Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARCADIA AT WILLOX LANE - PDP - 5-05A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 11 Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve of the Arcadia at Willox Lane POP #5-05A based on the facts and findings on Pages 14 and 15 of the staff report Including the conditions specified in the letter dated June 15, 2006 from Timothy Halopoff, of JR Engineering, to Mr. Ted Shepard. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Schmidt moved to amend her first motion and added that the location of the bike trail connection should be decided as part of the final POP review. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Lingle clarified that the amendment on the floor requires the bike spur but delays a decision on final placement until the final compliance stage. Amendment motion was approved 6-0. Member Stockover moved that a split rail fence be placed at the farthest western section of the development from Willox Lane down to the corner, blocking the bike path until It is needed for connectivity for future development. Member Smith seconded the motion. Amendment motion was approved 4-2. Members Meyer and Fries voted Nay. Motion was approved 6-0 for approval of the Arcadia POP. Project: Fox Meadows Business Park, Tract B, Timberline Plaza PDP #19-05A Project Description: This is a request for a Convenience Shopping Center containing 27,027 square feet in a single, multi -tenant building. The site is 4.29 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of Timberline Road, south of Bighorn Drive. The site includes a two -acre existing storm water detention pond on the east and borders the Fox Meadows drainage channel on the south. The zoning is E, Employment. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner, Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation for this project. He stated that this was a request for a convenience shopping center, but that it was a different kind of convenience shopping center due to the Modification of Standards that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on February 16, 2006, restricting the center in such a way that it would not have convenience retail stores with fuel sales or one bay automatic car washes. As well, the center was restricted from having minor vehicle repair, servicing or maintenance. Shepard noted that the request includes a 27,000 square feet building that will include multiple tenants. It is on 4.29 acres and is located on the east side of Timberline Road and south of Bighorn Drive. The zoning is E, Employment. The site is bordered on the south by a drainage channel and bordered on the east by a storm water detention pond that serves the larger center. Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 10 Member Smith asked that there be conditions added to the motion that a split rail fence be installed along Wood Lane to the west edge of the property and that the bike spur be eliminated. Member Lingle requested that the attachment of the memorandum from JR Engineering also be a condition to the motion. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the location of the bike spur. Shepard directed her to Page 2, #C of the staff report. He noted that the related development standard is in Article 4 and is considered a Zone Specific Standard. He added that this is a relatively new standard resulting from recent code changes. The code used to read that development in the Urban Estate Zone was totally exempt from connectivity standards. However, the new standard states that connectivity should occur where feasible. Shepard stated that if the Board decides to eliminate the spur, a modification would be required. He added that should the Board delay this item until such time that Mr. Gallegos builds his project, it will be difficult to implement. The current developer will have completed the PDP project and not be around. Mr. Gallegos' developer could claim that their project is an off site and, therefore, this eliminates the requirement for them to build it. Shepard's recommendation was that this item be preserved because connectivity is important. Member Schmidt commented that her concern is that the bike lane connects to an area that ends with a group of houses and that it is unknown how much development will occur at the end of the lane versus more directly to the west of this project. Member Lingle agreed. Member Schmidt asked if there was a possibility of connecting to the mobile home park. Chalona replied that this was not an option since the mobile home park is fenced and the railroad track runs nearby. Referring to slides, he also explained different areas surrounding the PDP that are not adequate for this purpose. He noted that if it was the Board's wish to not have the trail, it could be replaced with an easement. Member Lingle commented that at times infrastructure improvements are escrowed for future development. He wondered if money could be placed in escrow that would allow the City, or the off site developer, to use the money to build it in the future. Dan Delaughter, City Engineering staff, addressed the Board, stating that this could be done with a public access easement and a temporary construction easement. The development agreement would need to state that they would be responsible for the escrow for that portion of the bike trail. Halopoff addressed the Board asking whether a spit rail fence could be extended to where the trail would go through at a future date. He stated that the access easement and temporary construction easement were secured on the plat, but that until the trail was built, no one would know that they could go that way. He stated that this could then,be addressed again with future developments. Shepard noted some concerns with the connectivity conditions. He stated that there is a chance that there would be no future developer and that even if the City held escrowed funds for the purpose of building the connection, the HOA may never allow it. Gloss suggested that an alternative location be identified that would satisfy future development to the west and northwest, as well as the connectivity standards for this property. He suggested that this item be left open for now and further reviewed as part of the final plan process. Member Stockover suggested that this item should be built, fenced and then dead -ended. He stated that people would then follow the open space versus walking up Wood Lane and, in the future if there were a need for connectivity, this issue could be opened back up for discussion with the next development. Planning r3< Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 9 Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, addressed the Board suggesting that a condition be placed on the PDP that would require a split rail fence to be installed along the open space that abuts Wood Lane. Jean Pakech, 1522 Wood Lane, addressed the Board. She was concerned about the barbed wire fences that currently exist along Wood Lane and wondered if the property owners would be liable if children from the development got hurt by the wire. Attorney Eckman provided clarification. He stated that it would not be proper for him to give private legal advice to Ms. Pakech but that he could comment that liability does not extend to trespassers to any great degree. He added that there are statutory protections, particularly if the property is posted as no trespassing. He advised Ms. Pakech to consult her attorney on private liability questions. Connie Adelson, 603 W. Willox, addressed the Board. She was concerned about the sewer line and the resulting dirt, dust and drainage that would impact her property once the fill was completed. She was also concerned for the wildlife that currently travel through the area. Chalona responded that there had not been a wildlife assessment done since this was not required. Shepard responded that the interpretation of the City s Environmental Planner was that this area is farm land and has been used for agriculture for generations. Member Lingle asked for clarification on whether this meant that the area was not wildlife habitat. Shepard replied that wildlife habitat had been preserved with the acquisition of what's now called Magpie Meander. Member Schmidt asked for additional clarification on the sewer for the PDP property. Chalona answered that there is an existing easement on the mobile home site and that the sewer line follows the railroad track from that point. He added that there are no mobile homes currently in that easement so the sewer line would not affect any housing. Member Schmidt asked whether an agreement statement could be placed on the project setting out the solutions that were agreed to at the June 14'hmeeting as well as indication that participants gave final approval for the PDP. Shepard answered that the solution would be to incorporate the summary of Halopofrs memorandum from JR Engineering as a condition of approval. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard for project #5-05A Arcadia at Willox Lane PDP based on the facts and findings on Page 14 of the staff report that the modification is nominal and inconsequential. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Member Schmidt next addressed some of the items that were identified during public comment. She mentioned that although there were no housing plans to view, the developer had indicated that they intend to build quality homes with appropriate styling, and will provide places for people to park their vehicles. She noted that during construction there will be construction people driving and parking everywhere, but once the development is completed, should violations occur, the recourse for current residents would be to report those to the City. She continued that the liability issue that was mentioned was of concern and recommended that current residents post no trespassing signs and seek advice from an attorney. Schmidt stated that the PDP has provided for the project to be into the other parks ensuring a large open space. As well, the PDP has incorporated buffers to the neighborhood and a solution as been worked out for Lot 10. She thought that this density of housing, was a better scenario than breaking everything up into'/ acre parcels over the entire property. Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 8 Chalona added that the trail will also serve property owners of the 22 acres that will be developed and becomes a logical point for them to connect to the trail. Member Lingle asked whether all of the buffer and open space would be dedicated as a joint drainage pedestrian access easement. He wondered if the spur could be constructed at some point in the future when the development occurred to the west to minimize the inclination that residents would need to travel on Wood Lane. Chalona responded that they would be willing to explore that option with staff. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether there was private property in between where the POP ends and Wood Lane. She wondered if the bike trail attached to Wood Lane. Chalona responded that the trail would end before it gets to Wood Lane, noting a 30 foot access easement. Bill Irvin addressed the Board. His concerns stemmed from the fact that there was no plan showing what the houses would look like, the size of the houses, or the size of the garages. He also had some concerns about people parking on Wood Lane since the property owners on Wood Lane maintain the road. He wondered where residents of the project would park their cars, boats and trailers. As well, he felt that the split rail fence would not be adequate. Member Lingle asked about vehicle access restrictions on Wood Lane. He wondered if there was a possibility for residents to park an RV in their backyard and access the backyard through the buffer yard near Wood Lane. Chalona responded that this would not be allowed and that if someone was doing this, they would be doing this illegally. He added that the open space is 88 feet wide from the property line to Wood Lane. The POP would not be providing vehicle access through Wood Lane. Member Lingle commented that he did not know what kind of control the City might have in these types of cases and mentioned that he could visualize someone moving into one of those lots and viewing it as an alley. Shepard replied that generally what happens is a neighbor would call the City to report the illegal parking of the camper, trailer, snowmobile, or whatever might be beyond the property owner's rear lot line and in the open space. The City would then enforce the ordinances available that would prevent them from doing this. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on what would happen if a neighbor drove his four wheel drive vehicle down Wood Lane, through the open space and then into their backyard to park. Shepard responded that there are situations similar to this all over the City where there are common open spaces along public roads. He noted that the City rarely sees this kind of abuse. Generally speaking, according to Shepard, common areas in Fort Collins are demarcated and people know where their lot line is. Violations are usually reported, most times anonymously, and situations enforced by the City or by the HOA. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the City's stance should this type of situation occur since Wood Lane is a private road. Shepard replied that the City would address this as a violation of open space requirements. He continued that it would be a violation of the POP which would be enforced by Zoning staff. He added that once a party is found guilty by the municipal judge, they are subject to a fine of $1000 per day until the situation is rectified. Member Schmidt asked if there were regulations in the Code that require houses to have garages. She wondered if you could build a larger house on the lot and forego the garage. She also wondered if there was a requirement for off street parking. Shepard answered that off street parking is required but there are no requirements for houses to have a garage. He added that if a garage is built, it would be subject to the City's garage standards. The garage can be recessed 4 feet behind the front plane of the house or further back in the rear lot area. Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 7 and it is unknown when the lots will be made available for sale or how much the lots will cost. He anticipated that once final engineering had been completed, and they have done some work with the builders, they would be in a better position to establish costs and work on developing a marketing strategy. Member Lingle asked Shepard for clarification on the staff report. He noted that on Page 3 of the staff report, under Compliance with Site Design for Residential Cluster Development, #B, Section 4.1(E)(2)(c) says that minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning & Zoning Board for cluster development. He asked whether that meant that there would be no minimum lot size at all if this was waived in favor of cluster. Shepard confirmed this. Member Lingle asked for clarification on whether, for projects like this where there are 50 foot lot frontages, prototypical house design elevations were required as part of the PDP submittal. Shepard replied that there is a requirement related to housing model variety for projects that are 30 acres or more where two housing model types would have to be submitted. However, this project is less than 30 acres so this was not a requirement in this case. Due to this, Shepard noted that regulation of housing model variety and garage standards will be done as part of Zoning's activities related to the building permit application process. Notations will be added to the PDP that will require compliance to both sets of standards. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether, if the Board approved the waiver of minimum lot size, the project would have to go through another review if the applicant wanted to change to smaller lots. Shepard replied that they would have to go through a minor or major amendment process and then come back for review. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether it would be possible for someone to purchase several lots and then build a larger house. Shepard confirmed this and added that an owner can build over a lot line if they own multiple lots. He noted that they would have to go through an easement vacation procedure to vacate any easement located along side property lines. Member Schmidt commented that the lots that back up to the very large open space that connects to the park may be very desirable for people wanting larger lots. She stated that this might add some diversity to the project and an aspect they could potentially use when marketing the lots. Member Lingle commented that he just worked on a project, commercial not residential, where the building owner purchased multiple lots for this purpose. He added that the Zoning department did not have a problem with them building over the lot line but that the Building department did and would require what he thought was called a lot merger. Public PartICIDation: Rudy Gallegos, 1435 Wood Lane, addressed the Board. He had some concerns about where the bike trail would end and stated that Wood Lane dead ends into a neighbors yard. His concern was that people would ride their bikes into the yards of the, residents living on Wood Lane. Another concern he had was related to fencing. He felt that there should be an option for 6 foot privacy fences since he knows that there is interest in developing the 22 acres west of Wood Lane and possibly more development proposed in north Fort Collins which would, for the most part, eliminate the open space. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the purpose of the spur of the trail located on Wood Lane. Chalona responded that this was a requirement of the Land Use Code for connectivity for the adjacent properties. He noted that the bike trail does end at the property line at Wood Lane and suggested that a sign be posted that states "you are leaving Arcadia, private property beyond this point." Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 6 Member Schmidt stated that the blueprint indicated that the type of fencing that would be used was split rail with mesh. She asked if that was going to be part of a covenant for homeowners and wanted clarification on whether privacy fences would be allowed. Halopoff replied that he was probably not the person who should respond to this, but stated that he was aware that they wanted to leave the area in the most natural state possible, where the visuals were preserved. Applicant Chalona addressed the Board and stated that the intention is to maintain the agrarian feel of the property by using a split style of fence. He stated that for those residents with small kids or pets, mesh could be used inside the fence. He added that the intention is to keep the fencing lower, not allowing a 6 foot privacy fence, since this would defeat the visual affect they are trying to accomplish by allowing the lots to back up to open space and keeping everything open. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether someone currently owns the farm house and, if so, whether they intended to stay as a resident. Chalona responded that the same owners that own the entire piece of property own the farm house. The farm house is currently a rental and the owners are unsure whether they intend to keep it. Applicant noted that the owners have an interested party who may purchase the farm house and restore it. He added that there is no set time frame for this and no real commitment on the part of the interested purchaser. At this point, the owners intend to allow the renters to continue to stay through the end of their lease — there is no intention to tear it down. Member Schmidt stated that this property actually counts as part of the open space and wondered if there would be a City easement for the land that goes around the house. Shepard responded that the Urban Estate Zone allows agricultural lands to be counted as part of the open space and, therefore, it would have to remain as a farm house on a Y2 acre lot. Member Schmidt expressed concern over allowing farm animals on that Ys acre, recognizing that it is a provision allowed in the County. She noted, however, that this is a very small acreage and allowing farm animals might result in a dirt lot that would impede the goal of keeping the natural look and the greenery around the area. Member Schmidt suggested a restriction on large farm animals. Chalona responded that from a code stand point, if the area is over Yz an acre, farm animals are allowed. He thought that keeping this option available would preserve the historical character of the property. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on who manages the maintenance of the open space and whether this includes maintenance of farmstead. Chalona responded that the HOA will take care of open space and that eventually the farmstead space would be dedicated over to them. However, he noted that the farmstead is a separate track and, at this point, the owner is responsible for that maintenance. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether the owner of the farmstead would be allowed to place a 6 foot privacy fence around their .61acres. Chalona responded that the owner would not be allowed to do this. He added that this would be addressed in Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) allowing only split rail fences. Member Schmidt stated that there does appear to be some level of control then over what happens in that space. Chalona confirmed this. Member Lingle asked for clarification on whether privacy fencing would be prohibited on side lot lines in addition to the rear lot lines adjacent to open space. Chalona stated that the privacy fencing would be prohibited in keeping with their intent to keep visual open space. Member Lingle asked for clarification on the intent of how the PDP would be marketed. Because of the small lot size, he wondered how much repetition in the housing design there was going to be. Owner Rob Dick addressed the Board and replied that this was unknown at this time. He stated that their intention is to have articulated ranch or a farm style look for their designs. They are working with an investor group that has architectural talent, led by Keith Lofton, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Architecture. According to Dick, he has a series of farm style houses that would be appealing for this site. He added that at this point a market segment has not been determined, Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 5 The three issues addressed, included: The location of proposed Lot 10 and its proximity to the Pakech/Pitt residence yard. The solution both parties agreed upon was to move Lot 10 from its current location to an alternative location in the development, while leaving the proposed Lot 10 area as a re -vegetated slope with appropriate grading for storm water conveyance. 2. The storm water runoff from approximately 5 acres of the development property entering into the private storm system located at the northwest comer of the Pakech/Pittproperty at Wood Lane. The solution both parties agreed upon was to create a pond area on the west end of the development property, flowing into the development storm system where Lot 10 used to be, capturing all of the storm water conveyance and redirecting it to the Soft Gold Park area. 3. Along the northern property line.of the Pakech/Pitt residence, directly adjacent to the house, runs a makeshift swale that prevents nuisance and storm water flows from hitting the structure located directly south of the north property line. Currently this swale, which fails to handle the flow from the same 5 acres mentionedpreviously, flows into the private storm system at Wood Lane. While the proposed pond solves the problem of the overwhelming majority of the storm runoff, the current Swale will still receive nuisance flow from the Pakech property and a minimal portion from the gradual slope of the Arcadia POP. The solution agreed upon by both parties was to redesign the swale in such a manner that would redirect the subsequent flows consistent with the current flow path. Halopoff stated that all parties involved were now satisfied with the agreements reached and mutually affirmed that, pending these three changes, there were no longer any issues concerning the Arcadia PDP. Member Lingle asked where Lot 10 would be relocated. Halopoff responded that Lot 10 would be relocated adjacent to Lot 58. He added that it would not affect the ponds or the north buffer yard open space. Member Lingle asked if that was acceptable to staff. Halopoff responded yes. Member Schmidt asked for clarification and a description on the fill that will be located at the north end of the property. Halopoff responded that the fill is required due to the limited sewer connection that exists at this property -- currently there is no sewer through West Willox. He stated that there is sewer located to the south of Soft Gold Park but that this could not serve the proposed property because it is too high already. The only location for a sewer connection, according to Halopoff, is at the mobile home park where easements were approved and procured. He explained that City requirements in this case, for starting at the elevation where the sewer is connected and bringing it into the development at the most minimal grade possible, call for 3 feet of cover. He added that there is 3 to 4 feet of fill across the orchard and central green east area. As well, there is a natural grade though the central green west area and between the west and south buffer yard. Here the fill is 4 to 5 feet, gradually dropping back to a natural grade towards the South Meadow Open Space. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the stage at which the detention ponds, streets and landscaping would get done and at what stage the swale and the trees would be in place to buffer Ms. Pitts' house. Halopoff responded that currently there are existing mature trees and that the swale would not require much work. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether there would be much change to the area at all. Halopoff responded that there would not be a lot of change. It was his intention to keep the existing trees and he noted that the rest of the trees around the perimeter of the development would be planted soon after the grading was complete. Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 4 be approximately 6 feet tall when planted. It is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 years for the trees to reach the 12 foot height. Chalona explained that there is a 3 foot change in elevation that continues for 15 feet along the open space that will provide an additional buffer. Applicant reviewed the proposed drainage and showed how the runoff will now be routed to the detention pond, alleviating neighbors' concerns about storm water flows into the ditch. Next, applicant discussed specifics related to the cluster area. He noted that the cluster area is 12.42 acres in size and has an overall density of 4.66 dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowed by code is 5 dwelling units per acre. The cluster has been designed to be located in the center of the property. He explained that this allows the open space to wrap around and engulf the cluster area. Applicant referred to the site plan illustrating the open space areas, the cluster area, the central green areas and portions of the trail system that wander through the property. Chalona described some of the impacts that would occur by not using the cluster design, including: crowding neighbors and the farmstead; locating lots too close to West Willox Lane thereby destroying the rural streetscape; introducing more cul-de-sacs; and limited connectivity. He explained that the cluster design has a green spine, the central greens, that represent the active heart of the property. The greens have approximately 250 feet of active play space and would be manicured. Backed up to residential lots, the greens will allow easy access for residents to trail systems. Internal trails provide a network that connects to open space, Soft Gold Park and the Magpie Meander Natural Area. In addition, the network would connect to the Hickory Street Trail which is a direct link to Martinez Park and Downtown. Modification of the Section 4.1(D)(1)(a) standard which stipulates that density not exceed two dwelling units per net acre, was addressed. The applicant stated that the difference between compliance with the 2 dwelling units per net acre requirement and the requested modification of 2.1 dwelling units per net acre was fractional, but would result in the loss of one dwelling unit if not granted. He added that the modification was nominal and inconsequential since the addition and impact of one lot, when considering the total site, is extremely minor. There would be no visual impact along the West Willox Lane streetscape or from Soft Gold Park because all lots are set back behind open space. And, since there is no connection to Wood Lane due to a private access easement, there will be no additional traffic impact on the neighbors to the south. In conclusion, Chalona stated that the Arcadia Project Development Proposal would be an outstanding new addition to the City of Fort Collins and would offer a different housing type that does not exist anywhere else in the City. The design of the project preserves the agrarian character of the site and the existing farmstead, while enhancing the area by improving the infrastructure and creating and/or continuing open space through Soft Gold Park and the Magpie Meander Natural Area. As well, the public trail system that extends to Old Town and the Poudre River Trail would be expanded. Chalona requested that the Planning & Zoning Board support staffs recommendation and approve both the PDP and the proposed Modification to Standards allowing for an additional .096 dwelling units per net acre. Tim Halopoff of JR Engineering addressed the Board and stated that he was representing Rob Dick and Cathy Crawford of the North Fort Collins Design and Development Group. He referred to the memorandum he provided earlier to City staff and stated that it summarized a meeting he held with the applicant and the homeowners directly north of the Pakech/Pitt property to understand and resolve three items of concern. Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 3 Density: There were concerns on why the development wasn't the typical Urban Estate sprawling project that filled the whole site with'/2 acre lots. There was extensive discussion with the neighbors on why the cluster option was a better solution to the project since it preserves more open space and minimizes the impact on the land. Referring to slides, the applicant further reviewed the project. He noted that to the north is West Willox Lane and identified the location of the main entrance. The main road creates an internal loop. The South Meadow Open Space buffers the existing residents in the mobile home park. Several wet ponds will be used for non potable irrigation systems as well as maintaining the agricultural vistas down West Willox through the property. There is an existing historic farmstead, central greens, and buffer yards to the north, south, east and west. Essentially, all the lots are designed so that every lot backs up to some sort of a green space, whether it is technically open space or a central green. South meadow is a large open area that is contiguous to Soft Gold Park. It is approximately 7 acres in size. When you combine that with Soft Gold Park and the Magpie Meander area you have 28 acres of continuous open space benefiting the neighbors and new residents. The project also incorporates a detention pond which will work in conjunction with the irrigation and detention pond that is in Soft Gold Park. We have entered into a private public agreement with the Parks Department to help them continue to improve their irrigation pond. Applicant continued to refer to the slides, pointing out the location of the north buffer, east buffer and the orchard. He explained that the orchard helps provide some structure located towards the residential cluster area and provides a buffer to the mobile home park. The orchard will be planted in a grid type system and will not include edible fruit. Chalona stated that more ornamental fruit trees will be planted in an effort to build off an agrarian theme. The east buffer yard acts as a shield for the adjoining residences to the east. The lot is set back approximately 200 feet and includes a pond which is important for water conservation. According to the applicant, this allows them to take the water rights for this project and put them into ponds that will be used for non potable irrigation systems. The generous setback will continue to provide a view down West Willox Lane to the historic farmstead as well as to maintain the view of the mountains to the west. The north buffer yard contains two entry features containing signage at each of the main entries. As well, the north buffer yard surrounds the farmstead. It will preserve the character that exists with the farmstead, which sits on .61 acres, and will allow it to stand on its own without modern development pushing right up next to it. There are generous 200 foot and 130 foot setbacks in the north buffer which will allow for the historic farmstead activities to continue without the need for any building demolition. Surrounding the farmstead with open space makes that lot feel and look much larger than it is. Applicant next discussed the west and south buffers. He noted that the west buffer yard is located off Wood Lane and is 88 feet in width from Lots 1-10. There are a couple of large mature trees on the west side of Wood Lane buffering existing rural residents. The buffer and back lot lines along Wood Lane create the rural character. There is no issue of towering or encroachment on existing houses. The south buffer yard is 55 feet in width outside of Lot 10. There is an existing single family home built about 5 to 8 feet off the property line. With the 55 foot buffer of open space, a row of evergreen trees, and vegetation along the south edge of Lot 10, separation is created for Lot 10 and the single family 2-story home. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on whether the houses shown on the plan were drawn to scale in comparison to the trees. Applicant answered that the trees are evergreens that would eventually become 60 to 70 feet tall at maturity. They are shown on the plan at 12 feet tall but would Planning & Zoning Board June 15, 2006 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Director Gloss noted for the record receipt of a memorandum from JR Engineering related to this project. City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation for this project. He reviewed the project description and provided additional clarification about the letter received from JR Engineering. He noted that the letter summarized a meeting that occurred between the developer and adjacent property owners who abut the property on the south and west sides. Additionally, the letter included identification of all issues, as well as the solutions agreed upon by all parties involved. According to Shepard, this was a record of the culmination of the citizen participation process and he was prepared to make these concessions part of the final plan. Staff was recommending approval of both the request for the modification to the density and for the PDP itself. Applicant Michael Chalona of Land Images addressed the Board. He stated that this was a request for approval of a cluster development plan in the Urban Estate Zone District. The site is located on the south side of West Willox Lane approximately ''/z mile west of College Avenue and immediately west of Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. The site contains 58 dwelling units on 27.98 gross acres. According to Chalona, the project meets all applicable general development standards of the Land Use Codes found in Section 3 and it meets nearly all applicable Zone District Standards in Section 4 except for the one related to density and intensity of the project. Referring to the Modification of Standards, Chalona noted that the modification was to increase from 2.0 dwelling units to 2.096 dwelling units per net acre. Applicant Chalona stated that a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss compatibility of the project. He reviewed items from the neighborhood meeting with the Board, as follows: • Design: A cluster development centrally located in the project with open space that wraps around and engulfs it. This was done to provide a landscape buffer for existing residents that surround the property. • Vehicle Access: There were concerns about vehicle access on Wood Lane since there is no access coming off of it. All vehicle access comes off of West Willox. The only connectivity near Wood Lane is a trail stub that would make a connection at the southwest corner of Wood Lane. • Drainage: Citizens were concerned with the existing drainage pattern that runs off into the southwest corner and exits through a pipe into a ditch. The latest proposal is to reroute the existing drainage so that it will exit through a pipe into the south meadow and detention pond behind Lots 1-10. Fill: The north part of the property will require fill. Chalona referred to the site plan showing the location of Wood Lane, West Willox Lane and the Larimer(Weld irrigation ditch. Because of the existing height of the ditch, West Willox Lane is built up about 3 to 4 feet above the project. To connect to the existing sanitary sewer connection point (which is off site on the east end of the mobile home park) and to have minimum sloping, several feet of fill must be placed underneath the proposed housing, mostly along the north side of the property. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Smith, Stockover, Schmidt, Fries, Lingle. Member Rollins was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, and Delaughter. Citizen participation: None. Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent Agenda and Discussion Items: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning hearing (continued). 2. PZ06-05 — Easement Dedication 3. PZ06-06 — Easement Dedication 4. PZ06-07 — Easement Dedication 5. Recommendation to City Council for two text amendments to the Land Use Code Discussion Items: 6. #5-05 Arcadia at Willox Lane Project Development Plan 7. #19-05A Fox Meadows Business Park, Tract B, Timberline Plaza Project Development Plan Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Agenda items. Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Project: Arcadia at Willox Lane Project Development Plan, #5-05 Project Description: This is a request for a cluster development planned in the Urban Estate Zone District. The site contains 58 dwelling units on 27.98 gross acres. The site is located on the south side of West Willox Lane approximately one-half mile west of College Avenue, and immediately west of Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Soft Gold Neighborhood Park forms a portion of the southern boundary. The Project Development Proposal includes a request for a Modification of Standard to allow a slight increase in allowable density. Staff Recommendation: Approval for the Modification of Standard and for the Project Development Proposal.