HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/18/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Rollins, Fries, Schmidt, Meyer, Stockover, Smith, and Lingle.
Staff Present: Gloss, Mapes, Olt, Shepard, Deines
Citizen participation: None.
Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the February 16, 2006 and April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning hearings
(continued)
2. Recommendation to City Council regarding the Fort Collins Loveland Municipal Airport
Master Plan Update
3. #54-02B Peterson Annexation and Zoning
4. #55-02A Streamside Annexation and Zoning
5. #9-06 Johnston Annexation and Zoning
6. #11-06 Cargill Rezoning
Discussion Items:
7. #90-85R Hilton Garden Inn at Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park, First Filing —
Major Amendment
8. #36-05A Bella Vira — Project Development Plan
9. Recommendation to City Council for Spring 2006 Biannual Revisions, Clarification and
Additions to the Land Use Code.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Agenda item #6, with the exception of
Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 which were pulled by Member Schmidt as well as Citizen participation.
Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Project: Recommendation to City Council regarding the Fort Collins -Loveland
Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
Project Description: This is an update of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport
Master Plan which is a policy document that assesses and directs
physical improvements that will likely be necessary to accommodate
future aviation needs at the airport.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 2
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Member Schmidt requested clarification on questions and concerns that arose from reading the
packet at work session.
Member Schmidt understands that the FAA allows an average for decibel readings and would like
clarification as to when additional readings are done considering that the number of planes are
going to go up by 2020 and there will be 1 plane every 4 minutes. What kind of predictions are
there for the different types of planes and the decibel readings? What kind of impact will this have
on the Fossil Creek Reservoir given that the City has invested money, time and planning for that to
be a viable natural area? Member Schmidt is concerned that using a generic average will do harm
to that area.
Dave Gordon, Airport Manager, addressed the Board stating that Member Schmidt was correct in
that the noise contours that you see on the Land Use Plan is a day/night average of the anticipated
aircraft expectation in that 20 year time period. It accounts for the increased take -offs and landings
at the end of 20 years and the fleet mix, the type of aircraft that we forecast will be flying in and out
of the airport at the 20 year period. It incorporates the ultimate 20 year development.
Member Schmidt asked what is built into the plan or what is the recourse if the plane mix changes
or someone does an actual study and finds that the decibel readings are not what were projected.
Gordon replied that the 20 year Master Plan is done every 10 years. The last one was done in
1993. Theoretically, 10 years from now they would conduct another Master Plan Update validating
their numbers again. However, if there are significant changes before the 10 year period such as a
high growth in the area or the airport activity level has changed beyond what had been anticipated,
it would then be revisited with the FAA stating the reasons why another update is necessary.
Member Schmidt asked what options are available (changing flight plans or noise abatements) if it
is determined that there are detrimental effects.
Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation Services, addressed the Board explaining that the runway
alignments are set and there is nothing in this plan that should have any increased detrimental
effect over natural areas or the Fossil Creek Reservoir to the north. The only possible impact
would be if there was a runway extension proposed to the north and there is none anticipated. The
proposed runway extension, if it happens, will be extended to the south which means they would
lift off earlier on the runway and the climb will take them to a higher altitude over those areas than
the shorter existing length of the runway.
Phillips added that before any runway extension would ever take place, there would be extensive
environmental analysis done under the National Environmental Policy Act to determine
environmental effects. This is a planning level study that uses the averages in accordance with
FAA regulations for this type of a plan.
Opportunity for public comment was offered; however, there was none.
Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to City Council
approval of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport Master Plan Update based on the
facts and findings on page 3 of the staff report.
Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 3
Project: Johnston Annexation and Zoning, #9-06
Project Description: A request to annex and zone a 36.82 acre parcel. The site is 6111 S.
Timberline Road located approximately one-half mile south of
Kechter Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Contiguity with
the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire south
boundary which is shared with the Keating Annexation (Linden Park
Subdivision). Contiguity is also gained along the entire east
boundary which is shared with the Westchase Annexation Number
One and along the entire west boundary which is shared with the
Union Pacific Railroad Fourth Annexation.
The requested zoning is Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
on the easterly 16.94 acres and Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood on the westerly 19.87 acres. The requested zoning is
in conformance with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Annexation and Zoning and placement into the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the staff report that the MMN portion is designed to be in
conformance with the vacant land to the north that will form a neighborhood commercial center and
inquired if it presently zoned. Chief Planner, Ted Shepard replied yes that the area to the north of
the MMN is anticipated by the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to also be zoned MMN. The idea
there is that you would support a neighborhood commercial zone, which is also on the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan as well. The area to the north is not annexed; therefore, does not have a City
zoning.
Member Schmidt asked Shepard if it flows that the MMN is surrounded by the LMN and do the
people to the north have an option to be annexed or would they have to get a modification to the
Structure Plan if they wanted to do anything else besides a neighborhood commercial center.
Shepard replied yes, they would have to modify the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan if they wanted to diverge from the proposed zoning of MMN and neighborhood
commercial center.
Member Schmidt, referring to an email received from Joseph Gallagher, 1909 Prairie Hill Drive (a
property owner in the adjacent development of Linden Park) expressing concerns about the
Johnston Annexation, asking if Shepard had comments on the email. Shepard replied that there
was a written response (both a hard copy and an email) to Mr. Gallagher. Member Schmidt
inquired to Gallagher's issue about the fence, that it would be addressed in a PDP. Shepard
replied yes.
Public Participation
Willie Lopez, 2015 Prairie Hill Drive, addressed the Board expressing opposition to the annexation.
Commercial activity developing in that area will create the potential for property values to decline.
Member Lingle asked for clarification that the concern is not for the annexation as it is the zoning.
Lopez replied the concern was not so much for the zoning. There was more concern about what is
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 4
going to happen to future property values. If the area is developed with dense housing and with
commercial development around the Centex subdivision, it won't flow very well.
Mark Ashford, 1945 Prairie Hill Drive, addressed the Board to express concern about housing
values declining because of commercial development in that area. Ashford was not concerned
with the annexation, but more with zoning. He felt that it would make more sense aesthetically to
build more neighborhoods similar to the Centex subdivision. The roads are already there and felt it
would maintain the property values to continue with housing instead of commercial. Ashford also
expressed that there should be some open space given that the area is housing and churches —all
family oriented. With the Harmony area being developed commercially, Ashford believed there
would be sufficient shopping opportunities on Harmony and Centerra in Loveland. Ashford added
that there were concerns for a commercial area across the street from Bacon Elementary because
of traffic.
End of Public Participation
Member Schmidt asked Shepard for clarification in response to the citizen's comments, does MMN
allow a small amount of commercial? Shepard replied yes, all zones are mixed use. It was a
fundamental tenet of City Plan that all zones are mixed use. There are no exclusive land use
zones with the exception of RF and Urban Estate. The commercial center that is planned for this
area is on the Hansen property that is north of the subject property. There is no indication when
that property will be annexed and there is no development activity on the Hansen property. That is
where the designated neighborhood center will occur as part of the Fossil Reservoir Area Plan.
Timberline Road is a regional road, and the school district was aware of this when they selected
that site for Bacon Elementary. Timberline Road carries traffic from Windsor to downtown Fort
Collins. North of Harmony Road is designated as a six lane major arterial roadway. Traffic is
anticipated to increase on Timberline, and there will be commercial development north of Linden
Park and the Johnston Annexation.
Member Schmidt commented that it is most likely that if there is commercial development to the
north of the parcel of discussion this evening, it will remain residential and create a buffer between
neighborhoods and the commercial that is planned. However, when an actual PDP is filed, that is
when there can be more discussion about commercial development.
Board Member Schmidt motioned that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Johnston
Annexation and Zoning #9-06 based on the facts and findings on page 5 of the staff report.
Board Member Rollins seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
The Board agreed to review Peterson Annexation and Zoning, #54-02B and Streamside
Annexation and Zoning, #55-02A given their proximity and similar characteristics.
Project: Peterson Annexation and Zoning, #54-02B
Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 27.89 acres located on the south
side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the
west property boundary, which abuts the Kirshner Annexation
(December, 1993). The property is undeveloped and located in the
FA1 — Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 5
this annexation is UE — Urban Estate, which is consistent with the
Structure Plan designation and is in conformance with the 1-25 Subarea
Plan.
AND
Project: Streamside Annexation and Zoning, #55-02A
Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 73.67 acres located on the south
side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5.
Contiguity is gained along west property lines that abut the Peterson
Annexation being evaluated concurrent to this request. The property is
undeveloped and located in the FA1 — Farming District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE — Urban
Estate, which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in
conformance with the 1-25 Sub Area Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Annexation, recommends that the property be placed
in the UE — Urban Estate Zoning District and that this property be
included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Planner Olt began with the Peterson Annexation and Zoning #54-02B, which is a 27.9 acre parcel
of land located on the south side of East Vine Drive. This area is east of 1-25 and County Road 5.
The requested zoning for this land is Urban Estate, in conformance with the city's structure plan as
well as the 1-25 sub area. The property owner and petitioner is Cedar Points Land and Livestock.
The city is the circulator and applicant. The required contiguity is met along the west property line.
Planner Olt described the Streamside Annexation. The parcel is 73 acres of land on the south side
of East Vine Drive to the railroad tracks between 1-25 and County Road 5. It is requested as a
Urban Estate and to the City of Fort Collins if annexed.
Planner Olt said that the two would create what is defined as three enclaves of property.
Properties that are enclaved are eligible for involuntary annexations to the City after a three year
period of time. Olt stated that he met with the owner of the rectangular enclave and the larger
enclave to discuss the impacts and implications of the annexation. They understand the
circumstances and accept them. He said that he was unable to speak with the owner of the third
enclave. One property owner told Olt that the owner of the third enclave was new. He thought that
they might not even be in the Larimer County assessor's records yet.
Member Schmidt asked if roads needed to be totally surrounded. She asked this because she
thought that, in order for a parcel to be considered an enclave, roads were not counted as totally
surrounding. Olt agreed, saying that in that case, the two northern areas are not really becoming
enclaves because of Vine Drive.
Member Schmidt asked if there was already a county housing plan going on in this area. Olt said
that she was correct. The Streamside Property development project has been underway in
Larimer County and is close to being finalized. Olt said that they cannot finalize the annexation of
this property until that development plan is approved and recorded in Larimer County. It will be a
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 6
joint development agreement signed by Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, and the property
owner for improvements for the Streamside property, Vine Drive, and the bridge. He also noted
that there will be a limited number of building permits issued for homes in the Streamside
development through Larimer County. The remainder will be through the City of Fort Collins.
Member Rollins asked Staff Member Olt how he knows that the development plan is developing as
what is defined as Urban Estate zoning. Cameron Gloss stated that the development plan would
conform to the Urban Estate density limits.
Member Lingle asked Member Olt to clarify the enclaves. Olt said that the two properties fronting
on the east line will not be enclaves by virtue of the right of way of Vine Drive, even though it is
annexed to the city. He stated that it is just the large parcel between Peterson Annexation and
Streamside Annexation.
Member Lingle asked if the contiguity on the Streamside Annexation is dependant upon the
approval of the Peterson Annexation. Olt agreed, saying that Streamside would not be eligible
without the Peterson annex.
Member Meyer asked if the property owner voluntarily agreed to become part of the city, despite
the fact that he was already developing in the county. Olt said that he voluntarily agreed to the
annexation. The annexes were initiated 4-5 years ago, but were never finished. Member Meyer
followed -up by asking if the property owner had said no, would he be able to develop the land
because of the inter -governmental agreements. Olt said no, because they would not have the
annexation agreement signed by the property owner.
Public Participation
Starling Belder lives at 105 Rachel Court in the Charles district of Vista Bonita. She received the
zoning application in the mail and wants to know what is meant by the housing density for an
Urban Estate. She also wanted to know if there were environmental protections built into the
annex for the variety of wildlife in the area.
End of Public Participation
Member Schmidt responded to the questions regarding the housing density for Urban Estate
zoning districts. She said that Urban Estate is primarily single family residential zoning district. The
minimum lots are one half acre, with an overall density of no more than 2 units per acre. There is
the ability to cluster residential development, and the property owner would have to preserve at
least 50% of the property for open space.
Director Gloss mentioned that the density of the proposed Streamside Development complies with
the City's density standards and has helped preserve some of the environmentally sensitive
features of the land. He referred to Environmental Planner Doug Moore. Moore said that, with this
property, they were concerned about the Boxelder ditch, wetlands, and riparian forest in the area.
He stated that the county was very concerned with preserving a buffer from the wetlands. They
have asked in their code, for 100 feet from the edge of the drainage for Boxelder, in addition to the
wetland buffer. He concluded by saying that during the annexation process, they do not get
involved with ecological characterizations or any environmental studies.
Tricia Kroetsch with Northstar Design, the civil engineer on the project, noted that there is one
crossing at Boxelder, from Vine Drive to access a cluster of lots. There is also an access across
the wetlands on the east.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 7
Board Member Meyer made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the
Peterson Annexation and Zoning #54-02B based on the facts and findings of the staff
report.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
Board Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the
Streamside Annexation and Zoning #55-02 based on the findings and facts of the Staff
report on page three.
Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0.
Project: Hilton Garden Inn at Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park,
First Filing- Major Amendment
Project Description: This is a request for a major amendment for a 4-story hotel of
approximately 74,322 square feet and 120 rooms on Lot 2 of the
Preston Center first filing. The lot is located between Corbett Drive
and Gifford Court. The height is 58.5 feet to the top of the ridgeline.
The parcel is 3.55 acres in size. There would be 111 parking spaces
and is zoned as Harmony Corridor. A request for modification has
been submitted to allow more than 25% of secondary uses in the
Preston Center, defined as filings one and three.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the request for a major amendment for the Hilton
Garden Inn at Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park, First
Filing- Major Amendment.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff Member Shepard stated that because the structure is over 40 feet, there is a shadow and
visual analysis. The shadowing is to the north, a little over Gifford Court. The shadow does not
carry over the residential properties.
He discussed the architectural elevations. There is masonry to the top of the first floor. The
building does not have a pitched roof. There is a corniced treatment, portico chair, and the canopy
in the front has a cupola to add to the variety of the north elevation facing Harmony Road.
He then began discussing the modification, based on Preston Center being one center, a total of
25 acres. All of the uses of filing 3 are vested. There is one lot that has both primary and
secondary uses listed as a vested use. In order to be conservative, he has taken those into the
25% calculation. They assigned the 1.62 acres as secondary. He noted that if the lot remained as
office space, it would be 26% secondary use, 1 % over the cap. With the Hilton Garden Inn, it
would go up to 41 %.
Staff Member Shepard said that they are recommending the approval of the modification based on
the equal to or better than justification. The plan could have been a neighborhood service center,
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 8
consisting of a grocery store, liquor store, dry cleaner, or other businesses of the like. Under that
designation, there could have been 100% secondary uses.
Angie Milewski with BHA Design, representing the applicant, introduced a discussion of the site
plan, landscaping, and architectural elevations. She stated that they have tried to conform as
much as possible to the original site plan. She said that although there is less parking, the parking
lots and the building are in the same location.
Luke Oldenberg discussed the landscaping and the site plan. He said that they are extending the
access drive to the north with diagonal parking. There will be a parking area to the east and south
of the building, which is still consistent with the original plans. There will also be a wide pedestrian
path to the north, connecting to Gifford Court to the existing Preston Center and then connecting to
the Austin's Restaurant retail area. The walk will continue around the building and connects to
Timberwood Drive.
Luke mentioned that the site allows for 120 parking spaces, but they reduced the number to allow
for more landscaping and buffering, including coniferous trees, perennials, and ornamental
grasses.
Mark Mucci talked about the architecture. He said that there will be a stone base up to the second
floor. The walls near the gables will have relief in them. The projections will have brick going up
the second and third floors. They are also going to be doing some decorative grills below the
windows where the heating and air conditioning units will be.
Public Testimony
None
Board Member Schmidt motioned that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the
modifications for Hilton Garden Inn at Preston Center, allowing the secondary uses based
on being equal to or better than a compliant plan.
Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0.
Board Member Schmidt motioned to approve the major amendment for the Preston Center
first filing based on the facts and findings of page 11 of the staff report.
Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0.
Project: Bella Vira- Project Development Plan, #36-05A
Project Description: This is a proposal for a total of 85 dwelling units, including 25 multi-
family housing units, on a 35 acre parcel located on the west side of
Overland Trail at West Elizabeth Street. The property is zoned in two
zoning districts, RL and RF. The existing single-family development
to the south is The Ponds at Overland Trail. There is a first and
second filing. The property is owned by the Minatta family and has
been annexed recently and zoned LMN on the east portion and RF
on the west. The north portion is owned by CSU. Although there is
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 9
some development on this land, there are no immediate plans for
future development.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposal for Bella Vira project development plan
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff Member Olt stated that access to the site would be via an extension of West Elizabeth along
Overlook Trail. Also, two current points of access (Banyan Drive and Sunflower Drive) would be
extended in The Ponds at Overland Trail development. There is a 4-acre site that the city has
purchased for a regional detention facility. There is a single-family residential area on the LMN
portion of the site. The residential density range in this zoning district is a minimum of 5 dwelling
units per acre and a maximum of 8 dwelling units per gross acre. This plan satisfies the LMN
density range.
This site is zoned for RF zoning district as a standard subdivision, with a minimum lot size of 2.29
acres. However, there is a qualification that allows clustering. This allows the developer to
preserve 50% of the land as open space and then cluster the remaining lots, not exceeding one
dwelling per acre. In this case, clustering and preserving the RF portion of Bella Vira would allow
up to 15 dwelling units on the west, 54% open space, and 20 additional single family residential
lots. This would exceed the maximum by .3 dwelling units.
Staff Member Olt said that the applicant has submitted a request for a modification to the standard
to allow 5 additional units. Staff has looked at The Ponds at Overland Trail and compared the two
developments. They determined that the lot sizes of the two are consistent. Further, the 54% of
open space in this proposal combined with that of The Ponds at Overland Trail provides a
continuous block of open space land. The staff has determined that this is sufficient for
recommendation for approval of the modification.
Member Olt also noted that the only other RF districts in the area are already developed, so they
would not be setting a precedent.
Member Lingle asked if the Board's action upon the PDP is contigent upon the approval of the
modification. Staff Member Olt agreed, saying that if the Board did not approve the modification,
the plan could be redesigned to eliminate the 5 lots and provide the 15 lots that would be permitted
in compliance with that section of the Land Use Code. He said, however, that eliminating the 5 lots
would free up approximately 38,000 square feet, increasing the lot sizes by 2,500 square feet. The
staff feels that the modification would maintain the compatibility of the comparison with The Ponds.
Member Lingle asked if it would increase the open space or the lot size. Staff Member Olt
responded that if you increase the size of the open space, then the lot sizes will decrease to a size
more consistent with the smaller lots to the east of the LMN district.
Member Schmidt asked what the lot sizes are along the far west. Staff Member Olt said that they
ranged from 14,000 to 72,000 square feet.
Member Rollins asked if The Ponds RF portion had requested a modification. Staff Member Olt
said that it did not because it was approved in 1995 as a PUD under the Land Development
Guidance system and did not require modification.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 10
Member Schmidt asked if the multi family units will be one story. Staff Member Olt said he
believes that the backside will be a two-story elevation away from the street, but that he will let the
applicant describe this.
Member Schmidt asked for clarification. She did not see how the modification would be equal to or
better than. Member Olt said the staff has determined that it is equal to a development plan that
will meet the Land Use Code, based on lot size and the degree it extends into the Ponds
development.
John Minatta is the applicant. Mr. Minatta and his brother and mother, Al and Evelyn, own the
property in a family partnership. The City completed a 4-acre detention pond on the property in
February of this year. This pond is owned by the City and is primarily for the detention of off -site
flows. The City determined that The Ponds, an adjacent 284-acre development, does not have
adequate storm water detention capacity. There are 18 to 30 developable units from the pond
area that are available, but the code will not allow them to be transferred into the RF Zone.
Regardless, applicant Minatta does not feel that the site is appropriate for high -density
development. In fact, they are allowed to build eight units per acre, which would allow 96 units in
the 12-acre single-family location. They are proposing only 40 units. Their intent is to build homes
similar in size and price to The Ponds. They hope to attract young and mature families similar to
those who have purchased at The Ponds. The applicant asked to increase the density in the RF
Zone by five lots or .3 units per acre and will retain the required 50% open space
Chair Lingle asked the applicant if the sales price per square foot of land on ten lots equaled the
same per square foot cost of 15 lots, wouldn't the economic effect be neutral. Applicant responded
that offering five more Igts is an economic benefit to them.
Member Schmidt asked about the amenities the applicant is providing. Applicant responded that
they have worked out an agreement with The Ponds to establish trail connections; therefore, open
space and trails are being provided as amenities.
Staffmember Doug Moore stated that since this area is in a region of large natural features, Article
3.41(1) has been applied. Therefore, they are working with the applicant to create some general
architectural standards on the homes. Since separate builders will be constructing homes there,
this will ensure the builders are staying in compliance with the section of the code. This is made a
part of the development agreement language and is available for future reference. Chair Lingle
stated that it appeared there were no limits on the maximum size of dwellings. Staff Moore said
that was correct and that the purpose is to break up massing through architectural standards.
Public Participation
Michael Urynowich lives at 3602 Cornflower Drive. He expressed concerns that the fence on the
west side of the property be removed. Since his property is on the southwest corner of the
development, he would prefer that the trail access be a little further to the north where the existing
corner plot is rather than being right next to his property.
Jim Fisher lives at 3214 Cornflower Court. Mr. Fisher had two concerns: (1) that there be dust
abatement during development; and (2) he asked if there was a minimum square footage required
at this development as there is at The Ponds.
End of Public Participation
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 11
Applicant responded that the fence could be moved and suggested that Staff Member Moore
provide some input. Staff Moore said that the fence is not a natural resource concern and the
developer is not required to provide the fence unless the Planning and Zoning Board required it.
He stated that the trail could be moved so it is not so close to Mr. Urynowich's house. Larimer
County is the agency that administers the Fugitive Dust Control Permits required by the State of
Colorado. The applicant will need to obtain this permit. The enforcing agent is Larimer County.
Olt stated that a letter has been received by an attorney representing The Ponds. With this letter,
the HOA has indicated its support of the trail extension across The Ponds common area under the
following conditions:
• Applicant will enter into any necessary easement agreement for the trail in terms and
conditions that are reasonably satisfactory to the HOA.
• The final design of the trail must be approved by the HOA board.
• The trail will be located as far as possible from The Ponds' houses so as to minimize
impact.
• There will be a written assumption that the developer will assume certain maintenance
obligations.
This agreement, to be signed by both parties, will ensure the placement of that trail and the
minimal impact on the homes in that development.
Member Schmidt questioned whether the architectural standards are part of an agreement or a
condition of approval. Staff Member Olt stated that those guidelines are set forth in the
development agreement, attached to the development agreement on the utility plans, and that a
site plan sheet will also be recorded with the documentation.
Member Stockover asked what would happen if an agreement cannot be reached with the HOA
regarding the trail location. Staff Member Moore replied that it is in both developments' best
interests to limit the number of social trails that could occur and therefore, in the best interest of
both parties to arrive at a solution now rather than deal with problems later.
Chair Lingle asked if the protective covenants developed by the developer would cover issues like
minimum house size that are not typically required by the city as part of an FCP. Staff Member Olt
responded that the city is not part to the HOA protective covenants. It is a private document
between the developer and the HOA. Furthermore, the Land Use Code does not dictate a
minimum lot size requirement.
Staff Member Rollins asked what the maximum density is on the development. Staff Member Olt
replied that in a LMN District, the maximum density is eight dwelling units per gross acre of land.
In this development, there could be 120 units; there are only 65.
Member Fries asked if the fence belonged to the applicant. The applicant responded that he
doesn't know who owns the fence.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of the Modification of Standards for the Bella Vira,
Project Development Plan, based on the fact that it would not be detrimental to the public
good and that it is equal to a plan that would comply with the standard.
Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0.
Member Fries moved for approval of the Bella Vira, Project Development Plan, #36-05A,
based on the facts and findings in the pages 16 and 17 of the staff report.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 12
Member Meyer seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0.
PROJECT: Spring 2006 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Addition to the
Land Use Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the
biannual update to the Land Use Code. These are proposed
revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a
variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last update in Fall
of 2005.
DATION: Approval
Director Gloss presented the proposed change to the Supplemental Notice Requirements of the
Land Use Code. City Council expressed that the City is not providing enough public notice for
ODPs, PDPs and other types of development applications. The cost for the mailings are borne by
the applicant. Appeal filing charges will remain at $100.00. Therefore, staff has reviewed the
minimum notice radius in the Land Use Code. The current baseline is 500 feet. Based on their
review, staff is recommending the following:
• All previous 500 foot notice radiuses should be increased to 800 feet;
• All previous 750 foot notice radiuses should be increased to 800 feet;
• Notice radiuses for zonings and rezonings of forty (40) acres or less should be increased to
800 feet;
• Notice radiuses for zonings and rezonings of more than forty (40) acres should be
increased to 1000 feet.
Staff Member Shepard presented the amendment proposal to the Building Size, Height, Mass,
Bulk and Scale of a building contained in Section 8 of the ordinance. The words "an intersection"
are being removed, and the words "the nearest" are being added to define the applicable cater
corner intersection. By changing this, the applicant doesn't get the benefit of two cater corners. If
the building is in the middle of a street, the applicant gets to use the opposing and the nearest
cater corner.
The next recommendation is that the LMN Zone District be revised to allow multi -family dwelling
units to be capped at 12 units per dwelling with design standards instead of the current 8 units per
dwelling. Specific terracing on the upper floor is required when a 12-plex is located within 50 feet
of a single family dwelling or a duplex.
At the conclusion of the staff presentation, Member Schmidt requested that the Issues 690, 732
and 735, and 730 be moved to discussion. Issues 732 and 735 are combined.
Member Schmidt made to motion to approve the Land Use Code recommended changes
Nos. 715, 178, 719, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 729, 731, 733, and 734.
Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 13
The first Land Use Code issue discussed was 690. Amend LMN 4.4(13)(3)(c) — Permitted Use List
— to allow "multi -family dwellings (greater than 8 units per building)" as a Type Two review, subject
to design standards.
Public Participation
Mike Sollenberger lives at 3937 Harbor Walk Drive in Fort Collins. Mr. Sollenberger is a developer
and also the Chairman of the Housing Authority. He believes this revision is a move toward
greater affordability in the LMN Zone, will allow for a more interesting and varied landscape, and
will help promote the greening effect needed in the LMN Zone.
End of Public Participation
Chair Lingle stated he felt the cap should be increased from 12,000 square feet to 14,000 square
feet without a modification. He stated that 1100 square feet per unit is affordable; but market
support is for 1300 to 1400 square feet. Director Gloss asked how you can artfully blend a 15,000
square feet building into a neighborhood with an existing 3,000 square foot building.
Member Schmidt asked about the cost and time expenditure to obtain approval of a modification.
Director Gloss responded that they can take a long time, but many are done at the administrative
hearing level and then are rolled into the development application. Member Schmidt also asked
about parking. Staff Member Shepard said that wouldn't change.
Member Fries asked if there was a method to track the efficiency of the increased mailing size of
the notices. Director Gloss responded that they did not have a tracking method at this time.
Member Schmidt suggested that the length of time between notice and the hearing be extended to
give neighbors the opportunity to speak to each other. She also stated that she felt the letters
should be reviewed for clarity. Director Gloss suggested that improvements to the letter be
discussed at work session.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Issue 690 to amend the LMN Zone to allow multi-
family dwellings greater than 8 units per building with the change that the maximum floor
area allowed would be 14,000 square feet instead of 12,000 square feet.
Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
Discussion ensued regarding Issue 730 — Building Height Standard for Downtown.
Chair Lingle questioned where the basic downtown height caps originated and what they are
based on. He stated he thought the 168 foot standard was very arbitrary. Staff member Shepard
responded it is based on several buildings constructed in the 1960s. The 150 foot is arbitrary.
Chair Lingle then said he thinks the 24 blocks of downtown area impacted by this restriction will be
impacted negatively; namely, that some of those lots will be impacted by down zoning. He also
stated that he thinks there is an opportunity and desire to have a taller central core that could be
veryelegant. Lingle asked what notification was provided to downtown property owners for this
specific meeting.
City Planner Clark Mapes responded that the 150 feet is in response to people who feel the two
towers that the city does have should not have been built and that they don't fit the character and
scale of Fort Collins. He stated there was no scientific reason for the 150 feet. It was felt that a
building within the five to six story range is an acceptable size for large buildings. He believes this
Planning & Zoning Board
May 18, 2006
Page 14
issue serves as a clarification of maximum height in the downtown zone, not a down zoning. There
was no public notice for this discussion for tonight's meeting. Member Schmidt asked if this is
different than the Downtown Strategic Plan. City Planner Mapes responded that it is the same.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Issue No. 730, revising the building height
standards in the Downtown Zone District, Section 4.12(D).
Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion approved 4-3.
Chair Lingle suggested that since property owners were not noticed for this hearing, that they
should receive notice of the City Council hearing on this matter.
Discussion ensued regarding Issues 732 and 735 — Supplemental Notice Requirements and Text
and Map Amendment Review Procedures.
Member Fries questioned whether increasing the area for property owners receiving notice
assures that the city will have a better development. He also expressed concerns regarding
trackability, stating that if the city can't track it, it's probably not improving anything. He stated that
he didn't understand the point of adding more expense to the applicants when it will not positively
change the outcome. Chair Lingle stated that he would rather err on the side of more notice rather
than less notice.
Director Gloss stated that City Council has had issues with other projects besides appeals and that
City Council does not believe enough citizens are being notified. They have a heightened sense of
awareness of notification procedures and have said there needs to be changes to procedures and
notification distances.
Member Schmidt moved for approval of Issue 732 to amend 2.2.6(D) — Supplemental Notice
Requirements and 2.9.4(f) — Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures.
Member Rollins seconded. Motion was approved 6-1.
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Cameron Gloss, Dire r Dave Lingle, Board Ch r