Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ..... MARCH 7 1994 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 71 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 27 Member Fontane said if there were a City guideline to be more lenient on these issues and it could be provided to the applicant as an option for defining what is affordable and what is not, that would be helpful in mitigation. Mr. Phillips requested that the project be tabled to the April 25, 1994 meeting of the Board. There are too many issues to be studied for the 7-week period. It could be post-poned to May if the applicant cannot make the required information in a timely manner. The City must give specific dates to meet that time line. Mr. Eckman stated that the motion will be made to table the project until April 25, 1994, meeting of the Board unless, in the judgment of the Planning Director the information is still not complete and would bring it back to the Board when it is complete. Member Walker stated the Board is being asked to step beyond the normal sphere of influence because of how these specific issues are not judged. He would like to see the other issues resolved. Member Walker moved to table Waterglen PUD Preliminary to the April 25., 1994, meeting of the Board unless in the judgment of the Planning Director, the information is still not complete and would bring it back to the Board when it is complete. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 26 greater than at Waterglen. The landscape reduction does not apply if it is viewed as a strict PUD. Member Walker reiterated that with respect to the 36-foot street width, he would accept what the Poudre Fire Authority suggested as a need. If this is looked as a strict PUD, the area is being developed in an area that needs it and by it alone the Board can justify mitigation for off -site street improvements and would leave that to the staff and applicant. The affordable housing issue is trying to be kept separate, but it needs to be worked in the equation. He supports the City policy of mixed housing types that this affordable housing project offers without the question of affordability. There are unresolved issues with Storm Drainage and the Natural Resources departments. He would like these plans resolved, stating it particularly important with regard to Cooper Slough. He felt uncomfortable approving the project concerning these unknowns. The LDGS criteria ought to be followed. He had concern about the noise impact and desired more study because of its complexity. Member Fontane asked if the Board should identify the need so we are willing to make concessions, such as affordable housing, and should it override our good judgment to allow leniency in order for the project to pass if there was not such a need? What are the long-range goals for this area? Is it all industrial? Mr. Frank answered that urban development will occur on the property, the property is zoned industrial. The kinds of land uses the applicant, is proposing is consistent with City policies. It is the recommendation on the Master Plan that it be approved because of mixed use. Member Fontane asked if this project would be a model for other areas? Mr. Frank said it is a matter of timing, not land use appropriateness. The area is dominated by industrial and some residential use in the long term would be providing a need to the neighborhood. Vice -Chair Cottier said this is a Catch-22 where the Board is told to not think of this as an affordable housing project, but it is the basis for rationalizing the location and concessions. If in fact, it is a legitimate affordable housing project to justify that, then the City policies need to make concessions for meeting a need with off -site street improvements, landscaping and street widths. She thinks the goal of affordable housing is more important than landscaping. She would like to see more documentation on exactly what price ranges with respect to affordable housing is low- to medium- income housing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 25 Mr. Ward said that part of this is the reason there was a request for a work session prior to this. Board meeting because of the complicated issues associated with the project. He would like to avoid having a very extended review process and five of eight of the conditions does not give opportunity to,avoid problems. The developer was flexible in tabling the preliminary but would like to ask get some kind of consensus on direction regarding street widths and street improvements. They requested not to redesign the street widths if there was consensus of the Board, and realizing the all - or -nothing approach to street improvements, the developer hopes for some kind of middle ground approach from the Board. Member Walker asked how this could be best handled? Mr. Eckman said that personal opinions should be expressed. To try to reach a consensus on what off -site street improvements would be with two Board members missing, might make the outcome different. He suggested just giving personal views and allow staff to work with the applicant. Member Strom said that the key issues are the street widths and off -site improvements. He stated the 28-foot width was difficult but not impossible for fire safety equipment and suggested parking bubbles. He said there was generally too much asphalt in neighborhoods and, generally speaking, the applicant was not too far out of .line to request this 28-foot street width variance. In terms of off -site improvements, he hoped some middle ground could be reached with the City and the developer. Member Winfree said with regard to street downsizing, she would not be supporting the attempt. Concerning off -site street improvements discussed with staff, the applicant may find some middle ground. As far as a work session with the Board, it is not needed, but rather with the various departments involved with the project. Member Strom said his experience on Breakwater was that there is plenty of room for a street that wide. Member Winfree countered that passing fire trucks is sometimes required by firs emergencies and that would not be possible. She did not want there to be a problem for the neighborhood. Member Fontane stated that if this project is to be looked at as a strict PUD not having the affordable housing issue in it, then how can the Board suggest some "deal" with the off -site street improvements. More information on that needs to be gathered. As far as the 36-foot street width is difficult for her because, generally downsizing is acceptable. With respect to the Indian Hills development, what made it work well is the location. It is infill and had access to bikeways and other alternative modes were Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 24 Vice -Chair Cottier reiterated the comments she made before concerning the land use for residential, low and moderate density to high density, and will not support the motion. Her reasoning is supported by goals and objectives which state that growth should occur to contiguous development, housing development should occur within the city and immediately adjacent to the city, but she interpreted it not just to city limits but urban development. Two other big issues being the proximity of housing near the interstate and the location of the railroad. This development is cut off from the rest of Fort Collins. The impact of railroad tracks on North College have been negative with regard to development. She thought the project was excellent but he location was not--Lemay and Vine would be better a more desirable location. Member Strom responded commented the I-25 noise level and the developer has agreed to study the noise issue. The housing units located near I-25 are not an issue to him, citing other developments having located close to travel lanes. It is not ideal but, in his opinion, it was not a project killer. In terms of the railroad issue, he didn't think it was a valid consideration. He wished the project was three miles closer to downtown but there is not the option of moving it. He felt the Board should do what it could to get some lower to mid -level housing in the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Eckman said that any motion that is made contain findings, supporting the motion. Member Winfree stated that in approving an ODP it needs to be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Eckman said yes. Member Walker stated the motion was supported by compliance to the Comprehensive Plan and it does meet certain goals of the city in terms of development in this part of the community. He said the decisions are a trade-off. He believed the city standards override other considerations expressed not to approve the project because of the location. He thought it would be a nucleus to start development on this part of town. Member Strom seconded the findings for the motion. Motion carried 4-1, with Vice -Chair Cottier voting in the negative. Member Strom stated that there was a suggestion of tabling the preliminary and working out some of these standing issues more effectively. He wanted a response from Mr. Ward. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 23 housing issue is present. The LDGS has four reasons to grant a variance: 1) topographical conditions which may create a hardship, 2) solar variance, 3) equal to or better than if the variance had not been granted and 4) that the granting of a variance from the strict application of any provision would result in substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would help satisfy and define community needs (such as affordable housing). This last variance is in the LDGS, but not in the Code. It is important to consider the variances. The code does control over the comprehensive plan in the sense that there may be some policies in the city regarding affordable housing, but the code provisions regarding the off -site streets being a part of the code of ordinances controls over the comprehensive plan, which is advisory in nature. Under the LDGS the granting of variance in Item 4 is the difference from the Code requirements. Vice -Chair Cottier asked why should we use the subdivision variance for a PUD that has its own variance criteria? She thought it was a suggestion to address the street improvements, but does that apply to PUDs? Mr. Eckman said the reason for focusing on LDGS Section 29-627 was because it authorizes variances under the article, being the subdivisions. Section 29-678, also part of the article, says all subdivisions must have access to an arterial street or a street funded for improvements. He sees a direct connection between the section that there needs to be access to an improved street and the variance provisions in Chapter 29. The LDGS requires that there is conformance to the subdivision code, plat in the utility drawings, a more indirect connection to arterial streets. Member Strom said he did not understand the comment that the recommendation by the Board did not address the variance issues. Mr. Phillips stated the recommendation addresses a land use issue, not a variance requested as stated in Steve Burkett's letter. It is an affordable housing issue which the City has not developed firm policies. Member Strom restated your recommendations on the variances are not based upon the affordable housing issue, but strictly on LDGS land use criteria? Mr. Phillips said yes. Member Walker moved to approve the Waterglen PUD Overall Development Plan. Member Strom seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 22 developments. She believed that it is important for staff to come up with a landscape guidelines aimed at affordable housing, with their own set of give and take. The noise impact on No. 4, she thought there was concurrence; the street width, she referred to her comments about being auto -dependent; the" off-street improvements, the developer needs to have some responsibility with the City being flexible to consider it is an affordable housing project; with Nos. 7 and 8, she had concurrence. She noted that Nos. 3, 7 and 8 all have to be approved by the City. The staff recommendations "unless the City after consultation with the applicant agrees to allowing", so it is not saying things are going to happen but more discussion needs to be made for it to go. Mr. Phillips wanted to refocus on the staff recommendation and he referenced a letter from Steve Burkett, City Manager, to Bill Reynolds dated February 14 that discussed affordable housing issues versus land -use issues. The last.bullet on page 2 says "if you are still committed to taking the project to the February 28 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, at which Waterglen is scheduled for preliminary discussion as a standard type PUD development, we will need to meet, work out the specific land use issues." Then the letter refers to Appendix A as a status check of the options that were proposed to the developer for development. The staff recommendation is on the basis of considering this a standard planned unit development without regard to its affordable housing nature, or lack thereof, because it could not be dealt with in a timely manner. The decision was made to proceed with it as a land use issue on the part of the staff and the applicant has decided to raise other issues of variance or concessions based on affordability, which we are not making recommendations. The applicant states in their presentation for you to consider, the PUD as a land use and the request for variance or concession. The staff recommendation is dealing with the first issue, not the second. The recommendation of approval with conditions is really dealing with.the first issue. Mr. Eckman said he would like to address some of Ms. Liley's comments. The first was the procedure. The first vote will be for the ODP, then Ms. Liley's recommendation was to take up the question of the PUD itself, then finally the variances. To avoid the possibility that the question of the PUD itself might hinge on the variances or stand on its own. He agreed that these would be acceptable approaches. Regarding the variance, her request was to consider both the variance provisions in the LDGS and the provisions provided in the code. He agreed with that. He said the code variances is the better argument on the LDGS but an argument can be made either way. He thought it best to take the cautious approach and consider the variance under the both the LDGS as well as the rest of the code, Chapter 29 (the LDGS is part of Chapter 29). There is a difference in the two provisions. The affordable Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7,- 1994 Page 21 areas close to North College, close to existing development. It was not the intent of the policy and she has problems with the interpretation of the policy. Member Strom responded with some concern about the location, but his main concern was for locations for affordable housing closer into the community. In response to her specific issues, the density chart is set up to answer these questions. It does meet the chart points, it meets enough to qualify, according to our system. Member Walker observed that the location is workable in this part of town. He believed it was a difficult site because there are extraordinary circumstances to be dealt with,.proximity to I-25, Cooper Slough needing to be looked at very carefully, the noise impacts from I-25, design elements may change, street widths with safety considerations. He commented that it was an excellent design concept with the smaller lots joining open space areas; however, if the street widths were changed, there would be a major design shift.. The natural area mitigation where staff has asked for documentation. He felt uncomfortable making a condition and decision on these issues without knowing the real impacts to the project. He doesn't want to be in the position to re -design the project. He was comfortable with the ODP, but the preliminary, with the shopping center and mini -storage issues, would be getting far ahead of ourselves and perhaps could be put into another phase. The landscaping issue should follow the normal standards. The off - site street improvements need more study. There are contradictions coming into play to get some special consideration for the fact that it is affordable housing. It is something that is needed in our community, but the off -site street improvement would make changes in the proposal by increasing the costs. The City needs to look at conflicting policies and make judgments on those. He would support the ODP but perhaps table the preliminary to clear up concerns. Member Fontane had similar thoughts about the location of the property and it seemed to her that a situation is being forced to have an auto dependent community and was concerned about the resulting air quality problems. There would be more of a parking crunch within the site. Storm Drainage has the opportunity to deny this proposal if they are not satisfied with studies. Mr. Olt said they are indicating they don't have adequate information at this time to evaluate the preliminary plan that could affect the layout of the project. Member Fontane said that on recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 there is concurrence with but she had concern about landscape reduction if the, City is setting a precedent in the future for other u Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 20 through taxes generated by Anheuser-Busch, essentially tax - increment financing, which is exactly what City policy says needs to be done here. He hoped something between the two extremes could be worked out on the off -site street improvements. There are financing systems of tax credits for the enterprise zone. Whatever the level of traffic is that uses Vine Drive, it drops substantially at Summitview. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask the developer to improve to Summitview instead of all the way to Lemay Avenue. Another suggestion is maybe an increased street over -sizing fee as a means of paying our fair share, instead of one individual. The City discusses bonds or tax -increment financing. There is a matter of timing and degree of improvement that has to be done. This should not be reduced to an all or nothing situation. The traffic study stated that Vine doesn't need the other width, but staff says structurally Vine Drive is in trouble. Sooner or later it needs to be re -built. If no additional development comes, there will be no disbursement of costs. Part of the reason City policies have been so ineffective is that there are these kinds of issues in this quadrant. To accomplish development in this area, property owners are going to need some help. This needs to be factored into the thinking. Mr. Eckman said a point of clarification on the reimbursement. The Code provides for the reimbursement of off -site street improvements for ten years and also provides that the City Council may provide "extensions" for the reimbursement agreement for additional 10-year periods. What was alluded to before was a maximum of 10 years. That would not necessarily have to be the case, but multiples of 10 years. Vice -Chair Cottier made comment regarding the quality project for affordable housing and appreciated comments from the community supporting it. Her concern is the location and believes it doesn't meet the City policies where residential projects should locate. The land was zoned industrial next to the interstate and she was curious why residential wasn't discouraged more. By stretching the interpretation, some of the City policies are met. For low density residential there should be access to existing or planned regional community shopping, easy access to major employment, walking distance to an elementary school. For higher density near the core area, easy access to major employment, access to mass transit and areas --a major deficiency, and areas for provisions of alternatives modes of transportation. She said this type of project is needed in Fort Collins, it is an excellent project in the way it is designed with open space areas, but the location and "leap -frog" consideration. She has struggled with the justification of this project because of it being in the northeast part of the community and the encouragement of development. These policies were developed in 1979 before Busch was annexed. Before urban growth came out this far, the policies were specifically developed for Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 19 $50,000,000, you have $100,000 per house. Member Winfree asked staff if there was any way to project what kind of money might come back to the developer as their fees for their off -site street improvements? Mr. Olt said that at this point in time, he did not know what that would be. They would be re -paid as subsequent development occurred on East Vine Drive. No numbers have been put together at this time. A $1 to $1.5 million has been mentioned that would bring East Vine Drive up to arterial standards to LeMay Avenue. How that breaks down to various property owners, perhaps Mr. Herzig could shed more light. Mr. Herzig stated that there is no way to predict because it depends on how development occurs along that route. Member Winfree asked if there was a time limit? Mr. Herzig said for that purpose there is a 10-year time limit like other pay -backs. Other projects have 10-year reimbursement agreements, so up to 20 years. Member Strom asked about the level of payback for on -site street improvements. Is the developer not getting a fair share back? Mr. Herzig stated that it isn't written in the code but it is a policy for procedures for street over -sizing and that those policies were adopted by Council. It does state that a project has to meet certain criteria, which he was uncertain what that was for street oversizing for the collector streets, as well as Vine Drive to the site. The developer does not meet this criteria, which is to discourage "leap -frog" development. Mr. Strom asked Mr. Ward if he knew what that criteria was? Mr. Ward said he tried to get that from Matt Baker, but the only one that came to mind was similar to the point chart regarding urban contiguity, improving streets as opposed to city subdivisions. The subdivision codes says that the City shall reimburse for oversizing on -site. Mr. Ward said the term "leap -frog" keeps coming up. He believed that originally occurred when Anheuser-Busch was developed. Everything, from their location to downtown now become infill because the classic problems caused by "leap -frog" are only solved as development occurs in that intermediate area. The other item was asked about was where there has been sharing of payment for street oversizing. Again, Anheuser-Busch comes to mind. The public infra -structure was upfronted by City -State and was re -paid Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 18 Mr. Ward said the park and natural area are not included in the calculation. He described the points for the different areas for multi -family and single family units, so it appears high on the multi -family area isolated point chart. Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the potential significance of historical sites and what was the reasoning behind them? Mr. Ward replied there that two of the structures were built by a State Senator and some preliminary information has been gathered from Carol Tunner of Historic Preservation. One of the structures has some historic value, but it has not been classified by City staff. The developer is proposing adaptive re -use. If the points are taken away because they do not support the historic preservation, the developer has enough to support the project. Mr. Joe Frank said including the points for historic preservation helps integrate the historical sites into the project rather than having them be demolished. Vice -Chair Cottier had a question regarding low-income families. Because the cost of the homes is floating so much, she didn't see how 30 points could be awarded for that. If it is taken out of the multi -family portion, your density points are no longer justified. Mr. Ward said it comes back to the drainage area. It is part of the multi -family 6 units per acre. By the most conservative possible interpretation, even without the low-income points, there is still 65 points on the point chart. The charts submitted to the Board are all based on the manufactured housing. What is proposed for low-income housing is the 44 units. If the development costs prove to be more than the developer is willing to accept, then that would have to be addressed at the final. Given the other criteria, it is clear that the density chart can be met even if the low- income percentage points are not there at the time of final. Member Winfree on the impact of cost -savings at Waterglen, on. off - site streets, is that a net figure that includes a pay -back of any potential development? Mr. Ward said no that would be a gross figure. Member Winfree noted that the average price of the home is $82,650. When the presentation was given, the target sales price was $71,500 to $100,000. If the developer was not granted the concessions that is being asked, that it would add an additional $7,500 to each home. That would leave the range at $79,000 to $107,500? Mr. Ward said yes, but there is not necessarily exactly,the.same increase for each project house. What the average means is that if there are 500 houses and the total cost .of creating the project is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 17 Vice -Chair Cottier commented on the affordable housing aspect of the project. If the City does not purchase the park, or the Cooper Slought, will the developer be required to do all the off -site street improvements? Mr. Ward referred to the handout of the average summary to the building styles manufacture housing vs. conventional building ($55/sq. ft. to $95/sq. ft.) for construction costs. He discussed the written report and said there has not been a positive response from the various approving agencies. The impact would be over $1,200/unit if these requests were not approved. The $7,500/unit is basically. the off -site streets, street widths, landscape standards, and on -site drainage crossings. Vice -Chair Cottier reasoned if the average price of the homes is $82,600 and $7,500 is added with paying for off -site street improvement and without City purchase of Cooper Slough or the neighborhood park, you still would have your average price under $100,000. Is that correct? Mr. Ward said if the park and Cooper Slough.were taken out; the price would be in the mid-$90,000. It would be under $100,000, but the wide spectrum of income groups would not be served. The manner in which the. project is proposed is a serious effort for an exemplitory neighborhood offering affordable housing with upward mobility. It is a matter of trade-offs. The developers are looking for mutually beneficial affects for all agencies. Vice -Chair Cottier expressed her frustration that the Board is asked to accept this project based on the affordable housing issue when there are so many unknowns that affect the final price. The citizen comments are right on for the affordable housing needs in Fort Collins, but she questioned the reliance on only one aspect of the project, affordable housing. The intent and quality are fine. She had more questions regarding the point charts. Why do neither multi -family and single family charts show no points for a major employment center as far as the City was concerned and the developer's did? Mr. Olt replied that the developer took points for the Anheuser- Busch, Inc., where really the plant is located further than 3,000 feet (it is a full mile to the north). There are users to. the east and south, but no information was provided on the number of employers in that area (100 employees on a major shift). Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the points for the parks, the Cooper Slough and natural areas for this project. If the City purchases these lands, should points be awarded for the parks? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 16 is an element of control on the part of the Board when it comes back for.final approval. Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the purchase of this site as a natural area. Would that hold true regardless of whether the housing development is constructed surrounding the area? Ms. Mancy said she couldn't answer for all of Natural Resources, but it would depend on.impacts to the site. One of the reasons for interest in purchasing the Cooper Slough site was because the Colorado Division of Wildlife had identified it as a sensitive wetland and warm water slough, being unusual and more complicated in the hydrology of the site. The interest in the purchase is to protect the unique resource. She would like to see the impacts of the development on the slough and work with the developers to protect the water quality aspect. Vice -Chair Cottier asked about the neighborhood park and its purchase by the City. Mr. Olt said that was correct. Vice -Chair Cottier also asked how that fit with the City guidelines about park location and collector accesses. She noted that it is in within the square -mile section but it is cut off from three- quarters of the section. Mr. Ward said the proposal has been discussed at length with the Parks Department and has been received positively, and other criteria have been met. The review agencies were asked to review this project with the idea in mind to have the highest quality yet conscious of cost. When there is a street frontage along a park, they have to pay for the improvements. The target was to have the parkland fees developed on -site, some shared maintenance responsibilities. The compensating factors for not having the street frontage is the pedestrian -oriented system with open spaces, the park -is accessible by Waterglen Place and parking lot for the park completes the circulation loop. There were other options, but the Parks Department was satisfied for the plans $450,000 parkland fees generated at Waterglen. Ms. Leslie Bryson, Park Planner City of Fort Collins, stated that the street frontage is adequate because of the street frontage of the two cul-de-sacs that are connected to parking. The location was appropriate because if there is development to the north or west (the canal cuts off any possible street connections), there might be pedestrian bridges to parts of this section. This section is east of the railroad tracts and another park will serve the section to the west. This park is still in negotiation stages and the final acquisition will be made by City Council. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 15 street facing house in the community. Just because the proposal for stripping has been offered, the staff said that is not self - enforcing; therefore, the staff doesn't accept this as a variance because of the ability to violate the restriction. Member Walker asked what the right-of-way was on a 36-foot street width? Mr. Herzig said that there is a 54 foot right-of-way with a 36-foot street. On one that is narrowed to 28 feet, we allow 46 feet. That standard has been in existence for many years. It allows 9 feet of right-of-way space from the flow line of the gutter on the outside of each street. What is found in the studies, right-of-way is not so much a consideration as utilities. As long as the street, curb, sidewalk and gutter are contained within the right- of-way, that is sufficient for right-of-way. There is a recommendation to Council to narrow the right-of-way from 54 feet to 48-feet. Member Walker asked Natural Resources staff to answer questions regarding Cooper Slough. He asked for the view of staff on the project as proposed and what issues were needing to be resolved for approval. Karen Manci of Natural Resources said there was not enough information at this time to give a proper evaluation for the Cooper Slough. Impacts need to be studied for north and south of the project --looking for water quality and temperature impacts. The Division of Wildlife is also concerned about the water fowl and the use of the site. The proposed detention ponds need to be studied for negative impacts. Member Walker asked. staff if the Board were to approve this proposal with as little information as is available presently, what would the conditions be? Mr. Olt replied this has been discussed with the applicant and had initially set a condition to allow the City the ability to reserve changes of layout and density of the project based on information from Storm Drainage and Natural Resource standpoint. Density and layout is normally approved with preliminary and is not an issue that is dealt with at final. For this project impacts need further study, all -development criteria evaluated, utilities, natural features, considered, etc. The all -development criteria gives the mechanism to evaluate density and layout of the complex impacts on the project. Mr. Eckman said to refer to Chart A2.3 Natural Features that is applicable to this project. He thought it helpful to add on Condition 8, a clause stating "that such mitigation plans must be found acceptable to the Board and prior to final approval." There Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 14 Mark Gavart - 2nd and Wellington - He shared a personal experience trying to locate in Fort Collins, with a bachelor of science degree and master in art, education and theology. He is employed in Fort Collins but must reside outside the city because there is no housing available commensurate to his salary. He said the value of the home he purchased in Wellington is less than the asking price he bid on at that price. He encouraged the acceptance of this project. Mike Buderus - 2813 Adobe Drive - He is a native of the area and grew up near the proposed project site. He is President of the Northeast Business Association, but is not speaking on their behalf. Aesthetically, it would be beneficial and the economic base and the offering of affordable housing. Sister Mary Alice Murphy - Director of Care Housing - She works for the working poor but is an advocate for a wide variety of housing needs. There is a continuum of housing needs. Unless our community wants to become an elitist town that only affluent people to live here, housing should have this low- to moderate -income housing available and upward mobility. She encouraged the Board to seriously consider this project favorably. Lou Stetzel - 521 East Laurel - She has lived in affordable housing for 25 years. She is on the Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force. She made comment regarding the change -shock situation that requires difficult decisions, sometimes to make changes in our community. The City is working very hard to address affordable housing issues. There are 2,000 units needed in this area (only 850 units have been completed), leaving the community in a continuous state of need. She mentioned the various amenities of the project as an asset to the community. She strongly supported the approval of Waterglen. The City needs to encourage quality, comprehensive neighborhood development. She restated the need for housing in this area. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Member Walker requested further information regarding street widths. He commented that the 28-foot width streets seem to work in other parts of the community. What is the City policy? Mr. 'Herzig commented that the standard for a street is 36 feet which provides for two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides. There are standards that allow 28-foot streets, with parking on one side of the street. The variances have been granted in other sections of the community for the 28-foot streets in areas where there are larger lots (the guideline has be an 8,000 square feet). The Poudre Fire District set the standard for safety (20 feet) in order to allow properly functioning areas for emergencies. Mr. Herzig said there is a guideline to provide parking for every Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 13 CITIZEN INPUT Rachel Stevens - Executive Director of Fort Collins Housing Authority - She read the mission of the organization to offer housing opportunities for the low- and very low-income families in the Fort Collins, as well as the handicapped. Assisted rental opportunities are offered with Federal, state and local granting, funding and financing. She stated this was the first time opportunity for responsible working families to opt for home equity through homeownership. The rental units occupier can move up to homeownership in this planned development. This development concept proposed by W. W. Reynolds is supported by her organization. Elizabeth Maloney - 1309 City Park Avenue - Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force - Their organization has become familiar with this project and supports it as affordable housing. She surveyed the rental sections of The Coloradoan recently there were only 5 houses under $100,000. Under new construction, there were 68 but nothing under $139,000. Under existing homes for sale, there were 133 listed, 15 were listed under $100,000 while 9 of those were in the $90,000, and 2 each in the $60-80,000. This demonstrates Fort Collins housing market. For a more diversified community, there needs to be more affordable housing. Julie Duran - native of Fort Collins - Mountain Prairie Girl Scout Council and recent CSU graduate, husband is a contractor in the community. She said it is very difficult to purchase a home in Fort Collins because of their earning capacity. She believed the W. W. Reynolds project is very much needed in the community. She said there are not HUD homes in this community. There are waiting lists for affordable housing in Fort Collins. Rental housing is very high and limited to parking and pet restrictions. She has found people are locating outside the community and commuting to work. This project would allow families to stay in the community. Linda Norton - Certified Residential Specialist - graduate from the, Realtor Institute - Master Associate with Realty World - President of Board of Realtors. She has been selling since 1988 primarily to first-time buyers. The average sale price last year was $116,000, her average sale price was $67,000. The banking community in Fort Collins has offered community reinvestment programs and CHAFA money, bond money through the State available. The highest margin for use of these monies is $85,000. They simply do not exist in the market today. In 1993 there were only 36 newly constructed homes under $100,000. Currently, only 23 are available under $100,000, 9 newly constructed, the remainder are out of town. In many cases, her clients are paying more to rent than to purchase a home. This type of project does not exist in Fort Collins and she asked the board supported the plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Ward said the storage pond will be moved to alleviate the conflict, if present. There is a 100-year flood drainage area from the north that will require the storage pond to be removed if necessary. Member Walker mentioned the landscaping near the Cooper Slough, also, closeness of building sites near it, as well as wildlife. Mr. Ward said the setbacks may need to be redefined. The protection of children to the area with fencing, etc., needed to be explored. The developer is flexible to all landscaping issues, desiring a positive effect in the environmental concerns. The general approach is less fencing as not to create a "fortress" along open space areas, regarding Cooper Slough as an amenity to the area. He.was sure there were physical issues that could help. It needs more work and study. Private outdoor areas could be open, with fencing to sideyard areas. Member Walker asked about clarification of detention ponds planned. Mr. Ward said they are to serve as long linear wetlands. Member Fontane asked about the park grade landscaping for areas accessible to natural wildlife. What would be the replacement provision for young trees possibly damaged by the wildlife. Whose responsibility would it be. Mr. Ward said landscape covenants for PUDs puts up an insulation and gives the city, in the long term, a lien so the City has the power to replace it then back charge the owner or manager. It is the same as all PUDs. Member Fontane asked staff about cost -sharing regarding the improvement of Vine Drive. Mr. Herzig answered, by the streets facility that bordered Vine Drive, that the developers weren't then obligated to pay for the needed improvements. There is a plan to upgrade Vine Drive. He said there usually isn't specific money budgeted by the City for the improvements. It is evaluated and various avenues can be combined to mitigate costs. The Council may make appropriations. No plans have been formulated or studied at this time. Right now there is a section of the code that says the developer is responsible. There is a need for the improvement because of the additional traffic of the development. Right now, it is not a need. It can be maintained and patched and be adequate for the current traffic flow. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 11 Member Winfree said it was her understanding that it was not to be an affordable housing PUD, but 44 of the 100 proposed apartments would be considered as affordable housing (44 units out of 573 dwelling units). She needed clarification. Mr. Ward responded by stating that the affordable housing was separated from the land use issues for this project. The most favorable interpretation of the standard for the project would fall under the category low- and moderate -income housing. The majority of the housing will at least be in the moderate -income level, and as much as possible low-income housing offered. Member Winfree asked for a breakdown on the number of units that will be maintained as rental units and the number that will be sold. Mr. Ward indicated multi -family areas are seen as rentals. The other 56-units tend to be rentals, but there is a possibility of condominium ownership. The intent is to have 200 each. Homeownership is key in people improving themselves. There will be 100 rental, 300 ownership in the manufactured structures. In the more conventional 6,000 square foot area that is being seen as ownership. Member Winfree asked if they would be mixed, rental with the homeownership? Mr. Ward said now, because of management areas, rentals will separated. He explained the maintenance policies of the yards, and rentals will have more extensive maintenance. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the points earned for the project. Mr. Ward said the typed portion in the report.dated December 16, 1993 and in the staff meeting before the work session, there are staff comments regarding the points given. He went on to explain some different interpretations of the points with reference to location to services and urban contiguity. Member Walker made some comments regarding the Cooper Slough area and raw water retention ponds. Mr. Ward said there would be storage ponds. There are three deep wells on the storage site. There will not be irrigation channels. Member Walker said there was some concern of the flow through Cooper Slough, given that it is an underground spring. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 10 upfront. Parts of Vine Drive are in the County and some in the City. What is the assessment of a fair impact. There is a variance process that will be done at final for bearing the cost of the road construction or portion thereof. Member Walker said there is a unique situation here. The City encourages development in the northeast area, and affordable housing. Couldn't there be a trade off with respect to street improvements? Mr. Herzig responded that this is true and he was stating policies that addresses the street systems in the community. Mr. Phillips said it was a difficult question. If it is looked at somewhat systematically as to what stated policies are as opposed to policies that have been enacted to enforce other policies (referring to development in the northeast, as a stated policy and. affordable housing is a stated policy), the exact quantifying of the project has yet to be determined. The off -site street oversizing is adopted in the code as a means of discouraging "leap- frog" development. Here is a policy that has actually been codified in the City system to discourage "leapfrog" development. Then you have a stated policy that development is encouraged in the northeast part of the City. Member Winfree had several questions regarding the sizing of the streets from the Poudre Fire Authority, and that the 36-foot street width be maintained with the. exception of Waterglen Drive. It appears that is the only one that is 36-foot width, because it is the main collector street? Mr. Olt said that was correct. Member Winfree asked for the staff s thoughts for the downsizing of that street two 28-foot street width, since there are no residences that face on that street, even though it is the main collector? Mr. Olt said it was not something that has been considered in this way; but the fact that it is a collector street means that it will continue north and connect with other roads. The possibility has not been discussed; but as a collector, it is not within the policy to view it in those terms. Mr. Ward clarified that Waterglen Drive is a full width -collector and Waterglen Place is the street that has lots on one side and goes over to the park. It is Waterglen Place that Poudre Fire Authority was addressing. The developer is not proposing a 28-foot collector. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Strom said if the developer was willing and able to study that further for the final P.U.D. he would be in agreement. His concern is not to set up a situation where housing units are next to an interstate highway and have future complaints five years down the road or having to build an unattractive wall to adequately buffer. Mr. Ward agreed and will study it further. Member Storm asked for clarification regarding Vine Drive improvements. He believed it was an extremely expensive proposition to impose a single development and would. like more discussion on how that process works. Is Vine Drive going to be reconstructed anyway? Mr. Mike Herzig of the Planning Department stated that the street has not been improved up to an accepted arterial standard. If the development is going to "leapfrog" out away from improved arterial street systems, then the developer must upgrade that arterial street to connect the development and mitigate the traffic for the traffic increase they are creating. The street is 2.5 miles long, with an intersection at Lemay/Vine. It is over $1 million of improvements to upgrade the street to standard arterial requirements. The condition of Vine Drive is poor, but with the amount of traffic it now carries it could last several year. Of course, additional traffic will make the road inadequate. The purpose of the code section that requires the developer to make these improvements is so that the City is not burdened with the cost of sudden improvements. Member Strom asked what street improvements did Anheuser-Busch make? Mr. Herzig said Anheuser-Busch entered the City with improvements not for off -site street. Their study, indicated that the primary access would be I-25 and constructed an interchange to provide the needed access. There was also an agreement that they would improve all the perimeter roads around the square mile and were upgraded to City standards at the time. However, there is a traffic vine that uses Summit View and County Road 50; but the agreement was that the I-25 access was the primary access. This Waterglen Development, in contrast to Anheuser-Bush, does not have an interchange for Vine drive to access the I-25, but will have to use the frontage road system to Mulberry or Highway 14 (1 mile). Vice -Chair Cottier asked if $1 million to improve Vine would be paid back as other developments went in? Mr. Herzig said yes and explained Waterglen would be responsible to develop the middle of the street. As properties develop, Waterglen would receive re -payment, but they have a major money expense Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Ward said that the long street that parallels Warren Lake is a 28-foot width. Member Strom asked for further detail of the manufactured housing units. His biggest concern was those adjacent to I-25. He asked about some technical information about these homes. Mr. Ward indicated that Mr. Roger Walker, a manufactured housing expert, was present to can reply to these questions. Mr. Roger Walker, President of PCI Development Services Group, Denver, Colorado, said that depending on the model, the structures are either 2 by 4 or 2 by 6 exterior wall and to code for insulation, and R-11 or R-19 for sheeting and siding. Mr. Strom asked if it were essentially the same as a "stick built" house? Mr. Walker replied that it would be identical. Member Fontane asked Mr. Ward about concerns of the flood plain areas and how it would impact the multi -family and the neighborhood commercial area. Mr. Ward explained the Box Elder Creek Flood Plain, when there is a major storm,does not follow the Box Elder Creek Channel. Larimer County and Bureau of Reclamation conducted a study indicates last year and found there is an artificial diversion upstream that pushes the channel up against I-25. There are two places where the study indicates that it would overtop I-25 and come onto the site. Without any change in the existing grade, that flood would actually extend. It is a very wide and shallow flood plain. It is also a temporary situation. The City Storm Drainage Utility had said that the artificial restriction upstream will be relieved, and that will put the Box Elder Creek Flood Plan back where it should be, but the developer does not know when that will happen. Their drainage consultants have suggested the artificial berm along I-25, not only to buffer noise, but to form a channel diverting the water to "sheet flow" across Vine Drive, if the 100-year storm happened today. He gave more technical information supporting their plan to divert the water. Member Strom asked more about noise. The cross -sections at I-25, southbound lanes are elevated above the site level of the housing and his question is: Is the developer willing to comply with further study of this noise concern in greater detail before final? Mr. Ward replied yes. The 7-foot berm should be adequate protection for noise and water. The developer remains flexible to create higher berming. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 7V "pinwheel" effect where some units are street to get sides of garages angled and open spaces to break up the street scape. turned broadside to the to help create enclosed Member Walker asked about cul-de-sac requirements? Mr. Ward said this met fire regulations. Member Walker asked about the size of lots? Mr. Ward said typical lot sizes are at minimum, 50 x 80 square feet and there are about 25% that are 50 x 100 square foot unit lots. Member Walker asked about who would be managing the interior courtyards and frontyards? And also, the issue of landscaping variance. Mr. Ward replied it is equivalent to a homeowners association, ownership and rental housing in this case, owner of the site (W. W. Reynolds Company). There will be a consistent maintenance. Mr. Ward explained -that it is not only the smaller diameter trees but also some of the natural areas that is called "park -grade" landscaping. These are the two substantial ones. The City standard requires 5-gallon shrubs in all cases. Some grow very swiftly and would save money in this area. Member Fontane asked about the street striping and who is responsible for the maintenance? Mr. Ward indicated typically the City is, if it is a public street. He believed that it was not a great expense. but the developer would be willing, if the 28-foot width of the street were approved. Member Strom asked if the Vine Drive variance does or does not have an affect on the viability of the project. What about the street widths? Would this project layout work if this 28-foot street layout is not approved? Mr. Ward said the project would (1) if the streets are widened the greenbelts would be reduced and lot depth would decrease 2 feet Staff is recommending reduction in right-of-way widths or the cost of the housing will increase typically $750 per unit in this layout; and (2) if there is a "all or nothing" situation with respect to off -site improvements on Vine Drive it will cost $5,000 per unit. He stated that it was realistic for the developer to have some responsibility on Vine Drive. He did not believe for the developer to carry the entire financial burden was equitable. Member Strom asked if Breakwater was a 28-foot street? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 6 that area. The developer tried to accommodate the goals and keep the Waterglen plan feasible. Somehow, the Natural Resources Department'received the developers report a month later; and then in February, there was a letter from the City Manager's office that indicated general concurrence with the natural area and everything seemed favorable. Therefore, again at the last minute,. the developer finds there needs to be more work in these areas and have agreed to work with staff prior to submitting plans before final. He discussed some ideas for mitigation. He stated that the developer will provide the information necessary to meet the condition. Mr. Ward concluded that the Planning and Zoning Board reaffirm the City's adopted goals and objectives and land -use policies plan and support Waterglen as a well planned neighborhood, taking a step toward a more balanced pattern of growth in the City of Fort Collins. He requested that conditions of approval be modified to reflect land use policies to encourage growth in the northeast, to make it more equitable situation for all involved. He requested approval of the Waterglen ODP and PUD Preliminary with variances. Lucia Liley clarified some legal aspects: 1. If the requested variances are to be approved by the Board that it be done under two sections of the code: The Subdivision (29-627) and the LDGS (29-526, subsection K). She specified that the approval be made under both because the reading is similar and it would prevent an overturn of the decision if the correct code provision were not made. 2. The procedural approval procedure of the Board when there is a variance request with a project request, sometimes the procedure gets complex. She requested two separate actions: (a) consider the project on its own merits without regard to requested variances and without regard to any potential points that could be a bonus. for providing low-income dwelling units. (b) then approve the project request with the variance request and. approve the project with each of the variances. That will make it clear for the record that if it were appealed or disagreement whether or not variances ought to be approved, the Board would still have approved the project without the variances. Member Walker asked Mr. Ward regarding the loop street traffic circulation. Mr. Ward explained that these short private drives (accessing 6 units in each case), while meeting all storm drainage criteria, were a creative solution to limit how long the row of houses would be and obscure garage doors along the street. The design is a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 5 for cul-de-sacs or 750 average daily trips and not accessed from an arterial street and should not be used in areas where homes face each other. The developer meets all those criteria. Variances for street widths have been granted for larger lots with 3-car garages. The developer would like the Board to grant the variance based on the plan for 4 off street parking uses (2 within a garage and 2 on the driveways). He pointed out the argument that parking will not be controlled and there will be parking on both sides of the street. The developer said there will be signage and striping for on -street parking stalls and with the authorization of the Police Department, strict enforcement of towing improperly parked cars. This has proven successful in other developments. Mr. Ward said Condition 6 will provide no flexibility in the standard for off -site street improvements (from Vine drive to LeMay Avenue to I-25). The developer's studies show the two lanes on Vine to be adequate for width. The City staff has told them that Vine is structurally inferior and needs to be improved regardless of Waterglen. The need is not pronounced, but the developer questions whether it shouldn't be a higher priority on the Capital Improvements Program. He referred to LDGS Section 21.526K which states that the variances can be granted with substantial benefit to the community such as affordable housing or historic preservation in the northeast area of the City. The developer believed Waterglen met this criteria. He quoted.other documents supporting affordable housing. He also said that Waterglen accesses traffic systems that meet city codes referring to existing arterials. He quoted a Transportation study that reveals that 20 percent of trips are likely to be out of town destinations. Waterglen will access I-25 and the frontage road system. He quoted statistics of the use of Vine drive and Summitview Road. His concern was that Waterglen pay no more than its fair share of off - site improvement costs. Mr. Ward said that Condition 7 was approved by the Storm Drainage Department the day before the work session. Storm Drainage and Natural Resources had met with developers in January and, under the circumstances, said there could be delay completing drainage plans and extensive detail drainage calculations until after approval of the preliminary PUD. The developers agree to have these plans before submitting the final. The ODP requirements were met, but it did not include additional information requested by staff. He indicated the condition submitted by the contractor for this meeting was acceptable to Storm Drainage. Mr. Ward said that Condition 8 was concerning the Cooper Slough Nature Area. The Natural Areas Plan was consulted from the start of planning. Only the wetland'(7 acres) were considered specific value (10 acres were preserved). In November, the Natural Resources and Division of Wildlife were interested in increasing Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 4 housing structures (cutting costs) in each neighborhood. Within neighborhoods there are clusters of developments around more private open space, that ties into the more open neighborhood park, Cooper Slough Nature Area, Larimer-Weld Canal, existing utility corridors that cut east to west within the site, providing an open space framework within the neighborhood. The plan offers front yard maintenance as well as common open space area maintenance. The varying price range of homes offers upward mobility in housing unique to Waterglen in Fort Collins. He used some examples of the manufactured housing of Grand Junction developments that is similar to what Waterglen will be like. There will be structures that provide management offices, convenience store, laundry, day care, etc. Mr. Ward addressed conditions of approval and indicated that he did not hear these at the meetings with staff previous to this Board meeting. Conditions 1 and 2 are not a problem with the developers and they are willing to work with staff for a satisfactory solution. Mr. Ward said that Condition 3 suggested modifications to the normal landscape standards in the PUD ordinance. He summarized those modifications to 3.3 million square feet of common open space, 1.5 million square feet of private open space the applicant is desirous to provide landscaping within; so with cost savings aside, the developer would like the Board to consider if there isn't a trade-off here. With the same budget as a normal PUD, providing less open space and landscaping, Waterglen intends to do more landscaping but without the instant gratification of a standard PUD. For example, purchasing 1.5 inch diameter trees as opposed to the 2 inch standard will impact the development $300 per dwelling unit. He proposed park -grade for perimeter areas, rather than AA standard, something that you would see in landscaping in the rough areas of golf courses. Mr. Ward addressed Condition 4 regarding the issue of setback to I- 25. The Waterglen plans show 150 feet of setback to lot lines with 7-9 foot berming heights --all single story units, which is the most effective noise mitigation rather, than walls to separate the homes to I-25. The developer is willing to work with this condition. Mr. Ward addressed Condition 5 regarding street widths showing 24- 28 feet for mobile home residential streets, providing only 1-2 off street parking. The standard that the developer is proposing is not new to Fort Collins (28-foot street width), using Warren Shores and the Landings, and others, as examples. The Neighborhood Compatibility shows 28-foot width streets with parking on one side conforming to fire codes. Turning radius for fire and garbage trucks. will work in the planned intersections. The design standards in the City of Fort Collins allows 28-foot width streets Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 3 professional management. Economic considerations have been a major focus to make it affordable. 3. Neighborhood. The idea of a true neighborhood where persons can improve their housing situation without moving out of the neighborhood. This project offers diversity.of housing that is usually excluded from most housing projects. The housing offered is from $78,500 to $100,000 (subject to a possible increase of $7,500 because of extra required City costs). She concluded this project should be considered right away because of rising costs and present low interest rates for loans. Mr. Eldon Ward made his presentation of the detailed plans for the project at Waterglen showing the ODP and Master Plan. The Board was provided with a detailed plan. He pointed out many of the fine qualities of the site development along with compliance to city regulations. He emphasized this will be the first development in a much greater residential neighborhood. The plans began in August 1993. He believed that there were enough points received to approve the project as proposed. Mr. Ward supported his project by submitting to the Board letters of recommendation from various organizations within Fort Collins to .support affordable housing and Waterglen Project. After review of the Comprehensive Plan, there were over 75 adopted goals, objectives and affordable housing strategies that have been adopted to date consistent with Waterglen. He said one of the most emphatically stated and least realized goals of our community is to realize a balanced pattern of growth. The overall thrust in the southeast section of our community has produced inefficiencies in providing service and driving time. There was a study submitted documenting driving times to various employment centers, shopping centers and schools with developments throughout Fort Collins to Waterglen. The site location is located where there are fewer barriers to existing utilities. He supported the location of Waterglen with the study of driving time, distances and destinations (averages to be 7.5 minutes to 4.4 miles to all the centers) while other studies were close or higher. He did say schools and shopping were further than other -developments. He addressed public transportation and stated that Waterglen will not generate the population base needed for Transfort to provide service, but it is a start. Because of the management design on - site, there will be opportunity for carpools, etc. The trail system, identified in the Northeast Area Transportation Plan, exists and when the Enterprize zone and other city action start to bear fruit in this area, disadvantages will continue to diminish. Plans show pedestrian circulation within the neighborhood. There will typically be 100 homes on smaller lots with manufactured Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 7, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Olt reported the preliminary drainage plan was submitted initially in October. It is being reviewed by Storm Water Utility. Basil Hamdan was present at the meeting to answer questions. There has been a plan received that is acceptable for ODP but not the preliminary level. Therefore, the reason for the condition requiring an acceptable preliminary report. Natural Resource and Colorado Division of Wildlife have also been in on the review procedure with staff and develop concerning affects on Cooper Slough. The December plan has been reviewed and perceived to not have adequate information to evaluate the preliminary plan. Karen Manci of the Natural Resources Department was present to answer questions. Member Walker commented that placed the Board in a rather difficult position if staff does not have adequate plans to review. Perhaps it will be resolved. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt if the Cooper Slough area was on the City's Open Space acquisition plan. Mr. Olt asked Karen Manci to answer the question. Ms. Manci of Natural Resources said it is a high priority acquisition site. The applicant was represented by Libby Glass of W. W. Reynolds Company and has lived in Fort Collins for 13 years. She has managed this company for the last 5 years and is Project Manager for Waterglen. Mr. Gerald P. Lee, Vice -President and Chief Executive Officer of W. W. Reynolds was present to answer questions. This company has owned and developed properties in Fort Collins for 25 years and always has been associated with projects of excellence, including the award wining Prospect East Business Park. Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design will be the presenter for this project and will address recommended staff conditions. She continued with a brief overview of .the project stating the main purpose was to present a project that is affordable to persons at low and moderate income levels (as identified in the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) with opportunities for upward mobility within the Waterglen neighborhood. 1. Quality of Life. Quality, this plans offers a city parks adjacent to each development, a wildlife habitat, expensive additional landscaping, including pool and club house. Their vision is to create amenities affordable that are usually only in higher priced housing projects. 2. Comprehensive. Physical elements included a laundry facility, convenience store, day care center, and on -site PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 7, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The March 7, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree. Chair Clements and Member Klataske were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Karen Manci, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, Leslie Bryson and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Item 22. Waterglen PUD -Overall Development Plan, #71-93; Item 23. Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, #71-93A; Item 24. Annexation and development Review Scheduling. Other Business: 1. Recommendation to City Council - Parkland Fee Structure (2 options). 2. Recommendation to City Council - Ordinances for Development Review Planning Fees. DISCUSSION AGENDA: Mr. Ron Phillips read the discussion agenda items. Item 22. - Waterglen - Overall Development Plan Item 23. - Waterglen PUD - Preliminary Mr. Steve Olt read the staff report for the Waterglen Overall Development Plan and PUD Preliminary and requested that they be reviewed at the same time. He recommended approval with 8 conditions. He read and discussed the reasoning. Member Walker said that on a number of the conditions the residential portions seem to be adequately defined. He felt more detail was needed for the shopping center and mini -storage. Mr. Olt stated much more information is required at preliminary. It was staff's recommendation that these two components be deleted from the preliminary plan and remain on the Overall Development Plan. They are appropriate uses in the locations, but do not have the information required at a preliminary level, supported by point charts. Member Walker also asked about Items 7 & 8, drainage report, wildlife habitat and water issues. Are you saying we don't have adequate information but we will approve the preliminary and be updated on the final?