HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 51
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Carnes voting in the
negative.
Member Strom re -moved for the approval of the Waterglen P.U.D. with
the same conditions as before except for the condition on
evaluation of the one year trial period as suggested by the
applicant.
Member Fontana seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
r
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 50
Ms. Liley asked that it be approved as the condition in exchange
for the simplified version that was approved with no standards.
They thought it would be easier for the City and the applicant to
determine who's responsibility it is and what the standard is going
to be when looking at continuing the program.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied it was a good suggestion. As
a part of the previous condition of approval, the Planning Director
was to make the decision. This adds a criteria that "fetters" the
discretion and would be a helpful criteria to add.
Member Carnes was concerned that the developer automatically had an
out in one year if somehow he could demonstrate that it was not
feasible.
Chairman Clements felt that perhaps Transfort would have a stop
there. If the developer is running an empty bus, there would be no
reason to continue it. Chairman Clements asked for more
clarification of Member Carnes' concern.
Member Carnes stated he would like to see a phased withdrawal.
Ms. Liley thought that it was important that both the developer and
the City have a clear understanding of what the obligation is going
to be both during the year and at the end of the year; and,
whatever standards they imposed are reasonable as far as satisfying
the Board's concerns when they impose the condition, but also
letting the developer realistically be able to discontinue it if it
is not in any way a feasible proposition.
Ms. Liley also offered for the developer to explore and to work
with Transfort and public entities, a combination of methods.
Mr. Ward added that the two things they wanted to avoid was having
some future unknown Planning Director having blanket discretion to
say, you must continue to keep running an empty vehicle over the
roadway. The other thing is that if regular Transfort service
proves viable, they did not want to be providing duplicate service.
The intent was to try this for a year as the Board has said, and
try to find a way to make it work.
Member Bell asked when the year would begin.
Mr. Ward replied, Phase Three.
Member Strom moved to reconsider the motion on waterglen.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 49
Member Strom thought the eastern 1/3 of the property is where
transitioning should be dealt with, and the western 2/3 gets into
the standards the Board is familiar with.
Member Strom moved for postponement until the next meeting.
Member Bell added that an important component was that it was vital
that the applicant and the neighborhood look at being realistic and
come back with at plan that the Board can live with.
Mr. Ward replied that would be acceptable, with less engineering
requirements.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Member Carnes encouraged the staff to encourage Council to come up
with some criteria for transitioning.
Member Strom offered a worksession on where to go with something of
this nature.
The motion was approved 6-0.
WATERGLEN P.U.D. - FINAL, #71-93A
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the developer, asked for
clarification of the last condition that was put on the Waterglen
final approval relating to provision of some sort of mass transit
service on a one-year trial basis. They felt that there was not
enough definition and they would be coming back in a year asking
what did this mean, who determines it, and what is the criteria.
Ms. Liley proposal was to have some clarification that would
indicate there is a one year trial period for providing this mass
transit service, at which time a determination would be made. The
determination would be a result of the applicant having the duty to
come in after the one year trial period, and demonstrate with
evidence to the City that they cannot get either a public or
private entity to continue providing this kind of service to the
development. In the case of the City and Transfort, if they are
going to continue providing it, that meets the condition. In the
case of a non-public or private entity, that would be determined on
the basis of ridership. The issue would be, could they find either
a public or private entity that would agree to continue the service
because it is a viable or feasible service and it would be the
burden of the applicant to come in and produce evidence showing how
they have met the condition one way or the other.
U
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 48
Member Fontane again spoke of the density and the criteria they
have to evaluate.
Member Bell spoke of the rights of the people who live in County in
the Urban Growth Area and the rights the people who are in the
incorporated part of the City. She thought that the County
residents' rights are low on the totem pole. She thought that the
UGA agreement did fit in. She cited the Fort Collins/Loveland
Corridor and the transitioning of land of the rural areas. She
thought it should be a high priority and needed some resolution.
Mr. Ward stated that they were hoping for some direction from the
Board agreeing on a density with the neighbors. The numbers from
the neighbors have ranged from 100,000 square foot lots to 1 unit
per acre, being the highest density that would be acceptable to
them. Mr. Ward thought that meeting City development standards
makes that kind of a density impossible. Mr. Ward thought that
City Council would not go for 1 unit per acre density.
Mr. Ward thought after hearing the comments of the Board, that they
come back with a plan that divides this project into two filings,
where they take an area that is the bulk of the property, and this
will be at least 3 units per acre and an come back with an area
that encompasses the easterly area and this is the area not locked
into to the density and be more creative and a better
transitioning.
Chairman Clements thought that there may be a plan that might
provide some clustering and provide more open space. She thought
that there might be more options.
Planner Shepard asked if he could assume if the direction was that
if a preliminary would come back and be more creative and involved,
and a request for a solar variance, that would be acceptable.
Chairman Clements replied that it was not their job to design the
project, but to evaluate the project. Density, transitioning
active open space, topography and compatibility to the County
neighborhood character are issues.
Member Cottier thought that an appeal to Council was possible and
let Council decide on the three units per acre. On the other hand,
if it comes back in a month and the Board approves a density of 1.5
units per acre or more, she would assume that no one from the
neighborhood would appeal. Council could appeal and return it 3
units per acre. There are no guarantees. She thought the Board
should look at some lower density.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 47
cannot make an informed decision, they could table it. He did not
think it was appropriate to table or postpone a matter just to
force the neighborhood and the applicant into some discussion. He
did think it was appropriate to table to receive more information.
Planner Shepard recommended that the Board consider the preliminary
approval and that the Board add some language that diminishes the
layout in density, and that the preliminary approval grants some
degree of layout and density. He thought the Board should look at
a preliminary approval, and remove the language that says that this
grants a layout in density. He cited Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria A2.13, and All Development Criteria 2.3.
Member Fontane spoke of density issues. She thought that this was
an opportunity to encourage staff and Council to look at the
transitional zoning situation and come up with some guidelines.
She thought that there were areas that this project did not meet in
the LDGS, and thought it did give the opportunity to say there is
not enough information.
Member Carnes spoke about rural density and that the design should
successfully buffer the transition and that it is compatible and
protect community resources.
Member Strom asked about the advantages of preliminary approval,
and what was the advantage to granting a preliminary approval
versus postponing 30 days.
Planner Shepard replied it gets us off of square one, and get it to
the point of not discussing the land use, but discussion of more
refined points. For the developer to continue to negotiate in good
faith, and communicate with the neighborhood.
Member Strom felt that the Board was given 3 units per acre density
as a minimum standard. It was not the Board's place to vary that
standard unless the proposal is equal to or better than. He
thought that the Board should transmit to City Council and there is
things that needed to be worked on. He saw a need for minor
modifications in density, and it was not clear to him if they have
the flexibility to modify the density with the policies they have.
He supported the postponement and the applicant work with the
neighborhood and still meet the density requirement.
Member Cottier agreed that the Board make sure that the existing
policies are complied with. She did not think it was appropriate
to propose a lower density. She thought that it was an appropriate
location for a lower density.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 46
Member Bell asked for clarification asked about the neighborhood
being impacted and were they county residents.
Planner Shepard replied yes.
Member Bell asked about the erosion in the area.
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility, stated he did talk with the
Thomas's about the pollutants that come off of urban development.
Mr. Schlueter talked about the ways to improve water quality. At
this time most of the water runoff would go to the Shields
property, and would not be going onto the Thomas property.
Member Bell asked if there were any ways in this plan to try to
mitigate for pollutants.
Mr. Schlueter replied that there was nothing in the criteria to
enforce that.
Member Bell asked about the erosion situation.
Mr. Schlueter referred to the lots at Paragon Point and how well it
has worked, and the builders keeping their vehicles off that area.
If care is taken in the design of the lots, the water could be
channeled away from there and the sheet flow in contained.
Member Bell stated that this project lacked creativity and in the
staff report it stated that the PUD fell short of using buffering,
site planning or other urban design approaches to mitigate the
urban/rural transition. She agreed with that and found that it
needed to be sensitive to transitioning between rural and urban
areas. She cited the cookie cutter effect, and that the
neighborhood and the developer need to have more discussions about
what would work in the area, and better design.
Member Bell proposed that the project be tabled in an effort to
give both parties an opportunity to come up with something that
would work better. She cited better transitioning and buffering to
improve this site.
Chairman Clements added that there is not a transitioning criteria
for these area. There is the LDGS that say's 3 units per acre, and
the Board is evaluating projects at that. She was also struggling
with the same issues of transitioning.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated it was appropriate to postpone
or table the matter due to lateness of the hour and lack of
information. If the Board feels that the application is not
complete, or lacks information in some effect, that the Board
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 45
the ordinance that "are 65% of the lots oriented north/south".
There are two different elements that deal with solar access.
Member Cottier asked about the parcel north, the future Wild West,
which has a density of what.
Mr. Ward replied that it came in only as an annexation.
Mr. Shepard added that the motivating factor of the plan was that
the applicant wanted to build a large home on acreage, and that the
balance of the property would be developed as 3 or less to the
acre. They were doing some exploratory work as to purchase the
property. It was a very sketchy plan.
Member Cottier replied that if that were to come in for
development, she did not see the need to talk about buffering the
northern perimeter. It would seem that what ever the decrease in
density has been placed on the northern edge, could be put into the
eastern edge, assuming normal City development.
Member Cottier asked about north of the Wild West property, how
many owners are there, from there up to Horsetooth.
Mr. Ward replied, that along County Road, three frontages, and
there are some smaller, 100,000 s.f lots that have come through as
MRD's back around Nite Court. There are only three large parcels
with frontage on County Road 9.
Member Cottier asked if they were in the City.
Mr. Ward replied not.
Member Cottier asked about the density on the west side of County
Road 9 in the English Ranch.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied 3 or more per acre.
Member Cottier asked for more information about the topography.
The northwest to southeast line.
Mr. Ward explained the topography visually with a slide.
Member Cottier asked about the developability of anything east of
the inlet.
Mr. Ward replied that beyond the inlet ditch is up in the air, it
is floodplain but did not preclude non-residential development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 44
active recreational use for more than three families and would
qualify as one of the following categories; active open space, or
active indoor space". Active open space was further refined as "a
parcel not more than 10,000 s.f. and not less than 50 linear feet
in the smallest dimension". It was active open space that meets
the dimensional requirements.
Member Bell asked about the two different point charts.
Planner Shepard replied that the point chart that is applicable is
the one dated 10-05-94, which was the date the revised plans came
into the Planning Department. The other point chart was the one
that was submitted at the time of submittal.
Member Bell asked how the number changed from 30 down to 27.
Planner Shepard replied that they needed 30 points to get to the 60
minimum and they originally came in with 0 on criteria M and 30 on
N, that was revised to a 3 and 27.
Member Cottier asked it that meant that the size of the site of the
off -site parcel decreased.
Planner Shepard replied yes.
Member Cottier asked how many lots were 15,000 s.f. or greater.
Planner Shepard replied 57%.
Mr. Ward added that 10-12 lots.
Member Carnes referenced LDGS, page 41, Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria A2.10, solar access. " Are the elements of the site plan,
building and circulation, open space and landscaping, located and
designed to protect access to sunshine for existing planned or
potential solar energy systems. The intent is encouraged use of
both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and
water in homes". He thought it was clear that the windbreaks would
be considered landscape or open space elements and that, by
continuing to be as they are, would diminish solar access. Member
Carnes asked for comment.
Mr. Ward replied that it being existing vegetation, he would prefer
not to cut it down to improve solar access. The hedgerow area is
12 to 15 feet tall, which means at noon on the first day of winter
would cast a 30 foot shadow. He would argue that the hedgerow did
not violate the criteria. He felt that they were guilty of the
neighborhood compatibility criteria of passive solar, by preserving
this hedgerow. Mr. Ward stated that their solar symbols dealt with
Planning and
October 24,
Page 43
Zoning Board Minutes
1994
LDGS for site and landscape maintenance.
providing that to the City.
They had not anticipated
Chairman Clements asked if that would be provided to the neighbors
for their review.
Mr. Ward replied that copies could be provided.
Member Fontane asked about the percentage of evergreen trees in the
windbreaks.
Mr. Ward replied that their was a portion of the windbreak that has
a high percentage of upright junipers. There would still be roof
top solar access.
Member Bell asked about the recreational use on the point chart.
She was concerned that there were two density charts and different
figures on both charts. She wanted clarification on what density
chart they were to be basing their decision on, and on one there
was no points for this recreational use. Member Bell felt that the
definition was being stretched to the maximum about the windbreak,
and how that creates a recreational use.
Mr. Ward replied that they have an Ordinance with a definition,
they have never claimed that anyone is going to play football in
the open space area. Historically, the interpretation has been
that open space has value, whether it is used as a ball field or
whether it is a visual break; or, if it is preserving a large
quantity of vegetation. He did not know if the wording in the LDGS
is misleading by calling it recreational area, but there is a very
clear definition in the LDGS that says, "areas that meet the
definition of active open space, which is a minimum of 10,000 s.f.
and a minimum dimension of 50 feet, shall account to meet toward
this criteria".
Mr. Ward clarified the difference in the point charts. The open
space, to the extent that it met the criteria, was done with
revisions to the plan. There was not common open space to this
extent on the plan as originally turned into the City, therefore,
no points were taken on the point chart. When revisions were made
in response to Staff comments, this open space are was made
substantial enough to meet the criteria, so the points were taken.
Member Bell asked about the definition and the terms used
"accessible", "useable", "active open space", and wanted more
clarification.
Planner Shepard replied that the definition reads, "recreational
space shall mean privately owned space which is designed for the
r
Planning and Zoning
October 24, 1994
Page 42
Board Minutes
this time. The idea was to take the overcrowded nursery stock on
lots 1, 2, and 3 and transplant. He thought that there could be a
note on the final PUD that makes the transplanted trees less
subject to the same covenants and guarantees as other landscaping
in common areas on a PUD.
Planner Shepard added that was done at Paragon Point, where certain
portions of the Fossil Creek Bluff, the rock out croppings, that
were platted within the individual lots lines, and are within a
conservation easement, and it seems to work well.
Chairman Clements asked about lots 4-13 and 65-75 and those lots
not being solar lots because of the shade from the trees, was that
based on the trees or the layout of the lot.
Planner Shepard replied that the reading of the criteria indicated
that these lots comply with the ordinance.
Chairman Clements stated that it was discussed earlier that the
open space did meet the criteria as written. Chairman Clements
asked about the concern by the neighbors with children, the open
areas, farm animals, the canal behind existing homes, the safety of
children, and creating neighbor tensions.
Planner Shepard replied that these issue are always raised at
neighborhood meetings. That the Planning Department and the tools
that we have don't address that issue very well, and that these
issues need to be resolved between neighbors.
Chairman Clements asked about curb and gutter extending through the
Strachan property.
-Mr. Ward replied that the curb and gutter was to be extended to the
end of where the existing Strachan house is. The existing farm
house is not part of the PUD, but it being platted and road
improvements would be along the full frontage.
Chairman Clements asked about Nite Court fire lane.
Mr. Ward replied that at final this would come back as a right
angle intersection. Nite Court on the site would be narrowed to 28
feet and would be a pedestrian and emergency access lane.
Chairman Clements asked about covenants or building restrictions,
was that something that they would be providing at final.
Mr. Ward replied that the covenants had not been drafted, they
would be modifications of other covenants, that the City does not
regulate protective covenants other than what is prescribed by the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 41
Chairman Clements stated that the IGA and the LDGS had been
discussed at worksession, and which applied.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that the Urban Growth Area
was like a tire on a wheel, and the City is the wheel and the Urban
Growth Area is the tire. The intent of the Urban Growth Area
Agreement, was not to regulate the development of land inside of
the city limits, that was to be regulated, if its a PUD, by the
Land Development Guidance System. Mr. Eckman referenced the UGA
agreement, the regulations on how new residential development in
the UGA shall mitigate potential negative impacts. Mr. Eckman
referenced Exhibit A, which is a change to the Larimer County Land
Use Plan for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, because outside
the city limits, Larimer County has the legal jurisdiction to
regulate that land. Mr. Eckman's judgement was that the UGA did
not govern development within the city limits.
Chairman Clements asked if this parcel of land should be guided by
the Land Development Guidance System.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied yes, if the Board found
criteria of the Land Development Guidance System that this
development does not meet, the Board could look at the variance
procedures found on page 108 in the LDGS and see if the plan as
submitted is equal to or better than the plan incorporating the
provisions for which the variance is requested. Mr. Eckman stated
that the criteria of the LDGS is intended to advance some public
interest, each criteria is intended to advance a public interest.
If the Board finds a criteria that is not being met, and would
justify a variance, the Board would have to look at the public
interest that is to be advanced by complying to the criteria and
_see if the plan, as presented, advances that public interest
equally well or better than, as the case may be.
Chairman Clements asked about the neighbors concerns with Lots 16
and 17 and that they are unbuildable due to drainage.
Mr. Ward replied that they would restrict building envelopes to the
area above the slope on those sites, preserve the slopes and not
regrade or fill that area, except as required for the release of
storm drainage. The basic land for would remain as is. He felt
that the lots, at least 1/2 acre was large enough to do that.
Chairman Clements asked about the trees to be installed in lots 24-
34, and the questions the neighbors cave regarding their
permanence.
Mr. Ward replied that landscape species, transplanted or new are
not determined at a preliminary and they have not determined at
Planning and zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 40
Henderson stated that this development was mediocre at best. She
stated that it was devoid of creativity and was insensitive to the
surroundings. The neighborhood felt that the developers were
capable of doing better, if allowed, citing density restrictions.
Ms. Henderson spoke of the surroundings in the neighborhood and
felt that this is a special area and deserving of special planning,
just like the foothills. Ms. Henderson spoke of the shadowing of
the trees and the lots that should be deleted from the plan. The
neighborhood feels that the proposed plan is completely out -of -sync
with the established rural nature of the neighborhood. They
believe that this site should not be compromised and desecrated for
by an unattractive, in -compatible development. The neighborhood
feels that a development should be put here that everyone could be
proud of for years to come.
Dick Chin, 3131 E. Horsetooth Road, the southeast corner of County
Road 9 and Horsetooth. He has 14 acres. Mr. Chin spoke of the
rural setting. Mr. Chin spoke of County Road 9 being a natural
barrier and it being the transition from urban to county living.
Mr. Chin spoke of the City not to having a reason to develop east
of them due to the wetlands, the Poudre River and the Interstate.
Mr. Chin spoke of the density and felt there were alternatives.
Mr. Chin felt that the majority of the homeowners would vote
against urbanization and retaining rural county living. Mr. Chin
felt that the City should provide the people in the City that want
acreages, with acreages. He felt that this area should be a buffer
and an area with 1 dwelling unit per acre living.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements asked Planner Shepard to talk about the issue the
3-units per acre and why the City has a 3-unit per acre minimum.
Planner Shepard replied that this was discussed in depth at the
neighborhood meeting. That the policy was to provide a base for
which to provide an efficient delivery of urban services. It was
also a good technique for delivery of future services in the long
term. It was a good capital improvement planning tool and a
service delivery tool and a way for the School District to plan
accordingly. Mr. Shepard also referenced creating a urban edge to
the urban area, a visual break between the urban and the rural
areas. Mr. Shepard stated that this has been the idea in the Land
Development Guidance System since it's adoption in 1981. He also
pointed out that this did not apply to straight subdivisions, such
as English Ranch and Clarendon Hills, but did apply to PUD's.
Chairman Clements added that density is set was set by City Council
and not this Board. That this Board administers that policy set by
City Council.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 39
Mr. Henderson stated that their neighbors were selling their
property for development and deserve the profit they stand to make
and that could be accomplished by catering to the highly active
market for acreages. He asked that the developer be allowed to
divide the 35 acres into one acre lots.
Sandra Thomas, 4104 S. County Road 9, stated they have lived at
their home for 27 years and believes it is a unique environment.
Mrs. Thomas referred to slides referencing wildlife in the area,
and stated that the area has provided a learning experience for
many people. Mrs. Thomas referred to the "Natural Areas Policy
Plan", and referenced statements made referring to direct growth
away from environmentally unique lands and the long range
ecological effects, ensuring the type, design and location of new
development be compatible with environmental considerations. Mrs.
Thomas felt that if their area ceases to be a rural area, it would
threaten the wildlife, and their properties furnish a wildlife
habitat for many species.
Mrs. Thomas was also concerned with water and wetlands, and felt it
should be protected. She felt that urban development would affect
the water in the area. Mrs. Thomas also voiced concerns with
flooding and erosion in the area. Mrs. Thomas referred to the
Harmony Corridor Plan and the concerns with water quality, stream
and bank erosion, and Fossil Creek flooding and stream degradation.
Mrs. Thomas spoke of the reasons to keep this area rural, citing
ecological and environmental concerns. Mrs. Thomas spoke of the
demand for residential acreages and feels their area is right for
that kind of development. Mrs Thomas spoke of a resolution by City
Council listing goals for 1993-94 and quoted "protect and enhance
the City's environment and ensure that the environmental quality is
an integral part of the City's land use and development policies
and plans".
Mrs. Thomas urged the Board to reconsider the proposed plans for
their area and allow this area to remain rural and retain it's
historic rural character and to protect it's wildlife habitats and
water supply.
Scott Courtney, 3256 Nite Court, reiterated the concern with safety
and the lack of open space. He was concerned that there was not a
park nearby and a place for children to play; and, that the
children would have to cross County Road 9. Mr. Courtney encourage
County Road 9 to be widened with a bike path.
Sue Henderson, neighborhood representative, stated that 100% of the
neighborhood oppose this project. Ms. Henderson was asked to give
closing comments endorsed by the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood. Ms.
j
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 38
Mr. Murphy felt that with all the information coming out in this
State about growth issues. He feels that this City was heading
down the road for referendum of it's citizens to decide whether
these kind of regulations set by this Board are what this City
wants it to be. He felt that these rules needed to be looked at,
and in an instance like this, in our community, where this is a
unique type of property, and there should be some flexibility in
this area.
Dan Henderson, 3824 Nite Court, handed out a list of developmental
issues that they have concerns over and wanted to expand on them.
Mr. Henderson has concerns about lots 16 and 17, and that they are
located on a gully; and, not appropriate building lots due to the
amount of infill needed and storm drainage. Mr. Henderson was
concerned with the trees to be planted on the back of lots 24 thru
34. He was concerned with the type, size and number of trees and
how they planned to keep the trees there once the lots become
private property. Mr. Henderson went on to say that lots 4-13 and
65-75 are shown to have solar access. He stated that these lots
were shaded by the hedge rows and the trees that form the open
spaces. There was no true active open space or park area. The
windbreaks would provide no useful function, but when flanked with
houses, the construction process will in all likelihood displace
hundreds of wildlife inhabitants. The neighborhood had concerns
with the lack of open spaces and parks, their properties and
animals would be very appealing to the children. Mr. Henderson
stated that 105 homes has a potential for about 200 children. Mr.
Henderson thought that if they were going to put in curb, gutter
and sidewalk, they should extend it through the Strachan property.
Mr. Henderson went on to say that the development plans were not
clear as to what has become of Nite Court, that as of now, Nite
Court is strictly a fire lane. He stated that the neighborhood
preference would be that Nite Court remain a fire lane. They still
had not seen any copies of the covenants or restrictions; and, they
hoped that it would be in agreement with what was already in place.
He thought that this development might be leapfrogging. Mr.
Henderson referenced the notices from the Planning Department and
that their input was an "extremely" important element in the City's
review of this proposal. He thought that if their input was so
important. If that was true, what was wrong with how they would
like to see this unique area developed. He spoke about Harmony
Road being the main corridor into Fort Collins, and this was a
perfect opportunity to build a beautiful entryway and a truly
functional buffer between industry, residential, and wildlife
environments.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 37
size has been the focus of concern. There is a good deal of open
space beyond these lots already. Larger lots were a better way of
approaching the transition than adding a small linear green belt.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
David Thomas, 4104 South County Road 9, representing his
neighborhood. Mr. Thomas gave a history of their neighborhood.
They felt they are in a unique area, including the educational
learning center 1 mile north, the Strauss Cabin less than 1 mile
east, and the floodplain to the east which runs from East Harmony
Road all the way to East Horsetooth Road. Below the ridge in the
back of their properties is another area designated as wetlands.
They have natural boundaries of a rural area. The area where they
live is part of the old English Ranch.
Mr. Thomas spoke of the rural nature of their neighborhood, raising
crops, cattle, horses and kids. He spoke of their concern when
Hewlett Packard developed, but they were good neighbors and did a
good job of buffering. He stated that a total of 15 homes have
been built, averaging from 2.5 acres to 15 acres.
Mr. Thomas stated that this area had been maintained as a rural
area. The County, up until recently, insisted on nothing less than
2.3 acres per one home. Therefore, it was, and is, a rural area by
choice, design, and intention of the County. Other areas have been
developed west and south of them, but this area had always been
left as rural.
Mr. Thomas quoted the report of the Cache La Poudre River Natural
Recreation Study, "farms and ranches and other open space areas are
important visual references". They feel that statement and the
Intergovernmental Agreement supports their request to remain rural.
Mr. Thomas spoke of Ms. Liley's statements regarding residential
development in the Urban Growth Area. He felt that the Board was
going to have to decide if that applies to their area or not.
Mr. Thomas again spoke of rural living, and to allow a subdivision
in the middle of this area would be inherently incompatible. He
stated that if we don't preserve part of our history, we will loose
part of our future.
Herb Murphy, 3676 County Road 9. Mr. Murphy's concern was density.
His concern was 3 units per acre minimum. He felt that the result
of these regulations was making Fort Collins a roof -top community.
He felt that there should be a variety of land uses, including
acreages. He felt that the Board was stuck on that rule, and did
not see this rule making this City look better, designed better, or
be better for the residents.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 36
report related to the IGA standards. If you look at number 11 in
the staff report, the findings and conclusions, A, C. and D, they
would tend to support that 3 units per acre is consistent with the
City of Fort Collins standards and the LDGS criteria. It is only
when you get into the IGA, that there appears to be that
inconsistency element with what has been proposed.
Secondly, they would ask that in number 11 in the staff report,
which are the findings of fact on page 9, that the Board delete
sections E, F, and G because each of those sections contain
references to, or are based on what they believe to be inapplicable
IGA criteria.
Likewise, the final request that in the last section, which is
entitled, recommendations, that the Board delete both 1 and 2.
They appear to relate to IGA standards and a need for variance
based on that.
Again, they ask that the Board consider whether the IGA is
appropriate in terms of the Board's review tonight. If the Board
finds it not to be so, they ask that the Board make the recommended
deletions.
Member Carnes asked about the note on the site plan about having an
option for up to 10 townhome units being placed on lots 1, 2, 3.
Mr. Ward replied that it was an option they developed in talking
with staff about what to do in terms of trying to make the
perimeter lots larger. Again, a way to do that without falling
below the 3 unit per acre policy standard.
Member Carnes asked what the typical sizes of the lots that are not
on the perimeters.
Mr. Ward replied they range from a little over 7,000 s.f. to around
12,000 s.f.
Member Carnes asked if there was any attempt to further transition
with size as you approach County Road 9.
Mr. Ward replied they looked at that, and the developer and
builders felt that within a 35 acre site that is, where the
geometry is largely dictated by trying to save the existing
vegetation. They felt that it was much more likely to succeed as
a project with larger lots around the perimeter and with lots that
are in the size and price range on the remainder of the site.
Member Carnes asked if there was any further consideration given to
further buffering of some common area on the east side.
Mr. Ward replied that it had been considered. The difficulty being
that as open space buffers are increased, lot sizes go down. Lot
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 35
Mr. Ward described the site stating that the larger lots have been
placed around the outside and pointed the areas of how they have
accomplished the transitioning to the urban lots.
Lucia Liley, representing the applicant, stated that an issue had
arisen relating to the Intergovernmental Agreement and it's
applicability to this project. She stated that in the staff
report, it stated that this PUD did not satisfy the IGA, with
regard to urban/rural transitional elements. For that reason the
staff was recommending two things. One, that some special
conditions on neighborhood compatibility be approved. Secondly,
that a variance to the 3 dwelling units per acre density
requirement also be approved by the Board as part of any approval
of this project.
Ms. Liley argued that as a matter of law, the Staff's reliance on
the IGA in this particular case is misplaced. A careful reading of
the individual provision of the IGA, pretty clearly demonstrates
that it does not apply to any areas within the incorporated area of
the City of Fort Collins. She pointed out the IGA document, page
2, the last whereas clause said, "pursuant to said meetings the
City and County agree to the following policies to be applied to
the unincorporated portion of Larimer County defined herein as the
Urban Growth Area." The document goes on in Section 2, page 3,
under the heading "Agreements" to indicate that they are
"establishing an Urban Growth Area surrounding the City of Fort
Collins". Again, the notion that applies only within the defined
Urban Growth Area, but excluding the incorporated portions of that
Urban Growth Area. Continuing in the document to Exhibit A, which
is the specific exhibit referenced by the Staff. Exhibit A starts
out by saying, "the purpose of this exhibit is to present the Land
Use Policies for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area". Again, that
has been defined as excluding the incorporated portions of the City
of Fort Collins.
The point, is that the section that is being relied on 1.3A, which
sets density criteria and compatibility criteria, is only intended
to apply to developments within the UGA. Urban developments that
might be bumping up against rural developments, but all within the
UGA outside the City limits. Non of these criteria are intended,
or by their language, purport to apply to any development within
the City of Fort Collins because that is governed strictly by the
LDGS and the standards for density that are set out in the LDGS.
That being the case, they would request three things. They would
request first, that this Board make a determination as to whether
the density that has been shown, that is the minimum 3 dwelling
units per acre is based on and consistent with the LDGS criteria
and not the IGA criteria. If the Board believes that the density
proposed is consistent, there would not be any discussion of a
variance. If the Board believes that somehow, LDGS criteria is not
met by having 3 dwelling units per acre, then a discussion of the
variance might be appropriate. The only support in the staff
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 34
should be higher than the City minimum. If you look at the larger
home sites on the other side, it has been suggested that the
density should be lower. Mr. Ward felt this should be a reasonable
transition between the two. He felt that a City development in the
City limits and in the Urban Growth Area at the lowest possible end
of the City -sanctioned density range is where they feel comfortable
as a transition. They have not felt comfortable asking for a
variance to go below that. They have not seen this as being
substantially different from any number of other projects with
urban density abutting large lot County subdivisions. Those
projects were approved at 3 units or higher per acre.
Mr. Ward stated that if eliminating a few lots makes this a better
transition and the City of Fort Collins clearly feels that this
particular site merits changing that policy which has been strictly
enforced in the past, the applicant is willing to look at that. He
did not think the neighborhood would be any happier with 98 lots
instead of 105 lots. That was the focus of the decision on the
Staff's suggested variance. His guidance to his clients has been
that the City has a strong policy and they have been very hesitant
to request anything below that.
Mr. Ward went through the history of this project and reviewed the
densities of the project coming up with the current 105 units at
just a little over 3 units per acre. He also went over the
proposal of the neighborhood with lots being 100,000 s.f. lots and
that it did not work in meeting City development criteria and
virtually amounted to an impromptu redefinition of the Urban Growth
Area.
Mr. Ward spoke about the language in the Intergovernmental
Agreement and did that agreement apply or not. The key being that
if the agreement does not apply to sites within City limits of Fort
Collins, then a couple findings of fact in the staff report, for
the record should be modified or eliminated.
Mr. Ward stated that one point in the Staff recommendation that he
saw a substantial problem with under the condition Item B, has
wording from the Intergovernmental Agreement which talks about
maintaining the character and density of adjacent development and
that becomes something that is impossible to interpret. He felt
that the language should be eliminated or better defined, not only
for their sake, but for whoever is going to administrate it.
Mr. Ward reviewed the open space corridor on site and why it was
considered a recreational area. The Land Development Guidance
System has a definition of active open space that deals with open
space over 10,000 s.f. and a minimum width of over 50 feet. There
was a dimensional definition that determines what you can count on
the point chart as recreational area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 33
location She hoped that it works and that the community as a whole
really benefits from this range of home ownership that would be
offered.
Chairman Clements added that if they can get the nonprofit tax-
exempt organization in there to assist them, as not to price anyone
else out of the market, that would be her preference.
Member Carnes reiterated that this is a challenge to the community
to come together and help make this thing work.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman was concerned about how to administer
the condition, in terms of who's to decide whether it is working.
The suggestion is that the Planning Director make that decision.
Chairman Clements agreed that would be a good idea.
The motion passed 6-0.
WOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY, #44-94
Ted Shepard gave the staff report with the recommendation that the
Board modify the plan to improve the buffering and the transition
of urban lots to the existing rural lots that are located in
Larimer County. Mr. Shepard stated that there were slides in the
carousel that staff considers part of the record, whether the Board
looks at them tonight or not, the slides give an overview of the
area. There has been a couple of neighborhood meetings, formal and
informal. There is a lot of correspondence in the Board's packet
regarding the concerns of the neighborhood, which lead to the
Staff's compromise recommendation as outlined in the Board's staff
report.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant.
Mr. Ward stated that this site lies between some pretty obvious
urban intensity areas to the south and west with Hewlett-Packard
and Hewlett Packard's expansion area to the south; and, the site
that has been planned for NCR to the west, which is likely to be
some sort of employment activity center, or at least some sort of
urban level density. Also to the west is English Ranch, which is
developing at typical urban densities, and has a higher density
component. So on the west and the south there are areas that are
clearly urban and fairly intense, whereas on the east and north
there are the larger home sites and the people who are concerned
with this project.
Mr. Ward stated that the real question was, should this site be
planned to be closer in intensity and character to the uses on the
south and west; or, closer in intensity and character to the
existing home sites on the north and east; or, should this be some
sort of transition between the two. Mr. Ward stated if you look at
the major employers in the area, it would suggest that the density
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 32
Member Cottier stated she could support that completely, and would
suggest a minimum of 6 months.
Member Fontane recommended a year, and would also like to see
Transfort take a look at the information that is gained through
this one-year time frame to see whether or not that would deem a
route on Transfort.
Member Bell stated that made her feel a lot more comfortable with
this project. She thought adding the transportation component to
this makes this a much better project.
Chairman Clements commented that if commercial/industrial does come
in, that it is going to be the boards job to make sure that the
buffer zone is sufficient. She would also like to say to the
applicant that he/she not reinvent the wheel, to look at maybe
utilizing the current transportation services, having a contract
with them.
Member Carnes stated that there is a provision of the tax code
which would enable employers to contribute. That would not be
taxable to the employee; but in terms of who would need to provide
that service in order for it to qualify that way.
Member Strom accepted the condition as a friendly amendment. He
was a little perplexed as to why this particular development needs
this kind of a condition when dozens of other housing developments
at equal distances from transit routes and core portions of the
city have been approved without it.
Chairman Clements answer to that would be that if we are going to
_target a variety of housing types, part of those housing types are
going to serve low-income people who tend maybe not to own
vehicles; and we know that ahead of time, versus other PUDs that
come in that we may not know the type of client they will be
serving.
Member Strom hoped that the Congestion Management Committee is
looking at this on a more serious basis. He thought that we need
to be thinking more seriously about public transit availability
throughout the city.
Chairman Clements asked if the amendment would be for six months or
a year.
Member Strom replied a year and see if we can make it work.
Member Fontane accepted that as the second.
Member Cottier appreciated the offer, and thought it would
contribute enormously to the success of this project. She thought
this was an excellent project and all along her concern has been
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 31
Chairman Clements stated that it is for the board to decide and
assist in providing a variety of type of housing for the citizens
who work within this community, and yet she understood that the
board members have some concerns about transportation. They have
some concerns about leapfrog development, as well as she does.
However, she thought the pros of this proposal outweigh the cons.
This development is not on a transit route right now, there are
some concerns about getting into town. Well, there are children
and people who live in Southridge and Oakridge that can't ride
their bikes to the library either. She saw a lot of possibilities
here. She has a background with nonprofit organizations, and knew
that they can pull off great ideas and great projects and sees that
component being very strong in this proposal. She likes all the
elements that they are providing a variety of housing, that she did
not see that they were segregating the community but providing
housing types, pricing ranges to help a segment of our community.
It will also free up current rental markets for other persons
coming into our community.
She also thought that the park is a benefit. The day care is a
benefit; that it is a mixed use. There will be commercial elements
here; and so, therefore, based on that and the findings of fact as
stated in the staff report, she would be supporting the motion.
Planner Olt stated he had been informed by the developer, Mr.
Reynolds, that they would be willing to provide, on a trial basis,
a jitney or shuttle type service form this development into town
with the third phase of development, that being that, obviously, he
is indicating that you need a base number of people to substantiate
the need for that type of service; but he is willing to make that
commitment .
Chairman Clements asked meaning one year, six months?
Planner Olt replied he would need further clarification on that.
Chairman Clements asked if the applicant was asking for a condition
to be added that within phase three, a transportation service will
be piloted on a year basis or negotiations with maybe Care -a -Van or
somebody to help.
Planner Olt replied yes. He thought it is being suggested that the
board make some form of recommendation or setting, establishing a
time frame, giving some criteria for this trial basis.
Chairman Clements offered a one-year trial basis, upon completion
of phase three and the Waterglen PUD.
Chief Planner Blanchard suggested that the board establish the
trial basis, that the whole idea behind the trial basis is that if
it is not working, it won't continue.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 30
real feasible way to get to libraries. The kids cannot hop on
their bike and go the library, for instance. She thought this
would be an excellent project if it was a little bit smaller and
closer in so that the people could use transit.
Another concern was that it was originally zoned for industrial
type uses; and being right on the interstate like that, to her,
logic dictates that is an appropriate place for industrial
development, not residential development. She would not be
supporting the motion.
Member Strom commented in response to the specific comments about
LDGS criteria regarding safety and access. They have been told
tonight that the street along the frontage will be improved to city
standards; and, as consequence, he did not understand why they
would assume that the city standards would not bring the access to
a safe level.
With regard to the industrial zoning question, a number of years
ago we had a discussion about the issue of industrial zoning; and,
first of all, we are dealing with LDGS, which basically supersedes
zoning; but a number of years ago, we had a discussion about the
amount of underlying industrial zoning that we had in the city. It
was well in excess of anything we anticipated could possibly be
developed. He thought while there might be arguments as to if this
could be a good site for industrial development, the question
really is, is it suitable for the development that is before the
board at this time; and, in his judgement, it is.
Member Carnes stated that he would be supporting the motion. He
hoped that the community really gets behind this, because it is
quite clear to all of the people that have followed it and have
been involved in it that the whole community is going to have to
support this to make it work. There is real questions about a lot
of very important issues, transportation being high on the list.
To the Northeast Businessman's Association, it would seem to him if
it is a benefit to the association to have affordable housing for
their employees, it would also be a benefit to have affordable
transportation. He hoped they would join together and help support
this, along with the balance of the community.
Member Fontane stated she had a lot of concerns about the location
and the transportation. But in hearing testimony tonight about
vehicle mile traveled from outside our community into our community
or people who have to travel from the far west side of town to the
far east side of town just to work, it has made it easier to
swallow the location. She does think this project has the leapfrog
effect, but did think that you can kind of counteract that a little
bit with some of the benefits that having this housing on the east
side of town will bring.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 29
She is 100 percent behind the design of the project and the income
levels that are targeted by this project. She thought it was a
much -needed housing option for our community; but did not think,
without a guarantee of a jitney or some mass transit, that this
project would work. She thought that the costs have kept creeping
up because all of the concessions that were initially requested on
the basis of this being a low -to -moderate income project have not
been granted and because of how far out it is and the cost of
improving the road. She thought that kind of substantiates that it
is not the best location for this project, and did not feel that
she could support it without some transportation alternatives that
better address getting people into town.
The improvements to Vine, they are acceptable to the Engineering
Department, but she thought there is some real safety issues
involved. She used to drive that road daily for four years, and go
on the frontage road. The speed limits are bad, and coming over
the hill on the overpass is a serious problem there.
She thought there is some real safety issues involved, and based on
that, she would say that she does not support the project based on
its not meeting LDGS criteria A2.1 about additional traffic
generated by the land uses incorporated into the transportation
network without creating safety problems. Also criteria A2.6,
"does the pedestrian circulation system accommodate pedestrian
movement from the neighborhood to the site." People outside of
this site have to walk along Vine to get to this site to get to the
park that's interior. Walking along Vine is not safe.
She would further support denying this project on the basis of
noncompliance with city policies about where low density
residential uses should locate. There is not easy access to
neighborhood regional community shopping. It is not within walking
distance of an existing or planned elementary school. It is within
walking distance of a park. Higher density residential uses should
locate near the core area. This is not the core area. They should
locate within close proximity to community or neighborhood park
facilities, which this will if the park goes through, with access
to public transportation. She thought the public transportation
issue is really key in her mind to this particular project working
at this site, and she would not be supporting the motion.
Member Bell stated that she was not on the board at the time of
preliminary approval. She certainly appreciated the dilemma
between the need for this type of housing and some of the things
that have been stated here. However, she felt like this isn't very
good land use planning to be leapfrogging out like this. They were
supposed to be creating a project that is going to be good for
families in low and moderate income but yet they did not have any
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994 `
Page 28
Member Strom moved for approval of Waterglen PUD, Final, citing the
findings and facts and conclusions in the staff report and with the
single condition regarding the final utility plans.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Chairman Clements asked for a friendly amendment about not placing
a fence on top of the berm, that the applicant said they had agreed
to put that on the plat?
Member Strom had some questions about that. He did know enough
about noise studies, having done some himself, that he thought they
needed to leave their options open; and you are not sure, despite
what the modeling says, they might ultimately find a problem that
needs to be addressed.
Chairman Clements stated her concern with that is, if there is a
problem that needs to be addressed, typically what happens is then
the city has to come in and construct the fence at the expense to
the taxpayers, and that is why she has a concern about the city
being responsible for noise impacting this development that someone
else proposed.
Member Strom thought, if he was not mistaken, that most situations
where those noise fences are built, they are built by the State
Highway Department with substantially Federal funds. It is still
taxpayer money, but he did not think we are obligating the City to
take care of those situations. He would be more inclined to look
at some sort of a stipulation on the plat that if such a fence is
needed, if there is additional noise mitigation needed, can we
require that the design for that come back for board review since
in effect, be a modification of the PUD.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied, not unless you include that as
a condition of your approval.
Member Strom stated that was what he was suggesting.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied yes, then you could.
Member Strom asked if that would be acceptable.
Chairman Clements replied absolutely.
Member Cottier stated that she has really struggled with this one,
and she was the lone negative vote on approval of the ODP because
she thought that this location was not appropriate, because it is
going out there too far.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 27
interest in terms of the park at a conceptual level, that once
final approval to the project is given, that then the board would
authorize the staff to get an option on the land, which would
essentially be a right of first refusal. That would not be a
commitment on the part of the city to purchase _:ne land. They
expressed the concern that if the remainder of this square mile
were to go largely industrial, as it is zoned, that they would not
be very interested in that as a park site. She did think it was
real important to emphasize the need for a park with residential on
this site, even if the rest of the mile does go industrial, because
it is part of the amenities that are so crucial to making a project
like this work.
Mr. Ward responded that they have been working with Parks for the
past 15 months. They have went to the Parks Board with the
concept. The Parks Board stated an interest. they directed park
staff to pursue the acquisition. We also presented them with the
concept that this park would be purchased and developed with the
park land fees generated at Waterglen, and had gone as far with
park staff as outlining at what threshold, of how many units
acquisition would take place, planning construction and so forth.
In January, they received a summary letter from the City Manager
that went over the status of City acquisition of the park, natural
areas; and with both of those cases, it was indicated that the both
of those would be pursued for acquisition by the city, which, at
this point, is why we are not in the middle of intense negotiations
with either party.
Member Strom wanted to make one comment and asked for a
verification from the City Attorney. In response to Member
Cottiers comment about the phasing criteria, his understanding from
what was said earlier was that we had essentially established the
density on this project in February. As a consequence, it seems to
him that the phasing criteria and density criteria that have been
established in the interim by Council do not apply to this project,
and he would just like to get that on the record from the
attorneys.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied, yes, that was correct. In
that the phasing ordinance that was passed by Council, in it had
language that indicated it did not apply to previously approved
preliminary plans.
Member Cottier stated she was well aware of that. She just wanted
to comment on the implication that the phasing criteria supported
this project at this location, which she does not think it does.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 26
Member Cottier asked about the nature areas. Initially, the
Natural Resources response to this was that they were going to look
at whether or not this parcel was considered worth acquiring. Then
at some point they said it was designated a high priority area
because, apparently, the Division of Wildlife had said that it was
a unique warm -water slough. Then the applicant's study said no, it
is not a unique environment. It is not a warm -water slough. Where
exactly does Natural Resources stand on acquiring this? The
Division of Wildlife also said that they thought a 300-foot buffer
was necessary, and at one point, Natural Resources recommended that
16 lots be deleted along Cooper Slough. How do we get to no lots
being deleted and 150 buffer being acceptable?
Planner Olt replied that as a condition of preliminary approval,
there was a stipulation that additional information be provided.
The Natural Resources Department felt that they did not have
sufficient information to make a proper evaluation of the impacts
on the Cooper Slough, whatever mitigation measures should be taken.
There is a letter in the board's packets from the Natural Resources
Department saying, with the additional information that had been
provided to them, with the revised plans that they had seen, that
they feel like they are satisfied that proper mitigation is being
provided. That the developer really has met the intent of that
preliminary condition. Susie Gordon from the Natural Resources
Department has stated they are not negotiating for potential
acquisition at this time.
Member Cottier asked if the city does not purchase this for a park,
what will happen to that site?
Mr. Ward replied it is shown on the site as a proposed park site.
It may not necessarily be a city park if the Parks and Recreation
Board reverses themselves and the letter they got from he City
Manager regarding both the park and the natural area is reversed,
then it would be a private park. That is what would be on the
approved final PUD plan, if it is approved.
Member Cottier asked if the applicant would develop it as a park if
the city does not purchase it?
Mr. Ward replied under the hopefully approved plan, he did not know
what option they would have. The exact facilities and level of
improvement there would, at that point, be up to the applicant and
the developer. But, yes, it is shown on the site plan as a
proposed park, so that is what should be on the approved plan.
Member Cottier stated she has contacted the Parks Department and
what the city's interest is in that. The city has expressed their
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 25
add $1,000 per unit to the cost of living in Waterglen, there are
a number of people that you exclude from owning their own home, and
that is the real decision.
one of the concepts talked about at the preliminary, if we could
have convinced the board to support 28-foot streets, it would be
much easier to afford things like the jitney bus. They are trying
to balance providing a lot of amenities without pricing themselves
up into an affluent subdivision again.
Mr. Ward clarified that on the initial discussion of off -site
streets, they could read the ordinance to interpret that I-25 is an
improved arterial, and they had an extreme interpretation that
said, "we don't need to do off -site street improvements." Staff
came in with the other extreme interpretation that it was all or
nothing. They asked for and received guidance from the Planning
and Zoning Board to find some kind of a middle ground solution, and
that is really what led to this compromise of the overlay, and the
interim road solution was a direction that we requested from this
board at the first public hearing.
Chairman Clements commented that if they are looking at potentially
donating land to a nonprofit tax-exempt organization whereby that
organization could build, provide affordable, low-income housing,
there might be an opportunity, if that organization is doing some
grant writing, they can even build some transportation cost as part
of a larger plan that they could provide transportation for this
area or a certain percentage of transportation. She thought there
might be some avenues to provide transportation for this area
without adding $1,000 per unit.
Mr. Ward replied that they are looking at some programs that could
help to bring down the cost of housing, even though it may not meet
the strict definition of low-income housing. He also thinks that
the provision of bike lanes back into town along Vine, who are not
there now, is an important factor.
Member Cottier offered some comments in response to Chairman
Clements comments about the new phasing criteria that was recently
adopted by Council. Her interpretation of that is that the purpose
of that was to discourage "leapfrog" development out on the
fringes. According to the criteria that was adopted by Council,
this project would not pass, because it does not get sufficient
points. The criteria required a minimum of 60 points for any
density under six units per acre. This project would not meet
that. The criteria required park credit to be taken only for a
park that is owned by the city. This project only achieves 45
points as a maximum. According to the criteria which went into
effect August 1st, this project would not be approved.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 24
Member Cottier asked if this is considered to be an adequate base
for the ultimate design of the street as designated on the master
street plan?
Mr. Herzig replied it is in the correct location, but it is not
adequate base. It would have to be removed and reconstructed at an
elevation different from where they would be building it. So to be
able to get the slope in the road for drainage, and some locations
would have to be higher, some locations lower.
Member Cottier asked if that is our requirement for off -site street
improvements, why is this project being allowed to not meet those
requirements?
Mr. Herzig replied it was part of negotiations and a determination
of the Director of Engineering that this was a sufficient way to
go, that it would not create a burden on the City to maintain the
road more than what the ultimate roadway would be. Secondly, as
development occurs between this development and the main center
part of the City, then those portions of the road will be
constructed to City standards and put in the proper drainage, and
those people will be the ones to pay for it. Basically, we are
looking out for the cost to the City to maintain, and it did not
add what we considered anything more than what the ultimate would
do.
Member Bell asked if what Mr. Herzig was saying is that typically
when development go in, the developer is required to build their
portion, anyway on their side of the street, or whatever, of the
road to City standards?
Mr. Herzig replied that was correct.
Member Bell asked if that was happening in this case?
Mr. Herzig replied no. this development will be construction their
adjacent portion of Vine Drive to City standards. The portion we
are talking about with these comments are two and a half mile of
off -site road, which is at the western border of their development
to Lemay Avenue.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Ward to address the jitney system a little
more and tell us what the likelihood of that is.
Mr. Ward replied they had looked at a route that would serve about
a dozen of the major employers in the easterly part of Fort
Collins, and the status is that it is something they were
evaluating. The decision is, how many people do you price out of
the market to provide more amenities, because everything we are
talking about has a price tag associated with it. Every time you
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 23
that in the near future. The frontage road is wider and in better
shape than Vine Drive right now.
Ms. Bell asked if the State Highway Department would make any
improvements to the frontage road.
Mr. Ward replied yes.
Member Bell asked about the farm equipment and big truck that
travel through the area.
Mr. Ward replied that the site is in the urban growth area, and
that suggest urban development at some point and begs the question
of, do we plan around farm equipment or do we plan around urban
density development. There are areas that are successfully farmed,
leased for farming for many years as development has come out in
the southeast and southwest parts of town.
Member Strom asked about the reconstruction of Vine Drive. Are we
talking about redoing the base, or are we basically building a road
that's going to last us for a good long time.
Mr. Herzig replied it is reconstructing the existing road to have
a certain design life that he did not recall what they were using,
5 years or 10 years. But then it is in the maintainable condition
where we can do overlays and seal coast to keep it in condition.
Right now, if you were to put all this traffic on the street, it
would fall apart and become nothing but potholes and ruts.
Member Strom asked if they were basically going to build it up to
the point where it can handle this traffic and more?
Mr. Herzig replied yes. The reason it is so expensive to do it to
another level, it is not going to be much different in the
thickness of asphalt and base, but there was a lot of drainage that
needed to be considered in the ultimate design, as well as creating
some up and down in the road where right now it is virtually flat
in much of the stretch of road.
Member Cottier asked how wide the road would be.
Mr. Herzig replied what they normally put in is 36 feet, a 6-foot
shoulder and two 12-foot lanes.
Mr. Olt added it was being designed for a 10 to 15 year life. that
would be determined with additional studies, but that is what it is
being designed for.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 22
Chairman Clements stated that Waterglen did provide a park, that
they are researching their own transportation, and it does have a
commercial component. She just wanted to state that for the
record, since there was some concern about concentrating on the
infill developments, and this does not concentrate on the infill
developments.
Member Carnes asked about the concerns with congestion. He also
asked about the phasing plan for this development, and why is the
multi -family, the village center, the commons areas the last to go
in this development.
Mr. Ward replied the first things build will be a portion of the
manufactured housing lots; and, in general, the phasing then
rotates counterclockwise around the site. The early phases of
development will be the management office/clubhouse recreation
facilities in this area. The exact timing of the multi -family is
going to depend upon what happens with the private nonprofit that
we talked about; but as far as the village center area, the fact is
that a business cannot operate successfully here without some kind
of a nearby population to support it.
The smaller -lot manufactured housing detached product is being done
first. The multi -family would happen as soon as there was a
reasonable expectation that enough occupants could be found to make
it work. Obviously, once the Waterglen Drive, one of the two
access points off of Vine Drive, by the way, is in and the existing
sewer line is extended and the water will immediately come down
Waterglen Drive. So the infrastructure will be in place to do the
multi -family. They literally have people coming and wanting to
sign up to have a unit here and have really been focused on the
more affordable detached housing.
Member Cottier asked about the timing of the daycare.
Mr. Ward replied similarly. The day care is largely going to draw
upon this neighborhood for its market. As soon as there is enough
housing and enough children to support it, they can seriously try
to get an operator in there. He thought that might be the third
phase of development.
Member Bell asked about the frontage road problem. Who is
responsible for the frontage road.
Mr. Ward replied the frontage road is part of the State Highway
system. It belongs to the State. He thought that the biggest
problem with the frontage road to the south is that there is a
somewhat awkward intersection with Mulberry at the I-25
interchange; and his conversations with the State Highway
Department is that they are going to be doing some reworking of
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 21
separation from he City, a portion of the County dividing this back
into the City, as well. He could not speak for police services in
terms of how they are going to provide services, other than similar
to Poudre R-1 school district, police services is part of our
routing and development review, and have been provided plans,
comment sheets, throughout the process; and he has not seen any
concerns from the City of Fort Collins Police in terms of comment
sheets returned to him.
Member Bell asked about the concern raised with segregation and
taking everyone of one income level and putting them in this
development; and it was her understanding that there would be a
variety of income levels that would be served.
Planner Olt replied that it would appear to have a range of
housing, price -wise from about 85,000 to 120,000, which is a
variety of mixed -use housing, multi -family, to smaller, to then
standard sized single-family homes that would serve a range of
incomes. He would not know how to address the opinion of
segregation.
Chairman Clements addressed the issue of phasing. There was some
concern that this is patchwork, or what she calls "leapfrog"
development, that there are parcels that have infrastructure
currently serving them closer to the city and that what we are
doing with a parcel such as this is putting it way out on the
fringes.
At preliminary, City Council was starting to work on their phasing
criteria because they were trying to encourage development closer
to town where infrastructure was already serving parcels of land.
However, they were also saying that because there are people that
-own land and property owners do have rights to develop their land,
that they were trying to look at proposing criteria for those
persons who wanted to build outside of the current ring, because we
develop in rings, and we want to develop the rings that are closer,
and that the components of those developments who wanted to do
"leapfrog" development were that they had to provide certain
amenities, like their own transportation, perhaps adding a park,
these kinds of amenities that would then provide them enough points
that they could then develop their land. Was she correct in the
discussion that took place.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied yes. The discussion on the phasing
criteria, the emphasis was on infill development, but it was also
recognized that those with large parcels on the fringe could
possibly create their own bonus points through either developing
their own parks through purchase of off -site open space.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 20
Planner Olt added that characteristically around the city, even
along the Harmony corridor, we were looking at a maximum of 8 feet
high there. There is probable nothing exceeding that.
Chairman Clements asked if there were plantings on top of the
berms?
Mr. Ward replied yes.
Chairman Clements asked, for the record, that the information about
school capacity and the review process be stated.
Planner Olt replied that a comment sheet is attached to the plans
for the development proposal, and is sent to the Poudre R-1 School
District. They are asked to comment on that proposal based on the
plans that have been forwarded to them and return those comments to
the Planning Department for review. That becomes then part of our
staff review of the project.
In all cases where the overall development plan, preliminary PUD
and, in this case, for the final PUD, these plans have been routed
to Poudre R-1 for their review. We have not had any substantial
comments come back from them; but as has been indicated previously,
the way the school district deals with development. We do have
ongoing discussions with Poudre R-1. This coming Thursday morning,
the planning staff will be meeting with Carol Agee of the school
district to discuss ongoing growth management proposals or
developments between `he city and the school district to identify,
the overall needs. Staff has been told that, overall, school
district wide, Poudre R-1 can accommodate the on-line development
that is before us at this point in time.
Chairman Clements asked if the projection sheet says all the
children will go to Timnath Elementary; but what the school
district does is evaluate this site; and if Timnath is, in fact,
full in that capacity, they are not going to go to Timnath.
Planner Olt replied that was correct. In this case, Eyestone is
the elementary school. It's near capacity now. there are more
students projected from this development for elementary school than
could attend that school; and the Poudre R-1 school district will
then accommodate their needs accordingly.
Chairman Clements asked about police services. Could he shed some
light on how the services are determined for any proposed and then
accepted new development.
Planner Olt replied that it was his understanding that within the
City limits of Fort Collins, the City of Fort Collins Police would
patrol that area, this being the City limits. yes, there is a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 19
Chairman Clements pointed out to Members Carnes and Bell, because
they weren't here for preliminary, that the park is not in this
site. It is at the opposite end of the proposed development, and
children going to the park will not be playing down by Vine Drive.
Also, there was a lot of discussion at preliminary and a study is
being done by the developer to find out if they, themselves, within
the development and homeowners association can provide their own
transit, like a small jiffy bus, where they would actually be
servicing their own PUD with transportation, and that is what she
understood was still being researched.
Member Fontane asked about the overhead electric.
Mr. Ward replied that there is an overhead power line which runs
through a corridor on this site. He was not sure of the voltage.
It is quite a bit smaller than the overhead lines that run adjacent
to Oakridge, Southridge and the Union Pacific tracks that highlight
many of our subdivisions in the Southeast part of Fort Collins.
They have done about triple the amount of the existing easement in
terms of the separation along that line between that and any
housing site.
Chairman Clements asked about the 10-foot berm to address the sound
issue along the interstate. She had a fear that somebody was going
to put a fence on top of that berm and it was going to look tacky
like something seen in other communities, such as Denver. Was it
possible to put something on the plat that says there will not be
a fence, whether it's concrete, wood, built on top of that berm?
Mr. Ward replied they would not object to that.
Member Fontane asked if once the units were developed and built, if
the sound would be more than expected, what would they propose to
do at that point?
Mr. Ward replied in looking at this, he took a noise meter and went
to many of the existing residential developments by in -town
arterials and found the noise level in the backyards and along
these areas are routinely higher than the level that our study says
this development going to bring this down to. If you think about
it, a 10-foot berm is a substantial barrier, and there's nothing
more effective than earth.
Chairman Clements asked if there was a 10-foot berm in town they
could compare it to.
Mr. Ward replied that there are berms in the 4 to 6 foot range. He
is not aware of any other 10-foot berms.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 18
Chairman Clements asked who does the speed studies.
Mr. Herzig replied the Transportation Department.
Chairman Clements asked what would trigger that?
Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department replied that they can do
speed studies at either public request or of the board's request.
Vine Drive is not signed or posted at 55 miles an hour, but it is
entirely likely that people are driving very quickly out there, as
people do on the rural fringes of Fort Collins. They can certainly
monitor the speed. What they can do, short of enforcement, is not
clear.
Chairman Clements asked once the speed study is done, do they come
up with recommendations that they pass on to who?
Mr. Vosburg replied they normally just try to deal with the speed
problems directly themselves. They don't necessarily pass on
recommendations to anyone. They change the way the road's striped,
posted, and also coordinate with the police department to increase
enforcement in the area.
Chairman Clements asked if this should go ahead, a speed study
could be recommended?
Mr. Vosburg replied correct.
Member Carnes was concerned with the difference in cost between
rehabilitating and bringing the street up to city standards at
$1,000 to #3,000 a unit. He was also concerned with getting people
to town, since there will be no transit, it is foot or bicycle.
Has there been any consideration at all to having that off the
road, separate, anything that might help in that regard.
Mr. Herzig replied that there has been the consideration of bike
traffic and pedestrian traffic. They are dealing with the existing
street and the existing right-of-way, which has limitations on what
you can fit in that space. The best they have been able to come up
with at this time is a shoulder, an attached shoulder.
As far as off -site improvements, in the City code, they only
address the automobile traffic at this point. This being a PUD,
there are some other negotiations that can take place on that type
of an issue with a project like this. When they looked at the
road, it was based on the constrictions that were there with the
limited right-of-way that's existing, the rural conditions, that
you have irrigation ditches, bar ditches, and you have to work
within the right-of-way. You don't have the freedom to get on
private property. This is the best they have come up with.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 17
that he will speak to, and the primary concern is being able to pay
a livable wage and be competitive.
A lot of the members are in manufacturing, and what they're finding
is that their competition isn't around here. It's coming from
places like Nebraska and Oklahoma and other places where they can
afford to pay a little bit less and still their workers can
maintain a pretty good lifestyle. A lot of them are faced with the
situation of having their employees commute in. They are not
living in this area. They are having to live in Wellington or
Greeley, maybe Ault, and making a 15 or 20 mile commute. It does
place a strain on the infrastructure and also on some of the air
quality. This is an agricultural community. We need to maintain
our agriculture. If we are removing some of those manufacturing
eventually, we are going to lose that agriculture. He thought we
need to be able to provide for those manufacturers and employers so
that they can be competitive in the industry.
There is no place closer to Fort Collins that will accept this
project, he cannot see this happening in any other place. He
thought that if the board did not allow this, what they were goir;
to do is they are going to send a message to a lot of employers and
also possible developers in the future; because he did not see
anybody else being willing to undertake this task somewhere in the
next five years. He asked the board to support this.
Lisa Rice, 429 Princeton. Her main concern about this project is
she thought that low-income housing is great, but she thought that
the size is something that should be considered. She thought that
is was segregating, taking a class of people, and segregated them,
and stuck them out away from bus routes and away from other things.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements asked for information on Vine Drive, 55 miles per
hour, the rehabilitation of the road.
Planner Olt replied he would have the Engineering Department answer
that question.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department responded that the extent of
the improvements is just reconstructing the existing road, which if
falling apart, into two lanes of traffic with shoulders. It
doesn't address the speed. There will still have to be some speed
studies done or controls installed, depending upon the traffic
uses. Right now, it is pretty rural type of use in a wide open
area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 16
could be a very healthy thing. She thought we all need to help
people mainstream. If we don't, we will create an underbelly in
this community that nobody's going to want the consequences for.
It is important that people feel that they are important, and, if
they work here, they have a right to live here.
She liked the amenities that this development will offer to the
people who are low-income that are living there, things that we
couldn't afford. She asked the board to look at all these things
and think of the many people in this community. She thought it's
52 percent of the people of Fort Collins earn less than 6.50 an
hour. that's an awful lot folks, and those are the people we have
to be thinking about. She asked the board to really look favorable
on this project.
Roger McConnel, 4430 East County Road 48. He thought that this
project is very appropriate for the housing development low -class,
middle-class. His concern was he thought this is in the wrong
spot. He did not know if everyone's been out in this area here;
but to the east, you've got the interstate; to the north, your have
a canal, which is the Eaton canal; also, you've got an electrical
line there, a high-powered voltage electrical line. To the west,
the canal is also on that side. There is also a railroad track
that comes along the adjacent side of this property.
He is concerned with the interstate. His concern is mentioned
about the sound barrier, 150, 200 feet from the interstate. He is
also concerned with electrical line on the north end.
They farm on both sides of this property. they do not own the land
on each side of it. They just rent it. They take heavy equipment,
wide equipment, up to 20-feet wide, down this particular drive,
Vine Drive. It's narrow. His concern is at the intersection at
the frontage road on both sides of the interstate. It's a stop
sign there on both sides, and it's congested. People coming out of
this particular development h ave to go one mile south to Harmony,
one mile north on the east side of the interstate to jump on the
interstate. He is sure there's probable some plans to widen that
out at the top. Visibility is poor.
He feels that there's too many homes here being built. He is also
concerned with the school situation. He is concerned with Vine
Drive and it's 55 miles an hour speed limit, and the eighteen -
wheelers that travel the road. He opposes the project. He feels
if it's moved away a little bit further, it would be adequate.
Mike Buderus, grew up in the area. He is also the president of the
Northeast Business Association. He is not speaking on behalf of
the association, but there are some concerns of some of the members
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 15
want those who work in our community here to go elsewhere to find
affordable housing. Housing continues to be a problem for many in
our community. Even households working two minimum -wage jobs
cannot find affordable housing. Our Housing Authority is still
accepting applications at the rate of 100 per month. This probably
would not affect this particular project, unless it turns out that
part that is being donated to a nonprofit would hit this market.
Any housing that is built to provide housing for some segment of
the population below the median income will help the situation.
There has been an undercurrent that this location is not the right
one. On the contrary, the location is excellent. It's part of the
Urban Growth Area, so obviously the community has planned to expand
there at some time. She has driven to the proposed site, and she
found it very attractive. it is an easy drive into town on Vine
Drive. Driving in from Vine and I-25 to City Hall was
approximately 4 miles. Not only is City Hall within this distance,
but think of the courthouse, the old post office, the public
library, the museum, the Lincoln Center and several grocery stores.
If at present there is no bus route, it does seem feasible to
extend service along Vine Drive at some future time.
The urge the Planning and Zoning Board to approve this project.
The concept is outstanding. Portions of it full the affordability
gap. The mix of housings is great. It's the right project for
these times in the right location.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, 1712 Erin Court. She is involved trying
to build affordable housing in this community. She thought it was
high time that we encourage private developers that want to build
affordable housing. If we can find private developers who can
build affordable housing, then those of us that are doing the work
we're doing now could move to other community concerns. She
believed that the WW Reynolds project is going to do that, and she
has faith that they'll continue to do it into the future.
Sister Mary Alice stated that low-income people have the same dream
that middle -income people have and that high -income people have.
The families they are settling are paying up to $350 a month for
rent. As soon as they get a place of their own that's nice,
they're starting to think of the day they can own a home and the
ability to mainstream and move into that is very much a part of
what they want for themselves and their families. The families are
saving their money for the day when they'll be able to own their
own home. The chance of that, unless there is more low-income
housing built for people to be able to move up into that is
becoming more and more difficult in this area.
She thought that having within a given area a chance for families
to move up and not have to necessarily leave a school district
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 14
She attended the Growth Management Seminar in October and the plans
for mixed development.
Ms. Stitzel stated that there is not enough land right in the
center of town, or even close to the center of town, that you can
do these mixed -uses and combine them with closeness to industry and
to jobs and, therefore, cut down the miles used to go back and
forth to work. She thought that there's a high percentage of
things that really look to the future about how we can control
growth, of how we can cut down on miles to work, how we can cut
down on some of the other factors, and how we can work together and
plan together. She thought that it's worth the risk to really look
at the forward -looking goals and objectives of this particular
well -planned mixed -use housing.
Ms. Stitzel went on to say that you can't just look at the very low
income affordable housing. You have to look at what's also
happening for moderate income housing. The particular niche that
this housing covers is one that's not being covered by any of the
other developments that she has been hearing placed before the
Planning and Zoning Board or to the City, and she thinks that we
have to pay attention to how we are filling the gaps of the niches.
She thought that taking the upper -lower income on up into the
moderate income, which is usually about 95 percent of the area
medium income, is a very important gap to fill.
Ms. Stitzel encouraged the positive vote of approving the Waterglen
project. It's a look to the future and answers a lot of questions.
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, representing the Larimer
County Affordable Housing Task Force. She stated that they like
the concept of WW Reynolds Waterglen PUD. It is refreshing to see
a plan where apartments and single-family houses are both included.
They like the idea of a convenience store, a park, a greenbelt, a
day care center and a community building. This truly seems to them
to be a planned unit development. They endorse those units that
will be affordable to people receiving below medium income, and
they realize that at this point it's hard to tell how much of those
units there are going to be, but it's certainly going to hit middle
income people, and they very much approve of that.
They also feel that the density will help to prevent more urban
sprawl. the commend the concept that renters can move up from
rental units to home ownership and still remain in the
neighborhood. These homes are projected to sell for less than a
$100,000, c- right around $100,000.
r
Fort Collins is in danger of becoming an elitist affluent community
if opportunity cannot be created in the housing market for all
members of our community to find affordable housing. They do not
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 13
Mr. Rice was also concerned with the number of people who are going
to exit on the frontage road and over to Mulberry and Highway 14,
which is already a complete disaster, lots of accidents,
congestion, et cetera. He was concerned that there appears to be
only one entrance and one exit off of Vine Drive into this entire
massive subdivision. That appeared to him to be some sort of a
problem. Other subdivisions in this town currently have numerous
avenues of exit and access to their subdivision. He would like to
see that addressed.
Mr. Rice thought that something that was gone over very quickly by
the developer is the school situation. Currently, Tavelli
Elementary and Timnath Elementary are bulging at the seams. Eight
to 900 families at an average of two children per family is 1,600
to 1,800 children. They say that they have Poudre R-1 approval for
this. He would like to see a little bit more specifics on where
they think these kids are going to go to school. Are they going to
Wellington? Are they going to bus them all? All the children from
this whole subdivision will have to be bused, which adds increased
congestion on Vine Drive, air pollution, et cetera.
Mr. Rice's biggest concern is that he is a police officer for the
City of Fort Collins. Currently, this area would fall in patrol
district area No.l. He certainly did not want to speak for the
police department, but he has not seen the developer or no one
address or communicate with the police department on how this
particular area is going to be patrolled. This area is in a
position of approximately 3 to 4 miles east of the general
population and general area where patrol officers patrol on a daily
and nightly basis. He did not believe the police department has
the manpower to patrol an area that is an island out in the middle
of a corn field. He felt the response times would be very low.
Mr. Rice stated that the current speed limit on Vine Drive is 55
miles an hour. Living on Vine Drive, he knew that the average
speeds are estimated at 65 to 70 miles an hour.
Mr. Rice concluded by saying that this development reminds him of
a situation when you get into the Denver Metro area and you see
Thornton and Northglen with their big 15-foot high wood fences that
block the view of the residential areas on to I-25. This appears
to be patchwork development. He thought that development should be
from the interior and work out in a timely and organized manner
rather than to try to fill in the spaces in between causing
potential problems for the taxpayers and Planning Board in the
future. He asked that the Board look these things over very
carefully.
Lou Stitzel, representing herself and Resource Assistance Center.
She has been involved with affordable housing for 12 to 14 years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 12
unreasonable request if there is a possibility of an appeal. It
would be helpful to the City Council for the entire record be
before them for review. He had no reason to object to the request.
Chairman Clements asked if that should be made a condition.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied yes.
Chairman Clements thought it was a reasonable request given that as
a representative of the Planning and Zoning Board that she be
present at the appeals. It would be more helpful to have both
preliminary and final information should be part of the record.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that since there were two Board
members that were not present at the preliminary, if any questions
should come up about any topic pertaining to preliminary, the
applicant should present it again tonight.
CITIZEN INPUT
Doug Rice, 5100 East County Road 58, stated that he has several
concerns about this project.
Number one comment is the general location of this area. This does
appear to be an island sitting out in the middle of nowhere. He
asked that the general area be looked at in detail, especially the
commercial industrialization of this particular area. when
Anheuser Busch came to this area, this particular area was
classified as a commercial development for spin-off industry
related to Anheuser Busch. He was not sure this subdivision fit
into that type of a plan.
-Secondly, he was aware that the Board was currently engaged in a
very big debate on Harmony Road involving a King Soopers store and
a residential area that has a commercial facility right out their
back door. He thought this was a possibility in the future with
this subdivision, and was not sure that the Board wanted 900
homeowners in their meeting complaining when they start commercial
industrialization in this area.
Mr. Rice also has listened to the Vine Drive situation on how
they're going to improve the road. He thought they were taking
the easy way out with the rehabilitation. He did not believe that
housing subdivisions will pop up in this area anytime in the near
future, and they are going to just kind of patchwork the road, to
get by, not having to put out more funds.
Mr. Rice suggested that the road be completely rebuilt, as in the
south portion of Fort Collins, that it have bicycle lanes and be
wide enough to handle the traffic.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 11
Member Fontane asked about what is going on around this project.
What is the goals for the corn fields surrounding this area. What
are some of the intentions. Why this works.
Mr. Ward replied they have done some land use projections in this
area in their office. There are vast areas that have been zoned
industrial all through the East Vine/Mulberry Corridor area. If
you look at absorption, there is about a 300-year supply of
industrial land that has already been zoned in the City or County.
If the City of Fort Collins continues with its strong policies with
mixed use development and housing near employment and promoting
development in the northeast quadrant of the City, he thought it
should be promoted as more a typical mix where jobs and housing are
balanced. At most, typical mixes of single family, multi -family,
where densities are 4 units per acre. That means that two-thirds
of a given area of the City would tend to be residential, the
remainder, divided between employment areas, service/retail, open
space.
They have taken a look at that based on master plans done in the
area, and some conversations with Rick Ensdorff regarding
circulation. The Northeast Area Transportation Plan indicates that
there will be a substantial amount of housing in this area. The
fact that our designated enterprise zone comes up to Vine Drive and
the type of uses and infrastructure in place would tend to say that
you get an employment center around Anheuser Busch, eventually, as
they develop their area, and along the corridor area south of Vine
Drive. With more residential north of Vine Drive and
employment/service areas south between Vine Drive and Mulberry.
Member Carnes asked about transit routes to this area.
Mr. Ward replied he was not sure he could give a good answer to
that question. He knew that 577 units does not raise the
expectation that would fill a big transfort bus. What they are
looking at and evaluating with other costs out there is trying to
provide a shuttle service from this area. Since most of the major
employers are located on the east side of town, you could make a 20
minute route and hit major employers of this area. He did not know
what the population needed to become. He thought that with the
improvements to Vine that are being made, activity in this area
becomes more viable.
Chairman Clements asked that Mr. Eckman address the request for
items at preliminary be made part of this record. Was that a given
in case of an appeal or did the Board have to grant that request.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it would be helpful for
the Board to grant that request. He did not think it was an
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 10
on background information, point charts, a handout on adopted
goals, objectives, policies, a letter from the City Manager that
regards a number of things including the park and Cooper Slough
Natural Area, a letter from Poudre R-1 regarding service, and a
summary from the noise study.
Member Carnes asked, in reading previous minutes, there was a lot
of discussion about costs of off -site improvements and if they
would be required to do the standard upgrades all the way to Lemay
that would add a cost of $5,000 per unit. What was the cost of
Plan B, just to rehabilitate it.
Mr. Ward replied that when the numbers were looked at more closely,
the figure for the full standard City section was about $3,000 per
unit, about $1.5 million. That spread over 577 units. With the
ability to recover a high percentage of that should development
occur along the roadway for the Plan B, is a lower cost, with the
ability not to recapture anything, that is right at $1,000 per
unit.
Member Carnes asked what price range they anticipate for the units
and what kind of breakdown of number of units and price ranges.
Mr. Ward replied they did not have a precise breakdown of units in
a price range, but part of the whole concept is to provide a good
range so that people in moderate and low income levels would have
the ability to move up as their situation improves without leaving
their neighborhood. The conventional single family lots on the
westerly part of the property would be in the low $100's, that
would be the upper end of this project. The manufactured housing
areas would be in the low $80's to 100's. In the multi -family
areas it would be lower than that, and the applicant has offered to
simply donate the area on the west side of Waterglen drive to a
private non-profit agency in town for the purpose of doing some
truly low-income housing in that area.
Member Bell asked what kind of square footage would be looked at.
Mr. Ward replied typically from 1,400 to around 2,000 s.f. on
single detached. On manufactured houses, 1,200 up to over 1,800
s.f. On the multi -family, two bedroom units, in the area of 800 to
900 s.f.
Chairman Clements as for clarification of multi -family. Were they
patio homes or other.
Mr. Ward replied four-plex buildings, two on the ground floor, two
above with open parking.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 9
for that opportunity to come about have been forced to look for
detached housing in much more outlying locations such as
Wellington, Mountain Range Shadows etc.
Mr. Ward stated that another important feature presented to the
Board at preliminary was that there would be a central management
entity, an ongoing management/maintenance operation that would be
a higher level of management that most conventional low density
developments. Even to the point where they are planning to
maintain and irrigate the front yard landscaping along with the
common elements to keep a consistent level of maintenance and
higher image for this neighborhood.
Mr Ward addressed concerns brought up at the worksession. One,
Poudre R-1 School District, the applicant contacted Poudre R-1 at
the very beginning of the planning process. A letter was
previously submitted to the Board, and he also has copies tonight,
that they received from Keith Dixon of their ability to provide
service and how their approach to that would work.
The other thing they would ask the Board do tonight, was, because
this is a large complicated project, they would like to request
that the materials presented at preliminary be made part of the
record of this hearing. That in the event this is appealed to City
Council, they would be able to present a full picture of this
project and not be restricted to just the item dealing with final.
They would like to have them incorporated into the record rather
that them having to represent all those materials.
Mr. Ward stated that the slides presented at preliminary were
available if needed.
Mr. Ward stated with regards to the neighborhood park and the
Cooper Slough Nature Area, that they have preliminary indications
from both the Parks and Recreation Board, Natural Resources, and a
letter from the City Manager that indicates that the intention is
that those sites should be acquired by the public. They have
provided residential density charts that if they are acquired by
the City or public entity, they do meet the point criteria. If
they do not acquire those areas, they also meet the point criteria,
they simply become part of the open space/recreation area instead
of being within so many feet of a neighborhood park. It is a
technicality, but would like to make sure that it is part of the
record. They have adjusted some notes on the final plan that
reflect that the City's responsible for maintenance of City owned
areas if they acquire these areas, if not, they will be maintained
by the owners association.
Mr. Ward submitted letters from people who are interested in the
project, but were not able to attend. He also handed out materials
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 8
Deputy City Attorney wanted to go back to the issue of reservation
of right to make changes to the layout issue. He noticed in the
staff report that there is not only a reservation of right on the
storm drainage issue, but also one having to do with architecture
dealing with a shopping center on the site and mini -storage area.
There was also a reservation of right to make changes to the layout
with respect to the resource protections, having to do with natural
resources. They are all outlined in the Boards staff report and
those were the only reservations kept at the preliminary hearing.
There were no reservations kept regarding density.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that he felt that this
final was in compliance with the preliminary. He wanted to do a
quick summary due to new Board members.
Mr. Ward stated that they were striving to provide a neighborhood
that was designed to address a clear need in Fort Collins for
housing, detached, single family housing in particular, in price
ranges that are non-existent right now. He knew of discussions
whether this was or was not affordable housing. From there point
of view, that definition was hard to pin down. Based on the
numbers they have, and the cost they have, they are still confident
that they will be able to provide single family detached housing
for moderate income families and some that are below the line for
low income both in the single family and multi -family areas. They
have based this projects approval and the LDGS criteria on it
standing alone without having to get points for affordable housing.
The Affordable Housing Board was just getting organized at
preliminary and there were still a lot of cost variable to be
worked out.
Mr. Ward felt that, with regard to the development agreement, that
was very much a function of City staff workload. The engineering
drawings have been found by the City's Storm Drainage and
Engineering Departments as very complete, they were down to some
details about the nuts and bolts of the development agreement.
Mr. Ward went on to say that this site does, and the Board was
provided at preliminary with a list of some of the many goals,
objectives and policies of the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Ward
handed out another copy for the record.
In evaluating this site before the Board determines whether if
should be approved, one of the common concerns was that this site
was at a remote location. They compared this site with sites in
the other three quadrants of the City in terms of proximity,
distance, and driving time to common locations and found that it
compared very favorably. They also found that many of the people
that have express interest in living in Waterglen and are waiting
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 7
meetings this was considered. There was a lot of discussion about
off-street street improvements. He asked to be brought up to date
on that.
Planner Olt asked Mike Herzig of the Engineering Department to
address that.
Member Carnes also asked about the overall outcome of the applicant
to meet conditions by December 12.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, replied that the developer was
required to improve Vine Drive between the development site and
Lemay Avenue. That was the distance determined that the street had
to be improved to carry the amount of traffic that they are
generated. There were a couple of options discussed. One, that
the developer would improve the street to normal arterial street
standards where he would be eligible for reimbursement from other
properties as they develop. They have opted for another option,
which is more of a rehabilitation of the road so it is maintainable
for many years to come, however, they will not be eligible for any
reimbursement of the funds they spend doing those improvements.
Member Carnes asked how much cost per unit, on the average, did
this add for the rehabilitation alternative.
Mr. Herzig replied he did not recall.
Member Carnes asked that the applicant reply at a later time.
Member Cottier asked if the improvements to Vine include a bike
lane.
Mr. Herzig replied they would improve two lane of traffic and
shoulders that would be wide enough for bikes and pedestrians that
want to walk there.
Planner Olt replied to Member Carnes second question relating to
the ability of the developer to meet the December 12, 1994 Planning
and Zoning Board meeting for negotiation of development agreement.
What that simply is stating is, that after approval of the project,
the development agreement is drawn up and negotiated between the
City and the developer. To have all the details worked out is that
the City itself is at a time, with the amount of development
occurring at this time, the ability to turn around development
agreements, final utility plans, approve those through various
departments, is not always possible. What this condition states as
well is that if the utility plans and development agreement is not
signed by the December 12th hearing date, the applicant would
request a one month extension.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 6
Planner Olt stated there were two existing buildings located on the
East Vine Drive frontage in the south, southeasterly portion of the
development. They are to remain onsite and be used for a daycare
center and office/clubhouse. Both these buildings must be elevated
a minimum of 18 inches above the 100-year floodplain elevation for
the Boxelder Creek.
Planner Olt stated Staff was recommending approval of the Waterglen
P.U.D., Final with the condition that the development agreement,
final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans be negotiated between
the developer and City Staff and executed prior to the December 12,
1994 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing.
Chairman Clements asked what were items that are set in stone in
looking at a final and being able to make changes.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that typically nothing is set
in stone except layout and densities at the time of preliminary.
In this case, the right was reserved for the City to make some
changes. For example, on storm drainage, referring to page 5 of
the Staff Report where quote is made of preliminary approval; "the
City reserves the right to make changes to the layout of the site
that are ascertained to be warranted to storm drainage impacts on
the development." There were some, and there are also other
reservations to change things based on very specific topics that
had to be looked at between preliminary and final.
Chairman Clements asked about the density issue.
Deputy City Attorney replied he did not know if any were kept.
Planer Olt replied he did not know of any. The density was
established at preliminary, unless layout changes would be
necessitated based on storm drainage or natural resource concerns.
There were no reservations that the City had about density of the
project. Additional information and substantiation for protection
of the wetlands, the Cooper Slough, and adequate information for
the Boxelder channelization has been done to where no site layout
or architectural changes have been necessary.
Chairman Clements concluded that density had been established,
however, typically the Board does not change layout, but that had
been reserved as a result of needing to further look at the storm
drainage issues.
Planner Olt replied that was correct.
Member Carnes stated he was not on the Board when this was approved
at preliminary. He had read through the minutes of the two 46
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 5
residential units, neighborhood convenience shopping center, mini
storage, neighborhood park, and the Cooper Slough Natural Area.
Surrounding uses were existing farm land to the north, existing
farm land and light industrial to the south, Interstate 25,
existing farm land and light industrial to the east, and existing
farm land in the County to the west. The gross residential density
for this development is 3.6 dwelling units per acre, based on the
total of 577 dwelling units on the 150 acres. That figure did
include the neighborhood park and the Cooper Slough Natural Area.
The developer and Parks and Recreation are negotiating for
acquisition of this park. If this were to occur, the residential
density would increase to 4 dwelling units per acre. If
negotiations were to occur between the developer and a governmental
agency, such as the City, State or Federal agency for acquisition
of the Cooper Slough, which is not actively going on, the
residential density would be 4.8 dwelling units per acre.
Planner Olt went through slides of the proposed project area.
Planner Olt stated that there was concern with noise levels that
would be experienced on the site due to it's proximity to I-25.
The primary concern is centered around the potential noise levels
in the eastern portion of the residential development. A noise
impact assessment was done by Ballofe and Associates with the
preliminary review process. The study indicated that with the 150
to 200 foot setback distances, which are being provided between the
residential units and the westerly southbound land of I-25, that a
10 foot high earth and berm with landscaping on top of it, would
bring the noise levels down to acceptable levels of less than 67
decibels when someone is standing outside a building. The
developer is providing the 10 foot high berm with landscaping on
top.
There were 10 conditions of preliminary approval, there were
concerning general notes on the site plan, the layout and
architectural design of the neighborhood convenience shopping
center, and the mini -storage based on the criteria in the Land
Development Guidance System, the size, quality and location of
plant materials proposed, the street right-of-way with variance for
local streets, off -site street improvements, necessary approval by
the City of the preliminary storm drainage report, necessary
approval by the City of documentation submitted for the Cooper
Slough impact mitigation, mitigation for disturbance to wetlands,
_ and proposed daycare facility being relocated outside Boxelder
floodplain.
Planner Olt stated that the conditions of preliminary approval have
been addressed and met.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 4
Member Bell concurred, she thought this was going against the
current Congestion Management Program in controlling excess
traffic.
Chairman Clements stated her concern was with the seven spaces as
you come into the entryway. She had entertained at worksession,
the deletion of these spaces and landscaping installed, which would
provide a safer entry and exit for persons using this complex.
Member Fontane agreed. She was also concerned with safety.
Mr. ward replied that the City Street Standards provided criteria
for space between the cross local street and the nearest head -in
parking space, which in this case would be 40 - 50 feet. They were
in that range with a little over 40 feet.
Member Fontane stated it would bring the ratio down to 6.4 if the
7 spaces were eliminated.
Mr. Ward offered to eliminate the spaces with the thought of adding
a condition that if the spaces were needed, they could be added
back in with an administrative change to the plan.
Member Cottier thought that was an acceptable compromise, and that
the parking would still be adequate at 7 spaces per 1,000.
Member Cottier moved for approval of Horsetooth Business Park
P.U.D. - Preliminary and Final with the deletion of the seven
parking spaces on the west side of the building, closest to the
building.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
Member Fontane asked if they should add that the area should be
used for landscaping.
Member Cottier agreed, with the understanding that if parking does
prove to be a problem, the project can come back for an
administrative change.
Member Bell concurred.
The motion was approved 5-0.
#71-93B - WATERGLEN P.U.D. - FINAL.
Planner Olt gave the Staff report stating that this was a request
for approval of a mixed use development on 166.8 acres located on
the northwest side of Vine Drive and Interstate 25. The proposed
uses of this plan were 477 single family lots, 100 multi -family
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 3
Mr. Ward replied that it was high. If you look at the Urban Land
Institute figures for medical buildings it was 5 to 7 spaces per
1,000 s.f.
Member Bell asked if this was a convenient care facility.
Mr. Ward replied that they were family doctors.
Member Bell asked about the future building's tenant.
Mr. Ward replied that it would be open leasable space.
Member Cottier asked if there were 52 or 54 spaces, it states 54 on
the site plan.
Mr. Ward replied, 52 spaces, with 2 handicapped spaces.
Member Cottier asked about the status of the future building.
Mr. Ward replied that it was owned by W.W. Reynolds Company and was
not scheduled for development within the next year.
Member Cottier asked what kind of condition it was in, and could
cars park there.
Mr. Ward replied it was not overgrown with weeds, but there was a
wetland area there and sometimes it gets soft.
Member Cottier stated that Staff presented to them that the average
parking for medical was 4,000 per s.f. in town. She would prefer
not to be conservative in parking needs, especially since there
would be joint parking in the future.
Mr. Ward replied he did not know what they would do in the meantime
until that parking would be there. Fort Collins has an parking
ordinance. The requirement is 2 spaces for every three employees
and the philosophy is that the operator of the business knows how
much parking they need. The applicants were leery of not providing
adequate parking.
Chairman Clements asked for public input.
There was none.
Member Cottier commented that she wished they would be a stronger
in discouraging excess parking and given the record, it seemed to
work for other medical offices. She was disappointed this was
going through, but thought that it was not a big enough issue to
deny the project. She hoped that if they find they have excess
parking, they turn it into landscaping.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 24, 1994
Page 2
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Chairman Clements turned over the meeting to Vice Chairman Cottier.
Member Fontane moved for approval of Consent Item #2.
Member Carnes seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0, with Chairman Clements abstaining for
a conflict of interes-.
#43-94 HORSETOOTH EAST BUSINESS PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL.
Member Bell asked for discussion about the parking demands of this
project.
Planner Olt responded that the applicant was proposing 54 vehicle
parking spaces for the 7,000 s.f. building. That would work out to
be 7.7 spaces for east 1,000 s.f. of leasable floor area. The
applicant was here to address Member Bell's question.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that this medical
building was set up to be a fairly intense use. The 7,000 s.f.
building would be shared by 7 doctors. The breakdown would be 7
doctors, clerical and reception staff, nurses, technicians, and
patients. If, on a full booked day, 52 spaces would be needed.
There is not any readily available transit to this area. This
building is also set up for shared parking for another building in
the future. When that building develops the overall parking ratio
would be 4.8 per 1,000.
Member Bell asked if the total number of parking spaces was
including the additional future building.
Mr. Ward replied that all that was included in this PUD was this
building, the additional future building was anticipated to be
2,500 s.f. conventional office/industrial building. There was
another 100 spaces projected that would finish out the development
of this site.
Member Bell asked if the total overall parking ration would be 4.8
spaces per 1,000 s.f.
Mr. Ward replied that was correct.
Member Bell asked if this fit into a national average.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
OCTOBER 24, 1994
STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD
COUNCIL LIAISON:
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Chairman Rene
Clements.
Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Strom
(arrived at 6:57 p.m.). Member Walker absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Ludwig, Shepard, Herzig,
Wamhoff, Vosburg, Schlueter, Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent
agenda, which includes the following items:
1.
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22 AND 29TH PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARD HEARINGS.
2.
#54-87AC
HARMONY MARKET PUD, LOTH FILING, LEE'S CYCLERY -
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL.
3.
#13-82BL
OAKRIDGE PUD, DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORNERSTORE - FINAL.
4.
#66-93E
WINDTRAIL PARR PUD - FINAL (CONTINUED)
5.
#43-94
HORSETOOTH EAST BUSINESS PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL.
6.
#43-92C
NICO RESTORATION/OFFICE PUD (921 E. PROSPECT ROAD)
- AMENDED FINAL.
7.
#6-87G
TACO JOHN'S AT THE SQUARE PUD - PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL.
8.
#3-84H
UPLANDS PROSPECT BUSINESS PARK, FILING 1 - FINAL
(CONTINUED).
9.
#146-79R
TOTAL PETROLEUM AT RAINTREE SHOPPING CENTER PUD,
TRACT H - AMENDED FINAL.
10.
#90-85J
WILDWOOD FARM PUD, 3RD FILING - FINAL.
11.
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF FINAL APPROVAL.
12.
RESOLUTION PZ94-14 EASEMENT VACATION.
13.
RESOLUTION PZ94-15 EASEMENT VACATION.
14.
RESOLUTION PZ94-16 EASEMENT VACATION.
15.
#40-94A
EAST LINCOLN ANNEXATION AND ZONING.
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
16.
#71-93B
WATERGLEN PUD - FINAL.
17.
#44-94
WOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY.
Member Bell asked for consent Item #5, Horsetooth East Business
Park PUD, be pulled for discussion.
Chairman Clements asked for a separate vote on item 2 due to a
conflict of interest.
Member Fontane moved for approval of consent items 1, 31 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.