Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/20/1998C� • Council Liaison: Mike Byrne I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Glen Colton (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201 Vice Chair: None due to resignation of Chairperson Bell The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton. Roll Call: Davidson, Carpenter, Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Craig, Colton Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Blandford, Stringer, Baker, McNair, Bracke and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's. 1. Minutes of the September 4th, September 18th, 1997 and July 16, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 3. Resolution PZ98-15 Easement Vacation. 4. Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation. 5. #16-89J Timber Creek and Stetson Creek Overall Development Plan - Partial Abandonment. Discussion Agenda: 6. #90-850 The Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park PUD, Filing One, Amended Preliminary and Final. Member Gavaldon pulled Item #4, Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of Consent Agenda items 2, 3, and 5. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Pro' Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation Project Description: Request to vacate a 6 foot power easement on Lot 1, Sherwood Mews, PUD, (411 North Sherwood Street) located • on Sherwood Street between Sycamore Street and Cherry Street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 2 Member Gavaldon had concerns with the garaged proposed to be built on this property. He was concerned with the architecture of the proposed garage. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department explained that the property owner had a power easement running through his yard and wished to vacate that easement to install a garage. A request for vacation of the easement was routed to all the utilities and the only one that had a problem was Light & Power. The applicant worked with Light and Power, got the power line removed and into another easement, therefore, Light and Power was ready to vacate the old easement. The garage being built does not determine a denial for a utility easement vacation. Chairperson Colton asked if the garage would go through any review. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the garage would go through a building permit review as an accessory use. A vacation easement does not trigger the review of a development project. Director Blanchard reiterated that the review of the garage is not an issue on the easement vacation. It is simply the criteria of does the City still want the easement there or not. The review of the building is a building permit review under which the Planning and Zoning Board does not have a role. He felt that it was inappropriate to bring the garage into consideration of the vacation of an easement. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of Item #4, PZ98-17 Easement Vacation. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. Project: The Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park, Filing One, Amended Preliminary and Final P.U.D. Case #: #90-850 Staff Recommendation: Approval Project Description: Request for an Amended Preliminary and Final P.U.D. for the western one-half of the Preston Center P.U.D. originally granted Preliminary approval on February 12, 1996. The Preston Center, First Filing, is a mixed -use activity center • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 3 consisting of 146,000 square feet of commercial/retail office/bank uses. The site is located south of Harmony Road, between Corbett Drive and the future Gifford Court. The parcel is 12.4 acres in size and zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Hearing Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: "Prior to recording of final documents, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance between the Site Plan/Utility Plans and the ultimate centerline of Harmony Road such that there will be 90 feet of setback from the future edge of pavement." Mr. Shepard stated that the Board received handouts tonight that they did not receive prior to the worksession. • Recommended condition of approval • Letter from Western Property Advisors • Landmark Preservation Commission • Advance Planning Department Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward gave a brief history of the project. Mr. Ward spoke on preservation of the historic structures at the Preston Farm in the 3rd filing, construction of Timberwood Drive to County Road 9, and intersection improvements to Harmony Road and Corbett Drive. Mr. Ward also reviewed the site plan, architecture on the site, building materials, elevations, pedestrian circulation, parking, and landscaping. Member Craig asked about the tenants of the buildings. Mr. Ward gave all the information on tenants that he had at this point. Public Participation Per Hogestad, Acting Chair for the Landmark Preservation Commission stated they have worked closely with the applicant and they were pleased with the outcome. The commission as a whole are very supportive and comfortable with the approval of the • project as presented tonight. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Public Comment Closed. Member Gavaldon asked about storm drainage on the property. Mr. Ward reviewed the proposed plans for drainage not only for this site, but also in the 3rd filing, which will have some different aspects not usually seen to accommodate the historic structures and pedestrian circulation. Mr. Shepard added comments about the redesign of the storm drainage system. Member Davidson had concerns with the right-hand parking lot that is diagonal and that it needed to have a break of trees, and he would like to see 2 trees placed where the middle parking space would be on the diagnal. Member Davidson also had the same concerns on the lower parking area in Phase 5 and in Phase II. Mr. Ward agreed to a landscape islands with a couple of trees in those areas. Member Davison also had concerns with the clock tower and the signage. Mr. Ward replied that the intent is to do a clock face on the east and west side and on the north side only, there would be a simple Group logo, 7 feet by 8 feet. Member Davidson asked if it would be lit and what would be the materials. Bob Hosanna, Architect representing the Group replied that the envelope itself is 8'x7% and the sign itself would be a raised letter in green and blue format. They have not talked about whether it would be lit or not. The intent right now is for the clock faces to be lit so they could be viewed at night. Member Davidson asked how the blue and green would coordinate with the colors of the building. Mr. Hosanna replied there was no blue or green on the building. Member Davidson felt that was a huge clash, usually we like to compliment the colors and he did not see that as a compliment and felt it jumped out of context from the building itself. He did not have such a problem with the lettering, but it does not seem compatible with the design of the building color. Mr. Hosanna replied that in keeping with the Group's image in town, they had not considered changing colors. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Member Davidson asked if he thought they could make it compatible with the building versus the blue and green. Mr. Hosanna replied that he could not speak for Mr. Kendall, but he felt that keeping the blue and green would be important to him. Chairperson Colton asked if this was under the Board's purview. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the sign is regulated by the Sign Code and it is not something that the Planning and Zoning Board regulates. As far as the size and shape, it is some thing that is reviewed by the Building Department. Member Davidson replied that the Board does deal with design and compatibility issues and he did not see the sign compatible with the design and materials of the building. Planner Shepard read from the LDGS, Section A2.7, architecture. Member Davidson asked if it would be a plastic sign versus something with texture, or • something with a muted color. Larry Kendall, President of the Group stated that he shared Member Davidson's concern regarding compatibility. He stated that this would be the 10th office building that they have built and they are very concerned with how those office buildings look. Those buildings have won awards for their aesthetics and compatibility. He stated that they were committed to making this building something they could be proud of. He would also not deface the building with their signage, and that the signage would look like it belonged there and was not an afterthought. He was not sure at this point, what the materials of the signage would be. He asked the Board to consider their track record on office buildings, and that they would do the best they can to make sure it is an attractive building with attractive signage. Member Carpenter asked when the historic phase, the eastern half of this property would be coming forward. Mr. Ward replied that it was submitted into the process on July 2nd, they have received staff comments back and it would be 6 to 10 weeks before a hearing could be scheduled. He stated that they would also need to spend some more time with the LPC. • Member Gavaldon asked if it was in the purview of the Board to asked that there be no signage on the clock tower except the clocks. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Planner Shepard replied no, not unless this project was in the Neighborhood Sign District, the Board does not have that authority. Member Gavaldon also had concerns along with Member Davidson on the signage on the clock tower and did not support the colors of the proposed signage. Mr. Ward replied that Mr. Kendall had indicated that the sign had not be designed, and that they would do everything they could to make it compatible with the building. Mr. Kendall added that what they really wanted to create on Harmony Road is something that feels human scale and that the clock tower is very important to them. Mr. Kendall offered to take their logo off of the tower. Member Carpenter asked about compatible architecture with the eastern portion and the Preston Farm. She did not feel that the architecture here was compatible. Mr. Ward replied that in the 3rd filing architecture, much more scrutiny would be paid to architectural details to conform with the historic structures in the Preston Farm. The closer you get to the historic buildings, the more the architectural compatibility will be evident and scrutinized as was on the previously approved preliminary. Mr. Hosanna added that they did make reference to the grainery with the shape of the clock tower. Member Craig asked about the memo they received regarding right-of-ways on Harmony Road and that the State was looking at changing the Master Plan of Harmony Road. Matt Baker, Engineering, replied that it was not the State, it was the City of Fort Collins, and they are looking at the ultimate design of Harmony Road as a major arterial street, which would be 3 lanes in each direction, turn lanes, and auxiliary lane and bike lanes. That would require additional road widening in places. The City is working on the roadway design with the State to try to incorporate that into future plans and to make sure we have enough room for that and that it fits with the Harmony Corridor Plan. Member Gavaldon moved for approval Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park, Filing One, Amended Preliminary and Final PUD, #90-850 with the condition that, "Prior to recording of final documents, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance between the Site Plan/Utility Plans and the ultimate centerline of Harmony Road such that there will be 80 feet of setback from the future edge of pavement." • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat commented that this is a project that falls under the LDGS, and meets many of the criteria that has been set forth. She commented that she does not have a problem with logo's on buildings, it's part of doing business. She was very sure that the Group would do something extremely tasteful, compatible and artistically favorable. She was looking forward to seeing the rest of the project and what happens with the historic buildings. Member Davidson thanked Mr. Kendall for being flexible and sensitive to the aesthetics of the development. He does think that is very well done for pedestrians and landscaping for the scale that it is. Member Carpenter thanked Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Ward for working on the historic pieces as hard as they have. She is also looking forward to seeing the rest of this project. • Chairperson Colton commented that this was a very nice project and hopes it continues in the eastern portion. Regarding the sign, he understands the concerns of fellow board members, however, he did not have that strong of a concern. He felt that on other Group buildings, the sign is pretty muted. The motion was approved 6-0. Other Business: Pro' Consideration of the Board to rescind its denial of the Harmony Ridge PUD on July 16, 1998. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Harmony Ridge matter was heard earlier by the Board, and the project was denied. Since that time an appeal has been filed to take the question to the City Council. The applicant is attempting to obviate the need for that appeal to go to City Council by attempting to come back before the Board and ask the Board to rescind its earlier denial. If the Board should vote to rescind its earlier denial, that would put the matter back on the table for the Board to consider as a main motion. He instructed the Board to hear the presentation as to why they would like to ask the Board to rescind and if the Board would then decide to rescind, the matter could not be heard tonight. A later Board hearing would then be scheduled. If the Board • decides not to rescind, the issue is closed and the appeal would go forward to the Council. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 8 Member Weitkunat and Member Carpenter excused themselves from the item, due to not hearing the item previously. Discussion was held on whether or not the Board wanted to consider this item. Member Davidson moved not to rescind the earlier decision and let the appeal go forward. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Commoy Planning and Environmentalarvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner Dave Stringer, Development Review Manag Tim Blandford, Development Review Civil Engineer RE: Preston Center, 1" Filing, Recommended Condition of Approval DATE: August 20, 1998 The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Fort Collins have not yet established the final location of the future centerline for the ultimate build -out of Harmony Road. This build -out would be to the "major arterial" standard which includes six through lanes, center left turn lane(s), medians, • auxiliary turn lanes, bike lanes, parkway strips and detached sidewalks. The determination of this ultimate centerline is dependent on survey that is under the auspices of the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department using data from recently approved projects along Harmony Road, including CDOT's 1-25 interchange project. Since Preston Center 1" Filing Amended Preliminary and Final P.U.D. precedes the future establishment of the ultimate centerline, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: "Prior to recording of final documents, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance between the Site Plan/Utility Plans and the ultimate centerline of Harmony Road such that there will be 80 feet of setback from the future edge of pavement.' The applicant is aware of this issue of lag time in determining the ultimate centerline of Harmony Road and has pulled the pad buildings back accordingly. By being next to Celestica, which is designed to the major arterial cross-section, the magnitude of divergence is likely to be minimal. If there is an impact, it will be minor and can be accommodated in the Site Plan. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 " Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Commtn ity Planning and Environmental Services Advance Plai. sng Department City of Fort Collins August 19, 1998 Stanley Whitaker, Vice President Western Property Advisors, Inc. Stanford Plaza, Suite 100 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Whitaker. As you are aware, at its July 22, 1998 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission discussed Western Property Advisors' proposed amendments to the eastern portion of the preliminary PUD for the Preston Center at Wildwood Farms. The Commission's purpose in reviewing the plans was to ensure that the proposed redevelopment protects and maintains the historic character of the farm buildings and the farmstead to the maximum extent feasible. The Preston Farm is a significant historical resource, of statewide value. It is eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and was identified recently as one of the seven most endangered historical resources in Colorado. In considering the Commission's comments, Western Property Advisors will be promoting the preservation of this significant part of Colorado's history. The Landmark Preservation Commission offers its strong support for the revised concepts and plans for the redevelopment of the historic structures and site. The Commission would like to commend you and your associates for your efforts to work with the LPC and with City staff to arrive at a solution that protects the Preston Farm structures. Through your willingness to revise plans and consider alternatives, Western Property Advisors has ensured the future availability of the historical resources. Some comments and concerns regarding the proposed amendments were expressed by Commission members at this meeting. In descending order of importance, these are: a. The "alternative access road" shown off of County Rd. 9 and across Lot 4 should not connect to parking on Lot 2. This access should only provide access to future parking that may be associated with the home on Lot 4. It is the Commission's belief that it is crucial to the preservation of the farmstead that this "alternative access road" to Lot 2 be eliminated, and it would oppose any access that crosses the farm property. To accommodate access, the Commission strongly supports the proposed right -in access located just south of Harmony Road. All along, one of the LPC's and staffs main planning objectives has been to maintain the association of the buildings, especially between the granary and the farm house. We saw no other way to do this than to maintain open land between the two buildings. This has meant that in order to accommodate this planning objective, the access point to the overall project from County Road 9 to the site had to be moved to the north. The LPC understands the desirability of this access point from the developer's standpoint and feels that its location was dictated largely by the preservation of the historic structures. The LPC would strongly urge the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff to approve this access point, and any variance if needed, which may be required to approved this access point. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 and Environmental *ices Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins August 20, 1998 TO: Mr. Glen Colton, Acting Chair, and Members of the Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Per Hogestad, Acting Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission RE: Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park PUD Amended Preliminary and Filing One Final At our August 12, 1998 meeting, the members of the Landmark Preservation Commission discussed the current status of the Preston Farm Development. As you may know, the farm is eligible for local historic landmark designation and for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The farm was also identified recently as one of the seven most endangered historical properties in Colorado. The Landmark Preservation Commission and staff of the Advance Planning Department have been working with Mr. Stan Whitaker and Western Property • Advisors for nearly three years, to assure the protection of the site and structures. The applicants have submitted a revised site plan, which in our opinion will preserve and protect this important historic resource. During our meeting, the Commission expressed concerns that the revised plans for the west half of the Preston Farm property was proceeding ahead of the plans for the eastern half containing the historic buildings. Since this meeting, the applicants have submitted the attached letter, which from our perspective gives sufficient assurances that the Preliminary will be amended again on the eastern half (Filing 3) before that portion is brought for Final approval. Having this in the record will document the progress and critical intentions to date regarding the PUD as a whole, and adds some certainty to the intentions of the developer to respond to the Commission's comments and carry the submittal on the eastern half through to approval. Further delay in the approval of Filing One is not necessary nor desirable in our opinion. Therefore, the Landmark Preservation Commission would like to state their support for the Board's approval of the proposed amendments to the Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park PUD Amended Preliminary and Filing One Final. cc: Ted Shepard, Planner . Stan Whitaker, Western Property Advisors 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 August 18, 1998 Mr. Glen Colton, Acting Chair, and Members Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 0 Western Property Advisors, Inc. Stanford Plaza Suite 100 3555 Stanford Rood Fart Collins, CO 80525 Re: Amendments to the Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park PUD Dear Mr. Colton and Members of the Board: Fart Collins 970/2233933 Longmont 303/651-6336 0emer Metro 303/4403433 Fax 970/223-4671 This letter is intended to reconfirm the commitment made by Western Property Advisors, Inc. to diligently pursue the plans for Preston Center 3rd Filing, as they have evolved in our discussions with City Staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission over the past eight months. As indicated in my April 23rd letter to Ted Shepard (attached), we understand the historical importance of the Preston Farm, and have repeatedly demonstrated our willingness to modify the previously approved Preliminary PUD to better facilitate the preservation of the identified "contributing" farm structures, in their current locations within the context of a viable development plan for the remainder of the site. It is our intention to combine the architectural compatibility and sensitivity of the approved Preliminary, as indicated by its notes and elevations, with better protection of the farm itself. We have spent many months and many thousands of dollars in developing the plan for the 3rd filing that was highly praised by the LPC at their July 20th meeting. Based on the plan, three of the parcels that comprise Preston Center 3rd Filing are under contract, with the parcel containing all the historic farm structures scheduled for closing within the next two weeks. We certainly have no intention of reverting to the previously approved plan. It is our opinion the amended Preston Center 3rd Filing is a better plan for the various uses we included and for the preservation of the historic area. Western Property Advisors greatly appreciates the input and support we have received from the LPG, and look forward to a continuing working relationship with them. Our involvement with the Harmony School restoration at Timberline and Harmony is a demonstration of our willingness to find ways to restore historic structures, in a compatible setting with other uses. Sincerely yours, Staple' y E. Whitaker�Jr. U Vice President J • • • =• IVLGT Asset Magement A Member of Liechtenstein Global Trusty LGT Real Estate Advisors Inc Stanford Plaza Fort Collins - 970.223-3933 3555 Stanford Road Denver - 303-440.3433 Suite 100 Longmont - 303-651-6336 Fort Collins, Co Facsimile - 970-223-4671 80525 April23, 1998 Mr. Ted Shepard Senior Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ted: This is to confirm to you our conversation regarding our planning to date and our intention with regard to our future plans for the Preston Farm area. We have demonstrated our willingness to consider alternatives to the previously approved preliminary PUD to allow for the preservation of the farm structures that are older than 50 years. We understand the importance of the Preston Farm and it's history. We appreciate the City of Fort Collins desire to help us develop a site plan that will allow development of our planned uses, while maintaining the historic farm structures in their present locations. We have evaluated the two plans that were prepared by Winter & Company at the direction of the city staff. We are using these plans as a large part of the basis for our current planning for our intended filing #2 (the eastern portion) of the Preston Center. There are a few changes to the Winter & Company plan which are very important to us to be included in our plan for the area. Our willingness to continue in this direction with our planning is dependent on the following: 1) We will require an access drive into the site from County Road 9. The access point is acceptable to us at either the location that was previously approved by the City as an element of the existing Preliminary PUD. Or alternatively, an access point midway between Harmony Road and Timberwood Drive. 2) As an accommodation for the land area we are losing to keep the historic area and structures in their present locations, we need to be able to • have some minimal encroachments for a small portion of the parking lot areas into the 80 foot landscape set back along Harmony Road. 3) The corner site located at the intersection of Harmony Road and County Road 9 is to be planned to allow parking north of the existing tree line along the Preston Farm house site. We are willing to move the building planned for the site away from the corner in order to permit the view of the historic area from the intersection. 4) The revised plan will cause some changes in the handling of storm drainage. We believe the storm drainage will work, however we may need some open minded thinking on the City's part in it's review of the drainage plan. We expect to be in a position to share with you our latest plan for The Preston Center Filing #2 within the next few days. We are encouraged because we have a hotel developer who is seriously interested in this area. More importantly, Dave and Patty Lawser remain interested in the historic portion of the site. They toured the house again this morning: It is their hope to be in a position to make applications for historic grant money by this Fall, and start the redevelopment effort as soon as possible thereafter. Any assistance that could be given to help filing #2 through the City review process by September would be of great benefit to the Lawsers if they are able to continue to pursue this site. Sincerely yours, Stan ey E. Whitaker, Jr. Vice President • n U April 24, 1998 Ted Shepard Senior Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ted; UVP@P@ urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970)226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 Attached are five prints of the Preston Center First Filing Amended Preliminary and Final PUD Plans, revised in response to Staff Comments. Specific responses include: The approved Preliminary PUD for the Preston Center included the following provision: ..... Preston Center land use may comprise "Basic Industrial and Non -Retail Employment uses, Retail..., and additional "Secondary Uses".... Specific uses and architectural details are to be determined with final PUD plans for each affected lot.... Parcels may be adjusted or combined if necessary to accommodate the specific needs of end users. "Possible" uses and number of stories noted on individual buildings are not intended to limit flexibility of uses proposed in final PUD's. The Final Plan submitted for the First Filing is consistent with the provisions of the approved Preliminary in term of the mix of uses, total floor area, circulation, and landscaping. We agreed to Staffs suggestion to label the submittal for the First Filing as an "Amended Preliminary' as well as a "Final" with the understanding that specifics of the Second Filing (the area east of Gifford Court) would be addressed separately and later. As you know - and as indicated in the letter provided yesterday by Stan Whitaker - the applicant is making every good faith effort to work with staff and other interests on the Second Filing. As we originally agreed - and have consistently indicated - items affecting the Second Filing will be addressed as expediently as practical; but will not be specifically tied to the First Filing. 2. Items related to the eastern portion of the Preston Center will be addressed with amended preliminary and/or final plans for the Second Filing. 3. J.R. Engineering has made the appropriate Plat corrections. 4. Storm Water comments are being addressed by J.R. Engineering. 5. Gifford Court is planned in conformance with the Harmony Road Access Control Plan and the approved Preliminary PUD for the Preston Center; and is needed. 6. Gifford Court is now shown with a 40' pavement width. 7. The additional utility easement for Light and Power has been added in the configuration agreed upon in our recent meeting with Doug Martine. ARTHUR E. MARCH. JR. LUCIA A. ULEY J. BRADFORD MARCH SUZAN 0. FRITCHEL MARCH & LILEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 E. OAK STREET FORT COWNS. COLORADO BWZ2 2SW (97M 492i322 F- (970) 482-8719 August 14, 1998 Ms. Gwen Bell, Chair Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Planning and Zoning Boardmembers City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado RE: Harmony Ridge Final PUD Dear Chairperson Bell and Members of the Board: ARTHUR E. MARCH 1908-1981 VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA HAND DELIVERY Our firm represents Lee A. Stark and G. D. McGarvey, the Owners of the property proposed to be developed as Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final ("Harmony Ridge"). On behalf of the Owners, I respectfully request that at its meeting on August 20, 1998, the Board consider project. rescinding its denial of Harmony Ridge and setting a date of September 3, 1998 for reconsideration of the Requests to rescind previous decisions are not commonly sought. I have requested only one rescission in the past 18 years. In the case of Harmony Ridge, there are some compelling fairness issues which dictate that the Board should at least reconsider its decision. Not only is Harmony Ridge a final planned unit development, it is caught in the City', transition between land use schemes. A denial of a final planned unit development always has serious impacts. In this case, those impacts are greatly magnified because of the transition rules. Were it not for the transition, the Owners would not lose their preliminary plan approval and could re -file a final plan, attempting to address the Board's concerns. Instead, the Owners have been advised that the denial of the final plan terminates their approved preliminary plan as well, meaning that they must completely start over after three (3) years in the planning process at a cost of $200,000 to date. ` Ms. Gwen Bell and Planning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 • Page 2 What makes this situation even more difficult is the sale by the Owners to the City of approximately 180 acres adjacent to Harmony Ridge as part of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Owners had not offered this property for sale. The City, however, very much wanted the 180-acre parcel but believed the Harmony Ridge property better suited for development. Although the Owners are not developers by profession —Mr. Stark is a prominent local sculptor and Mr. McGarvey is the owner of the local Charcoal Broiler —they decided that they would sell the desired property to the City at what they believed to be a less than market value price with the specific condition that thev first receive preliminary nlan approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD so they could be certain that they would have a developable parcel of ground to offset the investment loss on the adjacent 180-acre parcel to be sold to the City. Particularly, since the Owners were not experienced developers, they never imagined that their project could be at total risk after receiving preliminary approval. Now they find themselves in the position of having sold the 180-acre parcel to the City, relying in good faith on the preliminary plan approval, but having lost all development approval of the project as a result of the denial of the final plan and being caught in the transition between land use systems. The Owners believed they were well prepared for the hearing, relying on the fact that they had met the six conditions of preliminary plan approval and that all the various City departments had • recommended approval of the project. Had they been given the opportunity, they would have requested, or agreed to, a continuance to try to deal with the Board's concerns. Since that did not happen, the only options available are to appeal to Council or request that the Board rescind its denial and reconsider the final PUD. Since the Board did not have key pieces of relevant information and since the Owners have potential solutions to address Board concerns, in this particular case a rescission and reconsideration would seem to be the more appropriate course of action. The following briefly summarizes such information and proposed solutions. Private Drive Issue (Chokecherry Traill A primary issue identified by the Board as grounds for its denial was the belief that Chokecherry Trail was unsafe since it did not meet the City's grading standards. In proposing Chokecherry Trail as a private street which was not required to meet City standards, the Owners were relying on the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer that the proposed grade, though not in compliance with City standards, did not pose a safety problem. Nonetheless, to address the Board's concern, the Owners have now designed Chokecherry Trail as a public street fully complying with all City standards. Dave Stringer has reviewed and approved that design. Harmonv/Shields Intersection • A concern expressed by some Boardmembers was the addition of any traffic from this project to the intersection of Harmony and Shields since the February 23, 1998 addendum to the Harmony Ridge Traffic Study concluded that selected movements now operate at unacceptable levels of Ms. Gwen Bell and Planning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 Page 3 service (although it achieves an overall acceptable level of operation) and that in the five-year future range, both morning and afternoon peak hour operation would be unacceptable given, "the existing geometry and same basic phasing." Two pieces of crucial information related to intersection geometry and project phasing were not discussed at the previous Board hearing: (1) improvements planned for the Harmony/Shields intersection this fall; and (2) the fact that the Harmony Ridge Phase 2 traffic numbers were included in the Traffic Study (although Phase 2 is not part of this final plan). This fall the City will complete a re -striping plan for the Harmony/Shields intersection which will add two northbound through lanes and another southbound left turn lane. City engineers are of the opinion that these improvements will bring the intersection up to an acceptable level of service. The Owners' traffic engineer, using the highway capacity software as required by the City, re- analyzed the intersection, both with and without Phase 2 traffic. The summary results of that analysis are attached, and copies of the analysis have been given to Eric Bracke. Generally, the analysis shows that with present traffic and in the five-year future range, this intersection will operate acceptably given the new improvements and including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic. Harmony Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Another issue identified by the Board was the lack of a connection to a continuous Harmony Road bicycle/pedestrian trail. Bicycle/pedestrian trail connections were shown and detailed on the approved preliminary plan. No conditions were attached by the Board requiring additional connections. In fact, the project scored bonus points on the Residential Uses Density Point Chart for "providing bicycle/pedestrian connections to existing City sidewalks and providing bicycle/ pedestrian connections to a City bicycle trail." These are points which are not required in order to develop a residential project but awarded because they go beyond City requirements. The only change from the approved preliminary plan is the addition of another trail connection requested by City staff. A site plan showing all ofthe bicycle/pedestriantrail connections and improvements has been given to the Planning Department. Nonetheless, the Owners would offer another connection. Presently, the north side of Harmony Road has an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail from Seneca Street to Shields Street with the exception of 800 feet adjacent to The Villages at Harmony West. The Owners have already committed to acquiring right-of-way for and improving Seneca Street to its intersection with the realigned Harmony Road, including bicycle/pedestrian trails. They would offer to improve the missing 800-foot connection on the north side of Harmony Road to provide a continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians from the project along Harmony Road to Shields Street. Street Names All street names were reviewed and approved by appropriate City departments, including Emergency Services. If the City desires new names, the Owners will be glad to provide them. Ms. Gwen Bell and Planning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 • Page 4 On behalf of the Owners, I thank the Board for the opportunity to present this request and respectfully urge the Board, based on the foregoing information, to rescind its denial of Harmony Ridge and to reconsider such final plan on September 3, 1998. Sincerely, MARCH & LILEY, P.C. LAL/glr Attachment • FAWFCU-kLUp 0NYUMSCM.LTR VlV g W a G m O N m W co 0 CD Un TO: Joe Vansant Lucia Liley, March/Liley Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer laaw Matt Delich Zi : August 14, 1998 SOH,WT. Harmony Ridge traffic analysis summary (File: 9585MEM4) This memorandum summarizes the results of the operational analyses at the Harmony/Shields intersection with Phase 1, and Phases 1 and 2 at a forecasted year 2002 condition. Level of service C will occur with background traffic. Level of service D and C will occur in the respective peak hours with background plus Harmony Ridge Phase 1 traffic. The peak hour operation will be acceptable with the existing geometry on all legs, with the exception of the south leg (northbound), which will have 2 through lanes (shared right turns) and on the north leg (southbound), which will have dual left -turn lanes. It is concluded that the operation is acceptable. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. Level of service D and C will occur in the respective peak hours with background plus Harmony Ridge Phase I and 2 traffic. The peak hour operation will be acceptable with the existing geometry on all legs, with the exception of the south leg (northbound), which will have 2 through lanes (shared right turns) and on the north leg (sorthbound), which will have dual left -turn lanes. It is concluded that the operation is acceptable. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B.