HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/01/1993• PLANNING i ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
November 1, 1993
Gerry Norsk, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The November 1, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was
called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall
West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members
present included Vice Chair Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Bernie
Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Chair Rene Clements and
Jim Klataske were absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson,
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted
Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Carolyn Worden and Kayla
Ballard.
AGENDA REVIEW
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM 25 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY _-_#67-93.
• Mr. Peterson said this was the most significant item to come before
the Board from the Land Development Guidance System audit in 1990.
He stated that the audit dealt with issues of how determination of
compatibility and PUDs in neighborhoods are evaluated. He said
over the past 18 months, a team of citizens, staff and consultants
have been working very hard to look at this issue. He concluded
that this is a significant milestone accomplished for the LDGS and
the results are good.
Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark said this has been a joint
effort between staff, the consultants, and advisory committee. The
consultant team of Linda Ripley of Ripley Associates and Bob
Komives of Fort Collins and Marty Zeller of Design Workshop out of
Denver have been working with us since December of 1991 on this
project. She stated early on a volunteer advisory committee was
formed of approximately 14 members, some are present at this
meeting, as well as the consultants involved, and will be happy to
answer any questions the Board may have. She said compatibility
criteria were evaluated; and two specific areas of recommendation
evolved: (1) changes to the "All Development Criteria" and (2) a
set of recommendations that deal with "Process". She said this was
arrived at by having a significant amount of citizen involvement
(interviews with focus groups-- roundtable discussion (bringing
focus members together) --the advisory committee was then formed].
Planner Clark said there were two community workshops held early
on, to get a sense from the citizen standpoint, where this project
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 2
should go, what kinds of issues are out there relative to
compatibility and also to begin seeking solutions. She said since
the release of the draft report, two public information meetings
were held and the report was presented to both the Landmark
Preservation Commission and the Natural Resources Advisory Board,
a letter is in the Board packet from LPC and minutes from the
Natural Resources Advisory Board recommending support of the
proposal. She said there was a Council work session held October
12, with general support and a few issues that needed to be
addressed; these issues will be reported to Council November 16.
She said the changes have not been made in the draft submitted,
dated October 6, and the changes will be made pending the Board's
recommendation.
Planner Clark noted there are a series of recommendations relative
to process and also the criteria changes. She said the process
changes will make the development review process more fair and
consistent, will involve citizen participation earlier in the
review process, and in general will make it more visible and
understandable to the community as a whole. She said these two
changes have been geared towards citizens who have never
participated in the process, to consultants who work with staff and
to Board members and staff. She said this will provide a way to
clearly communicate what the intent is here in Fort Collins for
PUDs. She said that the wording is now easy to understand and
intent is very clear. She said changes are made in the
Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria proposing 18 criteria. She
said these are used to determine and evaluate impacts or potential
impacts from a development on its surrounding area or neighborhood.
She said that the Community -wide and Engineering sections do not
have proposed changes at this time.
Planner Clark said staff is recommending deletion of Social
Compatibility for two specific reasons because: (1) the definition
has not been determined and (2) the possible discriminatory use of
this criteria if left in the plan, which is not the intent. The
staff does not have specific recommendations to replace the
criteria and believes this topic is covered under some of the other
criteria such as lighting, noise, architecture, neighborhood
character, setbacks, and landscape. She said the other changes in
the system are mitigation, which is proposed to be deleted, to
offset or alleviate impacts and is built into the "All Development
Criteria" in the Neighborhood Section. She said staff, at
Council Is direction, is strengthening the language in the ordinance
so the concept of "mitigation" as a requirement comes through on a
stronger basis. She said specifically staff is requesting from the
Board two things: (1) recommend the adoption to Council the
Neighborhood Compatibility Study, adopted by resolution, and
(2) recommend the ordinance changes to the LDGS that would
implement the Neighborhood Compatibility study.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 3
Planner Clark said there are several housekeeping changes to the
LDGS that are not necessarily linked to neighborhood compatibility.
She said this was an appropriate time to present them to the Board.
She stated the changes that relate to the compatibility study are
those that are considered short-range (proposed to implement within
three months --listed in the first page and a half of the ordinance)
and the next section (pages 2 through 4) addresses "All Development
Criteria" and defines how this fits with density and other land use
charts. She stressed even though land use support may be apparent
on a point chart, the All Development review is still a second part
of that review, may have land uses not compatible and that cannot
be made compatible. She said at the bottom of page 4 is a section
where staff will add different criteria with sketches, eventually
being published in a new LDGS. She said pages 5-8 deal with
changes to the LDGS relative to neighborhood meetings, clarifying
and creating criteria for when neighborhood meetings are required,
procedure for notification with criteria for expansion from 500
feet to 1000 feet (specifically to be done on multi -family
developments that are 100 dwelling units or more and non-
residential projects that contain 50,000 square feet of gross
leasable floor area), send notices for the hearings of the Planning
and Zoning Board 28 days before the meeting). She said the
remaining pages cover the housekeeping changes, clarifying
administrative changes, extensions are granted and reviewed by
Board and staff against the "All Development Criteria" of the LDGS,
clarifications of attorney certification required for site plans,
and clarifications on extensions (presently the Board can grant a
6-month extension, in practice are typically granted annually or a
2-year basis). She said that gives a good overview of the
ordinance language being proposed, this is draft so there is
opportunity for changes at Board's direction or after greater
review by staff.
Vice Chair Cottier asked for Board questions.
Member Walker asked staff clarification on Council changes in this
draft.
Planner Clark said they deal with "Process" and "criteria."
(1) Process as it relates to having a facilitator at all
neighborhood meetings --although this is a good idea, she was not
sure how the costs will be covered. She said a project planner is
present not only trying to facilitate the meeting and recording,
with the planner's back to the audience (not desirable) and if
controversial or largely attended, it is difficult to keep up with
it. She said a Council member suggested that we routinely have a
second staff person there just to facilitate and not be responsible
for recording. She said also the "neighborhood ambassador" concept
was suggested by Council that it not be a "position" per se, full-
time or part-time, but to focus on types of outcomes seen needing
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 4
to happen, looking to other alternatives as volunteers or teams,
rather than one individual, that could be assigned
responsibilities. She said another Council comment was to award
good design and also projects that achieve City goals, policies and
objectives. (2) She said the use of Criteria to strengthen the
Concept of "mitigation" on all projects are built into the section
of "All Development Criteria," covered in pages 2 and 3 of the
draft ordinance. She said Council recognized there may be
incompatible land uses that cannot be mitigated or buffered. She
said that is true, there are cases where by virtue of
characteristics of the land use, that it may be determined
incompatible. Council direction is to state that in the ordinance.
She said the last Council direction was to give more thought to the
concept of the removal of "Social Compatibility" --how are these
kinds of things covered in the system (lighting, noise,
architecture are covered under "All Development Criteria"), using
neighborhood planning will help fill the gap as well. She said one
of the most difficult things is to pinpoint the issues of the
citizens, defining those issues specifically. She asked the Board
give some thought to the "social compatibility" issue for specific
direction.
Member Walker commented that on page 30 he found a reference to
"criteria to evaluate neighborhood compatibility" --viewing the
project as a whole in the context of a neighborhood as a whole. He
said he felt this was one piece of the "social compatibility" issue
and wanted the staff or consultants to respond.
Consultant Ripley responded (1) trying to educate people through
the guidance system very clearly and (2) trying to move the land
use conflicts chart to the front, to be viewed first, this is where
we have potential conflict here and then breaking projects into
pieces with each criterion being met to accomplish the "whole" and
mitigate those conflicts and help that project fit in. She
emphasized the neighborhood meeting is the place where a better job
of educating will take place for citizens as well as the developers
as to the intent of mitigation.
Planner Clark stated the "Social Compatibility" criteria and issues
related have become somewhat larger than what they intended to be.
Land use conflicts must be resolved or a neighborhood meeting held.
She added we are making neighborhood requirements stronger, viewing
the overall project in the context of the neighborhood require-
ments, through more specifically worded criteria, without making
this standards. She restated there were 4 criteria to start and
now there are 18.
Member Walker summarized this aspect of "social compatibility" is
within the criteria.
0
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
• November 1, 1993
Page 5
Planner Clark further commented that staff had considered writing
a criterion entitled "Neighborhood Character", but did not because
of the specifics of architecture, setbacks, landscaping, building
materials and staff believed that would revert back to what
presently exists, redundancy, overlapping criteria repeating
itself --consequently was left to be defined within the 18 criteria,
rather than as a separate criterion.
Vice Chair Cottier asked staff about the use of the specific
document, will the page and a half devoted to the topic just
discussed be a part of the LDGS or will the Board have only the one
sentence criteria that could possibly lead to other interpretations
when projects are evaluated.
Planner Clark said staff intent is to have this located in the "All
Development Criteria", located on page 2 of the ordinance, which is
incomplete, but the point being the study in the form you have now
will become two separate things: (1) criteria pages will become
ordinance language and (2) study recommendations in the front that
do not relate to the criteria need to stand alone, accomplished on
future projects whether mid- or long-term projects. She said this
information will be put into the introduction and will be in the
• LDGS on the page right before it starts into the individual
criteria.
Vice Chair Cottier commented that over the years the Board has seen
changes in criteria and thought it would be more useful to have
this background language with each criteria. She specifically
referenced "neighborhood character", citizens feeling this is lost
from the "All Development Criteria", but if you read, for example,
about "neighborhood integration," you can find the same language
that was used to define "neighborhood character," the thoughts are
all there if they can be located next to appropriate criteria.
Consultant Ripley replied that the wording below the criteria is
intended to become part of the guidance system and will appear as
part of the document.
Planner Clark stated that the only thing different would be the
sketches (where it says "sketches to be inserted") on the page
itself, each page would then become part of the guidance system.
She said the introduction would be in front of the criteria to
guide and basically tell in straight -forward terms, how to use the
criteria, what they are intended to accomplish. She said it is a
good place to state how important "neighborhood character" is to
the system.
•
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 6
PUBLIC INPUT.
Mrs. Emily Smith - member of the Neighborhood Compatibility
Advisory Committee - Mrs. Smith said the Committee spent 18 months
towards defining, developing, consolidating and revising design
criteria to give clarity and emphasis to the attributes of
development which not only foster compatibility, but also give
positive building of sound neighborhoods. ' She submitted to the
Board a written document stating her views in more detail.
Mrs. Smith said she had not received the Council recommendation.
She said as a neighborhood representative her hope and expectation
was that recommended changes would lessen the frustration level of
neighborhoods and would give citizens more meaningful interaction
in the process. She said that she was a little disappointed and
concerned from a neighborhood position that many people have not
been involved in the year and a half process. She said from a
neighborhood position, no criteria are proposed to allow for
assessing the intrusive nature of developments on the neighborhood.
She stated further that the document which has evolved from the
Committee, fails to address and clearly identify important
neighborhood compatibility criteria that they are using now that
address the soundness of neighborhoods. She referenced page 20 and
30 where the study makes misleading statements under "See
additional guidance". The criteria to evaluate neighborhood
compatibility and site design are stated individually, however,
their intent is to facilitate the project as a whole and the
neighborhood in the context of a neighborhood. She said several of
the criteria deal with attributes that come directly or indirectly
from the intensity of activity at the proposed new land use. She
said the appropriateness of this intensity or the need for
mitigation must be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood.
She objected to architecture and setbacks only in evaluation, human
values are left out: "neighborhood character" needs to remain on
the criteria chart, composite neighborhoods need the review, but to
have an overall concept of city development as a whole, intrusive
or disruptive developments need addressing, so that the "done deal"
sensitivity in the neighborhoods will not be perpetuated.
Lou Stitzel - 521 E. Laurel - She stated that this document is
definitely a progressive move forward on the part of the City and
neighborhoods and congratulated all the people involved. She
attended a few of the meetings did not profess to be knowlegeable
of the entire process, but viewed the results and said it was a
definite step forward. She said she attended the Growth Management
Seminar, and there needs to be a caution that this be viewed by
other departments in the City and for additional input, considering
future growth. She wanted something that indicates in the
document that as the city grows and shifts, if we are to have
sustainable communities and planning, we must look at how
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
. November 1, 1993
Page 7
neighborhoods fit into overall urban design. She said, whether we
like it or not that is where we need to look in the future. She
thought this was sound interim thinking but there needs to be a
process to continually update and be flexible, and grow toward
long-term goals. She said if you do not connect the "neighborhood
compatibility" to the overall urban design, you are permitting the
"tail to wag the dog."
Frank Vaught - committee member of Neighborhood Compatibility
Advisory Committee - He commented that some of the items have been
addressed. He said one thing that was impressive was the 14-20
people participating throughout the 1S months and it was comforting
that goals were common throughout the entire effort, very close in
what was desired to be accomplished --the document comes close to
that end. He pointed to the elimination of "social compatibility,"
and felt it had been replaced in many comprehensive ways to judge
project appropriateness in terms of how it fits into the whole
picture as a community and smaller picture of the neighborhood. He
reinforced it relies on the basic premise of the LDGS and that
unlike land uses can be made compatible with one another. He said
that Council addressed this issue in a work session and there was
concern and desire to be more specific, example given was a meat
• packing plant in a residential neighborhood, it wasn't residential,
office or retail use next to a residential use, but more of the
extremes; this obviously needs additional review and work to change
with this effort. He thought there were many areas that deal with
architectural design, setbacks, landscape --all of these tend to be
site -specific issues. He said one of the objectives, as part of
the educational process in neighborhood meetings, was to separate
the land use issue from the site plan, first ask is this an
appropriate land use, then evaluate it based on LDGS and
appropriate points charts. He said once that decision has been
derived, consider the specifics of the site. He said his
experience has all too often been that people do not accept the
appropriateness of the land use and, therefore, are not interested
in the specific issues of mitigation, how tall the berm is, how far
apart things are, etc., they are still focused on the land use
issue. He valued the educational aspect of the plan and urged the
Board to accept the plan and recommend to Council its adoption; it
needs to be a flexible tool, needs to continually be evaluated on
a periodic basis, to judge its success or failure. He was
available to answer any questions.
Eldon Ward - committee member of Neighborhood Compatibility
Advisory Committee - He stated support and recommended the Board
accept the document. He cautioned that ",political influences and
emotions about a specific project" are sometimes pervasive and
decisions are made not relying on a document such as this used with
the LDGS. Although the document is not perfect and issues of
is
"neighborhood compatibility" remain unreholved, there will be a
Planning & zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 8
viable guide and tool for this process. He felt the end product
comes close to reflecting collectively the committee's views. He
is looking forward to working with the Board.
Frank Vaught said he neglected to address the concept of changing
the requirements of a preliminary plan. He said it is mentioned in
the text, but not the goals. He said the amount of work and time
for developers to prepare a preliminary plan is equivalent to a
final plan. He said that tends to polarize people because of the
amount of time involved. He felt that a concept/sketch plan to
address merits of land use to the Board as well as other input from
the neighborhoods was all that was necessary for preliminary plans.
He said issues would be clearly identified, the two parties could
go back together and try to resolve differences and then the more
detailed information could be gathered and submitted in a final
form to the Board. He felt this would aid in shortening the
process of review, costs, and gets down to the specifics with
developer and surrounding neighborhoods.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Vice Chair Cottier asked for comments on the "Process" and then the
"All Development Criteria".
Deputy City Attorney Eckman referred to the LDGS as it is worded,
and there is no proposal by the planning staff to change it,
"overall development plans are to be reviewed for compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan for the City." He said you will notice on
page 9 of the draft of the ordinance two sections that are proposed
to be changed, Sections 10 and 11 in the ordinance, addressing
major or minor changes in the ODP. They will be reviewed on
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. He said a
month ago a confidential memorandum was submitted and a copy is
before the Board tonight to refresh you for review of documents of
this nature. He expected this issue may be discussed before the
Council as well.
Member Walker commented he participated on the committee presenting
this document as well as Rene' Clements -Cooney. He felt the
"Process" was almost as important as the criteria. He cited some
key points (1) speed up the review and content of preliminary plans
and also what preliminary plans are, putting everyone at a
disadvantage as they now are defined for developers and
neighborhoods, (2) early involvement of neighborhoods, identifying
controversial issues early, at a point when plans are fluid and
extremely important to get input, and (3) neighborhood plans are
useful documents to define neighborhood character and other
concerns considered.
. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 9
Member Winfree questioned staff regarding "process", is it to be
added to the three approving criteria as a condition to be met?
What kind of guarantee is there that the "process" be met in order
to be approved?
Planner Clark stated that at this point we do not have anything nor
do we propose anything on the point chart that talks about process.
She said that the "process" will work as it has in the past, it is
the responsibility of the project planner and planning director
that "process" is followed on each of the proposals. She said it
has not come up as an issue to be placed on a point chart and do
not have any check that reflects "process" and the Board may wish
to explore this further.
Attorney Eckman added that it is staff's job and his to make sure
procedures are followed in the application process, notices are
given and hearings are held, proper procedure followed.
Member Strom cautioned that conceptually he liked the idea of a
much less detailed preliminary that allows basic issues aired
before there is much investment into a project from either side.
The concern he has is so much of the idea of "compatibility" under
LDGS depends on how well you mitigate. He said a lot of mitigation
methods have to do with design related parts of the project. He
said since he has been on the Board, they have tried to avoid
designing projects at public meetings and is concerned about
getting too conceptual at the preliminary stage, spending too much
time coming up with every condition that we feel might be necessary
in order to make it work. He said he would like anyone who would
like to respond, stating in theory it sounds good, but are we
backing away from the LDGS that we have followed with a fairly high
degree of success.
Emily Smith stated that the experience of the Committee is that
when a neighborhood is dealing with a developer or other
professional, who is familiar with the LDGS and how it works, as
well as a local person, this does work and it is good to come in
with as little detail as possible and start working on it even
before it is reviewed by the P & Z Board for preliminary approval.
However, she said, if the developer is out of town, he is stuck,
the P & Z Board is in a situation where it is either denied or this
is done on your own with the developer.
Member Strom asked if he was correct in understanding that a lot of
the preliminary planning goes on before it gets to the Board?
Mrs. Smith said that is how she perceived it.
Mr. Vaught said it is before and during the process, would keep the
• time frame at 4-5 months, with a sketch at the 1 month's meeting
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 10
and then go back and work out differences. He felt that the Board
should not be put in a position to plan the project details. He
admitted there needs to be more work but it has merits on the
surface to have it more fluid and not so fixed in the preliminary.
Mrs. Smith said the more money invested, the more ingrained is the
design, changes are less likely to happen and what the Committee
sought to avoid too much was investment, before lines were drawn.
She said the intent was to avoid waste and potential conflict.
Member Strom agreed on the concept of a joint solution before it
gets polarized, not just money but mental and emotional energy that
gets invested. He asked Planner Clark as to where are we in this
particular concept?
Planner Clark responded she thought this was in the second phase of
this project, the time frame was long-range, 12 months from the
adoption of the study. She agreed the land use and site design
components should be separated and staff believes that conceptually
we can step back on most preliminary plans and come up with a
sketch plan concept. She, however, recognizes the fact that there
are certain projects that are controversial in neighborhoods that
even though we say there is less detail required, the specifics of
a project (location and information received) may still dictate
that additional detail would be needed to convey architectural
character or some other element from the neighborhood standpoint.
She said one of the things that is important to retain at the
preliminary planning stage is the traffic impact study, it is
critical to overall site layout, access and the ability to do a
land use evaluation.
Member Strom said he felt this could be done without detailed site
design, based on intensity and size. He stated another concern of
buffering was backing away from the concept of land uses being fit
with another land use under the LDGS. He said the concept is valid
but how far is a proponent willing to go in terms of mitigation.
Member Walker commented on the Board's point of view of the
preliminary plan to allow more time for "process" and leave it
sketchy and flexible so when the Board receives a preliminary plan,
either there has been effective resolution of issues involving
interested parties early on, keeping an openness to discuss
options. He said then we would decide if there is agreement,
decide clear identification of land use issues and resolution of
difficulties. He said the real villain is the current process,
that we are increasing levels of detail required by departments and
that is what creates potential for conflict for developers and
neighborhoods as well as the Board.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 11
Vice Chair Cottier asked Attorney Eckman to comment on how the
Board would evaluate substantial conformance to a preliminary, that
is one of our guidelines in considering approval of a final. Are
we closely directed to approve it if there is very little detail
with a preliminary and do we lose that idea of conformance with a
preliminary?
Planner Clark responded with an observation that the need is to
clearly delineate the purpose of a preliminary plan and what it
grants and also what the final grants. She said it is conceivable
that what is effective now could change. She said we need to focus
on obtaining consensus on what a preliminary plan is versus a final
plan for content.
Attorney Eckman referred to page 43 of the LDGS, that the final
plan will comply to all other criteria, Subparagraph C, b says "the
final shall be in substantial compliance with the approved
preliminary." He said the final plan has to do two things:
(1) comply with the preliminary but it can be measured against the
"All Development Criteria" of the LDGS, except for layout and
density, and (2) if the preliminary were less detailed than it is
now, it would just be easier for you to decide if the final
complies with the preliminary and that would be the minor, question
and the major question is whether it complies with the "All
Development Criteria." He said as it is now, the preliminary is
quite detailed, so if the final does comply with the preliminary,
and you thought the preliminary complied with the "All Development
Criteria", not to say that you can't change your mind, logically
the more detailed a criteria, the more the final will be in
compliance with the "All Development Criteria".
Vice Chair Cottier was concerned about setting the Board up for
more problems on what basis we have for denying a final after
approving a preliminary and also whether or not we would see a
preliminary approval standing and final after, after final, until
we get one right.
Attorney Eckman said if you have less detail on the preliminary, to
some extent, the developers will be a bit more uncertain when they
come into final because they won't know whether you have analyzed
the "All Development Criteria" before and they might be faced with
a surprise on final. He said he suspected that is one outcome.
Vice Chair Cottier proclaimed it was worth a try. She said it
clearly allows for more meaningful participation on the part of the
neighborhoods.
Vice Chair Cottier had a few comments on "process." She said the
"process" deals mostly with administrative things --the items that
• are short-term are rather easy things to do, and would like to see
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 12
the process just short- and mid -range selections. She asked if the
long-range items could be moved up to mid -range, recognizing the
workload in the Planning Department.
Mr. Peterson said workload was the reason for the different ranges.
In terms of all these items, they will be brought back to the P &
Z Board for recommendation to City Council, that is our intent.
Vice Chair Cottier asked if there would be ordinance changes for
the "process" chapter.
Mr. Peterson replied that some of the "process" changes will come
back to the Board. The ordinance changes will have to be
recommendations to Council; staff will keep you appraised of what
is working and what is not, the new changes may not be effective
and will be evaluated.
Vice Chair Cottier asked for comments on "All Development
Criteria."
Member Strom asked Planner Clark if there was a review process when
the neighborhood criteria is used, specifically for the "All
Development Criteria" or not.
Planner Clark said staff would in the future be doing this same
kind of format for the community -wide section and the engineering
sections. We would be proposing the neighborhood criteria to be
adopted and put into the LDGS when we print it, including the
standards and analysis. It is not mentioned specifically in the
"process" section, but referenced in the introduction to the "All
Development Criteria." Staff intends to update and revise the
community -wide and engineering criteria, as other projects are
completed.
Member Strom asked what would be the best sense of when these
criteria will be incorporated into the LDGS, the community -wide,
"All Development Criteria?"
Planner Clark responded that they will be put into the system,
reordered and reorganized so that the criterion is up at the top of
the page, etc. For example, some of the work that Natural
Resources is doing relative to air quality --when that new wording
is received, we will come forward to implement that change. it
might be done on an individual basis, addressing each criterion, or
we may have several at one point to be able to revise.
Member Strom said this is increasing volume of paper but giving
more information relating to the LDGS standard. Felt it was
important to implement, but suggested an index to find particular
terms, language or subjects (showing up several times in the
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 13
document) that can be found under a few key words. He used the
"height criteria" presently in the LDGS, but it does not say how to
find them in the code or other city rules or regulations. He felt
it would be extremely useful.
Vice Chair Cottier asked Planner Clark how the revised criteria can
respond to the question of intensity of use.
Planner Clark referred her to page IA under "Transportation" that
asked if additional traffic can be incorporated, etc., deals with
intensity, "vehicular circulation and parking" because often times
just the number of vehicles on a site, from a parking standpoint,
may be related to intensity. The criteria that deal with
"lighting" and "noise" are also related to intensity. That is her
perception of how to define intensity. The staff has not tried to
"re -do" the land use point charts. That is not part of our charge.
She is aware that the residential intensity chart is an issue
raised by residents of the Prospect -Shields neighborhood, the
concern is there is no density maximum in the zoning districts.
This will be an area to review.
Vice Chair Cottier also asked about a periodic review of this by
more than one person, is it built into the ordinance?
Planner Clark suggested an annual review.
Member Walker commented that the Committee realized that we have to
deal with a very mechanical approach to neighborhood compatibility,
which is subjective and it may eliminate the human element. He
would like to see the Board have available more criteria in
addition to site design, architectural treatment and landscaping to
insure sensitivity the existing neighborhoods where a project may
be proposed. He stated in regard to "human values and social
compatibility" that neighborhoods are more than a collection of
buildings, but homes with people who have aspirations, ideas and
dreams for their neighborhoods.
Member Fontane commented that during the preliminary neighborhood
meetings, many of the criteria will be addressed and will aid in
the planning "process. She stated that asking for less at the
preliminary, that the "social compatibility" and the "neighborhood
character" issues will be addressed as intensity and avoid the
problems of high stress in the final process.
Member Winfree commented she first responded to the draft in August
and still has some of the same concerns. She is excited about the
changes involving "process", early inclusion of neighborhoods and
less detail from developers on preliminaries. Her concern was in
the attempt to make the criteria more clearly defined and
measurable, that perhaps issues involving "neighborhood character
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 14
and values" have been deleted. She is concerned with the
neighborhoods that things that were important to them may have been
left out. She felt the document has come a long way but does not
deal with all issues of concern, and hoped with the review process
there will be some latitude to work towards a more perfected
document.
Member Strom commented on aspirations of the community and other
subjective considerations, the Board considers these issues to have
sensitivity to the neighborhood. As a Board we must deal with some
physical features what may have been someone's aspirations for a
particular neighborhood or site. There may not be another way to
evaluate and make decisions.
Vice Chair Cottier said in summary neighborhood compatibility
appeared to have been addressed in this document, the wording is
not the same but the intent is there without the clear cut
criteria. She pointed out that the neighborhood people will
continue to be frustrated with this document, but the concerns that
were in the old criteria, specifically in the analysis section, are
only worded differently. She believed that the final say with
regard to compatibility remains with the Board not the
neighborhoods. She believed the social compatibility criteria
should no longer be included and as a Board are addressing this in
the way we are viewing neighborhood compatibility, even though
stated differently. She offered the idea to delete the "site
design, architectural treatment and landscape treatment" wording of
the purpose section of the ordinance and to insure development
proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods
rather than trying to use words to insure compatibility. She
believed the Board would be insuring compatibility by using the
criteria in the document.
Member Walker affirmed the neighborhood planning process concept
proposed and other issues of concern will be worked through. He
said as a Board we will consider the "human" aspect of
compatibility and make those judgments in review as individual
projects come forth.
Member Strom said there is a sense of "sameness" in Fort Collins
rather than individual identity of neighborhoods or uses but also
acknowledged the desirability of our community. Because he has
concern for the quality and excellence of future developments, he
endorsed the design awards section to reflect Fort Collins desire
for increased effort in all planning.
Member Walker moved to recommend Council adopt the ordinance
drafted, with a change in the first item to read: "To insure that
the development proposals are sensitive to the character of
existing neighborhoods" only.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
• November 1, 1993
Page 15
Attorney Eckman drew Mr. Walker's attention to the fact that the
ordinance is a "draft" and may find there will be changes in the
wording for the final.
Motion seconded by Member Fontana.
Member Strom mentioned that he agreed in concept of the ordinance
but asked if he found there is something he did not agree with he
could call a councilperson.
Mr. Peterson told the Board that this could be considered at the
November 15 meeting. It will be presented to Council November 16.
Vice Chair Cottier indicated the clear support of the Board on the
intent of the ordinance, the proposed wording change to the first
item should help increase comfort level among neighborhood people.
Member Winfree indicated she would like to wait until November 15
to review this further.
Mr. Peterson indicated his preference would be to act tonight. The
wording is essentially the legal requirements the attorney's office
• has made, minor wording changes. The intent is the same as in the
report, with no significant changes from what has been presented.
Member Strom asked for clarification if this ordinance would take
two readings by Council.
Mr. Peterson said that was correct.
Member Strom asked if modifications could be made to Council by the
Board before they review the ordinance for final adoption.
Mr. Peterson said yes.
Motion carried 5 to 0.
Member Walker moved to adopt the findings and recommendations of
the Neighborhood Compatibility study with the comment that a
transcript of the Board's discussion be included for Council's
consideration of some points of variance from this document by the
Board.
Member Strom seconded the motion with the comment that the design
award be included.
Planner Clark said it is under Item H-7 of the document.
• Motion passed 5-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 16
ITEM 27 ROCK CRBBR PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planner Shepard gave the staff report.
Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design - He submitted several
development proposals to be presented at the same time to give a
larger picture of overall development in the area. His slide
presentation to the Board included defining the character of the
neighborhood at the entrances, street-scape treatment, collector
street options, parking courts, school site, drainage, utilities,
open space with greenbelts, Wildwood single-family area, Union
Pacific railroad tracks, 3-units to the acre, solar requirements,
inclusion of multi -family units, etc. He presented a map
designating the ODP plan. He said that Stan Everitt, applicant,
was available for questions.
Vice Chair Cottier asked Mr. Ward to explain the different colors
on the map.
Mr. Ward explained they represented lot sizes and types of density
(light yellow--65-75 feet in width; cream 75-80 feet width; red --
multi -family; dark yellow --patio homes, future phases). There will
be a variety of different single family areas.
PUBLIC INPUT.
Gary Putnam - property owner of 3-acres south of the project site -
He was concerned about the integrity of the area, rural character,
irrigation water runoff, existing trees 10-15 years maturity,
wildlife on the property. He asked the Board to consider a buffer
area in the form of an alley, stone fence, buffer, ditch, etc. A
map was referred to locating his property. He stated no one has
talked to him about the development.
Bill Slimak- 2522 East County Road 36 - His property joins the ODP
area in the extreme southeast corner. His concerns were of
traffic, specifically Timberline and Harmony Road intersection (90%
of the traffic comes south on Timberline with no left turn, history
of accidents); storm retention areas and drainage needs detailed
plans; supported development of bicycle path systems, has over 600
trees with wildlife (offered a ditch be located on the south border
as a buffer).
Shawn Hoff - Lot One on the Blehm Subdivision - He has been
resident since 1975 and uses the irrigation ditch to water
properties. He proposed the realignment of the ditch along the
south border to act as a buffer. He mentioned his concern of legal
questions regarding water. He said no one has contacted him for
neighborhood planning.
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 17
Joe Minkey - 2312 East County Road 36, Lot 3 He was in favor of
the suggested realignment of the ditch on the south border of the
development or double fencing, vegetation to be non -toxic to
livestock and unable to propagate either by seed or root. His
concern is for the agricultural use directly meeting the urban uses
proposed.
Helen Bomm - 2424 East County Road 36 - Blenm Subdivision - She
agreed with what her neighbors have said. Her concern was the
preservation of the existing agriculture rights, separation from
the subdivision, and asked the Board to reconsider how this
subdivision is being developed.
Dean Olsen - a neighbor to Mr. Putnam in the Sheller Subdivision -
He stated he had never been contacted in regard to these issues and
had a desire to meet with the developers to discuss the plans in
more detail.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED.
Vice Chair Cottier asked Planner Shepard several questions
• regarding: (1) proper notification, (2) drainage situation, (3)
appropriate buffers on the south location of the property, and (4)
planning policies concerning UGA rural developments.
Planner Shepard stated (1) two letters were sent regarding this
meeting to the residents, (2) he referred the Board to Mike Herzig
on traffic and drainage detention issues, and (3) and (4) he stated
that for development along the fringe of the city; staff has tried
to maintain 3-dwelling units per acre. Blehm Subdivision has 6.5-
acre lots and the proposed development plan needs more finalizing
since it is in the preliminary stage.
Mike Herzig, engineer, stated there have been planning meetings
regarding the Timberline Road improvements, consultants have been
working on preliminary plans, and the Poudre Valley Hospital has
been involved. Development agreements for Timberline will be made
after the final plans are created. He mentioned that the drainage
issue needs more information, also requirements of appropriate
agencies and will be addressed in the final stages of the project.
Mr. Peterson stated that the drainage relocation as a buffer along
the south border of the development is an excellent suggestion and
staff will look into this possibility.
Mr. Ward commented on detention areas. He reported that
preliminary plans have been submitted to the City and his firm has
• been working with the Storm Drainage Utility and Natural Resources
since last April. He reported the plan is for the drainage to
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 18
remain in the existing alignment and undisturbed as little as
possible, but realignment may be possible. Standards will control
drainage run-off.
Mr. Ward also commented on Timberline Road improvements, those
improvements would be required with the first phases of
development.
Mr. .Ward discussed issues concerning density of 3 units to the
acre. He referred to the amount of open space planned to be kept
in its natural state.
Member Strom asked about the width of the ditch.
Mr. Ward said the minimum standard width to conform to storm
drainage was 54-56 feet in the Master Plan. The developers are
keeping the allowance 70-100 feet so the grading can be varied.
Moving the ditch has not been looked into in any detail.
Member Winfree asked about lot depth bordering large lot
developments and buffering between existing subdivisions.
Mr. Ward replied that 105- to 110- foot lots were proposed for the
lots adjacent to the southern border. He commented there is no
common area, given space constraints, that fencing it would be less
of an impact than a walkway or greenbelt of common maintenance.
Member Winfree asked Planner Shepard what date the neighborhood
meeting was held.
Planner Shepard stated there was no neighborhood meeting held for
this project, and the decision was made on the fact that it is
residential next to residential, the lowest density that is allowed
in the City of Fort Collins and still meets policy, that out on the
fringe of the City mixed density use is desirable. Staff believes
residential next to residential is compatible at the preliminary
stage.
Member Winfree asked for clarification of the two letters sent to
the neighbors.
Planner Shepard stated that this project was originally scheduled
for the September P & Z Board meeting and was continued to the
October meeting.
Member Walker asked for more information on the southern border,
specifically the 20-foot sewer variance and options for buffering.
Planner Shepard said an option for buffering could be a street.
0 •
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 19
Member Walker asked staff regarding specific drainage of the
existing system through the site.
Mr. Peterson said that the drainage is part of a major regional
system, McClelland's drainage area and it does move water from the
west to the east, plans are for it to handle more water.
Vice Chair Cottier asked for comment.
Member Walker commented on the ODP. He thought some of the design
in the upper portion is well done and said the southern border is
a critical issue. He felt that it is not quite accurate to say
there is residential meeting residential, when one is being
utilized as agricultural. Neighborhood compatibility offers
transition, here there remains a stark difference. He felt the
drainage needed to be explored in the buffering capacity. He
stated he would like the neighbors to be brought into the process.
Member Winfree stated that neighbors should be brought into the
process as early as possible and ideas discussed with the
developer. She felt there were many fine things about the ODP, but
the neighborhood input cannot be overlooked as part of the process.
• Member Strom suggested that the ODP does not dictate the solutions
at the south edge. He felt the ODP was acceptable and more
detailed exploration can be made at a later date.
Member Fontane stated agreement that the ODP, without the
mitigation to the south, is well presented and that solutions can
be made specifically for details within the plan without delay of
the acceptance of the ODP.
Member Walker had a concern that the ODP would not necessarily
address the finer issues and asked for staff comment.
Mr. Peterson believed the entire ODP did not have to be redone to
meet specific concerns. He recognized work needs to be
accomplished and re -thinking of drainage and density. He advised
caution to be careful about decisions on density requirements.
There is no significant change in the ODP.
Vice Chair Cottier agreed and asked Mr. Ward to comment.
Mr. Ward summarized he would recommend that the Board would approve
the ODP and require specific buffering interface and design detail
along the south border of the development. He was regretful that
the two projects were submitted together because it may delay the
progress of the northern development of Hillside by the Everitt
• Companies.
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 20
Vice Chair Cottier had some questions concerning the ditch.
Mr. Peterson admitted the ditch looked inadequate for function,
requested the opportunity to look at Tract D.
Vice Chair Cottier appreciated the attempt of the developers to try
to offer a density mix, and felt the project acceptable.
Member Walker felt the density on the southern interface is
adequate but wanted buffering explored and favored the general
density of the ODP.
Attorney Eckman stated if the motion is to deny the ODP, it would
be his recommendation that the person who makes the motion would
also include the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, not the
LDGS.
Member Fontana moved to recommend .approval of the Overall
Development Plan of the Rock Creek PDD.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
ITEM 28 - HILLSIDE AT ROCK CREEK PDD PRELIMINARY !16 89C
Member Strom moved to accept the Hillside at Rock Creek Preliminary
PDD.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
EX 29 - BROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK PDD - PRELIMINARY #16-89
Member Fontane requested that the staff, developer and neighbors
get together before any further plans are developed. She said the
storm rater and ditch plans need to be explored.
Member Walker asked what is the best approach to solving this
situation.
Vice Chair Cottier felt it vas appropriate for the Board to
recommend a neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Peterson commented that a motion could be made to request this
item back onto the agenda on a specific date, November 15 or
December 13.
i 0
• Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1993
Page 21
Mr. Ward said this project affects a small number of residents and
thought options could be defined quickly With the neighbors.
Member Walker made the motion to continue the Brookside Village
preliminary to the November meeting With the understanding that
there Would be a neighborhood meeting With the developer and staff
concerning appropriate buffering.
Member Winfree seconded the motion.
Member Walker commented that the interface is With an agricultural
area and believes the Board needs to see What can separate the
residential area proposed in this area, even a canal.
Member Strom believed it Was viable to consider the canal as a
buffer and suggested that neighbors Work together and come up With
an acceptable solution.
Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Peterson stated after conferring with engineering staff, there
are positives and negatives to relocation of the drainage ditch.
He mentioned the positive aspects had already been considered and
addressed the negative as being: (1) hydraulically moving the
ditch may cause some lots to be lost which would change the density
equation and (2) if the ditch is moved to the south property line,
it will probably aid the property owners along the line as well as
the Geneva Homes developer to make sure the irrigation discharge
water is taken care of in a reasonable manner for it to work with
the McClellan Ditch compliance.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
•