from cars reflecting directly into building two. He just wanted
to clarify if there was going to be a berm or not at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Rutherford replied that he did not say there was going to be a berm there because there has
never been one on the grading plan. There is substantial landscaping and they added to the
landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sac at the request of the City and the homeowners, but it
has never been bermed up higher than what the cul-de-sac.
Member Strom moved for approval of the Final PUD Plan for Victoria Gables Patio Homes at
Silverplume. It was his belief that the conditions that they established with the preliminary
had been met.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated that a number of issues had been brought up tonight. All have been
resolved, leaving them with the building encroachment problem. Looking at the plan as
• approved previously and looking at the plan as it is currently proposed with building 7, it was
his opinion that this plan provides better views out of the buildings surrounding it expanded
open space in the common area and that the negotiations between the Homeowner's Association
and the developer, all of whom took a great deal of time and good faith on everyone part, came
up with the softening of the architectural style for all of the buildings along the open space
between them. The lot line, to his way of thinking, did not encroach on the lot line itself, the
visual space and the useable space by the existing Silverplume Homeowners in his opinion was
ample to provide for a very effective layout.
Member O'Dell stated as the person that made the motion last time, she believed that everyone
did try to work out the differences. She believed that the issues that she was concerned about,
particularly about the property lines of the existing condominium development, had been
resolved by the applicant extending those property lines and turning over some of that property
to the existing condominium development. This plan meets the criteria of the LDGS so she
would support the motion.
Member Cottier stated she would support the motion also. She thought what they had ended up
with was something that was superior to what was proposed last month with respect to dealing
with the common area between the two developments. At some point in the future, she would
hope that there was still room to consider combining the homeowners association and having
this proposed development participate in the pool and tennis courts and if that could happen,
she thought that it would be perceived that all the open space was there for both projects.
Member Carroll stated he would be supporting the motion as well. Last month he opposed the
motion that was made. Not because it was not a good idea, because he thought they had
exceeded their ability to do so. He is happy that the groups have got together and resolved
what he considered to be alot of the problems with the common belt. He thought the drainage
issues have been answered to his satisfaction. They do have a report from the Storm Drainage
Utility. If there were drainage problems caused by this development, there was a very good
chance that the new development would be responsible to correct those problems. He did agree
that building 7 did meet the All development criteria and was acceptable to him.
Motion was approved 6-1 with Gorman voting no.
Rohrbacker PUD - Final. #41-89C
Members Gorman and Carroll abstained from voting on this project due to conflict of interest.
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval and that the applicant
had met all the conditions of preliminary approval.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs Wayne Specht, stated there had been no
substantive changes in the final plan except to address the three conditions the board imposed
at the hearing.
The three conditions related to stacking, enhancement of the screening at the entrance and then
some re -analysis of water coming onto the site. The no stacking prohibition has been included
in the development agreement and on the site plan and virtually eliminates that visibility issue
that came up repeatedly in the past. That is visibility of stored autos from Lemay and Mulberry
and the adjoining properties, but given the 8 foot solid wood fence and the no stacking,
basically removes the visibility issue. The second condition had to do with enhancing screening
of the east Magnolia entrance. In addition to the interior fencing within the interior on the
north edge of lot 3, they were going to add interior fencing on the other side which would be
the southwest corner of the building on lot one down to the right of way and that was to screen
stored autos from the East Magnolia residents on the south side. They were doing it on both
sides so it would be effectively screened from properties on the north and south side of
Magnolia who might be looking onto the Rohrbacker site. Secondly, the entrance to the site had
been narrowed from its previous 54 foot wide open entrance to a 20 foot wide entrance with
•
a solid wooden fence. They had discussed it previously and it has now been incorporated into
the site plan. Everything basically would be enclosed except for the 20 foot entrance. Thirdly,
they had shifted and enlarged the landscaping at the entrance. They had added to the existing
landscaping there and also on the interior of the site. If you look at the entrance area, there
were two Chinese elms existing on each side of the entrance and they proposed adding two
deciduous trees plus all of the range of shrubbery that was proposed on the preliminary. On
the interior of the site to further enhance the interior and to break up the interior fencing
which is now going to go along the north edge of lot 3, they were proposing adding upright
evergreens to the three or four existing chinese elms, so there would be a mix of deciduous and
evergreen to break up the interior fencing which would screen the stored autos. They believe
the combination of the new interior fencing on both sides and the narrowed wooden gate and
the new and existing landscaping would provide an effective screen for those Magnolia Street
properties which might be looking onto the site. The fencing is a new chain link fence being
proposed with flexible slats that are woven into the chainlink fence. It is used around town
and is very common.
There was a comment made at the July hearing from someone about possibly water coming
from the north and she thought Ms. O'Dell added that as a condition to review that issue. The
proposed berming they were using to insure that they were dealing with the question with
either storm drainage water or irrigation waters which might pickup pollutants on the site and
carry them off -site. There are, of course, on this site, two types of waters they were dealing
with, both irrigation and storm drainage. They were proposing on this plan two different types
of berming. They were proposing a 12" earthen berm that would run along the west boundary
of the site all along lot 4 and a part of lot 2 and then they were proposing a 9" filter berm
which would be on the down stream side, which would run along the eastern edge of lot three
and a part of lot 1. If you look at the three different reports on storm drainage, it basically
• proposes to deal with the storm drainage issue, the 9" filter berm. That's the recommendation
to avoid any potential problem from storm drainage waters which might flow on the site into
the stored automobile areas and pickup even any minimal drainage or fluids from those cars
which would carry them off site. Both the County and the City concurred that given the fact
that these automobiles must be drained before they are stored, they must be drained inside with
concrete flooring, they were talking very minimum potential here, probably no different than
a City parking lot. The 9" filter berm was being proposed to cover that eventuality, if in fact
there ever were storm drainage waters, they would be filtered through this filter berm so they
would be carried off -site and this had all been reviewed and approved with the City's Storm
Drainage Department. If you look at irrigation waters, the October update submitted by their
engineer, talked specifically about that issue of water coming from the north that might be
irrigation water. If there is any irrigation water which may come, it was going to be coming
from the Fisher fields which are to the west and northwest of the site. The applicants do not
and can not decide if there is ever going to be this water or how much or when, because
obviously that is controlled by irrigation coming from Mr. Fisher and his irrigation plan and
how well he manages that. Any uncontrolled field irrigation is going to be a temporary
situation which will be totally eliminated when the Fisher property is developed. There is a
legitimate issue and that is would any of these potential irrigation waters flow across the site
in such a way that they would flow through the stored automobile areas and pickup any
minimal fluids or drainage that might be coming from those and carry it off -site. The
inquiries have been directed toward that concern. If you look at the west boundary, their
engineers have determined that there was potential for irrigation waters to come from the west
and they do not know if that has ever happened or likely. If you go out and look at the
property, the field to the west of the Rohrbacker site, the rows are north/south, not east/west.
So only if the rows were changed or if irrigation water topped the road would you have
irrigation water coming from the west onto the property. Just in the event that might happen,
they have proposed the 12" earthen berm which would divert any of the irrigation waters and
prevent them from going into the stored automobile area. There also was a potential identified
of irrigation waters to come from the north, and that might be a more likely area for them to
be coming from. They will not flow because of the elevation of the property and the
topography, into the automobile storage areas and they were not dealing with any kind of a
water quality or polluting issue. They feel the combination of the filter and earth berms on
the western side insure that water quality whether it comes from storm drainage waters or
irrigation waters was not going to be an issue with this particular proposal.
Harold Fisher, owner of the property to the west, stated his objection was that in that general
area, there are seven junk yards. He had heard remarks considering the Harmony Corridor that
they did not want it to look like 14 and here we are adding more problems to Highway 14 and
it is adjacent to a very nice piece of property that he has and it sure will not help the value of
his ground.
Member Cottier moved for approval of the Rohrbacker PUD Final.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Member Walker stated that he did not like the preliminary and still did not think this was a
good overall plan and he was not in favor of it.
Chairman Klataske stated that even though this may be the best designed salvage yard that
Fort Collins would have if approved, he still did not feel that it was doing anything to add to
the quality of the neighborhood out there and did not feel it was in conformance with the rest
of the neighborhood.
Motion was approved 3-2 with Walker and Klataske voting no.
Harmony Corridor Plannine Effort. #29-90
PZi90-11 - Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelin
Linda Ripley, Senior Planner stated the request was to recommend to City Council the adoption
of Design Standards and Guidelines to be used by the City in the review of development
proposals in the Harmony Corridor.
The Board at their October meeting adopted the Harmony Corridor Plan and recommended to
City Council its incorporation into the City Comprehensive Plan. That plan directs the City
to develop and adopts design standards and guidelines to implement the Harmony Oaks concept
promoted in that plan. The basic components of the Harmony Oaks concept were wide
setbacks, naturalistic berming, meandering trail system, rows of Oak trees, wildflowers and low
key signage. The intent of the proposed design standards and guidelines of tonight agenda
were to implement that design concept.
They were intended to be used as the design aid for developers proposing projects in the
corridor and also as an evaluation tool by City Staff and the Board in reviewing those projects.
The standards and guidelines apply only to projects being reviewed under the criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System. They do not apply to properties which have uses by right.
In addition the Design Guidelines will be used by City Staff to guide the design of public
sector projects in the corridor. There have been four relatively minor changes made to the
Design Standards and Guidelines document since the Board reviewed it at the October Ist
meeting.
The first change is on page 3 which was simply a reference to the fact that these standards and
guidelines only apply to projects being evaluated in accordance with the Land Development
. Guidance System. On Page 6 there was a reference to a water transmission main that was being
planned for the Harmony Corridor. This water transmission main will parallel Harmony Road
between Boardwalk Drive and County Road 9. At this point in time the water utility has not
determined the exact location of that, However, it was likely that it will be within the set back
zone.
Two standards were added to address the concern that there may be a conflict between the
design concept and the water transmission main. The first guideline states, "in those areas
where the water transmission main will or does exist, special attention will be given to
coordinating the berm design with the location of the transmission main to avoid major
berming above the pipeline". The second standard was, "in the immediate vicinity of the
transmission main, tree selection and location shall consider the future impacts upon the
pipeline and the City's need to operate and maintain that facility.
On page 26 of the sign guidelines we had struck out a reference to Illcobon, a trade name as
was pointed out at the last meeting. We have deleted that reference. On page 27 they have
added one additional standard and guideline to address signage in shopping centers of business
parks and industrial parks. The standard says that, "business parks and industrial parks and
shopping centers shall submit signage plans at the preliminary plan stage. The signage plans
shall include sign locations and preliminary details that indicate size, form, materials, colors
and illumination for all proposed signage within the center". The second is a guideline and not
a standard therefore, it is not mandatory but it was there for the education of developers,
planners consultants etc. It states, "signage within business parks, industrial parks and
shopping centers should reflect a common sign vocabulary. Form, materials, colors, topography
and illumination should match or complement other signage in the center.
• Staff recommended approval of Resolution 90-11 to the City Council.
Member Cottier asked last month when they talked about Harmony Corridor she thought they
pretty much skipped over the design guidelines because we said they were going to be dealt
with this month. Were people notified that this was in fact going to voted on by them tonight.
She was wondering why no one was there.
Ms. Ripley replied that they were notified of the last meeting and at that meeting it was noted
that it was continued to this meeting. It was published in the newspaper. Additional letters
went out to property owners that were being rezoned. That was typical when an item was
continued, it is again published in the paper. If they were at the first meeting they knew
tonight was the night. Ms. Ripley did make the effort to call the representatives of the Citizen
Planners group who had been the most outspoken and they told her that they were not going
to be here tonight.
Member Strom moved for approval of the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Member Strom commented that he thought the guidelines were a good step forward and he was
looking forward to seeing how they were implemented. He hoped that they come out to his
expectations. The second was that he was reminded after the last meeting that they did not
specifically address some of the concerns that were directed specially at the sign code aspects
of the standards and guidelines in response to that, he would say that he did not consider them,
• in some cases he did not agree with them and in other cases what we have here was many of
the issues that were raised are guidelines and not standards and subject to interpretation with
a particular proposal. He thought even though we may be a bit more stringent that our regular
sign code, he thought that was appropriate for the Harmony Corridor. We were also a bit more
stringent than many of other codes in terms of how we were treating access points in the City.
He was in support of the design standards and guidelines for signs and for the rest of it at this
point.
Member O'Dell stated that she agreed with Member Strom concerning the signs.
The motion passed 7-0.
HARMONY CORRIDOR REZONIN
Ms. Ripley stated this item was also continued from the October Ist meeting and was a request
to rezone approximately 500 acres of land located east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks
from T-Transition, ip-Industrial Park, bp -Planned Business and mm-Medium Density Mobile
Home to EP-Employment Park Zoning District.
Ms. Ripley stated the EP Park Zoning District was the zoning district that the board
recommended approval of at the October meeting. The EP zoning district was designation of
areas of the city which have been designated and planned as employment parks in accordance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and which are used for a variety of activities including
without limitation, industrial uses, research and development activities, office, shopping
centers and residential dwellings.
With one exception, the EP Employment Park Zoning District did not take away any existing
development rights for property proposed tonight. However, in the case of the Harmony Mobile
Home Park property, this was the land in the Harmony Corridor that was originally proposed
to be rezoned into the EP zoning district. There was a strip adjacent to Harmony Road
approximately 250 feet deep which was currently undeveloped. In the case of this unique
property, development certain existing rights would change. The existing MM-Medium Density
Mobile Home Zoning District allows single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multi-
family dwellings, schools, churches, child care centers, group homes, and mobile home parks
as uses by right. If the property were to be zoned, EP-Employment Park, all future
development proposals would be evaluated against the criteria of the Land Development
Guidance System and the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines would apply to
this property.
She had received tonight a letter from a legal representative of the owner of the property. He
requested additional time to come up with a solution for that unique piece of property that
would achieve the objectives of the city and the landowner where by they would not lose all
of their development rights and yet the City would be able to implement the Harmony Corridor
Design Guidelines.
Basically the board had three options tonight in regard to the rezoning of the Mobile Home
property. The first one (Option A) was to rezone the entire parcel over the objections of the
landowner. The second (Option B) would be to leave the developed portion of the Mobile Home
Park out of the rezoning but go ahead and rezone the 250 foot strip that was adjacent to
Harmony Road. The third (Option C) to leave the Mobile Home Park property entirely out of
the rezoning, both the developed and undeveloped portions. Staff recommended Option C.
Staff believed that it would be valuable to have more time to study the issue and was confident
that we could come up with a solution that could satisfied both the city's concerns and the
owners.
. Member O'Dell asked if it would make sense to rezone the Mobile Home Park into a T-
Transitional zone just to indicate that we were heading in some other direction or make sense
to leave it the way it is.
Mr. Peterson, replied it would not make sense to make it a T-Transition Zone since there was
already an existing use on the property. The owners of the property were well aware of the
city's intent with the Harmony Corridor Plan. They have indicated they were willing to
cooperate but have some concerns in terms of the implementation. As Ms. Ripley suggested we
believe in the next month they would be able to come back with language that will help
implement the Harmony Corridor Plan on the frontage. The owners have also indicated that
they have had the property since 1972 and it was their intention to keep it in a Mobile Home
Park for the long term foreseeable future. They have indicated to staff that they did not have
an interest in development of the small vacant portion of the property.
Member Cottier asked Ms. Ripley to briefly review why the areas that were not included in the
proposed EP zone. She spoke specifically east of County Road 9 and that portion that was
directly east of the Mobile Home Park that was west of County Road 9. Why when it appeared
it could be a quarter section deep north of Harmony. Why was it such a narrow band?
Ms. Ripley stated that area was not currently within the City limits. When it did become
annexed it would be logical that it be zoned EP.
Mr. Peterson stated there was another section across from Hewlett Packard and for the same
reason it was not shown.
Chairman Klataske asked if this parcel that was currently zoned for Mobile Homes was
• excluded, were there any restriction at all on the front 80 foot setback that was required on the
rest of Harmony Corridor.
Ms. Ripley replied that at this time there would not be. The intention was not to ignore it, the
intention was to continue to work with the property owner and their legal representative to
come up with a solution by which they can implement the Harmony Corridor Design
Guidelines.
Their biggest concern has to do with the 80 foot set back on a piece of property that is only 250
feet wide. It was never the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines to prohibit
development or to make it impossible. One of the ideas might be to put this property in that
sort of category where most of the other guidelines apply but the 80 setback would not.
Essentially they have not had enough time to work out which direction to take it. Their
suggestion was to put a condition on their existing zoning, again to reflect the Harmony
Corridor Design Guidelines. Essentially they need some additional time to work out proposed
language.
Member Carroll stated since they were going to look at this in a month or two he saw no reason
in delaying it. On the other hand, he saw some merit in rezoning the property as shown on
Option A. He thought it would put this property in the position of a non -conforming use and
he had some question as to whether this particular use fits the long range term of what ideas
we have for the Harmony Corridor. If it was made a non -conforming use the idea would be
that at some point the use would conform. Those were his thoughts and he did not have a
problem with Option C for the time being.
• Member Strom asked what puts the current zoning on the H-P property. Was there any reason
to not consider EP zoning on that as well.
Ms. Ripley replied the H-P property was zoned IL.
Mr. Peterson replied that there was a height limitation on it. The IL condition that goes with
the H-P property comes from a negotiation they had with the city in 1977 when they came in.
They have been contemplating for some time thinking about doing a PUD for their Master Plan
on the property. They had not done that at this point in time. The discussion with us over time
was, let us figure out how to do it because they have the potential for doubling the size of the
site in terms of buildings that they have at this point.
Member Strom asked that at this point in time there was nothing to be gained by rezoning this.
Mr. Peterson replied that was correct.
Member O'Dell moved for approval of Option C as recommended by Staff of the Harmony
Corridor Rezoning.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated in terms of the record, the reason he will support Option C was that he
assumed Staff would be coming back with a new proposal within the next month or two,
something indefinite and short term for the Mobile Home Property.
The motion was approved 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mr. Peterson stated there was no report on the Environmental Management Plan. They have
been furnished with a copy of the latest draft of the environmental actions that were being
proposed to City Council and they had the opportunity to decide whether they would like to
comment on it to Council.
Member Walker commented that in reviewing this he thought that it was a well drafted
document and he saw concerns that he has were being addressed and so he thought to move
ahead with it.
Member Carroll stated that this latest document answered some concerns and has some concrete
plans for moving forward and doing things right away.
Member Cottier commented from the perspective of a P & Z Board member, the things in the
Environmental Management Plan that she thought were most needed to assist them in their
review of development proposals had to do with air quality and environmental sensitive areas
and at least the environmental sensitive areas was something they could have implement
policies integrated into the LDGS next year. It looked to her that when they were talking air
quality, that there was not going to be air quality policies that they could use to evaluate new
development proposals until 1992.
Mr. Wilkinson replied that there was some background work that needed to be done on that and
it might be 1992 before they have policies in line that might help them in their decision
making.
. Member Cottier asked if it was conceivable there might be a way to establish some general
policies that were something more specific than national policies in the interim until a full
blown set of policies are developed in 1992.
Mr. Wilkinson replied that he thought there was a lot of linkage with air quality, like wood
burning and also transportation and automobile use and there was going to be a lot of things
coming out of the LDGS audit that changes might come out of that and in the future may be
looking at Urban Design as part of this overall plan and might begin to address those as well.
Member Cottier asked if the air quality standards that ultimately would be developed would
only apply to new development or could they be retroactive.
•
40
Mr. Wilkinson replied that they would see the focus being put primarily on new development.
Member Walker moved to recommend to Council adoption of the Action Agenda for the
Environmental Management Plan.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.