HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/01/19980
•
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Vice Chair Craig.
Members present:. Chair Sally Craig, Jennifer Carpenter, Bob Davidson, Jerry
Gavaldon, and Karen Weitkunat. Chairperson Colton was absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Ludwig, Blandford, Eckman, Shepard and Dairies.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
1.
Minutes of the September 4, 1997, September 18, 1997,
October 2, 1997, October 16, 1997, August 20, 1998 and
September 3, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings. (Continued)
2.
#5-95
Ed Carroll Motor Company - Project Development Plan
3.
#6-96J
Harmony Centre PUD, Pad 3 - Project Development Plan
4.
#34-98
Moronni Annexation & Zoning
Discussion:
5.
#34-97
Lemay Avenue 3rd Annexation & Zoning (Continued)
6.
#90-85P
Country Ranch at Preston Center - Amended Preliminary
and Final PUD (Preston Center 2nd Filing)
Mr. Blanchard. Noted that Item 2, Ed Carroll Motor Company Project Development Plan
has a memo in front of the Board that is based on Leanne Harder's discussion last
Friday on staff recommendation changes based on improvements resulting in the
project complying with the Code concerning the lighting plan. The memorandum had
not been noted as being present tonight, so it constitutes a change from the advertised
agenda.
Agenda Item 3, the Harmony Center PUD Pad 3 project development plan. Mr.
Blanchard read the revised condition into the record. Staff recommends approval of the
Harmony Center Pad 3 PDP Project Number 6-96J with the following condition: A
. certificate of occupancy will not be issued for the Harmony Center Pad 3 PDP (Kinko's)
until either all Harmony Centre PUD 1' filing public improvements are constructed,
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 2
inspected, and accepted by the City of Fort Collins; or sufficient funds as determined by
the Director of Engineering are placed in escrow for the installation of such
improvements. This reading reflected minor changes.
Agenda Item No. 4, The name has been changed from the Moroni Annexation and
Zoning to the HH 36 Annexation and Zoning.
Discussion Agenda No. 5, Lemay Avenue Trtl Annexation and Zoning, is continued to
next meeting.
Ms. Craig called for requests to pull items from the consent agenda. There was no
response.
Moved by Ms. Weitkunat, seconded by Mr. Gavaldon: To approve the consent
agenda, with the noted change on Item 2, the noted addition to conditions on Item
3, and the noted name change on Item 4. Motion approved unanimously.
Project: Country Ranch at Preston Center, Amended Preliminary and
Final P.U.D. (Preston Center 2nd Filing), #90-85P
Project Description: Request for an Amended Preliminary and Final P.U.D. for
118 multi -family dwelling units on 10.52 acres located in the
Preston Center, south of Harmony Road, between Corbett
Drive and County Road #9. The P.U.D. includes a
clubhouse and recreational facilities. The parcel is zoned
HC, Harmony Corridor.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Mr. Shepard noted the nature of the request, for a preliminary and amended PUD for
118 multifamily dwelling units on 10.25 acres, located on the Preston Center. A new
Timberwood Drive would be extended through the site. A clubhouse and recreational
facilities would be included. The parcel is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. This is
reviewed by the LDGS, not a Land Use Code item, that grandfathered in elements that
include this request.
Planning and Zoning Board • •
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 3
The applicant has included items in the Board's packet, including a matrix to describe
the application. Color renderings have also been provided of the architectural
elevations.
Staff recommends approval of this item as an amended preliminary and final PUD.
Ms. Linda Ripley spoke on behalf of Brisbane Companies. They are a national
company, the ninth largest builder of multifamily developments. They also own and
management their projects for 20 years of longer, speaking to their commitment to the
longevity and quality of the project.
Ms. Ripley introduced Scott McFadden; Michael Chilona, a landscape architect; Colin
Russell is the architect from Cincinnati; Tricia Krech, formerly with JR Engineering, was
project manager; Matt Delich is present to address traffic concerns.
Ms. Ripley outlined the area of the development on the location map and the
surrounding developments. She stated that in the Harmony Corridor Plan, the 30-acre
subject area was designated as mixed -use activity center and potential neighborhood
center. Land uses appropriate are a neighborhood center, industry, retailIcommercial,
and high -density residential.
• Wildwood Overall Development Plan is a 130-acre approved ODP adjacent to the
subject site. As a result of that approved ODP, the subject property was designated for
mixed -use activity or transitional land use.
A preliminary PUD was approved for the entire Preston Center for commercial
development. Multifamily housing was approved for 118 dwelling units. The application
tonight encompasses a 118-unit housing project, so this project concept had been
approved for this location at a prior time.
The proposal is being evaluated under the Land Development Guidance System and
the applicable point chart. A project needs to score 100. This project scored 124, 85 of
which were base points. This is an extremely high score. Ms. Ripley reviewed scoring
criteria for members of the audience.
Other City policies achieved by this project are providing a variety of types and costs of
housing; fills a need for multifamily and affordable housing; provides a transition
between single-family and commercial areas.
Michael Schlana (sp.), a landscape architect with V.F. Ripley, reviewed the site plan.
This is a linear site. The main two entrances of the project. are in the middle, off of a
. traffic circle, and to the east, off County Road 9. The front doors face toward the street,
in accordance with the guidance of Staff and City Plan. Townhome-style apartments
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 4
face Timberwood Drive. The setback from the property line averages about 15 feet.
Apartment buildings along Corbett Drive face Corbett and the inside of the project.
The buildings on the south property line are a smaller scale than the other buildings.
They have been divided and broken up to work with neighborhood concerns to make
them more compatible with, and provide a smoother transition to, the existing
neighborhood.
The parking lot is set up for internal vehicular separation that tends to hide the parking
area from surrounding views. The property slopes to a detention area on the east,
which will be maintained as a green recreational area. A swale will carry water from
Corbett, through the parking area, and to the detention area. Pedestrian walkways will
feed out through landscaping to the public sidewalks on the surrounding streets.
Mr. Schlana reviewed a matrix that was distributed to the Commission prior to the
meeting. It compares the setbacks and elevational differences of the buildings in the
development. SBD is the total setback distance between Country Ranch buildings and
the Wildwood Second filing residences. These distances vary from 45.75 feet to 105
feet.
The buildings are generally in the same elevation, with some Country Ranch buildings
lower than the single-family residential structures by a few feet. The VED, or vertical
elevation difference, at its greatest point between the structures is a little under five feet
in elevation for a little over 100 feet in distance.
The southern property line has various evergreen and large deciduous trees that, along
with planned shrubbery, will maximize the buffering. A shadowbox wood fence with
brick columns will be built as well. Mr. Schlana presented the plans presented at the
neighborhood meetings. He noted the various changes that had been made to the site
plan since that meeting.
The clubhouse will have an area for young children to play, a pool, and will contain
offices, restroom facilities, and neighborhood meeting room.
Ms. Ripley presented a rendering of the townhome units to provide a visual sense of
height and appearance. All buildings will have a 5/12 roof pitch; some will be wider and
therefore taller. She noted the brick and siding and general high quality of materials.
The developers plan to be in an ownership interest for at least 20 years and therefore
prefers to use high -quality materials in its construction. She further presented a
rendering of the one-story clubhouse with swimming pool.
Ms. Ripley reviewed the outcome of the neighborhood meetings. The applicant feels
that issues were addressed as well and completely as possible, with a great deal of
Planning and Zoning Board • •
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 5
• redesign that was applied as a result of those discussions. -High-quality building
materials will be used. No three-story buildings will be built. The landscape buffering
will be attractive and effective. Because of the company's dedication to quality design
and maintenance, property value issues have been addressed.
The applicant is comfortable with the design of the site plan and the changes that have
been made both at the request of staff and the neighbors. The project is in
conformance with the Harmony Corridor Plan, the Wildwood ODP, is consistent with the
previously -approved PUD, has gained 124 points on the City's point chart, and meets
all the criteria in the LDGS.
In response to questions by Mr. Davidson, the applicant noted that the 16-unit building
will essentially be two 8-unit buildings abutted together. Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson
stated that he wanted an overview of landscaping and proximity to sidewalk; and that
he did not get from the applicant sufficient information to determine the visual impact;
and moved to continue the item until the applicant had furnished the information he had
requested. Upon question by the chair, Mr. Blanchard stated that continuance would
not be appropriate before public input. Mr. Davidson withdrew his motion.
Mr. Davidson asked for the setback of the 16-unit building from the curb and from the
• inside of the sidewalk. The applicant stated that the setback of Corbett side with 16
feet from the property line. The perspectives presented on the slideshow are not easy
to generate, and the applicant felt that it would be easy to visualize the impact with the
16-unit building by looking at the 8-unit one. The landscapings and setbacks were
pointed out on the overview diagram. They are the same for 8-unit buildings and 16-unit
buildings. The inside of the sidewalk is 16 feet from the building. The length of the 16-
unit building is 165 feet. Mr. Davidson expressed concern that there was not enough
evergreen foliage to provide a visual barrier between the units and the neighbors in the
Wildwood Farm area.
Jerry Byrd, 2602 Timberwood Drive, asked why the road bed has been cut through the
property if the application has not been processed for approval. Mr. Byrd further asked
who is paying for the road. He expressed strong disagreement to the Country Ranch
development. Plans do not conform to the demographics of the area. While Mr. Byrd is
in favor of subsidized housing, the project does not fit well in the area in terms of
character, density, and design of housing.
Wildwood housing ranges from $110,000 to $250,000 in the area. It was a community
requirement that sold units could not exceed 20 percent of the available units. Approval
of the present application would devalue property in the area. Mr. Byrd advocated a
concept of a set percentage of rental units if the project was approved. This would
provide a better concept and encourage pride of ownership. Wildwood Townhomes
presently run at 15 percent of rental units, individually owned.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 6
Mr. Byrd expressed concern over the size of the children's play area and its location in
the detention pond. He expressed some dismay that as many as 360 children could
live in the new complex with very little play area. The Wildwood neighborhood spends
substantial moneys maintaining their greenbelt area, and there is concern about its
future should it become an impromptu playground.
Mr. Byrd reiterated that this presents too high a density for the area, particularly in view
of existing traffic problems. Preston Junior High School generates a great deal of traffic
problems. A new elementary school is planned as well that will be full the day it opens,
with an estimated 1100-1300 cars circulating in the area. The children that live in the
new project will be bused elsewhere, creating further traffic. Other areas of shopping
and recreation will further compound traffic problems.
Timberwood Drive needs to be extended to Timberline. Mr. Byrd related that he was
told that the drive would probably not be extended by the fall of 1999, because the pay-
as-you-go requirements placed the burden on PVH, the property owner. PVH has
stated that it may be as long as 30 years before they extend the road. Mr. Byrd stated
that Mr. Bracke had agreed that the road needs to be extended.
Mr. Byrd stated that the number of cars circulating in the area would create a
tremendous safety problem. A light would be needed to facilitate traffic to get onto
Harmony. The time delay has been alternately related as 33 seconds to 10 minutes.
Mr. Byrd reiterated the importance of extending Timberwood and installing a traffic light.
An emergency vehicle could not access the neighborhood during peak traffic hours.
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, stated that she has been a long-term advocate
of affordable housing. The city holds many minimum -wage workers who cannot find
affordable housing. Ms. Maloney stated that one of the primary obstacles to the goal of
affordable housing for all has been community opposition.
Ms. Maloney addressed density. The Land Development Guidance System and City
Plan provide for higher density. Higher density provides for a more compact city and
easier provision of services, despite its apparent unpopularity. It is good for the
community.
Low-income housing has been encouraged by the City for many years.
Mixed land use, providing for different uses and a range of values is provided for in City
policy.
No City ordinance or policy gives residents the right to restrict value of housing in their
neighborhoods.
Planning and Zoning Board • •
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 7
• A local study several years ago revealed that the addition of affordable housing in
neighborhoods did not affect neighborhood property values.
It is insulting to minimum -wage workers to imply that their presence will increase crime.
Ms. Maloney stated that this housing is needed and will provide much -needed quality
housing for the workers in the community. The community should work in a caring and
supportive, rather than an exclusive, fashion.
Gordon Gartner, of 2925 Indigo Circle North, stated that he was not acting in an official
capacity, although he represented the majority of homeowners in the area. They do not
want this project in their area. If that sounds uppity, so be it; if it sounds petulant, so be
it. There are many other workable areas for this project.
While Mr. Gartner was under the impression that this project was low-income housing,
the inference of the presentation was that of higher than that. Mr. Gartner chose to
retire in Fort Collins after 35 years of living in other areas. He lived in this area previous
to that time. He chose to retire in the Wildwood area specifically. He feels double-
crossed if this project is allowed. The neighborhood is encouraging of homes, office
areas, and other developments that would support and complement the area.
• There being no further public input, the chair closed the public portion of the hearing
and requested a review of criteria from Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard stated that Board's criteria was the Land Development Guidance System;
compliance with the All -Development criteria; and compliance with the variable criteria,
which was the point chart that helps gauge the appropriateness of this project. Mr.
Shepard stated that issues of property values, make-up of tenants, rental/ownership of
units were not appropriate criteria for evaluating the project.
Ms. Weitkunat asked staff for clarification on the questions regarding roads. Mr.
Shepard emphasized the importance of the Timberwood extensions. He stated that the
Timberwood extension to County Road 9 was being undertaken solely by the affected
property owners. A plan has been submitted to the City for the road, and a road cut
has been made that effectively demarcates the different adjoining properties.
The Timberwood extension to the east was being requested as a component of Poudre
Valley Hospital's first phase of its project. That project is being reviewed at this time
and will come to the Planning and Zoning Board in the near future.
The City does not have a formula for predicting the number of children in a multifamily
• project. However, Poudre School District statistics estimate 14-20 elementary students
for 118 dwelling units. The new elementary school is a charter school rather than a
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 8
neighborhood walk-in school. The children in this project will be assigned to the
Timnath school. Fewer numbers will be generated for junior high and high school.
Those students would be accepted by Preston and FCHS.
The detention pond area maintained nicely by Wildwood will be close to the junior high
and elementary school. The recreational area has been fenced by the Poudre School
District for athletic purposes. Harmony Park, when built, will be a community park.
The total number of children predicted for this project was not calculated, nor is that
type of number calculated for any project. Mr. Davidson expressed concern over the
lack of green space for children and stated that a similar project on Swallow had
expanded green space due to the Board's concern. An irrigated flat bluegrass area will
be maintained in the detention area and available as a passive play area. The applicant
pointed out several areas to be used as an active recreational area. After a heavy rain,
the detention area will drain within 24 hours after a heavy rain, with wet soil remaining
for one to two days. From bank to bottom is about 8-1/2 feet. The maximum slope is
four -to -one. The dimension of 92x65 is for the flat bottom and does not include the
slopes.
In response to questions by Ms. Carpenter, the applicant stated that the addition of two
more trees per unit would provide a possibly overgrown area, completely shaded, of a
completely different character. Mr. Davidson clarified that his suggestion was one tree
for every two buildings.
In response to further questioning by Mr. Davidson, the applicant stated that the depth
of the 16-unit building is 65 feet. Mr. Davidson stated that the renderings did not
accurately reflect the visual impact of the 16-unit building. The applicant noted that
while they tried to provide perspective renderings, such efforts were above and beyond
the planning requirements of elevations. Mr. Davidson stated that such renderings
would be readily made with applicable software. He stated that the mass and scale of
the buildings were overwhelming at the residential street side of the development.
Mr. Shepard presented a slide of the Corbett Street streetscape. He noted the open
space at Corbett Street. The applicant stated that the larger buildings were placed
along Corbett Street so as not to face the existing residential development; that the
building sizes were not to enhance affordability but rather were of a typical mass for a
multifamily project; that the density of 11.2 did not present a particularly high density in
comparison to other Fort Collins developments; that the proximity of the buildings to the
street was a result of the preferences of City Plan rather than the wishes of the project
designers. The buildings were not well -placed on the north side of the project due to the
building style and the property configuration.
Planning and Zoning Board • •
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 9
Mr. Davidson stated that while in smaller projects, proximity to the street is important;
but in a project this size, the mass that is presented close to the street is way out of
proportion. He stated that project presentations typically showcased the most attractive
building views and withdrew the other less -appealing ones. He had asked for those
views at work session and was angered and disturbed that they had not been provided.
Moved by Mr. Davidson: To continue the item until further information had been
provided. Mr. Blanchard noted that while the motion was in order, generally a rebuttal
time was afforded the applicant. Mr. Davidson stated that these motions should have
been made more often in the past. Mr. Blanchard noted the differences between
Roberts Rules and the rules of procedure that had been established for P&Z hearings.
Mr. Davidson stated that his motion was appropriate in order to keep from wasting time
at the hearing. Motion died for lack of a second.
The applicant declined the opportunity for rebuttal. In response to questions by Ms.
Carpenter, the applicant reiterated the lengths of the buildings. Mr. Shepard stated that
the extension of Timberwood to the west could not be answered exactly in terms of a
time frame. It would be no less than 18 months and two to three years following that.
Mr. Blanchard stated that the recommendation to include that road extension to be in
the first phase was not the approved plan. The applicant stated that the traffic study
• was done both with and without consideration to the road extension.
Mr. Gavaldon stated that there seemed to be orientation differences between the
renderings at work session and the meeting tonight and asked for clarification. He
stated that some of the black -and -white renderings would be more informative if
provided in color. The applicant stated that some of the buildings had been broken out
as a result of neighborhood meetings but that the renderings were showing the
originally planned eight -unit buildings. Color renderings can probably be provided in
place of the black -and -white ones. Mr. Gavaldon stated that some of the information
was not completely consistent, making evaluation more difficult.
In response to questions by Ms. Craig, the applicant stated that on the south side, the
fence would be solid throughout that entire length of the property. Mr. Shepard referred
to the city-wide signal timing study. The signal timing does not allow more than six cars
at a time to turn left from Corbett to go west onto Harmony. This is not enough
presently. Mr. Bracke is aware of the situation, and the intersection will be upgraded at
some point to retime the lights.
Moved by Ms. Weitkunat, seconded by Mr. Gavaldon : To approve the Country Ranch
at Preston Center, amended preliminary and final PUD.
. Ms. Weitkunat noted that the project was based on LDGS and that the LDGS criteria
has been satisfied; the project conformed to the overall development and Harmony
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of October 1, 1998
Page 10
Corridor plan; the project met the all -development criteria and scored high on the points
system. As affordable housing, it is important to the community and not out of
character with the surrounding area. The project looked to have high quality and
appropriate to the character of neighborhood and surrounding areas.
Ms. Carpenter stated that the project met the criteria. She pointed out to the neighbors
that the Board is faced with legal criteria; even if the Board agreed with the
observations regarding property values, such was not valid criteria for consideration.
Affordable housing in a mixed -use area is appropriate. Differences with policies
concerning presentations needed to be decided separately and not applied to an
individual proposal.
Mr. Davidson stated that compatibility was an issue. He noted that proper renderings
were needed in order to fully appreciate the impact of high -mass buildings in close
proximity to the street. The Board needs to enforce the concepts of City Plan, even
though this proposal is under LDGS. Had the building been set back 30 feet, it would
be more appropriate from a visual impact standpoint. He pointed out other areas that
were unattractive due to proximity of units to the street. Mr. Davidson has no problem
with the architecture of the building but does not approve the scale so close to the
street.
Mr. Gavaldon noted that Wildwood Townhomes had a similar density to the proposed
project. The project meets the criteria, scope, and balance to be achieved. He
expressed a desire to improve the process with regards to the renderings that would be
required of applicants.
Mr. Davidson further stated that he disagreed that providing renderings would present
difficulty for the applicant. He advocated use of cutting and pasting existing diagrams
and images in order to provide an accurate and readily -available rendering. He stated
that such an effort should take no more than two to three hours of work for a properly -
trained person. He had asked for appropriate renderings at work session and had not
received them.
Ms. Craig noted that sidewalks were off the street; there would be a parkway feeling
along the proposed sidewalk; residents would step out of their front doors and not into a
parking lot; mitigation had been done due to neighborhood input; the ODP had provided
for multifamily in this location; the CDP is one of the better ODPs available from the
mixed use that is provided. Motion passed unanimously.
Staff had no other business. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m