Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL ..... RECORDER'S CERTIFIED MINUTES OF 7/24/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 19-94C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES52 1 STATE OF COLORADO) 2 ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER) 4 I, Tracy L. Waters, a Shorthand Reporter and 5 Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify'that the 6 foregoing transcript, consisting of 51 pages, transcribed by 7 me from videotape, represents, to the best of my ability to 8 transcribe same, a complete and accurate record of the 9 proceedings as recorded. 10 I further certify that I am not related to, 11 employed by, nor of council to any of the parties or 12 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of 13 the case. 14 Attested to by me this 14th day of August, 1995. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 k ' Tracy W ers 22 315 Wes ak Street, Suite 500 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 23 (303) 482-1506 My commission expires February 3, 1998. 24 25 51 1 MR. COLTON: Yes. 2 CLERK: Bell. 3 MS. BELL: Yes. 4 CLERK: Davidson. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 6 CLERK: Carnes. 7 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yes. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 1 medium density and the lower density, because I thought it 2 was very important to have that transition across the 3 property and have it as low as he possibly could on the 4 east. I am pleased and so I will support the project. 5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other comments? As the Chair, 6 1 think I can only echo the comments that have been made, 7 two most recently by Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Strom. I believe 8 a wholehearted effort has been made to by all parties to 9 this to come to a reasonable middle ground. Short of 10 starting all over, I don't know what further can be done, 11 given the restrictions of our policy and the system we have 12 to work with here. I'm glad that all the parties hung in 13 there all the way. I think it's going to be better than it 14 would have been otherwise. In fact, I was amazed by how - 15 much negotiation and how much consideration has been given 16 on this project. So in many ways, it's exemplary, although 17 it's not going to be totally satisfactory to everyone. 18 May I have a role call now. 19 CLERK: Mickelsen. 20 MS. MICKELSEN: Yes. 21 CLERK: Walker. 22 MR. WALKER: Yes. 23 CLERK: Strom. 24 MR. STROM: Yes. 25 CLERK: Colton. 49 1 druthers, the Thomases and Mr. Courtney would do it 2 differently. But given the piece of ground that we have and 3 the surroundings and the context it sits in, I think this is 4 a good solution. Most importantly, I guess -- not most 5 importantly, but also importantly, is the fact that it is 6 largely.in compliance with the preliminary that we approved 7 and shows signs that the proponent has continued to work to 8 make it better. So I'm in favor of this proposal. 9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you Bernie. Jennifer. 10 MS. MICKELSEN: One of the struggles we've had 11 all along with this project is, what do you do with this 12 fringe; and one thing that being part of the struggle was 13 hard for us was when we recognized that this was a very 14 tough spot to make a density change. We wanted to do lower 15 density but we recognized what City policy is and we 16 recognized what you do within the city limits. These are 17 often times the cases where the development spurs our 18 thoughts to take a closer look at what are policies on the 19 fringe area of our IGA and our city limits. This has 20 certainly been a learning opportunity for all of us to take 21 a look at what we're doing on the edge of town and try to 22 decide and think forward just what we want it to look like. 23 About this particular project, I am very pleased 24 with the transitions that have been made. I struggled very 25 hard with Mr. Ward to try to get that higher density and the 48 1 we've covered a lot of it pretty well, but a couple 2 additional thoughts, particularly one for new Board members. 3 As we've wrestled through this process over the last several 4 months, one of the things that has been very clear to us, at 5 least me on the Board, is that the developers worked very 6 hard to try to work with the neighborhood in trying to 7 resolve some of the conflicts. It's a situation where, 8 obviously, everyone's not going to be happy; but I have to 9 comment the proponents for the efforts they put in it. 10 The other thought I had on it in terms of 11 transition, this being part of the Urban Growth Area, part 12 of the city limits of the City of Fort Collins, it's on the_ 13 edge of what will essentially forever be much lower density, 14 because we have the Poudre River flood plain in this 15 area which is something in excess of a mile wide, if I'm not 16 mistaken, at this location. There's some development in, 17 but the City has identified the most sensitive and critical 18 portion of that from a wildlife standpoint and has purchased 19 them. 20 So I think, you know, we wrestled with this 21 preliminary stage. We wrestled all through this process as 22 to what makes sense, what constitutes a good transition, 23 what works best for the City and the neighborhood both. As 24 I said, I don't think -- probably given their druthers, the 25 developer would do it differently. Certainly given their 47 1 on the whole thing, but I don't suspect anybody's going to 2 like that. I think larger lots and/or landscaping -- you 3 know, anything that will help to alleviate some determining 4 factor that there's a separation there. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Shepard, would you like 7 to present -- 8 MR. SHEPARD: On sheet 3 of 3, the final 9 landscape plan for the south area, if you look along lot 16, 10 15, you've got a row of 18 trees to the rear of the two lots 11 that are in the extreme southeast corner. Eighteen total, 9 12 evergreens, 9 deciduous trees in this area. 13 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Does that answer your 14 question? 15 MR. DAVIDSON: One more question. Are these 16 mature trees or are they going to take 10 or 15 years to 17 reach maturity to the point where they actually serve as a 18 buffer or transition zone? 19 MR. SHEPARD: These are trees that meet the Land 20 Development Guidance System requirements, two-inch caliber 21 deciduous and 6-to-8 foot evergreens. 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. 23 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Any other.Board comments.or- 24 questions? 25 MR. STROM: Well, a couple of things. I think 0 46 1 that are a little bigger will help some. This is going to 2 be a total change for all of us that have been there.a 3 number of years. 4 Hewlett-Packard is not really a big item. Their 5 lights bother us. We've had 20 years to get used to it, and 6 I'm still not used to the lights. I like to look at a night 7 sky and not see a pink glare from Hewlett-Packard, but this 8 is going to be a horrendous change for all of us, and it 9 will affect the way all of us live. 10 The other concern we had is these lots are not 11 that big. There's no place for children to play, and it is 12 a concern about children coming onto our properties. I 13 don't want to see some child in my pond or kicked by a 14 horse, and I think children will naturally gravitate to 15 areas where there's more open space or to where there's 16 something fascinating. You show me a child that won't go for 17 a puddle and I won't believe it. So a pond is even a bigger 18 concern. One of the neighbors raises animals. Two of the 19 other neighbors have horses. It is a concern. 20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mrs. Thomas. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: I was going to ask you, Mrs. 22 Thomas, do you see landscaping as any type of option, or 23 were the larger lots what you see as the solution for you? 24 Was there a compromise somewhere there? 25 MRS. THOMAS: The solution would be two houses 45 1 If you'd like.an opportunity to review that, 2 Mr. Shepard, Mrs. Thomas, can you go ahead and respond to 3 Mr. Davidson? 4 MRS. THOMAS: Now I don't remember exactly what 5 he asked me. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Looking at this drawing here, I 7 noticed on the northern section of your property they've 8 transitioned you with landscaping, but on the southern 9 section -- 10 MRS. THOMAS: Excuse me. You mean that -- what 11 is the green area there? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 13 MRS. THOMAS: Actually, what that is is a very 14 deep depression that goes through the two properties, ours 15 and the other one. So that's really not probably going to 16 be a landscaped area. It's a hillside. 17 There's a lot of things that are difficult for 18 all of us, and it affects the neighbors to the north of us, 19 too. We, for instance, have horses, chickens and peacocks, 20 which I can guarantee the urbanites will love. I'm not 21 thrilled with the prospect of streetlights, traffic. We 22 will hear it. You know, it's still going to be very, very 23 close; and this is going to affect the neighbors to the 24 north of us, too. So anything that is a little bit bigger 25 on -- all the way along the east and the north, any lots 44 1 directing traffic away from the existing residents rather 2 than through their neighborhood. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: I guess I looked at the property, 4 and I did note that the Thomases, it looks like they've had 5 a total solitude for years between the farm field that's 6 just west:..of them and the trees immediately around the front 7 of their house and the side -- and the south side of their 8 home. I'm wondering if the transition -- I don't know. It 9 may not be something the Thomases are interested in, but I 10 was wondering if that transition could be widened a little 11 bit on those larger lots and more landscaping put in to 12 maintain that idyllic farm setting. As far as neighbors on 13 the east and north of the Thomases, I'm not really sure -- I 14 -didn't see much growth there, but I'm wondering if maybe 15 that would be their option, too. 16 If I could, I would like to ask the Thomases how 17 they would feel about trying to transition a little 18 differently or maybe better than what I would see at this 19 point. 20 MR. WARD: Could I offer one point of 21 clarification while Sandy's coming up. It is part of the 22 proposal to add a substantial amount of landscaping in the 23 backs of those lots as part of our proposal. 24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Shepard, could you comment 25 on the landscaping and then•Mrs. Thomas? 43 1• The other key element, I guess, in 99 out of 100 2 places where there are existing neighbors and a new 3 development proposed with smaller lots or higher density, 4 the primary focus is with street connections and bringing 5 extraneous traffic through the existing -- introducing 6 outside traffic into the existing area. When we started, 7 the direction was to make a connection through Nite Court, 8 which would provide a second point of access to this area. 9 What has occurred is that that has been reduced to a fire a 10 l-ine only as opposed to a formal public street. Our street 11 has been pulled further away. 12 The further part of the transition -- you should 13 also notice that the only house to the east of the site that 14 is part of the Poudre (inaudible) is the Thomas house. 15 There are two existing homes on the Shields second 16 annexation. The proposal there is to extend this transition 17 and develop this at a density of less than 3 units per acre. 18 What is actually going to be proposed there when annexation 19 is complete is 5 lots on this 6-plus acres, which will 20 continue this transition of typical urban lots and larger 21 lots to the point where the lots here are essentially equal 22 to the ones to the north in terms of depth and the existing 23 houses there. 24 Those are the key elements. Lot sizes, 25 controlling where the activities are on this project, and 42 1 an attempt to cluster to the extent where you leave a lot of 2 open space. 3 The transition occurs primarily by the placement 4 of relatively large, urban -style lots versus common open 5 space. And so the Board had some discussion as to what 6 clustering means. I'm not sure that it was resolved. 7 This project, as it has evolved over time, does 8 attempt to transition density and clusters, so to speak, its 9 density away from the sensitive areas. 10 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Davidson. it MR. DAVIDSON: Being I wasn't here for the 12 prelim on this, and maybe I missed some of this, but could 13 you, Ted or Eldon, explain how you're transitioning for the 14 development in regards to the neighbors on the east, other 15 than larger lots. 16 MR. WARD: The lot size is the key item, and we 17 did look at more of an extreme clustering approach where you 18 have very small lots and a higher percentage of open space. 19 However, that did not receive a very positive response from 20 the neighbors. The feeling we got was that the larger 21 lot was more compatible than to add some other linear open 22 space, which would, therefore, add more activity adjacent to 23 their lots as opposed to the larger lots and focusing the 24 activity further away. The transition, as you notice, is in 25 larger lots. 41 .1 And so for that reason, I will make a motion to 2 approve the Woodland Park final PUD. 3 MR. STROM: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Walker has made a motion 5 and for approval and Mr. Strom has second it. Is there any 6 discussion? Ms. Bell. 7 MS. BELL: I just want to comment. I've been 8 sitting here thinking about this idea -of the Board 9 commenting that we might like to see some significant 10 changes to this plan; and, I don't know, if my memory serves 11 me, but I think I remember considerable discussion in that 12 we kind of felt like we did want to stick with the density, 13 the 3 units per acre, but what we were looking at wanting to 14 do was have the building placement and orientation look 15 different at final so as to create a larger -- we were 16 talking about clustering and different things like that. 17 Could staff -- I find it a little frustrating that I don't 18 have the minutes from that meeting; but maybe, Ted, you 19 could help clarify whether my memory is sort of on -track 20 about that. 21 MR. SHEPARD: We had a lot of discussion about 22 clustering, and my impression was that the Board was divided 23 on what clustering means and does -this project cluster or 24 doesn't it cluster. Clearly there's an attempt to cluster 25 density in a certain location of the site. But there wasn't 40 1 east. We've seen the larger lots along the east side of 2 this project. A question for the Board members is, is that 3 sufficient? 4 I would also mention that this is part of the 5 City. When I look at the site, I see that to the south we 6 have an industrial complex with high business activity. 7 Granted, it's a lot of open space there, but that is an 8 industrial site. The site to the southwest will likely be 9 an industrial, as was proposed at one time. Given it's 10 proximity on Harmony and what have you, it's likely to. 11 become an industrial site, given the Harmony Corridor Plan. 12 Further to the west we have a variety of single-family 13 housing types, residential housing types of urban -level 14 density. 15 So I think the -question comes down to, well, 16 what we've heard is -- where do we make the transition here. 17 There seems to be a wall that's been built -- proposed to be 18 built along County Road 9 to say, "The transition is there," 19 and yet County Road 9 is an arterial street. It's part of 20 the City grid. It's City property. 21 I think that what has been proposed here is a 22 reasonable approach to meet the varied and sometimes 23 conflicting policies of the City in terms of urban -level 24 densities, mitigation to different densities around the 25 site. 39 1 MS. MICKELSEN: Okay. I think that's all for 2 now. 3 MR. WALKER: Gary,. I would like to make some 4 comments and make a motion. I think we've always been 5 struggling with on.this particular site. It's just, which 6 way do you look at it, in a sense. This is part of the,City 7 of Fort Collins; and, as such, we have this 3 units per acre 8 minimum to meet, which, you know, as was indicated, except 9 in extraordinary circumstances, we try to maintain that. I 10 think we can see where we do have extraordinary 11 circumstances where that does get changed, for example, 12 foothills where we've got foothills zoning that respects the 13 unique character of that area. 14 It was brought out that the Poudre River flood 15 plain to the east of this site has.been purchased by the 16 City because it has some unique characteristics. It's also 17 been indicated that this site, at least from a wildlife 18 standpoint, doesn't fit that category. 19 So what I'm hearing is that in the category of, 20 "Do we have some criteria to vary the 3 units per acre," I 21 don't find that that is true. 22 Now, given that, we have to look at the types of 23 things that the Land Use Guidance System considers, such as 24 mitigation to other properties and mitigation which we're 25 seeing here primarily to mitigate the properties to the 38 1 15, I was looking at wildlife habitat. I was noting that it 2 says, "If a site contains an area which serves as habitat, 3 natural food source, nesting place, wintering place or 4 source of water for wildlife identified by the Colorado 5 Division of Wildlife as significant and in particular need 6 of .attention, special precautions can be implemented in this 7 plan to prevent the creation of environmental influences 8 adverse to the preservation of these areas." Now does this 9 mean-- either Eldon or Ted -- that the Colorado Division of 10 Wildlife has to make some sort of -- you know, write 11 something to say yes or no on this piece of property, or do 12 they have some general listing, or how is that approach? 13 MR. SHEPARD: They don't have a general listing 14 for all sites that are reviewed by the LDGS. Our Department 15 of Natural Resources worked very closely with the State on 16 these areas. In fact, when this criterion is used, for 17 instance, as it was in Paragon Point with the raptors and 18 the winter feeding down in that area, the Colorado Division 19 of Wildlife was involved and did indicate that this was an 20 important area. 21 MS. MICKELSEN: So we're relying on the 22 expertise that we have in the Natural Resources Department 23 when they say that this is not a priority area for 24 preservation? 25 MR. SHEPARD: Yes. 37 1 Mid -rise can be 25 to 30. We don't have much of those in 2 Fort Collins. High-rise can be 40 to 70. So it's quite a 3 variety. 4 MS. MICKELSEN: I was just thinking about -- 5 remembering how much,we struggled in order to deal with this 6 fringe area and how important it was not only for the City 7 to maintain that 3 units per acre but -- I faintly remember 8 -- correct me if I'm wrong, Eldon -- that you guys had at 9 one point -- well, I don't want to say recommended, but you 10 were looking pretty strongly at a very low -- I mean, 2 11 units per acre, but even lower than that. Did you at one 12 point look at that? I know you're talking about 2 units, 13 and it was unfeasible, but did you actually draw that up? 14 MR. WARD: Yes. We had actually looked at it. 15 That's as low a density that we did a serious evaluation on. 16 It was 2 units per acre, and it simply could not work 17 meeting all of the other city requirements. We didn't do a 18 detailed evaluation on anything lower than that. 19 MS. MICKELSEN: Okay. Because I remember trying 20 very hard to meet the 3 units per acre by putting the 21 highest density towards County Road 9; because, you know, to 22 me, that's an important location for high density to be. 23 That way, it's close to transit, and the lowest density 24 being to the east. I remember that struggle. 25 I've also been looking at the LDGS, and on page 36 1 MR. SHEPARD: That's a tough question, because 2 one of the things we've tried to get away from under 3 traditional planning and zoning are those strict parameters, 4 where something magic happens at a certain arbitrary number. 5 Rather, what we've done is try to do more of a 6 performance system with more detailed criteria and to see 7 how an actual site performs, whether it meets an arbitrary 8 category or range. 9 In a traditionally zoned community, you would 10 have your low density zones anywhere from a half acre lot to- il up to, I would say, 3 and 3.5 units per acre. You would 12 start to see some more traditional breakdowns the higher up, 13 you go. 14 Every community has different arbitrary lines. 15 Some communities might say that 6 units per acre is the 16 difference between a patio home and a townhome. Some 17 communities might say somewhere in the 8 to 10 unit per acre 18 range is the difference between townhomes and condominiums. 19 Garden-level.apartments could be as low as 8, could be as 20 high as 18. It does get to be somewhat arbitrary. In fact, 21 it is so arbitrary that I brought my illustrated book of 22 development definitions, and even this scholarly piece of 23 work provides a wide variety of ranges. Single-family 24 detached can be 1 to 5. Two family can be 6 to 10. 25 Townhomes can be 6 to 8. Garden apartments can be 10 to 18. 35 1 correct? 2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Davidson. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Ted, I have a question on page 25 4 of the LDGS. Under building placement orientation, there's 5 one paragraph, Functional Considerations. You were saying 6 that the recreational areas are a linear measurement only 7 but yet this is saying that we should design recreation 8 areas so they're accessible to the residents they're 9 intended to serve. I guess I'm having a hard time, after 10 seeing this site, seeing the rows of trees as accessible to 11 anybody because they're so thick in growth. Can you comment 12 on that? 13 MR. SHEPARD: The only comment I can make is 14 that we worked real hard. We wanted very much to preserve 15 the trees. By preserving the trees, we think the plan meets 16 the public objective. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Thanks. 18 CHAIRMAN CARNES: If there are no further 19 questions or comments from the Board, do I hear a motion? 20 MS. MICKELSEN: In the meantime, can I just ask 21 one question of Ted. Thinking about something I saw in the 22 Land Use Policy Plan where it talked about low density, 23 moderate density and high density. Just for all our sakes, 24 would you put a density figure, number of units per acre, on 25 each of those that you would be comfortable with? 34 1 decided also on a fiscal, service -providing basis. 2 Has it ever been changed? Yes. There have been 3 some changes or some variances. The Board has granted, 4 based on the variance criteria you have in the LDGS. We've 5 got one that was on tonight's agenda, for instance, the G Ago enl 6 (inaudible).guFr shop, one existing single-family home on 1.5 7 acres. That was a unique circumstance that the staff felt 8 justified a variance. 9 As with any criteria in the, LDGS, the Board 10 does have some variance criteria. Generally speaking, 11 they're isolated, unique, specific to a certain problem or 12 issue or piece of property. 13 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Is it -- it's true in this 14 case that no density less than 3 has been proposed to the 15 Board, I guess, at preliminary or at stage. This is the 16 lowest density that's been proposed? 17 MR. SHEPARD: That is correct. This is concept 18 F. We started off at A, and we've worked our way through, 19 and here we are tonight at F. This is the lowest that 20 you've seen it. 21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Any more questions or 22 comments?. Ms. Bell. 23 MS. BELL: Just to clarify, however, that this 24 is final, and we cannot make a change in the density at this 25 point because that was destined at preliminary; is that 33 1 points are required for this project, and how many did it 2 actually received? 3 MR. SHEPARD:, 60 points are required. I believe 4 they received 75. 5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And could you explain a 6 little more about the minimum density of 3 and where that 7 comes from, and have there been any exceptions to that? 8 MR. SHEPARD: Where it comes from is the Land 9 Use Policies Plan. There's a couple of land use policies 10 that refer to the desired density of the City. It came out 11 of the work that was done prior to the adoption of the Land 12 Development Guidance System. The LDGS was designed to 13 implement this, this as an implementing tool. 14 The desire of the community at the time the 15 plans were adopted was that we would grow at a moderate 16 growth rate in a moderate form and not be too dense and not 17 be sprawling suburban. To implement that, the LDGS has a 18 minimum requirement of 3 dwelling units per acre. 19 It also comes out of some of the fiscal work 20 that was done on how to serve residential growth in the city 21 as the city grows. That there's a fiscal breakpoint at some 22 theoretical level where anything less than a certain- 23 density becomes a greater burden on the taxpayers to provide 24 a certain level of services. The higher the density the 25 greater the efficiency. So 3 developing units per acres was 32 1 of the gross area that meets that requirement, and half that 2 percentage is how you get to 5 points on the density chart. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: I guess what I'm looking for, 4 too, is when I think recreational, I think of something I 5 can actually walk'around on or use. Could you point out 6 what you're considering recreational use areas? 7 MR. WARD: Again, as defined by ordinance, it's 8 not function, it's dimensional. So the portion of this area 9 is over 50 feet wide. This central corridor where the trees 10 are preserved is over 50 feet wide. The portions of the 11 County Road 9 buffer, they're over 50 feet wide; and the 12 portions of this area, except for the care center, were all 13 entered into that calculation. 14 In the past, the discussion has been that 15 recreational area -- that visual buffers, that preserving 16 masses of existing trees have value, as well as soccer 17 fields, and more active areas. So that is, I think, as I 18 understand it, having worked with this ordinance for some 19 time, the reason that it is defined by dimension rather than 20 activity. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Any other questions or 23 comments? I have a couple questions for Mr. Shepard. For 24 those who are not familiar with our system, a certain 25 minimum number of points are required for projects. What 1 comments? Mr. Davidson. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: Ted, maybe you can clear up for 3 me some of the points they got for density for recreational 4 use. It says, calculate the percent of total acres in the 5 project devoted and divide that by one half. How many 6 acres? I assume there were 10 acres that were considered 7 recreational then? Is that what I'm getting from this 8 interpretation, and what do you define as recreational 9 use? 10 MR. WARD: The recreational area of the project 11 is 127,745 square feet. No. I'm sorry. That's the wrong 12 number. It's 139,505 square feet, which is then calculated 13 as a percentage of the total area, which is 35 acres. So we 14 have roughly jO percent of the site in recreational area; 15 therefore, we got 5 points. It's half of the percentage of 16 the gross platted area that you get for points. And the 17 Land Development Guidance System, the ordinance which Ted is 18 referring to, specifically requires -- defines recreational 19 space as parcels of not less than 10,000 square feet and not 20 less than 50 lineal feet at the smallest dimension. And it 21 says that public dedications may not be counted. So that 22 gets, again, into that public versus neighborhood recreation 23 area. So it is by ordinance. It is a dimensional 24 calculation. It has to be at least 10,000 square feet, at 25 least 50 feet wide, in order to count. Take the percentage 30 1 transitioning from urban to rural. So could you talk about 2 that a little bit more, Ted? 3 MR. SHEPARD: Sure. We talked about that quite 4 a bit last summer when we were in the neighborhood 5 facilitation stage. We were at the point where we were 6 advised by the City Attorney's office that the land governed 7 by the intergovernmental agreement is for land that is 8 located outside the present urban city limit boundaries and 9 yet within the Urban Growth Area. 10 So this parcel is in the City. It's not the, it area governed by the intergovernmental agreement. So we're 12 not able to use the language and the guidelines that you 13 find in the IGA by which to review this project. 14 MS. MICKELSEN: Along those same lines, Ted, can 15 you talk a little bit about if we've got conflicting 16 philosophies between the Land Use Policy Plan between the 17 LDGS, about what takes precedence? 18 MR. SHEPARD: What takes precedence would be 19 what is in ordnance form versus what is in policy or 20 guideline or advisory form. Right now the Land Use Policies 21 Plan of the comp plan is advisory,' and it's a policy 22 document that gives guidance versus the Land Development 23 Guidance System which is, in fact, an ordinance. Therefore, 24 it would not take precedence. 25 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board questions, WE 1 existing trees in that location. So it will -- it is 2 removed from the curb, and it's removed slightly further. 3 But the extent of that, how far it's detached, is really 4 based on a survey of the existing trees. There's a little 5 detail in your packet on one of the plans that shows the 6 typical cross-section. 7 MS. BELL: And then on the density chart -- I 8 guess this would be a question for Ted -- on the child care 9 center that received the 5 points, is that the one that's 10 being proposed with the project, or is there another 11 existing child care center nearby that they got the points 12 for? How was that five points awarded? 13 MR. WARD: It's the one that is included on the 14 project, which is typically how that criteria has been 15 administered for the last 15 years. 16 MS. BELL: And then my other question, again, 17 perhaps one for Ted, there's been some discussion at 18 previous meetings and again here tonight about the 19 transition of urban to rural; and while this is in the City, 20 it's also in the Urban Growth Area, in which case, I guess 21 this Intergovernmental Agreement does apply. So could I 22 have some sort of interpretation; because on page 12, 23 there's.a lot of discussion about greater mitigation 24 required along boundary lines and this whole notion that the 25 neighborhood keeps talking about of this idea of a FA i 28 1 could. So we did look into the provision of public open 2 space, but that did not work, and the Applicant then chose, 3 frankly, the more costly alternative of providing 4 neighborhood facilities that are not required by Code. 5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mr. Ward. Are 6 there any other Board questions? Gwen. 7 MS. BELL: Just a couple of quick ones and then 8 maybe a little bit longer one. There was mention of no 9 sidewalk or something about the sidewalk by one of the 10 neighborhood representatives. Could you clarify that for 11 me, please. 12 MR. WARD: There is a standard City detached 13 walk. It's on the plan. It will be provided with this 14 development. I think where the confusion may be is that: 15 with the recent street improvements that have gone in, that 16 sidewalk was not built with the capital project that is 17 nearly finished this summer. 18 There are additional improvements required of 19 this development which will go along the entire frontage and 20 actually run a little out parcel. 21 MS. BELL: So it's right along the edge of 22 County Road 9 as opposed to sometimes we have a buffer along 23 the road so that the sidewalk can be more on -- 24 MR. WARD: It is a detached walk. In fact, it's 25 detached a little bit more than normal to work around the 27 r 1 On the preliminary that was approved by the 2 Board, the lots on the west and north perimeter were in the 3 13,000 to 14,000 range. By eliminating 3 lots is how we 4 were able to achieve lots of up to and over a half an acre. 5 So that is the evolution. The open space areas 6 have evolved in a similar manner. There's not a requirement 7 to provide public open space with a PUD. In fact, the City 8 of Fort Collins often refuses to accept open space that 9 developers try to provide because of the maintenance expense 10 to the public at large. The City of Fort Collins requires 11 participation in public open space through the required park 12 land acquisition fees, which are calculated and have been 13 increased a couple of times lately. And so we -- along with 14 the densities also evolved an amenity package which is 15 directed at the residents of this. Again, the LDGS criteria 16 says that we need to provide neighborhood facilities that 17 are not required -- otherwise required by ordinance. 18 The Applicant did look at a number of 19 opportunities. There's another residential density bonus 20 criteria that deals with the provision of public open space. 21 The open spaces that we identified were either not well 22 received by the City Parks Natural Resources Department, 23 which included areas to the east of this site which were 24 discussed earlier this evening. There was one area that 25 actually the City put under contract before the Applicant 26 1 the neighbors. We reduced the lots then from 135 down to 2 127. They were reduced from there down to 110. 3 We looked at various alternatives, everywhere 4 from 110 down to slightly under 3 units per acre. We even 5 evaluated a 2-unit-per-acre plan but found that that did not 6 appear to be an acceptable City standard, and it did not 7 appear to be feasible, given the other City standard 8 requirements that have to be met. 9 So what we tried to do was, as Ted said, and 10 what we thought was the direction of the Board, was to 11 transition the lot sizes. We are still dealing with -- 12 there are certain requirements of the City of Fort Collins, 13 and there are very clear statements in the Land Development 14 Guidance System that say that layout and density are 15 established with preliminary approval. In fact, the final 16 PUD must be.in substantial compliance with the preliminary. 17 So our ability to make changes between 18 preliminary and final are within what could be done and 19 still meet City policy and still be in substantial 20 compliance with the approved preliminary. 21 There was not a specific condition to make 22 significant changes between preliminary and final by the 23 Board. I believe we were encouraged by the Board to 24 continue to try to make that transition; and, in fact, that 25 is the nature of the changes we made. 25 1 $105,000 landscaping? 2 MR. WARD: The landscaping is that which is 3 beyond the minimum requirements of the Land Development 4 Guidance System. So it's the area around the active center, 5 and there is a setback of.some 50 feet along County Road 9, 6 which is not a standard City requirement. So it includes 7 that landscaping, as well. It does not include the typical 8 arterial streetscape landscaping which is routinely required 9 for all development. 10 Did you want -- I guess Ted has provided you 11 with the breakdown that we gave staff, and then that would 12 be documented by actual construction receipts in the field. 13 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mrs. Mickelsen, do you have a 14 comment? 15 MRS. MICKELSEN: Eldon, would you please give us 16 a run-through of the process from your previous plan, how the 17 evolution has come. 18 MR. WARD: If I can do that just quickly. As I 19 had indicated in my presentation when this started, the 20 direction I got was that we should be shooting for 5 units 21 per acre. That was where we started. 22 The next version of that dropped that unit down 23 -- number down to 135 lots for a density of 3.9 units per 24 acre. 25 At the initial neighborhood meeting, we met with 24 1 provision for neighborhood facilities not required by the 2 City. Within that, a big chunk of that was landscaping. 3 Can you explain to me a little bit how that criteria is 4 awarded and the dollars that are included in the calculation 5 of that type of thing, that goes into the calculation of 6 that? 7 MR. SHEPARD: I'll give it a start, but I think 8 that Eldon Ward is here to explain the details. Basically, 9 as we discussed at preliminary regarding the landscaping 10 improvement there, if there were no clubhouse, pool or 11 playground, there would be no need for landscaping. It ` 12 would probably not fit within standards to development. in 13 Fort Collins to build these things without landscaping. We 14 don't want to penalize developers who want to provide these 15 things to maintain the standards that we have in our 16 community. 17 The points were based on the formula in the 18 Residential Uses Point Chart. The breakdown is provided 19 there for you. A total of $275,000 divided out over the 20 number of units, times one percent, results in 25 points, 21 as we went over in detail at preliminary. I would defer 22 to the Applicant's representative if he wants to embellish 23 that in any way. 24 MR. COLTON: So the landscaping is the 25 landscaping within that neighborhood center there, the 23 1 of passive and active. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: But those are all private, I 3 believe, aren't they? 4 MR. SHEPARD: I don't know the arrangements to 5 be a member of the active area. It may be open for anyone 6 who would like to join. 7 The trees are in the tract. They're not public a 8 plotted lots. That belongs to the association. So the 9 folks who live there have access to them. If you and I were 10 to stumble on the neighborhood, we might not be welcome; but 11 I don't think we would be prevented. So they are not 12 contained within the private lots, but they are available to 13 the association. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: I noticed in the drawing that the 15 active space was going to be maintained by the neighborhood 16 association under the covenants, so it sounds like it's not 17 public to me, and the trees that I saw on this property are 18 so dense that -- I guess my understanding of open space is 19 that it's also something you can utilized, and you would be 20 hard pressed to utilize those areas as open space, as I 21 would want to use them. 22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Colton. 23 MR. COLTON: Yes, Mr. Shepard, I had a question 24 on the density chart, being new to this process. A third 25 of the points for this project, 25 out of 75, came from the 22 1 direction at this time. 2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Are there any more questions 3 regarding traffic? Bob. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Did you say there would be a 5 sidewalk installed with that road improvement? bbecK 6 MS. ASPEe`f: That's correct. Arterial street 7 improvements require a five -foot -wide detached sidewalk. 8 That's detached far enough off the parkway strip between the 9 curb and the sidewalk'for street trees and utilities. 10 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Other Board questions, 12 comments? Mr. Davidson. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I guess I'll address this with 14 Ted for the moment. What about the mention of no greenbelt? 15 I know there's -- I saw an -active green space in that back 16 section on the east portion, but what about a public 17 open space for a development that size? 18 MR. SHEPARD: Well, as this plan has evolved, 19 that's always been one of the central issues that we've 20 talked about in the neighborhood meetings and with the 21 Planning and Zoning Board. What's being offered here is 22 preservation of mature, old trees, the area where you start 23 to get the change in grade. 24 In the active, open area up here, we include a 25 clubhouse, day care and swimming pool. So it's a combination 21 1 Road 9. It will continue to be widened with other 2 developments as they occur. For example, English Ranch, 3 sixth filing, is going in on the west side of County Road 9, 4 and they're doing their portion. 5 As far as speeds on that roadway, there aren't 6 any measures planned to be taken at this time. However, 7 Kingsley Drive will eventually move down out of English 8 Ranch and intersect County Road 9. Eventually, there will 9 be a need for a signal there, and that will help slow 10 traffic down in the future. Right now there aren't any. 11 measures being taken. There's really not a perceived need 12 to do anything. -at this time, other than hope for the speed 13 limit for an arterial roadway. 14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: So there would be widening on 15 half of the road? hbeck 16 MS. ASPS: That's all this developer is 17 obligated to do, is just adjacent to his development. There 18 are no off-site.improvements needed for the traffic 19 generated by this development. 20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Would there be any change in 21 the number of lanes? beak 22 MS. AS: They would be striped according to 23 the volume of traffic on the roadway right now. For 24 example, it would be a turn lane stripe and a travel lane. 25 There's no need to stripe both lanes in the northbound 20 1 engineering on the project. The Fox Meadows Basin that 2 Glenn was talking about in fact restricts the flows 3 significantly less than what was experienced before the 4 development with respect to historic 100-year flows. 5 I'll give you the parameter thing now. we're 6 -restricted to delivering 11 cfs to the. Fossil Creek Inlet 7 ditch. Prior to that, the historic drainage that was 8 delivered there during major events was well in excess of 60 9 or 70 cfs. 10 CHAIRMAN CARNES: So for the events that are' 11 likely to happen in a period of a person's lifetime, it 12 sounds like there would be some considerable reduction. 13 MR. TORONTO: There is a significant reduction. 14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Are there any other Board 15 questions for'Mr. Toronto since he's at the speaker stand? 16 Okay. Thank you. 17 Let's see. Is Mr. Bracke present? hbeaK 18 MS. ASPECT: I'm Keri Asm--t with the 19 engineering department. Mr. Bracke isn't available to 20 answer questions. I'll do the best I can regarding County 21 Road 9. It's an arterial street. This development will be 22 widening adjacent to the project to widen their half of the 23 street to arterial width and providing a sidewalk. 24 The impacts of this development don't generate 25 the need for any additional road improvements to County 19 1 study right now. 2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Can you give us a little more 3 of the specifics about what kind of change in flow we're 4 going to see attributed to this project at the outlet in 5 the detention area? 6 MR. SCHLGTTER: I don't know if the consultant 7 has the numbers, but I don't have the numbers. The 8 requirement is a two-year historic release rate, which is a 9 normal afternoon thunderstorm in the summertime, maybe a 10 little bit intense one; and that would be the release rate 11 of the pond. Right now, it's whatever storm you have 12 releases directly into the ditch. So this should actually 13 slow down the water, slow down the erosion. 14 Actually, the erosion of the ditch is a function 15 of the irrigation company, and we have agreements with them 16 to discharge into it. So they are responsible for 17 maintaining their ditch. 18 CHAIRMAN CARNES: So is it possible there would 19 be an improvement in peak flows? .0 R 20 MR. SCHLAgTER: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Is there anyone here 22 who might be able to address this further? 23 MR. SCHL8TTER: Don Toronto is here. 24 MR. TORONTO: My name is Don Toronto, and I'm 25 with TST Consulting Engineers, and we've done the civil 18 1 his studies. 2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. 3 Schluter, would you please address the concerns about 4 increased run-off causing additional erosion of the Fossil 5 Creek Inlet and also impacts on the quality of water in the 6 area. M.L 7 MR. SCHLE)TTER: Okay. I'll address the water 8 quality first. Presently our criteria doesn't have anything 9 in it that requires any specific thing for water quality. 10 However, this development does have a detention pond 11 proposed which does serve as -- it disconnects the water 12 from the pavement and gives it some time to have contact 13 with the ground. It lets particles settle out. So it does 14 have some water quality benefits to it. 15 As far as the water being accepted by the inlet 16 ditch, this was part of a plan, our Fossil Creek Master Plan 17 -- Fox Meadows Master Plan, is what it is. It always has 18 been planned to outlet into the inlet ditch. There's a 19 spill structure built at Harmony, which was built when HP 20 did their construction. Actually, by containing it and using 21 it at a two-year historic rate, they are decreasing the 22 flows; because, right now, it's a free release into the 23 ditch. 24 I guess that's -- anything else or any other 25 questions you had about it? But we are reviewing that 0IN 1 met and what policies might not be met. There were some of 2 the Board who, majority at preliminary, felt that the plan 3 supported the Land Use Policies as well as the Residential 4 Use Point Chart. There were two members at preliminary who 5 did not. 6 There was some affirmation, if you will, or 7 suggestion that the 35 acres attempt to carry 3 units per 8 acre but transitional lot sizes; that will be sensitive lot 9 sizing along the county properties with more dense lot 10 arrangements along County Road 9 and the Hewlett-Packard 11 property. 12 To the extent possible, I believe that the 13 majority of the Board members at preliminary found that that 14 transitioning occurred. Again, we're dealing in that 15 framework of, "How do you do that and still keep that 3 16 units per acre?" 17 There has been some changes since preliminary. 18 The lot sizes along the southeast portion of the site have 19 increased. There has been a reduction of 3 lots. It 20 doesn't sound like a lot; but, again, in terms of the 21 context of having only 35 acres and having to meet 3 units 22 per acre, perhaps that was about all they could do. 23 I think I'll turn it over at this point to 24 either Eric Bracke and he can talk about traffic, or Glenn ,v t 25 Schletter and he can talk about storm drainage as well as 16 1 Bluff Line. In fact, the area was subjected to a broad 2 'inventory of wildlife in the Poudre River Landscape 3 Opportunity Study. That was done a year or two ago. Our 4 Department of Natural Resources was involved in that. 5 The site that we're looking at here tonight does 6 not have, in the opinion of our Department of Natural 7 Resources, a significant wildlife habitat. It is the 8 sounding area further to the east that, in fact, has the 9 significance. The area of the Poudre River flood plain has 10 recently been purchased by the City of Fort Collins. The - NFW NOTE 11 former name of it was the 9-kto Partnership. It's now been 12 given a new name called Arapahoe Bend, and it consists of 13 about 280 acres. It includes the area along Harmony Road, 14 the-Poudre River flood plain. It gets up into some of the 15 commercial areas at the northwest corner of I-25 and Harmony 16 Road. It's a large piece of property that we've acquired. 17 I think the Department of Natural Resources had 18 advised the planning staff and we, in turn, advised the 19 Board, that the 35 acres we're looking at tonight does not, 20 in and of itself, contain any significant wildlife. 21 In terms of significant changes between 22 preliminary and final, the notes that I've got from the last 23 meeting talk quite a bit about the dilemma of this project; 24 that this project has really focused our attention on some 25 competing objectives; and we talked about what policies are 15 1 stated, and I'd like the help of Mr. Shepard in responding 2 to some of those. 3 One of the points raised was having to do with 4 negative impacts on water and wildlife. You probably ought 5 to take those separately. Displacement of wildlife and 6 where might that wildlife be accommodated; stormwater 7 quality impacts; and, also, increasing flow -- potentially 8 increasing flow in Fossil Creek; and safety of County Road 9 9 with increased traffic; the inherit incompatible of the 10 proposed use and existing uses. 11 There's no question about whether or not there 12 have been significant changes in this project over the 13 course of -- well, I guess this is the fourth time it's been 14 before this Board. 15 Ted, would you like for me to restate those 16 on -by -one, or do you have most of those? 17 MR. SHEPARD: I've got them. What I'll do is, 18 I'll address the ones I can, and while I'm doing that, I'll 19 remind Glen Schluter from stormwater utility to address 20 the Board on the storm water run-off aspects and the Fossil 21 Creek Inlet ditch. Eric Bracke can advise the Board on the 22 traffic on County Road 9. 23 I'll start with the wildlife. The wildlife 24 issue has always been an issue because of the proximity to 25 what we call the Poudre River Bluff and the Poudre River 14 1 MRS. NESBAUMER: My name is Martel Nesbaumer. 2 Technically I'm no longer a citizen of Fort Collins. For 3 many years, until 1988, my'husband and I lived on land 4 immediately adjacent to this particular proposed 5 subdivision. It was like having our own bird haven. We 6 enjoyed pheasants, geese, magpies and seasonally flocks of 7 mountain bluebirds coming by, pelicans and great blue herons 8 were in sight many times during the season. 9 I sympathize with the people who lived there at 10 the same time we did and those who have moved in since 11 thinking this was the ideal place to be, near enough to the 12 city and yet have the beauties of the Poudre River and be 13 able to see the mountains. 14 I am concerned that the city has taken a very 15 strong stand to prevent the development of lower -density 16 residents. I know there are constraints of providing 17 utilities and other things; but in a transitional area, it 18 seems to me it should be considered. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mrs. Nesbaumer. 20 Would you please put your address -- name and address on the 21 -- is there a -- okay. 22 Do we have any other citizen input? Hearing 23 none, I'm going to close public discussion and bring it back 24 to the Board for Board discussion and questions. 25 1 have noted some of the concerns that were 13 1 been extremely busy for many years. Since it reopened 2 recently after the improvements, it seems to be a training 3 ground for Indy 500 drivers. It is not a safe street. 4 There will be no sidewalks in front of the area 5 where the subdivision is proposed, and the road now is from 6 three to four lanes at both ends to two lanes precisely in 7 the area of this subdivision. 8 I also doubt that the road.can handle another 9 150 to 200 cars going back and forth on this road a couple 10 times a day. 11 This area, along with others in the IGA, for all 12 of the above reasons, and certainly others, should not be 13 subject to a subdivision of this density. We are not 14 opposed to growth, as some believe, but we want to see 15 growth conform to the area. We want to see the guidelines 16 of the Land Use Policies and the rules of the IGA followed. 17 That will allow the Fort Collins area to have a variety of 18 land uses and lifestyle. choices which make any city a better 19 city. It will benefit all of us. As Mayor Ann Azari was 20 recently quoted as saying after attending a mayor's 21 conference, quote, there's always been a problem with the 22 one -size -fits -all mentality. Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mrs. Thomas. Are 24 there any other citizens who would like to speak to this 25 project? 12 1 And as Scott mentioned, at the last P&Z meeting, 2 some of the members stated that if there wasn't a 3 considerable or significant change, they wouldn't approve 4 it. We don't believe this change has been met. 5 Our area, as we said before, is a home or 6 sanctuary for a variety of wildlife. As the city has moved 7 out, the wildlife has become more abundant. The 8 ever -shrinking open space will not be able to support all 9 the creatures searching for food and shelter. They are 10 rapidly running out of safe havens and the food and safe 11 water supplies. 12 We are also still very concerned about storm 13 water drainage, which will no doubt have lawn fertilizers, 14 motor oil, soap from washing cars, et cetera, in it. The 15 more asphalt and pavement that covers the ground surface, 16 the more water will run off into the existing ponds, 17 underground springs, and Fossil Creek Inlet to the east of 18 our property. Fossil Creek Inlet has been running extremely 19 full all spring and summer, as it often does. The banks are 20 constantly eroding very noticeably. What will happen with an 21 increase of water from the storm drainage running into it? 22 I did take pictures and send to the City engineers, which 23 are obviously not professional photographs; but I think that 24 needs to be looked into more thoroughly. 25 County Road 9 between Horsetooth and Harmony has 11 1 changed since we first presented them to the Planning and 2 Zoning Board in March of 1994. The proposed subdivision 3 will not only change our rural lifestyle in every way that's 4 important to us, but it will negatively affect the 5 environment, from the wildlife, to the water, to the plant 6 life. As these things disappear to face extinction, the 7 balance of nature becomes upset and the next form of life, 8 known as human, will be the next one to face extinction. 9 None of us individually can save the world, but I truly 10 believe, as most of us do, that we have to do something 11 about the corner that we inhabit. 12 We have frequently in our talks with Planning 13 and Zoning Board and City Council quoted the City of Fort 14 Collins' Land Use Policy Plan which clearly states that some 15 types of land use are, quote, inherently incompatible. The 16 proposed subdivision is just that. 17 The IGA calls for, quote, maintaining the 18 character and density of the existing development along 19 common borders, unquote. This is not being done. Over the 20 months, the configuration of Woodland Park has changed a 21 fair amount, although the density has not changed that much. 22 Granted, what is presently proposed in front of our home is 23 a little bigger than the other lots, but that does not take 24 into account the large density that is north of us and along 25 the north border, as well as the development in general. 10 1 be increased to one acre in size to create a better 2. transition and to help preserve the established rural 3 environment. The streetscape along County Road 9 should 4 feature deeper setbacks and larger lots. The development 5 within should have greenbelt provisions. 6 ..In.conclusion, we would suggest that the City 7 approve a lower density and in this case -- in a case of 8 such marked encroachment and incompatibility with the rural 9 neighborhood and to provide a more pleasing transition to 10 open space which the entire community may appreciate. 11 I thank you for the opportunity to provide this 12 input. 13 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you, Mr. Courtney. 14 =MRS. THOMAS: There's no pen here. 15 CHAIRMAN CARNES.: Would you please state your 16 name. 17 MRS. THOMAS: My name is Sandra Thomas. I live 18 at 4104 South County Road 9. 19 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And do you represent an 20 organization or yourself? POuoaE 21 MRS. THOMAS: For therRidge neighborhood. 22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thanks.. 23 MRS. THOMAS: As several of you know -- I 24 realize there's some new members -- our concerns about the 25 impact of the proposed Woodland Park subdivision have not d 1 agree to support a development of 2 units per acre, although 2 that is still 13 times the density of ourestablished rural 3 neighborhood. 4 If you're familiar with the area, you know that 5 this is the perfect opportunity to create a natural 6 transition between the higher density and open space. The 7 area east of County Road 9 is special in term of the Poudre 8 Ridge and the rural nature of the neighborhood, the 9 wildlife, Stauss's cabin, the Cache La Poudre River, the CSU 10 Environmental Learning Center. It deserves special planning 11 just like the foothills. 12 To forge ahead with higher density would miss 13 the opportunity forever to have something more creative and 14 compatible to begin transition from urban to rural. 15 The proposed development is out of sync with its 16 surroundings. It jumps County Road 9 and becomes an 17 isolated development out of character. It lacks setbacks 18 and greenbelts and a safe area for children to play. 19 Crossing County Road 9 to get to the parks and schools will 20 not be a safe endeavor for children. This road is busy now, 21 and will become even more so with the building to the west. 22 If you drive along County Road 9, it's 23 immediately possibly to envision a much more appealing 24 transition and compatible development. We would propose 25 that the lots around the east and north and west perimeter 8 1 minutes of your presentation, both of you together. Would 2 you state your name and the organization you're representing 3 and then sign in. 4 MR. COURTNEY: Okay. My name is Scott Courtney. 5 I reside at 3256 Nite Court, which is north and slightly 6 east of the proposed development. I'm here this evening 7 speaking on behalf of the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood 8 Association. I want to be to the point and brief.and begin 9 by mentioning that at the last Board meeting, it was our 10 understanding that this project received preliminary 11 approval with the notation that it would be not giving final 12 approval unless some significant changes.were introduced 13 into the plan. 14 Upon the neighbors subsequently reviewing 15' another option for consideration, it was apparent that there 16 had been no -- essentially little or no change from the last 17 proposal. We are very concerned about the density of the 18 proposed PUD. It's at the ratio of 3.06 units per acre, or 19 a total of 107 units on 35 acres. The surrounding 20 neighborhood consists of 15 homes on about 100 acres, or .15 21 units per acre. This is equivalent to a 22 60-unit-per-acre development up against an established 23 3-unit-per-acre neighborhood with no true buffer between the 24 two. 25 The neighbors have previously compromised to M 1 This has been our attempt -- the members of the 2 Planning and Zoning Board that -- except the new members -- 3 have seen some of this evolution in the meetings last summer 4 and fall. This has been our method of trying to reconcile 5 the opposing desires of the surrounding residences for 6 density that is lower, and yet the pretty clear direction 7 we got from the City for 3 units per acre or greater. 8 There may be some other issues that the Board 9 would like to ask about., We'd also like the ability to 10 respond to any other issues that come up during the public it input portion of the meeting. At this point, I think I'll 12 just end our presentation and indicate that we're available 13 to answer questions'now or later. 14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Does any Board member have a 15 question for the Applicant at this time? Hearing none, this 16 is the time for citizen input. Are there any organized 17 groups here who would like -- who have a spokesperson? How 18 many people are here to make input on this item? Two? 19 MR. COURTNEY: I'm one of two. 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. You're limited to four minutes per person unless you're speaking on behalf of an organized group. MR. COURTNEY: Two of us will be speaking on behalf of a group. CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So you have up to 30 L 1 something that is a little more consistent with their large 2 lots and the obvious urban uses surrounding the site in the 3 other directions, we have tried to transition density across 4 this site, although it is only 35 acres. So the site itself 5 is overall at 3 units per acre. At the time of preliminary, 6 there were 110 units. We've dropped an additional 3 to get 7 down to the'minimum units possible and still meet the 3 unit 8 per acre minimum of the City. 9 In order to do that, there's a small area of 10 attached single-family townhomes, basically duplexes and 11 triplexes, in the southwest corner of the site. There'sran 12 area of patio homes that are smaller single-family lots, 13 generally in the neighborhood of 5,500 feet to 6,000 square 14 feet, in some of the area behind the existing hedgerow and 15 the surrounding trees on that corner. 16 The center of the site is, more or less, 17 conventional single-family lots, the 7,000 to 10,000 square 18 foot range. Around the perimeter, the density has been 19 reduced to -- if you look at that area, the density as it's 20 calculated in the PUD, it's about 1.4 units per acre around 21 the outside. So the lots range from around 14,000 square 22 feet to over half an acre. 23 The lots that are the closest in interfacing 24 with the surrounding neighbors are the largest. They've 25 been bummed to over half an acre. 5 1 moving toward a 5 unit per acre minimum density and that 2 should be what we were looking at. 3 Over the next few months, the density that the 4 Applicant looked at went from 5 down to 4 down to 3 units 5 per acre, or in some cases, alternatives of less density 6 were considered. 7 The direction that we got on this came from the 8 adopted City policy of minimum density within the Urban 9 Growth Area of 3 units per acre and also actions by the City 10 Council of Fort Collins. When the annexation of the 11 Woodland Park area itself was on the council agenda, some of 12 the surrounding property owners requested that a restriction 13 requiring lower than 3 units per acre be put on the 14 property. The City Council at that time looked at it and 15 decided that it should be consistent with the adopted City 16 policy and should be not less than 3 units per acre. 17 There was also a request for a portion of the 18 English Ranch project across the street to lower the 19 densities shown on the ODP there; and City Council -- I 20 don't know the specifics of that -- but they basically opted 21 to maintain the previously approved higher density in that 22 area. 23 So the direction we've gotten from the City has 24 been that this should be 3 units per acre. In trying to 25 reconcile the desires of the surrounding neighbors to have 0 4 1 discussion with the Board and the surrounding residents of 2 the area. 3 Just for a little bit of background on the 4 project and the area, the Woodland Park itself is in this 5 area immediately north of Hewlett-Packard. The English 6 Ranch subdivision is here. As yet undeveloped, Spring Creek 7 Farms area is across County Road 9. The site that has been 8 selected by NCR and then Symbios Logic is across the street. 9 So we are between existing and planned urban development and 10 some larger parcels in the county. There's a large 15 acre 11 piece in this area. That's owned by the Thomases. There r. 12 are another series of lots to the north and east of the site 13 that are generally 100,000 square feet or larger. 14 The project itself abuts the Thomases and only 15 has, really, one corner in common with the other built -upon 16 lots in the area. This area was included in the annexation 17 that was just recommend for approval on the consent agenda, 18 and there's another small annexed area to the north which 19 is, I believe, being proposed as a church and a small number 20 of residential lots. 21 The discussion of this site has really focused 22 around density, and there have been -- there's been quite an 23 evolution here. When the Applicant began the process in 24 February of 1994 and first met with the City Staff, the 25 direction at that time was that the City of Fort Collins was n 3 i 1 MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is 2 a request for a final PUD for 77 single-family lots, 20 3 patio home lots, 10 townhome lots. That's 107 lots in total 4 on 35.05 acres located on the east side of County Road 9, 5 north of Hewlett-Packard, approximately one half mile south ZONEp 6 of Horsetooth Road. The property is eowned-RLP, low -density 7 Planned Residential, with a PUD condition. Staff is 8 recommending approval with the condition that the 9 development agreement and the utility plans be filed and 10 recorded in a timely fashion. 11 It's my understanding that the Applicant is here 12 tonight to give you a more detailed description of the 13 project. 14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Are there any Board questions 15 for Mr. Shepard? If not, will the Applicant please come 16 forward and make a presentation. 17 MR. WARD: I'm Eldon Ward with Cityscape Urban 18 Design, the planning consultants representing the Applicant 19 for this project. Bret Bennett, the Applicant, and other 20 people associated with this project are also present in the 21 audience and will be available to try to answer questions 22 that come up. 23 As Ted indicated, this is a final plan which is 24 consistent with the preliminary that was approved in 25 February, I believe. The project has a long history of 2 1 CHAIRMAN CARNES: First item is Woodland Park 2 PUD final approval. The order of discussion is the City 3 Staff presentation, which is limited to 30 minutes; 4 Applicant's presentation, limited to 30 minutes; citizen 5 input, limited to 4 minutes per person or 30 minutes per 6 neighborhood group, if you're so organized; and then we 7 close public discussion and come back to the Board for 8 discussion and questions and then we make a decision on the 9 application. 10 So with that, would Mr. Shepard be making the 11 presentation tonight on the Staff presentation on Woodland 12 Park? Okay. Please proceed. 13 MR. ROY: Mr. Chairman, if I could just inform 14 the Board of something. I had filed a Conflict of Interest 15 Statement on the preliminary plan on this because I'm 16 personally acquainted with some of the principles. I 17 apologize that I didn't recognize while I'm filling in 18 tonight for Mr. Eckman that it was back on the agenda. So 19 I'm going to have to conflict out. I have asked John Duval 20 on no notice to come down, but it will be a little bit 21 before he gets here. So hopefully if you have issues 22 requiring some legal input, we'll be able to answer those 23 before the item is over. I'm going to excuse myself at this 24 point. 25 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Held July 24, 1995 Concerning the Woodland Park PUD - Final Approval Present: Gary Carnes, Chairman Gwen Bell Jennifer Mickelsen Bernie Strom Lloyd Walker Bob Davidson Glenn Colton