HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINDENMEIER ESTATES PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... 7/11/94 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 24-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 11, 1994
Page 21
defined as a dwelling unit per acre, one or more rooms and a
single kitchen.
Mr. Lawler, marketing expert for ZTI, indicated that this concept
is entirely new to Fort Collins, and would like to have the
flexibility as an option.
CITIZEN INPUT
Bill O'Halloran - owner of adjacent
that he supported this unique idea
neighborhood meetings. He desired
believed this was a way to preserve
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED.
property - He pointed out
and he had participated in
to address density issues. He
the wetlands and its habitat.
Member Walker commented that this was an approach to meet minimum
density criteria and requirements. If there are plans for a
second unit, there are things that need to be done right from the
start, it cannot effectively be an "add -on." He believed details
should be handled under private covenants. As the units are
built, they should have the second unit approved at the time of
issuance of the building permit.
Chair Clements agreed.
Member Cottier also agreed and further stated that if this is
just an "option" that people build it some time in the future, it
could be a way around the issue to approve larger single-family
lots. She agreed with Dr. O'Halloran that it will preserve the
look of the area, but she supported getting approval of the
second lot for density.
Member Walker said that this was a PUD and was opposed to getting
area lots developed under three units per acre.
Member Fontane moved to approve the Lindenmeier Estates PUD,
Preliminary, with staff recommendation for conditions for
drainage, the condition of Natural Resources, and with the
requirement that the second unit be designed and built at the
time of the first unit on all lots.
Member Strom seconded the motion with the three conditions.
Motion carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned 12:05 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 11, 1994
Page 20
Mr. Zdenek said yes. It will be reviewed by the neighborhood
before it is brought back to the Board.
Member Fontane asked if time frames were set for building the
additional unit and what the lot depths were.
Mr. Zdenek said "no", rather it will be left as an option. It is
a function of the needs of the particular family owner when the
second unit will be built. The depths of the lots on Lemay will
be 165-170 feet.
Member Bell referred to the word "option" and asked about the
assurance of the developer to meet the density if it is only an
"option."
Mr. Zdenek indicated they would require an additional 9 lots to
achieve the required density as a standard development. He said
the density requirements are met with this project. He said
there is no guarantee the units will be built, but the point is
the density may not be guaranteed if they were developed as
duplex lots either.
Member Bell asked for clarification if someone were to use that
option, would there be a minimum of 800 square feet for the
second unit?
Mr. Zdenek said "a maximum" of 800 square feet. This will
control the size of the structures.
Chair Clements said the "granny flat" concept is a good idea;
however, she didn't think it would work as an option. Can the
Board require that if a person purchases a lot and wishes to
build an accessory unit, that it be part of their plan or not?
Mr. Eckman said he believed that was how it was to be presented
with two living units on the lots.
Chair Clements pointed out that they would be used for immediate
family or other individuals. She believed it should be open to
options to other individuals.
Mr. Eckman said the intent of definition of "family" in the code
is two types (1) persons related by blood, marriage, adoption,
or other duly authorized custodial relationships, such as foster
care, and (2) unrelated persons so long as there are no more than
three. It is up to the developer what the restriction is.
There was further discussion regarding the "granny flat" concept
and the ramifications of occupancy. Minimal units would be
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 11, 1994
Page 19
concepts. The purpose of the community -wide criteria and mixed
criteria was read at this point.
Mr. zdenek said the project has a unique characteristic because
it interfaces with a natural and wildlife area owned by the City
of Fort Collins. The City has requested development be very
sensitive to the interface for conservation purposes. The
developer has complied to urban density 3 or more dwellings units
per acre. He expressed their willingness to be compatible to the
neighborhood and in compliance with the City standards. The
larger lots are a big consideration and the relationship to the
natural area. The neighbors concerns are important with an
attendance of 30 people at the first neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Zdenek described in detail the area of development, setbacks,
streets, natural area, water line and easements, irrigation ditch
and proposed bike trail, extensive architectural controls,
homeowners association, maintenance of open space, and mentioned
that the secondary units are to be limited to 800 square feet in
size. There is a total of 4.6 acres to be developed and be
available to related individuals only and they cannot be sold
individually. The design is infill development and is compatible
with the community which encourages alternative transportation.
He asked the Board for approval of this project.
There was discussion between Board members and applicant
regarding provision of access to properties and easements for
wildlife in the area.
Dr. Bill O'Halloran, the property owner adjacent to the
development, said that the City has an easement that goes down
the ditch line to Lemay.
Member Strom spoke of concern about density, that the market is
not as demanding as anticipated and also concern about the
assurance to the neighbors that their interests will be protected
in terms of the overall architectural presentation design.
Mr. Zdenek said that they have agreed (1) to work with the
neighborhood on architectural controls, to lend assurance of
compatibility; and (2) that the developer establish their
criteria at final submittal regarding setbacks and landscape
requirements that will not be required by the homeowners
association. The designs will be individually selected with a
series of architectural controls.
Member Strom asked if those performance standards would be seen
at final?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 11, 1994
Page 18
we be satisfied with the covenants or should there be something
on the plats so the City could have some recourse?
Mr. Olt indicated that this type of thing must be most
effectively regulated by the homeowner's association or
covenants. It is the intent of staff, however, that this clearly
be defined with the final site plan since it is vague in the
preliminary plan. The final site plan will clearly have to
define this. However, this is rarely seen by property owners.
Therefore, conceivably it will have to be on the subdivision
plat. The private documents are where the weight of the
enforcement will have to occur.
Member Walker wanted the City to have recourse to enforce the
intent by having some note on the plat to that effect.
Member Fontane said since we are breaking new ground, we can
write our own rules as far as how we want to address some of
these issues. If the "granny -flat" is to be in Phase II or
addressed individually per lot, the lots will have offsets and
setbacks for the first dwelling unit to allow for planning of the
location of the "granny flat".
Chair Clements asked if the "granny flat" would be a separate
building on the lot or a part of the house?
Mr. Olt said it could be either. The options are open, but
leaning towards an attached unit, a second unit could be
incorporated very well.
Chair Clements expressed endorsement of this concept for the
elderly and as a growing need for the extended family concept.
However, we need to realize that all kinds of people live in
granny flats. There are students, other extended family members,
etc. She admonished the Board to proceed with caution because it
will set precedence when this preliminary proposal is made.
Mr. Ed Zdenek with ZTI Group, and Ed Lawler, partner in this
development, gave a short report on this undefined market for
"granny flats". Currently there is no way of having a second
unit or related individual in your own home, short of having a
"duplex". In the City, you could request a single family
structure on a duplex site. This is a neighborhood of large lots
in a very prestigious part of the community. There have been two
neighborhood meetings, sharing concerns.
Mr. Zdenek referred to Mr. Olt's document for the short-term
growth management program. He said he was on the committee
working on this topic and the project fits closely with those
1\
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 11, 1994
Page 17
Item 21 - Lindenmeier Estates PUD - Preliminary, #24-94.
Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report. He
addressed the contiguity to an existing urban development and
details of points accrued for the project. The second condition
that had been changed after discussion with the Natural Resources
Department, was given to the Board in the form of a memo.
Member Walker asked if the City would be require both units be
built at the time of construction or would it be possible to
build one or the other at a later date?
Mr. Olt stated the intent would not necessarily requiring that
both living units be built at the same time. Therefore, this was
an enforcement issue. He pointed out in the new residential
phasing ordinance, one of the criterion in the ordinance
encourages mixed residential uses, a "granny -flat type" concept,
which this project uses.
Member Walker asked about the "related family members", and if it
would appear on the plats. Does the City have assurance of that?
The developer has indicated that this would be through the
covenants but where does the City's interest in this lie? Should