Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARAGON POINT PUD PHASE FOUR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 8.2.93 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 48 91i - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 2, 1993 Continuation of the July 26, 1993 meeting Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The August 2, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Walker, Bernie Strom, Jennifer Fontaine, Sharon Winfree and Jan Cottier. Members Clements -Cooney and Klataske were absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, and Georgiana Deines. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 12 - Paragon Point PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #48-91H; Item 13 - Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing - Preliminary and Final, #48-91I; Item 14 - Provincetowne PUD - Second Amendment to the Overall Development Plan, #73-82P (was continued until the September 27, 1993 meeting); Item 15 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary, #73-82N (continued until the September 27, 1993 meeting); Item 16 - Fairbrooke PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #65-82W; Item 17 - Fairbrooke PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary, #65-82X; Item 18 - McDonald's at Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 2nd Filing - Appeal of Administrative Change, #1-88D. PARAGON POINT PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. #48-91H PARAGON POINT PUD 4TH FILING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. #48-91I Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff reports on the two items, recommending approval on both with a condition as stated in the Staff report on the 4th filing. Chairman Walker asked about the change that had occurred in January of this year as an administrative change that dropped the number of units and the density, could he have some background in that decision making process. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted that at Member Winfree's request, Staff did provide a set of minutes of all the previous preliminary plans for Paragon for the Board to look over. When you look back over the minutes of the first through third filings, you would find that density and the concept of the variance did not play a major role at that time. This was a topic that has evolved in importance and recognition by both Staff and the Board in the last several months. Prior to that time, while we were looking for 3 units to the acre, we saw a lot of projects that were coming in at three units per acre or the density calculations were being interpreted in somewhat differently than what we were interpreting them now. Ms. Albertson -Clark went on to say that she was not directly involved in the administrative change, but her sense on that was that at the time Staff felt that was the appropriate way to go with Paragon Point given the fact that there are some unique site constraints on this area and at that point, Staff was comfortable with the reduction in density. It became an issue on this project in May when we saw the 4th filing for the first time. Chairman Walker stated that they were "batting around" small changes and what was approved now was 224 units and they denied 226 and now they were looking at 233 and yet the big change occurred from the original plan at 335 down to 224, and that was done administratively. Member Winfree asked about the chart on page 2 and the text underneath, there were some discrepancies in the numbers and could she have clarification on that. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the chart was labeled, "Description of Proposed Amendment," and under the amendment section, there should be some data under Parcel B that should be labeled as "land use as duplexes," three acres with a density of 5.3 units per acre with a total of 16 units. The single family phase under Parcel C should be labeled 9.5 acres for the overall site, 5.2 dwelling units per acre with a total of 49 units. It is B and C that are under specific review tonight as the 4th filing, a total of 65 lots, 16 duplex lots. Member Winfree asked about the January 25, 1993 meeting, the minutes read that Mr. Shepard of the Planning Department stated, "that it was the intention to have filing four carry the burden of meeting the overall development plan with the number of units per acre that meets or exceeds 3 per acre," that was based on the performance of phase four. Then Mr. Sell stated that, "there would be enough density available in filing four to make the three density units per acre." Could there be a comment on that. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the fourth filing did meet the three units per acre, with tonights proposal put it at 1.5 units per acre, it probably would of been very difficult to take the fourth filing and put enough density on that alone to bring the entire gross site up to three units per acre. The number of units would have to be doubled. Member Cottier stated there was a definite need for the calculation of density to be done consistently and she thought it was still not being done consistently. Her recollection of this particular project was that the interpretation was to calculate density for this project on a net basis because of all the undevelopable land that was to be maintained as open space for the public, not just for this development alone. All along in previous considerations of this project, she thought the Board had been looking at net density, not gross density. In that regard, it has always been in the context that this did meet the three dwelling units per acre. Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing developer, replied to Member Winfree's comment on the minutes and that his comment about making up that density was in the context of net density, not gross density. There was no way they could of done it on a gross density basis. Mr. Sell gave a presentation with slides on the projects, giving an overview and review of how this project has progressed from the beginning and the site characteristics they have had to deal with, the flood plain, openspace and wetland areas, elevations, steep terrain, Fossil Creek, bluffs, Natural Resource Management Plan, vegetation in the area west of Fossil Creek, erosion problems, flat areas of the prairie, prairie dogs and the Stonecreek Tributary. 2 Mr. Sell went over the improvements the developer has made to the site including developing a Natural Resource Management Plan. A Master Plan was developed for the park area, the ponds have been constructed, revegetation and reseeding, the walkways have been constructed, the project is using raw water for irrigating, the mini park with a xeriscape demonstration garden on the site. Mr. Sell reviewed what has been built; Phase I including the park, the infrastructure has been completed in Phase II but no homes have been constructed there yet, Phase III, the infrastructure there is in early stages of completion. The greenbelts, the walkway has been constructed, it would be the first leg through the property of the Fossil Creek Trail. There is a seven foot wide concrete trail that has been constructed with the exception of the bridges over Fossil Creek. Mr. Sell stated that this project had been caught in an area of change that was going on in relationship to density. In the early stages of the project, they were directed on how to calculate their density and do it on a net basis, as was discussed earlier. It has been a policy in the planning process when you do an Overall Development Plan that you indicate densities as high as you might ever anticipate because of the reasons of spending the time to come back and getting an approval to increase density. Mr. Sell reviewed what was originally approved on the Overall Development Plan and what the proposed changes would be and the density on the property. Mr. Sell handed out a book of supplemental information to the project. Mr. Sell went over the fencing requirements, due to some concerns; he reiterated that the fencing would be an open type fencing. Mr. Sell went over the requirements of the Land Use Policies Plan and the Goals and Objectives of the Natural Resources Policies Plan and how this project meets those requirements. Chairman Walker stated that he thought in this case, net density was acceptable. He thought that the biggest impact of the administrative change approved in January was the removal of the multi -family completely. What was the rational for doing that. Mr. Sell replied that the rational was really based on preference more than anything by the Developer. The problem was the success of the project. They had thought that it would take four to five years to get to this area of the site. At that point, the developer would have more experience to deal with a multi -family area. Chairman Walker asked if the new Overall Development Plan would still have 130 single family and 65 patio or duplex homes and 21 multi -family. Mr. Sell replied that the 21 multi -family units was based on not having gone through the detailed process in that area. It would probably take some work with Natural Resources maybe wanting to reconfigure the upper wetland a little. He thought 21 units was pretty realistic. Member Fontaine commented on the decrease in numbers in density and recommended to the first time developer that he put numbers in his proposals that he aims to meet or at least in this community plans to go above. 3 Mr. Sell replied that it was not the developers intention to do that, it was his. The reason for putting the high numbers was that it was a standard practice in planning a project to use larger numbers than you anticipate. Member Fontaine stated that it was unfortunate that the concerns about density in Fort Collins have come out just recently. She thought that this project, after moving all the numbers around, was a reasonable development for this property at this point. Member Cottier commented on the increasing issue of density. She thought that maybe on the Overall Development Plans they should start giving minimum density numbers as well as maximum, in terms of the concerns that if projects were coming in with a mix of densities. She thought it was hard, with the way the statistics were kept, to actually compare single family units versus multi -family units versus patio homes and acreage devoted to each on an Overall Development Plan basis. In looking at this project and looking at the Land Use Policies Plan where there is the policy on residential areas providing for a mix of housing densities. There were no standards or guidelines on how much should be single family and how much should be higher density apartments. It was interesting to note that the original rational for this was to justify higher densities. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Joe Schwartz, resident of Paragon Point and representing the residents in Paragon Point. He presented a document indicating support from the surrounding residents on Phase 4 of Paragon Point. He went over the positive aspects of being able to deal directly with the developer and thought that everything done to date had been well planned. Mr. Greg Rigen, resident of Paragon Point, stated that agreed with Mr. Schwartz. He thought that the project was quality and the developer had come through with everything he said he was going to do and he believed that was in part because of being a first time developer. He has total faith in anything he suggests and believes that the quality of life was staring them in the face out there. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Member Fontaine asked about the loss of commercial area. How did it get in there in the beginning if it wasn't going to meet the transit route and the issues that it needed to have. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that she could only give a best guess on that. When they do an Overall Development Plan, Staff does not evaluate it against the policies and criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. They evaluate it against the Land Use Policies Plan. For commercial areas that are less in scale than a neighborhood shopping center or a community shopping center, there were no specific policies in the Land Use Policies to tell them where those kinds of uses should go. What Staff has done more recently was to do a calculation against the Land Development Guidance Point Charts to get a sense of whether a commercial plan would be supported under the LDGS at time of preliminary. She did not think that was done at the time that this Overall Development Plan was looked at. She did not think that the commercial area was viable because of the Regional Shopping Center including Pace, Builders Square and Steele's. Member Fontaine asked about points given for collector and arterial streets and was that measured by what existed now or was the future given consideration. When it was not going 4 to meet the criteria for being next to an arterial and a collector intersection. She says, in the future that surely would be a major intersection and is that measured in the present time or was it taking the future into consideration. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the future was taken into consideration and if they have at least a collector and/or an arterial street system planned on an approved Overall Development Plan, then there is credit given even though it was not existing. Chairman Walker commented that he would like to see more realistic numbers on Overall Development Plans. He had some serious questions about the Administrative Change done back in January and that for total units there was a drop of around 30% and that was done administratively. He felt that was a very significant administrative change and that something that large should be brought before the board. Chairman Walker went on to say that this was a quality project but the issue was the numbers game that had been played and he was satisfied with the mix of housing that was being proposed tonight. He suggested that as a policy, he would like to see more realistic numbers on the Overall Development Plans. Member Fontaine asked how much of the infrastructure was in now and was what was planned going to just cover the development plan here or was it going to cover the 335 total units. Steve Human, TST Consulting Engineers, replied that Phase I,II, and III was complete, Phase III was lacking some curb, gutter and asphalt. Phase IV infrastructure was set on its own as far as water lines to the main water line in Lemay Avenue and sewer line tie to the existing sewer line. He wanted to make clear for the record that the water lines were Fort Collins/Loveland Water District, the sewer lines were South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The only infrastructure that was City related were streets and Light and Power. The escrow funds for Trilby Road and Lemay have been satisfied by the Developer. Member Winfree commented that the issue with her was not if this was figured on gross or net acreage. This was a unique property and amenities were being provided and the acreage was being given over to the open space areas. The impact of the change in density was not from problems found with developing the properties and she had a concern that when you have an ODP and 18 months later the Board was seeing something other than what they thought they were going to get and she did not want to see planning by market demand. Member Winfree also felt constrained by the administrative change that was approved of January of 1993. What they were looking at now was an increased in density from what was approved at that time. She would be supporting approval of this project, but had concerns with comparing what they were seeing tonight to what was approved in December of 1991. Member Cottier commented on the administrative change and she had looked up the guidelines for administrative changes to Master Plans in the LDGS and it stated that any change could be approved administratively, unless it was a major change. Major change is defined as an increase in density and there was not any word on decreasing density. Technically it was by the books. The language in alot of these requirements should be looked at. She thought this was an example of a project with very good planning and this was the first project that she was aware of that has a Natural Resource Management Plan. �7 Member Cottier moved for approval of the Paragon Point Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Fontaine seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Member Cottier moved for approval of Paragon Point, Phase 4, Preliminary and Final. Member Fontaine seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. FAIRBROOKE PUD - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. #65-82W FAIRBROOKE PUD - 7TH FILING - PRELIMINARY. #65-82X. Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave both the Staff reports on the Amended Overall Development Plan and the 7th Filing recommending approval of both projects and the solar orientation variance. Mark Linder, applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He stated that the City of Fort Collins was the owner of the remaining tracts of land in Fairbrooke through a foreclosure of a Special Improvement District that failed. The parcels were all put out to bid and he was the successful bidder on a part of Tract D, his intention was to develop the 20 single family lots on that site. The amendment tonight would allow that with the change from 71 townhomes to 20 single family lots, a historically renovated farm house and an expanded playground for Bauder Elementary School. There have been meetings with the neighborhood regarding the barn and the conditions of the corrals and barns. This parceling of the property in this fashion was what came out of those meetings. Mr. Linder gave a history of the Master Planning of the Fairbrooke site. He felt that people plan parcels based on the best available information at that time. At the time of the Master Planning of Fairbrooke there truly was a bias towards putting as much density on as they possibly could get. Just a few years after the LDGS had come into force and it was just the philosophy of the time. Some of the multi -family in Fairbrooke was built. The amendment reduces the density from 6.9 to 5.2 and was aware that the Board was concerned. The real change tonight was just on Tract D. The other Tracts had already been before the Board in one by one in their own planning submittals and the Master Plan was just not updated at that time. The remaining tracts were all subject to a PUD condition and the Board would have complete review over them and if they insist on maintaining the density on them, the Board could do that. Mr. Linder stated they held neighborhood meetings on this site and received good input. The primary concern was that the site provide another access point the Bauder School, which it does. There is a sidewalk connection that was aligned with the existing road. That access would be built by himself and deeded to the Poudre R-1 School District and they would be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Linder went over the architectural compatibility of the new homes with the existing homes. He showed slides of the streetscape and what it would be composed of; also, the fencing, the drainage and streetlights, and the request for a solar variance. .'